The Church of Jesus Christ

Mr. Davis returns to posting here with thankfully a short post and one that can be answered in one response from me. I believe that he has taken pity on me since I took so long and in many parts to respond to last one. So, I thank him for his post this time and hey, if he wants to take it verse by verse, that will be fine with me.

Mr. Davis’ post is based on 1st Corinthians 8:6 and to tell you the truth, if that was the only verse in that passage, it would be difficult to handle; however, one must look at the entire passage, and again, the context (author/audience) to gain the meaning of the passage.

Here is 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 for your reading pleasure,

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. - KJV

Not much you can do with the translation here; although many modern translations call the false gods ’so-called’, but that should be inferred to the reader anyway.

We should not focus on one phrase or sentence in the passage, or we might come across something so false as ‘There is no God‘ and establish that as a doctrine, so let us delve in and eat of the entire passage.

Paul is speaking about idols and the worship of these things that men claim as divine. In the back of his mind is the law of Rome that dictates Caesar as Lord and God (dominus et deus - Latin, although it was not until a later Caesar that the titles were taken to heart by the Caesar ), and indeed in many ancient cultures (Egypt comes to mind) the rulers were considered divine (think Pharaoh). The Church at Corinth was faced with a wide variety of pagan religions (and indeed the monotheistic Judaism) and the question of eating those meats that had been sacrificed to idols came up. The idols, historians say, filled the streets and homes of the good citizens, as they did in many classical cities.

Before I go further, it has been suggested by some commentators that the Shema Yisrael can be seen here, and that Paul split the God and the Lord into two, pointing towards the Trinity. This is a forced interpretation. They usually point to the Hebrew word אחד (echad) which signifies unity more than a numerical stance. Mr. Wallace’s notes say this:

Heb “the Lord, our God, the Lord, one.” (1) One option is to translate: “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone” (cf. NAB, NRSV, NLT). This would be an affirmation that the Lord was the sole object of their devotion. This interpretation finds support from the appeals to loyalty that follow (vv. 5, 14). (2) Another option is to translate: “The Lord is our God, the Lord is unique.” In this case the text would be affirming the people’s allegiance to the Lord, as well as the Lord’s superiority to all other gods. It would also imply that he is the only one worthy of their worship. Support for this view comes from parallel texts such as Deut 7:9 and 10:17, as well as the use of “one” in Song 6:8-9, where the starstruck lover declares that his beloved is unique (literally, “one,” that is, “one of a kind”) when compared to all other women.

The LXX is,

Καὶ ταῦτα τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα, ὅσα ἐνετείλατο κύριος τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·

In Mark 12:29, Christ says:

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: - KJV

ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν, Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν, - NA26

The Greek εἷς (heis) is the numerical 1 in this case. So, the ancient translators and Christ both understood the Shema to state that God was numerically one, versus unified or unique. Paul would not have deviated from Christ. Would not Christ have taken that moment to correct the Jews on the unity of God?

In verse 4, Paul plainly says that the gods and lords are false; he says that their is only one God. What has to be noted is that Paul is defending the monotheistic belief of the Church in a pagan world, so why then would he draw a separation between God and Christ and confuse the fragile mind? Would it not be confusing to say to a pagan that there is but one God and yet we have a God and a Lord, and then give that Lord divine status?Is Paul separating the God and the Lord? Would God and Lord have been separated in the Jewish mind of the former Pharisee? Would not Paul still hold the monotheism of the First Covenant when thinking of God?

Paul sees no separation but is providing an answer to the questions of idols. We do have one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ. We have the visible image of the invisible. (See Col. 1:15-18). Christ, the manifestation of God was given all power in heaven and earth, and this serves as a reminder to the Corinthians that Christ is the Lord of all the earth.

To Mr. Davis, who said:

Here again we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

Distinction or separation, even if proved as fact, does not automatically include preexistence.

Modalists come in various shapes and sizes (modes?).

True, but so do Trinitarians. Take Mr. Davis who sees distinction rather than out right separation while other Trinitarians see an out right separation among the ‘3′.

Even for other Modalists, a similar issue exists: whatever way you try to use a “God = The Father” as opposed to “God = The Son” or “God = The Holy Spirit”, you’re still placing a restriction that destroys your ‘Oneness’ theology.

Now, as a Modalist (word applied to us), I have never used ‘God the Son’ but would readily use the Son of God to identify the manifestation of God on earth. As well, I have never used the ‘God the Holy Spirit/Ghost’ but would readily say the Spirit of God/the Lord/Christ to indicate the glory, presence, and power of God. These titles were created by the Trinitarians system and employed by the system, but a true Modalist would do well to stay away from them. I use Modalist when dealing with Mr. Davis, oneness when dealing with Pentecostals/Apostolics, but in the Church, I will use ‘One God’. I try to stick with the terms found in the Bible, so that I do not delve into other doctrines not found, like those terms, in the bible.

Mr. Davis asks,

So what does “one God, the Father” mean?

He is right to say that God is the ultimate progenitor of all things, but doesn’t the Bible also say that Christ (Col 1:17) created all things? Again, we return to the simple argument of ‘if there is only one Almighty, one Creator, one Redeemer, one God, then how can both the Father and the Son be it?’.

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

The above is from Isaiah 44:24 (KJV) where the LORD (how many redeemers do we have?) says that He makes all things, stretching forth the heavens alone, and spreads abroad the earthy by himself. The JFB commentary says this:

alone - literally, “Who was with Me?” namely, when I did it; answering to “by Myself,” in the parallel clause (compare similar phrases, Hos_8:4; Joh_5:30) [Maurer].

Again, I maintain that the Logos, His Word, is not distinct or separated, but is God speaking Himself. God is indeed the ultimate source of creation, but He did it alone, without any subordinated person helping Him. Paul’s use of ‘father’ does not include the later thought of a personal name, but again, pointing to God as the Creator of all things (contrary to pagan thought).

Was there separation when Thomas called Christ his Lord and his God?

Mr Davis finishes his post with this thought,

Again, lest my main point be lost in answering the objection, here we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

Christ is nowhere described as distinct (which is defined as separate) and where a distinction is used in the bible, it refers to something separable. As I said earlier, distinction, if proved, still cannot prove preexistence. If preexistence cannot be proved, then the Second Person of the Trinity is a created being instead of something emanating from the Father, such as His Word.

I will post an interlude sometime soon detailing Colossians 1:15-18.