Starting a new series, on the Trinity.

No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man.

Perhaps the chief reason for this is that the Trinity is a-logical, or beyond logic. It, therefore, cannot be made subject to human reason or logic. Because of this, opponents of the doctrine argue that the idea of the Trinity must be rejected as untenable. Such thinking, however, makes man’s corrupted human reason the sole criterion for determining the truth of divine revelation.

I think that last phrase is an interesting point to make; that if we assume that all things must fit our logical paradigms, then we are setting up ourselves as the final authority on everything. But what of things that are bigger than us?

We don’t want to depend completely on God because we fear that He won’t come through. We really don’t believe He is in control. We really don’t believe He knows what is best for us. So we decide what is best for us and we try to control our life with whatever resources we think we have.

How do you depend on God?

What is the most common command given to us in the NT? To pray. Prayer shows dependence on God. Prayer is the communication that builds a relationship with God.

This is true, and it’s a good reminder of where I should be. It’s hard to do, hard to be consistent. Self-discipline is hard.

The modern notion of the “self-made” man, pulling himself up by his own bootstraps and, by the sweat of his own brow, climbing to the pinnacle of success is so deeply imbedded in our consciousness that any other possibility seems foreign. It’s humbling to recognize that God is more responsible for the achievements of our lives than we are, that we are people who have been given our abilities, time and opportunities. These things are not our possession; they are gifts from God and we will ultimately give an account for what we do with what we have been given.

Everything in us strains against this notion, for to accept this as fact is to be humbled. And humility naturally leads to submission. That’s really the issue, isn’t it? We don’t want to admit that God is the giver of every good gift, because that would mean that we have to yield to his agenda. Humility, submission and obedience go together.

“humility naturally leads to submission.” If we admit that God is the giver of every good gift, then we would have to yield to his agenda.

That’s the part that I take exception to. This may be a generational or cultural thing, but I think there are wide swathes of people who would think nothing of accepting these “good gifts” without incurring the sense of obligation, submission, and obedience that the author thinks just naturally follows. We have a generation without reciprocity. And so without the obligation, submission does not follow. Instead, obedience is a “free” choice instead of an obligated one.

What, then, is the root of this third slave’s problem? I believe it is his view of his master, and thus the work his master has assigned.

“Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed’” (Matthew 25:24, emphasis mine).

The word “hard,” which this slave used to characterize his master, is far from flattering. It is the word Moses uses in Genesis 42:7,²⁸⁰ to describe Joseph’s disguise of “harshness” before his brothers. It is used in 1 Samuel 25:3 to describe Nabal, Abigail’s husband, who is a stubborn fool.²⁸¹ Isaiah (48:4) uses this term to describe Israel’s abstinence. It is also found in Jude 1:15 to describe the “harsh words” the unbelieving have said against God. In other words, the third slave looks upon his master as wicked, harsh, and impossible. This is his excuse for doing nothing. It is as though he had said, “I knew you were unreasonable, and that there was no way to please you, and so I decided not even to try.”

This is an interesting viewpoint to have – not “interesting” in the sense that “I’d like to check it out”, but “interesting” in that the thinking is that you believe that God exists, but that he’s a mean and harsh God. It just seems like it would be so much easier to deny the existence of God altogether rather than to believe in a harsh God.

From the book of Jude:

The Gnostics viewed everything material as evil and everything spiritual as good. They therefore cultivated their “spiritual” lives and allowed their flesh to do anything it liked, with the result that they were guilty of all kinds of lawlessness.

The “false teachers” idea was apparently a big deal, because we now have multiple epistles written to contend with it. The early Christian church was probably beset with many influences from the cultures around it. Some thought they could take the tenets of Christianity as the latest hot thing, and wrap their ideas around it. This would corrupt and warp the original teaching, which is why the apostles were so quick to point out the deceitful nature of the false teachers.

http://bible.org/article/non-pauline-epistles

From the book of 3rd John:

7 For they have gone forth on behalf of ‘The Name,’ accepting nothing from the pagans. 8 Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we become coworkers in cooperation with the truth.

Support the missionaries.

“Accepting nothing from the pagans” – what is this a reference to? Perhaps they didn’t have a “day job” like Paul did? Or if they did, it was only within the Christian community?

The book of 2 John:

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.

This seems to be the big controversy of the time, as John writes about it several times. The warnings against false prophets and false teachers is especially important because the young church is at a growing point here, and if a new (wrong) idea took hold and infected the stalk of the church, so to speak, then everything that grew out of it would be diseased.

The book of First John:

2:1 (My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One; 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.

My little children, I am writing these things to you.

You = “my little children”, the young Christians.

Our = you + me.

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (John + the young Christian believers), and also for the whole world.

Who is the whole world?

Everyone else.

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Not some of them. All of them.

Regarding the book of 2 Peter:

3:8-11. Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day. 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Amidst the discussion of false teachers, there’s this section. This has been used to explain how the apostles were describing the “day of the Lord” as being just about to happen, and here we are 2000 years later. If a thousand years are like a single day, then this is Tuesday and perhaps the Day of the Lord is coming on Friday, so to speak.

But here’s the phrase that jumps out at me: “he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” Now first, run that through your predestination filter and see what comes out the other side. But secondly, here’s the question: the Lord is delaying his judgment because he wishes that none should perish and that all will have a chance for repentance. How is that helped by delaying? I could understand if the phrase was “that more would come to repentance”, because you could argue that by delaying for 2000 years, certainly more people have come to repent of their sins. But the pool of all is still the same. Every day more people are born and more people die, and most of them die without hearing the message of the gospel. So not all of them can be saved.

From 1st Peter:

While 1 Peter touches on various doctrines and has much to say about Christian life and Christian responsibilities, the theme and purpose of 1 Peter centers around the problem of suffering—particularly suffering in the form of persecution for one’s faith. It has been described as a manual or handbook showing Christians how they are to live as temporary resident and ambassadors of Christ in an alien and hostile world.

It sounds a little strange, but I think we have lost the aspect of “suffering” which is dealt with many times in the NT. Our attitude now seems to be that we need to make the world conform to us, and our needs and desires. That seems like a far cry from the suffering for Christ’s sake that Peter talks about.