New Christians and those seeking Christ are often instructed to read the Book of John, particularly the first chapter, before taking on the rest of the Bible. Among many other things, it declares that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who became flesh, and all who believe in him will be saved. John 1:1-18 is my favorite passage in the entire Bible.
The apostle John uses simple language to convey profound concepts:
*The Deity of ChristIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
The Preincarnate Work of Christ
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. [better translated as "overcome it"]
The Forerunner of Christ
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
The Rejection of Christ
That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
The Acceptance of Christ
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The Incarnation of Christ
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, “He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.”
And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
(*Headings used in the MacArthur Study Bible.)
When I read John for the first time, I wondered why “Word” was a proper noun. I grew up going to church, but I didn’t pay attention, apparently. After reading Bible study notes, commentaries and asking a lot of questions, I learned that John used it that way for many reasons. For this post, I’ll discuss one.
Living in Ephesus in the midst of Greek culture, John knew that “word” or logos in Greek, was well-known to Greek pagans. Logos meant not only speech but philosophy, intellect and divine wisdom. To the pagans, logos was also impersonal and remote. Logos, from Merriam-Webster:
1 : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity
2 : reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling principle in the universe
Both definitions are relevant in this context, but the second is most relevant to the Greek’s understanding of the word. John’s use of Word is intended to demonstrate to Greek readers that “sacred” reason and the “Unknown God” were indeed personal, known and one in the same. That is, Logos was Christ.
Remember the apostle Paul’s speech to the Greeks at the Areopagus? He explained to the philosophers that the wisdom they sought was the living God, the Divine Wisdom.
Christ (The Logos) existed in the beginning with God and he is God. He always existed; there was never a time he didn’t exist. Some religions (Islam and Mormonism, for example) claim that Jesus was created, but John stresses that he was not. Jesus Christ is inseparable yet distinct from God as the second person of the Trinity (The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit).
Now the Trinity is a concept unbelievers have difficulty with. As a matter of fact, so do Christians. With finite minds, we can apprehend the infinite Trinity but can’t comprehend it. I’ll tackle the subject in another post, but in the meantime, read this.
This section of John was on my mind today. I should do more posts like this and give politics a rest for a while. If you want good, theologically sound posts served up daily, I urge you to bookmark the JollyBlogger.
The Bible is so filled with wisdom that a lifetime isn’t enough to uncover it all.
I forgot to mention a new aggregator, League of Reformed Bloggers. Want to join? See this post. What is Reformed Theology? Good question and good post topic. For a quick introduction, see this link.
****
A must-read about moral and political issues at Crowhill.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 54 comments }
Fundamental Truths, plain & simple. Thanks.
LaShawn -
I’m not the most religious of conservatives, but I read this after a particularly trying personal day and I must admit, it really moved me. Thanks for sharing.
PC
This awesome Bible verse:
?May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace.?
Numbers 6:24-26
Has been deciphered off an ancient amulet dated some 400 years before the date of the Dead Sea scrolls. It is said to be the earliest biblical passage ever found in ancient artifacts. Interesting reading.
NY Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28scro.html?oref=login&th=&pagewanted=print&position=
I’ve always been somewhat partial to Romans, myself.
I love Romans, too. Is there any section in particular, or the whole book?
Once again, I appreciate your courage to stand for truth and discuss topics such as politics and religion.
I would like to express a concern about the post today. You mentioned;
“Christ (The Logos) existed in the beginning with God and he is God. He always existed; there was never a time he didn�t exist. Some religions (Islam and Mormonism, for example) claim that Jesus was created, but John stresses that he was not.”
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe them to be the God Head or Trinity.
I certinly believe that Christ existed before this world was created. I believe the Bible to be the word of God. I agree with the above mentioned verse from John. I have been taught these things by loving parents and church leaders from the time I can first remember.
I was a bit disheartened when Mormons were catagorized with Islam as not believing in the teachings of John. This is simply not the case.
I hope you recognize through tone and word, that there is no animosity or frustration on my part. Only recognition of a comment on your post that I did not agree with and thought should be addressed.
The difficulty folks have with the “word becoming flesh” is that they fail to see the simplicity of the concept. Basically, Jesus was SAYING everything that needed to be said about God in one man.
What trips people up is trying to make the concept too abstract. For example, if you ask a biologist to describe a tree for someone who had never seen one he or she would probably describe root systems, photosynthesis, etc. An engineer might describe the symmetry of the branches, etc. But if someone were to ask a child they would probably take you to a window and point out a tree and say, “That’s a tree.” Jesus was, in a sense, God’s way of taking us to a window and saying, “This is God.” Jesus was God’s way of making the abstract concrete.
Thanks for your response, Stephen. It is my understanding that Mormons believe Jesus was the first-born of “Elohim” of the OT and Mary, one of his wives, and that the Book of Mormon is a higher authority than the Bible.
Of course, for Bible-believing Christians, there is no authority higher than Scripture, and as the Bible plainly teaches, Jesus is God and God is a spiritual being who had no wives. Mormons also don’t believe in the Trinity. I appreciate your willingness to comment, and I hope this isn’t taken as animosity on my part, either.
I finished watching “The Passion of the Christ” only a few hours ago. Then I check here and find this post.
Chase, I love the book of Romans as well. One of my favorite chapters is chapter 8.
It’s beautiful. But I’m waiting for you guys to tell us why.
La Shawn
You are correct.
The Mormon teaching is that Jesus is a created being:
According to the Mormon view, Jesus is not unique from the rest of mankind. He is simply the firstborn spirit child. The Doctrine and Covenants states, “The difference between Jesus and other offspring of Elohim is one of degree not of kind.” That is why Mormons refer to Jesus as elder brother. James Talmage wrote, “Human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh. . . . There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of mankind.”
And is also the spirit brother of Lucifer:
Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Lucifer were involved in planning mankind’s eternal destiny. In order to attain godhood like our heavenly parents, the spirit children needed to leave the presence of their heavenly Father, inhabit a physical body, and live a worthy life. Elohim knew that mankind would sin and thus require a savior to pay for sin and show us how to return to our heavenly father. At the heavenly council, Jesus and Lucifer proposed their plans. Lucifer offered to go to earth and be the savior but he wanted to force everyone to be saved and do everything himself. Jesus desired to give man the freedom of choice. The Father chose Jesus’ plan. Angered by the decision, Lucifer persuaded one third of the spirit children to rebel and a war in heaven took place between Satan’s forces and Jesus and His followers. Lucifer was defeated, cast out of heaven, and denied the right to inhabit mortal bodies.
LB, I respect the heck out of you, and love your blog (you’re on my blogroll, in fact). I always enjoy the conversations here, and I think this is gonna be a good one.
Phil,
What’s your source for those quotes? I”m not Mormon, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but when I read the comments, I saw Stephen state:
When I read these comments, I hear a Mormon person saying the same thing that LaShawn said in her post regarding the divinity of the Christ. Then I hear a non-Mormon telling the Mormon “No, that’s not what Mormons believe.”
Mind you, I’m NOT saying that either of you is right or wrong. I’m just seeing a huge dichotomy between what y’all are saying the Mormons believe, and what a self-professed Mormon is saying they believe. It’s been too long since I’ve studied comparative religions to have an opinion on this, which is why I’m wondering what Phil’s source is for his quotes.
My fuzzy memory seems to be shouting at me that Jehovah’s Witnesses also don’t believe the trinity, and don’t believe the utter divinity of the Christ. Can anyone clarify my fuzzy memory for me? Thanks.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”
I heard an interesting teaching on this one time… as I recall, the pastor said: the word “dwelt” can be more accurately translated “tabernacled”. The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. Couple that with some of the theories about the actual birtdate of Jesus, and one of those theories holds that the annunciation took place during the Festival of Tabernacles. I read that theory sometime back in the late 80s, and have often searched for the article, but have not been able to find it since then. so I can’t tell you who was expounding that theory, but I thought it was interesting. If life begins at conception (and it does), then he “tabernacled among us” during the Festival of the Tabernacles. How appropriate.
It’s an interesting theory.
Fizwit
1. The Mormon doctrine of covenants
2. Brigham Young in “the journal of discourses”
“‘Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?’ The eldest son said: ‘Here am I;’ but he did not say ’send me.’ But the second one, which was ‘Lucifer, son of the morning,’ said, ‘Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth,…” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, page 282)
3. A contemporary source would be Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, among others:
McConkie further expains the devil: “The devil is a spirit son of God who was born in the morning of pre-existence….When the plan of salvation was presented–and when the need for a redeemer was explained, Satan offered to come into the world as the Son of God and be the redeemer. ‘Behold, here am I, send me,’ he said. ‘I will be thy son.’ ‘I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor,…” (Ibid, pages 192-193)
Ah – religion & Politics. carm.org has some great stuff on the Religious Movements List about Mormonism, JW, & other interesting Christian reads. Someone better notify the poor guy now – his site is goiong to get bombarded.
I use various sources for info, including Kingdom of the Cults, by John Ankerberg, Book of Cults, by Bob Larson, for example. This site, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org/mormon.htm) is a good source.
This is where I think the inconsistency comes from. Mormons clearly believe the Book of Mormon – purported to have been written by a man they believe is a prophet, Joseph Smith – is a higher authority than Scripture. Any Mormon who claims otherwise either doesn’t know his own religion’s doctrine, or they are not a Mormon. Two opposing claims cannot both true.
Mormonism holds the view that there are many gods, and that men will become gods with many wives and beget “spiritual children”, and other ideas that are contrary to Scripture. For example, they believe Lucifer (Satan) and Christ are brothers.
The point is not whether I’m saying one thing and a Mormon is saying another. The question is what does Mormonism teach and what does Christianity teach? I argue that if a Mormon claims to believe in the Trinity as shown in the Bible, he may not be a Mormon after all. He indeed may be closer to biblical Christianity, which is good.
Fiwit – Mind you, I’m NOT saying that either of you is right or wrong.
Relativism. As I stated before, two opposing claims cannot both true. By the way, this information comes from Mormon sources. Stephen, as I said, may not be familiar with what his own church teaches. Let me add, Fiwit (this part was added after I read you response below), that our “arguing” isn’t a bad thing. I don’t mind having disagreements, and I understand what you’re saying.
Sharon – I don’t have that kind of traffic! I wish I did. I’d like to be the Instapundit of Christian topics.
Thanks, Phil, for sharing your sources. I’ve reached the point in my life where I hate to see un-sourced quotes. It just drives me crazy, anymore.
LB, I wasn’t arguing – hope it didn’t sound that way. I just didn’t see either you or Phil acknowledging what Stephen had posted about his/her own personal beliefs, other than to say “That’s not what your church teaches).” Maybe I read it wrong, who knows? *shrug* (I have been known to react to what I thought I read, instead of what was actually written).
I agree with you that if a person is believing the Biblical Truth, then they’re definitely closer to being a Biblical Christian, no matter what they think they are. (and a lot of ppl who think they’re Christians really aren’t, unfortunately)
I like all of Romans and it’s hard to pick out anything in particular.
Romans could be viewed as an executive summary of salvation; introducing and proving the notion of justification by faith and not by laws of nature nor by works. Paul begins by laying out his authority, then proceeds, chapter by chapter, to review and address contentions over the applicability of faith as it pertains to Jews vis a vis his primary target, the Gentiles. In conclusion, this Gospel is one and the same “logos” originally laid down in the beginning of human history by God and recorded by the prophets setting the stage over centuries for the completition of God’s grand plan as embodied by Jesus’ life, death & resurrection — the Grand Unified Theory if you will.
Simply stated, I love Romans 8 because it seems to sum up quite nicely our walk with Christ as believers and distinguishes between those who merely profess Christ and those who live for Him, and what is for us who do truly live for Christ ending on a high note so to speek, as Paul points out that nothing can separate us from the love of God, nothing. That is powerful to me!
La Shawn, thanks for sharing this.
One of my favorite verses explaining God’s Wisdom is Proverbs 8 (interestingly enough, Proverbs is also called the Book of Wisdom). There you can see [starting in verse 22] that God’s Wisdom was there in the beginning just as Christ was (and as you have explained, they are equivalent).
Alex
La Shawn, I was just telling my mom about blogs and how they can help keep your spirits up when you feel disheartened by MSM reports. I mentioned Blogs for Bush, and then I told her about yours. I surfed over to yours while I was chatting with her, and I was able to tell her (a pastor’s wife, no less) that you’d posted about the book of John. What a blessing!
Thanks for being such a good resource.
Dear,
Hebrew doesn’t have capitalization. John did not use “Word” as a proper noun.
Thanks.
Re: Josh’s statement about the Hebrew language:
I thought the Gospel of John was written in Greek originally? Does anyone know more about this?
Yes, the New Testament was written in Greek. – Admin
LaShawn your list seems to lay out many key tenets of the Christian faith, but it is obvious not all groups that call themselves “Christian” accept these tenets. So I have some questions:
1) If assorted groups like the Mormons, or Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses reject such fundamental planks of the faith are they truly Christian, as opposed to just calling themselves that? As we know, anybody can claim to be anything, but do then these groups represent false claims?
2) If you (I don’t mean to put you on the spot per se) or others reject the claims of these groups are you thus “intolerant” or “fundamentalist” as some might charge?
3) How important is it to conform to the tenets you list above? Some say they are not really important. What really matters current Christian service to all peoples without any discrimination.
4) What is the relationship between love and the tenets in question? If love trumps everything, then a variety of Christian doctrines may not apply. Some quote Moses saying “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength” as sufficient for all things, rather than divisive doctrinal disputes, or even certain practices like homosexuality.
Admittedly these are some touchy questions, and I don’t want to put you on the spot. Just need your thoughts because these objections to “fundamentalist” doctrines of the faith appear frequently, even more so these days. Responses so far show the usual agreement, but are there any who dare to tackle these common objections?
La Shawn,
Wow! I didn’t mean to create such a discussion on Mormons. There are some very thoughtful comments.
A sticking point may have been the use of the term “Trinity”. I’m new to this way of discussing issues and was simply trying to create some common ground by using the term “Trinity”. As mentioned, we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We believe them to be three seperate and distinct personages. Together they make up what we call the GodHead.
I would like to suggest that those who wish to know more about Mormonism go to http://www.mormon.org. Some may go with preconcieved notions or understanding. Some may go simply to try and prove our beliefs are wrong. Some may say it’s propaganda while others may call us a cult. That’s OK. The site represents our beliefs.
And one more point…no matter what people think of me or my religion, I’m still a proud American and Bush supporter all the way! We may not agree on religion, but I’m glad we’ve got people like LB and the others who participate on this site.
I know the people who associate here are solid, upstanding people who demonstrate day to day compassion, courage, excellence, honesty and idealism.
Thanks,
DJJ; you can refer to the book of Romans to see how Paul, inspired by God, unifies the OT with the message of the Gospel.
As for laying claim to to “Christianity”, or in the case of islam, denial; it can be summed up thusly;
Characteristics of Orthodox Christianity:
1. Acceptance of the Bible as the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2. God became flesh in the physical man Jesus.
3. Christ atoned for man’s sin through his death on the cross.
4. Christ arose in bodily form from the grave, conquering death and proving he is God.
(Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Revelations 22:18; Deuteronomy 13:1-10)
Classic characteristics of a psuedo-christian cult or islam:
1. Cultists believe that all Christian churches are wrong and that their cult has the real truth about God.
2. Cultists attack the deity of Jesus Christ and either lower him to the level of man or raise man to the level of Christ.
3. Cultists deny that man can be saved by faith in Christ alone. They teach that man can make himself right with God by good works and by obeying the teachings of the cult.
4. Cultists believe the statements of their leaders who claim to have new interpretations of scripture, or valuable indispensable additions to it.
5. Many cults claim to believe the Bible, but they distort its teachings to suit their own particular beliefs about man, God, the Holy Spirit, Heaven, Hell, salvation, and other vital doctrine.
“When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. There is no need to think on it.” Mormon President George Smith
Romans 8 is my favorite chapter also, because it makes several key ideas very clear. In that way it unlocks meanings that are presented in more subtle ways in other books of the Bible and helps be feel more secure in my understanding of them.
In particular, my favorite verses are 28-29 and 18-21. Those verses explain why God makes us suffer, and in so doing they remove the burden of that suffering. If I understand 29 correctly, it means that God’s grace is given to those persons he knew would have love of God in their hearts. Some other parts of the Bible don’t explain so clearly why we should love God with all our heart and soul, other than that it is commanded. Here we see that that love leads to grace, then faith, then both worldly works and eternal salvation.
Chris; one might say that the jury is still out on exactly who is John?
To wit, the vocabulary, sentence structure, symmetry and numerical symbolism, expression and arrangement of thoughts are essentially Hebrew. “The source of the imagery of the narrative…is the OT. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew.” (Westcott, Introduction, vii)
My personal opinion on the back story of the Book of John is best covered at christianinconnect.com/john.htm.
————-Begin Excerpt————-
During the last years of his life John served the church in Ephesus. There he wrote his gospel.
John wrote his gospel after the other three gospels had been written and circulated in the first century church. It is apparent that John was familiar with the other gospels when he wrote his own gospel. A comparison of John’s gospel to the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke shows that John supplemented those three and filled in the gaps, including information about Jesus and his ministry which was not included in the three synoptic gospels.
Except for the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness, the three synoptic gospels reported nothing about the first year of Jesus’ public ministry. What we know of the first year of Jesus’ ministry comes from the Gospel of John. John filled in the gap of that first year. From John we know about: Jesus’ gathering of his first disciples; his first miracle at the wedding in Cana; his first cleansing of the temple when he cast out the sellers and moneychangers, at which time he made his first promise of his resurrection from the dead; his conversation with Nicodemus when he said that God so loved the world…; his early Judean ministry; his brief ministry in Samaria where Jesus spoke with the woman at the well; his return to Cana and his healing of the official’s son; and his return to Jerusalem to attend the unknown feast, at which time he healed the man at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath day and stirred up the ire of the Jewish leaders, who then began to seek to kill him (cf. John 1:19-5:47).
While John filled in the gap of Jesus’ first year of ministry left by the three synoptic gospels, he wrote nothing about the second year of Jesus’ ministry, which the three synoptics covered in detail. John jumped from the first year of Jesus’ ministry to the third and final year, starting with the Passover and Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand.
————-End Excerpt————-
DJJ,
First of all, this is a public blog. There is no such thing as being put “on the spot.” Unlike other people you may know, I’m not a relativist and I’m not afraid of truth. I believe there is only one truth. I’m out here posting my views everyday, and I’m made of tougher stuff than that so don’t worry about putting me “on the spot.”
What is truth? On what are you basing that truth? I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and gives believers what they need to live a Christian life. As we read in 2 Timothy 3:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
But before we address what’s in the Bible, the question to be answered is: Is the Bible reliable? I direct you to this site (www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm) for starters, and others that present the case, so to speak, of the Bible’s historicity. There are more copies of the New Testament than are copies of documents referencing people like Aristotle, and which were written closer to Jesus Christ’s life, but no one doubts the existence of these people. It is the Bible that people constantly question, and Christians should expect it and be ready to give an answer.
To address your questions:
1) If assorted groups like the Mormons, or Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses reject such fundamental planks of the faith are they truly Christian, as opposed to just calling themselves that? As we know, anybody can claim to be anything, but do then these groups represent false claims?
There is what’s know as essential Christian doctrine, things that cannot be compromised on, things that a Christian must believe in order to call himself a Christian. That’s why I often use the word “believer” as opposed to Christian. Americans are under the mistaken impression that the US is a Christian nation, for example. Far from it. America is a secular nation confused by moral relativism, and it’s only going to get worse.
I digress. See this link for information on essential Christian doctrine (www.carm.org/doctrine/essentials.htm). For example, any group that purports to be a Christian but denies the deity of Christ is not Christian. To answer you specifically, yes, anybody can claim anything, and if these claims are contrary to biblical teachings, they are false claims as far as Christianity is concerned.
2) If you (I don’t mean to put you on the spot per se) or others reject the claims of these groups are you thus “intolerant” or “fundamentalist” as some might charge?
It matters very little to me what others call me. As I said before, I operate a public blog, and I’m called all sorts of things. If I were worried about labels people used to describe me, I’d better close up shop right now. I don’t, and I won’t.
3) How important is it to conform to the tenets you list above? Some say they are not really important. What really matters current Christian service to all peoples without any discrimination.
Conforming to the essential doctrines of the faith is very important. Otherwise, what’s the point of having them at all? The point is that God commands us to be obedient, and studying, living and believing his Word is how we obey him. I’m not really clear on what you mean by “current Christian service to all peoples without any discrimination”, but the truth of the Bible is subordinate to no one. It’s true that Christians are commanded to provide service to the less fortunate, but along with that command is another to share the Gospel with all men and all nations. It is not discriminatory (in the way you mean it) to point out error and correct it.
By the way, did you know that the whole of humanity is commanded to obey God? I always chuckle when I hear someone tell Christians what God requires of Christians, without any mention or recognition of what God requires of themselves.
4) What is the relationship between love and the tenets in question? If love trumps everything, then a variety of Christian doctrines may not apply. Some quote Moses saying “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength” as sufficient for all things, rather than divisive doctrinal disputes, or even certain practices like homosexuality.
I’m honestly confused by this question, but as best as I can understand it, here’s my response. The problem with many of your statements is they have nothing to do with the Bible. Philosophical arguments are fine; they have their place. But these kind of arguments don’t trump Scripture. When dealing with the Word of God, it must be handled properly. Scripture is to be interpreted in light of the whole Bible, not just its parts. We see clearly in the Bible that God is love, but he’s also wrath. If you believe “love trumps everything”, I’d say we’re reading from different Bibles. If you’d like to clarify your statement and Moses quote, perhaps I can address your questions further.
Admittedly these are some touchy questions, and I don’t want to put you on the spot. Just need your thoughts because these objections to “fundamentalist” doctrines of the faith appear frequently, even more so these days. Responses so far show the usual agreement, but are there any who dare to tackle these common objections?
Again, if you respond to this response, please don’t mention putting me “on the spot.” In my view, people who deny the tenets of Christianity are “on the spot” to explain why they believe certain doctrines are true and others false based on biblical arguments and not philosophical ones.
La Shawn wrote: “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. [better translated as “overcome it”]”
That’s the beauty of the original Greek, though: complimentary meanings of words. The darkness did not *overcome* the light, but the light is also described as the Logos, which humanity didn’t *comprehend*. Maybe it’s the wordsmith in me, but I get a kick out of those extra little linguistic nuances.
Josh wrote: “Hebrew doesn’t have capitalization. John did not use “Word” as a proper noun.”
John wrote in Greek (the lingua franca of the day), and he specifically used the word “Logos”, which as has already been noted *is* a proper noun (of sorts).
Andy, A point of logic. If you say: “Characteristics of Orthodox Christianity: 1. Acceptance of the Bible as the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God….”
and then you quote the Mormon President as saying: “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. There is no need to think on it.”
to show the difference between a cultist(non-Christian)thinking and a Christian, I guess. But isn’t your 1st rule of a Christian basically saying the same thing? That is, the prophets in the Bible are ‘infallible’, so when they speak the thinking has been done?
Jim, not just because the prophet “said it” for as Paul noted, “let the prophets be subject to the prophets.” They need to be validated, which is nowhere neare the same thing as “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. There is no need to think on it.”
And, quite to the contrary, all scripture is expected to be thought upon, studied, analyzed, debated, and worked through.
La Shawn,
I enjoy reading your religious posts even more than the political ones.
The Trinity is hard to grasp, but if you notice, in the old testament God is given human qualities as if he had a body. Was this Jesus/God in bodily form before he became flesh? Did God always have some physical form (in the Son) even though Jesus said that God was a spirit?
Jason wrote: “The Trinity is hard to grasp, but if you notice, in the old testament God is given human qualities as if he had a body. Was this Jesus/God in bodily form before he became flesh? Did God always have some physical form (in the Son) even though Jesus said that God was a spirit?”
Nope, the Son did not incarnate (take human form) until he was born in Bethlehem of Mary. Many of the “human qualities” you note are anthropomorphisms; metaphors used to relate God to the limited understanding of human beings. However, to complicate things a bit, there are a number of instances in the Old Testament where God (most often God the Son) *did* temporarily take on a human form; these are called Theophanies, or more specifically Christophanies when it is apparent that the second person of the Trinity is most likely involved (for an example of a likely Christophany, look to the incident where Joshua met the Commander of the Hosts of YHVH). It is well worth noting that each of these Theophanies and Christophanies (and for that matter, angelophanies) were temporary incidents.
Exactly right! It’s good to be reminded that some things are more important than politics.
LaShawn thanks for your comments.
What I meant about love trumping everything is that these days I seem to be hearing a lot of it. The reasoning goes like this:
God is all about love and Christianity is all about love. Therefore Christians should not be intolerant of other lifestyles and should not judge other people. They should not have a rigid, intolerant outlook, but should be guided more by the spirit of the law and love, rather than doctrines. The essential “spirit” of the doctrine is more important than literal interpretation. Hence the quote from Moses “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they strength..” was used recently by someone to illustrate the above during a discussion on why people should not judge “alternative” lifestyles (take your pick- out-of-wedock, gay marriage, etc, etc.), or even other doctrines held by groups like Mormons. Such judgement smacks of fundamentalist intolerance and is out of keeping with the “spirit” of Christianity.
DJJ,
The logical question to follow your statement would be: what is the source(s) of what you are hearing?
The notion that Christianity is about love and love itself is bunk. Should a christian love his brother man (and I use this to mean mankind)? Yes. Should he tolerate anything and everything he does? No.
As John 14:15 puts it well, ‘If ye love Me, keep My commandments’.
Now, what is love in the bible in Christian context? A comitment of self to doing the will of God; it is not a feeling or an emotion. Romans 13: ‘Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law’ and ‘Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law’
Genesis (4 and 13)laid out that we ought to be our brother’s keeper, and Matthew 25 explains it clearly that failure to do so is to fail God and man. the bible also states that we should love our brother as we love ourselves (Matthew again, and John 3), pick him up when he falls (Gal. and James) and share his burdens as well as his joys (Romans 12?) And of course, the Golden Rule (Matt7:12), treat him as we wish to be treated.
Do you show your love for an addict by turning a blind eye to the addiction? By facilitating it?
You may love the addict… but what good have you done him if you don’t confront him and help him? And if you don’t do so, is it out of love for him, or fear or indiffernce on your part?
There is also the aspect of love that requires you to take your brother’s hand when you are the one who has fallen…
DJJ – From whom did you get these ideas? They certainly don’t come from Bible-believing Christians. Do you know that God hates sin and that sinners will have to account for every single thing they’ve done? Love is who God is, but he’s so many things! But we fallen humans want to pick and choose what to believe in. Rather than taking the whole Bible for what it is – the Word of God – we want to concentrate on “love” and do away with God’s righteous judgment!
You use “fundamentalist intolerance” as if it were a slur. Do you know that God is intolerant of evil? Do you know that “fundamentalist” Christians believe the Bible and what God requires of us? Calling me or implying that I’m a “fundamentalist” for my beliefs does not offend me. I’m not some moral relativistic confused liberal. I consider it a badge of my faithfulness to my Lord and Savior to call sin sin, even if I’m labeled “intolerant” by our PC culture, which is inane nonsense to me.
Stephen Schulz, I am wondering if you can shed some light on Mormon doctrine as to blacks being cursed as regards the priesthood and not being eligible. Mormon founder Brigham Young enunciated such a doctrine as shown below:
“Cain slew his brother … and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin…. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp.290-91).
Also in numerous portions of the Book of Mormon, doctrinal treaties explain that “a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind” (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p.157). What is the position today? Also is their still an offical ban or interracial marriages? The Bible offers no such curse as we know and indeed Moses while speaking of Caananites becoming servants to the ex-slaves of Egypt, hailed the empire-building Nimrod of Cush as a mighty one before Jehovah, (Genesis 10: vs 8-12) and also married an Ethiopian (Cushite) in Numbers 12: 1-2. He also forbid mingling with Gentile nations not on racial grounds but on moral grounds (such as idolatry, and practices such as sacrificing children). In the Christian New Testament Acts shows the Gospel open to all peoples, and men of all nations receiving the blessings of the Spirit, including men from parts of Africa like Egypt, Libya and Cyrene (Acts 2: 10-12).
What is the Mormon position today? Are Negroes still cursed until some future day after the resurrection as Brigham Young stipulates, and last in line for the heavenly blessings? Does the black-skin curse still hold as stipulated by the Book of Mormon? Also how are people of mixed race handled under the doctrine?
La Shawn,
This reminds me of the most common fallacy I hear from others about Catholicism: that you could confess on your death bed to being worse than Bundy, Gacey and Dahmer combined, say you’re sorry, and all will be well…
Why people think you can take one verse or snippet of the Bible and extend it to interperet an entire faith(s) is beyond me… it seems like saying “I heard that penicillin can cure infections. Cancer is like an infection, therefore I can use penicillin to cure cancer”.
It just doesn’t work that way.
LaShawn I hear this all the time- most recently from some Anglican friends who lament all the turmoil over gay marriage. Surely they argue, love would withhold judgemental thinking in such cases. Don’t take my word for it, even the top guy, the Anglican Archbishop wonders about the “tide of intolerance” in various speeches. It is interesting to see the difference of views between the Anglican or Episcopalian white Western church leaders and the black Anglican/Episcopalian church leaders of Africa on these matters.
Let me weigh in and add a point. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims et al violate one clear point referenced at least twice in the Bible: Proberbs 30:5,6 reads- “Every word of God is tested. He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.” There is another reference in Revleations. You cannot add, nor take away from the Bible. It is the RESOLUTE word of God. Period. All non-Christian religions do this, and are therefore by their own doctrine NOT Christian. There are many other points to argue relevance on, but I’m sure those will be argued on this blog soon.
HOW YOU MAY RECEIVE CHRIST AS SAVIOR
To begin your relationship with God and to establish your place in heaven, you must begin by praying (talking to God). Below is an example of a simple prayer that will help you know what to say when you talk to God.
“God, I realize I need a Savior. I confess that I have sinned and I know that my sin will keep me out of heaven. I realize there is not one single thing I can do to earn my way into Your heaven. Right now I am placing all, 100 percent of my trust, in Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection from the dead as payment for my sin. I now accept you as my Lord and Savior, and I commit my life to you. Thank you for forgiving me and giving me your Holy Spirit.”
This is from Charles Stanley’s website, Intouch.org. If you prayed this prayer or want more information please visit intouch.org.
Love in Christ,
Shannon
“Srephen” is “Stephen”, everybody. Misspelling.
Hi, Shannon!
To those who directed questions to me; I hope you were satisfied with the answers given by the others.
However, I can’t stress enough that there is no such thing as a stupid question as pertains to the Bible. After all Nicodemus asked Jesus if being born again was meant to be literal. We Siblings-In-Christ who hang out at La Shawn’s corner will do our best to reason with you from the Scriptures.
Have no fear, we won’t bite and rest assured, we only save our sarcasm for inane politics
Act 17:11 These (Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word (from Paul & Silas) with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(IOW, the Bereans put Paul & Silas on the spot to ensure that their testimony was true to the Scriptures — if you’re not familiar with the verse, you should read the whole chapter)
Stephen, would you care to explain what you believe to be the origin of sin?
I’m wondering: if God was once a man, then where did original man come from? Who was the original man? Why would Lucifer volunteer to save the children of Adam & Eve? Was it because of sin? If so, who sinned first?
In contrast, followers of Christ believe that the trinity of God has always been in existence (I Am), but that angels were created, not born, to serve God, therefore they are not equal to him — to be blunt, they are inferior to the Godhead. Furthermore, angels are subservient to the bride of Christ/children of God that is the church, as embodied by the believers.
At some point in time before creation, Lucifer (the most beautiful of all creation) had a case of God envy that lead him his fall from grace and, in the ensuing clash, was cast out of heaven along with a third of all angels. Lucifer’s sin was that of vanity leading to jealousy and culminated in open revolution — in fact, the 7 abominations that God hates the most are the same that Lucifer/Satan relished.
After the fall of Lucifer, God in addition to creating heavens & earth (universe), created Adam & Eve, along with the original life forms in the Garden of Eden, and on the 7th day, God said it was all good and rested. Every creature that came thereafter that were born of his or her parents in kind, not created.
Herein is what I believe to be the most fundamental dichotomy between the Bible and other theological tomes — the origin of God, creation and sin. Judaism and Christianity share a common ground founded on these three points. Beyond this, several Judaic denominations, ie Jehovah’s Witness, Hasidic etc, then branch out according to varying interpretations.
The next significant fork, which now defines the Christian, concerns the deity and incarnation of Christ and the blood redemption. This is the common ground shared by “Christian” denominations. For all other religious groups, if Christ is not the raison d’être, then they simply cannot be considered as Christian, however noble or “similar”.
This is not to simply dismiss any other as positively wrong or evil on the basis of faith. By comparison, Islam splits off at Abraham via Ishmael and only acknowledges Jesus as a prophet, even tho they claim that Jews and Christians are also people of the Book. The notion of any Messiah is also rejected; instead the koran demands that all others be subjugated to their belief system. This is a concept that is neither found in the OT nor NT.
However, as pointed out by La Shawn, since most belief systems claim to be the ONE & ONLY truth, it is only logical that; either only one can be the truth or none at all, in which case atheists would be right. Sincerely misplaced faith still misses the meaning of life, and there can be no 2nd place. That said; there is no reason that civil people of differing beliefs can’t meet on some common ground to reason out the truth as they see it, to perhaps persuade one another of the validity of their faith, or agree to disagree.
I don’t say this to be sanctimonious. My beloved grandmother was a devout Tibetan Buddhist who could teach some preachers a few things about the Bible. Yet after considering all things, she decided that life is endless misery until one finally reaches nirvana. If her way IS the truth, then she has since been reincarnated into who knows what or who, while I’m doomed to reincarnation as probably a gnat.
Either that or Osama is now enjoying his 72 virgins. Or Madeline O’Hara is nothingness, or that UFO suicide cult is surfin’ with the alien on some galactic starship.
In any case, it is simply not logical that all belief systems are equally true, or that all paths lead to heaven. It then becomes the responsibility of the individual to seek out the truth for himself.
La Shawn
Although I am a writer (recently completed a politically inspired quick read on the grass roots of our great country) this blog stuff is new to me. As a committed Christian, how exciting to know someone like you exists for the rest of us! Just sitting here listening to a lib talking about how his new book claims that Jesus was a liberal!? We need folks like you to remind us of the truth! Thanks loads… Deb
Were all creatures on earth created by God at the same time,
that is, with Adam and Eve?
Let me expand on the intent of my previous post question.
Some believe the creation of the world as explained in Genesis to be literally six 24HR days.
If this is true, then the earth and all it’s creatures were created at the same time, and evolution of the planet Earth followed by the evolution of life on its surface, would be false.
What is your understanding of Gods creation.
La Shawn,
Please explain why my question to Shannon was either nixed or never made it through. The post was in dispute of the “sinner’s prayer”. Was it too far off topic, or did you just not like it?
thanks
Jim R, Sorry for the delay in responding, I misread your last post and thot it was an answer to the prior — onscreen dyslexia.
Regarding creation, La Shawn has links to “Answers in Genesis” and “Truth Be Told” (TBT archives Jun/Jul & Sep), both sites cover the question in detail.
Regardless of the “24hr” days or “millenia” days theories, the sequence is clear, as laid out by Gen 1. And yes that includes the dinosaurs which walked the earth in OT times. Job 40 (behemoth), Job 41, Psa 74 & 104 and Isa 27 (leviathan) covers their attributes, sustenance from God and extinction.
DJJ…
The comments you hear from your Anglican friends could be viewed as a manifestation of the revival of Gnosticism…
An interesting (and timely)treatment on this very subject can be found at:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=2813
Incidentally, the blog “titusonenine” is authored by Kendall Harmon, an orthodox Bishop of the Episcopal church…
Additionally, an interesting series of articles on both Christian inclusion and exclusion, particularly as they relate to human sexuality, can be found at:
http://www.markdroberts.com/
Dr. Roberts is the Sr. Pastor of a Southern California Presbyterian church…
LaShawn…
The Gospel of John is my favorite book of The Bible… Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us…
Kendall Harmon is not a Bishop he is a Canon theologian, a parish priest and an editor.
Comments on this entry are closed.