Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    Yes!

    All of grace is monergistic, including the blessings received through sacramental observances!

    I did catch and appreciate several of your posts emphasizing faith (noun) in contrast to belief (verb). It is such a clear and obvious understanding of the initial saving (monergistic) work of God as later witnessed in His people.

    Any and all notions of human synergism in regards to salvation of the soul should be discarded IMO. ��
    Exactly. ALL Synergism is Monergism. If God doesn’t give faith, there is no believING. It’s the faith that does the believING; man only believes because God gives him the thing that does the actING with resulting actION/S.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith. It’s the inverse of what you presume (and this is why you have credibility issues; for you don’t comprehend anything historical for what it actually was, just like your misunderstanding of words and their valid translational meanings; which means you actually stand against the Word in favor of subjective perspectives, which you’ve already stated by insisting yours are fixed).
    I appreciate that you explain this, but I cannot endorse the teachings of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. I am not sure what the Lutheran Church teaches. Does the Lutheran Church hold expensive masses for the dead to reduce their time in purgatory?
    Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding). The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.
    I do not know how many Sacraments that you suggest. One of my RCC workmates suggested that he keeps seven. The only things we keep are the weekly memorial of bread and wine in remembrance of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Only those who have believed the gospel and have thus been motivated to be baptised partake of these memorials. One of our favourite passages to support adult, believers’ baptism is the following:
    Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
    Acts 8:12 also helps to define the gospel, consisting of two parts, the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ.
    By the above. Luther never imagined a separate “group” that would be Protestants or Reformed. Lutheranism is the Reformed Catholic Church, according to the articles of Confession (unaltered Augsburg). The Roman Church would not repent, even after their 1054AD Schism to the Eastern Church that is the pillar and ground of truth.
    I will let others discuss this with you, but your position seems obscure. My view is that the Lutheran Church will unite with the RCC against Christ.
    You, in contrast, are attempting to be a Reconstructionist of a specific flavor; insisting that all was lost to error and must now be bridged back to a primitive alleged minority while ignoring all else. It’s a flavor of Gnosticism at its core.
    I am happy to be in my position, but there could have been many faithful communities throughout the time from the Apostles. Daniel 7 speaks about a long period of persecution by the Little Horn of the fourth beast. There must have been believers during this period to have been persecuted. Getting back to the concept of re-examining the Bible and Tyndale, and also relevant to this thread, I like the following translation as it establishes the basis of a true understanding of the Yahweh Name.
    Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geue them? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
    Perhaps Tyndale was honest with the text and was willing to ignore the various Church writers who insisted that this should read “I AM”.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post





    I’ve become convinced that the greatest lack and loss in my life until recently is an ambivalence toward the importance of the Sacraments. They’re an essential aspect of Biblical Monergism in application.
    Yes!

    All of grace is monergistic, including the blessings received through sacramental observances!

    I did catch and appreciate several of your posts emphasizing faith (noun) in contrast to belief (verb). It is such a clear and obvious understanding of the initial saving (monergistic) work of God as later witnessed in His people.

    Any and all notions of human synergism in regards to salvation of the soul should be discarded IMO. ��

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    I am barely here, but always alert to and interested in reading your posts.
    I had hoped that you might have happened onto the ECT thread where I explicated a few things against all the Univeralists and Annihilationists. They’re relentless. LOL

    We respect and hold to the Zwinglian view but also confess that the sacrament of communion can be (a means) of grace, as per the Westminster Confession.
    Interesting. I’ve seen more and more how important the emphasis is upon the various means of God administering His grace. The “under/in/with” delineation of Lutheranism seems to me to be the best means of representing it.

    I’ve become convinced that the greatest lack and loss in my life until recently is an ambivalence toward the importance of the Sacraments. They’re an essential aspect of Biblical Monergism in application.

    In many ways, I think there’s a lot of talking past each other between Sacramentalists and Sacramentarians/Symbolists. And true Sacramentalism is NOT Transubstantiation. That’s a late innovation of Rome to attempt to erroneously explain the “hows” in an appalling manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    It’s so good to see you are still on here. I hadn’t seen any of your posts, so I wasn’t sure if you’d finally had enough of TOL and its personalities. I myself took quite a long haitus.

    As for Sacramentalism, most Protestants have a caricature understanding of it as Roman (Trentian) Transubstantiation. It’s impossible to avoid the fact that it was indeed Apostolic doctrine for 1500 years; and Zwingli was primarily responsible for the divergence to Symbolism.
    I am barely here, but always alert to and interested in reading your posts.

    We respect and hold to the Zwinglian view but also confess that the sacrament of communion can be (a means) of grace, as per the Westminster Confession.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    Correct and to this day Lutherans maintain a worship in the dark shadow of Roman Catholicism.

    Of course, I beg to differ. Protestants who faithfully adhere to Holy Scripture alone, are
    Orthodox Christians.

    Christians know and profess that the means of receiving grace from God comes through the power and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit alone. “Sacramentalism” is superstition.
    It’s so good to see you are still on here. I hadn’t seen any of your posts, so I wasn’t sure if you’d finally had enough of TOL and its personalities. I myself took quite a long haitus.

    As for Sacramentalism, most Protestants have a caricature understanding of it as Roman (Trentian) Transubstantiation. It’s impossible to avoid the fact that it was indeed Apostolic doctrine for 1500 years; and Zwingli was primarily responsible for the divergence to Symbolism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith.
    Correct and to this day Lutherans maintain a worship in the dark shadow of Roman Catholicism.





    Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding).
    Of course, I beg to differ. Protestants who faithfully adhere to Holy Scripture alone, are
    Orthodox Christians.

    The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.
    Christians know and profess that the means of receiving grace from God comes through the power and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit alone. “Sacramentalism” is superstition.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, Perhaps one final comment and question. I have a problem with your stated position. You claim to be Lutheran, but I understand Luther to be the start of the Reformation. To me, the Reformation and to be Protestant is to claim that the so-called established Church is not the true Church. But your main theme is that there must be a prominent established Church. I believe that the “spirit” of the Reformation that Luther started is to re-examine the teachings of the Bible and hold fast to these teachings as they are understood. For example justification by faith.
    Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith. It’s the inverse of what you presume (and this is why you have credibility issues; for you don’t comprehend anything historical for what it actually was, just like your misunderstanding of words and their valid translational meanings; which means you actually stand against the Word in favor of subjective perspectives, which you’ve already stated by insisting yours are fixed).

    I will give one further example, although I do not necessarily endorse all of the views of the Anabaptists, both then and now. I am also very sympathetic to the Anabaptist practice of adult baptism, and yet the Anabaptists were persecuted by the established Church and some of the new Protestant Churches on this issue of baptism.
    Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding). The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.

    So my comment or question is, how do you reconcile the concept of the established Church to the “spirit” of the Reformation revealed through Luther and also for example Tyndale and the ploughboy?

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    By the above. Luther never imagined a separate “group” that would be Protestants or Reformed. Lutheranism is the Reformed Catholic Church, according to the articles of Confession (unaltered Augsburg). The Roman Church would not repent, even after their 1054AD Schism to the Eastern Church that is the pillar and ground of truth.

    You, in contrast, are attempting to be a Reconstructionist of a specific flavor; insisting that all was lost to error and must now be bridged back to a primitive alleged minority while ignoring all else. It’s a flavor of Gnosticism at its core.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    There is no hidden knowledge of a minority that supercedes the preserved Apostolic and Patristic truth.
    What you seek is a special underground status that is self-exaltation based upon the pursuit of something via anthropological means rather than through the authentic Bride of Christ. Individual versus Institutional. It’s a very sad prideful pursuit.
    Perhaps one final comment and question. I have a problem with your stated position. You claim to be Lutheran, but I understand Luther to be the start of the Reformation. To me, the Reformation and to be Protestant is to claim that the so-called established Church is not the true Church. But your main theme is that there must be a prominent established Church. I believe that the “spirit” of the Reformation that Luther started is to re-examine the teachings of the Bible and hold fast to these teachings as they are understood. For example justification by faith.

    I will give one further example, although I do not necessarily endorse all of the views of the Anabaptists, both then and now. I am also very sympathetic to the Anabaptist practice of adult baptism, and yet the Anabaptists were persecuted by the established Church and some of the new Protestant Churches on this issue of baptism. So my comment or question is, how do you reconcile the concept of the established Church to the “spirit” of the Reformation revealed through Luther and also for example Tyndale and the ploughboy?

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:


  • oatmeal
    replied
    Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Colossians 1:9-20 New King James Version (NKJV)
    Preeminence of Christ
    9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and [a]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [b]through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [c]principalities or [d]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
    Read it carefully:

    Is Jesus

    a. the invisible God

    b. the image of the invisible God



    In your version, who is the firstborn over all creation?

    a. God the Father

    b. Jesus the son of God

    Let me clarify

    who was born?

    a. God the Father

    b. Jesus the son of God the Father

    Your threeology causes more problems than it fixes

    Leave a comment:


  • oatmeal
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post


    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
    If indeed Jesus is God and the word is Jesus then we could read the above as

    In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was Jesus.

    He was in the beginning with Jesus.

    How is that for rational thinking? Your theology not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, I wasn’t really serious about the Oxford Dictionary but using this as an illustration that there are many avenues of study. I was also hinting in a gentle way at your claim that I did not even know the English words that I was using. I did a little bit of Greek some years ago, and a bit of Hebrew recently. I am the librarian for our meeting and my Dad was a book salesman for a major English book publisher. These awakened an interest in books and Biblical resources, and as a result I have accumulated many print and electronic books but have often only used them for reference rather than serious study. At the moment I am looking at some of the Psalms, with firstly some personal study, then considering some commentaries, two of our own and a few from the local bookshop, and also two new translations with textual comments, one by a CofE Hebrew university lecturer and the other by a Jewish Hebrew university lecturer. These also help in word studies and the poetry of the Psalms. I am considering Psalm 34 at the moment including its historical setting and NT application. This Psalm helped me through a difficult period of my life some years ago.
    Yes. My bias or perspective is solidly locked in. I may look at the Ebionites, but my view is that a persecuted minority may not have left much of their own writings, but we may be left with the writings of those who rejected the Ebionites. Also to my mind there is a gap between some of the later Apostolic Letters including the Seven Letters in Revelation to the time of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. These Bible records indicate a substantial falling away from the Apostolic teaching and example even in the 1st Century. So I suggest that there may have been many others before the Ebionites and there would be no surviving records. This is one reason why I accept that the minority may have been the custodians of the faith in those days, and I also accept the same today. I appreciate our interaction, but I feel we have exhausted this subject.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    I’m definitely exhausted BY the subject; at least having to deal with it in this manner. There is no hidden knowledge of a minority that supercedes the preserved Apostolic and Patristic truth. That would be a Gnostic pursuit.

    And since you insist your bias and perspective are locked in, there’s certainly nothing more to discuss; for then I would be entertaining a scoffer after too many admonitions.

    What you seek is a special underground status that is self-exaltation based upon the pursuit of something via anthropological means rather than through the authentic Bride of Christ. Individual versus Institutional. It’s a very sad prideful pursuit.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    English is a derivative language, coming from several others. It won’t really do all that much good to study merely English. As scripture was written in Hebrew and Greek, it’s crucial to know what the source is for translation. Learning the basics of Greek grammatical forms and lexicography would be far more beneficial than spending time studying Oxford’s volumes.
    I wasn’t really serious about the Oxford Dictionary but using this as an illustration that there are many avenues of study. I was also hinting in a gentle way at your claim that I did not even know the English words that I was using. I did a little bit of Greek some years ago, and a bit of Hebrew recently. I am the librarian for our meeting and my Dad was a book salesman for a major English book publisher. These awakened an interest in books and Biblical resources, and as a result I have accumulated many print and electronic books but have often only used them for reference rather than serious study. At the moment I am looking at some of the Psalms, with firstly some personal study, then considering some commentaries, two of our own and a few from the local bookshop, and also two new translations with textual comments, one by a CofE Hebrew university lecturer and the other by a Jewish Hebrew university lecturer. These also help in word studies and the poetry of the Psalms. I am considering Psalm 34 at the moment including its historical setting and NT application. This Psalm helped me through a difficult period of my life some years ago.
    It’s kinda sad that this is your focus, but there is a decent amount of writing about the Ebionites. You’re just absolutely obsessed with denying the divinity of Christ, which means you’re not going to be able to approach anything without bias. That will always be problematic for you.
    Yes. My bias or perspective is solidly locked in. I may look at the Ebionites, but my view is that a persecuted minority may not have left much of their own writings, but we may be left with the writings of those who rejected the Ebionites. Also to my mind there is a gap between some of the later Apostolic Letters including the Seven Letters in Revelation to the time of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. These Bible records indicate a substantial falling away from the Apostolic teaching and example even in the 1st Century. So I suggest that there may have been many others before the Ebionites and there would be no surviving records. This is one reason why I accept that the minority may have been the custodians of the faith in those days, and I also accept the same today. I appreciate our interaction, but I feel we have exhausted this subject.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

    I appreciate your two thorough responses. I hope to keep a copy for future reference and possibly send a copy to DB if I can contact him again. It was some time ago and I have changed computers and internet supplier. You most probably will denounce me but I do not feel motivated to really study this era and the writings of the Church fathers. In the small amount of spare time that I have I prefer to expand and correct my notes on the Psalms and Isaiah. Yesterday I spoke to a relative who advocates Evolution. I had forwarded an 18-part document written by one of the members of my immediate meeting for her consideration, but she dismissed this. I face the similar situation. Do I become an expert on the creation-evolution discussion, or hold on to my simplistic view that the creation reveals design, the power and wisdom of God, the seeing eye, the hearing ear, and each species of animal and plant being able to procreate itself. At the moment I choose to spend my time on the Psalms. I could also over the next 20 years improve my understanding of words, as I have the 20-volume Oxford dictionary. I could read one volume per year.
    English is a derivative language, coming from several others. It won’t really do all that much good to study merely English. As scripture was written in Hebrew and Greek, it’s crucial to know what the source is for translation. Learning the basics of Greek grammatical forms and lexicography would be far more beneficial than spending time studying Oxford’s volumes.

    Maybe because of my cult background, I am interested if there is much documentation on the history and beliefs of some of the following:

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    It’s kinda sad that this is your focus, but there is a decent amount of writing about the Ebionites. You’re just absolutely obsessed with denying the divinity of Christ, which means you’re not going to be able to approach anything without bias. That will always be problematic for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

    I appreciate your two thorough responses. I hope to keep a copy for future reference and possibly send a copy to DB if I can contact him again. It was some time ago and I have changed computers and internet supplier. You most probably will denounce me but I do not feel motivated to really study this era and the writings of the Church fathers. In the small amount of spare time that I have I prefer to expand and correct my notes on the Psalms and Isaiah. Yesterday I spoke to a relative who advocates Evolution. I had forwarded an 18-part document written by one of the members of my immediate meeting for her consideration, but she dismissed this. I face the similar situation. Do I become an expert on the creation-evolution discussion, or hold on to my simplistic view that the creation reveals design, the power and wisdom of God, the seeing eye, the hearing ear, and each species of animal and plant being able to procreate itself. At the moment I choose to spend my time on the Psalms. I could also over the next 20 years improve my understanding of words, as I have the 20-volume Oxford dictionary. I could read one volume per year.

    Maybe because of my cult background, I am interested if there is much documentation on the history and beliefs of some of the following:
    Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Of course. And they were an extreme minority, and were dealt with according their Judaizing. Ebionism was a thing, but not any kind of predominant foundation. They were outliers, just like the LDS and JW cults of today (and your own unnamed cult).
    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X