Sorry Shubee,

After reading further it does appear that you regard Christ as equal with God.

But could you clarify whether or not you accept the traditional orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? I wasn’t sure from some of your statements.

Stan

Shubee,

One other point of clarification after reading the thread above.

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

Do you believe that Jesus was a created being, or that he always co-existed with the Father?

The confusing statement of yours is where you say that Jesus and the holy Spirit are representatives of God.

Did Jesus have a fallen sinful nature?

Maybe you could kindly clarify your position as stated on the thread above.

Stan

If I understand the Reform position on the trinity it is founded in Scripture: Matt. 3:16,17 “To baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The doctrine is explained as “The whole undivided essence of God belongs equality to each of the three persons.” The Reform Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.” Berkof

Paul is quite clear about the nature of Christ in Phil 2:8-11 He became man in the full sense, sin excepted. Paul expands that idea in Romans 5 as Paul explains how Christ became the second Adam, the true Federal man. He was tempted in all points such as we yet without sin! Praise be to God!

He alone is the final generation!!!!  We are accepted by and in Him by adoption. The Deacon.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Shubee,

It seems quite clear that you don’t accept the fact that Jesus is equal with God, and it appears that you are denying the doctrine of the Trinity.

Could you clarify whether or not you accept the traditional orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? I wasn’t sure from some of your statements.

Do you believe that Jesus was a created being, or that he always co-existed with the Father?

The confusing statement of yours is where you say that Jesus and the holy Spirit are representatives of God.

How does your view differ from the JW’s?

Stan,

I believe that Christ is infinite and that in Him is life, original, unborrowed and underived. “He that hath the Son hath life” (1 John 5:12). I believe that the Son always co-existed with the Father. Furthermore, I interpret Romans 8:9 as saying that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Son. I wish that there were more verses like Romans 8:9 in the Bible to confirm my understanding of Paul’s words. Nevertheless, I believe it’s obvious to see and easy to count three persons in the heavenly trio: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They’re all mentioned together in Matthew 28:19, Matthew 3:13-17; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5.

I do teach, as you suspect, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are unique representatives of God. I am very impressed with William Barclay’s commentary on John 1:1:

[quote author=” William Barclay"]Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’ –without the definite article– which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God; he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like. –The Daily Study Bible –The Gospel of John vol.1 III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9]

If you think about it, there are many Scriptures that explain this representational status of the Son. Does an image represent an object? Yes. Then Christ represents God. “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). How is Christ being the Word of God representational? A word represents a thought. What thought is being represented? Christ is the perfect expression of the will the mind of God. In what other way does Christ represent God? I assume that radiance expresses glory in symbolic terms. Scripture says, “He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3).

These are my conclusions:

[quote author="Eugene Shubert"]How perfectly does the Son represent the Father? What is the will of the Father in the way we receive His Son?

The Father has made the exalted nature of Christ fully known. The Son should be regarded as equal with the Father. Their natures are the same. The word of the Son is to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. Wherever the presence of His Son is, it is as if the Father is present. To worship the Son is to worship the Father. The Son represents the revealed will and mind of God so perfectly that He is rightfully called the word of God (John 1:1).

I don’t believe that the church has any authority to declare traditional trinitarian doctrine to be the representation of God’s Being according to Scripture. I teach that God declaring His Son to be God in Hebrews 1:8 or Christ declaring Himself to be God in John 14:9 is to be compared to the Bible doctrine of justification by faith. That’s a logical possibility that Trinitarians have overlooked! Christians who sincerely trust in Jesus as their Savior have been justified (declared righteous) by God by virtue of the imputed merits of Christ’s righteousness. Consequently–legally–we are perfect in Christ because God declares it to be so, but it’s simultaneously true that we are still sinful. I use this illustration to explain that the Father is truly greater than the Son (John 14:28, John 10:27-29) but that the Father, because of His great love, declares His Son to be equal to Him nevertheless.

Another insight to the representational status of the Son and how the Son may be compared to the Father may be seen in the mathematical discipline called set theory. It is well known and easy to prove that infinities come in different sizes. (In transfinite arithmetic, the size of an infinite set is a special rank called a cardinal number). By analogy, the Father would rank like the set of all sets. (This object is so incomprehensible that all the rules of logic break down). Jesus could easily be infinite, not equal to the Father, and have an understandable rank like one of the infinite cardinal numbers. I propose that the Father knows the end from the beginning but the Son only knows all possible futures with perfect comprehension plus all that the Father reveals to Him. For excellent evidence in support of my thesis, please consider the straightforward meaning of Revelation 1:1:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. –Revelation 1:1.

Note the chain of command. God gives Jesus Christ a revelation. Christ makes it known by sending his angel. The recipient is John, a high ranking Apostle. This Apostle was to share it so that all of Christ’s servants would know what must soon take place.

Logically then, verses that assert that Jesus is God do not prove the traditional Trinity concept but verses that demonstrate that the glorified Christ really isn’t equal to the Father refute that doctrine and support my explanation.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Shubee,

Did Jesus have a fallen sinful nature?

No. Jesus had ascendful human nature. 

Shubee,

Visiting the link at the end of your post, I notice that your definition of Christ’s nature rests on an Ellen White quote. On this forum, we prefer to anchor our doctrinal beliefs in Scripture. The quote you provide is not merely Ellen White’s interpretation of Scripture, but her conjecture about what was going through Jesus’ mind at his temptation. Surely this is not the most solid ground to build the doctrine of Christ’s nature upon.

Thanks for posting your understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God the Father. What do you make of Thomas’ response to seeing Jesus’ crucifixion wounds: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)? Note, this exclamation was made directly to Jesus and he made no attempt to correct it. Also, am I correct in thinking that you do not believe Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father are of one substance?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]On this forum, we prefer to anchor our doctrinal beliefs in Scripture. The quote you provide is not merely Ellen White’s interpretation of Scripture, but her conjecture about what was going through Jesus’ mind at his temptation. Surely this is not the most solid ground to build the doctrine of Christ’s nature upon.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, Ellen G. White was the first to resolve the Bible mystery of Christ’s human nature that the link both defined and explained. R. C. Sproul freely admits that he doesn’t have a clue how one person can have two natures but I believe it’s clear that Ellen White either solved the mystery completely or gave an excellent hint. If my supposition is correct, then Ellen White deserves the credit for her insight into Scripture and her noteworthy contribution to theology. For me, the golden rule demands that original thinkers be acknowledged for their contributions because I expect to be respected for my scientific discoveries and revolutionary interpretations of Scripture that I teach to others, which God has given me.

[quote author="Greg"]What do you make of Thomas’ response to seeing Jesus’ crucifixion wounds: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)? Note, this exclamation was made directly to Jesus and he made no attempt to correct it.

Following my explanation that Christ is God by imputation, suppose that you will go to church next week and the pastor will preach that your standing before God is “justification by grace through faith” and that “justification” means perfect forgiveness, “just as if you have never sinned.” Will you protest and “attempt to correct” the pastor on the basis that “all have sinned”?

[quote author="Greg"]Also, am I correct in thinking that you do not believe Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father are of one substance?

I have no idea what it means to be of one substance. Can you give me a clear and easy to understand definition of “one substance” as it applies to the Father?

[quote author="Shubee"]
To the best of my knowledge and belief, Ellen G. White was the first to resolve the Bible mystery of Christ’s human nature that the link both defined and explained. R. C. Sproul freely admits that he doesn’t have a clue how one person can have two natures but I believe it’s clear that Ellen White either solved the mystery completely or gave an excellent hint…

Shubee, the reason R.C. Sproul admits he doesn’t have a clue is because the Bible doesn’t answer the question definitively. Some things will remain a mystery until we see our Lord “face to face”. Ellen White’s interpretation reads into Scripture something that isn’t there, so I don’t think we can say she has solved anything.

[quote author="Greg"]
What do you make of Thomas’ response to seeing Jesus’ crucifixion wounds: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)?

[quote author="Shubee"]
Following my explanation that Christ is God by imputation, suppose that you will go to church next week…

To help me understand your position, maybe it’s better to frame this as a “Yes” or “No” question. Was Thomas wrong to identify Jesus as God?

If you don’t mind, let’s also look at this from a slightly different angle. In answering the temptation of Satan, Jesus said, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” (Matthew 4:9-10 ESV). There are several instances in Scripture where Jesus was worshipped by those around him (Matthew 14:33, Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38). Was it wrong for these people to worship Jesus and if not, how do you reconcile this with Jesus’ rebuke of Satan?

[quote author="Shubee"]
I have no idea what it means to be of one substance. Can you give me a clear and easy to understand definition of “one substance” as it applies to the Father?

Perhaps it is best to consider what Jesus said about himself: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The response of the Pharisees confirmed that they knew exactly what Jesus was saying: “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).

Incorporating Jesus’ claim to be one with the Father and the fact that he allowed himself to be worshiped, we must ask ourselves whether those who worshiped Jesus were worshiping two Gods (the Father and Jesus separately) or one (the Father and Jesus as one unit/essence/substance). What do you think?

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Ron Corson

You wrote:
“By not exposing the false teaching of the likes of Benny Hinn, we only encourage their false teaching.”

I completely agree with exposing false teaching. I disagree with people assuming because they don’t believe what another believes that they have the ability to judge another’s relationship with God. I find problems with the theology of Luther, Calvin and and Edwards but I don’t insist that they were false teachers where they disagree with my understanding of the Bible and God. Nor is there anyway that I can judge the salvation that God can provide to them.

What is often referred to as orthodoxy is merely the opinion of the winners in the battle and then their position becomes the tradition that can’t be questioned. That is not the way to find truth, it is not the way to grow in knowledge. 

I believe we can judge false teachers like Benny Hinn.

Jesus said we should judge them by their fruits.

The fruit of Benny Hinn’s ministry is all bad. There is not one redeeming thing to say about a false teacher who gives false hope to millions of people for false healings.

Anyone who says Jesus will appear in person on stage with them before the second coming is an obvious fraud.

Say nothing of his ten million dollar home and staying in 5000 dollar per night hotel suites.

Stan

Shubee,

Your last post on this thread was removed.

I’m sorry, but I do not want this forum to be a platform for you to present your case against the various websites and individuals you mentioned. You have your own forum and the ability to present your case there. If you have something to say to Ron Corson about how you were treated in the past, please do so through private email. The same goes for any further response Ron may have for you.

Let’s put our focus back on Christ and his gospel.

Thank you.

Greg