ECT The Calvinist 5 Solas

[Clete]

I agree the death of infants proves they are sinful from birth but I reject we got our sinful nature from Adam contending that we self created our sinful nature in ourselves by a free will pre-earth rebellion to GOD. We had no need to inherit Adam's sin, a most blasphemous proposition anyway, to be sinful at birth IF we sinned in the Spirit world by our free will before being sown, not created, into the world, Matt 13:36-39.

I'm pretty certain that you are the only Christian who has ever lived that believes this.
There is just no way that this is even possibly correct.

• Isaiah speaks of a time "before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good". (Isaiah 7:16)
  
• John the Baptist lept in his mother's womb at the approach of the Messiah in His (Luke 1:41)
  
• Paul states explicitly that he was alive before the law came and then when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. (Romans 7:9-11)
  
• God did not allow most of Israel to enter into the Promised Land because of their sin. It was only those under the age of 20 years old who "did not have the knowledge of good and evil" that entered in. (Num. 14:29-32; Num. 32:11-12; Deut. 1:39)
  
• God required that the people of Israel offer a half sheckle offering as an atonement for sin. It wasn't required of everyone but rather it was required from only those who where twenty years old and older!
  
  
  Ex. 30:13-16 “This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.”​

From this evidence we can conclude that the age of accountability is certain not before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good and that it may even be as late as twenty years of age. There's just no possible way that every single baby has rebelled against God before they breach their mother's womb!


------------------------------
Some 14 years ago, Lion wrote a post about the biblical age of accountability from which I gleaned much of the above material. That is one of the greatest posts in the history of TheologyOnline! It's still on the forum somewhere but if anyone can't find it and wants to read the whole thing, PM me and I'll get it to you!

Thanks Lion!
------------------------------

IF the premise of our creation changed to believe that we were created before the creation of the physical universe (which we all saw, Job 38:7) and that before that creation some sinned needing to be redeemed and others sinned the unforgivable sin and only THEN was the physical universe was created and we were moved to Sheol in the centre of the earth,

IF, I say, all this was accepted, then the interpretation of WHY we are sinners at birth would be moot and all the verses used to to convince ourselves that we inherit Adam's sin would be fitted into our a priori belief in our pre-earth creation...the same way we now force other verses to support our being created on earth as sinners, even though this is a blasphemy.

So, to use all the verses that depend upon our theology of being created on earth to shed the light on the question why? is just another eisegesis of forcing the created on earth theory onto the verses about how it is all Adam's fault.

This is insanity!

Have you read Genesis? God created man on the sixth day and not before! You want to accuse me (and the entire Judeo-Christian faith for the last 6000 years) of bringing their belief about when Adam and Eve were created to the bible "a - priori"?! Utterly total and absolutely complete insanity! The same exact book that tells us that God created the universe also tells us that He created Adam and Eve on day six! In what padded room fantasy world could that ever be considered "a priori"?

Genesis 1: 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [h]moves on the earth.”

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.​

How could God have formed Adam from the dust of the ground if He created him before He created the dust of the ground?

But please consider:
First, even if Adam's sin was our first sin and we are guilty and die for that sin (against Ezek 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent...) GOD is responsible of our being created sinners by Adam because 1. HE did not have to create us in solidarity with Adam, it was HIS choice and 2. HE did not have to force us to inherit Adam's sin which means all the arguments against GOD NOT being the creator or evil are bogus. Yet poisonous water does not flow from the well of life giving water and thorns do not grow on grape vines., No, it is not GOD who is poisonous but this evil doctrine.

Second, there is no reason, not even a bad reason, for HIM to create anyone evil but especially would HE never create HIS Bride evil in Adam. HE hates evil and it must be eradicated before HE can fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, HIS marriage to us in the heavenly state. Light cannot create dark because light destroys dark by its essence as light. Love cannot create evil as it destroys evil by its essence as love.

All suggestions HE creates evil is a blasphemy against HIS loving, righteous and just nature.

Third, if we do not choose evil by our free will then we cannot be held guilty for that evil. No one is guilty of a crime they are forced to do by another person whether the force is from Adam or GOD. To claim GOD makes us evil by making us inherit Adam's sin then killing us for that sinful thing we inherited for him is just too ugly and perverted to contemplate. It goes against everything GOD has revealed about HIS nature but it allows us to think we are created on earth which has been chosen as more important than that we should worship the GOD who hates evil and does not create it by any means, even Adam.

I agree that God does not hold anyone responsible for sin that they themselves did not commit. If anyone goes to Hell for Adam's sin, it will be Adam and Adam alone. But God is not a magician and He cannot have simply chosen not "to create us in solidarity with Adam". Adam's sin had real consequences and God had to deal with those consequences. What He could have chosen was to kill Adam and Eve and start from scratch but Adam was no longer capable of producing children who were perfect as he had been prior to his sin and God could not have made it otherwise. Your whole premise is God's justice but then you suggest that God simply chose "to force us to inherit Adam's sin". That doesn't make any sense! If God could have chosen to have Adam's children be perfect, then why didn't He? Where's the need for Christ to die if God could have simply ignored Adam's sin and started over, as many times as necessary with Adam's own kids?

No, that was not an option at all! Adam couldn't produce perfect kids but rather than choosing to kill Adam and Eve and either giving up entirely or starting over with a newly created set of humans who likely would have done the exact same thing, God chose instead to enact a plan by which He would both undo the curse that had come at the tree and would save those who would respond to God in faith. This is what Romans 5 (and Galatians 3) is all about! Jesus' death on a tree undid what Adam did at THE Tree. God, having known in advance that His Son would be offered as a willing sacrifice is what allowed Him to keep going with the human race. Thus, it is the death of Christ that wipes out the issue of "original sin" for the whole human race and there is, therefore, no need to go bonkers, relegating the first several chapters of the bible to the status of an "a priori" belief.

Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Did you forget?

Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

So you evidently do not believe that the face of God cannot be seen despite what we read here:

"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).​

The following verse gives us a clue as to the teaching that the Lord Jesus is desribed as the "invisible" God:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).​

Men in their flesh and blood body are not equipped to see the things belonging to the eternal sphere, the spiritual sphere. But at the rapture those in the Body of Christ who are now in heaven with the Lord Jesus will put on bodies which are described as "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor.15:44), or bodies which belong in the spiritual sphere. After all, men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter the heavenly kingdom so believers will "bear the image of the heavenly" and will no longer "bear the image of the earthy" (1 Cor.15:49-50).

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you evidently do not believe that the face of God cannot be seen...

You missed it. Try again:

Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

 

[ttruscott]

Or did He become a man (change)?

Incarnating as a man was not a change as you claim. It was within HIM since eternity, within HIS unchangeable nature. Since man was created perfectly in the image of GOD HE can obviously display that image when HE desires - it is HIS, it is HIM....it is not anything new. The only thing new in man was our sinfulness brought into us by our free will decison to sin against HIM and our image was broken, corrupted.

 

[Bright Raven]

Don't dodge the questions, BR.

Are you going to take scripture woodenly literally?

Or are you going to read the verse you quoted within the context of the whole Bible?

Did Jesus, God the Son, become a man? Or did He not become a man, but remain only a spirit?

Jesus will remain and continue to be God forever!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You missed it. Try again:

I missed nothing. It is you who missed what I said and that is obviously why you just ignored what I said. I explained that God is described as "invisible" because He now resides in the eternal state and those in flesh and blood bodies are not equipped to see things which are described as being of the spirit and eternal.

But when those in the Body of Christ are raptured they will put on heavenly bodies and with those new bodies they will able to see the face of God:

"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).​

How can God's servants see His face if He is invisible?

You just ignore what is written at Revelation 22:3-4 because what is said there doesn't match your preconceived ideas.

Or perhaps your Bible does not have the verses found at Revelation 22:3-4?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Incarnating as a man was not a change as you claim.

Incarnation is the process of going from spirit to flesh.

Denying that a change is a change is illogical.

It was within HIM since eternity, within HIS unchangeable nature.

Jesus was NOT always a man for eternity past.

That is heresy and anti-Christ.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John4:1-3&version=NKJV

Since man was created perfectly in the image of GOD HE can obviously display that image when HE desires - it is HIS, it is HIM....it is not anything new.

WRONG.

Jesus was not a man until he became a man.

You can't be something for eternity past if not even the concept exists.

The only thing new in man was our sinfulness brought into us by our free will decison to sin against HIM and our image was broken, corrupted.

:blabla:

Jesus will remain and continue to be God forever!

Answer the question, BR.

"Become" is a change word.

Did Jesus become a man?
A) Yes, Jesus, God the Son, who was for eternity past a spirit, took upon Himself at the Incarnation the form of a man, never again to be spirit only.
B) No, Jesus, God the Son, did not become a man, but is still spirit only.

Are you going to take the verse you quoted woodenly literally without considering the context of the entire Bible? OR are you going to take the verse you quoted in context?

OR

Are you going to continue to stonewall against these questions?

 

[ttruscott]

How could God have formed Adam from the dust of the ground if He created him before He created the dust of the ground?

His being created from the dust is a theological statement forced upon the story of Adam's creation, not necessary to the details of the story. His BODY was created from the DUST and then his already created SPIRIT was placed, sown into it: Matthew 13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain* to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. * ...to explain a metaphor, one cannot use another metaphor, nor hyperbole nor other symbolic language. Every word is simple fact...


Return means: “to go or come back; revert; bring, give, send, hit, put, or pay back; a going or coming back, a happening again.”

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall RETURN unto GOD who gave it. You know what I think of this verse. The body returns to being basic elements: dust, as it was, that state it was in before it was alive; and this person's spirit returns to GOD, that state it was in before it was embodied in a body of dust. “Gave it” must mean “gave it life - sent it to live” rather than “gave it existence - created it then”. “Unto GOD” must mean “to the place / state where THEy are.”

If the spirit did not exist before conception, then it could not RETURN anywhere even “unto GOD”. It would have never been there before. Only with pre-conception existence can a spirit return to be with GOD, without making return mean something else.

Death is a Return:
While I have read all the interpretations of how our deaths being called a return to GOD does not mean we came from HIM in some pre-existent way, I think that this interpretation is forced onto the verses by a preconceived need for us to be created on earth. Without the bias, no one would think twice about using return in these verses as a going back to where we came from.

Job 1:21 And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither. Do we really think Job is planning on returning to where he was born from, his mother's womb or is this a poetic way of saying he is going back to where he came from, Sheol? If it does not mean that, what else can it mean? Certainly not the "GOD's illogical analogy" of the Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither. There is some difficulty in the word "thither," since no man returns to his mother's womb (John 3:4), at death or otherwise. The expression must not be pressed. It arises out of the analogy, constantly felt and acknowledged, between "mother" earth and a man's actual mother…

Psalm 9:17
KJV - The wicked shall be turned into hell …
NASV - The wicked shall return to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16) - Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return.

In this verse, we can see a little of the 'conceived on earth' bias of the KJV translators against the pre-conception view, rendering return as turned. It is important to see this because, once we recognise the fact that almost every translator has a bias against pre-conception theology, we must realise that we will often have to look very thoroughly at their translations of the Scriptures if we are going to see past it.

Going to Sheol is the result of a judgment. The implication is clear. The wicked are punished by being sent to Sheol instead of heaven. The word is translated as return 391 times by the biased KJV, just not here in this verse.
TURN BACK; Strong’s H7725 shûb - shoob
A primitive root; to turn back
to return, turn back
• to turn back
• to return, come or go back
• to return unto, go back, come back
From the other translations of this word, we can see that these persons, at their death, return to Hades, a place they have obviously been in before.

If Job is only talking of becoming dust again, what about his spirit, the alive part of him that will be resurrected some day? Do you think his decaying body was more important to him as his identity, his "I", than his spirit? Do you talk that way about your clothes? But even to accept this does not answer the return of our spirits to GOD at death, which we found in Ecclesiastes 12:7

 

[ttruscott]

I'm pretty certain that you are the only Christian who has ever lived that believes this.
There is just no way that this is even possibly correct.

The theology of our pre-Conception Existence is documented by Origen, the father of modern systematic theology, cirça 350 AD. I have found that many more people believe it is our true reality than theologians who are imbued with the orthodox bias resting upon the interpretation of the ancient rabbis as to our creation that IF Adam was created in the garden he had to have been sinless though not yet perfected. This was accepted by the early fathers even though Adam and Eve were declared to be rm` (arm) the same word used to describe the evil of the serpent as cunning. There are 3 or 4 other hints, suggestions, in the story that they were already sinners before they ate which strongly implies they were NOT created in the garden at all but sown there from Sheol, the waiting place for the sinful un-embodied.

While the doctrine of inherited sin is a serious blasphemy in its own right, our pre-earth fall making us sinners at birth by our free will decision to rebel against GOD before conception renders moot all interpretations that the only way a baby can be sinful at birth is by inheriting Adam's sinfulness, without having to do any hint of damage to HIS character at all nor any need to write tomes of theo-babble to try to explain the cognitive dissonance these opposite ideas (GOD is righteous, GOD creates evil people) being true at the same time engenders.

 

[Nang]

Incarnation is the process of going from spirit to flesh.

Denying that a change is a change is illogical.



Jesus was NOT always a man for eternity past.

That is heresy and anti-Christ.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John4:1-3&version=NKJV



WRONG.

Jesus was not a man until he became a man.

You can't be something for eternity past if not even the concept exists.



:blabla:



Answer the question, BR.

"Become" is a change word.

Did Jesus become a man?
A) Yes, Jesus, God the Son, who was for eternity past a spirit, took upon Himself at the Incarnation the form of a man, never again to be spirit only.
B) No, Jesus, God the Son, did not become a man, but is still spirit only.

Are you going to take the verse you quoted woodenly literally without considering the context of the entire Bible? OR are you going to take the verse you quoted in context?

OR

Are you going to continue to stonewall against these questions?

It will be impossible for you to hold to a correct Christology as long as you deny the eternal state which is the realm of Triune God. His everlasting kingdom is heavenly, not earthly.

 

[Nang]

The theology of our pre-Conception Existence is documented by Origen, the father of modern systematic theology, cirça 350 AD. I have found that many more people believe it is our true reality than theologians who are imbued with the orthodox bias resting upon the interpretation of the ancient rabbis as to our creation that IF Adam was created in the garden he had to have been sinless though not yet perfected. This was accepted by the early fathers even though Adam and Eve were declared to be rm` (arm) the same word used to describe the evil of the serpent as cunning. There are 3 or 4 other hints, suggestions, in the story that they were already sinners before they ate which strongly implies they were NOT created in the garden at all but sown there from Sheol, the waiting place for the sinful un-embodied.

While the doctrine of inherited sin is a serious blasphemy in its own right, our pre-earth fall making us sinners at birth by our free will decision to rebel against GOD before conception renders moot all interpretations that the only way a baby can be sinful at birth is by inheriting Adam's sinfulness, without having to do any hint of damage to HIS character at all nor any need to write tomes of theo-babble to try to explain the cognitive dissonance these opposite ideas (GOD is righteous, GOD creates evil people) being true at the same time engenders.

God gave Adam conditional authority over the created world, and all living beings on this earth. Only an innocent and sinless man could continue to hold that responsibility, and it is what Adam lost when he disobeyed God and was rejected from the garden.

Sinners cannot ever inhabit the realm (eternity) of God. Sinners are dealt with on earth only.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It will be impossible for you to hold to a correct Christology as long as you deny the eternal state which is the realm of Triune God. His everlasting kingdom is heavenly, not earthly.

:blabla:

This is nothing but bloviating.

Address the argument made and answer the questions.

 

[Right Divider]

:blabla:

This is nothing but bloviating.

Address the argument made and answer the questions.

She likes to confirm her story by telling her story.

 

[Clete]

Amen!

Why do you say "Amen" to that verse and not this one...

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Why does Hebrew 13 trump John?


Is it not possible that Hebrews 13 and other passages like it are talking of God's character, the quality of His person and of His authority as Creator? Why do the three verses that Calvinist quote about God not changing have to mean that God the Son did not BECOME a man, die and rise to life as a man forever more?

The answer, since I know you won't give it, is because of Plato and his pagan belief that God is immutable. That is the ONLY reason! Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is THE reason why you believe that John chapter 1 does not mean that God changed in any meaningful way.

It will be impossible for you to hold to a correct Christology as long as you deny the eternal state which is the realm of Triune God. His everlasting kingdom is heavenly, not earthly.

So you admit then that the doctrine of divine timelessness (a corollary of immutability) is your primary theological premise!

 

[Clete]

His being created from the dust is a theological statement forced upon the story of Adam's creation, not necessary to the details of the story.

I didn't and won't read a syllable of your post past this single sentence.

Am I to take your word or the word of God?

Welcome to my ignore list.


And, by the way, don't ever take my side on anything - ever. You're a fraud, a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are not a Christian in any sense of the word.

Good bye and good ridence!

 

[Nang]

Why do you say "Amen" to that verse and not this one...

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

But I do . . I say Amen to John 1:14!

Why does Hebrew 13 trump John?

Who says it does? They are both true.

Is it not possible that Hebrews 13 and other passages like it are talking of God's character, the quality of His person and of His authority as Creator? Why do the three verses that Calvinist quote about God not changing have to mean that God the Son did not BECOME a man, die and rise to life as a man forever more?

The answer, since I know you won't give it, is because of Plato and his pagan belief that God is immutable. That is the ONLY reason! Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is THE reason why you believe that John chapter 1 does not mean that God changed in any meaningful way.

Why do you always attempt to tell people what they believe and why? None of the above means a thing to me and you fail to describe my beliefs repeatedly.

So you admit then that the doctrine of divine timelessness (a corollary of immutability) is your primary theological premise!

There you go again . . .

No, my primary theological premise and faith, is that Jesus Christ, my Savior, came into this world as both God and Man.

So I believe both John 1:14 and Hebrews 13:8 accurately describe His Person.

YOU are the one who denies the Truth of Hebrews 13:8.

 

[ttruscott]

God gave Adam conditional authority over the created world, and all living beings on this earth. Only an innocent and sinless man could continue to hold that responsibility, and it is what Adam lost when he disobeyed God and was rejected from the garden.

Sinners cannot ever inhabit the realm (eternity) of God. Sinners are dealt with on earth only.

Wow, perhaps the biggest non-sequitur I've ever seen... I understand this and I reject it but in any case, it really does not speak to what I wrote at all...

 

[Clete]

But I do . . I say Amen to John 1:14!



Who says it does? They are both true.

God is either immutable or He can change. It can't be both. The only way for you to think that they are both true is for you to accept my way of thinking about one or both of those passages.

I dare say that I'm the first person you ever encountered (years ago) that made you look at both ideas at once! Calvinists typically keep their doctrines so compartmentalized that the glaring contradiction between immutability and the incarnation never occurs to them and when they are made to see it, they ignore it, call it a mystery or antinomy and move on as though it weren't a real issue. If pressed they start calling me a liar and accusing me of knocking down straw man arguments or else shouting "amen" when others do the same.

The bottom line is that no matter how much lip service you give to these passages both being true, the fact is that in every aspect of your doctrine and religious practice, Hebrews 13 trumps John 1 fifty times a day and double that on Sundays. If you acknowledge John 1 at all, it is with an asterisk beside it. It is John's meaning that is modified from the plain reading in order to somehow be forced not to conflict with Hebrews 13.

Why do you always attempt to tell people what they believe and why?

I do not!

I started that "John Calvin Said This..." thread expected to be able to find some Calvinist somewhere who would say something like...

"Calvin was clearly wrong on that particular point!" or
"Calvin was right except..." or
"Official Calvinist doctrine has moved away from John Calvin's writings in regards to the issue of..."

...or something somewhere along those lines.

I didn't get it!
In fact, I got the opposite! I not only got agreement from 100% of Calvinist respondents but I got full throated endorsement of every syllable that I quoted. I've been doing this for decades, Nang! I have discussed and debated doctrine with dozens and dozens, probably hundreds of Calvinists and they all believe this stuff! All of them! Including you! They all also refuse to acknowledge the logical implications of their beliefs but that's a whole different issue from me supposedly misrepresenting their beliefs.

None of the above means a thing to me and you fail to describe my beliefs repeatedly.

Why do you lie like this Nang? Lying is a sin! Do you think God predestined you to lie just so that I would point it out? You must!

Calvinist routinely deny believing in immutability because of Plato and then it typically isn't more than a few sentences later that they very nearly quote Plato's argument for the doctrine. The fact that they are ignorant of the history of their own doctrine doesn't count as me misrepresenting their beliefs. You, however, have no excuse. You know perfectly well what I was referring to when I mentioned Plato and you know perfectly well that you completely and entirely agree with and endorse and use Plato's argument for the doctrine of immutability. Not only that but because you've know me for years, I know that you are fully aware that Plato is the source, the very fountain head of that argument and that both Catholics and Calvinists are in full agreement with it!

There you go again . . .

No, my primary theological premise and faith, is that Jesus Christ, my Savior, came into this world as both God and Man.

No, faith in God and the fact that Jesus Christ is that God is all doctrine. More specifically, it is Christology which you say is "impossible for you to hold to a correct Christology as long as you deny the eternal state which is the realm of the Triune God".

You just don't get to have it both ways, Nang. You cannot have as your primary theological premise a Christology that is based on the premise of "the eternal state which is the realm of the Triune God". Something that has a premise of it's own cannot be your primary premise.

Further, no one's Christology is their primary theological premise anyway. You can't even understand what the word "Christ" means, nevermind form a theology around it, without a whole list of other, more primary premises, the most important of which is not how big or powerful God is or how much God knows but rather an understanding of who He is and what He does, that is, an understanding of God's character. God's power is not relevant to a proper theology if one believes that God is arbitrary. It does not matter what God knows if He is found to be a fool or stupid nor does it matter how many places an unloving God can be at once.

So I believe both John 1:14 and Hebrews 13:8 accurately describe His Person.

YOU are the one who denies the Truth of Hebrews 13:8.

No! You read your doctrine into Hebrews 13 and refuse to believe that God changed when He became a man and died and rose from the grave!
You effectively deny BOTH PASSAGES!!!

Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You missed it. Try again:

I missed nothing. It is you who missed what I said and that is obviously why you just ignored what I said. I explained that God is described as "invisible" because He now resides in the eternal state and those in flesh and blood bodies are not equipped to see things which are described as being of the spirit and eternal.

But when those in the Body of Christ are raptured they will put on heavenly bodies and with those new bodies they will able to see the face of God:

"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).​

How can God's servants see His face if He is invisible?

You just ignore what is written at Revelation 22:3-4 because what is said there doesn't match your preconceived ideas.

Or perhaps your Bible does not have the verses found at Revelation 22:3-4?

 

[Nang]

God is either immutable or He can change.

John 1:14 speaks of the Son of God manifesting His heavenly glory by assuming a flesh body.

There is no mention of His Being "changing."

There are NO contradictions in the Holy Scriptures.

Calvinist routinely deny believing in immutability because of Plato and then it typically isn't more than a few sentences later that they very nearly quote Plato's argument for the doctrine. The fact that they are ignorant of the history of their own doctrine doesn't count as me misrepresenting their beliefs. You, however, have no excuse. You know perfectly well what I was referring to when I mentioned Plato and you know perfectly well that you completely and entirely agree with and endorse and use Plato's argument for the doctrine of immutability. Not only that but because you've know me for years, I know that you are fully aware that Plato is the source, the very fountain head of that argument and that both Catholics and Calvinists are in full agreement with it!

Plato is not the source of my faith; nor my beliefs.

My doctrine is founded upon the study of Moses, the psalmists, and the prophets . . who all spoke of the coming of Messiah. As instructed by Jesus Christ in Luke 24:44.

Sola Scriptura!

Solus Christus!

Further, no one's Christology is their primary theological premise anyway.

I totally disagree. " . . There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

You can't even understand what the word "Christ" means,
nevermind form a theology around it,

Bah . . .

It is no wonder you remain adrift in your errors.