Our triune God

[Krsto]

Jesus is the dividing line. Those who worship Him as God are Christians; those who say he is a mere creature are cultists. This is an essential, salvific issue. The person and work of Jesus divides in this case.

As for fellow Christians who oppose cultists, our disagreements over peripheral issues come from a spirit of love and unity based on our common faith in Christ. We are not compromising essential, Christian-defining truth. We are disagreeing over peripheral issues that do not affect our relationship with God or each other.

A Christian and a cultist have a common humanity under God, but we are not both in the family of God if we have diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive Christologies on the basic points.

Guys like csuguy simply cannot understand that there is a difference between a true vs false gospel, the true Christ vs counterfeit Christs, a genuine coin and a counterfeit, worthless coin.

Don't ask me to compromise truth for a false view of luv.

Lon and I vehemently disagree about Calvinism vs Open Theism, yet we will defend the trinity/Deity of Christ to the death. You and I/Lon disagree about the trinity/Deity and will remain divided because we both cannot claim to be true Christians (one is, one is not). I have love and respect and unity with Lon. I have love for you, but not a common bond in Christ.

So I'll take that as a nearly tacit admission that you are the one who is being divisive since you are defending your divisiveness. I didn't ask you to defend yourself, just recognize you are the divisive one, not the ones who are spouting their doctrines with which you disagree. When you have one finger pointing at us you have three fingers pointing at yourself, as they say.

[godrulz]

Using your logic, an atheist can say I am being divisive because I am defending theism against atheism. The divider is the truth of God, not the messenger so much. I cannot affirm atheism, so why is the atheist not the one being divisive and I am just standing for truth?

If I say 2+2=4, am I guilt of negative divisiveness for not agreeing with the kid who says 2+2=5?

This generation is buying into the lie of relativism vs absolutism.

The bottom line is that Jesus divides people between children of God and enemies of God. Just because I agree with Jesus makes me divisive? If so, fine.

If I am dead wrong and causing unnecessary confusion or division among the brethren, then you might have a point. If I was insisting that speaking in tongues or KJV-only is necessary for salvation, then I would accept a pejorative use of divisive. If I am sharing the gospel, then the gospel is dividing people, not me.

[Gill White]

Those that speak in tongues are not in the Body of Christ.

Nick, when a person gets born again of God's spirit, the evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person and has been shown to us in His Word. We believe it, confess it, and renew our mind to it:

Act 2:4
(4) All the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.

Act 4:30
(30) Show your power by healing, performing miracles, and doing amazing things through the power and the name of your holy servant Jesus."


Joh 17:17
(17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Speaking in tongues is an evidence of the Spirit's presence:

1Co 12:7-12
(7) The evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
(8) The Spirit gives one person the ability to speak with wisdom. The same Spirit gives another person the ability to speak with knowledge.
(9) To another person the same Spirit gives courageous faith. To another person the same Spirit gives the ability to heal.
(10) Another can work miracles. Another can speak what God has revealed. Another can tell the difference between spirits. Another can speak in different kinds of languages. Another can interpret languages.
(11) There is only one Spirit who does all these things by giving what God wants to give to each person.

God bless you
(12) For example, the body is one unit and yet has many parts. As all the parts form one body, so it is with Christ.

I praise and thank God, through the name of His servant Jesus, for giving us this wonderful gift, through His Son.

[Krsto]

Using your logic, an atheist can say I am being divisive because I am defending theism against atheism. The divider is the truth of God, not the messenger so much. I cannot affirm atheism, so why is the atheist not the one being divisive and I am just standing for truth?

If I say 2+2=4, am I guilt of negative divisiveness for not agreeing with the kid who says 2+2=5?

This generation is buying into the lie of relativism vs absolutism.

The bottom line is that Jesus divides people between children of God and enemies of God. Just because I agree with Jesus makes me divisive? If so, fine.

If I am dead wrong and causing unnecessary confusion or division among the brethren, then you might have a point. If I was insisting that speaking in tongues or KJV-only is necessary for salvation, then I would accept a pejorative use of divisive. If I am sharing the gospel, then the gospel is dividing people, not me.

You are unnecessarily causing division (and possibly confusion for some, but not me) because you can not allow a person to simply believe the Gospel message, but instead you strain at a knat with your Christology, insisting everybody understand and agree with your very technically and narrowly defined understanding in order for them to be Christian brothers in your mind. You are not "sharing the Gospel," you are defining the Gospel in such a way as to exclude those who accept it in different terms than yourself, all the while using as your justification that Paul spoke of a "different Gospel," and "different Jesus," ignoring the context of his statements and what Paul had in mind when he said those things, but rather put words in Paul's mouth that he would not accept if he were here today, and also ignoring the fact that whenever the Gospel was preached in the 4 Gospels and Acts simple statements as to what a person must believe were given without any qualifications or understanding of the hypostatic union theory which came hundreds of years later.

So yeah, you are dead wrong, and you are a heretic in the true meaning of the word, because a heretic biblically defined is one who causes hairetikos, or division.

[godrulz]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

[Krsto]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

You keep wanting to compare what I believe with the Muslims. The Muslims don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, as defined by either one of us, and don't believe he rose from the dead, which is an essential doctrine.

Belief in the incarnation and deity as you define it is not essential.

I will not say that Jesus is Almighty God because the bible doesn't say that. That is a derived doctrine, not a stated truth. I have asked you a hundred times to show me otherwise and every time you prove my point. That's one reason you are a lousy debater.

And yes, I believe Jesus is subordinate, and so do you, if you accept Php. 2 to mean a deity gave up his deity to become a man.

By your own standards you are not a Christians because you have a different Christ than the one in the bible.

So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Totton Linnet]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

*
Beautifully said

[jerzy]

This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.

I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.

Lon.

Are you not admitting that you have something to hide?

Don't you recognise that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Why you disallow the truth to be spoken on this Christian forum?

Why are you boycotting the written word of God like this?

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Do you find this text offensive, Lon?

Are you a Christian or an impostor, Lon?

You have shown your true colours in "Is Trinity and Satan God's word or pagan theology" to open your exclusive thread in order to slander the true worshippers of the Father the only true God without giving them chance of defence?

Is this not the old school where the "heretics" were destroyed so that pagan worship of idols could be introduced into Christianity without hindrance?

[jerzy]

Keypurr, please also note the OP and comply with its directions.
I'm sure it is hard to resist, but this thread isn't made for debate with you guys. There are plenty of threads you've made for that. You needn't clog up one that asks you politely not to do so.

This is a Christian forum for them who recognise that the Bible is inspired by God.

You have no right to call yourself a Christian while rejecting the written word of God substituting it with your own “views” and disallowing the word of God to be quoted here from the Trinitarian translations.

[jerzy]

Isn't it absurd, when asked not to post here, they do anyway. As if their own threads aren't enough this one needs hijacking?

We are quoting from the Trinitarian translations here which you seem to find abhorring.

What is your reason for this, Lon?

[jerzy]

I started this thread with this also in mind:

It seems to confirm the contentious nature suspected as I gave clear posting instruction to avoid debate and asked anti-trinitarians not to post.

Let's put it in the context, Lon:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[jerzy]

John shows us who Jesus is; the Word who is with God and is God.

What you think about this Trinitarian admitance?

Besides, they don’t know that the reason our Bibles translate logos as word is that Jerome, a monk of the early fifth century, mistranslated it as verbum. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=255. Jerome’s Vulgate, as it is called, became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and the texts Jerome used have become the mainstay of contemporary liberal versions. The Latin term Verbum became Word in English.

Isaiah shows us exactly who Jesus is.

You haven't noticed that the Trinitarians made Jesus a second God the Father.

Are you suggesting that Thomas has nullified in one verse all what God said through the entire scriptures that the Father was the only true God?

Did Jesus know that he was God?

Did the apostles know that Jesus was God?

What warrants rendering of the multiple meaning word theos as God in Jn 20:28 in contradiction of the immediate text like Jn 4:23; 14:6, 14:10, 17:3, 20:17, 20:31 as well as the broader Bible’s text?

But the Father has given to the Son to judge;

So Jesus is second in charge. Is it fitting for god?

And there is distinction between the Son and the Spirit;

True. The Father gives authority and power to Jesus.

Whomever blasphemes the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven.
This proves conclusively that there IS some distinction.

So the Holy Spirit is above Jesus, isn’t he?

The pre-existence of Jesus

What you make of this?

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Rev 13:8 …the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world…
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose… which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Well, God has chosen and saved us before the world began. Are we Gods too?

REGARDLESS of how the word theotes was RENDERED, its MEANING and INTENT is 'divinity'...ie Jesus Christ is DIVINE...ie a DEITY....ie GOD.
If Jesus IS God yet Jesus does NOT KNOW the day and hour of His return but ONLY the Father does (aka GOD) then there MUST BE some DISTINCTION between them...even tho BOTH ARE God.

Good point.

One is above the other.

See this:

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Is the Holy Spirit 'God' ?

Scripture shows that the Spirit of GOD came down upon Christ...

You said it right.

The Spirit of God not God the Spirit.

And Luke shows that this IS the Holy Spirit.

Thus the evidence shows that the 'Spirit of God' and the 'Holy Spirit' are one and the same.

You are 100% correct.

The Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God not God the Spirit.

You need to find out what the Spirit of God really is.

3.0
And here we tie it all together.

1. Jesus, the Son who is called 'Mighty God' in Isaiah.
2. The Spirit descending in the form of a dove, who is the Spirit OF God.
3. The Father speaking from heaven, obvious enough.

[/QUOTE]

Not enough for me.

The rendering of Isa 9:6 is contrary to the entire scriptures.

It is a clear Trinitarian forgery.

The Spirit of God descended upon Jesus as foretold by Isa 11:1-3, 42:1+6.

The Father is the only true God and the eternal life is for them who know it.


You need to show where is written that God is Trinity.

Or.

Where Jews were told that the one God their father became a triune God.

Or.

Where is written that hundreds of fool proof texts that the Father is our / the only true God was nullified and that the eternal life is for them who know that God is triune.

[jerzy]

They are guests on an evangelical forum. They are being disruptive and should be banned for a season. Their Arian views were condemned centuries ago as heretical.

Valid point, godrulz.

Kill them all and burn the Bibles and ancient scripts.

Commission Westcott and Hort to re-write the scripts your way.

[jerzy]

Jesus is the dividing line. Those who worship Him as God are Christians; those who say he is a mere creature are cultists. This is an essential, salvific issue. The person and work of Jesus divides in this case.

Have you ever been able to support any of your clearly pagan flavoured "views" with scriptures or just keep mumbling baloneys?

[-FoC-]

What you think about this Trinitarian admitance?

Besides, they don’t know that the reason our Bibles translate logos as word is that Jerome, a monk of the early fifth century, mistranslated it as verbum. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=255. Jerome’s Vulgate, as it is called, became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and the texts Jerome used have become the mainstay of contemporary liberal versions. The Latin term Verbum became Word in English.

What *I* think, chap, is that I get MY view straight from scripture itself. I dont give a rats rear what the RCC or Jerome have to say in the matter.
Easy enough?

You haven't noticed that the Trinitarians made Jesus a second God the Father.

Complete nonsense.
I accept what scripture presents as a whole. I dont call myself 'trinitarian' and I certainly havent let anyone tell me what to believe.
Just as my short study presented there, I get what I believe from GODS WORD.

Are you suggesting that Thomas has nullified in one verse all what God said through the entire scriptures that the Father was the only true God?

Thats a laugh, gent, given that FACT that I presented MORE than one statement by Thomas. Did you somehow miss the REST of my post?

Did Jesus know that he was God?

DID He?

Did the apostles know that Jesus was God?

What did Thomas say again?

So Jesus is second in charge. Is it fitting for god?

Rhetorical nonsense.
I dont make the rules, chap, I just read and accept what scripture SAYS in the matter.
Your questions are irrelevant.