Romans 9:5

Originally posted by sonship

You don't seem to get that Paul is just using idiomatic expressions as figures of speech and does not mean it literally.

There are some things that the Apostle Paul was emphatic that we understand. For example, when some apparently posed the question as to why Christians should not just be able to continue to live in sin, that grace c ...[text shortened]... he way the word of God speaks and let it empower us to [b]"walk in newness of life" ?[/b]

Let me give you another example. When Paul says, "Christ in you" he is using a figure of speech meaning that you believe in Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let me give you another example. When Paul says, "Christ in you" he is using a figure of speech meaning that you believe in Christ.

Let me give you another example. When Paul says, "Christ in you" he is using a figure of speech meaning that you believe in Christ.

Look. You take it the way you want. When I am in the heat of some temptation I experience grace unleashed into my being by proclaiming that Christ is in me AS the Scripture has said.

The power that enables me to be a one of the "partakers of the divine nature." I know that this enabling is not of me. I know that it is Jesus Christ living again on the earth. This time He is distributed into me.

I know that it is not me. I know that I am not the source of this empowering. That is why no atheists can tell me that God is not real. I know that the truth makes you FREE.

By the way, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom too. (2 Cor. 3:17) and "the Lord is the Spirit" .

John said that we have implanted in us God's SEED. And he says that this SEED cannot sin. And that is our victory - that SEED of life.

"Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because .."

Because WHAT? Because of some idiomatic expression and "figure of speech"? What do the oracles of God declare:

"every one who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, BECAUSE His SEED abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God." ( 1 John 3:9)

We are not just onlookers of the divine nature.
We are not just worshippers of the divine nature.
We are not just spectators of the divine nature.

We are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)

" ... He has granted to us precious and exceeding great promises that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

We are participants in the divine nature. And we have the seed of God imparted into us. And the Bible expresses this also as the words of Christ being in us.

Originally posted by sonship

Let me give you another example. When Paul says, "Christ in you" he is using a figure of speech meaning that you believe in Christ.

Look. You take it the way you want. When I am in the heat of some temptation I experience grace unleashed into my being by proclaiming that Christ is in me AS the Scripture has said.

The power that e ...[text shortened]... d of God imparted into us. And the Bible expresses this also as the words of Christ being in us.

If believing that way motivates you to do good, then I am all for it, as long as you don't think you are better than the rest of us sinners, who believe in Christ in a different way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If believing that way motivates you to do good, then I am all for it, as long as you don't think you are better than the rest of us sinners, who believe in Christ in a different way.

I never said I was better than anyone.
That's a red herring.

And the motivation for taking the word of God in its pure utterance is to live Christ -

"For to me to live is Christ ..." (Phil.1:21)

Originally posted by sonship
I never said I was better than anyone.
That's a red herring.

And the motivation for taking the word of God in its pure utterance is to live Christ -

[b]"For to me to live is Christ ..." (Phil.1:21) [/b]

Okay, I guess there is no harm in that. But I still say that teaching that the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit is heresy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to get that Paul is just using idiomatic expressions as figures of speech and does not mean it literally.

And yet the entire earth was flooded *and* everything in the universe was created in six 24-hour days, right?

Originally posted by Suzianne
And yet the entire earth was flooded *and* everything in the universe was created in six 24-hour days, right?

Right.

Now, it is sometimes objected to that the Son could be called the Eternal Father.

While we can sympathize with the baffled and perplex, for we too who believe Isaiah 9:6 would admit that we cannot explain how the Son can be the Father. But the word says that Son is to be called Eternal Father. So who are we to protest that the Son given shall NOT be called Eternal Father ?

We just should say "Amen" .

Then did the Father die on the cross?
Did the Father shed His blood for our redemption?

The Bible never says so.
But for that sake we are not willing to change "a son is given to us ... His name shall be called ... Eternal Father."

For the sake of understanding why the Bible never said that Father died on the cross, are we willing to erase Isaiah 9:6. Nor are we willing to add an unwritten passage about the Father dying on the cross because of Isaiah 9:6. We let the word speak as the word wants to speak.

Now it is noted that God did tell the Jews that they would look upon God whom they had pierced and mourn for this pierced one as for an only son.

" And I [Jehovah] will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplications;

and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son." (Zechariah 12:10)

Do the fireworks ever fly when I share this with orthodox Jews.

God says they will "look upon ME, whom they have pierced ...".

I believe that that means God in Christ was pierced on the cross when the nails were driven and the spear was driven into Him. God as a MAN was crucified.

The Apostle John in Revelation refers back to this exact passage about the Jews of the land of Israel looking upon God as a man whom they have pierced. But then He is coming on the clouds of glory in His second coming.

" Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the land will mourn over Him. Yes, amen. " (Rev. 1:7)

The phrase "all the tribes of the land" refers to all the Isrealite tribes of the Holy Land over which Jesus Christ will descend visibly.

And God adds His seal and confirmation to the apostle's prophecy -

[quote] "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev. 1:9)

So why do some stagger that the Son given shall be called Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6 ?

Originally posted by sonship
Now, it is sometimes objected to that the Son could be called the Eternal Father.

While we can sympathize with the baffled and perplex, for we too who believe [b]Isaiah 9:6 would admit that we cannot explain how the Son can be the Father. But the word says that Son is to be called Eternal Father. So who are we to protest that the Son given shall NOT ...[text shortened]... So why do some stagger that the Son given shall be called Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6 ?[/b]

The objection is in the interpretation of the meaning only. It is not saying that the Son is His own Father as Witness Lee would have us believe by his nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The objection is in the interpretation of the meaning only. It is not saying that the Son is His own Father as Witness Lee would have us believe by his nonsense.

We believe that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This is really hard to explain.

And we believe that the Father has consecrated and sent the Son and the Son is the Father.
This too really is mysterious and hard to explain.

Why you don't say that the Word being with God and also being God is not "nonsense" is peculiar.

And I agree with the couple of posters who have said that this repetition of back and forth between sonship and RJHinds is becomming fruitless.

But someones should see that to believe Isaiah 9:6 requires the same kind of faith as to believe John 1:1.

Originally posted by sonship
We believe that [b]"the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This is really hard to explain.

And we believe that the Father has consecrated and sent the Son and the Son is the Father.
This too really is mysterious and hard to explain.

Why you don't say that the Word being with God and also being God is not "nonsense" is peculiar.

A ...[text shortened]... that to believe Isaiah 9:6 requires the same kind of faith as to believe John 1:1.[/b]

The Jehovah's Witness cult would say we are both speaking nonsense because they believe the Word is the archangel Michael, who is godlike. So their translation would be "the Word was a god" or maybe "the Word was godlike" to get around the Triune God idea of orthodox Christianity.

On the other hand, Witness Lee teaches a Trinity of one by claiming the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit are both the SAME God and the SAME Person. That is really nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Jehovah's Witness cult would say we are both speaking nonsense because they believe the Word is the archangel Michael, who is godlike. So their translation would be "the Word was a god" or maybe "the Word was godlike" to get around the Triune God idea of orthodox Christianity.

On the other hand, Witness Lee teaches a Trinity of one by claiming the F ...[text shortened]... Word), and the Holy Spirit are both the SAME God and the SAME Person. That is really nonsense.

Which should it say in Isaiah 9:6 ?

1.) " ... a son is given to us ... and His name shall be called ... Eternal Father"

2.) " ... a son is given to us ... and His name [should not] be called ... Eternal Father"

Which does the Bible say?
We believe that it should say what is written.

Augustine (A.D. 354-430)

Certainly they are three, and so it is said plurally, "I and my Father are one." For He has not said, "is one," as the Sabellians say, but "are one," yet, when the question is asked, what three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given three "Persons," not that it might be completely spoken, but that it might not be left wholly unspoken."

"We say three Persons, then why do we not also say three Gods? Or else, since in account of their ineffable union these three are together one God, why not also one Person; so that we could not say three Persons, although we call each a Person singly, just as we cannot say three Gods, although we call each singly God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture does not say three Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture anywhere mentions three Persons ..."

[my bolding]

Best to simply Amen the Scriptures as the Scriptures speak. This includes Isaiah 9:6; 1 Cor. 15:45; and 2 Cor. 3:17 .

Originally posted by sonship
Which should it say in [b]Isaiah 9:6 ?

1.) " ... a son is given to us ... and His name shall be called ... Eternal Father"

2.) " ... a son is given to us ... and His name [should not] be called ... Eternal Father"

Which does the Bible say?
We believe that it should say what is written.[/b]

I explained this to you already, but you are too indoctrinated to pay attention.

Originally posted by sonship
Augustine (A.D. 354-430)

[quote] Certainly they are three, and so it is said plurally, "I and my Father are one." For He has not said, "is one," as the Sabellians say, but "are one," yet, when the question is asked, what three? [b]human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given three "Persons ...[text shortened]... ptures as the Scriptures speak. This includes [b]Isaiah 9:6; 1 Cor. 15:45; and 2 Cor. 3:17 .[/b]

Obviously there are three Persons, if we use common sense.