- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Aug 16
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
As I've said over and over and over again, the topic in question is YOUR strange beliefs and the implications to another person of rejecting those beliefs.
I know you say it over and over and over again.
But I am going to press the discussion further from your entrenched position.
Now would you please identify the "strange" beliefs. Maybe i will agree that they are perhaps untraditional.
What is the strangest of these strange beliefs I have ?
If my assertion about what you believe is incorrect, then just come out and say so.
What's the strange belief among my comments ?
The three-oneness of God is strange?
I agree that three-oneness is hard to grasp mentally. It is, as the prophet put it, Wonderful - pehleh. I suppose "strange" would be an appropriate expression for our limited minds.
Or was there some other "strange" belief of mine that you take issue with ?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
Originally posted by sonshipNow would you please identify the "strange" beliefs. Maybe i will agree that they are perhaps untraditional.
Now would you please identify the "strange" beliefs.
It is my assertion that you believe that rejection of the trinity doctrine precludes someone from begin filling with the spirit of Christ and therefore, (according to your definition) also from salvation. You refusing to deny it just makes the case that this is your belief, stronger, and also highlights your acknowledgement of it's "strangeness" as a belief. If my assertion about what you believe is incorrect, then just come out and say so.
What is the strangest of these strange beliefs I have ?
The belief that: "the lost will be hung in chains of punishment as an warning to those on other worlds".
Of your strange beliefs which I know of, this is by far the strangest.
What's the strange belief among my comments ?
The three-oneness of God is strange?
See first reply.
Or was there some other "strange" belief of mine that you take issue with ?
I take issue with many of the beliefs you have stated in this forum over the years. Let's just see if we can get you to respond honestly to just the first one above. 🙂
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Aug 16
Originally posted by divegeester
It is my assertion that you believe that rejection of the trinity doctrine precludes someone from begin filling with the spirit of Christ and therefore, (according to your definition) also from salvation.
You have not been able to establish that assertion.
And you also have not clearly defined what is the trinity doctrine which I say must be believed.
Since you cannot give a very convincing biblical argument that God is not three-one you have no choice but to harp on an accusation about personal salvation's assurance.
You refusing to deny it just makes the case that this is your belief, stronger, and also highlights your acknowledgement of it's "strangeness" as a belief. If my assertion about what you believe is incorrect, then just come out and say so.
You in a cowardly fashion are not up to the task of proving that we should not think of the one God as simultaneously and eternally Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
In place of a convincing presentation you opt to painting one who believes in the Trinity as exclusive to men being saved.
The belief that: "the lost will be hung in chains of punishment as an warning to those on other worlds".
So we're back to the old hung up in chains thing ?
So your weakness on the anti Trinity debate has as its Plan B to go back to God's enemies being cruelly hung up in chains.
Are you always going to fall back on this matter ?
Of your strange beliefs which I know of, this is by far the strangest.
I explained my reference to the chains Jude 6 .
" And angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place,
He has kept in eternal bonds [or chains] under gloom for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6)
Years ago I made an allusion or reference to this passage in a discussion that in principle the rebels of God are confined and serve as a negative testimony. I also referred to Isaiah 66:24 .
And they will go forth and look on the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; For their word will not die, Nor will thier fire be quenched.
And they will be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:24)
You have never gotten over that.
I take issue with many of the beliefs you have stated in this forum over the years. Let's just see if we can get you to respond honestly to just the first one above.
So you opt to a slanderous accusation that I am not honest.
Concerning the bad angels in eternal bonds or chains,, if that is STRANGE then it is STRANGE according to what the inspired Scripture has said.
Concerning the bad example of the transgressors being witnessed and abhorred as a bad example in some future world - if this is STRANGE then it is STRANGE according to the inspired word of God in Isaiah 66:24.
So far you have said nothing except that it is STRANGE that I should believe Jude 6 and isaiah 66:24. That is a strangeness I am willing to own.
I suppose you also find it STRANGE that Jesus Christ confirmed what Isaiah the prophet said about the eternal punishment of these transgressors -
" .. thrown into Gehenna, Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:47c,48 comp. Isaiah 66:24)
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
Originally posted by sonshipMore dodging deflection and obfuscation, instead of a clear unequivocal answer...It is my assertion that you believe that rejection of the trinity doctrine precludes someone from begin filling with the spirit of Christ and therefore, (according to your definition) also from salvation.
You have not been able to establish that assertion.
And you also have not clearly defined what is the trinity doctrine which I say m ...[text shortened]... rm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:47c,48 comp. Isaiah 66:24) [/quote][/b]
So, to add to calling me a "magician" (in the bad scriptural sense) plus all the other name calling, I'm also now a "coward". Keep them coming sonship, it's all good.
Why do I have to "define" what YOU believe? It's irrelevant anyway, as I'm asking you about the consequences of someone rejecting what you believe - not arguing about the detail.
You are just being dishonest sonship - I only brought up the "chains" thing because YOU asked "what is the strangest belief I have" - it seems you asked that just so you could now say "oh, here is the chains thing again...". It really is quite ridiculous for you to be complaining about me brining it up when you asked me to name your strange beliefs.
I'm not interesting in all your other strange beliefs, I'm interested in the one I keep asking you about and you keep refusing to discuss. You sonship are running away from this discussion about the consequences of rejecting the trinity doctrine.
I'm not saying you are a dishonest person, I'm saying you are being dishonest in your responses about my question about your strange belief that those who reject the trinity doctrine cannot be filled with the spirit and therefore saved.
If my assertion is incorrect, please feel free, at any time, to unequivocally, just say so.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesteri must have spent 15 to 20 minutes replying to this post point by point.
But I have decided that it is a waste of time. It has all been erased and discarded for it will mean nothing to you.
This argument that found its way over to this thread is concluded from my side with this post. My posts on this thread will return to the matter of Calling on the name of the Lord.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
08 Aug 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou could have spent 1 second writing either a yes or a no. Instead you have chosen to throw out some nasty insults and childish name calling, and for what? Because you don't like having your beliefs questioned and scrutinised.
i must have spent 15 to 20 minutes replying to this post point by point.
But I have decided that it is a waste of time. It has all been erased and discarded for it will mean nothing to you.
This argument that found its way over to this thread is concluded from my side with this post. My posts on this thread will return to the matter of Calling on the name of the Lord.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Aug 16
4 edits
Divegeester,
The word cowardly may have been unnecessary.
I apologize for returning evil for evil. (You insist on me being dishonest).
You can scrutinize my belief in the Trinity.
I don't see you doing that though.
I do not see you presenting good arguments why three-oneness in God is wrong.
Now I promised to talk about Calling on the Lord.
Its interesting that Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord is said of Jesus Christ the Son of God when it is originally said of Jehovah God in the book of Joel.
Now the other strong anti trinitarian - checkbaiter, said that Christ did not exist in Heaven. I think his misunderstanding may be more serious than yours. I am not sure.
But in this passage in First Corinthian where Paul speaks about the Lord Jesus as being RICH to all who call upon Him, Paul also indicates strongly that Christ the Son of God CAME DOWN.
No one is able to bring Him down. But He came down.
"But the righteousness which is out of faith speaks in this way,
Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend to heaven? that is to bring Christ down." (Rom. 10:6)
So then, Christ was in Heaven and needed to come down. Praise God that through incarnation He did come down. No one was able to ascend to Heaven with his own righteousness to BRING Him down.
Nor was anyone able to bring Him up from the realm of Hades.
"Or, Who will descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead." ( v.7)
So He who DESCENDED in Christ. This throws into error checkbaiter's theory that Christ was not the Lord in Heaven who needed to descend. His concept of the Trinity is that Christ was only created in the birth from Mary.
But He did indeed come down.
And the passage on CALLING on Him includes quotations from Jeol on calling on Jehovah now being applied to Jesus Christ.
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all and rich to all who call upon Him;
For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:12,13)
Compare to Joel 2:32
" And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah shall be saved;
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem will be ab escape. As Jehovah has said, Even for the remnant Whom Jehovah calls." (Joel 2:32)
Calling on the name of Jesus is calling on the name of Jehovah God.
Jehovah God is in Heaven of course and Jesus Christ came down from Heaven (Rom. 10:6) .
Therefore the Trinity is upheld.
Furthermore in the same chapter 10 of Romans Paul quotes Isaiah about God seekers FINDING Jehovah God of Israel.
"And Isaiah is very bold and says, I was found by those who did not seek Me; I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me." (Rom. 10:20)
The context is CALLING on Jesus and BELIEVING in Jesus the Son of God.
This is Jehovah God being FOUND and Jehovah God being MANIFESTED.
So the Trinity is upheld again in verses 19,20.
08 Aug 16
Originally posted by sonshipCheckbaiter's "misunderstanding" of your theories may be "serious"?
Now the other strong anti trinitarian - checkbaiter, said that Christ did not exist in Heaven. I think his misunderstanding may be more serious than yours. I am not sure.
With what possible consequences?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFHindrance to growth in Christ is the consquence.
Checkbaiter's "misunderstanding" of your theories may be "serious"?
With what possible consequences?
Nice try though.
Of course you would see no adverse "consequence" in this because you couldn't care LESS about spiritual growth. You couldn't care less about God wanting to grow Christ in human beings.
What's the danger anyway ? You probably think.
But there is a spiritual warfare going on on this planet.
But, you only let Christians duke it out among themselves. Right ?
Why you have no dog in the fight and stay out of these arguments. Right?
That's what you claimed less than 10 minutes or so ago.
I told you that you throw in your two cents.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
FMF,
If during those 30 years you ever read a relatively short book called First John you should have read about the Apostle John's warning about ill-formed views about the nature of Christ.
He must have known that damaging consequences would affect the church if a full view of Jesus Christ was circumvented. IE. Jesus was not material. Jesus was not come in the flesh. Jesus was not the Word of life that they heard about from the beginning.
Jesus was not the true God and eternal life.
John's polemic in this epistle and in the two shorter ones to follow, Second and Third John touched on negative consequences of ill formed man-made assumptions about the nature of Jesus contrary to the teaching of the apostles.
It seems to me that someone seeking to follow the New Testament for 30 years or so should have become more familiar with these matters.
08 Aug 16
FMF: Checkbaiter's "misunderstanding" of your theories may be "serious"? With what possible consequences?And what is, according to you, the consequence of a "hindrance to growth in Christ"? What might happen to Checkbaiter because of what you see as his "serious" misinterpretation (i.e. disagreement with you)?
Originally posted by sonship
Hindrance to growth in Christ is the consquence.
Originally posted by sonshipIf during those 30 years you ever read a relatively short book called [b]First John you should have read about the Apostle John's warning about ill-formed views about the nature of Christ.
He must have known that damaging consequences would affect the church if a full view of Jesus Christ was circumvented. IE. Jesus was not material. Jesus was not come in the flesh. Jesus was not the Word of life that they heard about from the beginning.
Jesus was not the true God and eternal life.
John's polemic in this epistle and in the two shorter ones to follow, [b]Second and Third John touched on negative consequences of ill formed man-made assumptions about the nature of Jesus contrary to the teaching of the apostles.
It seems to me that someone seeking to follow the New Testament for 30 years or so should have become more familiar with these matters.
But I'm asking you - as a Christian - what you think "Apostle John's warning about ill-formed views about the nature of Christ" means for Checkbaiter and what "damaging consequences" there may be for him. What I may have believed many years ago is irrelevant.
When you talk about the "negative consequences of "ill formed man-made assumptions about the nature of Jesus" you are obviously suggesting that Checkbaiter's beliefs on this matter are "ill formed man-made assumptions" and that yours, by contrast, are divine or divinely inspired.
So what "damaging consequences" might there be for Checkbaiter for interpreting the Bible differently from you?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFThere are things of importance which are weightier that individual spirituality or even individual salvation.
And what is, according to you, the consequence of a "hindrance to growth in Christ"? What might happen to Checkbaiter because of what you see as his "serious" misinterpretation (i.e. disagreement with you)?
Did you ever remember coming across a verse in which Jesus said -
" I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." ?
There does come a point when I recognize of my individual spirituality that it is only part of a larger operation of God to accomplish something on the earth.
My individual spiritual progress is related to His building of the church. No it is not only a matter of just my personal ticket - "Admit One" to a happy place.
Originally posted by sonshipThis is a complete dodge, sonship.
There are things of importance which are weightier that individual spirituality or even individual salvation.
Did you ever remember coming across a verse in which Jesus said -
[b]" I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." ?
There does come a point when I recognize of my individual spirituality that it is onl ...[text shortened]... he church. No it is not only a matter of just my personal ticket - "Admit One" to a happy place.[/b]
What are the "damaging consequences" - YOU mentioned them - to your way of thinking, for Checkbaiter that might result from the doctrinal differences he has with you?