It is hard for me, as a teacher of theology, to consider anything worse than bad doctrine in the church. When people’s views of God become distorted, their lives follow suit. When someone believes it is always God’s will to heal their sickness, they are going to be left disillusioned and riddled with spiritual pain. When peripheral issues get elevated to the status of essentials (and this is bad doctrine too), the central message of the Gospel gets replaced or lost. I had a lady here at the Credo House the other day who said that God gave her a message. What was the message? That women do not inherit original sin, only men. She went through a long complicated argument. I could tell that this was incredibly important to her. She was insistent, assured, and demanding. She even wrote a book about it and gave it to me. It was the focus of her message! Was this sinful?
I suppose that I want bad doctrine to always be sin. That way, it is easy for me to explain why people don’t agree with me. If we are not on the same page theologically, the answer is simple: they are in sinful rebellion to the truth. Next…
But I am not sure this is always correct. I am pretty sure that bad doctrine is sinful, but I am not sure when it is sinful.
Let us talk about the polar extremes of this issue. It is easy to see that any rejection of Jesus is sinful. Now, one may do this with perfectly good doctrine. One may intellectually believe that Jesus is the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. They may believe in the Trinity, the hypostatic union, justification by faith alone, and the like. But they simply refuse to accept God’s sovereignty over their lives. This is obviously the sin of rebellion. I always think of King Saul when it comes to this type of person. However, there are those who don’t have good doctrine at all. There are polytheists, who believe there are many gods. There are those who believe God is a force, not a person. There are those who do not even believe in God. Is this sin? I believe it is. Ultimately, it is a rejection of God. It is a rejection of the truths God has plainly revealed about himself and his nature – truths which some people choose to turn away from, in favor of lies. In Romans 1 we see this very clearly.
Rom 1:18-19
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Notice here that there are certain things about God that he has made plain, or clear. These things have been revealed through creation and can be observed by all. Notice what things are plain.
Rom 1:20
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.
The word “attributes” is not really in the original. But this probably expresses Paul’s thoughts well. It is the “invisible things” of God that are plain. His “power” and “nature” are singled out as examples. Paul does not go into detail about what invisible things can be known about God through creation, but whatever these things are (most certainly his power, singularity, and transcendence), the reason for people’s rejection of them – the reason for bad doctrine – is clearly explained: people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
If this is the case, then bad doctrine is not so much sinful in and of itself; it is the result of sinfulness. In other words, people suppress what is plain about God (and, I suppose, the Bible) so they can continue on in the lifestyle they desire. Bad doctrine serves to facilitate their sin. This is easy enough to see in atheism. If there is no God, there is no punishment for sin. The same can be said for those who reject God’s righteousness, judgement, wrath, and the doctrine of hell. This is suppression of truth in favor of sin.
Are there cases where people are legitimately deceived and their bad doctrine is not due to a favoring of sin? This could certainly be true in some situations, but we are going to have to let God work this out.
Other times, bad doctrine is not so bad. In other words, I think egalitarianism is bad doctrine for the most part. But I am not sure it can be described as “suppression of truth in favor of sin.” After all, there are some very good Christians who are egalitarians due to convictions brought about by their studies. I don’t think their bad doctrine is sinful. And if I am wrong about my complementarian views, I don’t think it is sinful. I could say the same thing about all non-cardinal issues. There are just so many things that we are not sure about. Someone is wrong, but this does not mean they are in rebellion. With the things that are evident, plain, and clear, I think denial of these particulars is the product of sin and is, therefore, sinful.
The best I can do right now is say that bad doctrine is often, but not always, sin.
153 replies to "Is Bad Doctrine Sin?"
Yes, no caps but one when needed (Btw), internet slang for me. Of course “Wicca” creeps from the pit! 😉
John and Fr. Robert:
In summary, Unitarian Universalists do have a theology:
They believe that human beings should be free to choose their beliefs according to the dictates of their own conscience.
> So, do I.
They believe in original goodness, with the understanding that sin is sometimes chosen, often because of pain or ignorance.
> I have a feeling that their “sometimes” is really an excuse to excuse responsibility; and most likely they see very little as sin in general. Sin is always an act of the will. Culpability for such is never otherwise.
They believe that God is One.
> So, do I. But, no, Muslims do not worship the same God as we Christians worship.
They believe that revelation is ever unfolding.
> Illumination, yes. Revelation, no. Jesus and the word of God are the final revelation. So, I disagree.
They believe that the Kingdom of God is to be created here on this earth.
> Yes, and no. The Kingdom is now, not yet. That’s Bible.
They believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, and that other prophets from God have risen in other faith traditions.
> Whoa. 2 plus 2 can never equal 5.
They believe that love is more important than doctrine.
Love is doctrine.
They believe that God’s mercy will reconcile all unto itself in the end.
> On what basis? A hunch or scripture?
What say, ye?
Dr. Jay
I never said that I was a Unitarian or a even more so a Universalist Unitarian.
I am a no sort of ‘…….arian’
I seek truth wherever I can and am not convinced by Trinitarian Doctrine and indeed most man made constructs.
If you wish to get to know the subject better you might like to follow http://www.trinities.org – some spirited conversation there from time to time.
You will have noticed that I called myself ‘an heretic with respect to orthodoxy’. I am that.!
A few have said “see- he’s an heretic- and then launched into the usual tirades accompanied by irrelevant verses. What I said is that I do not accept orthodoxy.
In the case of the Trinity (i) It makes no sense and (ii) It is not scriptural.
Blessings
John B.
Cherlyu
Hi!
I’ve had a look at Hebrews 7-10 and stand by my general comments.
If you read the footnotes to those chapters in the NAB Bible you will obtain a very good idea of what is going on here. There are the usual mistranslations from the original Hebrew as well as a ‘sprinkling’ of Platonic philosophy.
I can’t saw that I have sutdied the material thoroughly
although I did examine Hebrews 1 recently because it is the subject of so much debate.
It seems that the whole of Hebrews follows the same ‘logic’ and it may take another post to explain – but here goes.!
Some time in the second century an unknown writer set out to write about Christ – and make sense of his life and death.
(i) It would be simplistic to believe that he enjoyed a
‘window into heaven’ and witnessed the arrival of
the newly risen Christ…he simply used the material
which was ‘in the public domain at the time’
(ii) He SURMISED that the newly elevated Christ would
have been treated as an honoured guest would
have been treated at that time and seated
on Gods right hand (note the
anthropomorphic treatment )
(iii) Hebrews (Jews) believed that angels were ‘superior’
to
humans -so the newly exalted Christ would now
be ‘higher than the angels’
(iv) The unknown author SURMISED that the words
used by God to welcome Christ would be SIMILAR
to those used at important occasions, so he
‘cut and pasted’ verses from the OT -as follows
(a) Psalm 2 A Psalm for a Royal Coronation
(b) Psalm 45 Song for a Royal Wedding
(c) Psalm 102 Prayer in a time of distress
(d) God appoints the Davidic King both King and
Priest.
Remember that at coronation the Davidic Kings
were ordained as priests, made God’s adoptive
son and crowned as king.
TO NEXT POST.
John
That’s why the Historical Church does theology to some degree, to know what is orthodox and what is not! And indeed here is where theological definition is also very important.
If your not A Trinitarian, then you must be some kind of modalist? Oneness or Monarchianist? There’s not much else left, besides being a Unitarian.
Indeed the Trinity is seen both within the EO, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, as too the classic historical Protestantism. It has its own history & biblicism! It is one thing to not understand the Triune God, but quite another to stand hard against it! And of course the church has seen the latter with many. At the very least this is heterodoxy…inclining toward heresy and unorthodox.
And to some degree all true biblical theology, especially the doctrine of the Triune God and the Trinity has so-called construct, as too the doctrine of Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ.
John, you haven’t even touched on what I was specifically referring to in those chapters chaptersi Hebrews.
Cherylu
PART TWO
In PART ONE I noted that the unknown author of Hebrews was SURMISING THE TYPE OF words God would have used to welcome the newly risen Christ into Heaven.
Trinitarians have missed the point and used verses to try to justify doctrine…where no such meaning can be derived.
To complicate the Trinitarians position there are translation problems.
(i) Hebrews 1:7 is transcribed from the Septuagint which varies slightly from the original Hebrew
(ii) Hebrews 1:10 reflects the Greek Septuagint but
in Psalm 102 it is YHWH who is being addressed
as the creator of the heavens and the earth,
whereas in Hebrews 1:10 Christ is being
addressed as creator of the heavens and the earth.
Orthdox Christias say that this ‘proves’ that Christ
is God.
In other fields of scholarship the trinitarian arguments would be scorned – but this is ‘religion’ so different rules seem to apply.
As always people see what they want to see!
Regarding Hebrews 7-10 I would say that it makes no sense to pay for remission of sins ‘forward’
Luthers letter ‘Go sin boldly’ is nonsense -as the Catholics have pointed out. The Catholic sytem of ‘indulgences’ does not leave them unscathed!
Every Blessing
John
Cherylu
The unknown author of Hebrews who was ‘inspired’ to write, was trying to summarise Christs mission using material which was in the public domain at that time..
He did not have a ‘window into heaven’
He wrote what he THOUGHT was right.
The footnotes in the NAB Bible do a better job than me!
Blessings
John
John, if we can’t even agree that scripture is inspired by God and is authoritative for us, there is no common ground that we hold at all to come to agreement on anything here.
The great Book of Hebrews stands on its own merit, it has no introduction, but it surely presents the Son of God “Himself”, (“His Son”… HE is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of HIS nature”. Heb. 1: 2) the heavenly high priest (Heb. 4: 14) who is a sacrifice & purification for sins and sinners! (Heb. 1: 3)
The salvation-teaching of the Book of Hebrews is rooted in its Christology – the Son of God Himself, the Divine Christ! (“And He upholds the universe by the word of HIS power”!)
@cherylu: It only gets worse with the unorthodox and heterodox, as to Christ, the Incarnation, and the Trinity of God! They simply don’t know and love the Truth of God!
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by/through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14: 6-7)
Btw, I have learned the hard way, that the only way to deal with those that reject the Incarnation and the Triune God & Trinity of God is as 1 John 4: 2-3, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God; this is the/that spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” See too 2 John 9-10-11! I know sounds harsh, but it is simply nonetheless biblical!
Of course this is the biblical and theological place, but we still must sound it when we must!
Note when we reject God-Triune, we are rejecting the Son of God, and vice-versa!
And this is certainly NOT a peripheral issue! Now of course not everyone within this biblical error, is pressing it, and no doubt does not understand it! But, we still must press the truth of the great subject, and walk softly in God’s great triune mystery!
The central tenet of Christian theology in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constitute one, personal, and triune God. It is defined in the Athanasian Creed as… “We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons , nor dividing the substance.”
How can this great doctrine, indeed well beyond our mental powers, still not be central? Indeed it must, for here is the great doctrine OF GOD, triune: Father, Son, Holy Spirit! (Matt. 28:19)
The Church of God is Trinitarian, simply/profoundly!
Am I mistaken or has this blogsite established its own magisterium and thereby discouraging honest exchange of opinion by naïvely censoring anything that smacks of historial Orthodoxy?
Do I now get a t-shirt that says “I got suspended from Parchment and Pen . . . Oh yeah baby.” I ask because I posted some comments on the RC position on the inerrancy of scripture which I see has been removed. Personally on the face of things they have a healthy respect for scripture; however, in practice they have stretched the limits of textual criticism to the absolute limits on doctrines like Mariology and papal infallibility. I would like to see a good healthy debate on the subject. I am just saying………
John B. You profess not to be a Unitarian. But your arguements are very similar to those I have had elsewhere with a John Barron, self proffessed scholar and author against the Trinity. I am wondering if your the same person and if so, why dey your a unitarian here where elsewhere you confess to be so.
Amen Greg! WE worship the “great Christ of God”, the eternal Logos, who is centre of the Triune God: “for through Him we both (Jew & Gentile) have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” (Eph. 2: 18) And too as Paul says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1: 15) And both the Creator & Sustainer of Everything! “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Col. 1: 17)
“He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” (Col. 1: 18)
John, the Psalmist David who lived centuries before Jesus was born seemed to have a clear understanding of the relationship that Jesus had with the Father, for David writes, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (KJV) Thus, He declared His eternal relationship with the Son, not on the basis of the begottenness of His Son as a man, but on the fact that His Sonship preceded His begottenness. #And the author of the book of Hebrews reaffirms this with, “For to which of the angels did [God] ever say, You are My Son, today I have begotten You. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He will be to Me a Son? (Hebrews 1:5)#Now, I want to be careful to distinguish between my position that Jesus was God before He was begotten with that of the Gnostic Sabellianist David K. Bernard who embraces the adoptionists position that Jesus was not a son before he was begotten. As, of course, with all heresy Mr. Bernard has many nuances in his position, but none that grasps the significance of the fact that God declared Jesus a Son prior to His incarnation. Thus, a Son and Father relationship is clearly operative prior to Jesus birth. Personally, I think both the Sabellianist would profit from considering an ontology of God that allows an essence of a trinity of persons , or as some have called it, an Ontological Trinity. Karl Rahner has said that almost all Christians in their practical lives are monotheists—suggesting that if the doctrine of the Trinity were proven false tomorrow the majority of religious literature could “well remained virtually unchanged.”[i] I agree. Largely, because I believe that orthodox Christians are indeed monotheists doctrinally. Much can be said of the uniqueness of the Trinity but nothing is more distinctive than God’s all sufficiency. He is lacking in nothing. The essence of the Godhead is testimony to that. With that in mind, let’s consider the personhood of Jesus for a moment. I begin with a question: “Would God have been sufficient if he had to rely on a man to live a perfect life to qualify as worthy for adoption as a son in order to reconcile us to Himself?” I think not. If so, why adopt him into the Godhead? Was the adoption some kind of congratulatory afterthought? The price that Jesus paid for our redemption as a mere man; albeit, a good and perfect man, seems rather trivial compared to God the Son, sacrificing Himself for us. To think less, cheapens the atonement. #If Godly essence had not been present in God the Son, then He could have never fulfilled His Divine mission. Why? Because, the Scriptures clearly state, “[T]hat God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19) So, when did Jesus become God? When did the adoption take place. When did God enter Jesus in His fullness? The Scripture is certainly silent on that, if one insists that Jesus was elevated into the Godhead, somewhere or time during His life here on earth. His baptism for sure is not a confirmation of that position. For the voice from Heaven declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” [Matthew 3:17] Again, illustrating that He was already a Son.#And, we also know of that time Peter says, “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 3.2 Peter 1:17 But, once again, God the Father declares first of all that “This is my beloved[ii] Son” in whom I am well pleased. And, it is from that declaration that Peter asserts that Jesus received honor and glory. So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a Divine strategy played out in a human environment. Also consider, “[T]hat God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19) Now, I fully realize that prepositions in any language can be easily misinterpreted; but I believe that from the context and other verses we can truthful deduct that this “in” contains the essence of God in His fullness. How else then do we explain the verse that declares that in Him, that is Jesus Christ, “dwells the fullness of the Godhead [Deity] bodily”? (Colossians 2:9) How much more plain can you get? We know that this was pleasing to the Father, for in verse 19 and 20 of the first chapter of this same epistle, the Apostle declares, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
Indeed the only “Magisterium” for Reformed Christianity is Revelation of the Word of God itself…The Sola Scripturia!
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks (is seeking such) to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him MUST (it is necessary) worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 23-24)
Btw, the “eternal” Sonship of Christ, as the “eternal Generation” of Christ are simply biblical orthodoxy!
“self professed scholar and author against the Trinity”? Humm, interesting, but I have never heard of such! 😉
Btw, I should surely not forget the great doctrine/teaching of the Monarchy of the Father in the Godhead, He being the First Person of the Godhead, The Father is the “regal” of the Godhead! Though the three persons of the Trinity are accepted as coequal, eternally self-existent, and mutually indwelling through circumincession (“prichoresis”, Gk.) First used by the Eastern or Greek theologian St. John of Damascus. This describes the seamless Trinity of God while maintaining the personal distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even Augustine taught such.
Dr. Jay
In post 128 you bravely said ” We Christians do not worship the same God as Muslims”
Really.?
Muslims worship “Allah’ or rather “Al – lah”
Al means Lord
lah is the defintie article ‘The’
In Hebrew the corresponding word for ‘Al’ is “El’
We are talking about the OT ‘The Lord’.
Blessings
John B
Craig Bennett
Never heard of John Barron.!
From the ‘time stamps’ you live half a world away from me -in Central Africa.
Blessings
John B.
Cherylu
Was awoken a few moments ago by an intruder in my home so do not have time to deal with all your points but do you seriously believe that the words in Hebrews 1 are the actual words that God used to greet the newly risen Christ?
Surely it is obvious that they are ‘cut and pasted’ from the OT and are TYPOLOGY.?
Blessings
John
John,
Is everyone and everything alright?
#153/55 reveals how biblically bad this man’s work and thought really is! One thinks of 2 Cor. 11: 4, etc., sad! Sometimes one must just move on, God is Sovereign, but allows sinful men to, as Paul says: “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3: 7), seeing too verse 13! Human and spiritual deception are very real!
Watch out for the “smokescreen”!
Fr Robert,
What smoke screen are you talking about?
All
Thanks for your concern. I had two attempted intrusions but all is well!
Fr. Greg
Forgive me for ignoring the points you raised!
I’m a bit overwhelmed by all of the posts!
You have been very gracious!
You asked why I frequently quote the NAB BIble – the answer is that I believe it posseses greater scholarship and integrity than most.
I used to use the RSV and the Tanakh – but NAB does the job well.
Many other Bibles are knowingly deceitful especially where doctrinal matters are concerned.
Obviously I am not a Catholic but I do appreciate your Church’s stand on basic values.
My favourite dinner parties are with Catholic missionaries -particularly Jesuits and Redemptionists.
They are quite up-front about NOT being ‘literalists’ . They regard the whole truth as being revealed by the ‘Saints’ and ‘early Church Fathers’
The Anglicans tend to ‘babble on’ ineffectually.
But I shouldnt be mean spirited!
Where we have a serious difference is on the question of’ tradition.’
I would have liked a ‘zero-base’ approach to the Reformation – but I still think we will get there eventually as there are a lot of people like me who are using the internet to seek answers to questions that have troubled us.
The good news is that people are out there seeking truth.
The bad news is that the world increasingly does not care.
Every Blessing
John B.
Dr Jay
Can you tell me, with a straight face, that the words used in Hebrews 1 vs 5-13 are the actual words used by God to welcome the newly risen Christ into heaven?
The writer is SURMISING that these are THE TYPE OF WORDS with which God would have used.
As you must know the coronation ceremony of a Davidic King involved the candidate being
-ordained as a priest
-crowned
-made God’s adoptive Son.
It is absurd to assume that God used these actual words at the time of Christs elevation. The writer had to use words and images with which the audience would have been familiar. Thats why I used the word ‘anthropomorphic’ in an earlier post.
Trouble is that desperate trinitarians will hang on to any ‘straw’ -including Hebrews 1!. Their doctrine is NOT Biblical and it defies common sense and logic.
There are no trinitarian ‘proof verses’ except for those who want to see them!
As Nicky Gumble admits, there are NO proof verses, but some verses ‘strongly suggest’ a Trinity. These verses can be easily challenged. and none over-ride Christs own words expressed in the Gospels.
Blessings
John B.
What is your source for the idea that Davidic kings were ordained as a priest? If I remember my bible stories correctly Uzziah got leprosy for trying to do the kohen stuff (2Chron 26:16-19). I think Jesus is the first and only from line of Judah to assume role as Levite high priest.
As well as Hebrews understanding the divinity of Jesus, also several other NT authors present the same story. Consider the incomparable Christ of Colossians 1:15-20. This was Paul’s view. Clearly a view of preincarnate divinity. A comparison of John 1 and Genesis 1 shows that the author of the 4th gospel thinks the Word=YHWH. John of Patmos in the Apocalypse records God (assumedly the Father) saying Rev 1:8 “I am alpha and omega.” Then in Rev 1:17 just a few verses later Jesus says “Iam first and last.” This is the same view as presented in other NT books. There exists an equality between Jesus and God. They can’t both be arche and telos otherwise.
That the man named Jesus from Nazareth was the incarnation of pre-incarnate deity and resided in the body of Jesus is necessary for the gospel message to work. All through the OT, over and over is the story that only God can save. He is a God of deliverance. Salvation just means deliverance.
When Adam was found naked, God provided the sheepskin underwear. When God destroyed the world with a flood, he provided directions for a boat to save Noah. The human cannot provide for himself. The repeated biblical message is that God alone saves.
When Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, God provided a ram in the thicket. When Moses had his back against the ocean with Pharaoh’s army trapping him, God provided salvation. When Gideon was called to deliver Israel from the Midianites, God asked him to thin down the army so that men could not take credit for the salvation that was coming. Over and over the same storyline is repeated with Ruth, Esther, David, etc. In every case the people did not have to work and earn his salvation. God freely provided deliverance. Now bring in the NT: In Mat 1:21 Jesus’ purpose, his anointment, was to save his people from their sin. And since only God can provide his own salvation, that is why we believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Hi John,
You keep going back to Hebrews 1 and saying those were not God’s exact words. Exact words or not, (that is another argument altogether) I believe that they were inspired by God and got across exactly what God wanted him to be telling us.
And in the section later in the book, chapters 7-10 that I referred you to, again this is what God wanted the author to tell us. It is not simply what “he thought was right.” Therefore I believe every word that was said there about the atonement.
If you choose to believe that the Bible is only a human book that are only the authors thoughts, it ceases to be authoritative in any way.
Cherylu
The difference between scriptures which are ‘literal’ and those that are ‘typological’ is that the individual words latter cannot be used to ‘prove’ doctrine.
Take Hebrews 1:8 for example.
But of the Son
“Your throne O God stands forever…” NAB Bible
This is taken from Psalm 45 v7 which reads
“Your throne O god stands forever…..”
Notes
(i) The capitalisation of the word “God’ by the unknown writer of Hebrews
(ii)Psalm 45 is about the marriage of the Davidic King to the Princess of Tyre.
Note that verse 10 says “Daughters of Kings are your lovely wives” NAB
KJV says ‘honourable ladies’
And some would tell us that Christ is being addressed as God.
The linguistic aspects of Psalm 102 versus Hebrews 1 vs 8 & 10 are a great deal more serious!
Every Blessing
John B.
Indeed cherylu, the only “babbler” here, is the one who does not really address or believe the Holy Word of God!
As Greg said the supposed “uninvited visitor”? But too the “smoke” of the “Enemy” of God! This man is just a waste of time! He has “deceived” himself, etc.! (2 Tim. 3: 13)
@Greg: Well perhaps he is just “confused”? I will cut him some slack! I have hammered him pretty hard with the authority of Holy Writ! Which he most certainly seems to deny! Note, not I but the “Holy Bible”!
Dear Fr. Greg
Just a note to say ‘farewell – and Godspeed.”
Thanks for your concerns regarding my family’s safety last night.!
One of the advantages of living in a ‘less democratic society ‘ is that the ‘baddies’ are generally unarmed since to carry an unregistered weapon is to ‘committ suicide ‘
The other is that the ‘tribulation’ has caused an ‘explosion’ of Christianity-of all flavours!
Every Blessing
John B.
Jay Altieri
You ask about my authority regarding the appointment of Davidic Kings as priests.
Consult the NAB Bible and see that Psalm 110 is entitled ‘God appoints the Davidic King both King and Priest.’
The footnotes to Psalm 110 reflect the fact that at coronation the King becomes Gods adoptive Son.
I must go- but you not be hearing from me again.
Blessings
John B
Btw, if this is the NAB (New American Bible) this is Roman Catholic. Or is it, the NASB?
John,
Why do you keep addressing Hebrews one with me when I have specificaYurIlly asked you about Hebrews 7-10?
Ps 110:1 is a messianic psalm. It gives the context of who is talking about who in verse 1. YHWH is talking to David’s lord.
LORD in all capitals is indicative of the Tetragrammaton in the text. This is the Father doing the talking. It is addressed to adonai ‘my lord’ Since David is the author, this means David’s lord, thus the messiah.
Yes the Christ will a be priest of the highest order, and as ya’ll have been talking about the author of Hebrews points to Jesus while reading this verse.
The note in my bible says “credentials of Messiah.” I’m not sure what version you are using, but folks around here will be focused on defending the text, not the commentary. I believe those commentators are mistaken to think that this psalm was ever used at Israelite coronations during the iron age monarchy. Some coronations are recorded in bible: Solomon’s 1K1; Joash’s 2Chron 23:11. They don’t record anything like you are claiming. I do not think any descended of David would ever have the gall to claim to be David’s ‘adon’ (lord/master) It is a general recognition of superiority. Jesus applied it to himself in Mat 22:42-44. No Israelite king ever usurped title of high priest before the exile. (Granted that did happen regularly with the Hasmoneans and Herodians, but Hellenistic socio-politics is a different topic)
My point is that although it may not change your general arguments, I think you should drop the king as priest during coronation idea.
@Greg: I find it interesting that this person uses a Roman Catholic English Translation (NAB), and I guess too the notes therein, and yet does not believe in the fullness of the Deity of Christ, nor really the biblical essence of the Text and Holy Scripture itself! Talk about a complete failure here! Amazing the depth of human sin and ignorance, and really the sinful heart to deceive itself! Of course too Satan “the father of lies” is quite involved, (John 8: 44)
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the GLORY OF CHRIST, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.” (2 Cor. 4: 3-4)
PS…I too love the ESV Study Bible, what a tool! 🙂
Btw, Psalm 45 comes to mind…”Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of unrighteousness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” (Ps. 45: 6-7-8, ESV).. (With of course Heb. 1: 8-9).
Btw, with the Christological interpretation of the OT to the New, Christ is always Prophet, Priest and King! Seen especially in the Book/Letter of Hebrews.
Dr. J.
My last post to you.
Surely you can understand why Christ is reflected as ‘prophet, priest and king”. I stand by what I say about ‘priest and king’
The JWs might agree with ‘prophet’
Regarding Psalm 110, this is YHWH talking to ‘adoni’
.
‘adoni’ is never used for ‘the one true God’
This dialogue is certainly NOT YHWH talking to YHWH
By the way some of those ‘italicised’ references in the NT
do not ‘tie up’ correctly with the corresponding OT scriptures.
Seek and you will find!
My last post – I promise!
Blessings
John B