Statement of belief

@divegeester said
“Various” means more than one.
“Other” means means more than just those listed, a dove for example.

Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I know what the words "various" and "other" mean.

What other and various manifestations of God are you referring to? We know and apparently agree that God became a man, although I can swear I heard you say in time past that Jesus wasn't God, that you didn't believe in the incarnation, but what I'm after is, from your point of view and based on the statement you made in your OP, what manifestations did God assume other than His incarnation as Jesus?

@secondson said
Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I know what the words "various" and "other" mean.

Your poor questioning and communication is the issue, not my reading comprehension.

@secondson said
What other and various manifestations of God are you referring to?

I gave several examples in the OP and another two posts ago.

@secondson said
We know and apparently agree that God became a man, although I can swear I heard you say in time past that Jesus wasn't God, that you didn't believe in the incarnation, but what I'm after is, from your point of view and based on the statement you made in your OP, what manifestations did God assume other than His incarnation as Jesus?

Read the OP and my subsequent posts, your answers are in there.
I'm not interested in what you will "swear" to, you are mistaken, badly.

@divegeester

You've charge me with plagiarism. Now I ask you to acknowledge where you copied that statement of faith if you did not originally make up every sentence of it.

Did you copy and paste it from somewhere?
Why not indicate from whom you used that statement of faith?

And let me tell you something else. I am not eager to disagree with you for disagreement's sake.
And this is the age of the Internet. I know ANY group of people you link to will probably have a grumbling of complaint from SOMEBODY on the Internet.

I do not believe everything automatically put up in cyberspace.
That is why I told you that I do not expect a perfect utopian congregation with no one bad mouthing you all on the Internet. That might be impossible.

So you still can say "I met here. And here is their Statement of Faith."

I will acknowledge that you finally proactively made a statement, RATHER than just take pot shots at what others teach here.

I still would like to see you have the courage to show you associated practically with others.

As to your favorite paragraph from that book Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches I agree with all that is written there. My understanding of what is meant may be different from yours. The common faith is more often something believers grow into. So I take this to mean that.

”In order to be saved, one must have a living faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), which includes what we must believe in order to be saved: we must believe that the Bible is the complete divine revelation wholly inspired by God; that there is a unique Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnated to be a man; that Christ died on the cross for our sins, shedding His blood for our redemption; that on the third day He was bodily raised from the dead; that He has been exalted to the right hand of God and made the Lord of all; and that He is coming again for His own and to set up His kingdom on earth.”

I do not read this as meaning from day one, the first second, a sinner coming to Jesus is conversant on all these subjects like a trained theologian. I regard this as the overall common faith the saved person grows up into - coming to more of "the full knowledge of the truth".

God desires all men to be saved AND ... to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
I do not reverse the order of this to mean God desires all men to come to the full knowledge of the truth before being saved.

"[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

If there is any doubt about what the authors meant, I think the paragraph BELOW your favorite paragraphs clears up any ambiguity in plainly informing us -

In order to be saved, one must have a living faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), ... etc. etc.

Eternal salvation is by grace through faith, not by our works.

In order to be saved, [/b]one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ. [/b] Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth.

SAME BOOK, One paragraph below your 'here it is in black and white" paragraph.
1.) In order to be saved ... the common faith ...
2.) In order to be saved ... Romans 10:9 ...

Sorry. Neither paragraph says -

In order to be saved, one must be believing and conversant on the doctrine of the Trinity.

I think it is pretty obvious that to believe in Romans 10:9 one has to have seen that TO God one goes WITH or THROUGH or BY Jesus Christ. I think intuitively probably all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus have some sense that there is a distinction between Jesus and God Who raised Jesus from the dead.

I do not believe it is required of God to recite one of seven or eight statements trying to put a creedal formula on the doctrine of the Trinity.

So there is no embarrassment to me of your favorite paragraph.
I would subscribe to it. And if there is any doubt I would point the inquisitor to the paragraph below for emphasis on "a living contact with Jesus Christ"

In order to be saved, one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ.

And the apostolic instruction concerning how to do that is in Romans 10:9

Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth.

And I trust the other four similar statements at the four websites of local churches I have met with over the years.

And your accusation is made void in that second "In Order to be Saved" paragraph which is just what I have been writing here for many years.

And I volunteered to link you to such Statements of Faith or Belief for more than one local church that I met with.
I gave you access to New York NY., Newton Mass., Boston Mass., Dunn Loring VA.

@sonship said
@divegeester

You've charge me with plagiarism. Now I ask you to acknowledge where you copied that statement of faith if you did not originally make up every sentence of it.

Did you copy and paste it from somewhere?
Why not indicate from whom you used that statement of faith?

And let me tell you something else. I am not eager to disagree with you for disagreemen ...[text shortened]...

I still would like to see you have the courage to show you associated practically with others.

I wrote it myself.

NEXT!

@sonship said
Sorry. Neither paragraph says -

In order to be saved, one must be believing and conversant on the doctrine of the Trinity.

I think it is pretty obvious that to believe in Romans 10:9 one has to have seen that TO God one goes WITH or THROUGH or BY Jesus Christ. I think intuitively probably all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus have some sense t ...[text shortened]... met with.
I gave you access to New York NY., Newton Mass., Boston Mass., Dunn Loring VA.

Be sure to let me know when you are ready to answer the question in the OP in the "calling out sonship" thread

@divegeester

I wrote it myself.

NEXT!

NEXT?
Okay NEXT is you can see that it was far from perfect.
You can see fault can be found with your attempt to capsulize the biblical faith easily.

Nothing in "Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches" is as bad as your heresy that the Son of God is not eternal.

So you still loath to be considered an associate of any congregation?

@divegeester

Be sure to let me know when you are ready to answer the question in the OP.

Oh, I can understand your desire to quickly divert attention away from your error that the Son of God is not eternal.

I understand that you'd prefer to quickly gloss over and ignore that heresy.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Be sure to let me know when you are ready to answer the question in the OP.

Oh, I can understand your desire to quickly divert attention away from your error that the Son of God is not eternal.

I understand that you'd prefer to quickly gloss over and ignore that heresy.

Lol, just let me know, thanks.

@sonship said
@divegeester
Okay NEXT is you can see that it was far from perfect.

It's just a few thoughts on what I believe. Why on earth should it be "perfect"?

So Divegeester doesn't believe the Son of God is Eternal.
And he hates hell.

Anyone think there is a connection?

But in Isaiah 9:6 the son given is to be called "Eternal Father" .

It doesn't say the Son given will be called Temporary Father.

"For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; ... And His name will be called ... Mighty God, Eternal Father ..."

Furthermore the Word who became flesh was with God and WAS God in John 1:1 So the Logos, the Word was as eternal as God whom He was is eternal.

And of course He cannot have a throne forever and ever unless He is eternal - forever and ever (Heb 1:8).

@divegeester

Lol, just let me know, thanks.

Laugh harder. Why should I let you know about what has already taken place??
I went through your OP practically sentence at a time.