|
Post by Zorro on Jun 6, 2009 1:41:55 GMT -5
Do you mean the late 1800s above?
Sometimes it's hard to pinpoint exactly when a movement or worldview began (when would one state as the definitive starting point of modernism, for example). There were earlier philosophers from the 17th and 18th centuries (Hegel) that influenced the movement, but panentheism was at the heart of the process theology movement in the late 1900s. Spiritualism and liberalism also were products of the 1900s.
Panentheism is not the same as pantheism. There are lots of sources to study what its tenets are (I'm dead tired and off to bed). I do want to say that one thing I agree with emergent thinkers like Borg, or even a Rob Bell or Donald Miller, on is the need to go beyond "theology", or what we know about God, to actually having a relationship with, and knowing God. I feel that is a very important message to Christendom today. IMO, the pendulum swung too far with the fundamentalist response to liberalism, and this particular focus of the emergent movement is spot on. However, there are a number of areas that I'm very wary of, particularly those spawned by degrading the authority of Scripture (Borg's view of Christ's deity, for example). Alistair Begg is a great example of someone who strikes the balance perfectly, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2009 7:51:36 GMT -5
Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not? Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's. Regarding your questions, there are many 2x2s who have never heard that some believe Jesus is God. I recall the first time I was asked, "Do you believe Jesus is God?" by a co worker. I was 38 years old. I replied, I believe Jesus was the SON of God. IMO, asking this group of people if they have never heard of the concept, is as good as asking a bunch of Chinese. Having said that, as I've said before, I asked 500-750 ex 2x2s as they were leaving or when they contacted me how they viewed Jesus relationship with God...when they were in the 2x2 church. Nearly all said he was the SON of God. They found it hard to wrap their minds around the Jesus is God concept...had never occurred to them. A few I questioned who came in from the outside said th4ey believed Jesus was God. And in my experience, there has only been ONE woman who grew up in Louisiana and said she had "always" believed that Jesus was God, and that her professing parents also believed it. I have found it most interesting that the trinity/Jesus is God concept must be taught to the B&Rs. This is a group of people who have studied their Bible a quite a lot over the years, and never read outside Christian literature, and haven't been taught much at all about the relationship of God/Jesus to each other by their preachers, and yet with very few exceptions, they never picked up on this belief/concept for themselves; nor have their preachers. Why is this? Why had it never jumped out at them as they read the Bible; and why wasn't it revealed to them--without an earthly teacher??
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 6, 2009 8:27:05 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted... I thought the same thing GIC. That's what ellipses are for... to indicate continuation, or an incomplete list. Note the three dots after gem... I'm pretty sure I'm the second dot, maybe the first one. Ha.... Sorry to exclude you guys from the list! My point (as Gene pointed out by the dots....) was that there is a big difference in the way the various professing people here look at others. There is no unified belief concerning other Christians and how they are perceived. Personally, I think that is just normal. We are all (or at least have been at some point) guilty of 'judging' others by where they go to church, how they look, how they talk, who their friends are, etc... If we can get past our differences, then we can focus on our similarities. When we exclude one another based on what church we are a member of, we miss a whole bunch of great interaction with fellow believers. Hearing of other's experiences and just knowing of their day to day lives is a big inspiration to me. I have several people that I communicate with 'off board' that have come to be friends with. So what if we go to different churches? We have one thing in common that unites us. That is our belief in Jesus, and the fact that we have our own personal walk that is unique to us personally. I really enjoy the emails I get from all of you that communicate with me. I enjoy hearing about your kids in school, the people you meet with, your work, the inspiration you hear from conventions and other meetings, sharing the testimony of others and all the other normal things that go on in the life of a friend. (and likewise from the exes in regard to their families and how they are inspired at their church) As far as F&W's being idiots, as individuals they are no more idiots than the rest of us. This forum spends so much time trying to point out why the 'other side' is wrong that it seems many of us lose track with what is right in our lives. If we shared more of how we are inspired in our lives and spent less time focusing on the specks in the others eyes it would be nice now wouldn't it? Separating ourselves from one another because we dress different and worship different is pretty sad. I like to look past that crap and focus on how we as Christians are members of the body of Christ and all have something unique to contribute to the body, and how we are all just as important as the next person when it comes to the church body. Just the thoughts of a simple biker boy... Scott
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jun 6, 2009 8:55:16 GMT -5
As you noted Cherie, I also have noticed that most F&W believe in the single concept that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, wasn't that the issue that resulted in some disciplinary action against a worker who was preaching in Alaska fifteen-twenty years ago?
There are also a few of us that can view it either way. However there is a hazard in viewing it as Jesus was God in the flesh. The problem here is with this viewpoint, one must assume that he also had a "built-in", comprehensive immunity to sin, which we as normal humans don't have. Therefore with this advantage living a perfect life was automatic or like a "puppet on a string", i.e., it was impossible for him to sin.
Since we as humans don't have this advantage, but have the cleansing by Jesus blood, then we would have a sort of license to sin, even willfully, and it would all be taken care of in the end. While the workers look at this as false doctrine, some of us look at it as pushing the concept too far.
One must also note that Jesus really wasn't operating in the automatic mode. Several places state that he searched the Scriptures to make sure he fulfilled all prophesy. The need to do that would lead me to consider that he was not God, but had a strong Godly spirit that led him to be completely serious about his mission in life, even to his mission in dying.
Looking at it this way, one would also believe that Jesus could have failed, but chose not to. Hence believing him to have a human nature. This also goes along with the story of his birth, as born of a virgin Mary (the human side) with God providing the other parentage. This also meshes with the belief of being born of the spirit.
So I can view it either way, similar to viewing light as either a wave or a particle stream or seeing two images on a hologram. So I can't quite understand the fuss that is made to see it only one way. One just needs to be careful of any extrapolated concepts that arise from either viewing, that they also line up with the rest of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 6, 2009 12:03:22 GMT -5
We know very well we can get the answers we want by the questions we ask. I wonder how friends and workers would answer if you asked them "do you believe Jesus was just a man and had no divinity at all"?
We have on this board at least two respected and learned people who say the trinity concept cannot be accurately reduced to the phrase "Jesus is God". When I read the Nicene Creed yesterday I was surprised, surprised because it was something I didn't disagree with. I should have disagreed with the Nicene Creed if I truly did not believe the phrase "Jesus is God". The thief on the cross and many others in direct contact with Jesus when he was here made it to heaven without understanding The Trinity Doctrine - I'd like to think that possibility exists for the rest of us too. In other words a complete understanding of the intricacies of The Trinity Doctrine might not be a proper yardstick with which to measure the salvation of others. So why do people do it, why do people argue about it?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 6, 2009 15:56:18 GMT -5
Terrific post, Jesse. We have on this board at least two respected and learned people who say the trinity concept cannot be accurately reduced to the phrase "Jesus is God". When I read the Nicene Creed yesterday I was surprised, surprised because it was something I didn't disagree with. I should have disagreed with the Nicene Creed if I truly did not believe the phrase "Jesus is God".Putting it all together makes a big difference, doesn't it? The thief on the cross and many others in direct contact with Jesus when he was here made it to heaven without understanding The Trinity Doctrine - I'd like to think that possibility exists for the rest of us too. In other words a complete understanding of the intricacies of The Trinity Doctrine might not be a proper yardstick with which to measure the salvation of others. Very good point. I have said many times that the issue here isn't about salvation. I would never, ever make a charge that believing the doctrine is a requirement for salvation. It's about knowing God. It's about understanding who Jesus really was. It helps us understand the gift of saving grace. It helps us understand the presence of the living God indwelling within us. It creates within us a sense of awesome wonder towards a God who must remain mysterious. So why do people do it, why do people argue about it?If I never engaged in another thread on this subject, that would be fine with me. If folks can stop misrepresenting the doctrine, we'll be good to go Honestly, I don't care so much if people don't agree with it, my problem is when it's misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 23:19:49 GMT -5
I share the first concern, zorro. Borg doesn't accept all Scripture. His view of Christ's deity doesn't worry me as much; not that I agree with it either. However, there's much there of value, and I'm glad you look also for the edifying part.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 23:24:55 GMT -5
Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not? Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's. Regarding your questions, there are many 2x2s who have never heard that some believe Jesus is God. I recall the first time I was asked, "Do you believe Jesus is God?" by a co worker. I was 38 years old. I replied, I believe Jesus was the SON of God. IMO, asking this group of people if they have never heard of the concept, is as good as asking a bunch of Chinese. Having said that, as I've said before, I asked 500-750 ex 2x2s as they were leaving or when they contacted me how they viewed Jesus relationship with God...when they were in the 2x2 church. Nearly all said he was the SON of God. They found it hard to wrap their minds around the Jesus is God concept...had never occurred to them. A few I questioned who came in from the outside said th4ey believed Jesus was God. And in my experience, there has only been ONE woman who grew up in Louisiana and said she had "always" believed that Jesus was God, and that her professing parents also believed it. I have found it most interesting that the trinity/Jesus is God concept must be taught to the B&Rs. This is a group of people who have studied their Bible a quite a lot over the years, and never read outside Christian literature, and haven't been taught much at all about the relationship of God/Jesus to each other by their preachers, and yet with very few exceptions, they never picked up on this belief/concept for themselves; nor have their preachers. Why is this? Why had it never jumped out at them as they read the Bible; and why wasn't it revealed to them--without an earthly teacher?? Because there is undue emphasis on the Trinity in mainstream churches. It's a tidy little theory that sums up most but not all of what the Bible states about the relationship of Jesus and God. Most people who say they believe in it, don't really understand it either, to my experience. I personally think the doctrine takes away from the "mystery of the wisdom of God". It traps many people into thinking that Father, the Spirit and the Son are all figured out, and retards their thought and further exploration of God's Word. Note, I take pains to say "many", not all. This impression is based on my personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 6, 2009 23:57:18 GMT -5
29: And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Not sure where you quoted the above from, but part of it is missing!
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 7, 2009 0:40:59 GMT -5
I share the first concern, zorro. Borg doesn't accept all Scripture. His view of Christ's deity doesn't worry me as much; not that I agree with it either. However, there's much there of value, and I'm glad you look also for the edifying part.
The emergent movement has ALOT to offer Christendom. I just feel culture always tends to behave like pendulums, swinging too far as it reacts to the issues of the day. Two things I keep a sharp eye open for are the tendencies toward universalism and discounting the authority of Scripture. But I love Donald Miller and even feel Brain McLaren has much to offer.
The instructor of the theology class I studied in, Michael Patton, said it like this: "I'm a fundamentalist without walls". I like that. It's entirely possible to be firm in what we believe, but keep an open mind. At best, we're only scratching the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 7, 2009 1:02:00 GMT -5
I personally think the doctrine takes away from the "mystery of the wisdom of God".
I don't understand this. Trinitarians fully acknowledge, and even embrace, the mystery of the Godhead. Wayne Grudem says, in Systematic Theology pg 231:
In one sense the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that we will never be able to understand fully. However, we can understand something of its truth by summarizing the teaching of Scripture in three statements:
1. God is three persons 2. Each person is fully God. 3. There is one God.
Or put another way, Scripture fully supports each of the 3 points above. There's absolutely no question about that. But how it works is a complete mystery. I doubt that you could find a single Trinitarian that would disagree with that statement. What I've observed is that the failure to make it all tidy (what theologians call "tension") is problematic to NON-trinitarians. It's the NON-trinitarians that make the demands - how can THIS be, how can THAT be......; IE it's NON-trinitarians that can't deal with mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2009 1:54:12 GMT -5
Can the f&w movement, then, give us a clue as to how Christians initially interpreted the New Testament writings? Is this 100-year sample the best possible environment today for a live test run of a new start-up christianity, using only the Bible? Hello Dietcoke, The answer of course is, no. The idea faces two insurmountable hurdles. 1) A person is not separate from their place in history and along with that goes all the cultural ideas and presuppositions. ie. the filters through which they experience the world. 2) Without any attempt to understand the first century world and the context in which the NT history unfolded and was written, a person relying purely on their own cultural filters will not be able to avoid anachronistically interpreting the NT documents. As you were.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 7, 2009 6:00:51 GMT -5
Isn't this interesting, that the only B&R who believed that Jesus is God was taught it by her parents. It seems to be a learned concept. Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not? Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's. Regarding your questions, there are many 2x2s who have never heard that some believe Jesus is God. I recall the first time I was asked, "Do you believe Jesus is God?" by a co worker. I was 38 years old. I replied, I believe Jesus was the SON of God. IMO, asking this group of people if they have never heard of the concept, is as good as asking a bunch of Chinese. Having said that, as I've said before, I asked 500-750 ex 2x2s as they were leaving or when they contacted me how they viewed Jesus relationship with God...when they were in the 2x2 church. Nearly all said he was the SON of God. They found it hard to wrap their minds around the Jesus is God concept...had never occurred to them. A few I questioned who came in from the outside said th4ey believed Jesus was God. And in my experience, there has only been ONE woman who grew up in Louisiana and said she had "always" believed that Jesus was God, and that her professing parents also believed it. I have found it most interesting that the trinity/Jesus is God concept must be taught to the B&Rs. This is a group of people who have studied their Bible a quite a lot over the years, and never read outside Christian literature, and haven't been taught much at all about the relationship of God/Jesus to each other by their preachers, and yet with very few exceptions, they never picked up on this belief/concept for themselves; nor have their preachers. Why is this? Why had it never jumped out at them as they read the Bible; and why wasn't it revealed to them--without an earthly teacher??
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 7, 2009 9:53:14 GMT -5
Rob O! We've missed you!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 7, 2009 13:38:24 GMT -5
...Two things I keep a sharp eye open for are the tendencies toward universalism and discounting the authority of Scripture. ... That is encouraging. It seems like so many want more universalism and depend on guidance by the Holy Spirit without regard to whether it fits Biblical teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 7, 2009 14:18:54 GMT -5
Two things I keep a sharp eye open for are the tendencies toward universalism and discounting the authority of Scripture. Yeah, I caught that statement too, emy. I guess I could say two things I keep a sharp eye open for are tendencies toward sectarianism and placing too much authority in scripture.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 7, 2009 14:44:33 GMT -5
I meant to add this to the thought of universalism:
Rev 16:13 And I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs leap from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits who work miracles and go out to all the rulers of the world to gather them for battle against the Lord on that great judgment day of God the Almighty. ... 16 And the demonic spirits gathered all the rulers and their armies to a place with the Hebrew name Armageddon.[
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jun 7, 2009 15:55:24 GMT -5
Isn't it the Bereans who are often held up as the example of those who searched the scriptures carefully? What scriptures would they have had available to them at that time?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 7, 2009 18:24:01 GMT -5
I personally think the doctrine takes away from the "mystery of the wisdom of God". I don't understand this. Trinitarians fully acknowledge, and even embrace, the mystery of the Godhead. Wayne Grudem says, in Systematic Theology pg 231: In one sense the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that we will never be able to understand fully. However, we can understand something of its truth by summarizing the teaching of Scripture in three statements:
1. God is three persons 2. Each person is fully God. 3. There is one God.Or put another way, Scripture fully supports each of the 3 points above. There's absolutely no question about that. But how it works is a complete mystery. I doubt that you could find a single Trinitarian that would disagree with that statement. What I've observed is that the failure to make it all tidy (what theologians call "tension") is problematic to NON-trinitarians. It's the NON-trinitarians that make the demands - how can THIS be, how can THAT be......; IE it's NON-trinitarians that can't deal with mystery. We don't look at this the same way at all. The theory itself is "tidy". But it is incomplete. It's when you read the Bible that you start having problems with the theory. How can Jesus ask God, "why have you forsaken me?" Why does Jesus say "My father is greater than I"? How can Christ sit at the right hand of God if he is God? These aren't internal issues within the theory. These are issues when you check the theory against the reality of the Bible. What is "untidy" is the Bible. So the theory is meant to tidy things up. Well, when things are tidied up into a nice package people stop asking questions and probing for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 7, 2009 18:47:51 GMT -5
I agree what. The Trinity theory creates as many questions as it answers.
Come to think of it, I've heard very little in worker sermons over the years about the Trinity doctrine. They generally don't make an issue of it.
However, exes do often make an issue of it and I don't understand why its such a big deal.
I've never heard a worker deny the divinity of Jesus although I've seen worker quotes taken out of context that are used to give that impression.
I can't imagine why any worker would deny the divinity of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2009 19:09:56 GMT -5
I'm not getting comfortable. I just dropped in to see what's up.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 7, 2009 21:06:21 GMT -5
How can Jesus ask God, "why have you forsaken me?" Why does Jesus say "My father is greater than I"? How can Christ sit at the right hand of God if he is God?
You are overplaying these particular cards. There are numerous passages like this:
Ps 45:6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ps 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So we have instances of Jesus calling the Father God, the Father calling Jesus God, God addressing God, the Lord addressing the Lord, etc. You interpret that to mean....well, I'm not sure what you think that means. What it means to me is that "God" is clearly multiple persons. I think it's also pretty clear that alot of this has to do with translation from Hebrew. Just the simple fact that for centuries Jews read Scripture using a plural word (Elohim) as the name for God, in conjunction with singular verbs, is significant.
So the theory is meant to tidy things up. Well, when things are tidied up into a nice package people stop asking questions and probing for themselves.
Whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 7, 2009 21:16:55 GMT -5
I can't imagine why any worker would deny the divinity of Jesus.
My overseer sat at my kitchen and very clearly and plainly explained that Jesus was NOT deity. Twice.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 7, 2009 22:22:16 GMT -5
I can't imagine why any worker would deny the divinity of Jesus.My overseer sat at my kitchen and very clearly and plainly explained that Jesus was NOT deity. Twice. Zorro, do you mean "divinity" or "deity"? I'm confused. fs
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 8, 2009 0:03:13 GMT -5
I can't imagine why any worker would deny the divinity of Jesus.My overseer sat at my kitchen and very clearly and plainly explained that Jesus was NOT deity. Twice. Zorro, do you mean "divinity" or "deity"? I'm confused. fs Deity. Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily formMy observation is that the term "divinity" provides sufficient ambiguity to hide behind if one chooses, and I believe many do. Here's the dictionary definition of "divinity": 1. the quality of being divine; divine nature. 2. deity; godhood. 3. a divine being; God. 4. the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase) the Deity. 5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities. 6. the study or science of divine things; theology. 7. godlike character; supreme excellence. 8. Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts. Obviously not all apply to Jesus. So which ones do? Some would choose #5. But the Biblical definition, as quoted above is #3 & 4. That's why I prefer to use "Deity".... it's the Biblical description of Jesus, and it avoids misinterpretation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 8, 2009 0:38:47 GMT -5
It's interesting that OT scripture is used to justify the trinity theory. The OT predates Christianity and I've never heard of the Jews believing in the trinity. How can Jesus ask God, "why have you forsaken me?" Why does Jesus say "My father is greater than I"? How can Christ sit at the right hand of God if he is God?You are overplaying these particular cards. There are numerous passages like this: Ps 45:6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ps 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So we have instances of Jesus calling the Father God, the Father calling Jesus God, God addressing God, the Lord addressing the Lord, etc. You interpret that to mean....well, I'm not sure what you think that means. What it means to me is that "God" is clearly multiple persons. I think it's also pretty clear that alot of this has to do with translation from Hebrew. Just the simple fact that for centuries Jews read Scripture using a plural word (Elohim) as the name for God, in conjunction with singular verbs, is significant.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 8, 2009 1:06:55 GMT -5
It's interesting that OT scripture is used to justify the trinity theory.
The OT predates Christianity and I've never heard of the Jews believing in the trinity.
They didn't believe in the trinity. But from the time Moses recorded God saying "let us make man in our own image" they knew something was up. There are many, many OT references to multiple persons of the Godhead. As I said "Elohim" is plural. I recently found a piece exploring the Jewish perspective of the Godhead in the OT that looks interesting. I'll bone up on it and check back.
|
|