The Gap Theory of Genesis

Well said :thumbs:

 

Please do some church history studies.. .there were fights, after fights over the trinity and how Jesus can be fully God, and fully man, until the Council of Nicea...
And even after the Council of Nicea, Athanasius fought till his death to uphold true orthodoxy. It took about 300 yrs after Christ died for the church to define it, in simple enough terms for us to understand it.
Then look at Justification, it took many yrs after that for Augustine to be able to describe it... then another 1000 yrs for Luther to act upon Augustine's doctrine.


Many of our doctrines that we take for granted have been developed over centuries.

And many things that were once believed have been proven wrong.

We are in a place today to understand more about God and humanity than at anytime in the history of man.

 

Correct! The 1st Century Christians didn't have a spelled out view of the trinity which is why it became problematic by the end of the 3rd and begining of the 4th. The term Trinity hadn't been developed! Niether had the term persons for the interaction of the members of the God head. A reasonable amount of study will make this clear. And After the trinity debate the question was how was Jesus God?

 

There are fights, after fights, after fights about things on here all the time like faith before or after regeneration, did Jesus die for the elect only or for all men universally, end times theology, etc. Does that mean that the church has never understood these things because there are fights over them? Does that mean today that we don't understand the order of regeneration and faith or the extent of the atonement or how things will play out at the end because there are arguments over them? Of course not. Arguments do not show that the entirety of Christianity is without understanding of something, it shows that a part of them is without that understanding and thus there is disagreement.

 

Again, that's nonsense. The Lord Jesus and His apostles spelled it out clearly. The only problems arose when people didn't follow their teachings and accept it, and instead tried to bend the Lord's truths to their own finite understanding. Ironically, that's the same thing that is occuring with respect to the creation and many other truths of the scriptures.

 

Nevermind, there is nothing sadder than someone that is willing to stay unlearned.

 

So you want me to believe that Jesus came up with the word Trinity and said he was homoosious with the father? Talk about fiction!!!!! Again throwing your mythology into what the bible actually says. Next you'll want me to believe that Jesus used the Term "soul liberty" and predicted to the Apostles that King James would commission a bible to be translated by better inspired authors that the apostles themselves! This is what the bible actually says

He also said

Anything about the trinity? or being Homoosious? Nope this is the teaching that Jesus passed on and can be seen in Peter's sermon. You are adding to scripture your mythological tradition.

 

That's a bunch of nonsense. When have I ever made that argument? Never. I see you calling my beliefs mythology. Name calling always shows up when one cannot overturn a sound argument.

Jesus didn't use the word trinity, but He taught a Triune Godhead, as did the apostles. He didn't need a council centuries later to define it, He delivered it to the saints through the apostles and the scriptures. To deny this is to deny scripture itself which tesitfies of this fact. Early Christians believed in a Triune Godhead. They believed in God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and that these three are one and comprised the Godhead. They understood this because Jesus had taught them, the apostles had taught them, and the scriptures taught them.

 

You are mistaken. They had not difinative doctrine on "triune Godhead". They taught that Jesus was God. That the Father was God and that the Holy Spirit was God though at this stage it is unclear how they thought of the Holy Spirit in God capacity. Yet though they had an understanding each was God they did not teach "how" each one was God. We see this development later in Christian thought. BTW they didn't coin the phrase "triune God" either. The Gospel Jesus taught and the apostles taught was that the messiah had come and there was forgiveness of sins throught Jesus Christ attoning work and that they could enter into the kingdom now existant. Having a general idea about something is entirely different than having a specific Idea. You are suggesting that they had the specific Idea.

 

You are mistaken. Luke had a clear understanding of the triune God...the errors occured with the first century agnostics that believed all physical was evil. Like RAdam has stated, one group having a false understanding of doctrine does not discount the truth of the doctrine.

21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

 

Right, and if my memory is correct, at the Council of Nicea, it was a Bishop in Spain (A Hispanic) that convinced Constantine to use the term Homoousious to settle a conflict. Until that time there were many different theories on how Jesus was God. Then after they settled the doctrine of the Trinity, then they moved on to the doctrine of the incarnation.... later, they tackled the Holy Spirit.
The Early church didn't have time to really deal with the deeper theological discussions.. they were more concerned with proper living, and staying alive from the persecutions. Only after the great persecution around 300, did they start diving into deep theological debates.
Yes, the doctrine of the trinity is in the NT. Of course it is.. but not EVERY church had the completed NT, till centuries later. Some churches only had the Gospels, and the 13 letters from Paul. Some didn't even have that many.

Then you had the fake Bible of Marcion the Heretic that tried to re-write the Bible because he viewed the God of the OT as the Demiurge god of gnosticism.

So, there until a complete NT was agreed upon, the doctrine of the Trinity could not be established.
That's why you find in the early church sermons that had to do with Holy living in a culture that was anti-Christian more than theological debates.
This is also why Arius had such a foothold in Christianity.

Now what does this have to do with the Gap theory?
Just that we are learning more and more things we didn't know before, because God is allowing us to. I firmly believe that God created the world as we know it the way Genesis says. (I am a literalist in that sense), but I also recognize the truth in empirical evidence, and lean to the theory that there was something here between vs 1. and 2, that is frankly none of our business. (Or God would have shared it with us)...

 

You're just wrong. They had no idea of how the trinity worked and they certainly didn't use the term trinity or triune. They had a general consept not not specified. They hadn't understood Jesus was Homoosious and how that was to be understood. The first controversy with the gnostics had to do with the influx of greek thinking into christian theology which is why matter was bad and spirit good. Which is a very primary simple problem that quickly had to be dealt with. The Trinity was not dealt with until 325 and that was when it was defined.

I have to agree with Tinytim unless you actually study history and not the landmarkist myth I have to say

 

They did have the specific idea. They had the specific idea because Jesus and the apostles taught them. How do you think Christians today understand the Triune Godhead? By studying scripture. It's all there, and that's exactly what early Christians had too. They had scripture, and the real early ones had Jesus and the apostles.

It wasn't man that figured out the Godhead, it was God that gave this knowledge to man through the Lord Jesus, the apostles, and the scriptures. In that generation the faith was once delivered to the saints and every truth of the Church was contained therein. Every new idea since then has been heresy. The heresy of Jesus not coming in a real physical body was a new idea, not in accord with the faith once delivered to the saints. Thus it was condemned for what it was, heresy. The heresy of Jesus not being one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, or not being eternal but rather a created being, was a new idea and not in accord with the faith once delivered. Thus, it was pronounced as heresy. The early Christians understood this because they already had the faith, they didn't need some council of men hundreds of years later to enlighten them.

 

The term doesn't matter. You are getting caught up on the term. The biblical term for the Triune God is "Godhead". Trinity is a man-made term. I'm not condemning its use, but don't be surprised that early Christians didn't use it. It was a term created later by man, not by God, to describe a historic belief.

To say they didn't understand it because they didn't use the proper terms (in your mind) is ridiculous. They understood it because the bible told them about it. Jesus said He and the Father are one. John said that the Word was in the beginning with God and was God, and created everything. Jesus said He had equal authority with God. Paul referred to all 3 persons in the Godhead, somtimes in one verse like at the end of 2 Corinthians. These are a few examples. They got it because they were taught about it by God through His Son, His apostles, and His scriptures.

I doubt many people I preach to know what the term "Homoosious" means, but they do understand that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, equal in power and authority, wholly God. They'll probably never use that term, but they get it. Why? Because the scriptures told them so. Not because of some council of men.

 

Show me the verse that uses the term Trinity, or triune. what? Can't find it? I wonder why? Scriptures allude to it but its not spelled out. The terms were defined in 325. They had a general consept and when aspects of it came into question like Was jesus the first created being or was he of like substance they had to define the terms for a fuller better understanding. Note. A full tome of the bible had not been compiled at this time either. Marcion was the first to attempt to do it and excluded regularily accepted books and only include pauls writings while excluding the OT. the Church had to define canon. This is how the church has operated. Now the basics of the faith and the deposit of the Apostles have been the same but specifics were later defined as questions arose. Simple basic history that any history book would tell you.

 

The simplest and best is 1 John 5:7. Some rail against it, but as I have shown it was referred to prior to 325 AD. Also, since God promised to preserve His word, and I trust He did rather than modern scholars, I believe it. Even if one throws that out, which I don't recommend, there are others.

2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

John 5:17 - "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John then tells us the Jews sought to kill Him after He said this because He had made Himself equal with God with statement.

John 5:21 - "For as the Father raisieth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

John 14:16, 17 - "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

John 15:26 - But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

Matthew 11:27 - "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man teh Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

There are many texts that say something like Grace unto you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:1-3 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."

John 1:1-3 - "In the beginning was teh Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."

I know I'm leaving many other good texts out, but space just will not afford a complete scriptural quotation of all the texts that help frame the great doctrine of the Triune Godhead which are three yet one. Neither can the human mind totally comprehend such an incredible concept, but inasmuch as we today understand it, so too did the early church. The idea that a council in 325 framed these ideas for the first time in Christianity is absurd.

From wikipedia (not always a solid source, but dead on the money here):

"The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed but it did settle to some degree the debate within the early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[5] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father. Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon, the list of books decided to be authorative as scripture, was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited."

 

Furthermore, just a few minutes ago I found this website that provides ample proof to squash the claims that the trinity wasn't understood prior to 325.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/church_believed.shtml

Interestingly they make some of the same argument I made concerning usage of terms not found in the bible.

 

I'll trust biblical scholars from accepted Seminaries over wiki, or a website anyone can dream up.

 

I'll give you two more websites.

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/early-trinitarian-quotes

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

These websites quote early Christians. We see from these sources, all of them agreeing, that early Christians believe in and taught the Triune Godhead. They didn't use the term trinity, which was a term later invented by man, but they understood and taught the Trinity prior to the Nicean Council in 325 AD. Now, you can go ahead and trust your scholars if you want, but you are denying the bible and well documented history. Their own words tell us they understood and believed in a Triune Godhead.

 

Not one of those terms mention trinity. Look at each of the verses in the context in which they are writen.

its a benediction mentioning the three players of the trinity but the trinity and how they interact with each other is not defined in this passage.

This verse is taken in context with Jesus' statement "I only do that which I see my father in heaven do". Also in context with John chp 3 "Those filled with the spirit are like the wind we don't know where it comes from or whither it goes" Yet Jesus is commenting that he does the work of the father still there is no defined relationtionship apart from a filial one in this passage either and note the holy spirit isn't mentioned.

Again the trinity is not revealed or expressed but the felial relationship the son has with the father and the nature of knowing both. How Jesus is the son is not expressed. That he is of the same substance is not expressed that the holy spirit proceeds (and in what fashion) from the Father or the son is not expressed either. In fact you can do this with each of the verses. Now these verses alludes to a fuller understanding of the trinity. But as defined at Nicea it wasn't. These are the text which the ECF used to establish the doctrine of the trinity. Now you seem to be suggesting that tinytim and I say they didn't believe in any form of the trinity and that is false as well. I said they had a general understanding not a specific one. And the specific understand came through much debate and search of scripture and not defined until 325.

Note the sites you mention one is a discussion board which I'm afraid to say is not the work of academia nor should it be relied on for source documents. Metzger on the other hand is a reliable source and he would disagree with you and your fiction that they had defined every doctrine of christianity speicifically as we do today with the apostles. I suggest they knew Jesus was God and knew the Father was God and Knew the holy Spirit was god. And that God was one God. How they intereacted save from the practical matters which Jesus showed them was not determined. In fact reading scripture apart from the rich history of the faith we have you can see how christians become modalistic. Though it is clear the Apostles weren't so it is unclear how developed the doctrine of the trinity was apart from the general understanding.