Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

[APAK]

“… the incarnate Logos is the self-expression of God. It is only when the early church’s Logos christology is supplanted by the Son christology of Nicaea, and the Son christology becomes detached from the Logos christology that the issue of personal relationships within the Godhead arises and talk of ‘subordination’ becomes necessary to maintain the balance within the by then much-refined monotheism of the Fathers.”

(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 354,355)

The self-expression of God indeed - logos of God that existed just within himself at first, before time, and with an existence as we cannot know it or can understand it. I do not know if I would view this core feature (word- logos) as being incarnated within himself though. It was most probably always there in eternity past. It's not like he was/is like a super complex form of life that upon boot up/wake up mode, there was a time when the logos was instantly created (incarnated) for his purpose...who knows? Then where and when was the causal act/impulse/plan to perform this incarnate event?

I agree with how Nicaea turned this divine logos all upside though, and by attaching a new created person to it They hijacked God's core for themselves out of ignorance, not understanding who is their Creator. I guess they had other fish to fry and make the masses happy. It was the most expedient thing to do and look what it has cost us over the centuries? Lots!!

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is the incarnation of sophia. The trinitarians at this level of ”conversation” might not have a problem understanding sophia as “it” had John used that feminine Greek word instead of the equivalent masculine Greek word logos.

What would it look like if John had used sophia? Something like this:

In the beginning was the sophia (wisdom), and the sophia (wisdom) was with God, and the sophia (wisdom) was God. She (wisdom) was with God in the beginning. Through her (wisdom) all things were made; without her (wisdom) nothing was made that has been made. In her (wisdom) was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

I think at this level the trinitarians would just blow a gasket. Grammatical gender seems to be over most of their heads.

 

[APAK]

Jesus is the incarnation of sophia. The trinitarians at this level of ”conversation” might not have a problem understanding sophia as “it” had John used that feminine Greek word instead of the equivalent masculine Greek word logos.

What would it look like if John had used sophia? Something like this:

In the beginning was the sophia (wisdom), and the sophia (wisdom) was with God, and the sophia (wisdom) was God. She (wisdom) was with God in the beginning. Through her (wisdom) all things were made; without her (wisdom) nothing was made that has been made. In her (wisdom) was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

I think at this level the trinitarians would just blow a gasket. Grammatical gender seems to be over most of their heads.

Such an instigator you are...you gonna start a SS TG war on much a larger scale...blow a triune gasket... that is very appropriate and this type of humor of a truly serious nature is part of my personality.

This Triune worship model is so delicate as it barely stands even now, that any consequential and major disturbance in its foundation will bring it all down. And you had to pick the Trini touchstone part of scripture....great job!! Let it fly I say...

 

[synergy]

“Nor am I thinking only of the sending motif, where the Son sent is wholly representative of the Father who sent him (e.g. 10.36; 12:45). I am thinking more of the features of John’s Son christology normally referred to as the Son’s ‘subordination to the Father - summed up by 14.28, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ In fact, however, the thought is not so much of subordination, as though that was already an issue. The issue is not the relation between the Father and the Son (as later), but the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father, the continuity between the Father and the Son, between the logos unuttered and the logos uttered.”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 353)

"The issue is ... the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father". What?!?
I don't know anything past what you forwarded to us but that sounds blasphemous, to say the least.
You really know how to pick them. From Origen (anathemized by the Church) to Hugh Schonfield and now to this guy.

 

[synergy]

“… the incarnate Logos is the self-expression of God. It is only when the early church’s Logos christology is supplanted by the Son christology of Nicaea, and the Son christology becomes detached from the Logos christology that the issue of personal relationships within the Godhead arises and talk of ‘subordination’ becomes necessary to maintain the balance within the by then much-refined monotheism of the Fathers.”

(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 354,355)

Logos Theology was already manifested in the LXX, 500 years before Nicea. The only supplanting being done is the warping of history as clearly demonstrated in the writings above.

 

[synergy]

Such an instigator you are...you gonna start a SS TG war on much a larger scale...blow a triune gasket... that is very appropriate and this type of humor of a truly serious nature is part of my personality.

This Triune worship model is so delicate as it barely stands even now, that any consequential and major disturbance in its foundation will bring it all down. And you had to pick the Trini touchstone part of scripture....great job!! Let it fly I say...

Keep dreaming your nihilistic dreams. Ain't going to happen.

 

[synergy]

Jesus is the incarnation of sophia.

Is that what Unitarians believe? Wow! Time to get back on course with the Bible.

The trinitarians at this level of ”conversation” might not have a problem understanding sophia as “it” had John used that feminine Greek word instead of the equivalent masculine Greek word logos.

We believe what the converted Berean Jews believed in their LXX OT. The Logos of God.

What would it look like if John had used sophia? Something like this:

In the beginning was the sophia (wisdom), and the sophia (wisdom) was with God, and the sophia (wisdom) was God. She (wisdom) was with God in the beginning. Through her (wisdom) all things were made; without her (wisdom) nothing was made that has been made. In her (wisdom) was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

I think at this level the trinitarians would just blow a gasket. Grammatical gender seems to be over most of their heads.

Stop warping the NT.

 

[synergy]

The scriptures are true. It’s the later trinitarian understanding and interpretation of the scriptures which sets trinitarianism against the Jewish monotheism of Peter.

Logos Theology was already manifested in the LXX, 500 years before Nicea. Back to the drawing board for Unitarians.

What did you bold in verse 2? The identity of the one God.

One God, Three Persons.

Trinitarianism destroyed the Jewish dogma.

Au contraire, mon ami. Pharisaic Unitarians are the ones trying to do that but are failing miserably.

Shout it from the rooftop! Let it roll like thunder from the pulpit!

Try it and you're going to be locked up in the looney bin before you know it.

 

[Matthias]

"The issue is ... the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father". What?!?

This tells me that you don’t understand what was going on in John 8:38ff.

I don't know anything past what you forwarded to us but that sounds blasphemous, to say the least.

If you think that about what Dunn (a trinitarian) said then you’re certainly going to think that about what I say. Once again I find myself wondering why you’re asking me to explain something to you.

You really know how to pick them. From Origen (anathemized by the Church) to Hugh Schonfield and now to this guy.

Attitude. It wasn’t just SHURF.

 

[Matthias]

Logos Theology was already manifested in the LXX, 500 years before Nicea. The only supplanting being done is the warping of history as clearly demonstrated in the writings above.

You’re falsely accusing Dunn - just as you falsely accused Tyndale and other trinitarian translators.

 

[Matthias]

Is that what Unitarians believe? Wow! Time to get back on course with the Bible.

We believe what the converted Berean Jews believed in their LXX OT. The Logos of God.

Stop warping the NT.

You accuse me out of one side of your mouth and then ask me to explain out of the other side of your mouth.

You aren’t asking me to learn. You’re asking me to accuse,

 

[Matthias]

Logos Theology was already manifested in the LXX, 500 years before Nicea. Back to the drawing board for Unitarians.

One God, Three Persons.

Au contraire, mon ami. Pharisaic Unitarians are the ones trying to do that but are failing miserably.

Try it and you're going to be locked up in the looney bin before you know it.

Gregory of Nyssa.

 

[APAK]

"The issue is ... the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father". What?!?
I don't know anything past what you forwarded to us but that sounds blasphemous, to say the least.
You really know how to pick them. From Origen (anathemized by the Church) to Hugh Schonfield and now to this guy.

Synergy your first line is SO IMPORTANT: The statement by Dunn, who by the way to me, is like a double agent for the cause of true monotheism, it is a very, very profound statement of core truth. If you get this thought and understand it, and believe it in your heart it is true - valid, relevant and with true authority given by the Son, then for sure you are saved in the truest sense, as you know without reason or from external input that the Father was/is in Christ and Christ is in you. The HS provides us with this saving knowledge. You can write a book on this subject that not only does it involve Unitarianism, knee-deep, it is crucial knowledge/experience for salvation as we mature in the spirit of Christ. It brings confidence that one is saved. Without this special relationship between the Father and Son, as Dunn points out, and @Matthias quotes pertinent scripture in John, the Son is lost, the Father is without a son and so are we, without the Father and Son, as our bridge to heaven.

 

[civic]

You’re falsely accusing Dunn - just as you falsely accused Tyndale and other trinitarian translators.

he is correct as dunn doesn't understand the Logos who is God- John 1:1.

a very sad and not a recommended commentary on Johns gospel. I have a whole shelf of excellent commentaries on Johns gospel and his in not one of the 2 dozen I own.

 

[Matthias]

he is correct as dunn doesn't understand the Logos who is God- John 1:1.

a very sad and not a recommended commentary on Johns gospel. I have a whole shelf of excellent commentaries on Johns gospel and his in not one of the 2 dozen I own.

Christianity in the Making (3 vols.)

James D.G. Dunn is one of the most renowned New Testament scholars of the present day. The fruit of a lifetime of scholarship, the now complete Christianity in the Making series is truly Dunn’s magnum opus. Through these volumes, Dunn traces the origins of Christianity from the time of Jesus in...

www.logos.com

 

[Rapture Bound]

The thing is about this, is all false doctrine affects the character of Christ in one way or another. Yet we do not think all false doctrine forfeits salvation.

For example, Calvinism distorts the character of Christ greatly—it attributes distortions and evil to him. Yet, I still think their faith in the atonement, the grace of God, can save.

So what bandwidth or spectrum of doctrine is within salvific? It's a difficult question to ask. Obviously there is some requirement or else everyone is saved, and this is not the import of Scripture.

I see a work of the Spirit producing a true belief that Christ was sent by God to atone for sins, as the most fundamental and essential meaning of the Gospel.

You said, "So what bandwidth or spectrum of doctrine is within salvific? It's a difficult question to ask. Obviously there is some requirement or else everyone is saved, and this is not the import of Scripture."

What an excellent and all-important question that you have raised here my friend! Not only is it a very difficult question to ask, but it's one that is so very essential to be able to answer. When was the last time that you've heard this question being discussed in your local church? chances are ... not in a very long time ... if ever.

The way I see it, your question can be restated as, "what must I believe in order to be saved?" ... but more specifically, as it relates to the OP ... "can a person be regenerated apart from believing that Jesus Christ is God?"

 

[Diserner]

The way I see it, your question can be restated as, "what must I believe in order to be saved?" ... but more specifically, as it relates to the OP ... "can a person be regenerated apart from believing that Jesus Christ is God?"

As odd as it may seem, I have come to believe they can.

 

[Matthias]

As odd as it may seem, I have come to believe they can.

As odd as this will probably sound to you, I have always believed that they can’t.

Jesus is ”God” but the question is, how is he “God”?

 

[Diserner]

As odd as this will probably sound to you, I have always believed that they can’t.

At this point, that definitely does seem odd.

 

[civic]

You said, "So what bandwidth or spectrum of doctrine is within salvific? It's a difficult question to ask. Obviously there is some requirement or else everyone is saved, and this is not the import of Scripture."

What an excellent and all-important question that you have raised here my friend! Not only is it a very difficult question to ask, but it's one that is so very essential to be able to answer. When was the last time that you've heard this question being discussed in your local church? chances are ... not in a very long time ... if ever.

The way I see it, your question can be restated as, "what must I believe in order to be saved?" ... but more specifically, as it relates to the OP ... "can a person be regenerated apart from believing that Jesus Christ is God?"

Or can one deny Jesus is God, oppose His deity and be saved ?