hotrodhell

Archive for June, 2010|Monthly archive page

If Jesus is the only way to God what about those who have never heard of him?

In Apologetics, Chrisitian, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Prayer, Satan, Saved, Sin, Trinity on June 19, 2010 at 7:58 am

There are many views about those who have never heard the gospel and their disposition in eternity.  It has been my experience we can to take a lesser view of God’s providence and sovereignty especially in this issue. We have discussed the agnostic response to this question and quite frankly is legitimate and proper. We don’t have to apologize for saying that God has the problem under control even in we lack further clarity on the issue.

Jesus’ uniqueness is more fundamental than the question of the unevangelized. Any time we deal God’s truth we must begin from clarity or understanding and work out the secondary questions or the unclear from there. God’s good, trustworthy character assures us he will do what is right. He will not unjustly condemn the unevangelized, for whom Christ died. Throughout the Scriptures-and in the world today-God makes himself known in surprisingly wonderful ways. Our question boils down to the goodness of God, who loves all without exception, and whose purposes for all our good. If other paths to salvation exist then Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary.

(Rom 1:16-21 ESV)  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the  creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

(Joh 14:6 ESV)  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(Act 4:12 ESV)  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

We see from the Scriptures Paul’s answer is clear. He said that the heathen are “without excuse”(1:20) because “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them”. First Romans clearly shows us that the Jew is judged by the law, the Hebrew Scriptures, but the Gentile is condemn by “the law written on their hearts.” Romans 2:14 through 15, helps complete the fall of Romans chapter 1:

(Rom 2:14- 15 ESV)  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Second this question also assumes innocence on the part of the man who hasn’t heard the gospel. As fallen creatures somehow we always seek to defend our wickedness by assuming our innocence before a holy and sovereign God. But the Bible tells us differently in Romans 3:23 “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. In addition we’ve just seen in Romans chapter 1 that God clearly reveals himself through natural revelation “so that they are without excuse.” Human beings are not innocent regarding God’s natural revelation.

Third, if a person who has not heard the gospel lives his life or her life to the best of their ability this results simply in doing works for salvation. But as we know salvation is by grace, “for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God”(Ephesians 2:8). Not in any way, shape, or form can anybody do anything good enough to gain access into heaven. If there was such a way, then the work of Christ on the cross was a few and unnecessary act.

Finally, the Bible says in essence, “seek and you shall find.” That is, those who seek the light they have through nature, which is not sufficient for salvation, will get the light they need for salvation. In Hebrews 11:6 Scripture tells us, “but without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a re-warder of those who diligently seek him.” We are also told in Acts 10:35, “but in every nation who ever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” God has many ways to get the truth about salvation through Christ to the who seek Him. He can’t stand a missionary (acts 10), or a Bible (Psalms 119:130), give them a vision (Daniel 2; 7), or send an angel (revelation 14). But those who turn their back on the light they have(through nature) and find themselves lost in darkness, have no one to blame but themselves. We are told in the book of John 3:19, “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

Advertisements

It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. After all I’m really a good person!

In Apologetics, Chrisitian, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Prayer, Satan, Saved, Sin, Trinity on June 16, 2010 at 7:34 am

It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.

After all I’m really a good person!

As we finish our book and our study we deal now with the most difficult and sensitive issues in our culture today. Today sincerity goes a long way and has more bearing than truth. Many in our churches today believe and to quote the early church father Cyprian’s dictum “outside the church there is no salvation”. This particular belief is called ecclesiocentric (church centered) it  is called the restrictvist view. We see this practiced in our own church, in many ways.

The poet and writer William Calper (1731-1800) contemplated the destiny of the unevangelized, judging their presumed condemnation to be grossly unjust. Their “being lost in endless woe” due to “ignorance of what they could not know” would be an “outrageous wrong.”  He also held out false hope that some beyond the reaches of the gospel could be saved.

Others would offer a Christocentric (or inclusivist/wider-hope) perspective. John hick’s charges that the inevitable lostness of the unevangelized (the” old exclusivist view”) is simply “unacceptable,” incompatible with God’s limitless love.

If Jesus is the only way of salvation, are those who don’t hear of him-those who remain outside the church-inevitably without hope and separated from God?

Can God’s spirit use divine general revelation in nature and conscience to save those outside the hearing of the gospel?

The answers to these tough questions aren’t always crystal clear. In our modern times we don’t use the same terminology and some reject the old titles because they tend to focus one-sidedly on the question, “who is going to be saved?” And the terms can be confusing. Many today would argue we are focusing on doctrine, when we ought to be loving others and serving Jesus. My response is which Jesus are you discussing? The hardest issue we as Christians face in a relativistic, postmodern, atheistic, society is our particularity/uniqueness if you will: Jesus said he was the only way to God the father. Many arguments and disagreements begin and end here.

Isn’t any who hold religious belief honestly seeking “the real “in their own way? In Jonathan Hicks own de-conversion from evangelical Christianity, he claimed that all religionists are doing the same thing-moving away from self-centeredness and responding to the same ultimate reality, often with equal fervor.

Sincerity is necessary but it is insufficient for salvation. Sin requires a sacrifice to satisfy a judgment. Because that’s sacrifice is our own will we as fallen creatures try to avoid surrendering our will. In order to avoid judgment we create unique concepts of God, and our response to our eternal guilt. Consider some of the following statements:

It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.

I am a good person after all God really would not condemn me, I haven’t murdered anyone.

I’m young and there’s plenty of time for me before I get serious about religion.

If Jesus is the only way to what about those who have never heard of him?

Let’s begin with the sincerity issue, many people using this widespread slogan would need to qualify what they mean by “sincere” and many “sincere” people have pretty shaky reasons for doing destructive things. Can you name people who are sincerely wrong?

Why do we focus on sincerity-why not goodness, humility, integrity? A lot of consider people may not be very open to truth; they lack commitment to moral goodness or seem unwilling to humble themselves. Sincerity by itself can be an empty catch-all, even when it means “passionate about one’s beliefs,” the issue is whether the action is directed toward morally right pursuits. The sincerity criteria convey that salvation is merited or deserved a kind of “boasting” before God.

(Rom 3:27 ESV)  Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

(Rom 3:28 ESV)  For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Pluralist’s will point to “good people” in all religions, but any goodness in us is the result of God’s grace. We humans sinners fall profoundly short; any acceptance God could offer us based on our sincerity is less than nothing compared to the undeserved loving-kindness he offers us in Christ.

(Joh 3:16 ESV)  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(Joh 3:17 ESV)  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

(Joh 3:18 ESV)  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

How could our goodness, sincerity or anything else we could boast about match the sacrifice of the personal God who is there? We see here in the Scriptures God’s expression of his love through his Son and fellowship with the Holy Spirit allowing us to have fellowship with him.

The last part of our study will deal with different views concerning those who have never heard of Jesus. The first few were going to discuss is the agnostic view. Could it be that God is interested in a person’s spiritual direction or responsiveness then he and his spiritual location on a continuum?

Many respected evangelical theologians such as Alister McGrath and J.I Packer remain agnostic on the matter considering it one of divine fairness. It’s not that God owes anyone salvation. Rather, his loving intentions and gracious initiative toward each human being are clearly revealed in Scripture: if he truly loves all the world(John 3:16 to 17); if Christ died for all without exception and thus commands all-not simply those who will be saved-to repent(1 John 2:2; 5:19-20; cf. Acts 17:30); and if God isn’t willing that he should perish (2nd Peter 3:9; 1st Timothy 2:4) then it follows that his initiating grace, though resistible(acts 7:51), is directed toward all without exception. This would include the un-evangelized.

First the response  the question of the unevangelized is secondary; Christ’s uniqueness is fundamental. Whether we’re doing ethics or theology, we should move from the clear to the unclear, not vice versa. The clear is Jesus’ uniqueness and a good, righteous God’s love for all, we try to work out the implications from there.

Second God has the question of the unevangelized figured out! This hasn’t caught him by surprise. Furthermore, he has gone to such unfathomable lengths for our salvation by identifying with humanity and suffering injustice and a cruel shameful death-this is wondrous news to be proclaimed! God has gone great lengths on behalf of all his creatures we have very good reason to think the un-evangelized are in excellent hands (Genesis 18:25)

(Gen 18:25 ESV)  Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”

Third, God’s loving just character assures us that he won’t condemn anyone for being born at the wrong place and time. (Amos 9:7) God was at work not only in Israel but among the nations. He showed deep concern for the Ninevites, who could not tell “their right hand from their left” (Jonah 4:11), and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).

(Amo 9:7 ESV)  “Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?” declares the LORD. “Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?

(Jon 4:11 ESV)  And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”

(Eze 33:11 ESV)  Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Fourth, God, in his own manner, is able to reach people in ways we don’t expect. For example, he can reveal himself-and has done so-through visions or angelic messengers. We had many examples of people throughout the world whose lives were transformed through visionary encounters with Jesus. God has been known to do such things all along!

In the end, the matter boils down to trusting in a good God to do no wrong. Can we not trust God with such perplexing questions? We can trust God, who loves all without exception and desired their salvation, to do his utmost so that none is prevented from experiencing salvation who truly desires. We can also trust the sovereignty of God if he chooses who he wants and who he doesn’t want in heaven. I firmly believe we cannot come to salvation without the Holy Spirit first inspiring us to seek Jesus. He is the author and finisher of our faith. If there are other paths to God apart from Christ, then Jesus’ death was an utter waste.

CS Lewis said “I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but by it I see everything else.”

In Apologetics, Chrisitian, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Prayer, Satan, Saved, Sin, Trinity on June 5, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Jesus followers fabricated his stories and sayings:

CS Lewis said “I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but by it I see everything else.”

Which of these make the most sense?

  1. The universe’s ex nihilo (out of nothing) origin: Is it uncaused (or self-caused) from nothing or caused by a powerful Being independent of the universe?
  2. The universe’s fine-tuning or bio-friendliness: Does it drive from mindless, deterministic causes or from an intelligent-Being?
  3. The emergence of life: Did it originate from nonliving matter or from living, active personal Being?
  4. The vast array of beauty: Is its source impersonal, deterministic causes or a creative, imaginative Being?
  5. Moral values/obligations, human dignity, and human rights: Is their foundation valueless material processes or a supremely valuable Being?
  6. Consciousness/ awareness: Did it emerge from mindless material processes or from a supremely self-aware Being?
  7. Free will/ moral responsibility: Are these accounted for by deterministic processes or by a freely creating Being?

Many have claimed Jesus didn’t really die on a cross!

What are your First century proofs against His death?

There are moral atheists and Buddhists does that mean they are Christian or that only Christianity is moral?

What is your answer for evil?

Jesus was born around 4 or 5 BC-Wait how did that happen? How can your Bible be true? Jesus was just a myth or at best a moral teacher. He can’t be the Son of God. The Jesus legends begin because like Buddha, Jesus was a moral teacher who was bent on the destruction of the Roman Empire. The orthodox Christian view of Jesus is the projection of imaginations run wild; individuals and communities “apotheosized “him – puffed him up to God-status –just like the historical Siddhartha Gautama eventually came to be divinized by some followers. Jesus’ “ambiguous” resurrection (however we are to understand it) may set him apart from Buddha, buy why think this would be any more special than that of Lazarus or Jairus’s daughter?

Though merely human, Jesus was “intensely and overwhelmingly conscious of the reality of God.” Jesus was “powerfully God-conscious”; his followers “could catch something of that consciousness by spiritual contagion.” The Jesus story grew over time and tradition it isn’t literally true but “merely invites a particular attitude in its hearers.” People are speaking confessionally, not metaphysically somewhat like we say to those we love in the superlative. “You’re absolutely the best” or “You’re the sweetest”.

After all the Bible has been corrupted over the centuries; we just can’t be sure we have anything resembling what was written down. It is contradicting and has irreconcilable discrepancies especially in the resurrection account. Power brokers in the early church arbitrarily excluded certain books from the New Testament canon and in the fourth century invented a divine Jesus. After all a central goal of the Gospel writers was to instill contempt, a loathing, against Judaism: Jews were the children of hell, their leaders a brood of vipers. And doesn’t John’s gospel speak disparagingly of the Jews? The conclusion the God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there…God does not interfere with the laws of nature…Prayer is meaningless…Prayer should be understood principally as mediation.

The first response is a good stigma will beat a dogma every time in the short run. But if we take a good hard look at the evidence it might suggest otherwise. The truth is these things don’t just happen naturally; nature itself was produced a finite time ago an event that couldn’t be predicted by natural law. What we are actually describing is the un-caused cause, “something” outside the universe that brought it into existence. The problem is not with the historical evidence; it’s with very questionable philosophical assumptions like “Dead people just can’t come back to life!’ or “Universes just don’t pop into existence from nothing!” If God exists then we have the most reasonable evidence for all these and much more. We can infer with good evidences a supernaturally inspired Big Bang and a bodily resurrection on the first Easter.

As we take on the challenges that are brought against the Christian faith, we must be able to respond appropriately concerning the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, The birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As an example of the reliability of the Bible even if we didn’t have the Greek manuscripts, we could almost reconstruct the New Testament just from the citations of the early church fathers. This is very early in the primitive church’s life pre AD -325. According to Daniel B Wallace one of the foremost early manuscript scholars out of the 5600 Greek manuscripts, the10000 Latin and 5000 other language copies we have of the New Testament less that 1 percent of the variations are significant. Most involve word-order changes, articles with proper nouns, and slight spelling differences, not exactly the stuff of renouncing the Faith and vilifying the Faithful. As with other ancient historical documents, we should assume the New Testament is reliable unless otherwise shown. The Bible’s portrayal of an unsafe, untamable Jesus, who reaches out to the reader from its pages and asks the same question Pilate asked at His mock trial;

(Mat 27:22a ESV) Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

The best understanding and most accepted historical evidence for the resurrection is found in 1st Corinthians chapter 15, based on this portion of Paul’s writings we find the most accepted letter in the New Testament, we find, the 12 apostles, Jesus’ brother, 500 eyewitnesses and last Paul himself who had persecuted the early church all claiming to have seen the risen Christ. Many other factors provide excellent proofs of the integrity and honesty of the New Testament writers, such as the “criterion of embarrassment” and the “criterion of authenticity”. If Jesus’ actions or sayings would have caused difficulty or embarrassment for the early church, then why include them in your narrative if you’re inventing them?

  1. Why include women as first witnesses of the resurrection, since they weren’t considered reliable witnesses (e.g., Matthew 28)?
  2. Why include “strange” events such as Jesus’ cursing a fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) or his allowing unclean spirits to enter swine, which destroyed them (Luke 8:32-33)?
  3. Why mention that Jesus’ family believed he was out of his mind (Mark 3:2 1)?
  4. Why insert sometimes “unimpressive” ministry results (Mark 6:5-6; John 6:66)?
  5. Why include what enemies said about Jesus—e.g., implications that he was illegitimate (Mark 6:3, “son of Mary”)? Why not paint a rosier picture?
  6. Why a shamed, humiliated, crucified Messiah—unless he rose from the dead? Martin Hengel (b. 1926) notes, “The discrepancy between the shameful death of a Jewish state criminal and the confession that depicts this executed man as the preexistent divine figure who becomes man and humbles himself to a slave’s death is, as far as I can see, without analogy in the ancient world.”
  7. Why record the blunders, disputes, selfishness, and misunderstandings of Jesus’ disciples? As Craig Evans says, this “is hardly the creation of the early church.”
  8. Why call Jesus “King of the Jews” when he didn’t physically rule in Israel?
  9. Why invent stories that don’t really help your case? Most Jews expected Messiah to come as a king, a political deliverer, a shepherd over Israel—not a miracle-worker. So why pile up signs and wonders?

10. Why present Jesus as not knowing the time of his return (Mark 13:32)

11. Why should Jesus submit to John’s baptism (Mark 1:4-11)?

Some last facts:

  • ·Writing with passion doesn’t entail unreliability.
  • ·The fabrication thesis doesn’t hold under scrutiny. If we can confirm historical claims where verifiable, we should then give the benefit of the doubt where we can’t verify.
  • ·The gospel writers are aware of (archaeologically confirmed) Jewish customs and places; use Aramaisms; and utilize credible eyewitness testimony.
  • ·Early Christian communities didn’t invent and project onto Jesus various sayings and deeds mentioned in the Gospels. Rather, their well-known controversies aren’t even addressed in the Gospels.
  • ·We have good reason for arguing that Acts was written before Paul’s death; so Luke was written earlier, and Mark before that.
  • ·In 1 Corinthians and Galatians (early, undisputedly Pauline), we can see the tradition Paul received from James/Jerusalem goes back to the earliest church’s preaching.
  • ·Why would the early church invent potentially negative and embarrassing Jesus-events/-sayings? These reinforce authenticity, not invention.

Faith in Christ isn’t necessarily about the facts, it’s about will! If you bend your knee and your will and utter “Thou will be done He says so be it! “ The same is true for your own will!

What does the Old Testament say of the Trinity?

In Apologetics, Chrisitian, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Prayer, Saved, Sin, Trinity on June 3, 2010 at 8:37 am

2nd in a Series

What does the Old Testament say of the Trinity?

The last exegete involved Genesis 1:1-3 and moving to the next reference verses 26-27. This subject has been discussed many times and I don’t know that I can add more than has been already expounded. In keeping with the concept of exegesis we start with the Word.

(Gen 1:26 HCSB)  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”

(Gen 1:27 HCSB)  So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.

The Amplified Bible clarifies this even more:

(Gen 1:26 AMP)  God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth. [Ps. 104:30; Heb. 1:2; 11:3.]

(Gen 1:27 AMP)  So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them. [Col. 3:9, 10; James 3:8, 9.]

Beginning in verse 26 the language is unmistakably plural in nature. Here we evidently enter upon a higher scale of being. This is indicated by the counsel or common resolve to create, which is now for the first time introduced into the narrative. When the Creator says, “Let us make man,” he calls attention to the work as one of pre-eminent importance. At the same time he sets it before himself as a thing undertaken with deliberate purpose. Moreover, in the former mandates of creation his words had regard to the thing itself that was summoned into being; as, “Let there be light;” or to some preexistent object that was physically connected with the new creature; as, “Let the land bring forth grass.” But now the language of the fiat of creation ascends to the Creator himself: Let us make man. This intimates that the new being in its higher nature is associated not so much with any part of creation as with the Eternal Uncreated himself.

The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, “I have dreamed a dream” Gen_41:15. Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” Dan_2:3. Darius the Mede, “I make a decree” Dan_6:26. Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth” Ezr_1:2. Darius, “I make a decree” Ezr_5:8. We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression “let us make” is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, “our image, our likeness,” when transferred into the third person of narrative, become “his image, the image of God,” and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, “let us make.” Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.

There are those who try to disavow the direct meaning, us means us (plural) some say the words are directed at the earth, out of which man was made, as consulting with it, and assisting with the formation of man. Some Jewish writers like Moses Gerundensis have purported this to be the meaning. Then the Targum of Jonathon, Jarchi, and others claim this was directed to the angels who are not of God’s privy council, nor where they concerned in any part with creation much less the more noble part, the creation of man. Nor are the words spoken after the manner of kings, as Saadiah, using the plural number as expressive of honor and majesty; since such a way of speaking did not begin till the close of the Old Testament: but they are spoken by God the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, who were each of them concerned in the creation of all things, and particularly of man: hence we read of divine Creators and Makers in the plural number, Job_35:10 and Philo the Jew acknowledges that these words declare a plurality, and are expressive of others, being co-workers with God in creation (g): and man being the principal part of the creation, and for the sake of whom the world, and all things in it were made, and which being finished, he is introduced into it as into an house ready prepared and furnished for him; a consultation is held among the divine Persons about the formation of him; not because of any difficulty creating it, but as expressive of his honor and dignity; it being proposed he should be made not in the likeness of any of the creatures already made, but as near as could be in the likeness and image of God.

Quoting Tikkune Zohar: The Jews sometimes say, that Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah (h); and they also speak (i) of Adam Kadmon the ancient Adam, as the cause of causes, of whom it is said, “I was as one brought up with him (or an artificer with him), Pro_8:30 and to this ancient Adam he said, “let us make man in our image, after our likeness”: and again, “let us make man”; to whom did he say this? the cause of causes said to “`jod’, he, `vau’, he”; that is, to Jehovah, which is in the midst of the ten numerations. What are the ten numerations? “`aleph’, he, `jod’, he”, that is, אהיה, “I am that I am, Exo_3:14 and he that says let us make, is Jehovah; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God: and three jods ייי testify concerning him, that there is none above him, nor any below him, but he is in the middle:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air; that is, to catch them, and eat them; though in the after grant of food to man, no mention as yet is made of any other meat than the herbs and fruits of the earth; yet what can this dominion over fish and fowl signify, unless it be a power to feed upon them? It may be observed, that the plural number is used, “let them”, which shows that the name “man” is general in the preceding clause, and includes male and female, as we find by the following verse man was created:

and over the cattle, and over all the earth; over the tame creatures, either for food, or clothing, or carriage, or for all of them, some of them for one thing, and some for another; and over all the wild beasts of the earth, which seem to be meant by the phrase, “over all the earth”; that is, over all the beasts of the earth, as appears by comparing it with Gen_1:24 so as to keep them in awe, and keep them off from doing them any damage:

and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; to make use of it as should seem convenient for them.

(h) Tikkune Zohar, correct. 64. fol. 98. 2. (i) Ibid. correct. 70. fol. 119. 1.

Quoting Irenaeus born during the first half of the 2nd century (the exact date is disputed: between the years 115 and 125 according to some, or 130 and 142 according to others), Irenaeus is thought to have been a Greek from Polycarp’s hometown of Smyrna in Asia Minor. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was raised in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult. Alluding to Genesis 1:26 Irenaeus is asserting creation ex nihilo, and states that God stood in need of no angel to help him, “as if he did not possess his own hands, for with him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things. To whom also he speaks, saying “let us make man in Our image and likeness.” The Son and the Spirit are both coeternal with the Father, and one with him, for they share in what is exclusively a work of God. So, “the Father plans and gives commands, the Son performs and creates, while the Spirit nourishes and increases.” Another way of stating this is the Father decrees, the Son enacts, the Spirit confirms. The basis for understanding the working of a triune God “Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.”

The image and likeness of man must necessarily be intellectual; his mind, his soul, must have been formed after the nature and perfections of his God. The human mind is still endowed with most extraordinary capacities; it was more so when issuing out of the hands of its Creator. God was now producing a spirit, and a spirit, too, formed after the perfections of his own nature. God is the fountain from which this spirit issued, hence the stream must resemble the spring which produced it. God is holy, just, wise, good, and perfect; so must the soul be that sprang from him: there could be in it nothing impure, unjust, ignorant, evil, low, base, mean, or vile. It was created after the image of God; and that image, Paul tells us, consisted in righteousness, true holiness, and knowledge, Eph_4:24 Col_3:10. So man was wise in his mind, holy in his heart, and righteous in his actions. Were even the word of God silent on this subject, we could not infer less from the lights held out to us by reason and common sense. The text tells us he was the work of Elohim, the Divine Plurality, marked here more distinctly by the plural pronouns Us and Our; and to show that he was the masterpiece of God’s creation, all the persons in the Godhead are represented as united in counsel and effort to produce this astonishing creature.

Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God’s word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

There are those who oppose the triad concept and its expression of the 3 person distinctive of the 1 being that is God. My question is what else could provide an explanation, for the Messiah, The Son of God that was born thousands of years later in Bethlehem? Jesus was 100 percent man because of the Virgin Mary and 100 percent God because the 3rd person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and the 2nd person of the Godhead gave up His glory for this inglorious body.

Overshadow

  1. episkiazo (G1982), “to throw a shadow upon” (epi, “over,” skia, “a shadow”), “to overshadow,” is used (a) of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration, Mat_17:5; Mar_9:7; Luk_9:34; (b) metaphorically of the power of “the Most High” upon the Virgin Mary, Luk_1:35; (c) of the apostle Peter’s shadow upon the sick, Act_5:15.

There are some that suggest the pre-incarnate Christ needed a “spiritual mother” or they intentionally confuse the language to avoid the correct meaning of “us” in verse 26. If we understand the concept of Jesus dual nature, God’s ability to create ex nihilo, the Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead why do we paint God into our expression of His revelation instead of letting God express who He is and how He exists the 1 being that is God expressed in the 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If we include the angels as part of creation we presuppose God needed help or worse He was lonely and needed us! This presents a lower view of God than written about in His word and elevates mans sovereignty above his status.

Some have tried to use 1 Kings 22:19-22 to illustrate God addressing the Heavenly host for their guidance and opinions. This is better seen in context, God is not the author of evil so let’s review the scripture.

(1Ki 22:19 ESV)  And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD:

Since he had represented what he had said as proceeding from hatred to him, he would make it clear and plain that what he had said was the word of the Lord, and according to his mind; and that what the other prophets had said was owing to a lying spirit in them, which the Lord suffered for his ruin; all which are represented as in a vision, in which things are brought down to the capacities of men, and not as really transacted:

I saw the LORD sitting on his throne,

so it was represented to his mind, as if he had seen with his bodily eyes the divine Being in a glorious form, as a king sitting on his throne, to do justice and judgment; as Ahab and Jehoshaphat were now sitting on their thrones, only as a far greater King, even the King of kings, and in a more splendid manner:

and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;

the ministering angels ready to do his will.

(1Ki 22:20 ESV)  and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’

Not that it can be supposed that the Lord entered into a consultation with the angels upon this subject; only that it was the decree of God that he should go thither, and fall by the hand of the man whom he had let go, as a just punishment of him:

And one said one thing, and another said another.

not that there was such an altercation among them; it only signifies, that there are various ways and means, by which the purposes and decrees of God may be and are brought about.

(1Ki 22:21 ESV)  Then a spirit came forward

Not from the heavenly host on the right hand or the left, for they are pure and holy spirits, and impeccable, and cannot lie or deceive; but the evil spirit, Satan, the father of lies, the old deceiver, who came forth from his own place and his own company:

and stood before the LORD

presented himself before him, as Satan did, Job_1:6,

, saying, ‘I will entice him.’

Or prevail upon him; evil spirits love to be employed in doing harm to men, they go about seeking whom they may devour. This could not be the spirit of Naboth, as the Jews say (q), seeking revenge on Ahab; that was in a state of happiness, could not move from thence, and be capable of sinning.

(q) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 89. 1. & 102. 2. Targum in 2 Chron. xviii. 20.

(1Ki 22:22 ESV)  And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’

What way and method did he propose, to persuade Ahab to go up to Ramoth? the Lord is introduced in this visionary narrative as asking this question, not as ignorant of the scheme of the evil spirit, but in order to bring it out, and lead on to the following account:

And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’

put them on encouraging Ahab to go up, and promising him success, as he had in former battles with the king of Syria, and which might both encourage them to give forth such a prediction, and him to believe it to be true; this proposal was quite agreeable to the character of the devil, as the father of lies:

And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed;

not only make use of this artifice to persuade, but succeed also; the Lord knew that what he should suggest to the prophets, and they should deliver to Ahab, would be agreeable to his inclination, nor would he do anything in the course of his providence to hinder its taking effect:

go out and do so.’

which was giving leave to try his skill in the art of persuasion, in which he knew he would succeed, and bring on the righteous judgment of God upon Ahab; with this compare Joh_13:27.

Using the following verses as support for God seeking opinions and guidance we are left with a very nasty situation, God becomes indecisive, and the author of evil by allowing one of His Host to commit evil. Nowhere in Scripture do we see God the Father acting less than sovereign in dealing with any of His creation, yet here many imply He seeks humility, and acts in a reverent way towards the Host? We are given glimpses of the Heavenly court and every indication it is the other way around, just being in His presence is an honor, worthy of praise and worship. The majesty of the throne demands respect, not the infinite creator God giving respect and demands worship. Worship can only be given and received by the One worthy otherwise we have idolatry. Only the enemy wishes us harm, seeking to humble God and would do anything to achieve that end.

Another explanation for Genesis 1:26 is God counseled with himself seeking His own will. This is based loosely on Ephesians 1:11 and the working out of His sovereign decree. The first error in any study of the Bible is to take 1 verse alone and make a dogmatic stand. That is not to say that just because it’s mentioned once it’s not important, but scripture interprets and supports scripture. A closer look at Ephesians 1 reveals the context and genre of verse 11. Starting with the greeting and salutation we see God’s divine will, His decree and how he brings it about in a triadic fashion.

(Eph 1:1-3 ESV)  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,…. God, the first person in the Trinity, is the God of Christ, as Christ is man and Mediator; he chose and appointed him to be the Mediator, and made a covenant with him as such; he formed and prepared an human nature for him, and anointed it with the Holy Ghost above measure, and supported it under all his trials and sufferings, and at last glorified it: and Christ, as man, prayed to him as his God, believed, hoped, and trusted in him as such, and loved him as in such a relation to him, and cheerfully obeyed his commands. And the same is the Father of Christ, as Christ is God; as such he is the Son of God; not by creation, as angels and Adam, nor by adoption, as saints, but by natural generation; he being the only begotten of the Father, his own proper Son, of the same nature and perfections with him, and equal to him. Now to “bless” God is neither to invoke nor confer a blessing on him; for there is none greater than he to be called upon; nor does he need anything, nor can he receive anything from his creature; but it is either to congratulate his greatness and goodness, to ascribe blessing, glory, and honor to him, or to give thanks unto him, both for temporal and spiritual mercies. And the reasons why he is blessed, or praised by the saints as the God and Father of Christ, are; because these are his New Testament titles, under which he is more clearly made known, and in which he delights; and because he is their God and Father in Christ; nor can they come to him in any other way, but through him; and because it is through him that all their blessings come to them, and therefore all their praises must go this way, as follows:

who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: God is the author and giver of all blessings; and he blesses his people with them, as he is the God and Father of Christ, and as he is their covenant God and Father in Christ; and he only can bless; if he blesses not, none can; and if he blesses, they are blessed indeed: the “us” that are blessed, are such who deserve, according to the tenor of the law, to be cursed; and are not all men, but some distinct from others; and who are before described as saints, and faithful in Christ Jesus; and include both Jews and Gentiles, who belong to the election of grace. And the blessings such are blessed with are spiritual, so called to distinguish them from temporal blessings. The Jews have the like distinction of טובות זמניות, “temporal blessings”, and טובות רוחניות, “spiritual blessings” (d); which latter are solid, substantial, and lasting blessings; and which concern the good of the soul or spirit of man; and are agreeable to, and desired by a spiritual man; and are applied by the Holy Spirit of God; and so the Ethiopic version renders it, “with every blessing of the Holy Spirit”: and which are very comprehensive, and take in all the fullness of grace in Christ; all the blessings and sure mercies of the everlasting covenant; all things pertaining to life and godliness, such as justification, peace, pardon, adoption, sanctification, and eternal life: and with these the saints are blessed “in heavenly” places; God that blesses them is in heaven, and so is Christ, in whom they are blessed; and the completion of their blessedness will be in heaven, where their hope is laid up, and their inheritance is reserved: and this phrase may denote the safety of them, being out of the reach of any enemy, sin, Satan, or the world, to deprive them of them, as well as the nature of them; for it may be read, “in heavenly things”, and so distinguishes these blessings from such as are of an earthly kind; and points at the original of them, being such as descend from above, come down from heaven; and also the tendency of them, which is to heaven; and being what give a right unto, and a suitableness for the kingdom of heaven: and these they are blessed with “in Christ”; as he is their head and representative, and as they are members in him, and partakers of him; through whom, and for whose sake, they are conveyed unto them, and who himself is the sum and substance of them. Agreeably to this way of speaking, the Targumist, Jonathan ben Uzziel, on Num_6:27 paraphrases the last clause thus, “I will bless them”, במימרי, “in my word”. The date of these blessings, “hath blessed us”, may respect either first conversion, when the discovery and application of the blessings of grace are made to God’s people; or the making of the covenant with Christ, their head, to whom all grace was then given, and to them in him, and their election was in Christ, as follows.

(d) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 79. 2.

Paul uses this style of greeting in all his letters, acknowledging a tri-unity of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If we put verses in context we see God’s decree unfolding through the actions of the Godhead and it allows God to act in time and space without violating logic, rationality or His nature. It would make no sense to pray or talk to himself, and describe such clear distinctions in the scriptures unless He is defining how He wants us to relate to Him.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him … This choice cannot be understood of a national one, as Israel of old were chosen by the Lord; for the persons the apostle writes to were not a nation; nor does he address all the inhabitants of Ephesus, only the saints and faithful in Christ that resided there; nor are they all intended here, if any of them. However, not they only, since the apostle includes himself, and perhaps some others, who did not belong to that place, nor were of that country: nor does this choice regard them as a church; for though the saints at Ephesus were in a church state, yet the apostle does not write to them under that formal consideration, but as saints and faithful; nor are these persons said to be chosen to church privileges, but to grace and glory, to be holy and blameless: besides, from Eph_1:3, the apostle seems to speak of himself, and some others, who first trusted in Christ, as distinct from the believers at Ephesus, Eph_1:13, nor is this choice of persons to an office, for all that are here intended were not apostles, or pastors, or deacons: nor can it design the effectual calling, or the call of persons in time by efficacious grace; because this was before the foundation of the world, as follows: but it intends an eternal election of particular persons to everlasting life and salvation; and which is the first blessing of grace, and the foundation one, upon which all the rest proceed, and

according to which they are dispensed; for according to predestination are calling, justification, and glorification. The author of this choice is God, God the Father, who is distinguished from Christ, in whom this act is made; and it is according to his foreknowledge, and is an act of his grace, and is entirely sovereign: the objects of it, us, are not angels, but men, considered as unfallen with respect to the end, and as fallen with respect to the means; and these not all mankind: to choose, implies the contrary; and they that are chosen are distinguished from others, and are represented as few; nor do all men partake either of the means or end appointed in the decree of election; and yet some of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, are included in it; though none for any previous qualifications in them, as not for their good works, faith, holiness, or perseverance therein; for these are fruits and effects of election, and therefore cannot be causes or conditions of it: and this choice is made in Christ; and the persons chosen are chosen in him, and by being chosen they come to be in him; for this refers not to their openly being in him at conversion, as believers, but to their secretly being in him before time. Christ, as Mediator, is the object of election himself; and all the elect were chosen in him as their head, in whose hands their persons, grace, and glory are, and so are safe and secure in him: the Arabic version renders it, “by him”; not as the meritorious cause, for Christ’s merits are not the cause of election, though they are of redemption and salvation; but as the means, in order to the end: the Ethiopic version renders it, “to him”; to salvation by him, and to the obtaining of his glory; as if he and his benefits, being the end of this choice, were intended; which was made

before the foundation of the world: and that it was so early, is certain, from the love of God to his people, which this is the effect of, and which is an everlasting love; and from the covenant which was made with Christ from everlasting, on account of these chosen ones, when Christ was set up as the head and representative of them; and from the provision of all spiritual blessings for them in it, which proceeds according to this choice; and from the preparation of a kingdom for them from the foundation of the world; and from the nature of God’s decrees, which are eternal; for no new will, or act of will, can arise in God, or any decree be made by him, which was not from eternity: God’s foreknowledge is eternal, and so is his decree, and is no other than himself decreeing. The end of this choice follows,

that we should be holy, and without blame, before him in love; the objects of it are not chosen because they were holy, but that they might partake of the sanctification of the Spirit; that they might be sanctified by him here, and be perfectly holy hereafter; and be without fault and blame, both in this life, as instilled by the righteousness of Christ, and as washed in his blood; and in the life to come, being entirely freed from all sin, and without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; and appear so in the sight of Christ, who will present them to himself, and in the sight of his Father, to whom they will also be presented by him, even in the sight of divine justice: and this will be all “in love”, or “through love”, as the Syriac version renders it; or “through his love”, as the Arabic version; for the love of God is the source and spring of election itself, and of holiness and happiness, the end of it; and which is shed abroad in the hearts of God’s people now, and will be more fully comprehended and enjoyed in the other world; and which causes love again in them to him. A phrase somewhat like this is used by the Targumist on Ecc_11:6 where, speaking of a man’s children, he says;

“it is not known unto thee which of them אתבחר למהוי טב, “is chosen to be good”, this, or that, or both of them, to be alike good.”

Some copies put the stop at before him; and read the phrase, “in love”; in connection with the words following, thus, “in love”, or “by love hath predestinated us”; so the Syriac version.

Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace … The grace of God manifestly appears in the predestination of men to adoption; in that God had no need of sons, he having a dear and well beloved one; in whom he is well pleased; and in that those he adopts are so unworthy of the relation; and in that men, and not angels, should be taken by him into his family; and that some, and not others of the same race; and that this should be before the world was; and in providing Christ as a Redeemer, to open the way for the reception of this grace and happiness; and in appointing the grace of faith to be the receiver of it: and the glory of the grace of God appears herein; the glory of God is the supreme end of all he does; and the glory of his grace, and not his power, or other perfections of his, and the manifestative glory of that is here intended; yea, the “praise” of that glory: and this end is answered, when the children of God ascribe their adoption to the free grace of God; and when they admire it, and are thankful for it, and walk worthy of the relation they are brought into:

wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved; the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, “his own beloved Son”, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the beloved of God the Father; and was so from everlasting, and will be so to everlasting; which has appeared by his nearness to him, lying in his bosom; by his being privy to all his counsels, purposes, and designs; in putting all things into his hands, and in showing him all that he does; and by his giving him honor and glory, as man and Mediator: and he is the beloved of the saints, for the transcendent excellencies that are in him, and for his love to them, and for what he has done for them, and is unto them; and in him is their acceptance: which is to be understood of the acceptance of their persons, as founded in the blood and righteousness of Christ, and so of their services in him; of God’s act of delight and complacency in them, as considered in Christ; who looks upon them, and is well pleased with them, and rests in his love towards them; which is an amazing instance of grace: it was grace that gave them a being in Christ, and which has provided in predestination everything to make them grateful to God; and the very act of acceptance is of mere grace; for internal grace, or grace infused, is not here meant, but the free favor of God: some read not “in which”, but “which” εχαριτωσεν, “he freely gave us in the beloved”; so the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Syriac and Arabic versions.

In light of the preceding scriptures verse 11 comes more into view when we see the Godhead revealed the idea of counsel limited to the Trinity and it makes complete sense. Within the Trinity are unity, diversity, community, and love.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance … Or a part and lot; that is, have obtained one in Christ, in his person, and in his fullness of grace, in the blessings and promises which are in him; or have obtained to be the Lord’s clergy, or heritage, to be his portion and inheritance; or rather to have an inheritance in him by lot, meaning the incorruptible and eternal inheritance of glory and happiness in heaven; to which elect men are chosen in Christ, and are begotten to a lively hope of through his resurrection from the dead; and which his righteousness gives a right unto, and his grace a suitableness for; and which is now in his hands, and will be given to them through him: and this is said to be obtained by lot, as the word signifies, in allusion to the land of Canaan, which was divided by lot to the children of Israel; and to show that it is not by works of righteousness done by men, but by the sovereign disposal of God; and that everyone shall have his share, and that certainly; for this is not designed to represent it as a casual, or contingent thing. The Alexandrian copy reads, “in whom also we are called”; and so the Vulgate Latin version, “in whom also we are called by lot”; and the Syriac version, “in him”, or “by him we are chosen”, which agrees with the next clause:

being predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: predestination is not only to sonship, but to an inheritance; it not only secures the grace of adoption, but prepares and provides an heavenly portion: and this act of predestination proceeds according to a purpose; according to a purpose of God, which can never be frustrated; and according to the purpose of “that God”, as one of Stephens’s copies reads, that is the author of all things but sin; of the works of creation and of providence, and of grace and salvation; and who works all these according to his will, just as he pleases, and according to the counsel of it, in a wise and prudent manner, in the best way that can be devised; for he is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working; wherefore his counsel always stands, and he does all his pleasure: and hence the inheritance which the saints obtain in Christ, and are predestinated to, is sure and certain.

There are many disputations against Genesis 1:26 and 27 yet the simplest answer should suffice. Occam’s razor is the meta-theoretical principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If we look simply at the verse without any prejudice we see the plural “us” meaning actually what it states and without the triadic concept of God we run afoul scripture and logic. One last view of this would be the 4 laws of logic and how a sovereign God follows this unmistakably concrete view of truth.

Truth by nature is:

  • Noncontradictory-it does not violate the basic laws of logic
  • Absolute-it does not depend on any time, place, or conditions
  • Discovered-it exists independently of our minds
  • Descriptive-it is the agreement of the mind with reality (coherence)
  • Inescapable-to deny its existence is to affirm it (we are bound by it)

How do we communicate the truth? Correspondence and Coherence are incontrovertible methods of establishing truth in a court of law. This view of truth is supported by four laws of logic:

  1. The Law of Identity: an object is identical to itself.
  2. The Law of Non-contradiction: Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.
  3. The Law of the Excluded Middle: Just because two things have one thing in common does not mean they have everything in common
  4. The Law of Rational Inference: Inferences can be made known from what is known to what is unknown.

With the information given in Genesis 1 alone we can conclude:

  1. The infinite Creator God is sovereign
  2. He exists beyond the space time continuum
  3. He is also the personal God who is there
  4. He is a Spirit
  5. He is a Word
  6. His revealed attributes are both singular and plural at the same time
  7. His revelation is progressive
  8. We are created in His image the Imago De
  9. He is all powerful

10.  He is everywhere at all times

11.  He is aware of all things

12.  He expressed His love in our creation so love had to have existed before creation

13.  He delighted in His creation

14.  Within the one being that is God; there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons (persona), namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

15.  The Father has always been the Father, the Son has always been the Son, and the Spirit has always been the Spirit. There has never been a time when they didn’t exist in the Godhead.

Given this information and its relevance we see God supremely and sublimely fulfills all the laws of logic and truth. In His three person (persona) existence as a triad He can be an “us” while maintaining His “oneness” as the only one worthy of worship. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t invented – it was uncovered. If we were to invent a religion wouldn’t it be more simplistic in nature and less confusing? For some modern critics of the Trinity, it is obvious that it rests upon a series of the most appalling mistakes, including (to name the more obvious) mathematical confusion and philosophical unsophistication. Some seem to think that early Christian committees had sat down to shape their own understanding of God, and-being unable to agree upon how many bits of God there were-thought of a number between one and ten and agreed upon three as a compromise. The idea of the God of Christianity being just one, according to some critics was found rather demeaning to God, so it was thought necessary  to expand God somewhat to emphasize his greatness and superiority over other Gods. Now the early Christians were, of course, very primitive people and, as the latest scholarship had just discovered, primitive peoples could count no higher than three. In other words they understood ‘three’ as we would ‘infinity’ so that the statement that ‘God is three’ really meant ‘God is infinite’. And so the idea of God being three , instead of just one (or in addition to being one), came into being as an expression of the infinite superiority of the Christian God over all the other gods.

Scholarship has, however, moved on since the 1890’s! The Trinity is an expression of the fullness and richness of the Christian experience and understanding of God. As John Donne has said it attempts to capture the mystery of God in a form of words, to distil a host of insights into a formula. It is ‘bones to philosophy, but milk to faith’!

Till  next time…

%d bloggers like this: