HiddenNChrist2,

 

            Thank you for your response.  It was very well appreciated and now I think I understand where you are coming from and I think I will be able to better respond to your position, as well as clarify your understanding of mine.

            I also appreciated your small testimony on your search for truth.  I think we can both agree that truth is what we are both in search of and hope to find ourselves in when all the dust settles.  At this point, I think we can also both probably agree that we each feel that we possess the truth and the other does not.  That is, you believe your doctrines to be true and I believe mine to be true.  But both cannot be true for they seem to mutually exclude the other, especially in regards to the nature of Christ, the personality and Deity of the Spirit of God.  I hope that if one of is shown to be wrong, that God will grant us repentance from our errors and fill us with truth, as only He can do.

            Truth is a very broad concept, especially how one arrives at “truth”.  In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology.  Essentially, the basis of epistemology is the question, “how do I know what I know?”  Science has its methods of knowledge (empiricism), philosophers have theirs (reason), and some simply assert their own methods (subjectivism).  Religion – theistic religion – I believe, is different from all these.  I believe that theological truth is something that can  only be known by God’s act of revelation to us.  What God reveals to us is true, of necessity according to the good nature of God and His inability to lie.  Thus, the truth of God is found in the Word of God.  Jesus Himself said this as He prayed to the Father in John 17:3, “Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.”  The nature of the truth of God, contrary to your assertion that it is “hidden”, is that it is clearly revealed in the Scriptures.  That is why the Bible is “revelation” – an unveiling, a pulling back of the curtains to reveal something – not an obscuring of truth.

            Thus, when true theology asserts a proposition or a doctrine as truth, when one asks the question, “how do you know that is true?”, the appeal may be made to Scripture to find out if those things proposed as truth are so (cf. Acts 17:11).  This is why I asserted in the beginning of the debate that sole infallible rule for faith and doctrine is the Scriptures alone.  These alone are God’s revelation of the truth about Himself and what we need to know for salvation.  Thus, on the basis of the Scripture alone, I have asserted my doctrine of the Trinity, including the full Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

            Now, when one delves into the deeper question of how do we know what Scripture says, this is where hermeneutics (the science and art of Biblical interpretation) comes into play, as well as exegesis (leading out of the text).  The method most appropriately suited to find out what the text means is known as the historico-grammatical method.  This is the method in which the historical background is taken into consideration (eg. the Gnostic heresy of the first century as the background to Colossians) as well as grammatical and syntactical construction of the language (eg. verb tenses, noun declension, etc…).  Proper understanding of the Scriptures takes place at the grammatical and syntactical level but can never be separated from the historical context, nor from the context in which the grammar is employed.

            Truth is available to all.  When you assert that truth is “hidden”,  you are asserting with the Gnostics of old that only certain people have a special knowledge (Gr. gnosis) revealed to them that is necessary for salvation.  This assertion also negates Scriptures like 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 which teach that the Scriptures alone are a sufficient guide for the truth of God in regards to matters of faith, morals and all matters of salvation.

            So how do we find out which one of us has truth?  By our appeal and correct understanding of Scripture.  Truth is not determined by its unpopularity as you seem to assert when you say that truth is something that “everyone isn’t so interested in.”  Personally, I categorically reject such an assertion.  People want truth and need truth.  People honestly believe that they have truth as well even if they don’t.  If truth is always the minority position, as you seem to assert (“because it is difficult to find”) then surely there are other assertions that are “true” simply because they are not widely accepted and are even persecuted.  For instance, that homosexuality is morally wrong is the majority position of the whole world.  But if truth is what is unpopular, then the assertion that homosexuality is morally good would be the truth.  That is what your definition and nature of truth would yield.  Just think of what else could be “true” simply because it is the minority position!

            You also state that it is the “man-made religion” that makes truth difficult to find, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.  You quote from Revelation 17:5 as saying that “Babylon”, here, is a reference to the Roman Catholic Church and that the “harlots” are the Protestant Churches.  Finally, you state that “history and the Bible solidify the fact that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches are the tool by which Satan (the god of this age) deceives the hearts and minds of men.”  Several things need to be pointed out about this understanding of the text.

            First, the historical background of the book of Revelation and its significance in the understanding of the 17^th chapter.  Revelation was written at a time of severe persecution of the early Christians by the Roman government and the emperor.  The city on the seven hills is correctly identified as Rome, but not the center of Roman Catholicism.  Rome, at that time, was a Pagan city entrenched in polytheism and cultic practice.  At the center of Roman religion was the emperor, who was believed to their God (kurios).  The symbolism of the city was that it stood for idolatrous worship that was against the church of Christ.  This is what John had in mind when He wrote “Babylon”.  This is also how the early Christians would have understood it.  While I am not sympathetic toward Roman Catholicism, I don’t believe John intended his words to be understood as implying them.  He could not have ever originally intended the Roman Catholic Church for the Roman Catholic Church was not truly given form or a dogmatic definition until the Council of Trent which took place from 1545-1562!  Neither could he have had in mind the “Protestant Churches” that you speak of for the Reformation was not until October 31, 1517.  Thus, there is a huge gap – what we call a hermeneutical gap – in how you understand “Babylon”.  Because truth is coherent (non-contradictory), it is important that Scripture be used to interpret Scripture.  If was ask of the Bible how Babylon functioned or was understood in the Bible, we would see that Babylon was a people that oppressed the people of God through physical oppression (esp. captivity).  Applying this to Revelation and the N.T. even, Revelation 17 is teaching that there is such a body of people throughout the world that are going to persecute Christians, but these will be destroyed by God.  That is the correct symbolic meaning of “Babylon”.  Remember that each book of the Bible has a historical context.  To want to jump across that time and insert something from modern day understanding is to insert foreign ideas into the text that the author did not intend nor would the original audience have understood.  That is eisegesis (to read into the text) versus reading out of the text (exegesis). 

            At this point, I am just curious.  But since you criticize the two largest bodies of Christendom (though I don’t believe Roman Catholicism is Christian, but I will treat them according to their profession), which church(es) do you believe possess “the truth” when it comes to their belief about the nature of God, of Christ and of the Holy Spirit?  I can’t help but only say that it must be something that is outside of orthodox Christianity, even a cultic form of Christianity. 

 

            Now, in regards to your doctrinal position:

 

First, let me make sure that I understand your beliefs about God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  First, that God (the Father) is a Spirit being in His essential nature (John 4:24, Numbers 23:19).  I agree.  That Jesus was a man (I Cor. 15:21; James 1:13 cf. Heb. 4:15). I agree that He was a man, though I would say that He is also fully God.  There are two full natures in the one person of Jesus Christ.  Finally, that the Holy Spirit is “the power of God by which God reconciles, communicates and works in his subjects.”  I disagree on the basis that the definition sound impersonal (sounds like a “force”).  You also assert that it was God the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit that raised Christ from the dead.  I fully agree and I don’t believe orthodox Christianity has ever asserted that Christ raised himself.  I will deal with what I can from your assertions.

That God is spirit in His essential nature is certainly true.  I am writing a paper against the theology of Mormonism and I use the exact same scriptures that you do here to prove that.  However, because God is not a man in His essential nature, that does preclude the idea that the Almighty God may become a man.  Indeed, to become one of His own creation cannot be ruled out.  Even God says, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:17).  This is what is asserted in the doctrine of the incarnation.  That the second member of the Trinity, the eternal Logos, became a man,  I have dealt with John 1:1-3 and 18 in my first paper.  The key to understanding the nature of the Logos, pre-incarnate Christ, is that imperfect tense of the verb “to be” as I point out.  The passage should be understood as saying, “In the beginning, the Word was always with God, and the Word was always with God, and the Word was always God.”  I go over this thoroughly in my first paper, but notice that the Word was with God before creation (the beginning); the word was always “face to face” with (Gr. pros) God ; and the Word was always God.  Verse 14 shines tremendous light on the ministry of the Logos.  “And the Word became flesh…”  That is the miracle of the incarnation.  That Jesus Christ, the eternal word of God, eternally generated of the Father, willingly humbled himself to the plans of the Father in order to redeem humanity from their sins. 

Only one who was fully God and fully man could atone for our sins perfectly.  If you ever have the opportunity to read Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo?”, I recommend it highly for understanding the necessity of the incarnation and the atonement.  Essentially, what it says is that since God is an infinite and eternal being, His glory is as well.  But through sin, we creatures have “robbed” God of His glory.  The justice and righteousness of God demands that we pay it back.  But as finite creatures, how can we repay an infinite and eternal debt?  The creature (man) who must pay it back must be pure (not a Son of Adam) and yet, he must be able to endure eternal wrath that is owed to us.  Hence, the perfect wisdom of God the Father, is that God the son, eternal with the Father, takes on the nature of a man, is born through Mary and on the Cross, as a man and as God, endures the full penalty that is due to humanity.  His endurance of such wrath is due to high infinite nature as God.  For no creature can endure such wrath and live.  Christ endured being separated from His Father for a time and even hell itself.  But Christ, because He perfectly endured God’s wrath and maintained His righteousness, was not to be held by death.  Thus, the Father raised Him through the power of the Holy Spirit.

All the Scriptures that you use of Christ being a man, I fully agree with.  Christ was indeed a man.  But it would be inappropriate if we did not gather together ALL that the Scriptures say about Christ and not merely isolated verses.  One must be systematic in their theological approach.  I hardly think one could say that Christ is merely a man in the light of passages like John 1:1-3,14,18; Phillippians 2:6-11, et.al…He was something else before He became a man.  I would encourage you to go over my exegesis offered for the Deity of Christ in my first paper and in my third paper which was addressed to NoTrinity. 

 

In regards to your doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  The definition you offer is that the Holy Spirit is “the power and force by which God reconciles, communicates and works in his subjects.”  First, that the Spirit is the power and force by which God “reconciles.”  I don’t believe this is a function of the Holy Spirit, but of the death of Christ on the Cross.  Nowhere in Scripture does the Holy Spirit “reconcile”.  Rather we read passages like Romans 5:10:

 

“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

 

2 Corinthians 5:18-21,

 

“Now all things are of God who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation…”

 

Ephesians 2:13-17,

 

“But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the Cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.  And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.”

 

            Finally, Colossians 1:19-22

 

“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.  And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-”

 

            These verses conclusively show that the medium of reconciliation with God is the atoning death of Christ.  Atonement was the exclusive work of Jesus Christ.  The Holy Spirit did not make atonement.  The Father did not make atonement.  It was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who atoned for the sins of the world.  The cross was the instrument of reconciliation.

            That the Spirit is the power and force by which God communicates and works in His subjects, I will not disagree with that at this point.  For the Spirit of God and the Word of God are inseparable.  Thus, the Holy Spirit does communicate with us through the pages of Scripture.  He is also the one that is dwelling in us now as John 14-16 brings out clearly, for He is our “other comforter.”

            From here you offer proof scriptures that the Spirit is the one whom the Father used to raise Christ from the dead.  Here there is no disagreement nor have I ever argued that He did not.   I do think you missed the point that I was making from Romans 10:9 though.  You say, “Nothing in that verse necessitates belief in a Triune God for salvation.”  I agree and did not make that argument from that text.  My argument from that verse was not “belief in the Trinity” but rather belief in the Deity of Christ.  That belief in Christ as God was essential to salvation.

            Now, you say, “Adhering to the scripture and the flow of the resurrection account, we can conclude that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he did so by and through his spirit.  Thus God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.”  The first proposition I agree with (that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead).  However, you draw a conclusion from there that does not follow:  That God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same [person].  The logic does not follow.  That would be like me arguing, “I used my muscles to pick up the weights, therefore my muscles and I are one and the same.”  That’s pretty absurd.  Obviously, then, a distinction needs to be made here.  Also, if you remain consistent with what you are saying about God and the Holy Spirit being one and the same, then you should have no problems defining God as “the power and force by which God reconciles, communicates and works in his subjects.”  But if you do this, then you are begging the question (circular reasoning) for you are using the term that needs defining to define your term!  But also, you must be willing to assert that God is a power and force, rather than a person.  I’m sure that you do not want to head down this avenue, but if you remain consistent (which is the nature of truth), then that is what you are left with my friend.  I hardly find it acceptable that God is an impersonal force and I think you would too.  I would suggest rethinking the relationship between God and the Spirit.

            Your conclusion about the Holy Spirit, I think, reveals a misunderstanding about the doctrine of the Trinity.  You said that the Holy Spirit is not another “role”.  I think that you are operating from a Sabellian, or Modalistic, understanding of the Trinity and you are trying to refute that.  If that is the case, then you are arguing against a straw man and not my arguments for I am not a Sabellian.  Sabellianism teaches that God, one person, takes on three different “modes” or “roles” in the history of redemption.  That is far from what I am arguing.  The true doctrine of the Trinity is that within the One Being that is God (Monotheism), there exists three distinct persons who are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these are all equally God (co-equality and co-eternality).  

           

            I think that this has been our most fruitful exchange since now I know where you are coming from and I am able to respond accordingly.  I hope that you will give thought to the things that I said.  I am anxious to hear which church(es) you believe are in possession of the truth of God, especially.  Looking forward to your next response.

 

Elect in Christ,

 

Moses