Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Morant61 | 37516 | ||
Greetings Tim! I haven't read every one of your posts on this topic yet, so you may have answered this before. However, I came across a statement that confused me. You wrote: "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." In modalism, aren't the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all just titles for the same Person. Therefore, how can the spirit of the Father be in the Son? How can the Son yield up the Spirit of the Father? The Son is God, right? Maybe I'm just missing something, but this sounds almost like the Gnostic teaching that the Divine Spirit of Christ came upon the man Jesus and then left him before his death. Under this view, Jesus was just a man and not fully God. This hasn't bee my understanding of what modalism teaches. Modalism fully recognizes the full Deity of Jesus, but denies that there are three Persons in the Godhead. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Morant61 | 37596 | ||
Greetings Tim! Thanks for the response my friend! Modalism is basically what you seem to believe, but I won't press the term if you don't want! :-) My concern about your definitions centers on the relationship between the Father and the Son on the cross. My understanding of Scripture, as you have also alluded to in other posts, is that Jesus is God incarnate - God in the flesh. And, in Him the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). However, in your definition, it almost sounds like Jesus is just the vessel and the Spirit of God simply inhabits the vessel. Then, before the death of the cross, the Spirit of God leaves the body of Jesus. If this is what you are saying, then who died? How could God be the sacrifice if He wasn't present in the death? Regardless of one's position on the Trinity, Scripture is clear that Jesus is fully God, not just a man inhabited by God's Spirit. Thus, God incarnate did indeed die on the cross. If I'm misunderstanding your position, please let me know! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Morant61 | 37608 | ||
Greetings Tim! Thanks for the clarification! From what you are saying, I think I was correct in my understanding of your statement. If I'm understanding your position correctly, then God didn't die for us. So, who did? Jesus was more than just a body or a vessel. He was fully God and fully man. However, if you seperate the His divine nature from the death, then you end up with just a man dying, not God. Further, where is the Scriptural support for saying that part of His nature died, but part left? On a serious note, you wouldn't happen to be a Titans fan would you? ;-) My team, the Colts, are going to be a part of the Titan's division next year. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||