Calling " Lord, Lord ! "

Originally posted by sonship
Divegeester,
The word cowardly may have been unnecessary.
I apologize for returning evil for evil. (You insist on me being dishonest).

I'm not evil, either. I'm just asking me si,pale question about your beliefs and you are refusing to appropriately address it and you are irritated about it. Nothing more than that.

Originally posted by sonship

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

I think I have. If I'm wrong all you need to do is deny it, and you refuse to.

Originally posted by sonship
So the Trinity is upheld again in....

I'm not contesting the trinity teaching itself, as you well know. All this obfuscation - posts and posts and posts of text about the trinity, it's silly and is just you burying the subject.

You know very well what I'm driving at don't you; I've asked you the same question probably 15 times now and you won't answer it and I've even told you why you won't answer it. Here it is again:

Does outright and total rejection of the trinity doctrine (your version/description of it is fine for this example) preclude a person from being filled with the spirit and therefore (according to your own definition), from salvation?

Yes or no.

Originally posted by divegeester

I'm not contesting the trinity teaching itself, as you well know.

Hold on. You were questioning checkbaiter about whether he believed if Jesus Christ was God or not.

You do not see that as a matter of the Trinity ?
Illuminating the nature of Jesus Christ as to Who He was, is NOT a matter of trinitarian belief ?

All this obfuscation - posts and posts and posts of text about the trinity, it's silly and is just you burying the subject.

So in 25 words or less, the nature of Jesus Christ should have been cleared up? And no debate was necessary over the last 20 centuries ?

Woe. How many church councils could have been unnecessary if only we had had old Divegeester to clear up all this discussion with his few.

Why all the obfuscation? Books, books, books. on the Person of Christ on the nature of Christ and on the His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I don't think all discussion on the nature of God either here or over the centuries has been obfuscation. I think there is such a thing as a divine and mystical realm. And talking about this realm is not always easy.

But it is well noted now that you cannot handle too much.

Originally posted by sonship

I'm not contesting the trinity teaching itself, as you well know.

Hold on. You were questioning checkbaiter about whether he believed if Jesus Christ was God or not.

You do not see that as a matter of the Trinity ?
Illuminating the nature of Jesus Christ as to Who He was, is NOT a matter of trinitarian belief ?

[quote] ...[text shortened]... out this realm is not always easy.

But it is well noted now that you cannot handle too much.

Your continued obfuscation won't put me off my point. You are doing this with FMF also in the other topic, and it just makes you look furtive and dishonest. My question to you is not about the trinity nor is it about what I'm engaged with checkbaiter in, it's about what you believe about the consequences of rejecting the trinity. Your continued refusal to answer the question, which I've put to you maybe 20 times now, is interesting.

Does outright and total rejection of the trinity doctrine (your version/description of it is fine for this example) preclude a person from being filled with the spirit and therefore (according to your own definition), from salvation?

Originally posted by divegeester
Your continued obfuscation won't put me off my point. You are doing this with FMF also in the other topic, and it just makes you look furtive and dishonest. My question to you is not about the trinity nor is it about what I'm engaged with checkbaiter in, it's about what you believe about the consequences of rejecting the trinity. Your continued refusal t ...[text shortened]... ng filled with the spirit and therefore (according to your own definition), from salvation? [/b]

If you want to maximize your impression that I am dodging this question, why not open up a thread dedicated to it ?

Call it something like "Sonship REFUSES to Answer" . After a couple of hundred repetitions I think you'll achieve your best effect that I am avoiding the question/s.

My conscience however, is good that I wrote probably two posts dealing with your matter. I think both of these you dismissed as hairbrush or obfuscation. I also included my personal testimony of how I believed I was saved even though I was severely backslidden to the point of almost deism and agnosticism coupled with some Zen.

These biographical sketches did no good to show you how I honestly felt about being regenerated while speaking and believing unorthodox things. Your inability to get the point of Matthew 13 puzzles me.

Don't bother to explain why. it probably wouldn't make sense to me.
The teaching is pretty straightforward.

In short my refusal to give you a binary yes or no answer stands. You're going to have to accept that I believe a person can be saved and yet talk some very unorthodox things, including some about the trinity.

And the pursuit of "How wrong can a person be and still be a Christian?" is not a worthwhile subject to pursue. We should not encourage people to see how doctrinally [i]wrong they can get and be believers.

Aside from this do you think you are doing a good job of refuting the three-oneness of God? I think it has been kind of feeble which is worse than any obfuscating you accuse me of.

I know that "the Lord your God is one. "
And I know God in the Bible is Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by sonship
If you want to maximize your impression that I am dodging this question, why not open up a thread dedicated to it ?

Call it something like [b] "Sonship REFUSES to Answer" . After a couple of hundred repetitions I think you'll achieve your best effect that I am avoiding the question/s.

My conscience however, is good that I wrote probably two po ...[text shortened]... "the Lord your God is one. "
And I know God in the Bible is Father - Son - Holy Spirit.[/b]

Here is why a yes or no answer is important - it is astonishing that I have to explain it to you...

If I reject Christ am I precluded from salvation? A Good question and the answer is "yes"
If I reject baptism in water by full immersion, am I precluded from salvation? Another good question and the answer is "no" (you may disagree of course)
If I reject the trinity doctrine am I precluded from salvation? A good question and the answer is "no".

You wont give an answer to the last question and there can be only two reasons:
1) you either don't know or 2) you know, but don't want to say.

THAT's why it's a yes or no answer. It's about salvation.

You choose not to response emphatically and instead hem and haw around the subject. You either don't know or you don't want to say.

Simple. Got it now...?

Originally posted by divegeester
Here is why a yes or no answer is important - it is astonishing that I have to explain it to you...

If I reject Christ am I precluded from salvation? A Good question and the answer is "yes"
If I reject baptism in water by full immersion, am I precluded from salvation? Another good question and the answer is "no" (you may disagree of course)
If I re ...[text shortened]... w around the subject. You either don't know or you don't want to say.

Simple. Got it now...?

Read, re-read, re-re-read ...

No comment further.

Originally posted by sonship
No comment further.

OK.

If you change your mind and find the fortitude to be open and unequivocal about the consequences of your strange beliefs, be sure to PM me so that I don't miss it.

Thanks

Originally posted by divegeester
OK.

If you change your mind and find the fortitude to be open and unequivocal about the consequences of your strange beliefs, be sure to PM me so that I don't miss it.

Thanks

Why do you think I need "fortitude" or will change my mind about how I have responded carefully already to your question ?

I think you should go back and read and re-read what I wrote days ago.

I don't need more fortitude or to change what I explained in the manner it was expressed.

Originally posted by sonship
Why do you think I need "fortitude" or will change my mind about how I have responded carefully already to your question ?

I think you should go back and read and re-read what I wrote days ago.

I don't need more fortitude or to change what I explained in the manner it was expressed.

I think you need fortitude because, as you demonstrated with your "re-read, re-read" comment (two posts up), you are flatly refusing to answer a straightforward question (3 posts up).

If someone asks you wethe or not their salvation is dependent on them accepting a certain doctrine, you should be able to to be emphatic in your response.

I've explained why you are not be emphatic several times, here it is again as you have asked: it is because you lack the fortitude to come out and say what it is you believe, that is someone rejects the trinity doctrine they are precluded from being spirit filled and therefore (according to your definition), also from salvation.

Basically you are demonstrating over and over again that you lack the courage to defend your conviction.

Originally posted by divegeester

If someone asks you wethe or not their salvation is dependent on them accepting a certain doctrine, you should be able to to be emphatic in your response.

You are refusing perhaps to realize that God is a living Person. Agreement with a certain doctrine may merely be mental agreement. But salvation is a matter of being Christ's. And whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not of Him.

"Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him." (Rom. 8:9b)

This is more than nodding in intellectual agreement with a several part discussion. This is the living God "organically" dwelling in the man.

God is not a doctrine. A doctrine can be about God. God Himself is a Life. Man was alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18) .

Concerning doctrine or teaching, the apostle John says that if certain ones bring certain doctrines to you do not receive them. One of them being the Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. This is a teaching perverting the revelation of Christ's incarnation.

" Everyone who goes beyond and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God, he who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not say to him, Rejoice!

For he who says to him, Rejoice, shares in his evil works." (2 John 9-11)

This verse says that the man not abiding in the teaching of the incarnation of Christ does not have God.

The question I would ask myself is about the expression "does not have God".

Does the Apostle John mean he is not saved ?
Or does the Apostle John mean he does not have God to give to you ?

If a man comes to my house wanting to do harm to my family, I also may emphatically say "he does not have God". He does not manifest God in what he purports to bring to your home. He does not present God in his behavior to convey to your family.

I have been saved and sometimes I did not have God in terms of God flowing out of me to another. What I communicated was the flesh or my old sinful self.

So I think the expression "does not have God" there may come short of emphatically telling us what you want - a binary Yes he is saved or No he is not.

What is clear is that the Christian should not receive such a one because he is propagating wrong teaching. And he is not abiding in the Father and in the Son.

When i labor to present a in depth and fair treatment of a difficult issue, I do not like you to dismiss it as being "mumbo jumbo" or some other trivializing characterization.

Keep reading please.

Look at the first part of the passage carefully.

"For many deceivers went out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Look to yourselves that you do not lose the things which we wrought, but that you may receive a full reward." (vs.7,8)

The implication here to me is that the Christian could lose what was wrought of proper teaching and consequently have a less than full reward.

A full reward is for abiding in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles.
To lose those things wrought might result in the reward being not full, partial, truncated, suffering loss.

This comes short, to me, of saying he loses salvation. It does say the reward may not be full for incompletely abiding in the fellowship and teaching originally wrought by the apostles of Christ.

Paul talked about Christians who will suffer loss but be saved (1 Cor. 3:14,15).

According to John's context he seems to indicate some teachers did not abide in the fellowship and teaching originally wrought by the apostles. They may have started out abiding and developed heretical errors.

His exhortation is that the normal and healthy Christians not be like this. And his exhortation is to not receive those who thus moved away from the orthodox teaching. For they do not have God. They do not abide in the Father and in the Son.

Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43 absolutely PROVES that Jesus warned His disciples that there will be times when they CANNOT determine who is a false believer from who is a true believer. There is no argument about this, as far as I can see.

So when Second John says some do not have God because of what they teach, I would rather err on the side of agreement to the principle of the wheat and the tares. For them to not have God may mean that they do not have God to give to you in any practical sense for they are not abiding in God. They are not abiding in the Father and the Son.

I do not know absolutely that they are a false believer or a true one who is badly misled and influenced to speak serious errors. Such people exist.

I've explained why you are not be emphatic several times, here it is again as you have asked: it is because you lack the fortitude to come out and say what it is you believe,

Above again for a repeated time I have explained what I believe.

that is someone rejects the trinity doctrine they are precluded from being spirit filled and therefore (according to your definition), also from salvation.

You lean more on the side of "Spirit filled" then on the side of "have the Spirit of Christ".

Do you think that everyone who has the Spirit of Christ is necessarily filled with the Spirit ? In the book of Acts it says a few times concerning disciples that they were filled with the Spirit.

I get the impression that "filled with the Spirit" came and went for some of them. For a certain task they were filled with the Spirit. The experience occurred more than one time to them. That is my reading of the book of Acts.

Do you not capitalize Spirit because you do not believe the Holy Spirit is God ?
The eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) is surely the eternal God Himself. If you choose always to put holy spirit in small letters I don't know why you do not also write god in small letters also.

Basically you are demonstrating over and over again that you lack the courage to defend your conviction.

If you wish to play hardball, I will tell you of my convictions about your teaching. I think much of the New Testament is a closed book to you. I believe that there are considerable spiritual blind spots in your understanding of the New Testament.

And you lack the courage to come out and say that "We" is a plural pronoun referring to God. And you also cannot admit that 'Us" is a plural pronoun referring to God.

Your defense is to just state that the Lord your God is one. But since we have "We" (John 14:23) and "Us" (John 17:21) referring to the Father and the Son (Who come to man by the Holy Spirit), the God who is one [echad] is three-one.

The truth of the Trinity is therefore upheld.

Originally posted by sonship
The truth of the Trinity is therefore upheld.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.