ECT Our triune God

[Lon]

I am a simple man. I have no idea what you are trying to say by the words you use. Maybe crank it down a notch or two out pity maybe.

No problem (unless this doesn't do the trick):

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Here, I think it is your position, that the Lord Jesus Christ became a man and laid aside His deity?

You have also said that the Lord Jesus Christ is God 100% now. Is it also accurate to say He was God prior to coming to earth as a man according to your view?

Is that a fairly correct summation of your position?

Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Heb 2:18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

In every respect our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like us. You have stated in a previous post that if the Lord Jesus Christ was God, He wouldn't have been able to represent us or be tempted as we are (as in the next verse):

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Does this accurately represent your view? What would you add? Is there something that you'd correct on my summation as well?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So on one hand you do not agree with the Trinitarian formula (same as myself) yet you defend it???

LA

I would also add...

I KNOW that my position is a minority variant formulaic, and has not been ratified or approved and endorsed by majority leadership, even though it has never been presented for acceptance or rejection. So I have belatedly learned how to yield to the defacto historical formulaic unless and until my potential contributions are available and considered within established academia for critique by peers and superiors.

So I've abandoned my self-entitled expectations of acquiescence on any level beyond some being convinced I may need to be heard because of my called vocation. Until then, I hold both my pending corrections and the authentic Trinity formulaic with an "open hand and heart".

So I've refocused my attention upon other areas of doctrine to alleviate what has been an extreme imbalance of focus on my part. And my imminent dissertation will provide either correction for me or the allowance of latitude within orthodox boundaries.

I'm as confident my exegesis won't be excluded as I am that your Unitarianism/Adoptionism already has been excluded in every era of the church.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I would also add...

I KNOW that my position is a minority variant formulaic, and has not been ratified or approved and endorsed by majority leadership, even though it has never been presented for acceptance or rejection. So I have belatedly learned how to yield to the defacto historical formulaic unless and until my potential contributions are available and considered within established academia for critique by peers and superiors.

So I've abandoned my self-entitled expectations of acquiescence on any level beyond some being convinced I may need to be heard because of my called vocation. Until then, I hold both my pending corrections and the authentic Trinity formulaic with an "open hand and heart".

So I've refocused my attention upon other areas of doctrine to alleviate what has been an extreme imbalance of focus on my part. And my imminent dissertation will provide either correction for me or the allowance of latitude within orthodox boundaries.

I'm as confident my exegesis won't be excluded as I am that your Unitarianism/Adoptionism already has been excluded in every era of the church.

You do not really know what I believe, nor the one who taught me what to believe.

You label me something, yet have no idea what I understand.

LA

 

[Lon]

You do not really know what I believe, nor the one who taught me what to believe.

You label me something, yet have no idea what I understand.

LA

You've posted from a Unit-arian perspective but as you generally have helped not disrupt the thread and stayed with us, I'm encouraged that you are listening and synchronizing scriptures. I pray your position is changing but am thankful you are hearing what we believe in thread.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You've posted from a Unit-arian perspective but as you generally have helped not disrupt the thread and stayed with us, I'm encouraged that you are listening and synchronizing scriptures. I pray your position is changing but am thankful you are hearing what we believe in thread.

I have quoted scripture.


LA

 

[Cross Reference]

I would also add...

I KNOW that my position is a minority variant formulaic,

I personally believe your position is a minority deviant formulaic. [whatever a formulaic is].

 

[Cross Reference]

No problem (unless this doesn't do the trick):

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Here, I think it is your position, that the Lord Jesus Christ became a man and laid aside His deity?

That "generally" was the was the program in my thinking because only a perfect man could perform redemption. NOT God. Ergo, Jesus, that man, God's perfect representation of what man was originally intended to be, had Adam been faithful. Jesus was entrusted with the complete responsibility in doing what God could not do. By this of God was Jesus, given to protect the whole Godhead of the universe. There could be "no turning either to the left or the right" for Him once engaged. Victory depended completely on His "singleness of eye".

Note: The new birth is patterned after this.

You have also said that the Lord Jesus Christ is God 100% now. Is it also accurate to say He was God prior to coming to earth as a man according to your view?

Yes, and more, and God rewarded Him for His victory that in His glorified flesh is the whole of the plan of God, set in Himself, from before eternity brought to fruition.

Is that a fairly correct summation of your position?

Yes.

Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Heb 2:18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

In every respect our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like us. You have stated in a previous post that if the Lord Jesus Christ was God, He wouldn't have been able to represent us or be tempted as we are (as in the next verse):

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Does this accurately represent your view? What would you add? Is there something that you'd correct on my summation as well?

Yes and I would add nothing unless you asked for more clarity in the particulars otherwise, I believe you finally have me pegged correctly.

Thank you. I like that. Perhaps some new ground can be broken?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I personally believe your position is a minority deviant formulaic. [whatever that is].

Nobody cares what you anathematized schismatic heretical cultist Third Wave Charismatics think. You're not renewed in the spirit of the mind. You worship a false Christ and a false God of your own making, with the help of occultic false prophets and leaders.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You do not really know what I believe, nor the one who taught me what to believe.

You label me something, yet have no idea what I understand.

LA

When one denies the eternal and uncreated, contiguous and uninterrupted, ontological and substantial divinity of Christ... I don't need to know much more beyond what they say themselves to adamantly contend against the scriptural Son of God and a fabrication of their own mind.

I leave the salvific threshhold for God to judge, but I can't consider anyone a Believer if they deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the manner I've stated.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nobody cares what you anathematized schismatic heretical cultist Third Wave Charismatics think. You're not renrewed in the spirit of the mind. You worship a false Christ and a false God of your own making, with the help of occultic false prophets and leaders.

WoW! That is a mouthful . . . of what I cannot/would not say on this forum.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

WoW! That is a mouthful . . . of what I cannot/would not say on this forum.

Pelagianism has been anathematized. Fact.
Kenoticism has been anathematized. Fact.
Universal Atonement has been anathematized. Fact.

Your Anthropology, Christology, and Soteriology are historically ALL false doctrines. This doesn't leave you with much room to say much, except to throw the Apostles, the Patristics, and the Reformers under the bus as inferior to you and your alleged experiences and encounters while purportedly being "taught by the Holy Spirit" to deny the authentic doctrines of the Faith while denouncing all the men who gave you the truth for you to deny.

You are your own Pope, and demanding others recognize your theological positions. Yet you can't even begin to represent what the inspired Greek text actually says in English, but won't and can't admit that.

You're a Modernist, presuming that because you're conscious and exist, that whatever you posit from the internal psychological phenomenon you mistake as the Holy Spirit MUST be truth.

The problem is that you've swallowed and become the mouthful of what you won't say on this forum, and you think that's the pristine doctrine of the Christian Faith instead of the truth.

 

[Cross Reference]

The problem is that you've swallowed and become the mouthful of what you won't say on this forum, and you think that's the pristine doctrine of the Christian Faith instead of the truth.

Mr., I would rather pound sand than read what you write irrespective of your choice of words no one ever uses when attempting to communiate with others except to raise themselves to a seeming higher level of "intelience". And yes, I spelled it correctly for the purpose of what I believe for you.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Mr., I would rather pound sand

Be it unto you according to your own word... for all everlasting.

than read what you write

That's a lie, like your false doctrines, else you wouldn't be responding.

irrespective of your choice of words no one ever uses

I use Greek terms from the inspired text, theological terms that have been employed for nearly two millennia, and valid lexicography from premium authoritative sources.

No linguist or theologian speaks as you do, or as other autonomous conceptualizerd do.

when attempting to communiate with others except to raise themselves to a seeming higher level of "intelience". And yes, I spelled it correctly for the purpose of what I believe for you.

Sorry for your ignorance and irrelevance, and the heresies of your Third Wave Charismatic cult. Not my fault, and you're old enough to know better.

 

[Cross Reference]

Be it unto you according to your own word... for all everlasting.

That's a lie, like your false doctrines, else you wouldn't be responding.

Everyone likes a laugh. I know I do.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Everyone likes a laugh. I know I do.

Yes, I laugh sadly at Kenoticists, Pelagians, and Barthians; though anti-Christ heresies aren't funny. It's a nervous laugh for those who think they saved themselves.

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes, I laugh sadly at Kenoticists, Pelagians, and Barthians; though anti-Christ heresies aren't funny. It's a nervous laugh for those who think they saved themselves.

And I sadly pity you in your willful ignorance. That is really no laughing matter to me.

Nomore. [that is CR's Greek for FINE.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

When one denies the eternal and uncreated, contiguous and uninterrupted, ontological and substantial divinity of Christ... I don't need to know much more beyond what they say themselves to adamantly contend against the scriptural Son of God and a fabrication of their own mind.

I leave the salvific threshhold for God to judge, but I can't consider anyone a Believer if they deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the manner I've stated.

You are confused between Christ and the man Jesus, the seed of David, who was made and given to.

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are confused between Christ and the man Jesus, the seed of David, who was made and given to.

LA

Just stop. THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINTIY DOCTRINE, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO DENY THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE MANNER THAT IS PRESENTED HISTORICALLY IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Nobody should have to chase all of you anti-Trinitarians off of this thread, which has been established explicitly for Trinity discussion ONLY rather than debate.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Just stop. THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINTIY DOCTRINE, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO DENY THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE MANNER THAT IS PRESENTED HISTORICALLY IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Nobody should have to chase all of you anti-Trinitarians off of this thread, which has been established explicitly for Trinity discussion ONLY rather than debate.

You ought to know that the Christ led the Israelites in the wilderness and spoke to those before the flood through the preacher of righteousness who Noah was.

Christ is the name above every name, given by paternal right and due to His sons overcoming, which name is also upon the Bride of Christ.

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Kill the truth if you want but it is on your head not mine.

I do not think you will be going to hell for it, but you think I will.

You are a fake.


LA

 

[patrick jane]

You ought to know
LA

Move along LA . . Nothing to see here for your ilk