Translate

Friday, October 27, 2017

Commentary & Notes: Colossians 1:12-20 Debunking Modalism

I have addressed the error of Sabellianism or modalism on this blog in various ways including uncovering the misuse of language that backs the Oneness platform of confusion on the nature of God. Recently, I had the opportunity to display why the particular teachings of a heretic were insufficient and non-biblical, only to find out that many believers, who claim to adhere to trinitarian doctrine, really didn't think it was a "big issue" to believe otherwise because they felt that since "belief" of doctrine wasn't an issue at salvation and that adherence to doctrinal teaching along this line was also not a matter or issue of salvation. 

Sentiments of this can be dangerous and could also be unbiblical. Not that it was the case in this particular situation, but it seems that by far and large the church has abandoned indepth teaching as it pertains to the nature of God and the examination of who God is, what HIS nature means to the world, and why those teachings are relevant to the day to day life of every believer. 

The need and longing to know and explore the nature of God has been replaced by the the sentiments and desires to be "peaceful" and "unified" with all them who claim to be "believers" no matter what those "said" believers actually believe.

This is devastating because the fact is that people gave their lives for what they "believed", in the early church and those beliefs were without compromise. What one believes is of great significance and vitally important to the life and relationship and even fellowship of every believer with Christ. In addition, if one can simply redefine God to meet ones own terms and beliefs, then HE is not the God of the bible nor the God of history. When men invent or create a God that they can readily understand or compartmentalize, then it is questionable whether faith is truly placed within the God who has both defined himself as he is and the faith that we were told to earnestly contend for. (Jude 3) 

What do you say? A case of circular reasoning? Well, I don't think so. I believe it is a demand and persistence to seek and know truth. The truth of the matter is that God the Father and God the Son exist eternally, have never changed hats, are not merely defined by their role, and, though distinct, are yet ONE God. This is what the scripture repeatedly affirms and what the Holy Writ, when examined for what it says, certainly affirms. 

Let's review a portion of the first chapter of Colossians in a verse-by-verse study on the nature of God.

Colossians 
Delivered by Tychicus, the epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul while under house arrest in Rome. Written to the mostly Greek Saints and believers who lived in an area located in what was known as Greater Phrygia which included the cities of Antioch in Pisidia , Colosse, Hierapolis, Iconium, and Laodicea . The church itself, probably founded by Epaphras sat on the river Lycus. 

The aim of the letter was to counter false teaching regarding the majesty, nature, mission and complete redemption of mankind found in Jesus himself. The epistle proved to be a strong and poignant stance against the backdrop of an early and developing gnosticism and theosophy of Judaizers who's mission was to redefine the faith. The letter was a direct assault on novel speculations of the day and false teachings which sought to redefine the Jesus of history and his unique place in all of creation and among mankind. 


In this segment, we will look at a section of Chapter 1 of Colossians (v.12-20) that is strong evidence that Jesus and God the Father acted, moved and operated in in relationship to one another and were not confused by early church believers as being one in the same, although they were certainly ONE God. This teaching itself is ample proof, that the nature of God was an issue of utmost importance within the church and among its most early adherents and should not be compromised.   

I have highlighted my commentary within the verses and provided 4 notes as supplement to make sure that context remains clear through and regarding what is being taught in this valuable Pauline epistle. 


Colossians 1:12-20
12-Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13-Who (eg: referring to the Father) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:(aka: JESUS) 
14-In whom (eg: the "dear Son" aka: Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15-Who (referring to Jesus) is the image (See note 1) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (See note 2)
16-For by him (eg: the "dear Son" aka: JESUS) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (All of these are the acts of God Almighty himself)
17-And he is before all things, (eg: everything spiritual and natural can be credited in their existence to God the creator.) [In this case referring to JESUS himself] and by him all things consist.
18-And he is the head of the body, the church: (This is continuing to speak of JESUS) who is the beginning, the firstborn (See note 2) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.(See note 3)

19-For it pleased the Father (Herein is the distinction) that in him (the "dear Son") should all fulness (see note 4) dwell;  
20-And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Special Notes:

(Note 1) ~ v.15 ~ Image: the Greek word from which we get "Icon". Strong's "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). (eikṓn) then is more than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).

Something that is separate, yet drawn "from" something that exists and is in itself tangibly real as from the thing it was drawn from. By virtue of that (the image, eikon) would have to have the same "nature" and "essence" but is distinctly NOT the primary thing spoken of though it is identical in every way. 

(Note 2) ~ "firstborn of every creature". Deal with this in 2 parts.
1- "firstborn" ~ From a word group indicating first to experience or one who is in an pre-eminent position. From Strong's 4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416/prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). [4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

2- "creature" ~  Strong's Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). See 2936 (ktizō) and 2939 /ktístēs ("the Creator") for lengthy discussion on "creation-facts."

These phrases combined in this verse do not indicate that Jesus is the "first one made" or "created" among creatures that God made. To the contrary, this verse indicates that Jesus is at the arch-pinnacle of all of creation, or the one to whom all creation and everything (everyone) that is made looks. This contextual understanding can be best understood in the antecedent phrase that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". From that, if Jesus is the image "eikon" of the invisible God, sharing the same nature and essence of that "invisible God" as the scripture indicates, he could have not, in any manner, come into existence, operation or function whether by being created and or by being born of Mary. Thus Jesus himself precedes Mary tracing existence prior to John 1:1 as God would certainly have existed prior to any "beginning" and would have been present "in the beginning". Further, this concept takes better shape in light of the next verse or V.16.

(Note 3) ~ Strong's 4409 "proteuo" same word grouping as note 2, means to be chief, or to have first place, AS OPPOSED to being first as in a succession. Example, The Supreme Court has who is called a "Chief Justice". This Chief Justice may not be the "first Justice" or "first one" chosen to sit on the court, however he has leading or pre-eminent role of authority on the Court. Thus, as this word is used here, it indicates the one who has the preeminent role, place and authority.     

(Note 4) ~ Strong's  says a Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō). this word also indicates fulfillment or completion. This would be wholly and contextually consistent with the narrative as v.20 deals with the cross and redemption. Simply put, rather than "fulness" having to do with the embodiment of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the body and personage of Jesus, as some people contend, this phrase has everything to do with the PLAN of God and what was fulfilled or "finished" by Jesus himself. This verse (v. 19) is rendered as an indicator of the maturity of the plan of salvation contained within Jesus himself. So in this verse, "fulness" and later "fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9) is indicative of the salvation plan, or the highest point at which Heaven (God) speaks and acts in delivering men and mankind from sin and death.  

Blessed!

9 comments:

  1. If one contends that the "him" of V.16 is the Father, then you have some sho-nuff problem when you arrive at v.18 when it says that he is the "head of the body, the church" and the "firstborn from the dead".

    This is a problem in reverse for the modalist. Normally I would imagine that they would want those verses to refer to Jesus, but they refer to God the Father as a clear distinction especially when that thought is carried into v.19

    So this chapter and verse becomes very problematic to the modalist in may unique areas. It was important enough for Paul to clearly make the distinction of relationships, I believe it's important for us to follow what he was saying and what he wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pt. 1:

    In a facebook forum open to COGIC believers, there is a person that particularly doesn't like the scope and nature of my commentary regarding this issue (because she appears to have embraced oneness theology). I recently said this to her about her objections to what she calls the "Dunamis arguing ministry":

    "So far as Convocation, YOU know it!...I'll be there discussing some issues with some and asking questions of others...

    So far as some of the other things...you say, "Dunamis" is not an arguing ministry. it is more of an apologetics ministry. You may say you don't believe in that, but that is EXACTLY what you believe in and are doing.

    You are trying to deliver a reason for what you do (in this case what you believe) ...I mean you go to extremes and as I see it, don't offer anything to support your opinions but your personal likes and dislikes (that is called relativism) you have not delivered any objective standards to support any of your assertions, BUT you STILL are delivering an apologetic.

    So you "believe" in an arguing ministry for sure (since that's how you categorize it) you render PLENTY of evidence that YOU HAVE ONE, the only difference is that you just chose what you want to argue about...Sorry, but that's what it is-LOL!!!!!!!!!

    What I do not only sheds light on error, but encourages and strengthens the believer, shapes culture, and evangelizes the lost. These are all elements of the gospel, because it IS the gospel.

    So far as your "opinion" of what I do, listen, I could really care less about whether you like what I do or not. You didn't call me and I certainly answer to you in any way.

    But I will say this regarding that If you don't like what I do, then you couldn't possibly like any of the NT characters including Jesus. UNLESS you use that double standard that you continue to use...

    It was Jesus and the NT figures you allude to that, in the face of the culture, uprooted cultural and religious beliefs, and they did it directly, not in secret meetings to make everybody "look and feel good". It was Nicodemus and others who were initially secret, but became some of the greatest open followers of him because of what Jesus did and said.

    Many places in scripture the Apostles dealt directly and even in some cases harshly with sin and sinners. Read 1 Cor. 5. Paul deals with sexual immorality in the church and even tells the people have NO communication with the sexually immoral individual that he and everyone knew he was speaking of. He said don;t even "eat" with him.

    Now was that "arguing" or was it truth based on the inspiration of God?

    Secondly, you could not have possibly read any of the post apostolic father's narratives and DEBATES they had with those who were distorting and questioning the faith...

    To name a few, there was:
    Clement of Rome
    Ignatius of Antioch
    Polycarp
    Marcion
    Justin Martyr
    Irenaeus of Lyons
    Clement of Alexandria
    Tertullian

    All of these men debated, and said some much more pointed things than I have ever said and they took it directly to the culture. There is nobody in their right minds that contends that they didn't preach the gospel in their works or were ineffective in ministry.


    ReplyDelete
  3. Pt. 2

    Continuing my commentary

    "So your persistence in these suggestions, I would imagine you KNOW are just your personal likes and dislikes and are not rooted in any form of objective truth, historical proofs or anything outside your mind...

    The only reason I believe that it's important to distinguish the difference is because you assert that the doctrinal issue of the nature of God is somehow wrong. Well I have a list of men that did the same thing not just since the 1900's as you suggested earlier, but since 200 to 300 AD and prior than that if you really want to be technical...

    So out of over 2000 of people debating the issue and setting forth truth regarding doctrines including the nature of God, is there anyone that really wants to believe that Modearer Henry has suddenly a new direction of ministry that we should all abide by???

    I don't think so!!!! First, I'll listen to GOD, then I will build upon the solid foundation of his word and the work of men who also lived and stood for him....

    From the writings of the book they all said, be FAITHFUL to the one that is FAITHFUL and TRUE and that is Christ alone. now at least you admitted, in a forum with trinitarian believes that you don't think oneness doctrine or belief is wrong or unbiblical...I believe that's your position...So that is progressive, because those that receive from you need to know exactly what you believe in, so they can make up their own decisions on whether to hear you or not based on those issues. You weren't really willing to do that at first, but it just sort of came out and that's a good thing. As one who believes in oneness doctrine would certainly kick against what I teach about it and what I have said in this thread.

    So I have a reason for what I do. It's well thought out and at the end of the day should be upsetting to them who either embrace false doctrine or don't love God...So the question is why is any of what i do upsetting to you????


    It will be interesting to hear her response, I'll post it here...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The person responded by saying:

    "Salvation is my focus. That's where the church has failed and is failing, and you need not think I do not know it. Full of book knowledge about God, but not living for God. WHY, because it is not being taught. For instance your ministry of reporting COGIC abuse, and cheating spouse's. You need not think that I do not know that the Clergy in churches are at the top of that list, because I do. With all the books in the New Testament there are about sex sins, and other practical salvation instructions given, the church is failing miserably on those issues of sex sins, sins against God, and sins against their fellow man as recorded in Galations 5, Collosians 3, Ephesians, Corinthians, and more. The divorce rate is high amongst Christans, and at the top of that list, are the Pastors of the churches. Christian marriages now dissolve faster than those that do not claim Christ and are non-believers, and we're suppose to be the answer. Well the answer to that is certainly not in arguing the triune, versus oneness. The church is suffering ethically like nothing before, while everyone continues to just get knowledge, but do nor know how to live what it teaches through #practicalSalvation practices. The Church has become #Grace abusers with no contious."

    ReplyDelete
  5. My response was as follows:

    thanks for your answer but you are evidently and obviously confused on at least one issue and avoid the other.

    You are confused when you say this: "For instance your ministry of reporting COGIC abuse, and cheating spouse's."

    That's NOT my "ministry. I don't do that. however, I have written about what is commonly known and what is public news as it pertains to many situations from a perspective of biblical truth. And I don't run any site where COGIC abuse is reported.

    But NONE of that is what I asked you about. you avoided this one...You said you preached Christ and that was all.

    I simply asked and would like you to address, which Christ do you preach and why? I listed these Christ's that people preach:

    ~Was it the one who was a "spirit" walking on water?

    ~Was it the one who only appeared to die on the cross but didn't?

    ~Was it the one who did not raise up bodily, but was only spiritually resurrected?

    ~Was it the poor, iteneret (sp) preacher who had no home and was a beggar?

    ~Was it the Jesus who demanded that those who believed in him should embrace Jewish rights and customs?

    ~ Was it the Jesus who came into existence at some place in time and I'll ad was only a man?

    ~Was it the Jesus who always and eternally existed as the Son?

    ~ Was it the Jesus who really is the Father by another name?

    or Was it some other Jesus?

    Which Jesus is it that you preach, and how do i know that ANY of what you say about it is true?

    How do I know which Jesus you are talking about because all of these Jesus's are different? So in which one is there salvation and which one do you preach?"

    Shortly thereafter, they deleted the thread!!!!

    Now, we have people that claim to direct folk to Jesus. Only WHAT Jesus do they direct folk to? Then the Jesus that has eternally been the son is vastly different than the Jesus that is the Father and just changes hats.

    Aside from that, if a person wants to know what to believe, you mean these folk say that's unimportant??? They only talk about what they wish to talk about??? How is that? Are they doing the Kingdom of God any service???

    At the end of the day, hell is filled with a path called the path of good intentions. The intent to be good, and nice, doesn't lead people to truth.

    SMH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thread wasn't deleted, the comments were suspended. Same difference nearly...the facts are to preach Christ is to preach who he is, not what people want him to be. it is the most spineless position to say, all I want to do is preach Christ and not define who that Christ is...

      THIS is the problem of the modern church. Spineless and weak folk claiming to be in leadership that don't know what they are talking about and bringing others into their confusion also.

      Delete
  6. The person referenced above stated this: "Christ is the #HEAD on the New Testament Church, the #Propituation, it's #Primary Sacrifice, and #Savior, #ChiefCornerStone, and #the Foundation of it. #That' s enough for me, and so I am working out my own Salvation, based on all these affirmations, and will follow #Him with #referencing fear. I do fear man, nor anything that a #man #prints about me, but rather to "fear God, is the beginning of wisdom," and He says there is no need to #fear a man, nor men. Therefore, You Blog us not needed, and I will defend myself of nothing that you say. I trust in #Christ, and they called #Him, everything. Therefore, #youAreMyAnointing, and don't you stop."

    Her statement was in support of preaching only about Christ. We need not make a distinction as long as Christ was preached. I then posed the following:

    "You don't have to fear me. I'm not asking for fear, I'm asking for answers. Call my doctrine backwards all day long...Put the Jesus that you preach out there and answer specific questions, i believe we'll see who's backwards...

    Simple question:
    So you agree with anyone who says that Christ is the head of the NT church right?

    Both the Mormons and Jehovas Witness preach and believe the same thing. Do you AGREE with them and their Christ? since that's all you say that is necessary. Do you agree with them?

    Why or why not?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her answer: "Go witness to the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses brother. They are still God's people. He created them, "Go into the highways and hedges, #GoBrother"

      My response: No, they already preach Christ according to your standards...why do I need to preach to them??? and So they ARE God's people? Are they SAVED with the Jesus they preach??? If so, why do I (or you or anybody) need to preach to them???

      She concludes by cutting off the commentary: "God said "Behold all souls are mine," Ezekiel 18:4a. 2nd Cor. 5:15a "And "HeDied for #All," John 3:16 For #GOD so #LovedTheWorld; that He gave His Only #Son," John 3:16. If you Go preach to THEM not "Jesus Said, "I will draw #allMen, unto me. #JustLikeHeDrew your #SelfRighteous self."

      The interesting part is that while she contends that study on the nature of God are non-essential she would also contend that the JW's and Mormons need to be witnessed to. She is incoherent! Logically inconsistent and scripturally illiterate. According to her standards, THEY (Jw's and Mormons) are preaching the Christ of the bible. They say so themselves...So why does anyone have to witness to them?

      It is because she knows as well as anyone else that everyone talking about Jesus is not talking about the Jesus of scripture. The church was commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints" the scriptures are full of descriptors and doctrines to the church of the nature of God and who Jesus is and it is vitally important that we are faithful to scripture.

      The Jesus of false churches cannot save. Debating Oneness is unique, because even the Oneness adherent accepts Jesus, they just don't know or accept the trinitarian nature of God. But not all who preach Christ preach the same Christ and the Gospel begins with the REAL lord and savior who is able to save, not some generic Christ that looks and feels like scripture, but really isn't.

      This lady is confused and needs prayer as she claims to be an "evangelist"...This is a pulpit enemy. the people of god should know what those preaching to them believe, because they may not be speaking about the same Jesus or the same GOd. The new hashtag for her is #wechallengecharlatans

      Delete
  7. As I state in the podcast...Part of the concept of the nature of God is to affirm impossibility as being possible with God. It is an impossibility that 3 persons are ONE God in the manner outlined within scripture, yet it is so and we can only affirm that.

    When we have an impossible issue in our lives, we can turn to a God that lives in impossibility. It is he that makes all of our impossible situations possible.

    Thus the mystery of the study. Not only to be prepared to address heresy and wrong ideas of who God is, but to build ones faith and let one know that things may look impossible and may be impossible by natural means, but are possible with GOd.

    Those who shortchange this, have no clue and will not arise to the level of spiritual maturity that they can. Why live beneath your privilege?

    What that lady espouses is a sort of universal salvation where any Jesus saves. That is NOT the case. Only the REAL Jesus can save! The Jesus of the JWs and the Mormons have not the power to save and heal. On the Jesus of the bible can do that. The one who was, who is, and who is to come!

    ReplyDelete

I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.