Results 1901 - 1920 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1901 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4835 | ||
Who said that he was tempted in the garden of Gethsemane? We are talking about the Son of God knowing exactly what was going to happen to him, not only physically on the cross, but also facing the holy and infinite wrath of God the Father for the sake of all those who will trust in him. The fact that he obeyed God perfectly does not mean that it didn't cause him anguish to know that he would experience the punishment for our sins. After all, who better than God Himself to know exactly to what extent His holy wrath reaches, how horrible it must have been for someone completely holy to "become sin for us." We may be comfortable with our sin nature and quite accustomed to it, in fact. Christ didn't have the same "luxury"; it shouldn't be surprising in the the least that a perfectly obedient Christ would nonetheless feel excruciating anguish knowing all too well the cross he was going to bear for me. I think all believers should take this into account when reading the accounts of the night before the crucifixion, and remember soberly and thankfully that this was Jesus' understanding of price that was to be paid for our salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
1902 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4833 | ||
Mel: It is really not a question of where I "place Jesus." It is a matter of where the Bible says He is. Very God of very God. Far be it from me or anyone else to try and "redefine" God the Son in a way that would make Him more comfortable for my sinful nature to live with! We cannot reach God. In light of our total depravity and God's infinite holiness, we in our pre-Christian state don't even WANT to. God had to reach down to us. --Joe! |
||||||
1903 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4820 | ||
I contend that James' epistle is describing succumbing to temptation, not only being tempted by some external source. Remember that Jesus taught us to pray "Lead us not into temptation." It would make no sense that we should pray "Lead us not into being carried away by own own lusts," since God is not the encourager of sinful behavior, as James said in his letter. Therefore, James must have something different in mind, and the context seems to indicate that he is talking about giving into sinfulness which already exists within us, which Jesus did not have, of course. It is always important to remember that while Jesus took on the form of a servant (i.e. took on a human nature), he did not stop BEING God. While he was exposed to every external avenue to sin as we are (and more so, I would contend), it is impossible for God to sin. During his earthly ministry, although he looked like us, morally he was infinitely different from us. Remember that he said that even sinful thoughts carry the weight of actually committing the offense. Therefore, if there was even a shadow, a flicker of immorality even in his thinking, he did not reflect the unchangeable character of our perfect God. Since all Christians acknowledge that he indeed is God the Son, he was completely unable to be swayed even in the briefest of moments from complete obedience in thought, word, and deed to the Father. Thanks to that, we can receive a righteousness not our own -- His. Praise be to God! --Joe! |
||||||
1904 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4745 | ||
Radioman: It is generally considered to be poor nettiquette to cross-post all over the place. In addition, this forum is for discussion, so debate on important theological issues is why we ARE here. Thirdly, people's opinions DO change (mine did, as a matter of fact), and Christians certainly should in love vigorously debate the Scriptures in order to come to a better understanding of God's nature and activity. Thanks, and I hope you are not a 2 Prov 1:7 kind of guy! :) --Joe! |
||||||
1905 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4744 | ||
So you are saying that Jesus (i.e. God the Son) was not "mature"? To say that "taking on a nature of material flesh means that he had evil to overcome in his own self" has a name. It is Gnosticism. Jesus was tempted EXTERNALLY (for example, Matthew 4). He did not have to combat urges in his own human nature, since he was not under Adam's curse. He was tempted externally for the purpose of demonstrating perfect obedience to the Father so that he would be an acceptable propitiation for OUR sins. --Joe! |
||||||
1906 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4743 | ||
Well, even if it was an unfair accusation, I wish I could take credit for it! I could really sell some books with that kind of reputation... Thanks for the commentary! --Joe! |
||||||
1907 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4740 | ||
RevC, I am notified by email every time someone responds to my post. You do not have to copy and paste an IDENTICAL list of misinformation to everyone who declares the trinity, especially when at least 35 of the above assertions are also held by Trinitarians. For those of you just joining us, I addressed all of these, point-by-point, when he inundated the forum with this same post just minutes ago. Rather than simply pasting the same email, why not actually dialogue with Trinitarians. This "one-size-fits-all" post didn't really answer mine at all. My exegesis of John 14 was not addressed at all. Just spitting up a laundry list of stuff in response is not a credibility-enhancing activity. Now how does Oneness explain that a plain reading of John 14 shows the three persons of the Trinity interacting with each other, communicating with each other, sending each other, if they are all really just Jesus? The Son talks to the Father; the Father sends the Son and the Spirit, etc., etc. While you are at it, look at the rest of John 14-17 and give us a Oneness take on an apparently Trinitarian chunk of Scripture. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1908 | difference in trinity and oneness | 1 Tim 2:12 | Reformer Joe | 4715 | ||
To answer: 1. So what? It is irrelevant. 2. Sure it does, Not in a single verse, but doctrines built on single verses often are easily debunked. The Bible does teach the Trinity, and that all three persons are distinct but fully the one God. 3. Agreed. Not a point of contention between Trinitarians and modalists. 4. How do you get that from Matthew 28:19? Assumption on your part. In addition, I find that a God who defines himself in relation to humanity as not very sovereign. 5. 1 John 5:7 is a later addition, as any Greek NT scholar worth his salt will tell you. It simply doesn;t appear in the earliest manuscripts, which is why you will only find it in the KJV. 6. No argument. ONE God. 7. Certainly it can be apprehended. Trinitarians do it quite well. 8. Again, agreed. You DO know where Trinitarians agree with you, don't you? 9. I discussed this at length in another post in this thred. In the context of John 14-17, saying that Jesus is claiming to actually BE the Father or the Spirit is completely illogical. (see verses 4:14,16,23,24,26, and on and on...Jesus clearly points out that the Father, Spirit not only do different things -- another point where Oness and Trinitarians agree -- but that they COMMUNICATE and INTERACT with one another. Does Jesus have multiple personalities then?) 10. Sure it does. Se my answer to point 2. 11. Not a point of disagreement. All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. The Godhead is also expressed fully in the Father and the Spirit. This is Trinitarian. 12. Irelevant to your case (the part about it being hidden -- so what?), but the Father is delivering everything to the Son. You contend that Jesus is delivering everything to Himself? 13. God is God, regardless of His relationship to humanity. How humanistic and heretical to say that Jesus redefines himself to human beings! 14. Again, not a point of disagreement for Trinitarians. Maybe I should use a code word to abbreviate this repetitive answer. 15. Now HERE is a valid point for more extended discussion. Why don't we separate these two verses into another post and discuss these in greater detail, as this is the first point that at first glance would seem to support Oneness... 16. Both of these verses testify to ONE God. No argument from Trinitarians. However, how does one fit John 1:1-3 into a modalistic viewpoint (particularly that nagging "the Word was with God" part)? 17. You already said that. I agree. 18. See #17. 19. See #18. 20. "Some" do it? Is that your argument? In any case, as you have said, the Bible doesn't number them. The numbers do not indicate any ontological difference among the three Persons. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. No argument. He is God. 21. See #20. 22. See #17. Not anti-Trinitarian. 23. Same reason he does in Revelation 20. Not anti-Trinitarian. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament incarnate. Just not the Father. 24. So? God should be worshiped instead of Satan. What is the point? 25. Neither do I. 26. See #17. 27. See #17. 28. See #17. 29. See #17. 30. See #17. 31. See #17. 32. Guess you concede point 32. ;) 33. See #17. 34. See #17. 35. See #17. 36. See #17. 37. See #17. 38. Ditto. 39. Very poor exegesis here. By the way, I know a few Jehovah's Witnesses who would be happy to agree with you on this verse but say that that name is NOT "Jesus." 40. Okay. 41. See #32. 42. Okay...this is REALLY getting old. If you are going to attack the clearly Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, PLEASE take the time to understand what you are railing against, because most of what you have done here is to attack the "Straw Man" version of it that the UPCI or whatever group you belong to has fed you. There is an excellent work out there called _Oneness Pentecostals and the TRinity_ by Gregory Boyd. I invite you to read it and refute it. Then I would find your much more persuasive than you have been with this non-attack. 44, 45...You know what I am going to say here. 46. See #2. Oh, and #17. And #43. Okay. Please understand one thing. Trinitarians do NOT believe in THREE GODS. We BELIEVE in one GOD, eternally existing in THREE PERSONS, not eternally existing in one person who switches from mode to mode in order to relate to humanity in different ways. Another great work is _The Forgotten Trinity_ by James R. White. When I speak out against Oneness, whether you disagree with me or not, at least I KNOW where we differ and will not spend an inordinate amount of time making assertions that will be fully accepted by both of us. PLEASE, PLEASE do not embarass yourself by arguing against things that I would also argue against as a Trinitarian! One point out of 46 (or 44 actually) which carries any weight worth debating! --Joe! |
||||||
1909 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4654 | ||
It doesn't say "other" things. John makes it clear by affirming something ("Jesus made all things") and then denying its antithesis ("without him NOTHING has come into being that has come into being"). The inspired evangelist leaves no logical room for the placement of the word "other" in this verse. It simply is not there in the Greek text, and inserting it would make this verse completely nonsensical. Jesus is either God (not the Father) or a created being. John 1:1 affirms the former. John 1:3 denies the latter. Ergo, a Trinitarian understanding is required. --Joe! |
||||||
1910 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4653 | ||
God the Father. This statement is not inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine. Now about John 1:3...? --Joe! |
||||||
1911 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4635 | ||
I undertand Oneness view of God. Thanks for the clarification on your position! Isn't it exciting being a Trinitarian? You get to defend the Holy Scriptures from both sides, from those who deny that the Son and the Spirit are God, *and* from those who claim that the Father is the Son is the Spirit. This is why it is so crucial for Christians to have a firm understanding of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture to keep themselves from doctrinal error. Christians do not deny the deity of Christ, but I have seen quite a few slip into the heresy of modalism/Oneness due to a poor knowledge of Scripture. One's theology stands or falls on apprehending God correctly. --Joe! |
||||||
1912 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4633 | ||
Second Peter 3:9 must be put in its context to see who the "none" is. In this chapter, Peter is addressing those who are asking why Christ has not returned yet, why the resurrection of all men has not occurred (v. 4). The apostle contends that God's timetable is not our own (v. 8), and then says that he is holding back the end because he "is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Who is the "you" being referred to here? If we look at the first verse of the chapter, we see that Peter is addressing believers. If The addressees are already saved, why is God being patient toward them? The answer is that in addressing the entire church, Peter proclaims that God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but come to repentence. It does not make sense in the context to think that "all" means "all men," rather than "all of you" (i.e. the elect). Why would God be holding back the end for almost 2,000 years so far, waiting for everyone to come to reprentance? Both of us will agree that universalism is not a Biblical dosctrine. People going to Hell is just. If I were not among the elect, I would merely be getting what I deserve in facing eternal wrath from an infinitely holy God. The fact that I am saved is thanks to God's mercy and his grace. I think that all who understand the depth of our sinful rebellion against God (Romans 3:10-18) would agree that we do not deserve salvation. None of us are "entitled" to it. The fact that God shows mercy to some and not others is clearly expressed in Romans 9. The "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 means "all kinds of men," unless in verses 1 and 2 "all men" and "kings and those in authority" are two different groups as well. The fact is that Ephesians 1 points out that those who are (or will be) believers have been predestined before the world began, based not on God's foreknowledge of our choices, but rather according to his own will (1:5,9,11). In John 6:37,38 Jesus himself unequivocally says that those that the Father GIVES to Christ will come to Him. He says the same thing in John 10:25-29. God is not unjust for allowing some to go to Hell while he rescues those he will. If God were acting solely on the basis of justice we would ALL go to Hell and Christ would never have come. On the other hand, if he is required to show mercy to all, then it becomes something we each are entitled to, which is the exact opposite of what mercy is. While the issue of free will is not a salvific one, it certainly is important to gain a deeper understanding of who God is and our purpose in evangelism. If you can interpret Romans 9 in an Arminian light, I would be happy to discuss it with you, revbob. It just seems that the passage is undeniably Calvinist in its approach to salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
1913 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4628 | ||
You are correct about 1 John 5:7-8. The Scripture that actually teaches the Trinity is the Old Testament and the New Testament. Whether the word is used or not is irrelevant. The question has to do with whether the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all clearly revealed in Scripture as God; and whether the Bible reveals that there is only one God. I hold that both are true. --Joe! |
||||||
1914 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4627 | ||
Of course, you didn't answer the question, Elijah. To sum it up in three steps: 1. Do you hold that the Bible is the guide for truth? (It seems that you claim to do so) 2. Do you hold that Jesus is God? (Apparently you don't) 3. How do you account for all of the passages of Scripture which say, directly or indirectly, that Jesus is either God Himself or divine in nature? Start with John 1:3 as cited above. Were all things made by Jesus or not? The verse says that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." If Jesus "came into being" (i.e. if he was created), then he created himself, which would be a completely illogical statement. Please explain to me how he could be the creator of EVERYTHING that was created and be created himself? --Joe! |
||||||
1915 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4622 | ||
Gregory Boyd is also a former Oneness Pentecostal himself who has written an excellent work on the subject entitled _Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity._ In addition to James R. White's "must-read" book _The Forgotten Trinity_, I also recommend Boyd's book wholeheartedly. --Joe! |
||||||
1916 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4621 | ||
The Trinitarian Doctrine does not assert three Gods. One more time: 1. ONE God 2. THREE persons: Father, Son, Spirit 3. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God 4. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. I agree with every passage you put forth which illustrates the deity of Christ. No Trinitarian argues this. It is our understanding of point 2 on which we disagree. In addition, oneness/"Jesus only"/modalism denies point 4. You cited John 1:1. How can the Word (Jesus) simultaneously be "with God" and BE "God" in a non-Trinitarian understanding? John 14:9: 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'?" Taken out of its context above, the verse could support a oneness theology. However, Jesus says throughout the chapter that he and the Father are distinct. They should believe in God and "also in him." (v. 1). Is he being redundant? He refers to the Father in the third person (v. 2). Is he suffering from multiple personalities? In verse 10 he very specifically says that he is not talking about himself, but rather the Father. In verse 16, he will communicate with the Father (talking to himself?) and the Father will send ANOTHER comforter (not him!). In verse 26 the Father will send the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Father is not the Spirit).. In short, this whole chapter has the roles clearly defined of the different persons of the Trinity. Jesus makes it very clear that there is communication and interaction between the three Persons, and that he is not the Father Himself, but rather that the Father is in Him and that He is in the Father (v. 11), much as the Spirit will indwell believers (v. 17) without us BEING the Holy Spirit. If you are looking for a section of Scripture to support modalism, John 14-17 is definitely NOT the place to start! Jesus is God, without a doubt; but he is NOT the Father, and he is NOT the Holy Spirit. --Joe! |
||||||
1917 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4617 | ||
And? --Joe! |
||||||
1918 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4616 | ||
I didn't say that God didn't become a man. God the Son did just that. God the Father did not. The Trinitarian formula is one God eternally existing in three distinct persons co-equal in nature (Father, Son, Spirit). This statement does not address my assertion that "oneness" is heresy. --Joe! |
||||||
1919 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4569 | ||
A sound, Biblical theology hinges on the Trinity. That is the foundation of correctly understanding the whole of Scripture. It is first base. Biblical Christianity is Trinitarian; and modalism/oneness is heresy, not a mere "point of respectful disagreement." --Joe! |
||||||
1920 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4523 | ||
Sinlessness and perfection are the same thing, in terms of morality. Jesus was tempted, exposed to the opportunities to sin. However, in every way he chose not to do so. Jesus did not stop being God during the incarnation, which means that he did not "become imperfect" in any moral sense of the term. To say that Jesus became imperfect is blasphemy. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ] Next > Last [97] >> |