D.A.Reed

Jbarrax, in response to the points you made in your last post. First, the question as to whether God can do anything revolves around what omnipotence actually means. There are three options: 1. God can do anything that others can do. 2. God can do anything – even what is logically impossible 3. God can do anything that is conceivably possible. The first option, no matter what we take God to be, ends up being very philosophically (not to mention biblically) unsatisfying. For example, can God sweat? Can God get jiggy with it? Even the Bible itself argues against this position. Hebrews 6.13, 18 states that God cannot swear by anyone greater than Himself or break His word (not to mention sin). These are two examples of things the Bible says that God is incapable of doing. So, the first alternative is not a viable explanation as to what omnipotence really means. The second option has been defended by such figures as Descartes, who argued that even eternal truths can be, in a sense, undone by God by virtue of His omnipotence. If God is truly all-powerful, then why can He not make the square root of 49 equal 12, or make a square shaped circle? Yet, this assertion seems to break a fundamental law of logic and metaphysics – the law of excluded middle. For instance, does it make sense to say that God can make a person both dead and living at the same time in the same way? This seems to be wholly implausible and an impossible state of affairs to bring about. The third option argues that divine omnipotence means that God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. What does this definition mean in reference to God’s ability to act? Essentially, it means that there are no limits to God’s power other than the limits of logic (which He is responsible for in the first place). As Aquinas wrote, “God’s power, considered in itself, extends to all such objects as do not imply a contradiction.” This means that God can make to be anything which is possible to be. Look at it this way; can God make it be that Richard III survived the Battle of Bosworth in 1485? No. Why? Because that would imply that God can bring about two contradictory states of affairs (one where the King died in the past and one where he survived). Of course, allowing Richard to survive the battle in the first place is not contradictory since this does not imply changing the past at some point in the future. Consider another example. I am writing this now in March of 2005. Is it possible for God, right now, to cause it to be that I was never conceived? No, it is not. Why? Because doing so would contradict the very state of affairs that exist right now. It is incorrect, therefore, to claim that God can bring about anything without qualification. But does this not mean that God is not truly omnipotent? No, it does not. Rather, it means that omnipotence is naturally limited. In other words, it means that God’s power extends to anything that is not against His nature (which includes the laws of logic; after all He is the author and sustainer of all things, including logic). As for your second point, the issue is not regarding Jesus’ ability to pick Himself up from His own bootstraps. Philippians 2 is claiming that God is now requiring all creation to worship Jesus. If Jesus were only a human being, then God is commanding us to commit idolatry. Clearly, this cannot be. So, the issue necessarily comes down to whether God can make another being equal to Him. If God could, this would imply that He was, in fact, not the absolute Creator and sustainer of the world, since monotheism insists that there is only one divine nature. Hence, it follows that if Jesus had a hand in creating the world and has a hand in sustaining it as well, this necessarily implies that He has a divine nature (Philippians 2.6-11; Hebrews 1.1-4). Why? Because these are acts that only God can perform. Of course, as Scripture attests, He also has a human nature, too. Your insistence on the need to bring “fore-knowledge” into this discussion is a red-herring – it distracts from the fundamental theological issue that only the Divine nature has the power of the Divine nature. God cannot give any creature (who is purely a creature) this power any more than He can conjure up another God equal to Himself. To insist that this is possible implies a be-lief-system that is non-monotheistic. Again, as I said above, there is no discussion of foreknowledge in Colossians 1.15-20. Any such importing serves only to muddy the waters and cloud the issue of what this passage is claiming about Christ’s divine nature and His role within the Church. Finally, as to your third point, I still stand by what I said. Your interpretation is, in fact, not supported by the context. It is true that this hymn speaks of Christ being the firstborn from the dead and the head of the body. It does not, however, say this alone. At the same time it asserts that Christ was present and active in the creating and sustaining of the all things (which other NT passages confirm in even more stunning and unequivocal language). One might respond by saying that I am contradicting Scriptures that attest to Christ’s human nature. I affirm, however, as Scripture does, that Christ possesses both a divine and human nature. And there is no contradiction in asserting that Christ has both a divine and human nature. The union of these two natures into one person is a paradox, but it is not a contradiction. You say that you will trust the entire witness of Scripture on this issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to run into these problems and difficulties time and time again until you do just that – accept that Scripture teaches us that Christ shares our humanity, yet without sin, and that He shares the life of the Father, in whom there is no change or shifting shadow. I think you would find reading some discussions in philosophy of religion very helpful, since they relate to these issues. I suggest reading one or more of the following: Brian Davies’ “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,” 3rd Edition (about $20), G. K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man,” Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Think about God,” William Lane Craig’s “The Only Wise God,” Ben Witherington’s “The Shadow of the Almighty,” C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” or Millard Erickson’s “The Word Became Flesh.” Oh, and don’t forget the Apostles John, Paul, and Peter, the synoptic Gospel authors and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Grace & peace, - David Colossians 1.13-14

To add to this discussion and respond to the comments made by Jbarrax on Colossians 1:16, I add the following post. Grammatically, there are only three viable options on how to take this prepositional phrase in v. 16. First, it may be understood as instrumental (“by him”), which compares to the “through Him” of v. 16d. Second, it may be causal (“because of”). Third, in could be understood in a local sense (“in Him”). Now, if the later is correct this implies, in contrast to what you suggested above, that all things were created “within the sphere” of Christ. That is to say, that in Christ’s person was the creative energy that produced all things in heaven and on earth. As Harris suggests, “in the work of creation God [the Father] did not act apart from Christ” (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians and Philemon, 45). That a man could be exalted such a status (such as equality with God in Phil. 2:6) is not “beyond miraculous” as you say, it is impossible (and note that in this passage Christ has such equality in v. 6 before his earthly career of vv. 7-8). There is an infinite chasm between the Creator and creature that cannot be breached from the bottom up. It is plausible to claim, however, that it can be breached from the top down. Your statement implies that translating the prepositional phrase in v. 16a as “in Him” precludes Christ’s divinity. This is hardly the case. Your interpretation is not only a translation, but an extrapolation (i.e., inference) which goes beyond what the limits of grammar can lay claim. Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. The extra light that is needed should come from the source that inspired this early Christian hymn (which is what most believe it to be based on its poetical and lyrical structure). The reason your interpretation is not a credible one is based, in part, on the parallels this ancient Christian hymn has with the intertestamental wisdom literature that was the source of its inspiration, specifically, the Wisdom of Solomon. Note the following similarities between Colossians 1:15-20 and the Wisdom of Solomon: o Wisdom 7:26 – “For she is…a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (cf. Col. 1:15a). o Wisdom 1:14 – “for he created all things so that they might exist” (cf. Col. 1:16a). o Wisdom 5:23; 6:21; 7:8 – ideas on thrones and scepters (Col. 1:16d). o Wisdom 7:24b – “For Wisdom…because of her pureness pervades and penetrates all things” (cf. Col. 1:16–17, 19). o Wisdom 1:7 – “the spirit of the Lord has filled the world and that which holds all things together knows what is said” (and) 8:1b – “She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well” (cf. Col. 1:17b). o Wisdom 7:29 – on priority and superiority (cf. Col. 1:17a, 18d). As Rabbis such as Ben Sira and Baruch identified divine Wisdom with the Torah in the centuries preceding Christ, so the New Testament identifies divine Wisdom with Christ (e.g., Paul, John and Matthew). Like personified Wisdom, Paul depicts Christ as the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of all things – a role He would be unfit and unable to fulfill if He Himself were a creature. If Christ were only a human being, then this passage (and many others in the New Testament) would be guilty of the gravest sin - idolatry, worshipping a man as God by 'exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of man' (cf. Romans 1:23). Grace & peace, - David Colossians 1:13-14

Greetings! Below are comments relevant to this topic that I have posted before several times over the years (and at WayDale). As I say in the beginning, it is amazing how much this question or issue is posed. For those who have read it before and do not want to hear it again, I apologize. The main reason I am posting it again is for what the NT says about how wrong behavior and wrong teaching are often caused by and/or reinforced by each other. ****************************** Perhaps it is because that new people are joining this forum, but it never ceases to surprise me how often this question comes up here at GreaseSpot. Below is something that I have posted at least on three other occasions, so I apologize if this is something you have read before. However, I think it deserves repeating. In so far as the NT is concerned, neither VPW or LCM should be considered as good teachers. In fact, they would necessarily be described as false teachers. False behavior (and encouraging others to behave in an immoral manner) was one of the criteria the NT speaks about for being categorized as a false teacher. Both VPW and LCM stand guilty of both false teachings and corrupted behavior. In addition, both of these men directly opposed good theology and used their alternate teachings to justify their behavior and encourage others to follow (the sexual deviations of VPW serving as an example for LCM is but one single example). The justification for this can be found in 2 and 3 John. There, John points out an important connection between truth and love that is often overlooked. To illustrate this, I would give 2 & 3 John a thorough reading. Note how many times that the word “truth” comes from John’s pen. In addition, “truth” is united with “love.” We often think (and rightly so) that the NT commands us to “walk in love” (which is a metaphor for a godly lifestyle). Yet, John also admonishes us to “walk in truth” (2 John 4, 3 John 3, 4). The way in which John connects walking in truth and love reveals that one cannot be done without them also doing the other. In other words, if you are not walking in the truth you cannot walk in love, and if you are not walking in love you cannot walk in the truth. Certainly, VPW was not walking in love. So, my question is, why are so many so willing to accept that he was walking in truth? I think this is one of the most important questions a person who still follows VPW teachings should honestly ask themselves. At the risk of delving into another topic, let me also state that the Christian Church has always considered theology not to just what we know about God, but the means by which we come to know God in a personal way. I am sure you can understand the significance of this difference. By denying much of Christian truth and teaching others to do the same (often with venomous scorn) they cut themselves off from the spiritual understandings that would allow them to experience the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. In this way, both of them created a “theology” [sic] which allowed them to fulfill their own illicit goals and desires. And such "theologies" always are parasitic - i.e., they always have to feed on others because their source is not infinite, eternal and holy. This is why those of you involved in TWI were used and abused as a result of VPW and his teachings. True teaching is not facts about the Bible, but true teaching is always that which leads to a deeper understanding of God, which is the way in which we come to know Him. VPW did not teach this – he didn’t even teach correct facts about Scripture. As a result he, LCM and many others spiritually and physically victimized many in TWI. Many over the years (here, WayDale and CES Forum) many have suggested that VPW and LCM had to later rely on authoritarian measures in order to maintain control of TWI. This, some might claim, suggests that both began with good intentions and that the original teachings of TWI are to be kept and followed. Unfortunately, given what is known about both of their lives and teachings (which will always reflect one another), it is hard to make the case that they began with pure desires and motivations. If only 1/3 of what we have learned about them from WayDale, GreaseSpot and other independent sources (that is, independent of TWI) is true, I would contend that a case is near impossible to make. The history of TWI, which is based on the teachings of VPW, demand that the answer to our question is that TWI started out corrupt and overtime this became more evident. However, it seems clear that the chief desire of VPW's heart was to be honored and adored by people. He long believed that he was, for whatever reason, a special and unique teacher. When his own denomination failed to recognize him as such, he left and TWI was born (only to be given that name later). This, coupled with him giving into his appetite for physical pleasure (sex, bikes, motor coaches, houses, planes, etc.), lead him on a path of personal and spiritual destruction that ended up taking a lot of others along for the ride. LCM and VPW share the same faults. The difference is that LCM's faults are harder to hide. He also desires the power and pleasure that sex and money provide, but the ways in which he goes about getting them are much easily identified as morally corrupt. The surrounding themselves with “yes men” is a symptom of the spiritual weakness and sickness they both had, and, of course, was necessary to maintain the TWI facade. Both VPW and LCM are weak willed and lack the spiritual formation that would suggest that they should be regarded as "men of God" in any sense of the term. Ultimately, VPW could not find what he wanted through the traditional church so he started his own. LCM, on the other hand, found just what he wanted in TWI and never left – until forced out by a power struggle. To be honest, LCM and others were fed a counterfeit of Christianity from the beginning. I seriously doubt VPW was truly interested in anything beyond getting glory for himself (even though he may have convinced himself otherwise). And he may even have successfully deceived himself that he was being a true servant of God. This does not, however, distort the fact that his god was his belly and that he served Mammon rather than the Living God. This is not only possible, but sadly, this is not an isolated story. So, was LCM a victim? Technically, yes. However, chwester is right when he wrote that LCM is completely responsible for his actions. I find it difficult to believe that if LCM was truly interested in living a holy life that, once he understood the nuts and bolts of VPW and TWI, he would have hung around. The history of cults and false teachers shows that this sort of thing happens all the time. I rejoice, however, that some on this board are intellectually and spiritually able to ask such questions. And I pray that many more of you are open to the answer. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I welcome any personal e-mail. ***************************** Grace and peace, - David Colossians 1:13-14

Greetings! I saw my name listed on this thread (though I am not sure why) and thought I would clear up the questions. Yes, I teach philosophy at Fordham and City College, but I am not a Jesuit - I am not even Roman Catholic. I got the impression that someone thought that I was also posting on this site under another name. This is not true. I would be interested in knowing who came up with this idea and why? Grace & peace, - David Colossians 1:13-14

Greetings! Leaving the teachings of VPW and TWI for those of Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn reminds me of one of Bilbo's proverbs...escaping goblins only to be caught by wolves. Grace & peace, - David Colossians 1:13-14

Greetings! TheManOfaThousandScreenNames asks a good question in the previous post. And the irony of his statement “the lessons repeat until they are learned” is not lost (at least on me) since I have repeated what is below is other posts on other threads. It is interesting to see how the same questions continue to be raised. I hope that the question also illustrates that some on GreaseSpot are willing to give the following a fair hearing. Now, though the Trinity is difficult to understand and teach to others, it is important to realize that it is not a logical contradiction. Though the Trinity is a paradox and a mystery, it is not logically incoherent. And, as such, the Trinity is reconcilable with reason and makes very good sense of the biblical text (which is why it was formally developed by the early Church in the first place). Further, the mysteriousness of the Trinity is not a legitimate reason to refuse to believe in it. It is impossible for us humans as mono-personal beings to understand exactly how a tri-personal being exists because we have no point of reference from which to make observations and analogies to aid our understanding. Of course, this does not mean that such a being cannot exist. We need to rely on God's revelation of Himself to us in Scripture to understand Him in this way and accept it in humility and service. Our first duty is to believe and obey the message, despite the difficulty in trying to understand it. From the very beginning Christianity understood itself as a mono-theistic faith. And, as such, the early Church had to deal with all the NT and OT passages that seemed to apply the attributes of deity to Jesus (as well as the scores of late first, second and third century Christian writers who called Jesus God). One of the problems that arose as a result of this was that non-believers asked Christians to explain how they could confess Christ as God and continue to remain monotheists. Clearly, this is not an easy issue to deal with and there were many heated debates. Finally, in order to answer this question the early Church realized the need to distinguish between "what" Jesus is and "who" Jesus is. What Jesus is, is God (that He shares in the divine essence just as the Father does). But who Jesus is, is the Son of God. The same distinction applies to God the Father. What the Father is, is God (sharing the same divine essence as Christ). But who the Father is, is God the Father of Jesus Christ. That is why the Father-Son relationship between Christ and the Father was emphasized so strongly by the early Christians. He is Jesus' Father not because of the silly notions that He shares Jesus' DNA or because the Father adopted Him as His Son. Rather, Jesus is the Son of the Father because He shares the same basic nature as the Father. This same distinction also applies to the Holy Spirit. He is distinct from the Father and the Son as being a particular "who" but still remaining the same "what" - i.e. God. So, what Jesus is, is God in essence. But who Jesus is, is the Son. And the same distinction works for the Father and for the Holy Spirit. God is three "whos" and one "what" – one God in three persons. It is fair to ask why this was so important to the early church and to the church today (apart from its making sense of the biblical texts). Does it matter? The answer yes, but is too often lost in the debate or never thought about. However, the answer is found in the heart of the gospel message. First, the Trinity teaches us that having a personal relationship with God means getting to know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a personal way. We are to have a relationship with a "who", not a "what", which means we are to come to know the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity illustrates the heart and purpose of theology in the Christian life. Theology is not what we know about God, it is how we come to know God. The difference between the two cannot be underestimated. The point of the Trinity is not to get an algebraic understanding of God. Rather, it is how we come to know God in a personal way. Examples of this may be found in two of my theological heroes - Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury. Both wrote "theology" in the form of contemplative prayers to God. Augustine used this method in his "Confessions" as well as Anselm in his "Proslogion." [by the way, when Anselm was appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury he almost had to be physically dragged to the appointment ceremony. He thought the duties of that position would interfere with his ministry. However, the wisdom of choosing him echoes in the theology of the body of Christ because of the continued influence of his writings.] Before I go on, I want to expand on something I implied in the preceding paragraph about an "algebraic understanding of God." I have often seen well meaning people use the 1+1+1=1 example to "explain" the Trinity. Frankly, this is a horrible way to describe the doctrine of the Triune God. Such attempts at "Trinity Math" serve only confuse the issue because they mistakenly imply that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical and contradictory. However, as I stated above, though it is an enigma, a puzzle, and difficult to understand, it is not incoherent and irreconcilable with reason. A third way to answer the "what's the point?" question is to show how the Trinity touches every aspect of the Christian life. Correctly taught and understood, the Trinity is the revelation of God's heart (knowing who and what God is - theology). It is also the road map of how to get to God (salvation). It's a blueprint of how the life of a follower of Jesus should be (discipleship), and is even the grammar and vocabulary of how to talk to God (prayer). God the Father sent Jesus Christ, His only Son by nature, to teach us about God's heart and love for us in order that we may become 'adopted' children and joint-heirs with Christ. And it is the Holy Spirit who works within us in order that we may become sanctified and have a life that is qualitatively (though not exactly) like Jesus' own relationship to the Father. Christ is God’s Son by nature, while we are adopted children of God and, as such, fellow-heirs with Him (Romans 8:14-17). Also, it is the Holy Spirit who testifies to our souls that we are, in fact, God's children through the Incarnation (birth, death and resurrection) of His Son, Jesus Christ our who is our Lord and Savior (Phil 2:6-11; Isa.45:23). So, hopefully the last several paragraphs answers the question of why the doctrine of the Trinity matters, and why it is important to understand God in the Trinitarian sense. It is not only how God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, it is how He actually is. Grace & peace, - David Colossians 1:13-14