Dr. Brown Answers Your E-Questions

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.

[Download MP3]

How could Jesus not know when He was coming back?  Will the effeminate inherit the kingdom of God?  Hear the answers to these questions and more that listeners have sent to Dr. Brown via e-mail!  Also, hear from Voice of Revolution Editor Marcus French!

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The word is a sure foundation; the word is a lamp unto our feet, a light unto our path; the word is life to those who take hold of it.  So take hold, don’t let go!

Featured Resources:

What Do Jewish People Think About Jesus?: Dr. Michael Brown answers sixty common questions about Jewish people and Jewish culture. He also addresses questions Christians have about their own relationship to the Old Testament Law.

_by

Think it Thru Episode 1: World Changers [DVD]: Dr. Michael Brown spends a day with the people of New York City and discusses the incredible accomplishments of Jewish people and their impact on society.

_


Voice of Revolution: The Online Magazine from the Ministry of Dr. Michael Brown

Top 10 Most Popular Articles:

Other Resources:

School of Cultural Engagement 6-CD Course (A course that had been offered at FIRE Church featuring various speakers over a six week period touching on key topics and issues relevant to today’s culture and a call for the saints to engage.)

Jesus: Messiah or Not? [DVD debate]:  A question asked and debated for centuries.  Can we know for sure?  Featuring Dr. Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Michael Gold.

_

A Queer Thing Happened to America by Dr. Brown: this book chronicles the amazing transformation of America over the last forty years, literally, from Stonewall Inn to the White House, and addresses the question head-on: Is there really a gay agenda, or is it a fiction of the religious right?

_

Whatever Happened to the Power of God/It’s Time to Rock the Boat:  TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A SINGLE VOLUME, two of Dr. Michael L. Brown’s groundbreaking works are ready to challenge a new generation of believers to combat the status quo of a compromised church and a godless society.

_

73 Comments
  1. To a lot of Christians the doctrine of the Trinity
    is a poor tool to use to fix whatever problem there may be.—-Ray

    To a lot, and even more Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity helps them understand all of the what the Bible has to say in the Old and New Testament. What we call the “trinity” doctrine is the most accurate description of the nature of God we get in scripture. I know of no other doctrine
    that’s more accurate, as a matter of fact any other doctrine I’ve heard falls way short. That’s why every other doctrine has been rejected by the vast majority of Christians in the entire history of the Church.

    To many it seems like it is a cause of more problems than it could possibly solve.
    Whenever I hear someone ask, “How could Jesus possibly not know the time when he will return, if he is God?”, I suspect the problem lies not so much in the fact that the scripture says about him, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the sceptre of they kingdom.” (Heb 1:8), but rather it’s because the doctrine of the Trinity has had some influence on them.—–Ray

    The problem with most who are confused with that question lies in the fact that they don’t fully understand the doctrine to begin with. ” Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.(Phil 2:6-8)

    Jesus (who is in his very nature God) took on human flesh in order to save the world of their sins through the atonement. By taking on this nature as a servant, he took on all it’s limits and relied on the Father and Spirit. In this state, he experienced what we, as humans, do. He got tired, sleepy, he grew physically, he felt pain, he grew in knowledge. By taking on this state, for a time, things were withheld from him, because He allowed it to be in order to complete the plan of salvation that was created in eternity. You imply this is a problem created by the doctrine of the trinity. My question is, how could we answer this question without creating the huge problem of teaching heresy?

    So far I have not been convinced. Therefore I have no desire to become a Trinitarian, nor to support and encourage their doctrine.—-Ray

    Where exactly is orthodox trinitarian doctrine wrong? You act as if there is something better or more accurate out there. This has been a major Christian belief from the beginning, before the word “trinity” was used the very concepts it attempts to describe were still there. What system, that has not been long ago rejected as heresy, is superior to the trinity doctrine? I don’t see that there’s an accurate/alternate position that is non heretical.

    Ray I’ve provided a couple of links here that I strongly suggest you check out. I think your problem is partly (mostly?) with the fact that you don’t completely understand what the doctrine truly is. I already had to correct you once or twice above on some major mistakes. I don’t know exactly what it is, but maybe you have too strong of an issue with the word “trinity” and that’s preventing you from truly seeing what trinitarians are actually saying.

    I believe God is a lot more than triune in his nature. Three is only three. I believe God is a lot more. God is love. God is true. God is just. Those are just three things that he is. He’s a whole lot more than just that.—Ray

    The fact that you think this has anything at all to do with what trinitarians are saying(or even remotely close to the issue) show me you don’t truly understand the doctrine. And this was only one of the several quotes you made that shows this. Please do not take any offense to that, I mean no harm whatsoever. I don’t mean to sound condescending or mean spirited or anything like that. I’m just trying to help you come to a better understanding.

    Hopefully if you answer my questions I can see where the confusion lies. I feel like we’re talking past each other to a certain extent. I’m not even entirely sure that you truly disagree with any of the concepts that the doctrine tries to explain, although you say you do. That just shows how much confusion I think there really is in this discussion.

    Looking forward to future discussion.

  2. Juan G,

    You don’t believe in the atonement on the Cross? I hope I read your post wrong.

    If I didn’t read it wrong, can you tell me why you don’t believe that? Do you not believe that’s a biblical teaching? Or do you think/know it is a biblical teaching and simply disagree with it?

  3. It seems to me that one weakness of the trinity doctrine is the very use of the word trinity.

    We have the scriptures as proof that the gospel can be shared with others without the use of the word trinity.

    We have Jesus as an example of that as well as all of his apostles whom he chose, that we read about from the scriptures.

    Is the use of the word trinity, a fly in the ointment to some? I think that it is. I don’t believe there is or ever was a need to heal the ointment, though some seem to think it’s better by adding the word trinity. Some people act as though they love it. Maybe they do. I don’t know why.

    God is in more than three persons. Though we don’t see God manifest in anyone more than in Christ, God is still in more people than just Jesus alone. Because of Christ being in others,
    God can live in them and be manifest through them.

    Even in this world, salt can be light, but salt and light are not always the same thing.

    As Jesus and God are the same, there is also a distinction between them.

    I’ve often heard trinitarians try to convince another that the trinity doctrine is right, but this matter of God and Christ being the same but
    also having a distintion between them rarely if ever comes up. So there seems to be something lacking in either the trinity doctrine, or in the use of it.

    I really have never seen the term God the Son add anything to what the Son of God is or already was.
    The term has no power over the truth though I’ve seen it used as if it did or as if it should, and that causes problems. It causes confusion. I’ve never seen the phraze win another soul to the truth. How can it win another to the truth if he is already standing on the truth that it is used to try to win him to? Why trouble the man who needs no such trouble by adding a phraze like that?

    I’ve often seen the phraze used that way. I’m beginning to wonder if it has ever been used another way, such as the edification that some say that it is.

  4. Juan G,

    Here’s a verse from Job:

    Job 33:24
    Then is he gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

    Now, what is the word ransom speaking of here?

    It seems to me that when God sends a messenger, an interpreter, (Job 23) the messenger or interpreter becomes as a payment or a sacrifice.

    The work of reconciliation is often like that, of being a sacrifice, but I wonder if there’s more.

    I wonder if this messenger had some revelaton of God that we don’t readily see here. I wonder if he knew something of the gospel about a sacrifice of God that was going to be made.

    Abraham received something of that news before it came to be born of a woman. I wonder if this messenger knew something of it also.

  5. “If I didn’t read it wrong, can you tell me why you don’t believe that?”- EDH

    It just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would God’s grace need to be purchased by Jesus for us? If the traditional Trinity doctrine is assumed we can compare this to an example – a person asking a owner to enter a house. When asked the owner says “no, that’s impossible”. Then the owner scratches his own back. Somehow the back scratch changed the owner, and the owner said, “come, you are welcome”.

    Jesus walked around and told people their sins were forgiven and there was no payment involved – if a person believed and followed him that was all it took. I think Jesus’ life more accurately describes who God is than the traditional church story, and it makes more sense to me.

    “Do you not believe that’s a biblical teaching?Or do you think/know it is a biblical teaching and simply disagree with it?” – EDH

    This way of thinking just makes sense to me, but I haven’t done a complete study of the Bible. I’ve just read it a few times, but I don’t know. If you can see problems/dangers in this way of thinking then let me know.

  6. As Jesus and God are the same, there is also a distinction between them.
    I’ve often heard trinitarians try to convince another that the trinity doctrine is right, but this matter of God and Christ being the same but
    also having a distintion between them rarely if ever comes up. So there seems to be something lacking in either the trinity doctrine, or in the use of it.—-Ray

    I can only conclude that your misunderstanding has A LOT to do with people who have almost no concept of the true teaching of the doctrine,…teaching you the doctrine.

    I’ve often heard trinitarians try to convince another that the trinity doctrine is right, but this matter of God and Christ being the same but
    also having a distintion between them rarely if ever comes up.–Ray

    Wow. This seems absolutely impossible. Again, these “trinitarians” must know nothing at all about the doctrine outside of the word trinity. Teaching the doctrine without mentioning that the Father and the Son are distinct from one another would be like teaching someone how to play soccer without mentioning you’re allowed to kick the ball.

    God is in more than three persons. Though we don’t see God manifest in anyone more than in Christ, God is still in more people than just Jesus alone. Because of Christ being in others,
    God can live in them and be manifest through them.–Ray

    Biblically speaking God is said to only be three “persons” and that is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christ is God. Before ANYTHING existed, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed. All are Eternal. The Son entered into human flesh at a certain point in time, but he is just as eternal as the Father and Spirit. (Jn 1v1) In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. (v 14) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The Father, Spirit, and Son are all uncreated. They all participated in the creation of the universe, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, in Our likeness…..

    God is still in more people than just Jesus alone.—Ray

    Yes, in a certain sense God is “in” us, but just to be sure, that is not the same as when God entered flesh and became Jesus. ex. God’s Spirit was in Paul, yet Paul is not God. In other words, God is not said to be three “persons” because he was two before and the manifestation in Christ took it to three, and another manifestation would take it to four, etc,etc. No, the three have always existed as one God in eternity. The incarnation of Jesus isn’t man entering into Godhood, it’s God entering into manhood. It’s not as if God chose his nature and could have been 7,8, 100 or anything he wished. God is by nature three “persons” in the same way He is holy by nature. I just had to clear that up.

    We have the scriptures as proof that the gospel can be shared with others without the use of the word trinity.—Ray

    This is true, no trinitarian should disagree with this. This should not even be close to an issue with any person who believes the doctrine.

    It seems to me that one weakness of the trinity doctrine is the very use of the word trinity.—Ray

    “Trinity” is merely a descriptive word, and nothing more. It simply describes God’s nature as its revealed in scripture. Everyone should agree that words outside of the bible can describe concepts or teachings found in the bible. ex. Omnipotent (all powerful) isn’t found in scripture either. I think it’s fair to say this word can accurately describe what we find about God in the scriptures.

    As far as the “God the Son” phrase goes, it’s used to emphasize the Son’s deity. Some incorrectly (Muslims and others) take “Son of God” to be a denial of deity, when the bible doesn’t leave that as an option.

    Hope this helps to clear more up. Thanks for the kind exchange. For more info check out some of the links posted if you have time, I think they’ll be a great help. God bless.

  7. Juan G,

    Thanks for the response.

    This way of thinking just makes sense to me, but I haven’t done a complete study of the Bible. I’ve just read it a few times, but I don’t know. If you can see problems/dangers in this way of thinking then let me know.—Juan G

    There are definitely severely great problems with this position. In all humbleness and love Juan, this type of belief lands you completely outside of the faith. This is not intended to be mean or spiteful or anything else. The atonement is the reason Christianity exists. There’s reason that our symbol is the Cross. Had Jesus not taken our penalty on the cross, we’d still be under God’s wrath. All of us. Throughout the entirety of the Bible you see that for sins of God’s people there had to be a sacrifice made to cover them. This was a command from God. (ex Exodus 29:35-44) Back in the OT there were animal sacrifices to cover sins(lambs,bulls) but those were just symbolic and for a time. When Jesus gave his life on the cross, he was paying for the sins for every sinner who ever lived. Without a sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sin. “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (hebrews 9:22)

    “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10).

    ” For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Hebrews 10:14)

    “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1John2)

    Those were just a few verses speaking on the Atonement. There is SO many more. Throughout the OT you see so many allusions and prophecies to Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross (Isiah 53) and so many of Paul’s writings in the NT look back on it. I will definitely get into this in the near future if someone hasn’t already beaten me to it. Right now it’s very late and I’m not thinking clearly because of fatigue.

    To sum things up the atonement on the cross had to be made. Jesus did forgive, but that forgiveness was truly realized on the cross. This teaching is absolutely essential to the faith.

    Much more later on.

  8. Interesting discussion, for sure. I think back to the 1970s when charisma was the focus of national renewal, and a strong youth movement occurred of mass conversions in our Land. One group of charismatics raised up “The Holy Spirit Teaching Mission”, and pursued that as an end to itself. Yet, I read John 13:13 through the 16th chapter and learned what Jesus stated the literal mission work of the Holy Spirit was, and primarily it was to bear testimony of Him, to show what is ahead, and to confirm who were His. So, like Ray here, at that juncture, when this charismatic teaching mission was saying we could “worship” the Holy Spirit I came to understand that they did not know what Jesus stated on the Spirit’s central mission to confirm what and who are of Jesus himself. Nowhere in the NT is it written worship the Spirit, but, instead worship in the Spirit, receive the Spirit, and have Christ formed within.

    Jesus was the revealed one to have faith in by the Spirit, and from the Father at his Baptism, not the other way around. It became a no brainer to realize that as far as we humans are concerned communication from heaven which is discernible since the New Covenant intervention is all about Jesus. Yet too Jesus was in a relationship with the Father which involved the actions and sending of the Promise He made to believers of the Spirit.

    This Spirit, and the Father then are mysterious unless they are doing the work of confirming, convicting, and revealing Christ to believers throughout history, as such. The Spirit is not mentioned in scripture as on the Throne of heaven, as such, in control and to be exalted; he exalts the work, remembrance, Name and Way of Jesus.

    It is a bit like God is up in the heavenlies transcendent and yet unapproachable, so we need Jesus to get through for his affirmation and assistance. He now lives to intercess for us. Yet Jesus and the Father together send the Spirit to help bear us up in this life. So, would that not say that the Spirit is subjugate to the Father and the Son, and in human terms, reveals the Son to any and all who accept grace through faith as an initial conviction of belief, our inadequacy to save ourselves, and ongoing transactions for change into his likeness?

    Daniel of this forum, we read too of the Spirit of Christ, the seven fold Spirit in the Prophets, and the Spirit active among events and his church in the Revelation. The descriptors are both interesting and just out of our grasp, for, the Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. All exist, and in human terms all relate us to God through Jesus Christ.

  9. “There are definitely severely great problems with this position. In all humbleness and love Juan, this type of belief lands you completely outside of the faith.” – EDH

    I figured I was an outsider in your view. I guess what I was looking for was specific problems God might have with my ideas. I can’t think of any, and I don’t see any from you so far either. You mention that a group rejects me and that the Bible, which was handed down by men and voted upon, says otherwise.

    “Had Jesus not taken our penalty on the cross, we’d still be under God’s wrath.” – EDH

    You said that Jesus was God, which means that God took our penalty. I have real trouble believing God was, in any way, ‘paid-off’ by God (Jesus). It seems my idea is just a refined version of what you believe – that God can forgive if He wants to, and I’m led to believe that He will forgive if we submit that He’s the best and our master forever and ever.

    “To sum things up the atonement on the cross had to be made. Jesus did forgive, but that forgiveness was truly realized on the cross. This teaching is absolutely essential to the faith.” – EDH

    I can’t fathom God ever requiring animal or human blood sacrifices as a covering for sin. Sin is spiritual, always has been – the solution has never been physical blood, but spiritual repentence. Jesus only ever required people to renounce their incorrect ways, trust and follow him. And since Jesus is a manifestation of God, the same is true for God.

    “This teaching is absolutely essential to the faith.” – EDH

    I don’t see how this hinders me in any way from following Jesus. Jesus didn’t teach the atonement, the trinity, or OSAS – yet churches operate separate from each other based on these things. Now you say I’m separate too.

  10. Juan,

    Couldn’t help but dash off a quick reply:

    I figured I was an outsider in your view. I guess what I was looking for was specific problems God might have with my ideas. I can’t think of any, and I don’t see any from you so far either. You mention that a group rejects me and that the Bible, which was handed down by men and voted upon, says otherwise.

    Soooo, you’re asking for specific problems God might have with your ideas, but you won’t listen to the Bible on the topic (sounds like a John ch 8 issue) in the places it contradicts you? Isn’t that an oxymoron/contradiction?

    Sounds to me like you’re willing to say, “I’ll go with the Bible until it contradicts my opinion, then in the places where that happens I’ll chalk it up to poor editing and ignore what it says”.
    Sounds dangerous. Please tell me if I’m getting the wrong impression.

    …God can forgive if He wants to, and I’m led to believe that He will forgive if we submit that He’s the best and our master forever and ever.

    Forgive my impertinence but, Juan, you sound more like a Muslim here than a follower of Christ.

    I can’t fathom God ever requiring animal or human blood sacrifices as a covering for sin.

    Um… it doesn’t matter what you can fathom, quite simply. It matters what God’s word says.

    “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
    – Hebrews 9:22

    Sin is spiritual, always has been – the solution has never been physical blood, but spiritual repentence.

    Verse, please? Seriously, where is that written? Is this just your opinion here?

    Jesus didn’t teach the atonement,

    And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

    Jesus said he poured out his blood for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t know how much clearer he could make it.

    the trinity,

    Matt 28:19

    Again, I don’t know what could be clearer.

    yet churches operate separate from each other based on these things. Now you say I’m separate too.

    No, the Church separates from the heretics on these things. If one doesn’t believe them one can’t be “one church separate from another church”, because that one is not even in the Church at all.

    Bottom line, the Church listens to the voice of her Redeemer as given and recorded in the Bible. Jesus makes it clear who those who do not listen to his voice are in John ch 8.

  11. “Soooo, you’re asking for specific problems God might have with your ideas, but you won’t listen to the Bible on the topic (sounds like a John ch 8 issue) in the places it contradicts you?” – Tom

    I suppose I should phrase my question like this: how will my views detract from my ability to serve God?

    “Sounds dangerous. Please tell me if I’m getting the wrong impression.” – Tom

    I reckon it is dangerous for people to use their own hearts and minds when it comes to God.

    “Forgive my impertinence but, Juan, you sound more like a Muslim here than a follower of Christ.” – Tom

    I’m not sure why obedience sounds foreign to you.

    “Um… it doesn’t matter what you can fathom, quite simply.” – Tom

    Perhaps not for you, but for me it does. In my view there are multiple texts claiming to be God’s word, and multiple interpretations of each text. I believe it is up to me to decide what I believe.

    “Verse, please? Seriously, where is that written? Is this just your opinion here?” – Tom

    All I have said is my opinion. I guess you think sin is something other than spiritual or that the solution to sin is non-spiritual or both?

    “Jesus said he poured out his blood for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t know how much clearer he could make it.”
    “Again, I don’t know what could be clearer.” – Tom

    Looks like you’re right, but it doesn’t make sense to me – meaning I’m not sure that I can dabble there.

    “No, the Church separates from the heretics on these things. If one doesn’t believe them one can’t be “one church separate from another church”, because that one is not even in the Church at all.” – Tom

    I figured most denominations claim to serve God (what I consider essential), yet there are no or few united efforts – at least I am unaware of widespread cooperation.

  12. Juan,

    Some of us are trying to change that–“there are no or few united efforts – at least I am unaware of widespread cooperation.”

    There is a “Call to His Church” in the making as we speak.

    Check back on May 10th!

  13. I believe there is a monument that stands for the Lord and that it’s also something that has been made by man. (Sons Of Thunder vision/revelation)

    I will seek to touch the Lord in acceptable ways.
    By his grace he may allow me to do so, but I don’t think I’m called to worship a monument.

  14. Juan,

    I suppose I should phrase my question like this: how will my views detract from my ability to serve God?

    I would propose a different question: what is the truth? I’m more concerned with the facts (no matter what they be) than being comfortable in my own philosophy, regardless of whether/how it detracts from my ability to serve God.

    Also, you need to define that. #1 What is service to God, in your view? #2 Does such service save you?

    “Sounds dangerous. Please tell me if I’m getting the wrong impression.” – Tom

    I reckon it is dangerous for people to use their own hearts and minds when it comes to God.

    I didn’t say that, you’re putting words in my mouth. What you are doing, quite simply, is approaching the Bible with white-out and blotting out the parts that do not comport with your home-brewed philosophy. That’s what I’m calling dangerous.

    Actually, I’ve seen this scenario before… Yes, I’m sure of it. This conversation has been pre-recorded or something, that’s the only explanation for this clip:
    http://thechifiles.com/2011/04/10/the-bible-says-insert-pet-doctrine-here/

    “Forgive my impertinence but, Juan, you sound more like a Muslim here than a follower of Christ.” – Tom

    I’m not sure why obedience sounds foreign to you.

    Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. The foundational/core/central belief of Islam is that God will arbitrarily forgive someone as long as they “submit that He’s the best and our master forever and ever.” – no blood atonement or otherwise involved.
    This is exactly the philosophy you hold to, as you have confessed it.

    “Um… it doesn’t matter what you can fathom, quite simply.” – Tom

    Perhaps not for you, but for me it does. In my view there are multiple texts claiming to be God’s word, and multiple interpretations of each text. I believe it is up to me to decide what I believe.

    If you want to pit Bible texts against one another or some such, that’s your call. I’m saying that there is a harmony to them, they are the word of God, and I’m going to take God’s word over homespun philosophy that I’ve conjured out of thin air. That’s all.

    “Verse, please? Seriously, where is that written? Is this just your opinion here?” – Tom

    All I have said is my opinion. I guess you think sin is something other than spiritual or that the solution to sin is non-spiritual or both?

    Juan, the simplest rule of debate is that if you put an assertion out there you must be prepared to back it up and defend it. What you are now saying is that you are perfectly comfortable holding an opinion without any supportive evidence to bring to bear. Fine. But whom do you expect to listen to your opinion when you assert you need no evidence?

    “Jesus said he poured out his blood for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t know how much clearer he could make it.”
    “Again, I don’t know what could be clearer.” – Tom

    Looks like you’re right, but it doesn’t make sense to me – meaning I’m not sure that I can dabble there.

    I appreciate that you acquiesce here, but tossing it out because God’s the Creator’s infinite purpose makes no sense to a created man is a bit, ah, arrogant, if I may put it so bluntly.

    “No, the Church separates from the heretics on these things. If one doesn’t believe them one can’t be “one church separate from another church”, because that one is not even in the Church at all.” – Tom

    I figured most denominations claim to serve God (what I consider essential), yet there are no or few united efforts – at least I am unaware of widespread cooperation.

    Well, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc all claim to serve God as well. Heck, the Baal and Molech worshippers claimed to serve God too. If that is the one and only essential, as you insist, then it makes sense for them to be just as saved as we are and to all get together in one big happy family. That’s if we push your philosophy to its logical conclusion – are you prepared for that?

    And again, how do you define “serving God”?

    Are you by chance a Unitarian Universalist? That sounds like what’s going on here.

  15. “#1 What is service to God, in your view? #2 Does such service save you?” – Tom

    Matthew 5 is a good start. I leave my salvation in God’s hands – I hope to do what He wants.

    “I appreciate that you acquiesce here, but tossing it out because God’s the Creator’s infinite purpose makes no sense to a created man is a bit, ah, arrogant, if I may put it so bluntly.” – Tom

    You say we can be saved only because God paid Himself off. I don’t understand that, and I won’t start understanding until you explain how that makes sense.

    “Are you by chance a Unitarian Universalist?” – Tom

    I’m just a Christian trying to make sense of things. I have no particular denomination.

  16. Tom,

    If you met a church that believed Matthew 28:19 but did not see the Trinity because of it, would you separate from that church?

    If so, why?

    How long have you lived in the town called Trinity?

    Did you ever think of leaving it for the sake of a larger community?

    Some have left that village. They talk of certain characters who have been known to live there. I seem to remember a character by the name of Double Vision. He seemed to be an optometrist.

    And it seems to me that there was a character by the name of Double Standard, the town assayer.

    It seems I also heard of one Nobloodncove’nt. It’s not that he had no religion, mind you…

    Strange thing about that place… Some say there still are some Christians there and I think it’s likely so.

  17. I used to read the Pilgrim’s Progress. I would like to read it again some time. It’s a very good book.

    A few days ago I was anointed with oil in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Matthew 28:19 reminds me of Unity.

  18. I’ve been dwelling in a place that I’m not sure what to call. It’s about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being together and one like a threefold cord.

    You see, I was looking for a word from the Bible that would be representative of the word Trinity.

    I came to the word Godhead, then with the help of an English dictionary, I came to the word Godhood which is closely related.

    Then I came to the word threefold. (Ecc 4:12)

    I haven’t looked the word up in a dictionary yet.
    I think I have the basic idea of what a threefold
    cord is, but maybe there is more to learn about that word.

    It seems to me that a threefold cord shares equally in whatever work it is put to the task to do.

    I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have
    been together since eternity. I suppose that Jesus separated only by place or location when he came into this world to be born of Mary, having left the place of heaven behind in order to save us, making the purchase required, by the will of God for us, which he willingly did.

    One of the uses of the word threefold, (or three-fold) in my dictionary, has the sense of having three parts.

    Another use of the word speaks of having three times as much.

    I suppose it’s OK to speak of God as being like a threefold cord in the first sense, that is, having three parts.

    Some might say, “Well, Ray, You’re saying that God is triune.”

    When I consider the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I consider them to be as a threefold cord that shall never be broken, in character, holy Godhood, all that is of God that makes up what God is, righteous, true, good, merciful, kind, just, holy, supreme, etc.

    As I think of all those things, I think of Godhood, after all, all the neighbors make up a neighborhood, right?

    God did tell Moses, “I am what I am.” did he not?
    And so men have been searching out what God is, and he is so much, who can know it all but Jesus?

    So that’s a bit about the neighborhood I’m dwelling in now.

Leave Your Reply

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


*