What Happens to People Who Never Heard the Gospel?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

What About Those Who Never Heard?

Dr. Brown’s Debate (Teamed with Dr. James White) on Yeshua’s Deity on Jewish Voice Broadcast

144 Comments
  1. Dave

    We have hints throughout scripture, from the beginning. Such as in Genesis when the Lord said “let us make them in our image”. Us? Our?

    This interpretation has been rejected even by standard, evangelical biblical commentators.

    In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels…

    If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). NET Bible Online, Gen 1.26

    You also say “the “Trinity” may be an incomplete assessment of exactly how God is, it is launching pad to understanding our approach to God and how He operates, at least in part.”

    “incomplete” and most importantly of all, unbiblical.

    Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Encyclopedia Britannica

    Like I said before, let’s use the words of the bible as our “launching pad”, instead of Catholic creeds created hundreds of years after them!

    What is the church you attend?

    Home church with family/friends, you?

  2. Chuck —
    When someone is talking about Lord in the Tanach/O.C. they are also talking about Yahuweh/Lord, Adonai(Lord), and Eloheem/God. I think Adonai can mean different things too, just like the others can too.
    I have a rather serious question for you.
    Do you believe Yeshua/Jesus is Yahuweh/Lord?

  3. Chuck,
    That must be fun to do that. I go to Tri County Full Gospel Fellowship. Small church. But I really enjoy it.

  4. Chuck — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Eloheem(God), and the Word was Eloheem(God). John 1:1”
    Notice the Word was Eloheem(God), He was Yahuweh(Lord), and also He was with Eloheem(God), and Yahuweh(Lord).
    The question is how was He Eloheem(God), and Yahuweh(Lord), and how was He with Him?
    Here is the answer He was in the Father, and the Father in Him, just as Messiah(Christ) said is still the case. So here is another explanation, the Father existed, and the Father had the Word(Son) as part of Him through out Him, the Son is the very best parts, and sections of the Father, and so the Son was put into a separate form from the Father, thus we see the Son, but the Son is another manifestation of the Father. The perfection, and purity that the Father needed to establish, is the Father in another manifestation that is known as the Son of the Father.
    That is why we can see this scripture in that light. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Yeshayahu/Isaiah 9:6”

  5. Chuck,

    I’m not missing the point.

    Jesus said He had glory before the world was. He did not ask for the glory that was planned for Him. It was the glory he “HAD.”

    Jesus did not address these words to the Jews, but to the Father.

    Let’s use the words of the Bible as our “launching pad” instead some man’s 1800 years later.

    Where in the Bible does the text say “had” but really means “will have”? Is there an error in the translation? Was Jesus speaking in code? Or did Jesus mean exactly what He plainly said? I vote for the latter.

  6. Travis

    I think Adonai can mean different things too, just like the others can too.
    I have a rather serious question for you.
    Do you believe Yeshua/Jesus is Yahuweh/Lord?

    Adonai does not mean “different things”, according to the Hebrew, it always denotes the one God of Israel, YHWH.

    Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT…it received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai, [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).

    The Messiah is given the non-Deity title of adoni at Ps 110.1 [translated as kyrios, “lord”, in the NT].

    The difference between adon (the root word), adoni (“lord,” always used of men or angels) and adonai (which is used of God and sometimes written adonay) is critical to the understanding of Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs (BDB), considered by many to be the best available, makes the distinction between these words.

    http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/psalm_110_1__by_biblical_unitarian

    To say that Jesus is LORD/Lord [Adonai/YHWH] and not “lord” [adoni] Messiah would contradict the scriptures. Giving us to YHWHs.

    The question is how was He Eloheem(God), and Yahuweh(Lord), and how was He with Him?

    The “word” [logos] is not a “him” [person] but an “it”. This is reflected in most English translations of the NT prior to the KJV. Check it out.

    If not, where is the “word” a person as such in the OT?

    Don

    …did Jesus mean exactly what He plainly said? I vote for the latter.

    Good me too.

    The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD . Mark 12.29

    Jesus looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come…And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent. Jn 17.1,3

    …find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ Jn 20.17

    All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God…And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God…

    Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches. Rev 3.12-13

  7. Chuck,

    OK, you don’t want to comment on the words of John 17:5 and I noticed you still won’t comment on John 1:1, so let’s try another verse.

    In John 8:58, what did Jesus mean when He said: “Before Abraham was, I am.”?

    Also what was it about those words spoken by Jesus, that caused the Jews to try and stone Him?

  8. Don

    If you do not agree with my answers just say no. Your flippant attitude is not helping your cause. Any other unbiased, objective reader can see through it.

  9. Chuck,

    The problem is not that I disagree with your answers. The problem is that you won’t answer the texts. You talk around one and refuse to answer the others.

    Please point the readers to where give answer John 1:1, John 8:58 or where “had” means “to have” in John 17:5.

    If you don’t want to address that’s fine, but stop pretending that you do.

    Question: Who is Isaiah speaking of in Isaiah 9:6?

  10. Chuck,

    Whether someone has a flippant attitude or not, you are saying some unconventional and controversial things and I think the burden is on you to fully answer the questions to these ideas you are suggesting.

    Not just unconventional, but they seem to line up with what many cult groups think. The deity of Jesus is at the core of the “unconventional” element of what these groups believe.

    You answer about Jesus speaking in a “Pauline Forknowledge” sense is completely unfounded. There is no scriptural connection except for the fact that it works for your argument.

    When Jesus was on earth He “took on the form of a man” and “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”…He humbled himself, by choice, to do this. Hence, when He is speaking about there only being one God there is not a contradiction. Isn’t it possible that these terms “Father” and “Son” and “Spirit” are for our benefit in understanding? Is God not able to do things however He wants outside of human rationale and reasoning? Is it really impossible that God can be manifested in different ways?

  11. Chuck — The Logos which I believe in Hebrew is Debar(Devar) has the understanding of what is written, or what is in place, and can’t be taken away, it is a static strong standing Word, it is Eloheem/God because Eloheem(God) is Word, and is Spirit. Yeshua/Jesus said His words are spirit, so we can conclude the Word is also The Spirit in another understanding, because the words Yeshua/Jesus spoke were the Father’s Words, just as Messiah said the Father did the works through Him. So the Word is a constant steadfast strength that is written, and is Spirit, the Spirit of Eloheem/God in a immovable sense, then there is the Rhema Word, this word is a Word that is about dynamic understanding, and movement, the Rhema is the Spirit(Word) moving, doing specific things in each specific time period. Thus we must live on every Word of Eloheem/God, or in other Words we must live by having the fully relationship with the immovable and movable Spirit of The Father.
    The logos that we see is Eloheem(God), just as scr. says, and the Rhema Word is also Eloheem(God).

  12. Dave — I think Messiah considered equality something to be grasped, but He chose instead to come in the likeness of a man that wasn’t fully exacted right away.

  13. I’ve noticed in life that there is an honor that a father should receive of his son that would not be fitting if the son received the same from the father, much like it’s not fitting if a servant rules over his master.

    There is one God over all. I believe there is a glory that is reserved that God will not give to another.

    Men in this world often esteem themselves and glory in their work. If they earned the right to boast so be it, though all men should glory in God.

    I believe God has the right to glory.

    I also believe it’s right for me to worship Jesus his Son.

    Though I do not consider myself a Trinitarian I do believe that Jesus is God as much as love is good and that goodness is of God.

    I think everyone will one day hear the gospel and those who have heard it (Job 42:5) will see it.

  14. Hey Travis,

    I was quoting a scripture in Philippians 2….

    6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

    7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

    “a thing to be grasped” probably doesn’t translate to us like it is intended…I just happened to remember it in that translation(NASB).

    2011 NIV says: 6 Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage

  15. In John 8:58, what did Jesus mean when He said: “Before Abraham was, I am.”

    That’s the typical way of self-identification. Has the wicked Jews’ judgment always been noble and flawless?

    or where “had” means “to have” in John 17:5.

    Do you know what is prolepsis?

  16. Don

    If you don’t want to address that’s fine, but stop pretending that you do.
    Question: Who is Isaiah speaking of in Isaiah 9:6?

    I have answered them and you keep jumping around to those same old trini texts you guys always use.

    This is very time consuming and tedious to be frank.

    you are saying some unconventional and controversial things and I think the burden is on you to fully answer the questions to these ideas you are suggesting.

    I feel I have answered them scripturally. I see your point that they might echo some of the “cult groups” [JW?]. But I am not one of them. I would define myself as a biblical unitarian. And follow a long tradition that goes back to the Reformers of the 16th century like Servetus, and the Socinians when it comes to Christology only [Socinians apparently did not believe in the atonement].

    You answer about Jesus speaking in a “Pauline Forknowledge” sense is completely unfounded. There is no scriptural connection except for the fact that it works for your argument.

    As I have tried to point out before, the subject of foreknowledge is expressly taught in the scriptures not only when it comes to the Messiah, but to others as well [cp. Jer. 1; Eph 1.4, etc.]. As Jesus himself alluded to many times and Peter stated in Pentecost:

    The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed… Luke 22.22

    People of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge…this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Acts 2.22; 3.18

    The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Acts 13.27

    Foreknowledge and preordained, divine plan. Not a literal pre-existence as such!

    Is God not able to do things however He wants outside of human rationale and reasoning? Is it really impossible that God can be manifested in different ways?

    Nothing is impossible for God but that doesn’t mean He will go against His own words and counsel regarding the Messiah to come. Who has to be a human being just like the first Adam. Have you not read Paul’s explanation regarding the 2 Adams in 1Cor 15?!

    One thing for God to have manifested Himself through various ways in the OT. And now expressly in His unique Son in the NT. Its another to say that, somehow, a 2nd preexistent “God the Son” took on flesh and died! That is outright Gnostic Redeemer Myth stuff.

    As the Apostle Peter expressly states, we should not “twist the words of Paul, just because he is difficult to understand at times” [2Pe 3.16].

    Travis

    That site says Adonai Adonai means “Lord YHVH. Lord GOD”. I still fail to see how it can mean “other things”. Perhaps you are referring to the root word “adon” and its variants like “adoni”?

    The logos that we see is Eloheem(God), just as scr. says, and the Rhema Word is also Eloheem(God).

    Yes, totally agree. It is not some “second, preexistent God the Son” nor a Person. Who [and not “what”] somehow “took on flesh” [metamorphosed?] into a human being.

    That God’s self-expression of Himself [His word, wisdom etc.] came to be embodied in a human being, is another matter entirely!

  17. On Isaiah 9:6 – NET Bible says:

    [“El Gibbor”] is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Psa_45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth.

    [“Everlasting Father”] This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa_22:21 and Job_29:16. …The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

    The NET translators openly reject a Trinitarian view and provide several reasons why it is not possible.

  18. On Isaiah 9:6 –

    [“El Gibbor”] is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Psa_45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth.

    [“Everlasting Father”] This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa_22:21 and Job_29:16. …The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

    The NET translators openly reject a Trinitarian view and provide several reasons why it is not possible.

  19. We find examples in the Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 39b:

    Seven things were created before the world, viz., The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is written, The Lord possessed me [the Torah] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. Repentance, for it is written, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world … Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, Repent, ye sons of men.

    The Garden of Eden, as it is written, And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from aforetime. Gehenna, as it is written, For Tophet is ordained of old. The Throne of Glory, as it is written, Thy Throne is established from of old. The Temple, as it is written, A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary. The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His name [of Messiah] shall endure forever, and [has existed] before the sun!

    Also in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses:

    So says the Lord of the world. For He has created the world on behalf of His people. But He was not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the foundation of the world, in order that the Gentiles might thereby be convicted, yea to their own humiliation might by (their) arguments convict one another. Accordingly He designed and devised me [Moses], and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant.

    Thus Reverend E. C. Dewick (Primitive Christian Eschatology, reprint, Marton Press, 2007):

    When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, pre-existing and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of pre-existence by the predominance of the thought of ‘pre-existence’ in the Divine purpose.

  20. Reverend Sigmund Mowinckel insisted the Jewish conception of predestination and prefiguration must inform our understanding of passages appearing to speak of pre-existence:

    That any expression or vehicle of God’s will for the world, His saving counsel and purpose, was present in His mind, or His ‘Word,’ from the beginning is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous, but the due unfolding and expression of God’s own being. This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order. Rabbinic theology speaks of the Law, of God’s throne of glory, of Israel and of other important objects of faith, as things which had been created by God, and were already present with Him, before the creation of the world.

    The same is also true of the Messiah. It is said that his name was present with God in heaven beforehand, that it was created before the world, and that it is eternal. But the reference here is not to genuine pre-existence in the strict and literal sense. This is clear from the fact that Israel is included among these pre-existent entities. This does not mean that either the nation Israel or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of God, had been from all eternity in the mind of God, as a factor in His purpose. …

    This is true of references to the pre-existence of the Messiah. It is his ‘name,’ not the Messiah himself, that is said to have been present with God before creation. In Pesikta Rabbati 152b is said that ‘from the beginning of the creation of the world the King Messiah was born, for he came up in the thought of God before the world was created.’ This means that from all eternity it was the will of God that the Messiah should come into existence, and should do his work in the world to fulfill God’s eternal saving purpose.

    (He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005, p. 334).

  21. The late G. H. Gilbert, former professor of New Testament Literature and Interpretation at Chicago Theological Seminary (The Revelation of Jesus: A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity, reprint, BiblioLife, 2009, p. 222), wrote:

    The glory of completed redemption cannot literally be possessed until redemption is complete. If now the pre-existence of Jesus, according to the seventeenth chapter of John, is clearly ideal, this fact confirms the interpretation which has been given of the other passages which are less clear.

    We conclude, then, that these three passages in John [6:62; 8:58; 17:5] in which Jesus alludes to his pre-existence, do not involve the claim that his pre-existence was personal and real. They are to be classed with the other phenomena of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, none of which have to do with metaphysical relationships with the Father.

  22. May I kindly remind everyone to stay on the subject thread of the show? Otherwise, these comments will dissuade those who are trying to post on the show’s topic and will also be lost to those who are trying to follow similar threads in their appropriate places. It didn’t even dawn on me that there would be posts here about Yeshua’s deity, otherwise, time permitting, I would have been glad to have interacted and refuted what I felt was clearly in scriptural error.

    So, please desist from posting off topic here, as per our guidelines, and please continue this discussion in an appropriate thread if you so choose.

  23. Chuck, and everyone — I most certainly would like to continue to respond here, but we can’t use this for other topics, so where should we continue this discussion?

  24. Travis

    To get back on topic, God will be just in his judgment of people who [for whatever reason] have not heard the gospel Jesus came to preach and die for. Which is “the gospel of the [coming] Kingdom of God and the things pertaining to Messiah Jesus” [Acts 8.12].

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GelYjcH2bs

    Those that have heard it, in one or another, should come to exact knowledge of the truth so as to be saved. Which inevitably includes knowing who our lord Messiah Jesus was/is!

  25. Chuck,

    Those that have heard it, in one or another, should come to exact knowledge of the truth so as to be saved. Which inevitably includes knowing who our lord Messiah Jesus was/is!

    My little in-passing comment:

    You are saying that a system of theology which originated mere centuries ago which teaches that Jesus was/is not God in the flesh is the way to be saved.

    This theory contradicts the teachings of the Church as passed on through the Apostles for 2 millennia, and given your lack of affiliation with a Church body it is clear that the blind are leading the blind here. You have removed yourself from the body of Christ (the Church) – I urge you, please, to put away Anthony Buzzard and his rationalistic denials and seek truth within the flock of Christ.

    For what it’s worth, I’m praying for you.

    -Tom

  26. Tom,

    Be careful in speaking about doctrines that are only centuries old. There are many doctrines that a large contingent of “believers” hold to that are much less than centuries old. Some of them are “winds and waves” of doctrine. Some of them have Biblical support.

    Take for instance the woman’s head covering in 1 Corinthians 11. It has only been in the very recent past that this has been cast off as “only cultural” and the like. Do you, or rather, do the women in your assembly do what was practiced throughout the past 50 to 100 years in this regard or do they follow the practices of the believing women of the 5900 years before this? Depending on your answer, you may be a pot calling the kettle black.

    On the opposite side of things, should we condemn Martin Luther or other reformers because their ideas were against the vast history of the “Church”?

    Catholicism’s claim is history and the authority of the church. Protestant’s claim is scripture and it’s authority.

    I am not bringing this up to change the topic, but to show that the length of history of a belief is not the point. The actual scriptural statements are the point.

    Shalom

  27. Bo,

    I would encourage you to do a bit of study on Church history before trotting out this sort of argumentation.

    1.a) I’m not sure where you get your number on believing women 5900 years back – especially given that the Torah is likely only 3500 years old, that’s a bit of a stretch in the first place.

    1.b) No, my congregation does not practice head-covering.

    1.c) You unfortunately assume head-coverings to be on equal standing to the doctrine of the deity of Christ. However, given your approach to soteriology and your emphasis on the law as a means of Salvation it is to be expected. Regardless, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is so pervasive in the NT, so implicit in the OT, it would seem that the Author of the Bible (namely, God) was pleased to put a bit more emphasis on the identity of His Son than the practice of head-covering, so don’t compare the two.

    2.a) Your claim that Martin Luther had “ideas were against the vast history of the ‘Church'”> is painfully ignorant (no offence, but facts are facts). Luther and the majority of his peers sought to reform the Church (hence, Reformation), not alter its course. The goal was to bring it back to confessing what it had originally confessed, prior to the perversion of the doctrine of Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

    2.b) Rome was the entity with the “ideas against the vast history of the Church”, not Luther and Malanchthon, who desired a return to the beliefs of the Apostolic fathers – not a new orthodoxy, as Chuck presents, but return to the old.

    2.c) Rome may claim history, but history is not on Rome’s side. The fact is, much of Rome’s doctrines (the perpetual virginity of Mary, for instance) are not found or taught in the Bible, the Apostolic fathers, or any Church sources for multiplied hundreds of years, nor is there any evidence whatsoever for the early Church holding such beliefs.

    2.d) And yes, Rome claims the authority of the Church, but it is to be understood as the authority of the Pope. The apostles taught the authority of the Church (I point you to Acts 15), but not in the way Rome has defined and distorted it.

    2.e) And yes, we Protestants claim Sola Scriptura (but not, as many would misunderstand, Solo Scriptura).

    In any case, I agree we should not make this a continuing conversation here and so change the topic (though I would be happy to go on in a separate section if you find one) – I just felt that there was a bit of obfuscation of my points in my previous post going on that needed to be addressed.

    Finally, I agree that the length of history behind a doctrine is no proof of veracity, but my point is that Chuck needs to be careful in placing his trust in a rationalistic, counter-Scriptural docrine coined such a short time ago; in other words, I’m amazed that such an important realization (“Holy cow, guys, I just figured out that Jesus was only a man – not deity!”) was not taught by the Apostles, etc. Too bad for those poor, condemned souls who misunderstood the deity of Christ before our hero Servetus made sense of it all, huh? Poor John. Poor Paul. Guess the Holy Spirit just wasn’t enough without humanistic rationalism – they just didn’t realize that Jesus was only a glorified man.

    ??? Really???

  28. Tom,

    I posted on the correct place. Please respond there.

    My point above was not to use history for a trump card.

    Shalom

  29. Tom

    You are saying that a system of theology which originated mere centuries ago which teaches that Jesus was/is not God in the flesh is the way to be saved.

    All forms of theological systems have to ultimately be analyzed in light of the NT evidence. The modern biblical consensus is, and has been for more than 100 years now, that earliest Christianity came under attack from others outside it. This continued under the later Catholic-dogmatic formulations which survive as “orthodoxy” today.

    Affecting not only what the Bible defines as “the gospel of the future/coming Kingdom of God” [replaced with a “Jesus only”, centered gospel] along with its Christology:

    The Apologists [‘church fathers’ like Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century] laid the foundation for the perversion/corruption (Verkehrung) of Christianity into a revealed [philosophical] teaching. Specifically, their Christology affected the later development disastrously.

    …the suppression of economic-trinitarian ideas by metaphysical-pluralistic concepts of the divine triad (trias) can be traced to the Apologists. Friedrich Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium des Dogmengeschichte [Manual for the Study of the History of Dogma], 1890, part 1 ch. 2, section 18: “Christianity as a Revealed Philosophy. The Greek Apologists,” Niemeyer Verlag, 1951, p. 97).

    Tom, as you can see from above, people like Anthony Buzzard are not alone in their assessments. I personally adhere to the literal Jewish/Christian confession of faith, the Shema, and not to any philosophical permutations thereof.

    PS: thank you for your prayers. It would do all of us better to personally ask God each and every day for us not to fall under deception or continue under it!

  30. Chuck,

    Before you leave this thread for the proper one (re: the deity of Jesus), please answer this one question here: Was Friedrich Loofs an evangelical believer? If not, I don’t follow the purpose of your quote, since we know that there have been plenty of heretical thinkers through the years who have denied various fundamentals of the faith. Of course Anthony Buzzard is not alone in his beliefs, but he is hardly supported by the evangelical and/or gospel preaching believers through the centuries, let alone by the Word. But I digress.

    I’d appreciate your response to the Loofs question. Thanks! After that, feel free not to post in this thread about the deity of Jesus but to move back to the one on the Preexistence of the Son.

  31. Dr Brown

    Was Friedrich Loofs an evangelical believer? If not, I don’t follow the purpose of your quote…

    Actually, he was a German historian/teacher of religious studies. The purpose of the quote is to show that any standard, objective, commentary will reflect this “Christological shift” that took place in the centuries following the Apostolic age [era].

    Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians [I would say post-Apostolic age], however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ… Encyclopedia Britannica

    See you on the other thread. 😉

  32. Chuck,

    Just to close out these comments here (since I won’t be joining in on the other thread):

    1) That was my whole point. From this German professor’s perspective, which would differ from ours in many respects, he wrote what he did.

    2) Well, I guess you win. If the Encyclopedia Britannica says so, it must be true. Why even use the Bible any more? 🙂

    Enjoy the discussion on the other thread. May God’s truth triumph!

  33. Whoever does not know Jesus is dead; whoever has heard of Jesus but does not believe “remains under the wrath of God”. Interestingly, however, I have felt the strong love of God (as recognized from personal contact with God) from Dr. Gabriel Cousens, who is a Rabbi (among other things: Family Therapist, Therapist, Doctor, Holistic Doctor, etc., author, etc. Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of him… but I always believe Jesus is the way to salvation…

  34. Dr. Brown,
    @ min 9:38-10:10

    If a person says,

    “all people who are to be ‘saved’ have to ‘hear the Gospel’ in order to be ‘saved'”,

    …doesn’t that sort of disrespect the fact that it is written that ‘the Gospel’ was preached even to the Jews under the Old Covenant, but it “did not profit them, their ‘hearing’ having not been mixed with faith” — making the definition of ‘the Gospel’ just slightly less ‘narrow’?
    What I mean is that usually a person says, “Gospel”, and you think, “Jesus” — but, it says that the Jews also ‘heard the Gospel’.

    Here’s the question I’m trying to get around to: it is also written that “all Creation is speaking” — Romans says men are without excuse, on account of this: is this “speech” (can it be considered) “the Gospel”, as well?

    If the word ‘Gospel’ is not ‘confined’ to ‘New Testament’ times, then what are the limits of the Word ‘Gospel’?

    Just a question.

    Thanks.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*