Results 161 - 180 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Are we Under Mosiac Law? or Jesus Law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229005 | ||
Biblicalman, I find it interesting what some will say that we are under, while trying to deny that, in one sense, we are under the law. Let me qualify and say that with regards to a covenant determining our life and death and eternal destiny, those who are in Christ are NOT under the law. But with regards to what is right and wrong and what we still ought to do and not do, not for any reward, but because it is right and wrong, we are still under the law. Now I hear some say either one or two things. 1. We are to love God with all our heart soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. However, did Christ Himself not tell us that on these two commandments hinge all the law and the prophets? All other thins in scripture are fulfilled and simply situational applications of these two commands! How then can we say we are not to follow the law, but we are to follow these two commands? To suggest this is to create a false distinction between these and the rest of the law. We can not obey what you are calling the law of Christ, without obeying the entire law. Did transgress against any point of the Old Testament moral law, is to in some way transgress against loving God or loving our neighbor. 2. Some will say the only command we are under now is the command to love. Ironically they will often state these verses to defend their view. Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. However, if we think through this verse we will see something we didn't expect. If all the law is summed up in the statement to love your neighbor, then what we MEAN when we command to love your neighbor must therefore implicitely include all the law. When we tell somebody to love their neighbor we mean by that: Do not steal from them, but rather seek their good; do not bear false witness against them but speak the truth; do not covet their belongings, but rejoice in their prosperity; etc. Because in the one statement, "love your neighbor" all the law is summed up and contained. We can not on one hand say that all the commands of the law are summed up in this one thing, then on the other say this one thing does not imply all the commands. Let me recap lest people missunderstand my position. We are not under the law in terms of a covenant. But the moral law remains the Christian definition of right and wrong, and we are to follow it. Not as if it is the means of our attaining eternal life, but because it is right. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
162 | Is drinking and smoking pot allowed | Rom 14:23 | Beja | 228729 | ||
Justme, I do not think you will find a passage of scripture that says repentence, sexual purity, or right standing with God is a prerequisite to marriage. Or are unbelievers and sinners not allowed the gift of marriage under God's common grace? If you do find scripture forbidding marriage outside these circumstances, please let me know. Please note: I do think scripture teaches us to repent, be sexualy pure, and to be in right standing with God through Christ. I'm not asking you to prove this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
163 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228714 | ||
Tim, Thanks for your reply, I'll follow the same format as I ask for clarification. 1.) I understand that you see a saved individual as winning, but I am wondering if you grant that it is in fact a battle? Now I would suggest that we don't always win this battle, but lets put that aside. In your mind, though we who live by the spirit do win over the flesh, do you grant that it is a battle, a stuggle in the sense that we must put our minds to doing so since there is an opposing drive to be overcome? 2. On Ephesians 4, I readily grant that aorist tense in these would typically indicate a one time action, but also keep in mind that aorist serves greatly as an "unmarked" tense as well. In other words if Paul was simply not trying to stress aspect, this is how he would have done it. However, I base what I'm saying on the fact that it is a current command. He is instructing saved souls to do this now, and is not looking at it as something already finished. Perhaps you disagree still with my interpretations of Ephesians. And I'm not trying to sway you from your view but rather understand it. I am wondering if you see the Christian as in the process of putting to death old habits and sinful inclinations. However, much victory your ascribe to a christian in it, are we now doing so. That is what I refer to as a struggle. When I suggest there is a struggle I do not mean to suggest a Christian living in defeat. BTW, I think in many places scripture uses an already not yet with regards to the old man being crucified. It has been accomplished, yet being brought into realization over time. We know scripture often speaks of things this way. I'd offer the topic of "all things being placed in subjection to Christ" as an example. See Ephesians 1:22 and 1 Cor 15:27,28. One might easily argue that God has (aorist) put all things under his feet. Yet we see that it is still ongoing. I would argue a similiar scenario with regards to the past tense accomplishing of our sanctification and the ongoing process of our sanctification. I am doubtful you'll agree on that point, but do let me know in what sense you would say the Christian is still battling sin, if at all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
164 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228695 | ||
Tim, Surely you aren't suggesting the total absence of something in us that is still yearning towards sin, flesh, sin nature? Gal 5:16,17 seem to clearly be painting a present struggle in Christians, even though I grant that verse 24 is teaching that true Christians can be identified as the ones who are having some victory to show in this struggle. Am I missunderstanding you or do you agree with this? You can't simply categorize it as if only the phrase "old man" is referring to this discussion and limit it to those passages. Ephesians 4 refers to this as the "old self." Does "Old self" not have import for this discussion? It says with regards to the Old Self, its something we are in the process of putting off and putting on the new self. Eph 4:20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!-- Eph 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, Eph 4:22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, Eph 4:23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, Eph 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. I think scripture does teach that we have a conflict. If you want to refrain from calling it "two natures" that is fine. I think scripture does seem to try to paint it as something that is outside of a Christian, or perhaps an invading thing inside the Christian yet distinct. But surely you admit that a struggle is still there to be fought due to ongoing temptations that actually do kindle our desires. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
165 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228663 | ||
Biblicalman, In an admitedly long and complex thread, I think you've failed to follow my posts. No blame there, as they may not be worth following. I say this because you are proceeding as if you think I am suggesting Paul was perfect. This is not at all what I believe. I do not think Paul was sinless. And I do not think the point of Rom 7 is to describe a lost man. I think Paul battled sin like every other man. I have even argued as much in this thread from Philippians 3. I simply do not agree that Romans 7's point is whether it is describing lost or savedd. And this ofcourse debunks your entire theory that I am interpreting it due to "wanting to see Paul as perfect." I disagree with you because I think your tense shift arguement holds no water. See post 228649 if you want to see my thoughts on what Romans 7 is actually trying to say. Also, I urge you to have no hesitancy to reply to my posts due to me being "another teacher." I ask nobody to be a respector of persons, I only ask hesitency to reply if they haven't actually read what I have said. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
166 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228658 | ||
EdB, I understand. And I think we have to give a bit of grace here. It is very hard to say for certainty exactly what Paul ment by some of the phrases in Romans 6-8, especially chapter 6, and I can not myself fault anybody else for struggling to explain them since I too struggle in it. I have had more fruitful study personally trying to grasp the flow of that section instead. Sometimes it is easier to see what Paul believes he has just proven a few verses or chapters later! :) But we labor on, studying the word, and letting our suggested interpretation be refined by well-meant criticism, both by the living such as on this forum, and by the dead through the writings they have left us. I have certainly enjoyed the thread. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
167 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228649 | ||
Thread, I will just reply to my own post and give how I consider Romans 7. I want to say this issue that we are discussing does not stand or fall with Romans 7, but clearly it is of great interest. The context of this entire section is the question in Rom 6. Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Paul has just spent a great deal of time in Romans defending that we are freely justified by Faith in Christ apart from any works of the law. Now Paul is dealing with the natural question which follows. If we are teaching that the law and obedience to it has no role in our justification, does that doctrine not turn us to sinful living? The correct preaching of the gospel begs this question. Salvation by grace through faith apart from works is shocking. So then Paul is trying to answer this question. That is his goal in chapters 6-8. Now ultimately his answer through this section summarized is, "No, it does not lead to sinful living because we are under grace. And God's grace has been unleashed upon our lives to effectively turn us to holiness through the working of the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit succeeds in a way nothing else could." Now, also in this section Paul is dealing with a notion implicit to his oppositions case. That the law is necessary for us to live right. If the gospel dethrones the law as a taskmaster, didn't we need that to spur us to good works? This Paul addresses in Chapters 7, his goal here is one thing, to show that the Law was NEVER able to lead us to righteous behavior, all it could ever produce was death. So the question here is not is this lost or saved, but the focus is on the inability of the Law to produce holiness in us whether we are lost or saved. Therefore it is the gospel in unleashing the grace of God and the Holy Spirit upon us which causes holy living, not the law. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
168 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228647 | ||
Biblicalman, I would suggest that its not quite as simple as a contrast between past and present tense when we actually analize the passage. You say the shift takes place at vers 13/14. Lets look at it. Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. Paul asks a question of how to rightly interpret the past tense scenerio of sin slaying him through the law. Then following that, he gives the basis for how he understands the past tense event of sin slaying him. And every verse after that is basically a sting of "For" statements. Meaning that all your present tense section is a study of this past tense event of law sin and death that occured. Meaning a strong case can be made for the historical present as this section is all implicitly past tense since it is an explination of a past tense event. Context is king. My opinion of the passage is no the same as either yours or Tim's, but the case is not going to stand or fall on the shift to present tense. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
169 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228644 | ||
EdB, I say this with love, and aim to your edification. But the problem here is not that you haven't been given scripture, rather you are not understanding the scriptures you are given. I recommend that you begin reading the puritans. Over time they will give you the framework you need to understand how all this fits. I know you will say that you do not care what they say, but rather what does scripture say? However, they are only trying to explain scripture to you. And God has given us teachers for this very puprose (Eph 4). You need men who well understood sanctification, the holy spirit's work, its relation to justification and other things besides these. The puritans would do you well. Here are some recommendations. Holiness by J.C. Ryle Saving Faith by John Colquhoun Evangelical Repentence by John Colquhoun John Owen's work on the glory of Christ and the Holy Spirit The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshal Though I have not read it (its on my stack to read) I am expecting John Murray's "Redemption accomplished and applied" to be very helpful on this topic. Sola Scriptura never meant to not let learned men explain and teach you the right sense of the word of God. These books would be a great blessing to you. Think of it as simply going to them to ask them just like you are going to this forum to ask us. Hear their oppinion, weigh it by scripture and I think you will be blessed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
170 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228643 | ||
EdB, I have explained it a few times. Let me try a more ground up approach. 1. All sin will be judged by God. That has always been the problem, sin and judgement from God upon sin. Nothing has changed there. 2. Christ died to pay the punishment for all those who believe upon him. That has always been the answer, nothing has changed. 3. All those who receive Christ has not merely received the benefits of his death, but the benefit of an ongoing union with him in life. 4. All those who enjoy this benefit will continually become more and more holy in practice by the Holy Spirit working in them. 5. Therefore, all those who are saved, will by the power of the Holy Spirit, also be people who practice Holy Lives. Not utterly sinless lives, but lives that have conquered sin such that we, in a relative way, can see a progressed holiness. 6. Therefore it is true, that only those who overcome sin will be saved in that day in which God judges all flesh, as stated in those verses which we are discussing. Therefore it is true there is a holiness without which nobody will see God (Heb 12:14). Therefore it is true that sin will not have dominion over us. Therefore it is true that those with lives completely overcomed by these sins will not be saved in that day. 7. We must understand, the things in point 6 do not "save us" or merit our salvation. They are what God do to a saved person after they are saved. One of the major problems in your attempt to understand this is that you fail to realize who what passages are speaking to. You said: "Romans 6-8 says we are free yet various other places still list the penalty of sin. Which is it are we free or not. Or have we not been looking at these passages and understandin what they say." When scripture says the penalty for sin is death, that is what is true for those who do not have Christ. When scripture says that we are free from sin, or that sin will not have dominion over us, or any such thing, that is said to those who are in Christ, who have through faith had Christ die that death penalty for us. How can you ask which it is? It is one for those without Christ, and the other for those who have Christ. Now if you are inclined to say, "Yes, but what scripture do you use to support any of this?" then I urge you to reread my posts in this thread where I did defend these things with passages, or at least any point of it I thought would be contested. I am saying nothing in this post I have not been saying the entire thread. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
171 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228638 | ||
EdB, It was I who quoted those passages in the very post you are responding to. And I explained how they fit in. Though I know you are responding to many posts so the mix up is understandable. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
172 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228625 | ||
EdB, Rom 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. Here it speaks of sin being dead apart from the law. And in Chapter seven the primary emphasis is that we died to the law. So now, without the law being the determing factor in our justification or condemnation, sin is powerless. For sin can only slay us when the commandment hangs over us which says, "the soul who sins shall die." (Ezek 18:4). So by dying, in Christ, to the law sin is now powerless to condem us through the law. However, we should not go on to say that sinfulness or holiness has nothing to do with our salvation or fate. Paul has affirmed in multiple places that it does. 1 Cor 6:9,10 Ephesians 5:5,6 Galatians 5:19,20. And again Hebrews warns us in Hebrews 12:14. But the key is to see in what way they have to do with our fate and salvation. And the answer to that is that they are NOT how we aquire salvation, but rather are part of that salvation which has been aquired for us by Christ. I say this from Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the new covenant in Hebrews 8. What Christ has purchased for us is forgiveness from sin immediately, ongoing and certain growth in Christ-likeness/holiness in this life, and ultimate perfection of the same in the life to come. So while turning from sin has nothing to do with how we RECEIVE the salvation, it does have a very great deal to do with our salvation. All, save easy believism advocates, will agree on this. At least I presume all in this discussion agree to the pattern of salvation by faith, then growing sanctification in this life, and finally glorification in the age to come. The only matter of debate on the table is how far we can actually come in our progress in sanctification in this life. All agree it will be progressive, non suggest it goes so far as glorification (I hope). Now in Christ, sin is dead to us in two senses. First, it has lost all power to condem because the law has utterly been satisfied on our account. Second, it is dead because it is fading and ready to pass. The Holy Spirit is continually working it out of our lives. And as Tim has pointed out it is no longer our slave master. (See Romans 6) Meaning that by the power of the spirit we can arm ourselves and defeat sin in our lives in a practical way. However, and this is the limit of sanctification in this life, that constant fight of battling and removing sin will never be finished in this life, as I showed from Philippians. Now why is Jesus still making intercession for us? We ought not understand this as if he is continually having to plead with the Father on our behalf as if the Father really wants to smite us but everytime he proceeds to the Son comes up with some good reason for him to not do so (Luke 12:32). Rather let us take our understanding from the priestly work in the old testament. First the sacrifice was made, but then the work was not done. Next, the priest had to make the actually intercession. But here we learn something, this intercession was merely an application of the blood to its intended recipient, and a display of the sacrifice by its blood. This is what we should understand of Christ's interceding work. He is continual in God's presence as a ongoing display to God of our clensing sacrifice. And He sends the Spirit to apply that sacrifice through clensing through the Spirit, His Word, and Faith. Now, this intercession matters with regards to our sanctification. First, because all of our sanctification depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit in us. (philipians 2:12,13). Second, because it is Christ who has ascended into the presence of the father, received the Holy Spirit, and sent it to us for our salvation, sanctification, and comfort. Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. So Christ's intercession is his evidencing our justifying sacrifice in the presence of God, and then sending on the Holy Spirit which God has granted as a result of his work. And through this Spirit God accomplishes what the law couldn't, namely to cause us to repent and become conformed to godliness. Because the law was weak due to our own flesh, but the spirit is Christ in us unto righteousness and life. Rom 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
173 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228615 | ||
Tim, Very helpful, thank you. I think the root is that "entire sanctification" really isn't a term scripture uses. So when you said it, I did indeed think of what scripture is calling glorification, the essence of which is the absolute perfect completion of the sanctification begun on earth. I think we may have some minor disagreements if we dig long enough, but I am happy rather to see what we have in harmony. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
174 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228613 | ||
EdB, Yes, I agree with your assessment of 1 John 2:8. It says that the darkness is "passing way" as in that it is not completely gone but in the process of passing. Another verse is James 3:2 Jas 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. Now I think without doubt that James here is speaking to believers. Also another passage I think you should give great attention to is in Philippians 3. For space considerations I will not copy the whole chapter here, but I urge you to go back and read it in context. Php 3:11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Php 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Php 3:13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Php 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; Paul here emphasises that he has not already become perfect yet he presses on to that. Then he says that we ought to have the same exact attitude. I am not perfect yet I press on to perfection. And ofcourse then he says that as many as are "perfect" ought to have this attitude. I think here Paul has intentionally put is in a bind. Now we who might be tempted to thinking we are "perfect" must confess and believe that we are not as a condition of it! Either Paul has lost his mind and is contradicting himself or he has seen fit to say "perfect" the second time in a bit of a tongue in cheek fashion. He says if you are "pefect", then admit you are not perfect. In my opinion James and Paul in Philippians make a much stronger case than Romans 7, as I said in my previous post, I think Romans 7 has the intentions of showing the failure of the law to create righteousness in us rather than any attempt to describe a lost or saved person in particular. I might could think of more passages but this will suffice I think. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
175 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228604 | ||
Ed, I recently made a post (228468) regarding a study of sanctification I did. In which I explained why sanctification sometimes is used as if it is a one time accomplished event such as in Heb 10:10, yet at the same time can be treated as something we must pursue in an ongoing fashion such as in Heb 12:14. I don't know if it will, but perhaps that post will be helpful to you. With regards to Romans 7, I'd humbly suggest that we've been asking the wrong question. I do not believe trying to determine "saved or loss" best helps us understand the point. The point is the law's inability to help us. Be we saved or loss it is not by power of the law that we can accomplish holiness of heart and behavior, but only by the power of God's spirit working in us. For scripture I simply suggest you read Romans Chapters 5-8 again with that thought in mind and see if it isn't helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
176 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228600 | ||
Tim, After my first post I think the garden illustration may help. If you are suggesting that it is possible to have a garden free from weeds then I will have no major qualms with you. If you suggest that in this life we can ever be done "weeding" in order to make that so then we have disagreement. In the next life we will have no need to even weed. And THAT is what I would call entire sanctification. And that may help or not help at all! :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
177 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228599 | ||
Tim, Forgive me if some of what I ask or say has been well delt with in the past, as I have had little opportunity to speak about this topic with people who even use words as large as "sanctification." So I may be in need of hearing old well tested answers for the first time on some things. My question is first about your concept of entire sanctification. It seems to me this would mean entirely sanctified. This brings up the question of what is considered a sin. Is wrong thoughts a sin? What of wrong desires? Is the fact that I very much desire something wrong but yet I successfully resisted the desire, is that sin? My understanding of sin is such that even though one does well to resist a temptation, having that wrong desire is in and of itself sin. I don't think my mind will change on this, but perhaps one could make a case against it leaning on James 1:15. But even though I disagree, let us grant hypothetically for the sake of arguement that it is only the actual acting that is considered sin in God's eyes. Therefore we would be able to suggest sinless life is possible for those lead by the spirit in this life. But yet even should we grant all of that, do you not think that one day we will be entirely sanctified to the point of no longer even desiring? And if we will be, should not that be what entirely sanctified means? Ought entire sanctification mean one thing now and something different in heaven? Now that is what I think the phrase "entire sanctification" ought to mean. That even our desires for sin is removed such that it no longer even carries any appeal to us but rather every sin is as loathsome to us as it is to God. However, let me then deal with what you said so that I don't simply set up a straw man. I think we ought to let a man define his own terms and deal with what he is actually saying. It would be a farce to take your words and give them my definitions in order to refute you. You have said, "What the doctrine does teach is that it is possible for a Christian to live holy." I struggle with this definition. Not because of any disagreement, but do we not all agree on this? I assume, and I feel it is safe to based on your post, that you teach that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit working to put sin to death in us that we may do so. But if that is the case then where is the conflict? I agree that it is possible to live holy, yet at the same time possible for a Christian to live not holy. Are we truely so close that if you simply called it holy living rather than entire sanctification that we would be in agreement? I can't help but to doubt that, yet I can not see our difference. Perhaps if you shared with me what you mean by it being possible for a man to live holy? I will attempt to define it by what I mean, and once again, forgive me as I've had little opportunity to try to do so before and therefore my definition will not be refined by past corrections and rebukes. It is possible for a believer to live holy in that through the spirit's sin removing, Christ conforming work in us, no individual sin is impossible for a Christion to overcome in a temporary sense. (By temporary I only mean to highlight that complacency as if we are beyond that sin can lead to falling back into it.) Not only may we overcome the practice of any given particular sin, we may adopt a godly attitude towards that sin, coming to view it as God views it which is to say as a loathsome thing to be rejected. However, because the human heart is so wickedly deceitful by its fall, and because God has not yet in this live deemed to completely give us that transformation we will receive upon seeing him, and because we are still in the flesh and satan continues to tempt, and the world continues to try to lead us astray, no matter how sanctified we become, new and returning old temptations and ungodly attitudes continue to rise which again and again must be slain by submission to God's word and His spirit. Therefore a man can never become beyond sin in this life as they are in the next life. Now the last sentence is key to me. I think the "entire sanctification" in the age to come will place us beyond sin such that even under the worst trials we would not have any desire for it. We will never be such in this life but rather must constantly be weeding the garden as new sins spring up. And indeed, this all assumes we can rightly see all our sin which in itself would be a remarkable grace. Does this sound in accord with your thoughts? I do hope you can see the sincerity of my post, I am not "hunting for arminians" in order to slander or shame them, though I confess myself to be a calvinist. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
178 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228581 | ||
SeekTruth, You said, "You'll find that there's a lot of common ground between us when we explain that." So what of the Holy Spirit being present at the same time as Christ? Christ seated next to the Father? The Father speaking from heaven audibly to the Son? I would expect you to answer that God can manifest Himself in these ways at the same time. So now lets find some common ground. If you grant... That God will manifest Himself for all eternity in the three forms of Father, Son, and Spirit, and that he does now and will do so for all eternity That these three manifestations of one God actually speak with each other, and enjoy each other, and otherwise interact with each other That they actually can give and be gifts to each other Act 2:33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. Then take all of that and say that it is the permanent, eternal, expression of God of Himself to creation, THEN I think we will find that we have some common ground if not agreement. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
179 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228580 | ||
SeekTruth, I believe you have missed the crucial points here. For example where ephesians 1 says that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Or that God, as other than Christ, actually raised him to seat him there. Whatever this "distinction" between the Father and Christ is, it allows them to sit next to each other. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
180 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228568 | ||
SeekTruth, See post 228492. Could you please explain the verses I stated in that post? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [26] >> |