Sunday, May 20, 2012

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)


Bosphorus Bridge that bridges Europe and Asia, Istanbul, Turkey (trek earth)

Introduction

Overall I think the lecture went quite well. Pastor Mark's only suggestion after was that an outline would have been helpful as those in the course (sitting in a small circle) were not following along reading from any source and so I could have provided a written or verbal outline. Very reasonable. Next time I shall do so if I am asked to lecture again.

My last church lecture was several years ago for small group leadership and since then my sleep apnea became worse but now with recent (2 years) treatment with pills my condition is better and should stay that way for good. This can be seen empirically with my leaner appearance as well. I did complete two lecturing internships, one with each of the first two Christian degrees and I think my more recent blog audio posts were of assistance to me as well as were, of course, the many lecture rehearsals. But the more lecturing I do the better they shall become.

I am reasonably pleased with the result and it was a stressful week with my Mom returning to the downstairs part of the condo from Ridge Meadows Hospital after five months on Friday and the demands being placed upon me with this move back home and the supplies needed to be picked up via the Red Cross and RMH while trying to get this technical lecture down. Also during the week MS Word 2002 went 'bonkers' while I was working on the lecture leaving some kind of marks that looked a little like musical notations at the end of not only my lecture paragraphs but within all my MS Word 2002 documents, including my Doctorate, my CV, all documents. To Microsoft's credit when I purchased MS Word 2010 from London Drugs it translated all the MS Word 2002 programs to MS Word 2010 with no problem. And I thank God for that as well.

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)

Greetings, Welcome to week three of Who is God? Featuring the Nicene Creed.

(Not the entire creed is being taught by me this week)

My bio last week in the bulletin was correct my Doctorate was at the University of Wales. It was the University of Wales, Lampeter but through two mergers it is now the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter. It is still one of the largest Universities in the UK. It was earned in that department in the disciplines of both Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion as both disciplines deal with the problem of evil and theodicy.

Now my section of the creed…

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

The term ‘Lord’ is used in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in the context of Moses as leader Numbers (32: 25) for example. Browning Page 231.

Also of Jesus as the Son of the Man (Mark 2: 28). Browning Page 231.

Jesus was a person with special authority as Lord. (Matt. 7: 21). Browning Page 231.

In the Old Testament, the term Lord was used to translate names for God. Browning Page 231.

In the New Testament, the terms ‘Lord’ and Christ are almost synonymous (I Cor. 8, I Thess. 4: 17. 5: 12). Browning Page 231.

The term ‘Adonai’ meant ‘lord and father’. McComiskey. ‘Adonai’ was substituted for the name of God. As is Lord in our English Bibles. Erickson Page 691

κύριος and related κυρίου, ὁ according to Greek scholar Walter Bauer on Page 459, has Lord as a designated title for God as its roots in the Orient.

Christ is referred to as Lord in the New Testament Gospels and Epistles.

By referring to Jesus as Lord, Erickson the Apostles and disciples meant to give Jesus Christ the highest possible title (Page 691) meaning an obvious reference to his deity although he was still fully human. For the Jewish observers of Christianity of the New Testament era, the term Lord for Christ was given in part so that they could observe that Christ was equal with the Father. Erickson Page 691.

The name Jesus Christ is a combination of ‘Jesus’ of Nazareth and the title ‘Christ’ (Greek) which is Messiah in Hebrew. R.H. Stein, Page 582. The term Christ means ‘anointed’. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua/Jehoshua and means ‘salvation is ‘Yahweh’. Browning, Page 199.

Arius and Arians reasoned as God the Father from the Old Testament was immutable/unchangeable the substance of God could not be shared with another being in any way. Therefore Arius and Arians contended that Jesus Christ had to be a created being. Walter. Page 75.

The Word of God, Logos was viewed as a creation to Arius and it was deduced there was a time when he was not. Walter. Page 75.

There was a time where Jesus Christ assuming he was finite, did not exist. Walter. Page 75.

He was a finite being and not the infinite God as was the Father.

The assertion of the Lordship of Christ within the creed definitively states the opposite.

Arius and the Arians made the mistake of placing far too much emphasis on Greek philosophy as they interpreted Scripture.

With my background with secular MPhil and PhD degrees having to study and earn degrees in philosophy of religion and theology simultaneously I should state that the type error in philosophical approach in broad terms is still rampant today.

I reason philosophy and philosophy of religion are important academic disciplines for understanding truth but God’s word was given by God to persons to be understood historically in context.

Similarly, when I started at the University of Wales Lampeter for my Doctorate, even after passing MPhil theses as part one of the program at Wales, I was heavily criticized by one of the students at a meeting because I favoured the historical-grammatical critical method of analyzing Scripture over what the entire class appeared to prefer which was to concentrate almost entirely on the methodology of a Biblical author as in trying to deduce what the author’s motives were in writing a Biblical book. As opposed to actually reviewing his or her writing for theological content primarily. I did eventually learn the importance of more methodology writing my Doctoral thesis in the end, but still reason historical, grammatical with emphasis on understanding the theology and philosophy of a writer in Scripture is key.

A danger I see with their over-emphasis on methodology is that similar to the Arians and their approach to Scripture is that they may very well not let the Biblical author speak his/her mind in context and we need to remember the historical understanding all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3: 16).

This is a very serious spiritual error. And an intellectual one as well.

One should not want to read a philosophy into a text and also one should not want to dismiss a philosophy that is in the Biblical text.

In my opinion, a major error of the Arians was to bring too much Greek philosophical thought into a review of Scripture and in a sense not let Scripture and God speak.

I am not claiming complete objectivity in my own personal way of evaluating Scripture and philosophy and philosophy of religion are valid academic disciplines but they should not be allowed to tarnish what the Scriptures states either by negation or addition.

the only-begotten Son of God,

The New Testament Greek word ‘monogenes’ ‘only-begotten’ (μονογενὴς υἱός) occurs nine times in the New Testament. Harrison. Page 799. Monogenes could reasonably be rendered as and is interpreted by some as meaning ‘one of a kind’ as in an adjective form (describes a noun) derived from ‘genos’ ‘origin’ ‘race’ ‘stock’ etc. page 799. The adjective only begotten provides the idea of uniqueness and not of a subordinate being. Harrison. Page 799.

Therefore, the deity of Christ within the Trinity would stand.

Greek scholar Bauer states that in Johannine literature this term is used only of Christ. Page. 527. Unique may be quite adequate as a description.

Monogenes describes the absolute uniqueness of God the Son to God the Father in his divine nature. So, Christ is the unique Son of God with a specific intimate relationship with God the Father. James Orr, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

There is a slightly different perspective than the one I quoted from some scholars, stating that Christ as God the Son is not ‘one of a kind’ but is the ‘second of a kind’. But it still agrees with the perspective from that Christ shares the genus of God the Father and therefore has the same divine nature as the Father.

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father states Michael Marlowe.

The term ‘Son of God’ is a title Christ accepted for himself which meant that he had a very specific unique personhood and relationship with God the Father. He was not like any other human being. Erickson Page 687-688.

In Christian theology, the Son of God has the concept of the pre-existent divine being entering human life in the person of Jesus Christ. Browning Page 349.

Arius was incorrect that Christ was not God the Son, or that it was just a title of honour. Walter Page 75. The Scriptural context dictates the Son of God has a divine pre-existence which would equal that of God the Father, although yes in the incarnation as can be seen in the Gospels Christ does take on human form as in the resurrection.

It should be noted that Jesus Christ’s human nature is no way is an addition to his divine nature. He is no more or less God.

Granted there is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. Hypostatic union.

From Erickson a Reformed Baptist Theologian: Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet he was not two persons. In my mind, this is a correct, yet difficult concept. Jesus on the cross gave his spirit to the Father (John 19:30), so he possessed a human spirit and was fully human. My take is that in a sense there is one spirit as in person that is a unity of both human and divine nature. It is one spirit that is a unity of two spirits, which do not mix yet work together as one place of personality. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of Christ was unified with a human spirit/nature. To say that Christ has two spirits or souls will perhaps lead some to the idea that Christ is two persons rather than one person with two natures. The human soul of Christ is unified with the divine soul of Christ, in such a way that the two natures do not mix, yet they work together as one spirit as in one person. Therefore when Christ died he did not give his spirits, but spirit. This one soul/spirit would allow Christ to be fully human but without an active sinful nature.

begotten of his Father before all worlds,

Christ and this unique nature existed before the Creation of any worlds and in fact, Christ as God was co-Creator…

Hebrews 1: 2 NASB

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

God the Son is the only Son of God and therefore is the heir of the Father. The sole heir of all things. Christ had a ‘dynamic agency’ in the creation’ of all things. This naturally implies Christ, God Son’s pre-existence and also co-existence with the Father. Hughes Pages 38-40.

Christ is the author of creation. He is also the efficient cause of their creation as in all things. Gerald F. Hawthorne Page 1506

Colossians 1:15-17 NASB

15 [a]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [b] by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He [c] is before all things, and in Him all things [d]hold together.

It can be seen that Christ is not part of the created world but is the co-creator. Wright Page 71. Christ alone was the Father’s agent is what is indicated.

The world and universe are sustained by God and that would include Christ as God the Son. Wright Page 71.

A scholar by the name of E.G. Ashby points out the mistake made by the Arians that Christ is the first-born of creation was therefore created, instead of being co-eternal with God the Father. But the context does not allow that interpretation. Page 1454. First-born can be defined as having to do with priority and superiority of God the Son in pre-existence as God. This being a reference to his deity, not his humanity. Page 1454.

Firstborn has to do the priority and superiority of Christ over creation as he was the creator and not a mere creation. There is no sense of a literal son being born of a literal father.

However, Bauer from the Greek states the term is used in a figurative sense as in Christ is the first-born of a new humanity. Page 726. Christ would be the first-born of resurrected humanity
within the culminated KOG.

Romans 8: 29 firstborn of many brethren. Πρωτοτοκος, the root word is prototokos, defined as firstborn prwtotokon in Romans 8:29.

God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,

Reaffirming the equality as deity of God the Son with God the Father.

Both are God, both are light, Jesus states he is the light of the world in John 8: 12.

NASB

12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Also, the light is mentioned in John 1.

The Father is the source of light in Genesis 1.1.

Both the Father and Son are Light.

The Son is no less God than is the Father.

There is no secondary God concept in Scripture. Isaiah 43, 44 and 45 point out there is only one God and no other shall be no God formed after.

Back in the late 1980s before starting my long four-degree marathon, I had a friend that basically held to Arian belief. He was excommunicated from the Jehovah’s Witnesses the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But interestingly although he would keep stating that he as a genius and smart enough to join a high IQ organization even when I would keep quoting him the Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments that clearly explains there is no secondary true God concept in Scripture, he appealed to reason and philosophy. By reason and philosophy, like Arius, he reasoned there can only be one Almighty God and one person that is God and therefore Jesus Christ even though accepted as the atoner of his sins. My friend even accepted the physical resurrection, unlike those in the Watchtower, but Jesus Christ is his mind must have somehow been a secondary 'god' and saviour.

Again the danger of not letting Scripture speak in context.

begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father.

The Nicene council came up with the word as noted previously in the class that God the Son is of the same ‘homoousia’ with the Father. Blaising Page 775. The concept is that they are of the exact same, substance and nature. A similar idea can be found in Hebrews 1:3.

Bauer defines it from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. page 847.
Hupostasis Original Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ

The divine substance is the same. Hughes Page 44. Therefore Jesus can rightly state without risking modalism or Sabellianism, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ John 14: 9 even though they are different persons in Trinity because Almighty God, including the Holy Spirit, is of only one divine substance.

Turner explains sabellianism was an alternative example of modalism. Turner Page 514. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising Page 727.

Today there are also Oneness Pentecostals. Theologian Gregory A. Boyd wrote a good book dealing with the subject entitled:

Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (1992).

He was a former member. Often tend to Baptize in Jesus’ name only, not in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Page 139. Some reason that speaking in tongues was a required sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, to not speak in tongues was to not have the Holy Spirit at all. Page 197.

This group can be known for mistaking descriptive history in ACTS for prescriptive doctrine in every case, now tongues are a sign, not the sign, but of course not all will speak in tongues as Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 13: 30.

There is only one divine substance of God, but this is represented in three persons within the Trinity and God the Son has taken upon himself a human nature in order to be the King of the Kingdom of God.

In closing

The Creeds of 325 and 381 appeal to Scripture in proper and reasonable context and the resulting Theology adequately serves as a counter to the Arian heresies on a point by point basis.

My deduction would be that Creeds such as this helped immensely to maintain Christian theology, however, the Roman Catholic Church and to a lesser extent Orthodox Churches over time did add practices to Christian faith leading to the need for a Christian Reformation in the 16th C. In the modern era there are pseudo-Christian movements such as the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that attempt to rewrite Christian history as if they are the true Christian church and that the Creeds are wrong.

Perhaps the Creeds need to be further emphasized within orthodox, Biblical Churches even as a type of evangelism tool.

Bibliography

AQUINAS, SAINT THOMAS (1225-1274) Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, Html-formated Joseph Kenny, Dominican House.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Constantinople (381)’ Council of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BUCHSEL, HERMANN, MARTIN FRIEDRICH (1967) ‘BUCHSEL on μονογενης’ reproduced from Volume 4. of Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (1992) Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1549) ‘Hebrews’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 44, Translated by John King (1847-1850), Santa Cruz, Sacred texts.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HARRISON, E.F. (1996) ‘Only-Begotten’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2009) First Council of Constantinople, New York, New Advent.

MARLOWE, MICHAEL (2006) The Only Begotten Son, New Philadelphia, Ohio, Bible Researcher Website.

MCCOMISKEY, T. E. (1996) ‘God, Names of’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, JAMES (1915) ‘Only-Begotten’, General Editor, Grand Rapids, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

PACKER, J.I. (1993) ‘Incarnation God Sent His Son, To Save Us’ from Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs, New York, Tyndale House Publishers Inc.

STEIN, R.H. (1996) ‘Jesus Christ’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WALTER, V.L. WALTER (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.


Golcuk, Turkey (trekearth)

There will be more lecturing to follow in another post. Something is in the works at Grace Vancouver.


Maple Ridge, BC (June 1, 2012)

33 comments:

  1. Greetings Dr. Russell Norman Murray

    On the subject of the Trinity,
    I recommend this video:
    The Human Jesus

    Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you to reconsider "The Trinity"

    Yours In Messiah
    Adam Pastor

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cheers Adam,

    This is what is stated in the introductory text from your link:

    Quote:

    'The Human Jesus
    1:59:19 - 4 years ago
    This theological documentary, produced by Restoration Fellowship, filmed by Mark Dockery, edited by Paul Millunzi and Danny Dixon. It answers, very frankly, the difficult theological question: "Is Jesus of Nazareth Human or Divine?" The video features world-recognized scholars, as well as some unknown skilled examiners of biblical theology and Christology. Even so, Dockery's video retains a "man on the street" simplicity to retain the interest of those who view the presentation. Dockery includes significant ecumenical material, with a view to erasing lines of hostility that separate Christians from the Jewish and Islamic communities. While there is a long way to go to accomplish this, the presentation is a necessary first step in accomplishing that goal. Some people in the video: Dr. Colin Brown, colbrn@fuller.edu, Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary Sir Anthony Buzzard, anthonybuzzard@mindspring.com, Author of THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: CHRISTIANITY'S SELF-INFLICTED WOUND and JESUS WAS NOT A TRINITARIAN (http://restorationfellowship.org) F. Paul Haney, minister/lecturer on strict siblical Monotheism. "Chuck" Jones, pastor, The Church of the Bible, carolsguy@dslextreme.com Daniel Mages, HungerTruth@yahoo.com, debater, lecturer, and founder of California-based Hunger Truth (http://HungerTruth.com) Lee F. Greer Danny Dixon, DixonDA@gmail.com, Moderator, Disciples for One God (http://4OneGod.net and http://4OneGod.org)«'

    Also feel free to dialogue with my scholarship which is solid within Christian tradition and academia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My good friend Matt was asking about Ernest Angley...

    Here are two links:

    On his website with the video, at the end features the supposed healings.

    ernestangley.org

    wrestler imitates angley

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dont know what to say. This blog is fantastic. Thats not really a really huge statement, but its all I could come up with after reading this. You know so much about this subject. So much so that you made me want to learn more about it. Your blog is my stepping stone, my friend. Thanks for the heads up on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Say Baby! Oral Roberts and Ernest Angely have it out on Bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve Dahl is so enamored by Rev. Angely, he produced this video as a tribute.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'chucky said...

    Say Baby! Oral Roberts and Ernest Angely have it out on Bizarre.'

    Image of Rev. A.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'chucky said...

    Robin Williams as Mork from Ork does Ernest Angley.'

    He does well, no surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a tendancy to be lazy sith commenting, but i love your blog and i may well also say it right now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Anonymous said...

    I have a tendancy to be lazy sith commenting, but i love your blog and i may well also say it right now.'

    Lazy Sith sounds like a wacked out Stars Wars villain.

    Good Evening.:)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous chucky said...

    Another Ernest Angley tribute.'

    His P.R. dept. keeps a good lid on negative press including YouTube clips, but here are some quotes from:

    Wikipedia

    'Online Bible College

    Angley began an online Bible college through his website in 2011 with the purpose of providing Bible study courses for laymen, missionaries, teachers and pastors.[2]'

    Lol.

    'Controversy over whether Jesus heals HIV/AIDS

    Angley's Christian faith-based teachings, in particular his claims (based on Biblical scripture Mark 9:23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.") that AIDS and other diseases can be cured by God's healing power, were met with some skepticism in South Africa. In March 2007, the Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa, after receiving a complaint, cancelled a newspaper ad for Angley's ministry, based on lack of preliminary filing of medical documentation at that time for healing of AIDS through prayer.[6] Angley has since stated that he has verifiable medical documentation from former AIDS patients that he can submit to any country that requires it, and in the same 2007 television broadcast displayed medical documentation from 4 alleged former HIV positive patients of their new negative tests results.[7]'

    '2 ^ "Ernest Angley's Online Bible College". Ernest Angley Ministries. 2011-01-01. Retrieved 2011-04-21.'

    ‘6. ^ "Can Jesus heal Aids?". IOL: News for South Africa and the World. 2007-04-25. Retrieved 2007-04-27.’

    '7 ^ WBNX-TV interview Cleveland, Ohio,U.S April 19, 2007'

    ReplyDelete
  12. My deduction would be that Creeds such as this helped immensely to maintain Christian theology

    Great to read this post Russ. Last week I had a discussion with someone who was a bit anti creed but after explaining a few facts, ie no bible on the desk they started to see the need for a creed. Even the, "bible" was only for the priest thing was explained and they were very enlightened and realised just how privileged we are to have so many bible's at our disposal, literally.

    We live in an amazing age.
    Good work Russ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Russell.

    I admitted to the class and my Pastor in week three when I was teaching (teaching again week five) that I am not particularly Creedal. I tend to rely more on Biblical exegesis, theological exposition and philosophical deductions.

    However, the Creeds do often effectively connect together Bible/Biblical theology with Church history and this is one reason they are very valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. First-born can be defined has having to do with priority and superiority of God the Son in pre-existence as God. This being a reference to his deity not his humanity. Page 1454.

    First born has to do the priority and superiority of Christ over creation as he was the creator and not a mere creation. There is no sense of literal son being born of a literal father.

    However, Bauer from the Greek states the term is used in a figurative sense as in Christ is the first-born of a new humanity. Page 726. Christ would be the first-born of resurrected humanity
    within the culminated KOG. Rom 8: 29 first born of many brethren.


    Yes, though "firstborn" can mean the actual first born, it also sometimes means the one who is pre-eminent, with all rights, privileges and honor that the firstborn in biblical times received.

    For example, Psalm 89:20,27:

    20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

    27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

    Yahweh refers to King David as "firstborn," though he is the youngest brother in his family and is not the first king. He is the pre-eminent example, though, preparing the way for the Messiah King, Jesus the Christ.

    Colossians 1:18 says: "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

    Jesus was not the first person raised from the dead. He himself raised Lazarus, and there were others raised from the dead, both in the O.T. and N.T. So "firstborn" must here mean pre-eminent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes we agree on the pre-eminence concept which I am familiar with and it works well with concepts of priority and superiority.

    'Jesus was not the first person raised from the dead. He himself raised Lazarus, and there were others raised from the dead, both in the O.T. and N.T. So "firstborn" must here mean pre-eminent.'

    I deduce Bauer's idea from Romans 8: 29 is that Christ is the first-born of humanity with the resurrected body as in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15, the others would have died again with natural bodies and their spirits reside in Paradise (Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12).

    Thank you, Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Nicene Creed was created in response to Arian false doctrine that said Jesus was created by God, rather than Jesus has existed from eternity past. That same Arian false doctrine rears its ugly head even today in the false doctrine of the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well-stated, Sir Jenkins.

    Today, God-willing, I shall post the second lecture notes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you Dr. Russ for your article on the Nicene Creed, very informative, Jesus is Lord!
    -Believer Be-

    ReplyDelete
  19. You have provided a very thorough article on the Nicene Creed which was very interestng and a very good analysis providing the reader with evidence that Jesus is Lord. "there is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature."
    -Reading is Believing-

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'Anonymous said...

    Thank you Dr. Russ for your article on the Nicene Creed, very informative, Jesus is Lord!
    -Believer Be-'

    Agreed.

    Thank you, B.B.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'Anonymous said...

    You have provided a very thorough article on the Nicene Creed which was very interestng and a very good analysis providing the reader with evidence that Jesus is Lord. "there is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature."
    -Reading is Believing-'

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I had 50 websites, most of them bringing in around $5-20 per day. Then comes panda and penguin algorithms and these pretty much wiped my sites off the net. I tried every seo service out there, nothing works. Surprisingly, a little known software called WEBSITE WITCH seems to work well at beating the Panda and Penguin updates. If you are having problems with your sinking website, try out website witch. I was able to get a review copy from the publisher. I am putting together a penguin panda survival manual. Please share with me your experiences. Please pm me with your seo ideas. We could even collaborate to put together the seo manual.

    [url=http://websitewitch.net]search engine optimization[/url]

    ReplyDelete
  23. The video does not work on the site with Firefox, but I am listening via Internet Explorer.

    Good morning.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Such as write-up, it is especially used to me personally.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Impostors could possibly be branded while using brand

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, the Arians were imposters, in a sense I suppose, for context, but to brand imposters, that is harsh.;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Read this item with extreme interest. Have you prepared, or do you know of any similar, expositions on the other verses of the Creed that you did not cover here?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Basically what my research came up with was that the Nicene Creed was in 325 and there was a revised version in 381, the Constantinopolitan Creed.

    Wiki

    Christian Classics

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete