Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | In the Andes | 54124 | ||
Would this statement by Ken Copeland be heretical or unorthedox or orthedox? "The NT irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had he done so while a man He COULD NOT have been perfect humanity. The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a man... It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles, powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a TRUE MAN." Emphasis mine. |
||||||
2 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 54286 | ||
Somewhere between heretical and unorthodox. The NT most emphatically does not teach that Jesus did not exercise any of these attributes. Nor can one conclude that if he did not exercise them, it was because he did not have them. It's the old argument from silence fallacy. In particular, how does Ken Copeland presume to know what Jesus did or did not know (omniscience)? Or, for that matter, what Jesus was or was not capable of doing (omnipotence)? The Bible does not provide irrefutable teaching on these points. I've found that novel interpretations are usually the province of heretics and academics who are trying to get published. Neither is a reliable source. Why bother with this stuff? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||