This blog is having an
existential crisis

While I tinker with a new design, I’m also pondering how, what, and why I write here. I don’t know how long that will take, but you’re welcome to email me and see how things are progressing.

Stress-testing the
mind of Christ

Where a recovering ex-atheist rams the Bible into other worldviews to see what breaks (note: Scripture cannot be broken)


presentations
Is Jesus really dog?

In which I respond to Mike Gantt’s strange ideas about whether Mormons and Unitarians worship the same Jesus I do.

In the comments of Is Jesus really God? Dale Tuggy has been peddling his usual unitarian heresies, and Mike Gantt has been playing his bodyguard. That discussion spilled over to a post on Mike’s blog where he tries to deal with my arguments head-on. Let’s see how he fares.

A person who knows Christ is Lord is able to obey His commands, even if he might not yet fully appreciate all that is meant by the word “Lord.”

But Dale is not merely ignorant of who Jesus says he is. He doesn’t simply “not yet appreciate” what “Lord” means. Rather, he openly denies it. He isn’t accidentally mistaken due to not having had time to work things out. He takes the considered position that Jesus is not Yahweh, and he argues for it every chance he gets.

He who obeys Christ is treating Him as Lord – and that’s what pleases God.

Mike has things exactly backwards. The term Lord (kyrios in the Greek) is lifted straight from the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. In most cases, the personal name of God, Yahweh, was replaced with kyrios because the Jews had a superstition about it being blasphemous to repeat or even write the name of God. Thus, to say “Christ is Lord” is to confess his deity. And if you believe Christ is Lord (ie, that Jesus is Yahweh), then you will obey him as God. Mike switches this around to define Christ’s lordship in mere terms of having our obedience. But in that case, our employers are also our lords. The police are our lords. It empties the term of any serious meaning.

Moreover, as I’ve already noted to Mike, Dale does not obey Christ, because he obstinately refuses to believe what Christ says about who he is. That is basic disobedience to the authority of God and his word. You can’t obey Jesus in greater things if you refuse to even submit yourself to his claims about himself. But I would expect Mike to vouch for Dale, since Mike himself claims in the above-referenced post that “the trinity concept is a man-made intellectual idol.”

You and Sam seemed to be speaking to Dale contemptuously, and I thought tha tone was preventing constructive dialogue.

You mean like when Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the devil, or when Paul said he wished the circumcision party would finish the job and cut off their own genitals? What makes you think constructive dialog is possible with Dale? It’s not like he’s looking around for answers and is open to being taught. On the contrary, he sets himself up to “correct” those who hold fast to the revealed truth of Scripture. I’m familiar with him and his errors, both from his sophomoric discussions with Steve Hays, and more recently his jejune interaction with Ed Feser on theistic personalism. He is a classic example of why I tend to assume philosophy professors are smug, unteachable fools until proven otherwise. The fact that his tone is more irenic than mine just makes him a silver-tongued devil.

Jews in the Old Testament routinely interacted with, trusted, and obeyed angels sent from God as if they were God Himself. Faithful obedience rather than ontologically precise parsing of the moment was what God valued.

Aside from the obvious hyperbole of treating angelic visitation as routine, this is wrong on at least three levels:

Firstly, it is basically irrelevant. Trusting and obeying angels (created beings) sent from God is categorically different from placing your faith in, and worshiping them. So whatever argument Mike thinks he is making here is a non-sequitur.

Secondly, this highlights how God is by no means unconcerned about “ontological parsing”. Mike is simply mistaken about this—God is extremely concerned that people understand the distinction between creator and creature. On several occasions when an angel appears to someone, that person falls down and worships—and the angel is all like, what are you doing?! I’m just a servant like you—worship God alone! God does not blithely overlook our worshiping his creation. God does not think it is okay to put our faith in a created being instead of in him. That is the essence of sin. Why do you think the first three commandments are all about not doing that?

Thirdly, Mike begs the question. He just assumes that some of the most prominent OT angelophanies are not actually theophanies. But I deny that: indeed, I think all the appearances of the “angel of Yahweh” are actually appearances of Yahweh himself. In Gen 16, for example, it is obvious that Yahweh’s angel just is Yahweh himself. That is certainly what Sarai believed (v 13). Similarly, Gen 18 begins with Yahweh appearing to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre—something immediately described as “three men” whom Abraham addresses collectively as “my lord”. (But yeah, that whole trinity thing is just a man-made idol…) Similarly in chapter 19, the angels are Yahweh—verse 18ff. And notice the odd phrasing of verse 23, where Yahweh is both at Sodom and in the heavens; something which makes no sense on a non-trinitarian understanding of God.

I don’t determine people’s identities by denominational or theological labels [ie “Mormon”]. I just preach Christ and watch to see whether they rejoice or fight me.

Notice how oblivious Mike is to the problem. Mormons believe in a Jesus who is the created spirit-child of a physical God, who physically inseminated Mary. They believe this Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. Ie, the devil and Jesus are the same kind of being. They don’t believe that the Father exists a se. The being to whom they apply the label of “Christ” is a completely different being to whom the one the Bible applies it. Yet for Mike none of this matters. As long as they use the same word, everything is okay. It doesn’t matter what the object of faith is in Mike’s view—it doesn’t matter who you believe in, as long as you give him the right name.

I wonder if Mike has the same attitude to his friends. Imagine if he had a friend named Jack, and he met someone who claimed to be best buddies with Jack. Would it make any difference to him that the Jack this person was speaking of was a dog, and not his friend at all?

Presumably it would. Yet when it comes to God, Mike is happy for anyone to say they’re best buddies with Jesus, even if their Jesus is further below God than a dog is below a man.

29 comments

  1. Mike Gantt

    Dominic,

    I appreciate your thoughtful, if at times off-point or inaccurate, set of responses to my post (which was, of course, a detailed reponse to detailed arguments you had made to me in the comments section of the previous post).

    I’m not as interested as you are in detailed back-and-forth exchanges, so I’m just going to select the one issue I most hope you’ll consider further.

    The entire Bible – Old and New Testaments – testifies to the Lordship of Christ. This Lordship clearly carries authority that is infinitely greater than that of employers or police – or any other earthly or heavenly authority, for that matter. Thus to regard Christ as Lord is to give Him the devotion due God – nothing less. That the Bible says this is a point beyond question. If a Mormon or a Unitarian or anyone else has a different view, then he is denying Christ what the Bible clearly claims is owed Him. I cannot support such a view. However, if such a person gives Christ this place of Lordship, but is confused or wrong on the issue of Christ’s deity, I can be more understanding. Here’s why: because if such a person truly gives Christ the devotion due God, that person will inevitably come to the understanding and conviction that Christ is God. It will follow as day follows night, for “the path of the righteous shines like the light of dawn that shines brighter and brighter until the full day.”

    If you are honest, you will acknowledge that the Bible speaks far more explicitly, repeatedly, and emphatically about the Lordship of Christ than it does about the deity of Christ. I know you want to say that the declaration “Jesus is Lord” is a claim to deity – and I agree – but it is a more indirect claim (as your reference to the Septuagint demonstrates). We must remember that the New Testament documents were written in the twilight of the polytheistic age. We who are living almost two thousand years into the age of monotheism can’t easily regain a first-century mindset. For this reason, there are christological controversies today that did not seem to exist in the early church (i.e. 30-50 AD). .

    I believe that the solution to christological controversies will not be found in philosophical or any other kind of intellectual endeavor. I believe it will be found in revelation by the Spirit to humble and obedient hearts. That is why I stress the Lordship of Christ.

    If we try to know Christ fully before getting around to being fully devoted to Him, we will never become fully devoted to Him. Therefore, let us love Him and obey Him more…that we might know Him better.

  2. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    However, if such a person gives Christ this place of Lordship, but is confused or wrong on the issue of Christ’s deity, I can be more understanding. Here’s why: because if such a person truly gives Christ the devotion due God, that person will inevitably come to the understanding and conviction that Christ is God.

    This simply fails to engage with the basic issue, which is regarding the identity of Christ. Even if a Mormon, for example, comes to the conviction that Christ is God, his notion of who and what God is completely contradicts the reality. You keep repeating the same mistaken mantra, emphasizing the name at the expense of the person it refers to.

    I believe that the solution to christological controversies will not be found in philosophical or any other kind of intellectual endeavor. I believe it will be found in revelation by the Spirit to humble and obedient hearts.

    This is self-refuting. You’re engaged in a philosophical, intellectual endeavor right now. And the revelation of the Spirit is a set of propositions apprehended by the intellect. Moreover, I don’t even know what you mean by “Spirit”, especially with a capital S, since you deny his individual personhood. You speak of humble obedience, yet you don’t even submit yourself to who the Spirit says he is.

  3. Mike Gantt

    The Spirit says He is Lord. Do you say He is something else?

  4. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    I agree he is Lord. What I don’t understand is why you speak of the Spirit and Jesus as if they are separate persons, when you deny that God is triune.

  5. Mike Gantt

    I speak of the Spirit and Jesus as the Scriptures speak of them. Are we not to be guided by the Scriptures?

  6. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    So when you say, “Revelation by the Spirit”, you just mean “Revelation by God”, with no additional qualifier?

  7. Mike Gantt

    Generally speaking, the former expression is just being more specific about how God did it.

  8. Philip C

    Ooh, I like this game, can I play too?

    I’m Islamic, I believe Jesus was a prophet, but not God. The prophets were “lords,” and should be obeyed- you might say I therefore believe alongside the Bible that “Jesus is Lord.”

    I’m an atheist, I agree with the bible when it says God is without form. To me, the word “Lord” is a shorthand for this phrase, and “Jesus is Lord” is a way to say God doesn’t exist.

    Isn’t it nice that the tent of Orthodox Christianity is large enough to have all these people coming together to affirm Jesus is Lord?

  9. Mike Gantt

    Philip C,

    Perhaps you did not read my comments but only read Dominic’s characterization of them. I did not define “lord” so loosely as to allow the sort of semantic game he and you are playing. “Lord” means Lord of heaven and earth – that is, possessing a higher rank than any other authority, just as the Scriptures define it.

    “At the right hand of God” is the most common Scriptural description of what it means to be “Lord” in the sense that applies to Jesus.

    You guys are too caught up in social labels – Mormon, Muslim, Christian. Salvation does not come from associating with the right group, it comes from associating with the one Lord.

  10. Philip c

    If your “Lord” doesn’t also mean “Jesus is God” then you *are* playing that game.
    I can see why you also want to eschew labels, it’s easier to blur the lines when there are none.

  11. Mike Gantt

    As I’ve said to Dominic, we today may surely consider “Jesus is Lord” as a declaration that “Jesus is God.” However, in New Testament times it could not have been so because the epistles of the apostles were constantly referring to God and to the Lord separately (as in James 1:1).

    If they had understood “Jesus is Lord” to be the same as “Jesus is God” it would have rendered incoherent verses such as 1 Cor 8:6.

    I eschew the labels because they do us no good in His sight. “The Lord knows those who are His.” It’s not always apparent to us.

  12. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    As I’ve said to Dominic, we today may surely consider “Jesus is Lord” as a declaration that “Jesus is God.” However, in New Testament times it could not have been so because the epistles of the apostles were constantly referring to God and to the Lord separately (as in James 1:1).

    If it could not have been so in New Testament times because the epistles refer to Go and to the Lord separately, then it could not be so now either. What is the principled distinction between NT and now in this respect?

  13. Mike Gantt

    Dominic,

    The principled distinction between the NT age and now is that the former occurred in the twilight of the polytheistic age and we live well into the monotheistic age.

    As I mentioned, the apostles and disciples could not have understood “Jesus is Lord” to be synonymous with “Jesus is God” because this would render incoherent practically all of the New Testament. 1 Cor 8:6 is but a prominent example. Granted, “at the right hand of God” and similar references communicated the amazingly intimate connection between God (the Father) and Lord (the Son), but the distinction between the two is likewise present on almost every page of the New Testament.

  14. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    So Mike, in your view, the apostles never believed Jesus was God, and never intended to convey that in their gospels and epistles…but we should interpret them as saying that?

    If that’s what you’re saying, why should I not just do the same thing to you, and interpret you as saying the opposite? At least that way I wouldn’t have to keep pointing out the absurdity of your position…

  15. Mike Gantt

    To not say that Jesus is God is not the same thing as saying Jesus is not God – not by a long shot.

    The Bible demonstrates that revelation from God is progressive. We see this dynamic on prominent display in the Gospels and Acts wherein Jesus was not publicly proclaimed by the apostles as Messiah during the days of His flesh and yet was constantly proclaimed as such once He had ascended into heaven.

    Similarly, as Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah by the New Testament documents so we who live since then – that is, since the coming of the kingdom of God – can now proclaim Messiah as God.

    I am not saying that none of the apostles knew or suspected that this was Jesus’ ultimate identity. Only that like the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah, they did not preach it before its respective time in the plan of God. As for hints, the late writing of the apostle John gives strong indication that he may have known “the Divine Secret” just as he and his fellow fisherman were let in on “the Messianic Secret” ahead of its proclamation. Paul, too, by speaking enigmatically in 2 Cor 12:4 of knowing things he was “not permitted to speak” suggests a revelation to come – a point reinforced by 1 Cor 1:7 and Col 3:4. Peter as well speaks of a revelation to come in 1 Pet 1:13.

    Without the apostles, we could not know that Jesus was God – even if they didn’t proclaim it as straightforwardly as we can.

  16. Brandon E

    Hi Dominic,

    I actually have some previous history of conversations with Mike Gantt. He believes that “Jesus” the Son and God the Father are one person and being (on this point his view is very similar to modalism, though he eschews the label “modalism”), but that this “revelation” was not made known until (according to Mike Gantt) Jesus’ second coming took place–invisibly and “spiritually”–some time in the first century and replaced the NT church with “the kingdom of God.” He believes that the writers of the New Testament presented (and possibly conceived of) God and Jesus as two separate beings, but that they predicted a new understanding of God and Christ would take place at Christ’s second coming; that is, Mike interprets expressions like “eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:7) or “hope perfectly on the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:13) as indicating not only a full manifestation of Christ’s presence, authority, glory, power (and other attributes already revealed in the New Testament, but of which we lack the full experience), but a new understanding of the nature of God that would override their current one. I pointed out to him that, despite all his rhetoric on being guided the Scripture, this makes the content of his beliefs on this point decidedly extra-scriptural revelation. Moreover and besides, the New Testament writers do refer to both the Father and Son (and the Spirit) as both “God” and “Lord.”

    I’d suggest that with Mike you might be wasting your time. He has a very elaborate and idiosyncratic system of doctrines that he presents online as being nothing less than the doctrine of Christ, the one true interpretation of Scripture, even though he’s told me that he knows of no one else in history who has arrived at his same combination of views. When he proclaimed to me and another commenter on a Gospel Coalition blog that if we would simply seek the kingdom of God God would reveal to us the same things that was revealed to him, and I asked him why so many prayerful, spiritual Christ-followers and even martyrs have arrived at interpretations of Scripture that contradict his, he accused me of trusting men instead of God. (As if there is no such thing as trusting one’s self in its ability to correctly interpret the Scriptures to the exclusion of all others, or the possibility of self-deception in spiritual matters!) When I asked him to consider even the possibility that he could be mistaken on any one of the idiosyncratic points on which he is absolutely certain and inflexible, he accused me of doing the work of Satan in trying to stealing away God’s word. When I asked him if he would still be able to trust in Jesus if he were somehow to discover that he was mistaken on any one of these points, he said that would not, that he wouldn’t know what to think anymore. In short, YMMV

  17. Brandon E

    Hi Dominic,

    I actually have some previous history of conversations with Mike Gantt. He believes that “Jesus” the Son and God the Father are one person and being (on this point his view is very similar to modalism, though he eschews the label “modalism”), but that this “revelation” was not made known until (according to Mike Gantt) Jesus’ second coming took place–invisibly and “spiritually”–some time in the first century and replaced the NT church with “the kingdom of God.” He believes that the writers of the New Testament presented (and possibly conceived of) God and Jesus as two separate beings, but that they predicted a new understanding of God and Christ would take place at Christ’s second coming; that is, Mike interprets expressions like “eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:7) or “hope perfectly on the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:13) as indicating not only a full manifestation of Christ’s presence, authority, glory, power (and other attributes already revealed in the New Testament, but of which we lack the full experience), but a new understanding of the nature of God that would override their current one. I pointed out to him that, despite all his rhetoric on being guided the Scripture, this makes the content of his beliefs on this point decidedly extra-scriptural revelation. Moreover and besides, the New Testament writers do refer to both the Father and Son (and the Spirit) as both “God” and “Lord.”

    I’d suggest that with Mike you might be wasting your time. He has a very elaborate and idiosyncratic system of doctrines that he presents online as being nothing less than the doctrine of Christ, the one true interpretation of Scripture, even though he’s told me that he knows of no one else in history who has arrived at his same combination of views. When he proclaimed to me and another commenter on a Gospel Coalition blog that if we would simply seek the kingdom of God God would reveal to us the same things that was revealed to him, and I asked him why so many prayerful, spiritual Christ-followers and even martyrs have arrived at interpretations of Scripture that contradict his, he accused me of trusting men instead of God. (As if there is no such thing as trusting one’s self in its ability to correctly interpret the Scriptures to the exclusion of all others, or the possibility of self-deception in spiritual matters!) When I asked him to consider even the possibility that he could be mistaken on any one of the idiosyncratic points on which he is absolutely certain and inflexible, he accused me of doing the work of Satan in trying to stealing away God’s word. When I asked him if he would still be able to trust in Jesus if he were somehow to discover that he was mistaken on any one of these points, he said that would not, that he wouldn’t know what to think anymore. In short, YMMV, but the longer you speak with Mike the more you might just end up digging deeper into his system.

  18. Mike Gantt

    Dominic and Brandon,

    The most important thing is for Christians to return to Christ.

    Adherence to orthodoxy is no substitute for clinging to Christ.

    “Return to Him from whom you have deeply defected, O sons of Israel.” Isaiah 31:6

    So many of us Evangelicals came to the Lord Jesus Christ through the sinner’s prayer or some similar moment of vulnerability, submission, and genuine trust in Him. In that moment, Christ was revealed to us – He who died for our sins and who rose three days later on our behalf. And we declared ourselves for Him – forever!

    Let us return to that childlike faith in which we began. He who sees all things will not fail to notice. He will restore us to Himself, and we will be filled once again with His joy and peace.

    And having returned to our Lord, then let us go forth in His righteousness -which is to trust Him and do good. That’s how we went astray – by forgetting that simplicity (2 Cor 11:3).

    “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 1:9

  19. Brandon E

    I agree with the words you’ve just stated, Mike.

    At the same time, just the words “return to Christ” and admonitions to be morally upright are no substitute for the actual knowledge, revelation, appreciation, and experience of Him as He truly is (Eph. 1:17; 4:13; Phil. 3:8; Col. 2:2; 2 Pet. 1:8).

    And here I think that Dominic’s point is that we can mean different things (even mutually exclusive things) by the same words, such as “Jesus” or “the will of God.” Although I think it can be pressed too far, I think it is a very good, scriptural point. Note that the context of 2 John 1:9, which you quoted, is that there were Cerinthian gnostics who claimed allegiance to “Jesus” but denied His divine conception through incarnation (v. 7). They didn’t come to the conclusion that the man Jesus is divine or is God, but actively taught and affirmed something contradictory, and John calls them “deceivers” and “antichrist.” Further, a significant part of the context of 2 Cor. 11:3 is that the Judaizers were preaching “another Jesus” (v. 4): the call to simplicity in Christ wasn’t a call to not care about what we mean by “Jesus.”

    Also note that, contrary to what is portrayed in the New Testament, you believe that the Father and the Son do not coexist (but rather, for example, that the Father “died” and ceased to exist as the Father and “became” the Son at the incarnation), and that the Spirit is a separate being from God Himself. You also believe that Christ’s second coming and the “resurrection of the dead” occurred in full invisibly and “spiritually” in the first century during which time He replaced the NT church with “the kingdom of God.” And you argue about these things on the internet, claiming that the belief that God is triune is “antichrist” and portraying the church as obsolete and incompatible with the kingdom. So these things would affect who Christ is and what is His present will, and at least you must understand why many believers in Christ, who have the same Bible as you do, would consider that a serious issue.

  20. Mike Gantt

    Brandon,

    …the call to simplicity in Christ [in 2 Corinthians 11:3] wasn’t a call to not care about what we mean by “Jesus.”

    Nor do I regard it so.  I’ve made that clear, but let me make it clearer still.

    The New Testament declares who Jesus is.  We cannot change that record…nor should we want to change it.  Jesus of Nazareth is the one who was crucified and raised from the dead to heaven – the Christ promised by the prophets, those promises being recorded in what we call the Old Testament.  There can be no doubt about who He is.

    This Christ reigns as Lord, with all authority in heaven and on earth.  The entirety of the Bible testifies to the meaning of “Lord” and our proper response to Him who bears that name.  There can be no doubt about whether or not we owe fear and obedience to the Lord Jesus.

    My fundamental point to Dominic on this and the previous post has been that it appears to me that he, Dale, me, and now you, all agree on this most critical of all issues.  Therefore, for me to go beyond explicit Scripture and demand that Dale immediately believe as I do that Jesus is God, or for you and Dominic to go beyond the explicit Scripture and demand that Dale (or I) immediately agree that Jesus is part of a Trinity, is to “go too far” (2 John 1:9).

    I believe that Dale will come to the belief that Jesus is God not by intellectual effort but by the revelation of God.  For this reason, focusing on Jesus as Lord, believing and obeying Him, is the way to get Dale – and the rest of us – to the finish line.  Jesus – that is, the Jesus about whom the prophets and apostles who wrote the Scriptures testify – is Lord!

  21. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    Mike, what you affirm with one side of your mouth you deny with the other. We do not worship the same Jesus. You are a double-minded man, unstable in all your ways.

  22. Mike Gantt

    Dominic,

    I am single-minded in my devotion to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and raised from the dead, promised by the prophets who wrote the Old Testament and witnessed by the apostles who wrote the New Testament. Does the Jesus you worship not match this description?

  23. Philip c

    But Dom affirms the Athanasian creed, whereas you do not.

  24. Brandon E

    Mike, what I do agree with you about is that just demanding that someone immediately believe that Jesus is God is in many cases probably not the best way to help or lead someone to see that Jesus is God.

    However, I think you’re misusing 2 John 1:9. In the passage, “going beyond” can’t refer to affirming or asking someone to affirm something that is true about the Lord Jesus (e.g., that is He is the Word who is God become flesh [John 1:1], in other words, God incarnate), because John says that someone who “goes beyond” actually “does not have God.” Rather, “going beyond” must refer to affirming and teaching something that is dubious and false about Him.

    Further, your applying “explicitly revealed in Scripture” to this verse is problematic for at least two reasons. 1) The Scripture wasn’t completed by this time (moreover, the identity of the New Testament books of Scripture aren’t explicitly named in Scripture), so this couldn’t be quite what John meant. 2) The apostles had already rather clearly taught that Jesus is God by this time (see John 1:1, 10:26-29 for starters). But here our conversation is complicated by the fact that you claim, for your own elaborate reasons, that this truth wasn’t revealed until Jesus’ second coming and the resurrection of the dead completely took place invisibly and spiritually in the first century.

  25. Brandon E

    ^ John 10:26-29 above should be John 20:26-29

  26. Mike Gantt

    Philip C,

    Are you putting the Athanasian Creed on a par with Scripture? That is, are you adding to the word of God?

  27. Mike Gantt

    Brandon E,

    I am glad for the point of agreement we have. That compact expression “Jesus is Lord” – when taken seriously, understood Scripturally, and acted upon consistently – has a life-changing power, the limits of which are beyond our ability to conceive or explain.

  28. Philip C

    Mike,
    To answer your false dichotomy, the Athanasian creed is Scriptural, whereas you are not. It concerns the trinity, which is a good and necessary inference that can easily be proved from Scripture, while your strange brew of heresy requires you to twist and mangle the text.
    Or, maybe I’ll just use your kind of words and say, “It’s sure Bible, as you are, as are we all! Jesus is Dog!”

  29. Brandon E

    Mike, something else that has dynamic, life-changing power, and is beyond our ability to conceive or explain, is the biblical revelation that God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit indwell the believers (John 14:16-20, 23; 17:23; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:6; Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:27; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:4, 12-16), and yet no believer has the sense that three separate beings indwell them, but only one God. I often find that people who deny that Jesus is God, or who deny that God is triune and embodied in Christ (Col. 2:9), don’t bring this up of their own accord, possibly because they are devoid of this in their experience. And the same could be said for those whose consideration that God is triune is simply mental or theoretical.

  I don’t post ill-considered articles and I don’t sponsor ill-considered comments. Take a moment to review what you’ve written…