Results 41 - 54 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: 10ECPreacher Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37027 | ||
Greetings, believer57. I am very disappointed but not surprised by your latest post. I will gladly entertain discussions about the Bible, but I reject post-apostolic writings as the basis for doctrines. That this is considered heretical is fatuous. I have submitted many answers and questions, sincerely seeking dialog, only to be brushed aside with a specious post that looks suspiciously like a convenient smokescreen behind which someone afraid of the truth may hide. You said: 'We have pointed out scripture after scripture that disproves this "Oneness" heresy, but it is obvious that you are not listening.' Au contraire, mon ami. I have attempted to respond to every significant point you raised. As of yet, you have not deigned to answer my responses. Surely if you have "truth" it will not crumble so easily before such "heresy". By the way, "heresy" is defined as: "a belief opposed to authoritative opinion in any area of thought". The only authoritative opinion relative to scripture that I submit to with respect to the formulation of doctrine is that of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. I harbor no personal animus for you, sir. Addressing me as "pastor" (i.e., the word pastor enclosed in quotation marks, implying that I'm not really a pastor) may give you personal gratification, but it does nothing to support your claims, and the attempt to vilify me is fairly obvious to me. But I forgive you. :) If I may suggest without offense to you, please attempt to answer the points that I have raised in my previous posts to you. Failure to do so is tacit admission of inability to do so, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
42 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37133 | ||
Greetings, Prove All Things. 'Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"' [John 14:9 NASB] Jesus said that when you have seen Him you have seen the Father. I cannot say that when you have seen me you have seen my wife. :) Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
43 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37336 | ||
Greetings, believer57 (the father) and David (the son). Again, I'm disappointed but not surprised at your response. I beseech you to not make this a personal battle. You write (amazingly): "Also, the simple fact that you "nay-say" the teachings of the early church fathers, in itself is a characteristic of a false prophet(Jude 1:8 "...speak evil of dignities.")...is it not..mon ami?" Adolf Hitler was a "dignity" to somebody, but he wasn't one to me. Again, you write (amazingly): "Now, why dont you understand the trinity? Either, I Corinthians 2:14, a demon spirit, or pride. You were probably tought this non-sence when you were a kid and are simply too pridful to consider the truth. It is amazing to me how many cultist will stay in denial just out of pride. When you finally say to God, not my will, but thine be done...thats when the truth will you like a ton of bricks. But you have to deny yourself before you can follow Jesus." I'm almost speechless. Again I think of Stephen, being chewed on by men who could not resist the wisdom with which he spoke. ("If you can't attack the argument, just go ahead and attack the man.") Again, you write (amazingly): "Lastly, as far as the salvation of a modalist is concerned, thats not my job, but I can tell you that your skating on thin ice." How do you know that? Again, I'm flabbergasted! There are many things that could be said about me and many things that could be said about you. But those things are not important when it comes to discussing the Bible. I am weary of painstakingly answering your questions only to have my answers casually brushed aside or improperly analyzed. If anyone else cares to take up this thread, be my guest. I repeat my earlier post by saying I harbor no animus for believer57. I truly believe we are at an impasse as far as this discussion goes. I will be happy to respond to logical and thoughtful analysis of my previous posts. I do not feel it is an effective use of this forum to have to repeat the statements that I made in the beginning of this thread. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher P.S. When researching the meaning of "huios", consider the "Sons of thunder", the "Son of consolation", the "sons of wrath", etc., etc. "It always helps to open your mind before trying put something in it." :) |
||||||
44 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37337 | ||
Greetings, Lionstrong. I believe the Father was talking to John, the baptizer. I believe the Father was speaking of Christ--the fleshly tabernacle or body that housed the spirit of God. I believe both terms (Son of God and Son of Man) could have been intended by the use of the word "Son". So much for my speculation... :) I would be interested in your opinion on this point. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
45 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37442 | ||
Greetings, believer57/David. If the Bible is absolutly (sic) perfect and without error, then why am I a heretic for saying I believe everything the Bible says? Simply because I refuse to subscribe to teachings of men who in my opinion have no more authority to lay down foundational doctrines than did Adolf Hitler I am not even worth being kind to. Your version of "Christianity" is different than mine, that's for sure! :) I am striving to not be offensive to you, my friend, or to anyone else on this forum. Since you hold the popular, traditional view, you can afford to dispense with such courtesies, it seems. If you have interpreted my unwillingness to engage in personal attacks as retreat, then you have deceived yourself. I have responded to scriptural points that were logical. Questions that are foolish and create strife I am admonished to avoid. Rest assured of this one thing: I have not retreated, nor am I defeated. You are the one who still has questions to answer, my friend. If you don't choose to, that doesn't mean I win. It may just mean that you can't. Please try not to be so bitter against me. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
46 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37485 | ||
Greetings, Lionstrong. In Gen. 1:2 the term "Spirit of God" is used. Now we understand from John 4:24 that God is a spirit, or a spiritual being. I was using the term "spirit of God" in the strict sense of the spirit that is the essence of God. I contend that there is only one "person" in the Deity. The Son is the body of God--the expression of the nature of God in human terms for the purpose of redemption and reconciliation. (See Heb. 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-20.) Although God the "eternal Spirit" manifested Himself in terms of humanity for the redemption of humanity (John 3:16), I do not believe that the concepts of mere human existence adequately describe His divine interposition into the affairs of humanity. The word "son" to us mortals generally means offspring or natural descendant by virtue of procreation. We do have the figurative use of the word "son", however, employed in our language to mean "the embodiment or personification of". One example from scripture is the nickname given to James and John--they were called "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17). The implication is that these brothers were pretty noisy--not that they were conceived in their mother's womb by the mysterious force of thunder. The confusion in this subject comes from the fact that the terms "Father" and "Son" in terms of humanity have a distinct meaning that involves two separate persons. This is the literal "human" meaning of these terms. To us, that is the "natural" meaning of these terms. But we are humans, and God is spirit. So when He uses these terms and applies them to Himself, the meaning of them would be "spiritual" to us. That is, "Father" means source or creator; "Son" means physical, fleshly embodiment of the Father. That is why Jesus could truthfully say "I and Father are one" (John 10:30). And that's how the Son could be called "the Eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
47 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37489 | ||
Greetings, John Reformed. You are indeed correct--Father, son and husband are titles that define relationships. And they would never be mistaken for a proper name. This is essentially the way I understand the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are "titles" that show Divine relationships, purpose and function; but the name of God is Jesus Christ. I absolutely concur with your statement "It is a mistake in logic to use a name and title interchangeably." Hence, the correct interpretation of the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) is given by Peter in Acts 2:38: "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ". In fact, you have stated the only Biblical doctrine of the Godhead that I have found: God is one in essence, and relates to man in the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thank you for your refreshing remarks. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
48 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37507 | ||
Greetings, believer57. You have consistently avoided answering the points that I have made that unequivocally show the untenable nature of your position. I just went back through this thread to make sure that my memory was serving me correctly. Instead of making slanderous statements about you, I choose to believe that you simply cannot answer these questions. Instead of doing something silly like posting a scoreboard, I am content to let things be. However it begins to appear that you are ignoring what I have written and are simply jumping from pillar to post to keep from being pinned down. I challenge you, my friend, to reread my previous post of 2/28/02 with an "open" mind. Please do not take anything I have written as a personal affront to you. (If this is what you are calling theatrics, then I'm sorry... I don't know how else to convey my sentiments. I'm not trying to come across as a bully.) You state that I am not "correct" in my theology. If you cannot substantiate that claim with scripture, then you have libeled me. If you can substantiate that claim with scripture, then I will gladly declare to this forum that you have shown by scripture that my theology was not correct. Your opinion does not determine what theology is correct or incorrect. The only "opinion" that is authoritative is that of the scripture. You state: "Sabellian was rightly labeled a heretic by people who knew scripture better than you or I, (and they were pre-Nicene creed)." It amazes me how you can make a judgment about how well I know the scriptures. It is perfectly fine for you to say these folks knew the scriptures better than you, because you have a fair assessment of how well you know the scriptures. The fact that you have no qualms about making assertions concerning things about which you have no certain knowledge causes me to have grave misgivings concerning your ability to accurately reason at an extremely analytical level. As to the writings of the ante-Nicene "Fathers", it is obvious that the trinitarian doctrine, though formally accepted at the Council of Nice, 325AD, was being formulated for many years before that. However, a careful study of the scripture shows that no such doctrine existed in the days of the apostles. If I am to be labeled a heretic for merely believing what the Apostles taught, then you will be forced to label the Apostles as heretics. You state: "We must adhere to the Word of God, and how the Holy Ghost reveals it to us." If this means I will be required to accept post-Apostolic writings as superior to Apostolic writings, then I cannot agree. I contend that the Holy Ghost will not make someone say something different or better than what the Apostles said. You write: "Of course you adhere to the teaching of men, (Sabellian). You can do better that, can't you?" Indeed I can. I don't think I have ever even read any writings of Sabellius; if I have, I can't recall. I have read about him. But I don't preach a doctrine founded by Sabellius; I preach a doctrine founded by the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. You speak of 'those who choose to "spiritualize" text.' I guess there are many differences of opinion as to where "spiritualizing" is permissible and where it isn't. You write: "According to your theology, the Father suffered on the cross, (Patriapassianism)." This is as bold a prevarication as I have ever seen. According to my theology, the Father is Spirit. The Father was in the Son, and the Son was in the Father. The Son suffered on the cross, yielded up the spirit of the Father that was in Him, and died. It is impossible for God the Eternal Spirit (the Father) to die. You speak of "accusations of personal attacks". Friend, the proof is in the posts! I have never attacked you or your character. You, on the other hand, have consistently made false accusations against me, libeled my character, and made all sorts of unsupported claims about my motives, my past, and my knowledge. You wrote: '"The Lord said unto my Lord..." Did I miss your response to that one?' The 110th Psalm is clearly a prophecy of the coming Messiah. This prophetic utterance merely foretells the fact that the Messiah (Christ, the Son) will be the Father's instrument of salvation and judgment. I'm not sure what your question is all about here. If you cannot understand the dual nature of Christ (both humanity and deity) then this scripture will remain a mystery to you. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
49 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37592 | ||
Greetings, fellow Tim. I cannot speak in defense of modalism, because I know very little about it. I have only lately been dubbed a "modalist", and I didn't agree to the charge; I said if the apostles were modalists, then I am one, too. (A little sarcasm was intended there... :) ) I probably have given some of these definitions before, but here they are again, anyway. Father: the invisible, infinite eternal Spirit; always refers to God as a spirit being; the term implies source and origination, and ultimately the source of power underlying all acts attributed to Deity; Son: the visible, finite body of God; here humanity and deity are combined in a perfect union--Son of Man, fully man, perfect man, very man; and Son of God, fully God, perfect God, very God; theologically, the Son is Christ--the anointed of Yah, the long anticipated Coming One; the Son possessed a dual nature, and sometimes He spoke and acted as a man, while at other times He spoke and acted as God; the Son is the incarnation of the Word (which is another term for God--the Logos, mind, logic, intelligence, plan, schema, purpose of God); the purpose of the Son is propitiation, redemption, reconciliation and intercession--to die on the cross as the Lamb of God and then to serve as our High Priest in Heaven itself; the Son is both the sacrifice and the savior, the gift and the giver; He is the passover and the deliverer, the sin offering and the scapegoat; He is the spiritual root and the natural offspring of David; I believe the term Son of God actually means the Body of God, or the personification of God; Holy Spirit: the aspect of the spirit of God as it is given to men to assist, aid, comfort, succour, and defend; after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Son, the Holy Spirit (i.e., the spirit of the holy God) works with earthbound humanity in regeneration, and serves us as a guide; the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of Christ, as we know that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself"; I believe in the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, and I do not see three persons in the Godhead in the scripture. I don't agree with the Gnostic teaching you referred to, and I don't know enough about modalism to address it. I do not believe the "God" aspect of the Son died; the Son died in that the "body" died. But Jesus said previously, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The humanity of the Son died, and the Diety part of the Son raised that body from the grave. Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." Speaking as a man, He existed in the sphere of humanity which is "in" God (the Father) who is omnipresent, i.e., His Spirit exists everywhere. The eternal, invisible Spirit of God (the Father) also was in the Son. If I have not been sufficiently clear, please advise. Thank you. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
50 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37601 | ||
Greetings again, fellow Tim! Thank you for your gracious words. 1) I believe that God manifested Himself in human form in the OT (some call this a theophany). That does not mean that He was not still an eternal, invisible, infinite Spirit, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. So I see no problem with the Lord presenting Himself to men in human form for a special purpose and yet retaining His existence as a Spirit that fills all space. 2) I believe that the "other Counsellor" is the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Spirit, which is indeed the Spirit of Christ. The difference was in the fact that after His death, burial, resurrection and ascension, His Spirit would no longer merely be with them, but it would be in them. Once Jesus Christ was resurrected from mortality to immortality and the perishable body became imperishable, then the gift of the Holy Spirit was made available to all men as the earnest of our inheritance--eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The "allos" difference is referring to the fact that the body of Christ had not yet been glorified; it was at that time mortal and perishable. After His resurrection He had a glorified body, and then eternality became available to humanity through the gift of the Holy Spirit. I trust that I have been clear. If not, please advise and I will try again. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
51 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 37605 | ||
Greetings yet again, fellow Tim! In discussions like these, it behooves us to articulate our positions precisely and concisely. I think some of your misunderstanding of my position is due to the fact that I haven't stated it clearly enough. Sorry about that. I refer to the term "Son" as the body or house of God. (John 1:14 -- the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.) I agree that Jesus is fully God, not just a man inhabited by God's Spirit; but He also was fully man. I think the misunderstanding involves your statement "Then, before the death of the cross, the Spirit of God leaves the body of Jesus." I don't believe that the Spirit of God remained in Jesus after He died, and I know that the Spirit of God did not die. Jesus died as a man; Jesus raised His dead body from the grave as God. This shows the dual nature of Jesus Christ. I believe the sacrifice for sins was the Body He prepared--sinless, pure, separate from sinners. The Lamb of God was the Son of God. I would probably say the incarnation of God died on the cross, as opposed to God incarnate. They may mean the same thing, but I do not want to imply that God died on the cross. If God dies, we're all in trouble. :) I must hurry off, but I shall return and make sure that I haven't mislead you again. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
52 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | 10ECPreacher | 33855 | ||
Greetings, friends. I have understood the two resurrections to be comprised of the resurrection of the "just" (righteous) and the resurrection of the "unjust" (unrighteous), with the former being the "first" resurrection and the latter being the "second" resurrection. "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment." [John 5:28-29 NASB] I further understand that the resurrection of Christ was the beginning of the first resurrection, and the first resurrection will not be completed until all who are righteous have been resurrected. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,..." [1 Cor. 15:22-23 NASB] "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." [Rev. 20:5-6 NASB] "The rest of the dead" means the unrighteous or wicked. "This is the first resurrection" means this is the END of the first resurrection. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
53 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | 10ECPreacher | 33888 | ||
Sorry, benjamite. I actually was agreeing with you. I didn't mean to leave the impression that you said anything wrong. I was just trying to paint with a very broad brush. The way I understand it [and that is not a claim to infallibility :)] what is called the "first" resurrection is comprised of righteous souls only--beginning with the resurrection of Christ and ending at the beginning of the "thousand years." And what is called the "second" resurrection involves only the unrighteous souls, and does not occur until after the "thousand years" are finished. So, whether it be in Daniel or Revelation, that's the way I see it. Keep up the good work. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
54 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | 10ECPreacher | 34027 | ||
I was indeed using "souls" in the general sense. Thanks for the clarification. Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |