Another topic suggestion - Christ as the Creator
- In the past in other forums, I have made the statement that the
scriptures teach that Christ was the Personage that created this
world and all things in it. I used the text in John 1: 1 thru 14 to
make my case. I ask all who read this post to take a moment to read
these verses now.
I believe that anyone with a speck of objectivity in their thinking
who will take the time to read these verses (I again urge any reader
to do so, if you haven't already, at this time - I will not take the
trouble to type them here) will be compelled to agree with me, that
this conclusion is virtually unescapable. The creation was indeed,
accomplished by and through Jesus Christ.
Some want to take these very plain scriptures and convolute them in
such a way as to deny the obvious clear truth that Christ was with
the Father at the time of creation, that He was part of the Godhead
and thus, divine, and that "all things were made by him" and
that "without him was not anything made that was made", because this
truth does not "jive" with their theological beliefs. So, as man is
won't to do, if the scriptures don't agree with his preconceptions,
then the scriptures must be massaged until they mean something other
that what they clearly state.
If further proof is needed, I offer the following:
Col. 1: 14 - 19
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
16 For BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, AND THAT
ARE IN THE EARTH,visible and invisible, wether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers; ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY
HIM, AND FOR HIM.
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 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
19 for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.
The person being discussed above in beyond any question Christ - and
the scriptures indicate beyond any question that all things were
created by Him and for Him.
I challange anyone to find a way to twist the clear meaning of the
above scriptures to deny the fact that they state beyond any question
that Christ was the Person who was Creator. I believe He did so in
accordance with the desires of the Father, for it has always been His
desire to do all things in accordance with His Father's will - but
nonetheless, it was clearly Christ who was the one doing the creating.
1 God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past
unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLDS;
I use this topic, as a case in point. So many times in these
discussion groups, I run into this same phenominon. You can show
someone irrefutable proof that the scriptures say something, but due
to the fact that to accept it would upset the applecart of the
theology that others have concocted, they will NOT concede that they
are wrong...no matter how obvious it is that they are.
I know that I am at least willing to consider the possibility that
someone else may have an understanding that I don't - and that I
might benifit from seeing a different point of view. It might be
uncomfortable for me to consider that I don't have it all figured
out - and it might make me have to re-appraise my theology in order
to incorporate a new understanding. But I am willing to accept the
fact that I COULD be wrong on some point of doctrine or another.
I am continuously amazed, however, at how many people I have met in
these forums that are completely incapable of cedeing even the
smallest point, when debating theology. Such ridgid thinking is not
willing or able to recieve further enlightenment. Such a person will
never progress in understanding.
- For those of you on this forum who haven't see it: I published a book on the doctrine of the Trinity:Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.Check out the website if you are interested. The introduction and first chapter are available online at the site.Best wishes to all,Patrick Navas
- Hi Patrick , HG here - nice to meet you, so to speak. I will take
advantage of reading the introduction and first chapter of your book
at time permits. I have read a number of your posts from the
archives, and I think I have a "read" on your basic views on this
subject. I, like you, am not a proponent of the classical view of the
Triune nature of God, as promoted by the RCC and the "mainstream"
protestant denominations...but I do not go to the other extreme, and
deny the divinity of Christ.
I believe that the Godhead consists of three distict and individual
Beings - known to us as 1- God the Father, 2- His Son, Jesus Christ,
and 3- a yet seperate, and little understood Personage the scriptures
speak of enigmatically, as "the Holy Spirit".
Collectively, these three Beings can rightly be referred to as "God" -
indeed, even seperately, due to their exalted station, each can in a
sense also be referred to as "God" by us mere mortals.But the problem
crops up in so doing, that many who try to grasp these truths forget
or loose track of this one over-riding truth....that ultimately, it
is ALSO true that God the Father is in fact the "ONE TRUE GOD".
Even Christ and the Personage known as the Holy Spirit are in fact
subservient to the Father - always have been, and always will be,
throughout eternity past, present, and future.
I know that some will claim that I am teaching a plurality of gods,
by espousing this doctrine. Be that as it may, I firmly believe that
the nature of the Godhead is just as I have thus portrayed it, and
that the arguement that such attackers use against me is merely one
These Three are indeed "One" - in that they operate in concert to do
the will of the Supreme One (The Father). They act as One - they are
ONE -in purpose -yet they are, and always have been, seperate in
Being. But man has made the mistake of attempting to somehow "merge"
all three of these into an inexplainable and confusing "composite"
single "Being" -without parts - an inconcievable God that I do not
Is the Godhead, as I have described it, still a mystery? Yes. Do I or
anyone else FULLY understand it? No. We mortals cannot and will not,
while in mortality fully be able to comprehend all the things of God
in their entire-ity. But the understanding that I am espousing of the
distict and seperate nature of these Three Members of the Godhead,
offers the only logical way for us to understand the scriptures...for
the Bible in its entire-ity, confirms that this understanding of the
individual members of the Godhead, that I am espousing, is the
correct one and will "make sense" throughout the scriptures, if they
read with such an understanding.
Of course, thats just my opinion...I could be wrong. ;-)
--- In email@example.com, Patrick Navas
>book on the doctrine of the Trinity:
> For those of you on this forum who haven't see it: I published a
>Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew
> Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman
and Christian Scriptures.
>first chapter are available online at the site.
> Check out the website if you are interested. The introduction and
> Best wishes to all,
> Patrick Navas
- Hi HG,Thank you for the note. And thank you for sharing your views. I appreciate your humble approach to the subject. Of course, I believe that the classical teaching on the Trinity is a serious mistake (a wrong interpretation of the Bible), but I think it is an even greater mistake to teach that acceptance of this doctrines is required for salvation itself. It is one thing to say, "I believe in the Trinity because I sincerely think it is the best way to explain the biblical information." It is another thing to say, "you have to believe in the Trinity (an interpretation) in order to be saved. If you don't you're going to hell." Those who take this position have no scriptural warrant whatsoever.Patrick Navas
- Hi Patrick - I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote below. It is
not right for any one who believes in Christ, to imply that another
person, who also believes in Him and is honestly trying to follow
Him, is not saved. Especially over such doctrinal differences such as
this one, or which day is the correct day to observe as the Sabbath,
for another example.
These attitudes appear far too often in groups such as these, and
they drive us apart, rather than bring us into fellowship. We should
be able to disagree, without trying to condemn each other into the
flames of hell. ;-)
I hope you don't think I'm just trying to "butter you up" by saying
this, but I want to mention to you that I have almost finished
reading your first chapter....and I am very impressed. Not only with
the content, but also with your writing skills.
I wanted to be a writer - and took quite a few courses to that end,
when I was in college. I won't tell my age, but suffice it to say
that in those days, we used quills and ink wells (just kidding).
You are indeed a polished professional writer, in my estimation.
Was this your first book? (I should probably know the answer to this,
if I had checked for this info on your site).
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Patrick Navas
>appreciate your humble approach to the subject. Of course, I believe
> Hi HG,
> Thank you for the note. And thank you for sharing your views. I
that the classical teaching on the Trinity is a serious mistake (a
wrong interpretation of the Bible), but I think it is an even greater
mistake to teach that acceptance of this doctrines is required for
salvation itself. It is one thing to say, "I believe in the Trinity
because I sincerely think it is the best way to explain the biblical
information." It is another thing to say, "you have to believe in the
Trinity (an interpretation) in order to be saved. If you don't you're
going to hell." Those who take this position have no scriptural
> Patrick Navas
- HG,Thank you for the encouraging words regarding my book. It is my first book. I don't know if I'll ever write another one. But I've thought about writing something on "Calvinism," another subject I'm interested in.I'm so glad you enjoyed the first chapter. You can also read chapter 6 which appears on the resources page of my website if you are intersested (The 'I am' statements of the Gospel of John)Stay in touch,Patrick Navas