Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | John Reformed | 37527 | ||
Dear Tim, I am grateful that we have begun our conversation with an agreement. Many times folks don't take the trouble to listen to the opposing side, but rush headlong into attacking a strawman of their own construction. I'm no stranger to this type of attack myself. As you can easily presume from my screen name, I too hold, what has become, a minority position in the church in 21st century America. The majority have their own presupposed ideas concerning calvinist doctrine which in reality are mere caricatures. For instance: When a calvinist begins a dicussion on the "Soverignty of God", it is oftimes misconstrued to mean that this doctrine reduces man to the level of a wooden puppet. Such erroneous ideas are next to impossible to overcome if they are not addressed early on in the debate. If you have read any of my posts, you will see that I am a stickler over the necessity of defining our terms. In responding to Zacht's question, "Is Limited Atonement Biblical", I put forth the definition of atonement from Easton's Bible Dictionary. As the debate raged, I began to wonder if any one had taken the trouble to read that definition? Now that we have established your position on "The Nature of God", I will state mine. Again, I will se Easton,s Dictionary (The historical position of The Church). Easton's Bible Dictionary Trinity [N] a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr.trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person. I f you are agreeable or if you disagree with the definition(as to it's conformity to the classical position of the Church) please restate what you believe is the trinitarian position. I pray the Holy Spirit will enlighten us.That we may conduct ourselves in love and glorify God through our work. Your Friend John Reformed |
||||||