Eystein Evensen (a brother in Christ studying to be ordained in the Church of Norway) recently wrote:
I have before me two books published, printed and purchased from the Concordant Publishing Concern; they're Nathaniel Scarlett’s New Testament, and Thomas Allin’s Christ Triumphant.
From "Christ Triumphant" (9th Edition, pgs. 24-25.):
“For every great question contains an insoluble element. Take, e.g., the problems of Life, of Matter, etc. Take such questions as the Trinity, or the Incarnation. Are we to give them all up? All human knowledge is in fact the knowledge of things partly known, partly insoluble at present.”
From Scarlett’s note on 1 John 5, verse 7 (he includes the trinity verse):
“The words included in crotches here have been the subject of much controversy in modern times. But the Trinitarians need not contend for the authenticity of this verse; as the doctrine which they hold is contained in various other places of scripture: nor need the Arians strive to exclude it as opposing their tenets.”
From his note on Col 1, verse 16:
“It is only through the person of the Son that the Deity can be rendered visible. The Son is an image of the invisible Deity, not as a likeness formed in a different substance, but as one who in every immediate intercourse between God and man, has been the appearing person. First-born, Heir, or Lord, were synonymous terms among the Hebrews: therefore it is properly applied to Jesus Christ as Lord of the whole creation; because he made all things, and has therefore a right to govern all.”
Editor's Note: It could also be argued that ( as fully God and Fully man ) Christ ( in His humanity ) is literally "the first born of all creation."
The first chapter of John is titled: THE DIVINITY OF JESUS ASSERTED
If denying the Trinity is more important to them than proclaiming universal salvation, why do they publish Universalist material that supports the Trinity? [End of quote.]
I suppose even they would find it hard to deny that many universalists have been trinitarian. Gregory of Nyssa (who spoke of Christ as the Great Physician who would not only heal man of his moral sickness, but cure even the inventor of evil himself) defended the Trinitarian faith of St. Athanasius at the first council of Constantinople.
It is nonetheless true that the Concordant Publishing Concern has promoted an Arian view, and those associated with it tend to be virulently anti-trinitarian.
I believe this is extremely unfortunate.
Isaiah 45, verse 5 says:
I am HaShem (the Divine name--I Am/He is) and there is no Elohim (a plural noun, usually used with singular verbs--Godhead, Divinity) beside me.
The God of Israel is also recorded as saying "I am HaShem, that is my Name, and my glory will I not give to another" (Isa. 42:8), yet Jesus was able to say "Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am" (John 8:58.)
He did not say "I was," but "I Am" (the Divine Name).
All Arians (the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the followers of A. E. Knoch included) must therefore believe that God did in fact give His glory to another (allowing a creature to use His rightful name.).
After touching His wounds, doubting Thomas worshipped the risen Christ in these words:
My Lord and my God (John 20:28.)
Here is what the word of God says about worshipng a creature:
...revealed is the wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding down the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest [it] to them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable; because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, professing to be wise, they were made fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves; who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25.)
As Ed Smith wrote:
Understanding some correct theory or scheme of the Trinity is not necessary. However, I think that some heart knowledge of the Trinity is important. It is very important that Jesus is God. God raised creation by uniting with it. We cling to God through Jesus Christ because He is both God and human. On the Holy Spirit, we may not need to understand His position in the Trinity, but we do need to recognize God's Spirit when He touches us. The Holy Spirit is not just God's power, but God's very essence in us. Thus, the Trinity really comes down to believing in a God who is intimate with us and not a cold, distant God too great to condescend as is presented in other monotheistic religions.
On our part, if we study Jesus and don't recognize God come in the flesh, we obviously don't know God. If we don't recognize the Holy Spirit who touches us today as God Himself, we are actively rejecting God and really lost. If we do not reject God's Spirit who touches us, we will soon recognize Jesus for who He is.
I can conceive of someone on the right road, perhaps born again, who doesn't know clearly with his mind that Jesus is eternal God, but he surely soon will know it. The problem is that a person may go ahead of himself and pridefully develop the intellectual theory that Jesus is not God and fall under the teaching of others that He is not God. Then he is kept from knowing Jesus; anytime he gets a little light and begins to see Him, he denies that light so that he might continue to conform with the "right teaching." That brings us back to the point that we should worship God and put Him foremost, rather than worshipping what we consider accurate words and putting that teaching foremost. [End Quote]
Regarding the personality of the Holy Spirit, this is from the BGreek Forum:
1 Cor 12:11
Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed Oct 27 19:12:34 EDT 1999
Dear David,
If I may re-transliterate your citation:
PANTA DE TAUTA - direct object
ENERGEI - verb
TO hEN KAI TO AUTO PNEUMA - subject
DIAIROUN - participle modifying the Subject
IDIAi hEKASTWi - indirect object
KATHWS BOULETAI - adverbial clause modifying the Subject
It does not seem likely that the phrase KAQWS BOULETAI should modify the
Indirect Object. If hEKASTOS were intended as the subject of BOULETAI, then
the construction would have to have been expanded to indicate this; e.g. DIAIROUN IDIAi hEKASTWi KAQWS *hEKASTOS* BOULETAI.
The whole thrust of this chapter is that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the matter of the distribution of the CARISMATA, and does what He wills, not what we might wish him to do. Desire earnestly the best gifts (verse 31); but be content with such things as you have (Philippians 4:11).
ENERGEI refers back to QEOS hO ENERGWN in verse 6. Likewise PANTA DE TAUTA refers back to TA PANTA, and IDIAi hEKASTWi to EN PASIN in verse 6. The whole passage is a unity. IMHO...
ERRWSQE
Ben
--
Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
<ben.crick at argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-October/008101.html
As to the relationships within the Godhead, I believe Saint Gregory of Nyssa put it very well in his Letter to Ablabius :
While we confess the invariableness of the [Divine] Nature we do not deny the distinction of cause and of caused, by which alone we perceive that one Person is distinguished from another, in our belief that it is one thing to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause, and another to be through Him who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son, nor is it doubted that the Spirit is from the Father; for the middle position of the Son is protective of His distinction as Only-begotten, but does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father.
And perhaps St. Athanasius put it even better:
Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son.
(to Serapion of Thmius.)
----------------------------------------Return Home------------------------------------------