|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 1, 2010 15:23:44 GMT -5
My points were not about other religions but about the human beings who are in them. I wasn't talking about other religions either. I was talking about the human beings in those religions. - How can a religion go to hell?It sure sounds like I was saying that. I would only clarify that there may be me many religions or aspects of different religions that would be impossible to practice with a good conscience because of common sense. For example, I don't think atheism can be practiced in good conscience. Yes, I know that's what you were saying and the Bible disagrees with you. Also, why don't you think atheism could be practiced in a good conscience? (Note: if you use a Bible verse, then you've surrendered your position. Think hard before you type.) ;D Acts 10:1-2 says "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." Acts 10:35 says "he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Did Cornelius fear God and work righteousness before he was baptized? Yes, Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness before he was baptized. As I said in my last post; Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness but was still lost. As you quoted in Acts 10:1,2 - The text says that Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness before he heard the words by which he and his household would obtain salvation through obedience. Acts 11:14 "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."Here we have a God fearing man who worked righteousness that was as lost as could be. I think the issue is whether the law of love requires more than all of our ability or not. You seem to imply that it does. The law of love includes keeping the commandments of Christ --> John 14:15Salvation requires obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "... And to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1:7,8
Furthermore, if anyone does not have the doctrine of Christ, then they do not have God. "Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9-11Infants and the mentally disabled are incapable of obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you can't lump other religions into that category and say "Well, they can't obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ" when they really can. It is illogical and if you disagree, then I'm willing to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jun 29, 2010 9:33:33 GMT -5
I'll do my best to answer these questions ;D
Is God in heaven or everywhere?
Everywhere, but it is representativly. Just like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells the Christian representativly through the word of God. God is everywhere representativly through his creation.
If God is everywhere then what is the point of saying he is in heaven?
If God is omnipresent in the representative sense then it is plausible that when one speaks of God being in heaven that he is speaking of the fullness of God.
Could God be 3D instead of like a giant invisible cloud that overlaps everything?
I don't think so but I also don't think he's an invisible cloud that overlaps everything. This is interesting though. If one supposes that God is 3D and then he is literally omnipresent then one would expect to see God when he puts on those goofy looking glasses at the movie theater.
Why would God employ angels as messengers if he is right next to my ear?
Good question, but I don't believe that God is omnipresent in that sense.
Are angels only one-way messengers?
They weren't in the Old Testament. However, in the New Testament, we no longer have a need for Angels.
Could it be that heavenly creatures relay human prayers to God?
Perhaps in the Old Testament, but under the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the intercessor and he is not a heavenly "creature." Romans 8:34
Does God read everyone's mind all the time?
Yes and no. I think the things that God "reads" in our minds are selective. It's obvious that in the Old Testament that God chose to withhold his knowledge of particular actions that an individual may have taken.
If he does then why does he ask both people and angels seemingly genuine questions?
Because sometimes he chooses to withhold his knowledge. He could have asked genuine questions in order to spur an individual in the right direction. Perhaps there's many reasons.
Does the fact that God is able to search our hearts and know our thoughts mean that he always watches every thought we have all day long?
They're definitely being recorded.
If God always reads our minds all day long then what is the point of praying out loud?
Prayer does not have to be done out loud. Many times in the Old Testament, prophets would pray to God while standing before the king yet, the king didn't hear what the prophets would be praying.
We should pray in order to receive. 1 John 1:9 says "if." Prayer's a condition that must be met in order for God to do some things.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jun 28, 2010 22:17:40 GMT -5
John316,
The doctrine that many of these kind folks are introducing to you is the doctrine of the supremacy of the conscience. That is, they believe that the conscience is supreme in both the moral and spiritual realms.
This doctrine holds the position that just so long as one is sincere in his belief that God will not hold him accountable for it. Furthermore, they will reason that the conscience is not something that can be educated and that it is neither good nor evil, etc. Those who hold the position that you've seen presented before you believe that the conscience is an “intuitional verity.” Which simply means that the conscience needs no particular enlightenment of the Bible but instead, from birth, one has, instilled in him, a conscience which knows what is right and what is wrong (this coming about, separate and apart from, the word of God.)
When one takes this position concerning the conscience he is lead to many conclusions. What is commonly taught is that one can stop sinning, which is true to an extent. For instance, I can choose to commit a sin or I can choose not to commit a sin. However, the error that these men make is that when they commit a sin in ignorance or they have been deceived, then it's not a sin at all because all that matters is the supremacy of their conscience.
When you asked BenJoseph about various world religions he responded by saying; “I don't know much about... But if I did... I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience.” There's a number of things that stick out here.
#1. It is implied that man has the authority to decide which religions a man can believe in with a “good conscience” and still go to heaven.
#2. That one must have knowledge of various world religions in order to know whether or not God is pleased with such. - We don't need to know every religion which God is displeased with: We only need to know that religion which God is pleased with.
#3. That God will grant salvation to anyone in any religion just so long as someone practiced it through a good conscience.
Acts 10:34,35 was also used to say that men in various religions will be saved (or in the context “denominations”) The argument was made that, just so long as a man is God fearing and works righteousness that God will save him from eternal damnation. However, one must not look too far from the text to realize that this fails to persuade the honest mind. After all, Cornelius was a God fearing man who worked righteousness that still needed to do something in order to be saved(Acts 10:1-6). According to this position we must suppose that Cornelius did not really need Peter to preach unto him the words by which, he and his household, would be saved and furthermore, obedience to those words is out of the question.
So what does the text mean? As Peter said in Acts 10:34 “... Of a truth I do perceive that God is no respecter of persons...” God is not concerned as of what gender or nationality men are but instead, whosoever fears God and works righteousness is an acceptable candidate for salvation. For instance, Cornelius was an acceptable candidate for salvation because he was God fearing and worked righteousness. It is also important to note that Cornelius was not saved before he obeyed the Gospel.
The scriptures teach that a sincerely wrong, ignorant, and/or deceived individual will still go to hell. The Apostle Paul had a good conscience towards God and he reeked havoc on the church of Christ (Acts 23:1). It is also said in Acts 3:17 that those who ignorantly crucified Jesus Christ still needed to repent and be converted in order to be saved (V. 19) (whether they sincerely believed him or not.) We're also told that we can be lead away by the error of the wicked, even if we're sincere in our believes (2 Peter 3:17). Eve was deceived (Gen 3), Uzzah was struck down even though he was sincere and ignorant of the law (2 Sam 6)
The question of ignorance and deception as it pertains to salvation can be summed up by examining what the Bible says about unity (Ephesians 4:4-6). The unity of the Spirit contains: The one Spirit, the one Body, the one Hope, the one Lord, the one Faith, the one baptism, and the one Father. As it pertains to facts about trivial matters, one can be wrong. For instance, I can be ignorant, wrong, or deceived concerning the number of wives Abraham had. I can be mistaken on how tall or long the Ark of Noah was but however, this is not part of the unity of the Spirit. We can say for certain that every single Catholic will go to hell because they are a part of a different body, they have a different baptism, and a different father. Furthermore, those who may disagree with the Catholic church, yet still worship with them, are living their lives in sin and consequently will be told "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Romans 16:17,18 commands us to withhold our fellowship from them (the Catholic church). There is no difference in one living in spiritual adultery as one who is living in physical adultery. Just as a man must get out of an un-scriptural marriage before he can be saved, so must he get out of the Catholic church.
The moralist will tell you that when you're breaking these laws, that you're not sinning. However, sin is “transgression” and this is a law of Christ, by which we will all be judged even if we do so in ignorance. Everyone will be judged by the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you'd like more information and debates on this topic, send me an email.
If anyone would like to debate this topic then here's some propositions:
“The scriptures teach that the conscience is supreme in the moral and spiritual realm.”
Affirm:
Deny: Jonathan Whitehead
“The scriptures teach that the good conscience obtains salvation after water baptism.”
Affirm: Jonathan Whitehead
Deny:
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 19:02:14 GMT -5
How must I be a Calvinist? Calvinists are cessationalists like yourself. They believe God has no power to heal the sick today. Like yourself. I believe John 14:12 is for today. I believe Mark 16:15-20 is for today. All of it. Not just the preaching. You believe that is not for today. How does the Spirit bear witness with our spirit? You said this is according to 1 John 5:6. By the Word of God. Plenty of sinners believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Plenty of sinners believe Jesus rose from the dead. Plenty of sinners believe Jesus is the Son of God. Plenty of sinners believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Is that the witness of the Spirit? I'm looking forward to seeing you perform miracles on your videos and proving me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 19:01:00 GMT -5
I agree. You are the one who is saying Chapter 13 refutes Chapter 12. I am not saying that. What are you a Muslim or something? You believe the later Chapters cancel out the earlier ones? Be consistent with your own reasoning then. Since Paul follows 12 with 13 remember he also follows 13 with 14. You've falsely accused me of saying that Chapter 13 refutes chapter 12. And you claim to be full of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 18:53:23 GMT -5
By the way Paul did not stop at Chapter 13. To follow your above reasoning he goes on to Chapter 14 telling us to desire spiritual gifts in addition to following after charity. Chapter 14 doesn't refute chapter 13.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 17:50:33 GMT -5
Yes when there is a new Heaven and a New Earth, we won't need healings and miricles anymore because sin will be done away with. When we live in a perfect world, nobody will be sick and so consequently nobody will need healing! But until that which is perfect comes, we still live in a fallen world and need God's healing, etc. "That which is perfect" cannot refer to the new heavens and new earth because when the miraculous gifts cease, faith and hope will remain. The passage clearly tells us that there will be a point when miraculous gifts cease. Faith, hope, and love will continue and then when Jesus returns Love will remain forever. Right now the world has the Bible but the world still needs healing. The idea that healing is no longer necessary since we have the Bible doesn't make sense. We don't need healing to believe, but we need healing to be healed. We shouldn't make physical applications to spiritual healing. Jesus continually rebuked the pharisees for this. That's right. Jesus once healed a person and then told them NOT to tell anybody. That is because Jesus didn't heal people just to give credability to himself, or so that others would believe, but Jesus healed people to heal people! He really simply cared about them. Besides, miricles were not the answer. The Israelites saw many miricles and still disobeyed God. Judas saw Jesus walk on water and he still betrayed him! To say that Jesus healed people simply and only because he wanted them to be physically healthy is ridiculous. If this were so, then every Christian would be physically perfect unless you believe that God want's some people to be blind and mentally handicapped. Jesus performed miracles so that they and we may believe that he is the son of God and that through believing we may have eternal life. In doing so, Jesus definitely had compassion on men. Sadly you've just completely denied this purpose which can be attested through the scriptures. Matthew 9:6 Mark 2:10, 16:17-20; Luke 5:24; John 2:18,19 10:25,38 14:31; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:3,4There's no longer any need for God to perform miraculous signs because the preaching of the gospel is God's power unto salvation. Jesse would have me to look at every crippled child and believe that God does not wish for them to prosper in health making God a respecter of persons.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 11:44:22 GMT -5
I haven't “explained away” the fact that the Bible speaks of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe it's a grave mistake to interpret the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit possession and inspiration. How do you interpret the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Okay. I see no argument here. We're saying the same thing. The only difference is you believe that point has already come. I believe there is still faith, hope, and love in this world; therefore, gifts from God still exist. “When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” 1 Corinthians 13:10The miraculous gifts were in part. That is, they were all parts working together to reveal the whole, and perfect, revelation of God. I read it differently. If you attempt to prophesy, speak in tongues, etc without love, it is only in part and Paul likens it to a child's understanding or looking through dark glass. Without love, we cannot use God's gifts properly because we are not complete and do not have the necessary understanding. If Paul wanted to point out these gifts from God will stop, why didn't he do it in 1 Corinthians 12? That seems like the perfect time to bring up something like that, yet he didn't. He went on to talk about those gifts and the necessity of love being a part of them. In my last post I explained that a time will come when Prophesy, tongues, and knowledge will cease but faith hope and love will remain. This must be before the coming of the Lord because at his coming faith and hope will cease yet love will remain. You asked "Why didn't Paul point out in 1 Corinthians 12 that miraculous gifts would cease." Because he immediately followed chapter 12 with chapter 13.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 11:39:40 GMT -5
Oh so sinners who believe the Bible is the Word of God also have the witness of the Spirit. You must be a Calvinist.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 10:08:07 GMT -5
Jessicker,
You wrote:
"Scripture, if read with an open, sincere heart, contains the information one needs for salvation and to walk in the light, but sometimes we need a little guidance in day-to-day things. For example, knowing just what to say to someone in spiritual distress to help them through. The Bible seems to make it pretty clear that we also need the Holy Spirit to help guide us. Why else would God have sent the Holy Spirit to us? How do you explain away that the Bible says all sons of God have the Holy Spirit inside them and we are the temples of the Holy Spirit?"
I believe that the scriptures contain all of the guidance that we need in “day-to-day things.”
If I don't know what to say to someone in spiritual distress, it is only because I have not read what the Bible says about comforting those who are spiritually distressed.
The Bible makes it very clear that the Holy Spirit guides us through his counsel and not our imaginations.
“You will guide me with your counsel...” Psalm 73:6
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” 2 Corinthians 10:5
I haven't “explained away” the fact that the Bible speaks of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe it's a grave mistake to interpret the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit possession and inspiration.
You also wrote:
“ 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about charity (love). Everything else will fail without love. That's why your quote actually starts out with "Charity never faileth: but whether there are prophecies, they will fail...". If someone tries to speak in tongues, prophesy, or have knowledge of this gospel without also having love, they will "become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (1 Corithians 13:1) and yes, these gifts will fail and pass away from them."
When I read it in context, it doesn't appear to say that "The revelation has been completed and thus the miraculous revelations have ceased".
Yes, 1 Corinthians 13 talks about love. The passage suggests that at some point the gifts of miraculous knowledge, tongues, and prophecy will cease and when those three things cease; faith hope and love will remain. The greatest of these is love.
“When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” 1 Corinthians 13:10
The miraculous gifts were in part. That is, they were all parts working together to reveal the whole, and perfect, revelation of God.
Notice that this passage does not say “He” who is perfect, but “that” which is perfect.
Furthermore, after the cessation of these gifts, faith hope and love shall remain. That which is perfect is not Jesus because when Jesus returns there will no longer be any faith and hope because faith and hope that is seen is not faith and hope at all.
The necessary inference of this passage is that at the completion of God's revelation, miraculous gifts will cease.
Thanks,
Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 10:02:23 GMT -5
Hey Steve,
You asked: “What's the difference doctrinally between the "Christian Church" and the "Church of Christ"? I have Dr. Cottrell's theology book called "The Faith Once for All" and I was looking through it and it seems your views and his views are pretty similar.”
I will admit that the “Christian Church” denomination teaches a lot of truth. However, they are a denomination and that is a work of the flesh which is condemned numerous times throughout the scriptures. Christians are commanded to not have fellowship with these individuals in Romans 16:17 (...Mark them who cause division and have no fellowship with them...) They have also progressively erred further and further from the faith. Many now allow women preachers and elders. Some, have even begun to deny that water baptism is for the remission of sin. They've also chosen to add mechanical musical instruments to their worship services.
The “Christian Church” is a sad progression of apostasy.
To answer your other question: "You don't believe Jesus' compassion has ceased because the New Testament is closed do you?"
I believe Jesus has compassion on many people, healing them through natural means today. If we are to say that God still miraculously heals men through other men, out of compassion alone, then we must prove this with the scriptures. I'm inclined to believe that this cannot be affirmed in the scriptures.
After Jesus left this earth, he gave miraculous abilities to his Apostles. The Apostles were able to miraculously heal men in order to affirm that their testimony was from God.
“God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will.” Hebrews 2:4
“These signs will follow those who believe... And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.” Mark 16:17-20
Jesus' compassion has not ceased but Jesus is no longer present on this earth and no precedent has ever been made of the Apostles healing an individual solely out of compassion.
Take care,
Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 9:57:05 GMT -5
Micah wrote:
"Jonathan believes knowledge has ceased.
Romans 8:14-For as many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:16-The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.
1 John 5:10-He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself.
What is the witness of the Spirit? "
Yes, Miraculously given knowledge has ceased.
Romans 8:14 – The question is not whether or not we are led by the spirit but instead how are we led by the Spirit?
Romans 8:16 - Once again, it is not whether or not the Spirit bears witness with our spirit but instead how does the Spirit bear witness with our spirit?
The “witness” to which 1 John 5:10 refers to is found in verse 6 “This is He who came by water and blood – Jeuss Christ; not only by water, but by water and by blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is truth.”
The Spirit bore witness in the 1st century through various miracles. He now bears witness through his completed revelation: The preaching of the Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 8:40:55 GMT -5
I would like to hear what you think the trinitarian doctrine is because this post was 100% trinitarian. haha. Maybe I just haven't realized that I am a trinitarian yet. I thought I explained it earlier in the thread. I was taught that the trinity means that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three centers of consciousness or three minds in a single entity, a single being. Just like conjoined triplets basically. That's the best analogy I've been able to come up with. I got the impression that you view the trinity a little different than some. I was raised Roman Catholic so that's probably where I learned this. I don't understand how that post was trinitarian in any sense. Unfortunately many who claim to believe in the plural nature of God see the Godhead as conjoined triplets. I'm also aware that the Catholic church portrays God in this manner (See the link I posted earlier.) The true view of the Godhead, within the scriptures, is plural indeed! And some would even claim it to be a "trinity." The Biblical view of God is that there exists a Holy position of ruler and creator. This position or class is called "God." This is much like the word "Mankind." Mankind is a position which is occupied by every person who has ever existed. Many misunderstand the term God as a name and a person instead of a position. Three separate individual persons occupy the position of God. One can only say that these individuals are conjoined if they are to say that I and my wife are conjoined or that every Christian is conjoined with one another. I prefer to use the word "unity." The persons of the Godhead are certainly united in their will, purpose, plan, and intent toward everything that has ever been created. If you wish to say that this is "conjoined" then so be it, but this is not however, like that of conjoined infants. I and my wife are one (Hebrew: Echad) because we have both agreed to be united will, purpose, and truth. The body of Christ, the church of Christ, is but one (Greek: Heis-neuter) body because they are united in will, purpose, and truth. The scriptures teach that the persons of the Godhead are one ( Echad - Heis)in will, purpose, plan, and truth. This is a united plurality and not a numerical singularity. For the most part, if any "trinitarian" is disagreeing with what you're saying it is only because of their lack of knowledge concerning this subject. The only real thing that I've seen you post that could be upsetting is when you quibble over particular phrases and definitions. In such cases, the one defining the terms and phrases always wins. Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 22:58:03 GMT -5
Hi kenm Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 10:30Here are some recent meditations on this passage that I shared with someone else. It seems like the idea is that those who believe and follow Jesus have eternal life and that Christ and God are in perfect agreement in this. My sheep hear my voice ... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ... no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. ... I and my Father are one. It doesn't seem to be a unity of being at all. There is no suggestion that they are one being or one entity. They are "one" in the sense that both God and Christ have the power of giving eternal life as Jesus said in chapter 5. the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth (John5:20) as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ( John5:21) as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself ( John5:26) The fact that God gave his son the power of giving life does not have anything to do with the trinity doctrine. also when Jesus said that he and the father are one, it didn't necessarily mean "one in quantity". It could have meant one in spirit, one in will or purpose, etc. For example Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Therefore whatever way the Father and Son are "one" the disciples of Christ will also be "one" in that same way. someone objected But the context of John 10 is very different from 17.In John 10:30 Christ is claiming that He and the Father ARE ONE AS GOD.It is NOT a spiritual union or unity of purpose etc. which He is refering to and His listeners knew it when they tried to kill Him for that claim. but here's what I think the surrounding passage is about. John10:24-38
Jews: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus: I told you ... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. My sheep ... shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Jews: thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus: Ye are gods I said, I am the Son of God the Father is in me, and I in him.
paraphrased as Jews: Are you the Christ? Jesus: I told you already. And I've shown you plainly by miracles but you don't believe because you are not my followers. No one can steal my followers because no one can steal from my Father. He is omnipotent. We are so in agreement that trying to harm one of my followers is like trying to steal from God. To answer your question about whether I am the Christ I have just told you that- I give eternal life to my followers. - no man can stop me. - my Father is greater than all. Jews: Blasphemy, you are saying that God is your father! Jesus: Of course. Believe the miracles if you don't believe me.
The last statement (10:38 "the Father is in me, and I in him") ties in perfectly with the sense of unity from the prayer in chapter 17.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee
that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me It seems like taking that passage to prove oneness or a trinity is totally isolating it from the surrounding dialogue.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.. 1 John 5:7I think it means they are one in testifying to the truth of the Gospel. It brings this verse to mind. Mat18:16 "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Here is the context of the passage which makes me think it means a unity of testimony rather than a Trinitarian unity of minds in a single entity. 1Jn5:6-11 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. I would like to hear what you think the trinitarian doctrine is because this post was 100% trinitarian.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 22:52:20 GMT -5
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer your question. Yes, the Holy Spirit spoke in times past. There are many things we can say about these particular instances such as: They were limited to particular people for particular purposes. Biblical support for this statement? Edit (12/30/09 4:13pm Pacific Time): I mean to ask, what is your Biblical support to show that there are no longer any more "particular people" the Holy Spirit needs to speak to for "particular purposes"? Who are these "particular people" the Holy Spirit is limited to speaking with? What are the qualifications to be spoken to by the Holy Spirit? (end edit) Biblical support for this statement? Also, what does "any sort of modern sense" mean? Biblical support for this statement? Prior to your "completion of the revelation", there were people claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1) We are told to try the spirits, not that the Spirit of God would simply stop speaking. To me, it's amazing to see so many people of different faiths claiming to have been spoken to by the Holy Spirit (audibly, emotionally, illuminating). The Pentecostals claim to have divine super powers, the Mormons say that God spoke to Joseph smith and gave them some golden dinner plates, the Calvinist claim that the Holy Spirit tells them that their saved (otherwise they have no security in their salvation), the Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit whispers into the Pope's ear, etc. It amazes me sometimes too. So many false prophets in this world. Jessicker We learn through the scriptures that in times past the Holy Spirit spoke. This is evident through the continual use of the phrase “Thus saith the Lord...” Modern views of the Holy Spirit often include the Spirit guiding an individual through their emotions. There's no longer any need for the Holy Spirit to audibly speak to an individual today because the scriptures are all sufficient in guiding one in the ways of righteousness. “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16,17 1 John 4:1 is not talking about testing some sort of demonic spirits. 1 John 4:1 is talking about testing the spirits of men. This is made evident by the following verse “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God...” This passage is clearly telling us to test the false prophets. This is not done by waiting for the Holy Spirits illumination but instead the Apostle John wrote this letter so that they may be able to keep themselves from erring from the faith. “ ... These things we write that your joy may be full...” 1 John 1:4 “ ... Children, these things I write to you so that you may not sin...” 1 John 2:1 “ ... These things I have written to you... that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13 Prior to the completed revelation of God, miraculous gifts were given to build the church up. Men were led by the Holy Spirit through miraculous revelations: Tongues, Prophecy, Knowledge, etc. The revelation has been completed and thus the miraculous revelations have ceased: “ ...Whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they shall cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away...” 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 Thanks for watching the video, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 22:46:48 GMT -5
Jonathan, Are you familiar with Church of Christ Scholar Dr. Jack Cottrell? Steve Steve, In both of these cases it was essential that the evangelists (Philip and Peter) speak to those to whom they spoke at that specific time. Both of these episodes occurred after Jesus had given the great commission. It wasn't enough to have the revelation that they should go into all the world and preach to all creation. In these instances they needed specific guidance to speak to these specific people at this specific time. That need has not ceased. Wouldn't you agree?That is an excellent question which a lot of people ask me. I believe that these scenarios are hardly comparable to any scenario today. Furthermore, the command to preach the gospel to all of creation was given to the apostles which was fulfilled by 70 A.D. “If indeed you continue in faith, grounded and stead fast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I Paul, became a minister.” (Christians are however, to preach the Gospel. This is made evident by many other verses. ) Both of these individuals received specific commands directly from God. If God ever gave you the audible and specific command to go to Jim Bob in Iraq and preach the Gospel to him, I believe God would supply a way for you to do so (even a miraculous way). This is to presuppose that God will actually give you an audible and specific command of this nature. If I left something out please respond. Dr. Jack Cottrell is a scholar indeed. Unfortunately, he's a scholar for a faction named the “Christian Church.” Here's a link about the so-called “Christian Church.” www.bible.ca/cr-Disciples-C.htmJonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 18:15:15 GMT -5
Jonathan, Do you agree that in Scripture the Holy Spirit is presented as communicating in a variety of ways and not only through Scripture? If you do agree with this could you tell me why and when did that change? Also, I'm going to post this same question to Ben Bailey on Youtube. Thanks, Steve Thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer your question. Yes, the Holy Spirit spoke in times past. There are many things we can say about these particular instances such as: They were limited to particular people for particular purposes. It was never common in any sort of modern sense. In times past he spoke. Furthermore, we must realize that there were purposes behind the Holy Spirit speaking to individuals. Simply put there's no longer any purpose in the Holy Spirit miraculously speaking to individuals today because the revelation has been completed and the scriptures are able to furnish a man unto every good work. We should thank God for the cessation of miraculous revelation. If he hadn't done so, we'd be subject to anyone who came along claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. To me, it's amazing to see so many people of different faiths claiming to have been spoken to by the Holy Spirit (audibly, emotionally, illuminating). The Pentecostals claim to have divine super powers, the Mormons say that God spoke to Joseph smith and gave them some golden dinner plates, the Calvinist claim that the Holy Spirit tells them that their saved (otherwise they have no security in their salvation), the Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit whispers into the Pope's ear, etc. These are just a few reasons, we can discuss this further if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 15:35:00 GMT -5
You are right. There is not a single Bible verse I can show you because you are committed to a belief system that affords you great respect among your peers and you are unwilling to give that up in order to seek the whole counsel of God. I'm committed to Jesus' belief system. If I'm not, show Steve and I.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 15:31:40 GMT -5
Okay, I watched the video. A couple of questions: 1. Is the point supposed to be that the Holy Spirit ONLY communicates to us through the Scriptures? 2. What group are you in the Micah is convinced is a cult? Steve There were many points that he made but yes, the Holy SPirit only communicates to us through the scriptures. Micah is convinced that the church of Christ is a cult. I'd hate to tell Jesus that.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 11:58:05 GMT -5
IT IS FINISHED! Jesus Christ defeated sin 2,000 years ago all by himself. You CAN NOT do ANYTHING to be saved, none of this do do do gospel. It doesn't matter how many times you go to sunday school, how long you pray. WHAT YOU DO. YOU CAN ONLY BELIEVE HE DIED FOR YOU! YOU ARE 100% EVIL FREE/SIN FREE if you have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST JESUS. If you were baptized INTO Christ then you are united with him, SANCTIFICATION is not a WORK it is a PERSON. JESUS CHRIST. As many as are baptized are united with HIM there is no seperation you have his LIFE IN YOU. 2 HANDs 1 NAIL YOU DIED with CHrist you live IN HIM. HE has been Resurected therefore YOU have been resurected this is the FIRST RESURECTION HALLEIUAH! GLORY TO GOD! So, in order to be saved we have to believe and be baptized but we can't believe and we can't be baptized. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 9:11:29 GMT -5
Like you said before I cannot. The same as Jesus could not show the Sadducees. You "cannot" because you don't have a single Bible verse.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 8:54:02 GMT -5
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the θεοτητος bodily;” Colossians 2:9
θεοτητος - Divine quality, Godhead, Deity, God's nature.
Friberg Lexicon: an abstract noun for θεός (god); divinity, deity, Godhead, divine nature (CO 2.9)
Louw-Nida Lexicon - the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.' θεότης: εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως 'in him dwells all the fullness of divine nature in bodily form' Col 2.9
Liddell and Scott – Divinity, Divine nature, Luc.
Joseph Thayer - deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. 2:9.
BDAG - the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for θεός (Orig., C. Cels. 7, 25, 9): το πληρωμα της θ. the fullness of deity Col 2:9 (s. Nash s.v. θειότης).
These are just a few scholars who were easily accessible through a quick search. There are many more scholars who affirm that Jesus did indeed have a Divine nature. Jesus also had a human nature (Hebrews 4:14,15)
1+1=2 natures. It's a tragedy that many people try to smuggle the idea of Jesus having two spirits and two different characters into this concept. I agree that many people don't understand what it means for Jesus to have two natures but none-the-less, there are certainly two natures.
I can also completely agree that various attributes were given up when Jesus chose to become flesh. i.e. Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc. However, these attributes are not unchangeable. If they were, then Jesus would not have been able to become flesh. These are also classified as the “Divine Essence” and not the “Divine Nature.” The Divine nature consists of the unchangeable attributes of God which are his justice, mercy, pre and eternal existence, making him the creator which is not the creature (Romans 1:25.)
Sorry I don't have enough time to write more. I'll be able to write more tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 28, 2009 20:51:22 GMT -5
You are exactly right! I can't show you that is why I don't even bother. You are blinded by your unswerving commitment to your belief system in your cult because of the good standing it puts you in with others and the religious pride it gives you. You are unwilling to even question or examine it honesty. John 9:41 Pride blinds. I'm glad that my belief system is the Bible and the Bible alone. Apparently my belief system does not put me in good standing with others. I've questioned and examined what I've believed. If I'm wrong then show me what I missed.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 28, 2009 7:13:14 GMT -5
I don't think someone can simultaneously have two natures. Divine Nature is the state of being God. Human Nature is the state of being man. It is possible for Jesus to possess all of the unchangeable attributes of God and the unchangeable attributes of man at the same time. Jesus can have two natures. I think by definition one's nature includes all of his attributes. If some of the attributes fall into one class and some into another class they are still included in the single nature of the person or thing. According to this logic, one would have to then conclude that Jesus is neither God nor man but instead some other sort of class which only he possesses, and that the Bible never mentions, because Jesus possessed attributes beyond humanity and additional to divinity.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 27, 2009 17:07:02 GMT -5
I believe what the Bible says and you can't show me one part of the Bible that I don't believe. I wish I could say the same for you.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 26, 2009 19:52:49 GMT -5
If a person who believer themselves to be born again sins and continues in his sin....the mark that God has truly saved this person is that God will rebuke him and call him into repentance....but if he just sins, and sins, and sins and God does not go after him then he was never born again in the first place. It would appear that Mr. Washer is taking a purely shallow approach in judging the validity of this individuals sincerity. I.e. Jim, in his sincerity, believed on the Lord Jesus Christ when he heard the words of the Gospel preached, he then decided to repent of his sins and confess the Lord Jesus Christ before men, repenting and confessing, he was then baptized for the remission of his sin. However, Jim is now sinning so he must not have been sincere.His arguments built on a false premise. He presupposes that you can't lose your salvation. I.e. If Jim's sinning and God doesn't restore him then Jim was never saved The studious Bible student would ask "Why would you suppose that Mr. Washer? Didn't Jim believe, repent, confess and get baptized?" To which he would reply, "Jim couldn't have truly believed because you can't lose your salvation!" I believe this to be a very depressing doctrine. From this statement we can know that: - God's call is irresistible.
- God does not affectionately call everyone (If he did then everyone would repent.)
- God does not want everyone to be saved (If he did, he'd irresistibly call them.)
- Even if I did everything that the Bible said to do in order to be saved, I could still be lost and there's no way for me to know whether or not I am saved until the day that I die and am placed in the Hadean realm to be reserved until the day of judgment.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 26, 2009 17:40:26 GMT -5
'nother quote from the CARM forum. What do you folks think of this? I've been thinking.. If you combine Christ and his Father into a single being it would make the Father a man.... unless you divided Christ into two beings.. wait that sounds bad... how about two "natures"... there we go. Jesus was one being with two natures.
Is that what people mean when they talk about two natures? I've been hearing that my whole life. It seems completely absurd and unnecessary. Have people decided to divide Christ (in an "undivided"-two-natures sort of way of course) rather than distinguish between the being of the Father and the Son? This is a confusing comment you've made. I can affirm that Jesus possessed two natures. This is not to be confused with the two spirits which the UPCI teaches. To affirm that Jesus possessed two natures is to affirm that Jesus: Possessed Divine Nature - Eternal, pre-existed, without beginning etc. Possessed Human Nature - Experienced the physical limitations of human life such as physical pain and limited knowledge. He also experienced temptations and trials. The most of all these is that Jesus Christ actually experienced death.To say that Jesus had two natures is not to say that there were two spirits or persons inside of the body of Jesus Christ but instead that he possessed attributes of both God (Divine Nature) and man (Human Nature).
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 26, 2009 12:28:22 GMT -5
You are both right about some things. You are Acts 20:26-27. You declare part of the counsel of God because that part fits your belief system. You reject and explain away the parts that do not. I am sorry you are a betting man. Real Christians do not gamble. The Holy Ghost will lead you into the truth though if you will listen (John 16:13). I'm waiting to hear which part of the counsel of God I'm not declaring.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 23, 2009 22:58:57 GMT -5
He is as ridiculous as you are. He contradicts the Bible he claims to believe. Weak video. Reminds me of Acts 20:26-27 Cults like yours only share part of the counsel of God not the whole thing. Anyhow since both of you have agenda's (your church's) you do not follow scriptures so it is futile to try to discuss anything with you. You have committed yourself to a belief system and not the truth. How sad. John 8:47 So, he and I are wrong and you don't care to explain. I bet the Holy Spirit made you say that.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 22, 2009 6:44:47 GMT -5
Jonathan, Thanks for posting this debate. I'm downloading as I type this. I've really taken to study Christology lately and am always interested in debates on the Trinity. Steve It's excellent. I have it on my mp3 player in my truck. In that debate, brother Reeves also refutes the UPC's position on the phrase "in the name of." I found that to be an embarrassment to the UPC.
|
|