I’ve probably shown up in the moddle of a conversation, but after reading through the comments several times, I still can’t figure out what the disagreement is. Debating the Nature and/or Person of Christ? I see a nod toward the Trinity, which is generally accurate, until someone plays around with the definition. Then, I notice the term “equal” and I cringe, because this is also subject to various interpretations. Then, I notice a vaque implication that Christ Jesus, the Son of God was somehow less than (inferior to?) God the Father, instead of obedient and faithful in all things.

For the sake of clarity, does either one of you hold that Christ was less than fully God or fully man? Is this merely a squabble over semantics, or is there really a disagreement over the nature of God, our Savior?

Short conversattion. A conversation is a metaphor, after all

Scripture did not direct you to cleave to the words and ways of John Calvin, that is YOUR choice and the choice of your prot denominations, who have elevated themselves, and their pet theologies, over the directions and persons chosen by Father and Jeshua

way way WAY too much Prancing ‘n Churching in the last 2000 years, and way too little Spirit

and that is a BIG problem in these last hours before the appearance of beloved Christ

“to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. (Exodus 23)

“Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ (Acts 3)

this, however, the Churches and Bible Institutes and Bible Academies and Bible Schools and Seminaries and pastors and deacons and elders and people in spiritual positions will NOT suffer to hear, much less obey

instead, you choose for yourselves, then become defensive (or worse) when the error is pointed out

leaders chosen unto yourselves, hearing unto yourselves as you wish, interpreting holy Scriputure according to your own wills and wishes, and when challenged you point to good — but NOT anointed — men . . . . men once again chosen by YOURSELVES — who reflect the ideas and willfulness of your own hearts

the Bible does NOT enjoin you to obey John Calvin (nor any of your other theologic selectees) and if Father of Jeshua had wanted you to obey John Calvin (or CS Lewis or on and on) they would have TOLD you that in Scripture

but they did NOT tell you that, instead they told you what you didnt want to hear, and thus you (and like minds) direct me to someone without authority or anointing under Christ by way of argument . . . someone you and your friends cling to, in rebellion against Scripture

i do not rely on John Calvin (or the geniuses at Laidlaw College) for spiritual instruction and guidance, but only on the Lord, his Word, and those directly authorized by Him and his Word

however, i do still like cats, ciao

a fine five minutes of mutual admiration

a couple hours later i drove up the hills, into a mountain meadow, and parked across from a church, next to the trailhead

a long wood “corral” fence about three-feet high, composed of three horizontal levels of rounded beams, was on my left along the trail, and 30 feet ahead on the right, as i entered under the trees, 3 white-tail deer crossed the path, and casually began browsing the low brush on the other side

down the top fence-post came an orange and white cat that reminded me of your photo, esp given i’m currently composing something about twinning

i started talking to the cat, she began making the “pet me” prrrrb sound, stopping just across from me on the fencetop

i looked back to the right, and the smallest of the deer, a yearling perhaps, was walking straight towards us, about 20 feet away and steadily closing, so enraptured by the curiosity and novlety that the normal boundaries and fears were temporarily gone

the deer continued on, until the cat began to shift purchase on the top of the fence, in anticipation i guess of my attention

that awoke the deer sufficiently to reverse and trot off, and resume browsing nearby

no collar on the cat but the fur was incredible in sheen and softness, alternately striped tail, snow white chest and feet, and the rest a burnt orange that sparkled in the p.m. sun

silver turning to gold

i began petting her but she got so excited she kept slipping on the smallish round fencepost, finally jumped off to get down to serious business

we spent an intimate twenty minutes together along the path, and she followed me whenever i began to walk away, not yet having had her fill of weaving in-and-out of my arms etc

i humbly thanked God (yup out loud) for such an unmerited blessing, simple things as Scripture says

the exquisite beauty of the God’s creature, combined with such instantaneous trust and affection — in an outdoor setting with a stranger — reminded me of Zechariah’s passage about the Eternal Temple being built “not by power or might, but by my Spirit” and that Spirit of Love being fit foundation for Jeshua’s dwellingplace on Earth

i had praised the black and white kitty in your Kitty Post, but i am very glad indeed to have been shown the hastiness of my remarks, having now endured today’s painful lesson concerning inclusion and communication

my sincere apologies to Ginger Tabbies everywhere. it will not happen again

John 1

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.

Footnotes:

John 1:2 Lit This one
John 1:5 Or overpower
John 1:6 Or came into being

In the beginning…. is in the aorist tense — that is it was from then and still is from that time continuously… and that is hard to translate. The idea of Logos becoming incarnate clearly refers to the person who was seen by John — which is Jesus.

Now, I cannot do Greek text here, but… this is what John Calvin wrote about but the first verse of John, translated, naturally, from the Latin.

John 1:1-5

1. In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God, and the Speech was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. In the beginning was the Speech. In this introduction he asserts the eternal Divinity of Christ, in order to inform us that he is the eternal God, who was manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16.) The design is, to show it to have been necessary that the restoration of mankind should be accomplished by the Son of God, since by his power all things were created, since he alone breathes into all the creatures life and energy, so that they remain in their condition; and since in man himself he has given a remarkable display both of his power and of his grace, and even subsequently to the fall of man has not ceased to show liberality and kindness towards his posterity. And this doctrine is highly necessary to be known; for since apart from God we ought not at all to seek life and salvation, how could our faith rest on Christ, if we did not know with certainty what is here taught? By these words, therefore, the Evangelist assures us that we do not withdraw from the only and eternal God, when we believe in Christ, and likewise that life is now restored to the dead through the kindness of him who was the source and cause of life, when the nature of man was still uncorrupted.

As to the Evangelist calling the Son of God the Speech, the simple reason appears to me to be, first, because he is the eternal Wisdom and Will of God; and, secondly, because he is the lively image of His purpose; for, as Speech is said to be among men the image of the mind, so it is not inappropriate to apply this to God, and to say that He reveals himself to us by his Speech. The other significations of the Greek word (Logos) do not apply so well. It means, no doubt, definition, and reasoning, and calculation; but I am unwilling to carry the abstruseness of philosophy beyond the measure of my faith. And we perceive that the Spirit of God is so far from approving of such subtleties that, in prattling with us, by his very silence he cries aloud with what sobriety we ought to handle such lofty mysteries.

Now as God, in creating the world, revealed himself by that Speech, so he formerly had him concealed with himself, so that there is a twofold relation; the former to God, and the latter to men. Servetus, a haughty scoundrel belonging to the Spanish nation, invents the statement, that this eternal Speech began to exist at that time when he was displayed in the creation of the world, as if he did not exist before his power was made known by external operation. Very differently does the Evangelist teach in this passage; for he does not ascribe to the Speech a beginning of time, but says that he was from the beginning, and thus rises beyond all ages. I am fully aware how this dog barks against us, and what cavils were formerly raised by the Arians, namely, that

in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
(Genesis 1:1)

which nevertheless are not eternal, because the word beginning refers to order, instead of denoting eternity. But the Evangelist meets this calumny when he says,

And the Speech was with God. If the Speech began to be at some time, they must find out some succession of time in God; and undoubtedly by this clause John intended to distinguish him from all created things. For many questions might arise, Where was this Speech? How did he exert his power? What was his nature? How might he be known? The Evangelist, therefore, declares that we must not confine our views to the world and to created things; for he was always united to God, before the world existed. Now when men date the beginning from the origin of heaven and earth, do they not reduce Christ to the common order of the world, from which he is excluded in express terms by this passage? By this proceeding they offer an egregious insult not only to the Son of God, but to his eternal Father, whom they deprive of his wisdom. If we are not at liberty to conceive of God without his wisdom, it must be acknowledged that we ought not to seek the origin of the Speech any where else than in the Eternal Wisdom of God.

Servetus objects that the Speech cannot be admitted to have existed any earlier than when Moses introduces God as speaking. As if he did not subsist in God, because he was not publicly made known: that is, as if he did not exist within, until he began to appear without. But every pretense for outrageously absurd fancies of this description is cut off by the Evangelist, when he affirms without reservation, that the Speech was with God; for he expressly withdraws us from every moment of time.

Those who infer from the imperfect tense of the verb 9 which is here used, that it denotes continued existence, have little strength of argument to support them. Was, they say, is a word more fitted to express the idea of uninterrupted succession, than if John had said, Has been. But on matters so weighty we ought to employ more solid arguments; and, indeed, the argument which I have brought forward ought to be reckoned by us sufficient; namely, that the Evangelist sends us to the eternal secrets of God, that we may there learn that the Speech was, as it were hidden, before he revealed himself in the external structure of the world. Justly, therefore, does Augustine remark, that this beginning, which is now mentioned, has no beginning; for though, in the order of nature, the Father came before his Wisdom, yet those who conceive of any point of time when he went before his Wisdom, deprive Him of his glory. And this is the eternal generation, which, during a period of infinite extent before the foundation of the world, lay hid in God, so to speak — which, for a long succession of years, was obscurely shadowed out to the Fathers under the Law, and at length was more fully manifested in flesh.

I wonder what induced the Latins to render ho logos by Verbum, (the Word;) for that would rather have been the translation of ?? ?????. But granting that they had some plausible reason, still it cannot be denied that Sermo (the Speech) would have been far more appropriate. Hence it is evident, what barbarous tyranny was exercised by the theologians of the Sorbonne, 10 who teased and stormed at Erasmus in such a manner, because he had changed a single word for the better.

And the Speech was with God. We have already said that the Son of God is thus placed above the world and above all the creatures, and is declared to have existed before all ages. But at the same time this mode of expression attributes to him a distinct personality from the Father; for it would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that the Speech was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to himself in God. This passage serves, therefore, to refute the error of Sabellius; for it shows that the Son is distinct from the Father. I have already remarked that we ought to be sober in thinking, and modest in speaking, about such high mysteries. And yet the ancient writers of the Church were excusable, when, finding that they could not in any other way maintain sound and pure doctrine in opposition to the perplexed and ambiguous phraseology of the heretics, they were compelled to invent some words, which after all had no other meaning than what is taught in the Scriptures. They said that there are three Hypostases, or Subsistences, or Persons, in the one and simple essence of God. The word; ????????? (Hypostasis) occurs in this sense in Hebrews 1:3, to which corresponds the Latin word Substaatia, (substance) as it is employed by Hilary. The Persons (?? ???????) were called by them distinct properties in God, which present themselves to the view of our minds; as Gregory Nazianzen says, “I cannot think of the One (God) without having the Three (Persons) shining around me. 11

And the Speech was God. That there may be no remaining doubt as to Christ’s divine essence, the Evangelist distinctly asserts that he is God. Now since there is but one God, it follows that Christ is of the same essence with the Father, and yet that, in some respect, he is distinct from the Father. But of the second clause we have already spoken. As to the unity of the divine essence, Arius showed prodigious wickedness, when, to avoid being compelled to acknowledge the eternal Divinity of Christ, he prattled about I know not what imaginary Deity; 12 but for our part, when we are informed that the Speech was God, what right have we any longer to call in question his eternal essence?

Argue back at Calvin, not me.

may i suggest re-re-translating (or, if at a total loss) even re-re-RE translating from the original Greek scrolls at the Smithsonian, that we may be made certain of your cred :O)

that is, if you can suffer a break from delves into Distance Theology with the Group at Laidlaw ahem

i am unconvinced that neither you, nor the fellows at Laidlaw College, are authorized to decide upon God’s nature (tho we agree that Jeshua is both man and God)

i.e.

“Jesus told them, “Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing, What the Father does, the Son does likewise.”

cheers!