At his blog Cognitive Resonance, Ben Nasmith has some observations about the theology and christology of Acts:
…according to Acts, the God of Israel is the one who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him. As such, Jesus is not the God of Israel. He didn’t raise and exalt himself. Rather, the God of Israel is the Father of Jesus. He is the God who “has made [Jesus] both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36).
He goes on to observe that if Luke was right, then Marcion was wrong. Also,
…the theology of Acts closes the door on certain approaches to the Trinity.
How? Read the whole thing here.
Related posts:
Some clarifications: a reply to McManus - Part 1
podcast 215 - Two Intelligent Responses to My Challenge
the "same god" controversy and Christian commitment - Part 2
podcast 146 - Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
Dr. James N. Anderson on Paradoxes in Theology
Is God greater than any man?
Linkage: Mavericking Mysteries
On a Rebuttal to my "How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament" - Part 1
Guest Post: Greg Spendlove on Logos Christology
podcast 79 - Dr. John Piper on why not everyone is elect
Ben & Mario,
Good points. 🙂
Here is the copy of the comment that I have posted at “Cognitive Resonance”:
There is no doubt that Acts identifies God as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. So, obviously no to Marcionism. But I really do not understand that prudent “certain approaches to the Trinity”. Why? Can you see any “approach to the Trinity” that is compatible with Acts?
Comments are closed.