Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
January 23rd, 2011, 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Neither the Trinity nor the acceptance of Jesus as God Almighty is necessary to be a Christian. To the contrary, he is the Son of God. What you need to accept is that he is our Lord and Savior, that he died for our sins and rose again, that there will be a ressurection, etc. You know - the biblical stuff.
Hey, let's stay on topic now
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
This is why I object to people (beloved57; STP; gandp in the past, johnw, voltaire, etc.) making their pet views on POTS/OSAS, disp., etc. a test of eternal life beyond faith in the same Jesus they believe in.
You reject that Christians are dead to sin and alive to Christ, and sealed by the Spirit. You claim you can break that seal and be uncrucified. You reject the gospel of grace in all its points.
Modalism, Arianism, and all non-Trinitarian views have at their root an incorrect importation of modern psychological notions of "personhood". When we think of the word "person" we apply it to the personal center of consciousness of an individual being. This is not how the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity are to be traditionally and historically understood.
A distinction between the personal subsistences of the Trinity is not a difference of the essence of God, where deniers of the Trinity will claim that these persons are another from God the Father, the Son, the Spirit. This may be true should the substance be limited, finite, but not at all for the infinite. Instead, these distinct hypostates subsist in the same divine essence and being. These personal subsistences are intrinsic and real, not extrinsic and mental as modalists will claim.
Thus, we are speaking of one individual, numerical being, God, of infinite essence that is capable of that which finite essences cannot, such as subsisting in multiple supposita.
Neither the Trinity nor the acceptance of Jesus as God Almighty is necessary to be a Christian. To the contrary, he is the Son of God. What you need to accept is that he is our Lord and Savior, that he died for our sins and rose again, that there will be a ressurection, etc. You know - the biblical stuff.
JWs and Mormons consider Him Lord and Savior, yet they are dead wrong and lost. Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet from God, yet they are lost.
You still are basically saying that a counterfeit coin/bill is the exact same as a genuine coin/bill.
Those who say all religions are basically the same are minimizing the differences and focusing on superficial similarities.
2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-10 argue against false christs (that Jesus warned about) and false gospels. They may look and sound similar, but opposite views cannot be equally true or salvific.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
The devil has said some true things. Urantia may say true things stolen from Christianity, but overall, it is extra/contrabiblical. The Bible is the Word of God, so why look to false philosophies?!
Why make a fetish of any book?
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
Modalism, Arianism, and all non-Trinitarian views have at their root an incorrect importation of modern psychological notions of "personhood". When we think of the word "person" we apply it to the personal center of consciousness of an individual being. This is not how the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity are to be traditionally and historically understood.
A distinction between the personal substistences of the Trinity is not a difference of the essence of God, where deniers of the Trinity will claim that these persons are another from God the Father, the Son, the Spirit. This may be true should the substance be limited, finte, but not at all for the infinite. Instead, these distinct hypostates subsist in the same divine essence and being. These personal subsistences are intrinsic and real, not extrinsic and mental as modalists will claim.
Thus, we are speaking of one individual, numerical being, God, of infinite essence that is capable of that which finite essences cannot, such as subsisting in multiple supposita.
Anyone who has examined their own life can see that even a human being has three aspects: self, personality and mind.
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
You reject that Christians are dead to sin and alive to Christ, and sealed by the Spirit. You claim you can break that seal and be uncrucified. You reject the gospel of grace in all its points.
The nature of the seal symbol in one proof text is debatable. The fact that the rest of the Bible teaches other truths is lost on you. You are guilty of eisegesis because you are clueless about theology and exegesis.
We can read and quote the same verses, but interpret them differently, just like millions of Christians do.
I accept that we are dead to sin and alive to Christ, but other verses also teach against your sinless perfectionism. What does it mean? I can reject your wrong understanding without rejecting Bible, gospel, Christ.
You are wrongly assuming you are infallible and anyone who disagrees with you is a dope (despite your views being refuted over and over throughout church history from the Bible).
Your circ gospel post cross is what rejects the gospel of grace, whereas non-Calvinistic views do not, despite how much Calvinists jump up and down promoting straw man myths about free will theism.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Authoritative revelation from God in written form is a love letter of self-communicating, not a fetish. Is it a fetish to learn medicine from an accurate medical book?
Respecting God and His Word is not worshipping paper and ink.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
In your patience possess ye your souls.
Reputation:
January 23rd, 2011, 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by COLA76
I have seen several threads with discussions about trinitarian theology. Some people declare non-trinitarians heretics and non-Christians. My question is why is a belief in the trinity a requirement to be a Christian? What makes trinitarian doctrines essential to Christian theology? Why can you not be a Christian if you do not believe in the Trinity?
I know this next request will fall on some deaf ears, but I'll try anyway. I am not looking to start another thread for banter. So, if you are just going to preach your opinion with over and over again and not actually contribute to the discussion then do it in the various other threads that you probably already have been doing so, not here.
Ready.... Go!
Squeaky cites many verses which clearly show the Father alone to be God and Jesus to be His son. I think he's a nontrinitarian, but I don't know him.
But as you can see from reading most of the remaining first 20 or so responses, you pretty well have to reprogram your brain in order to come to their conclusion if you use the Bible as the primary source of evidence. Look at their "evidence."
Lon writes: For me, it is about what God says about Himself rather than man's interpretive dance around what He says about Himself.
Of course the fact is that no one in the Bible knew anything about the concept of the trinity. The Jews awaited a completely human Messiah, a descendant of David. They worshipped the Father alone as God. Not even rational Trinitarian scholars deny that. For every one text that can be possibly interpreted toward the trinity there are many more that affirm what the godly of the Jews always and officially believed. The Father alone is God and the Messiah would be a human being. The trinity was codified by a pagan ruler named Constantine in 325AD. This is a matter of documented historical fact. There is zero question about it. The question is did Constantine codify the truth in so doing? Or did he bring in pagan beliefs in a political move to join two factions of his kingdom? Trinitarians are now often promoting the notion of progressive revelation to assert that although the Bible writers didn't understand the Trinity, God was trying to reveal it through them. But since Jesus time, we've become so much more spiritually wise, God revealed it clearly to even a pagan ruler! Read the entire New Testament. Do you see any evidence of Jesus or anyone else challenging or changing the long held belief that the Father alone was God? To trinitarian logic, everyone just accepted this new concept without even having a discussion about it. The fact that they pitched a fit about Jesus violating the Sabbath, and breaking washing rituals, and all kinds of other things notwithstanding, trinitarians don't think it odd that changing the foundational doctrine of God's people (that the Father alone was God) didn't rise a peep out of anyone. Nevertheless people like Lon conclude that it's the nontrinitarians who insist on maintaining the belief held for thousands of years in Biblical history are the ones "doing an interpretive dance," but he and his followers of the pagan Constantine are the very voice of God Himself! If you accept that logic then don't let the cops see you smoking whatever you're smoking!
But those truths that you believe are not debatable. Ok. Con man.
Everything is debatable. Most of us are right about some vs all things. You and I agree on far more than we disagree with. You do not see this because you have a bee in your bonnet, a bat in your belfry.
graceandpeace at least has more grace, maturity, wisdom now despite our disagreements (humility vs pride).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Is it a fetish to learn medicine from an accurate medical book?
If its "authority" is a stumbling block to progress, yes.
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
Slogan/motto:
How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove? (Job 6:25 KJV )
Reputation:
January 23rd, 2011, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by COLA76
To be more precise, I'm asking more about modalism and other doctrines that still hold Christ to be God, but are not trinitarian. Modalism has been declared a heresy for hundreds of years, because it is anti-trinitarian. Several people on TOL insist that people who adhere to modalism, semi-modalism and other doctrines are simply not Christians. Why? What excludes them?
If you ask me if you correctly belief that Christ is God then the rest will fall into place as you continue to study the Bible.
And yes Bill I'm willing to take a challenge on that.
Slogan/motto:
With Oatmeal in my bowl, is Jesus in your soul?
Reputation:
January 23rd, 2011, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by COLA76
I have seen several threads with discussions about trinitarian theology. Some people declare non-trinitarians heretics and non-Christians. My question is why is a belief in the trinity a requirement to be a Christian? What makes trinitarian doctrines essential to Christian theology? Why can you not be a Christian if you do not believe in the Trinity?
I know this next request will fall on some deaf ears, but I'll try anyway. I am not looking to start another thread for banter. So, if you are just going to preach your opinion with over and over again and not actually contribute to the discussion then do it in the various other threads that you probably already have been doing so, not here.
Ready.... Go!
If Jesus didn't have to be God, then the trinity isn't essential at all, and is then therefore fallacy.
Linear Mode
