A Brief Statement of Faith

 

by Christopher Randolph

 

My faith rest solely upon God who is best represented in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  Each is God and not a god, a part of God, or even a mode of understanding God.

My salvation is based upon my faith in Christ Jesus who is God the Son and my Lord and Savior. He is fully human and fully God.  He lived and was crucified.  He rose from the dead and now reigns over all creation with His Father in heaven.  Because I know that Jesus really lived, really died and truly rose from death, I fully expect to be reconciled with, and to live eternally with Him even though I have done nothing to earn such an honor.

I believe that salvation is offered to everyone though not everyone hears and fewer respond positively to this gracious invitation.  Furthermore, I believe that those believers who do respond to God’s call to be reconciled through Christ are also called to live lives in service to God.  The Apostle Paul refers to this as our “ministry of reconciliation” in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 verses 11-21. Seeking God’s will in this way does not secure one’s salvation.  It is, instead, a thankful response to God’s gift of salvation to every believer.  In short, one serves God because one is saved not in order to be saved.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “A Brief Statement of Faith

  1. Hello Brother in Christ!

    I am co-writing a women’s study regarding authenticity and discipleship using primarily the Gospel of John. I thoroughly enjoyed your commentary on the first verses in John–I have opened our message with that very scripture. I appreciate the additional insight and wisdom you bring.

    Thanks be to God and blessings to you!

    Heather

    Like

  2. I’m somewhat confused, I’m not an expert of theology of course, but how is one both Fully Human and Fully “God” at the same time?

    Humans are Corporeal, Mortal and Imperfect beings.

    While God, is Epehemeral, Eternal and Perfect in every conceivable way

    (according to Christian Dogma anyway, which is obviously the standard here)

    These are opposite states of being.

    I really am confused as to How these two completly contrary states of existence can be reconciled with any logic whatsoever.

    Like

  3. Odd that the Trinity never appears in the bible….anywhere.
    Odd that the Jews were not aware of it and it never features in their teaching.
    Odd that the Trinity only appeared hundreds of years after the supposed death of Yashua, probably in answer to Gnosticism.
    Hmm….Odd too, that most Christians cannot really explain it, or even understand it.

    Good old Eusebius and Constantine.

    Like

    • Not true. Only the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. But all three persons of the Godhead are present throughout the Bible. And surely you do not deny that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in both Testaments. That is whom we are speaking about.

      Like

      • Absolutely true. The christian assertion is false. The Trinity as a concept took nearly four centuries to formulate. Claimed allusion to something does not even come close.
        The christians consider they are one and the same. Biblical text clearly demonstrates this is fallacious, even the character Jesus plainly denied his god status, ( you don’t need an atheist to point out which passage do you? 🙂 )
        Christians love to use their penchant for semantics to refute this of course, and explain away anomalies.

        Like

          • I did not. I said the Trinity is not found in scripture. And for the record, Jesus does not proclaim his divinity in the bible anywhere and I challenge you to produce a single sentence where he says he is divine.
            And do NOT come back with the old I AM canard

            Like

              • Hello Christopher,

                I am a first-timer to your blog and read the first link you provided above in your article “Jesus is God”. In your link you state, “It continues passed that horrific tree, telling of Jesus’ subsequent, bodily resurrection and includes eye witness accounts of this fact. ”

                Let’s examine the first eye witness account in John. John 20:2
                New International Version (NIV)
                2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

                This hardly sounds like an eye witness account of a resurrection but rather a missing body that was taken. Wouldn’t you agree ?

                Like

              • My point is why didn’t she instantly realize he had been resurrected ? Why did it later take 2 white robed angels to tell her he had resurrected ? Neither Peter or the “One who Jesus loved” realized til that moment either because John says ” they hadn’t understood the scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead.” The only scriptures John could be referring to would be OT .. If Peter didn’t understand OT scripture pointing to Jesus this might explain why most Jews at the time didn’t either. And then John says Peter and “The one Jesus loved” went home. And then Mary presumably goes back to the tomb crying when she saw who she thought was the gardener but was Jesus. Even then she tells the gardener (Jesus) they have taken her Lord and she doesn’t know where they have put him. The gardener (Jesus)then reveals himself and tells her to go find his brothers (presumably disciples) and give them his message. Instead of staying home , don’t you think Peter and “the one Jesus loved” would have gone and told the rest of the disciples of their discovery so Mary wouldn’t have to ?
                Mt 28:8 leads us to believe Mary was totally convinced when she left the tomb even before she saw Jesus , quite a contrast from John.
                Mk 16:8 Says that Mary and the other women fled the tomb trembling and bewildered and they said nothing to anyone , nor did they see Jesus along the way.
                Lk 24:1-12 Says Mary and the other women went to the tomb and were puzzled because it was empty. Then they saw 2 men who convinced them Jesus had risen so they went to the disciples , told them what had happened but the “story sounded like nonsense to the men” . Peter did run to the tomb, saw that it was empty, went home again wondering what had happened.
                I’m not referring you to articles I have written for you to have to read. I am referring to the Gospel accounts from the Bible itself. It would seem to most people these accounts would be troubling at best. I have heard many explanations by Christian Apologists for these contradictions , but they would never hold up in a court of law.
                Thank you for allowing me to present my evidence here on your post. Many Christian Bloggers require “moderator approval first” .
                The best to you

                Like

              • If you haven’t already, take the time to read the book, The Resurrection by Geza Vermes . He was one of the most important voices in contemporary Jesus research, and he has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time according to wikipedia.

                One of the silliest answers I ever received back from a Christian Blogger was that even though Vermes was a highly respected scholar he was also a JEW and of course he didn’t believe in the resurrection. I said Jesus was also a JEW so does that mean we are to discount what he said ? 🙂

                Like

              • Professor Vermes was a Catholic priest, not a Jew. He performed some excellent research and I would not be surprised to learn that he was an inspiration for the members of the Jesus Seminar.

                While I appreciate his research and the importance of remembering that Jesus was fully human in a particular culture at a particular time and place, one must also embrace his divinity. In regards to the latter, historical Jesus authors fall very short.

                Like

              • No. I didn’t approve it because all you did was cut and paste from Wikipedia without crediting that site. That is, firstly plagiarism, and secondly demonstrates a lack of content knowledge on your part. Now, thirdly, since it, in actuality confirmed what had already been said and was therefore redundant.

                Like

What's Your Opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s