Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What are the essentials of the genuine Christian faith?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Originally posted by apostoli
    Actually, the Constantinople-Nicean creed of 381CE does not define the Holy Spirit as homoousios with the Father. So the definition of the Trinity via the creeds remains incomplete.
    Literally, no. However, it categorizes the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. It would be absurd to assume that it did not consider the Holy Spirit to be homoosious with the Father and the Son.
    And yet both the Nicene & Constantinople creeds while being vocal concerning the Son are silent when it comes to the personhood of the Spirit. Why do you think that is?

    Imo, it is because there is and was too little that the churchmen could agree upon. And most particularly the incontestable scriptural evidence for the personhood of the Spirit is almost non existent. Scripture is prolific in describing the Holy Spirit in terms of an energia (power) but not as a person.

    On the personhood side: Our only substantial evidence is in the Gospel of John...

    1. John 14:16-18 (vs18 causes difficulty). For me: The personhood of the Spirit is confirmed by the association of 1 John 2:1 with John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

    2. John 15:26 which indicates the source & cause of the Spirit. Here the Spirit is described in the terms of an emanation rather than a person (this text gives weight to the filioque). However, as the Spirit is termed a Parakletos then we have an indication of personhood;

    3. Imo, John 16:13-15 is the strongest indicator of personhood, but the text can readily be understood as messianic. That is a flesh and blood person rather than an invisible thingy was to be expected (as Muslims & Bahai'a & others propose to defend their claimants. From church history we know that Simon Magnus made the claim, Marcionites advocated A.Paul, Montanus claimed he was the incarnation of the Paraklete, Mani did the same. There were plenty of others even within my lifetime).

    Apart from John's Gospel there is Romans 8:16,26-27 but these texts are iffy (debatable). Matthew 28:19-20 has potential but vs20 presents a difficulty.

    _________________

    Apart from the lack of evidence in scripture for the personhood of the Holy Spirit there are technical difficulties in considering it/him "homoousios with the Father". For instance..

    * If he/it is an emanation or phantasm (theophany) he/it cannot be homoousios with the Father (no further arguement required).
    * If he/it is a creation he/it could be endowed with the Father's ousia (as Adam was endowed with humanity), but unlike the Son he/it would not be naturally homoousios with the Father. Thus the Spirit would be another God, additional to the Binity of the Father and the Son.

    The Son having been begotten by the Father is natural offspring of the Father and thus proved to be "homoousios with the Father". The Spirit was not begotten but A.John tells us he/it proceeds from the Father. On first thought you might argue that begettal and procession give rise to "natural offspring". A fair point except scripture gets in the way. John 1:14 depicts the Son as the only child of the Father (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός), so the Spirit cannot be natural offspring of the Father else the Son would have a brother/sister. Elsewhere A.John qualifies the monogenus, refering to the Son as the Father's only begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός), which leaves the door open to the Father having a daughter (welllll, provided we ignore John 1:14)...

    This is an incomplete synopsis of the theological issues, I am sure you could find a theological treatise that fleshes out the details...
    _________________

    ps: If you are interested, I'm currently reading The Holy Spirit in the Cappadocians Past and Present.
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-22-2015, 12:29 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Paula View Post
      I would use those two words interchangeably, what is the difference you are drawing?
      Essential doctrines are a sub-set of the core doctrines. The essentials must be known - the balance of core doctrine doesn't need to be known provided that no contrary precept is believed. The essentials should be made known during the course of evangelism.

      So could someone be considered a Christian if they believe that the Hindu gods are real but that the God of the Bible is the supreme God and commit themselves to only worshiping Him?
      1 Corinthians 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords) 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live
      Paul seemed to think so.


      What I meant was that we can't earn our salvation. Good works will follow from genuine faith but they aren't what justifies us. Jesus's work on the cross is what saves us.
      James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
      Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
      Romans 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
      Acts 13:39 “and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

      As you can see - Faith is a prerequisite to justification, but it is not the sole factor in justification. The implications of Acts 13:39 become a matter of concern.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #48
        Imo, it is because there is and was too little that the churchmen could agree upon. And most particularly the incontestable scriptural evidence for the personhood of the Spirit is almost non existent. Scripture is prolific in describing the Holy Spirit in terms of an energia (power) but not as a person.
        I would add that cumulative evidence from Acts makes the personhood of the Holy Spirit plain enough - though no single passage will do so in isolation.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Originally posted by apostoli
          mo, it is because there is and was too little that the churchmen could agree upon. And most particularly the incontestable scriptural evidence for the personhood of the Spirit is almost non existent. Scripture is prolific in describing the Holy Spirit in terms of an energia (power) but not as a person.

          On the personhood side: Our only substantial evidence is in the Gospel of John...
          I would add that cumulative evidence from Acts makes the personhood of the Holy Spirit plain enough - though no single passage will do so in isolation.
          I accept the personhood of the Holy Spirit but I'm not seeing what you see in Acts. Would you provide some examples...

          Here is my quick survey of every occurance of the words "Holy Spirit" in Acts (Imo, most occurances are metaphorical = the "team spirit" sort of thing. Others an anointing & infusion of power. Imo, Acts 8:29 might indicate the personhood of the Spirit)...

          Acts 1:5 compares the Spirit to water, and in chapter two the Spirit is repeatedly said to be poured out (nb: the OT references in chapter 2 indicate the Spirit is an energy of God, not a person). Chapter 2 depicts the Spirit's coming as a mighty wind and its deposit as tongues of fire. This makes me think of the OT's Shekinah. Acts 5 the Holy Spirit is described as "the Spirit of the Lord". In vs8 we have Simon Magnus trying to buy the power.

          The events of Pentecost could readily be understood as the transmission of God's power. Consider Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit". Also consider Acts 1:8. Jesus said to them: "you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me”. Compare this with the events about forty days ealier when Jesus said to the gathered disciples (Thomas was absent): "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you. And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:21-22).

          That leaves us with the deaths of Ananias & Sapphira. Notice that there is no indication of any physical cause of death. Imu, spontaneous death is known to occur throughout the world, the cause being stressed related resulting in things like a cerebral hemorrhage. As for sinning against the Holy Spirit etc, I take it as a reference to the community of empowered believers (cp Acts 4).
          Last edited by apostoli; 08-22-2015, 11:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Acts 1:8a
            “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you...
            Ambiguous. Does the Holy Spirit imbue with power, or is the Holy Spirit an imbued power?
            Acts 1:16
            “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David
            “by” translated from δια – reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit has the capacity to speak.
            Acts 8:29
            Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
            Becomes even more reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit can speak.
            Acts 10:19
            While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you.
            Becomes unreasonable to assume the Holy Spirit can’t speak.
            Acts 10:38
            “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,...
            Separation of identity of the Holy Spirit and power.
            Acts 13:2, 4
            2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
            4So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, ...
            The Holy Spirit not only speaks, but also appoints men to given tasks.
            Acts 15:28
            For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
            The Holy Spirit has the capacity to hold an opinion.
            Acts 16: 6,7
            6 Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia.
            7After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them.
            The Holy Spirit not only appoints, but also prohibits.

            And so on it goes.
            Last edited by tabibito; 08-23-2015, 12:11 AM.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              Acts 1:8a, 16, 8:29; 10:19,38; 13:2,4; 15:28; 16:6,7

              And so on it goes.
              Thankyou for investing your time, and for putting in the effort required to present your list of texts from Acts and for making your comments. Both contribute to my studies. I make some minor comments below, but for now a short expansion on my previous post...

              From where I sit the Holy Spirit seems not to have had any observable activity since the first century (eg: no raising of the dead, healing of paraplegics etc). Of course, I readily admit that the Holy Spirit has been "spiritually" active in preserving and expanding the Church (I think that is self evident), and though I have no direct cognition of the Holy Spirit in my life, in retrospection, I suspect he/it sustained me through some horrendous events (a mystery to me is why my faith has quietly grown, even though the faith of those around me declined rapidly and they tried to drag me along with them. I might be deceiving myself, but I suspect I am being protected. Maybe it is proof of the activity of the Holy Spirit (?)).

              Confronted by a JW or like, except for maybe Acts 10:19-20, I wouldn't use any of the texts you cite to support the personhood of the Holy Spirit. In my eyes and via experience I hold them to be contentious...

              * Acts 10:38
              “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,..."
              Separation of identity of the Holy Spirit and power.


              You are on dangerous ground with this one: A subordinationist would have a field day with you. Christadelphians & the Iglesia ni Cristo who both teach Jesus was just a man empowered by God would thank you for demonstrating their point. JWs who hold that the Holy Spirit is just the active force of God would turn the text on you to deny Jesus' divinity.

              You seemed to have missed the fact that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power. What does the anointing mean? I'd suggest authorisation/kingship. Have a think on John 3:34-35 & 1 Cor 15:24-28.

              * Does the Holy Spirit vocalise, speak through someone, communicate telepathically or is "the Spirit spoke" just a metaphor?

              Acts 1:16 does not have the Spirit speaking, but says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David etc" (cp. acts 28:25). Of interest: YHWH tells us that he speaks/spoke to the prophets via dreams. Moses and the one like him had direct access to YHWH so neither dreams nor the Holy Spirit were/are required (Numbers 12:6-7; Deut 18:15-22; Heb 1:1). In anycase, if A.Peter is referring to Psalms 41, we find David enthused rather than inspired - David has been betrayed but trusts in YHWH to deliver him from his enemies (cp. Psalms 41:2,9). Have a read of all of Acts 1:16-17: Peter says: "...this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry". Some translations have vs17 as commentary, others as a quotation of "this scripture" which would seem more appropriate. Each view presents a small problem: For the first, we have no idea what "this scripture" is and so no idea of what David said. As for the later, what is cited isn't in the scriptures as we now receive them. The cloest we can get is Psalms 41:9.

              Acts 8:29. May indicate an enthusiastic Philip speaking to himself. After all, it was observable (vs27-28), if not audible, that the eunuch was reading Isaiah. Have you ever been on a bus, train etc and noticed someone sitting alone reading the bible or some religious pamphlet? And you tell yourself: "I should go talk to them?")

              Acts 10:19 Lots of potential with this one but vs20 is the clincher so you'd need vs19&20. Peter was on the roof of his house (vs9), so he would have seen the three men at his gate and probably heard them inquiring after him (vs17-18). So vs19 isn't remarkable but vs20, now that is inspirational.

              Acts 13:2,4 These could be understood in the context of Church discipline and direction. Compare Acts 18:5; 19:21; 21:4.

              Acts 15:28. What was the point of holding a council if the Holy Spirit was directing things? Was the Holy Spirit indecisive and needed a second opinion? Were those in attendance likely to go against the decision of the Holy Spirit? I see this as just collective decision making by persons filled with the Spirit.

              Acts 16:6,7 Simply a matter of Church discipline. Tradition has it that each of the evangelists were assigned a territory and poaching was prohibited. in the RCC this idea remains in the organisation of dioceses, missionary activities etc. When A.Paul was going to Bithynia he may have encountered Christians already there (?)

              Well thats the way I see my opponents rationalising these texts, and to be honest, in some cases I might agree with their appraisal. Never-the-less, thank you for drawing Acts 10:19-20 to my attention. By focusing exclusively on the words "Holy Spirit" in my earlier survey, I broke the cardinal rule of exegesis and missed vs20, which you appear to have done also.
              Last edited by apostoli; 08-23-2015, 10:03 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by apostoli View Post

                Confronted by a JW or like, I wouldn't use any of the texts you cite to support the personhood of the Holy Spirit. In my eyes and via experience I hold them to be contentious...
                Yup - Jehovah's Witnesses do try to make mileage, beyond doubt. There is no problem dealing with such attempts.

                * Acts 10:38
                “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,..."
                Separation of identity of the Holy Spirit and power.


                You are on dangerous ground with this one: A subordinationist would have a field day with you.
                Jesus of Nazareth was subordinate to the Father, I believe, having given up his authority to act as God for the duration.

                Christadelphians & the Iglesia ni Cristo who both teach Jesus was just a man empowered by God would thank you for demonstrating their point. JWs who hold that the Holy Spirit is just the active force of God would turn the text on you to deny Jesus' divinity.
                The attempt would lead to an opportunity to give proper exposition of their "proof texts" - not a problem.

                You seemed to have missed the fact that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power. What does the anointing mean? I'd suggest authorisation/kingship. Have a think on John 3:34-35 & 1 Cor 15:24-28.
                Agreed, anointed does mean that. The verse is inherently ambiguous taken in isolation, so it doesn't play in debate unless an opposing party should introduce it.

                * Does the Holy Spirit vocalise, speak through someone, telepathically or is such a metaphor?
                That is a sticking point, now that you mention it. It would, taken too literally, make it seem that a prophet is merely channeling - That would lead to a lot of messing around: I'll drop it (and others like it) from the list.

                Acts 1:16 does not have the Spirit speaking, but says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David etc" (cp. acts 28:25). Of interest: YHWH tells us that he speaks/spoke to the prophets via dreams. Moses and the one like him had direct access to YHWH so neither dreams nor the Holy Spirit were/are required (Numbers 12:6-7; Deut 18:15-22; Heb 1:1). In anycase, if A.Peter is referring to Psalms 41, we find David enthused rather than inspired - David has been betrayed but trusts in YHWH to deliver him from his enemies (cp. Psalms 41:2,9). Have a read of all of Acts 1:16-17: Peter says: "...this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry". Some translations have vs17 as commentary, others as a quotation of "this scripture" which would seem more appropriate. Each view presents a small problem: For the first, we have no idea what "this scripture" is and so no idea of what David said. As for the later, what is cited isn't in the scriptures as we now receive them. The cloest we can get is Psalms 41:9.
                In short, for whatever reason, the apostles thought that certain books were scripture - but those books are not included in the Bibles of Rome and Protestant Christianity. The Eastern Churches' Bibles however, do include books that are not included in Rome's collection, and reject some that are. It may be that Constantinople, or one of the other Eastern churches, actually includes the relevant book.

                Acts 8:29. May indicate an enthusiastic Philip speaking to himself. After all, it was observable (vs27-28), if not audible, that the eunuch was reading Isaiah. Have you ever been on a bus, train etc and noticed someone sitting alone reading the bible or some religious pamphlet? And you tell yourself: "I should go talk to them?")

                Acts 10:19 Lots of potential with this one but vs20 is the clincher so you'd need vs19&20. Peter was on the roof of his house (vs9), so he would have seen the three men at his gate and probably heard them inquiring after him (vs17-18). So vs19 isn't remarkable but vs20, now that is inspirational.

                Acts 13:2,4 These could be understood in the context of Church discipline and direction. Compare Acts 18:5; 19:21; 21:4.
                From my point of view, these are plain statements - there is nothing to make the possibility of hyperbole, parable, set phrases etc tenable.

                Acts 15:28. What was the point of holding a council if the Holy Spirit was directing things? Was the Holy Spirit indecisive and needed a second opinion? Were those in attendance likely to go against the decision of the Holy Spirit? I see this as just collective decision making by persons filled with the Spirit.
                Council seems to me a very good way to make sure that the people concerned have correctly understood what the Holy Spirit is saying, and that they are not contaminating the message.

                Acts 16:6,7 Simply a matter of Church discipline. Tradition has it that each of the evangelists were assigned a territory and poaching was prohibited. in the RCC this idea remains in the organisation of dioceses, missionary activities etc. When A.Paul was going to Bithynia he may have encountered Christians already there (?)
                Again, I can't see a reason to argue with the natural reading of the text.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Jesus of Nazareth was subordinate to the Father, I believe, having given up his authority to act as God for the duration.
                  The very fact that even in his pre-existence, the Son was Son, and even now remains Son, makes him eternally subordinate to the Father. However, from the teaching of the homoousios we learn that he is equal to his Father in terms of his Godhead.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  ... having given up his authority to act as God...
                  Jesus forgave sin which according to scripture was an act of God. And the Council of Chalcedon decrees that on the incarnation the Son fully retained and exercised his Godhead. The apostle Paul describes the Son as fully God in bodily form (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς - Col 2:9).

                  Phillipians 2:6-9 is an interesting study. The keywords are morphe (vs6&7), ekénōsen, homoiōmati (vs7) & schēma (vs8).

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                    The very fact that even in his pre-existence, the Son was Son, and even now remains Son, makes him eternally subordinate to the Father. However, from the teaching of the homoousios we learn that he is equal to his Father in terms of his Godhead.
                    So what makes the concept of subordination an issue?

                    Jesus forgave sin which according to scripture was an act of God. And the Council of Chalcedon decrees that on the incarnation the Son fully retained and exercised his Godhead. The apostle Paul describes the Son as fully God in bodily form (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς - Col 2:9).
                    If I recall correctly - Jesus stated that the Son of Man had been granted authority to forgive sin, and backed that claim up by conferring the same authority on the founding apostles.

                    Phillipians 2:6-9 is an interesting study. The keywords are morphe (vs6&7), ekénōsen, homoiōmati (vs7) & schēma (vs8).
                    Yes - I find it most informative, particularly when the statements of Hebrews 2:14 - 17 are taken into account.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      So what makes the concept of subordination an issue?
                      I've never studied the issue to any depth but imu, the East, jumping at shadows, sees its teaching as threatening the teaching of the Trinity.

                      Imu, the EOC/ROC's phobia links back to the battles against Antiochene thinking (Arianism etc). Imu, the RCC with links to Alexandrian thinking has had no problem with what is often termed "functional subordination".

                      It seems that in the 6th century a form of "Origenism" arose in the East that caused contention in the East. Origen and his opinions were belatedly condemned (he died mid 2nd century). Imu, in the east Origen is considered a complete heretic, whereas in the West he has been rehabilitated (everyone knows that the works that were extant at the time were heavily interpolated, the RCC simply disregarded anything considered to be an interpolation).

                      Imu, as long as a subordinationist teaching does not depict the Son's ousia/physis as inferior to the Father's ousia/physis then all is OK (the teaching of the Son being homoousios with the Father remains secure).

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      If I recall correctly - Jesus stated that the Son of Man had been granted authority to forgive sin
                      Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10 & Luke 5:24 have Jesus simply stating "that ye may know that the Son of man hath power [RSV: authority] upon earth to forgive sins". No mention of him being "granted" authority.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      ...and backed that claim up by conferring the same authority on the founding apostles.
                      Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:14-15 & Luke 9:1. But!!! We read of the disciples failing to cast out a demon (forgive sins) and needing Jesus to intervene (Mark 9).

                      Have a think on John 14:12-14 where Jesus tells the disciples "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it".

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Yes - I find it most informative, particularly when the statements of Hebrews 2:14 - 17 are taken into account.
                      Have you ever thought on why A.Paul says at Phil 2:7 "was made in the likeness (ὁμοιώματι) of men" then at vs8 says "found in appearance (σχήματ) as a man"?
                      Last edited by apostoli; 08-25-2015, 02:14 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        1 Corinthians 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords) 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live
                        Paul seemed to think so.
                        But that isn't Paul's complete thought. Prior to that Paul writes:

                        (1 Cor 8:4-6)4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.(emphasis mine)

                        I think Paul here is addressing "weak" Christians who feel uncomfortable eating meat offered to idols given that they used to worship those idols. "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one" is a statement of monotheism. Paul isn't ascribing the weak Christian's "gods" ontological status nor giving approval of henotheism, he is discussing "gods" as an object of worship.
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
                        Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
                        Romans 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
                        Acts 13:39 “and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

                        As you can see - Faith is a prerequisite to justification, but it is not the sole factor in justification. The implications of Acts 13:39 become a matter of concern.
                        I don't think works are involved in justification in the sense that they are grounds for justification. I think what happens is they follow justification. Romans 5:9 says we are justified through Jesus's blood (so not works) and Acts 13:39 says those who believe are justified when you couldn't be justified through following the law (so not works). Regarding James 2:24 the prior context indicates that James is not necessarily talking about faith versus works but dead faith versus living faith. Essentially, someone who says they are loyal to God but has no good works has a non-existent faith (and I think this would apply to Romans 2:13 as well).

                        My main point in this isn't that genuine Christians won't do good works, generally speaking, virtually all Christians will have some good works. Good works are an indication of a living faith. My main point is that it is Jesus's sacrifice that justifies us (makes us right in God's eyes) not any work on our part. I am trying to distinguish the Christian doctrine of salvation through faith from other religions that believe in works based salvation. I do agree with you that works are involved (in the sense that they demonstrate saving faith and would naturally follow from a saving faith) but my point is that they aren't the means by which we become righteous in God's eyes.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          But that isn't Paul's complete thought. Prior to that Paul writes:

                          (1 Cor 8:4-6)4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.(emphasis mine)

                          I think Paul here is addressing "weak" Christians who feel uncomfortable eating meat offered to idols given that they used to worship those idols. "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one" is a statement of monotheism. Paul isn't ascribing the weak Christian's "gods" ontological status nor giving approval of henotheism, he is discussing "gods" as an object of worship.
                          I think it was the 3rd century father, Cyprian, that condemned those Christians who attended the non-gladiatorial games (think athletics, boxing, wrestling etc and/or the ancient equivalents of football, baseball, cricket etc) and exhalted the athletes to a godlike status. He also had a dig at those that attended the theatre (mainly because the theatre then exhalted the gods! or historic heros as if they were gods). Hate to see what he would have thought of those modern Christians who venerate sports people, musicians, actors etc...

                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          I don't think works are involved in justification in the sense that they are grounds for justification. I think what happens is they follow justification. Romans 5:9 says we are justified through Jesus's blood (so not works) and Acts 13:39 says those who believe are justified when you couldn't be justified through following the law (so not works). Regarding James 2:24 the prior context indicates that James is not necessarily talking about faith versus works but dead faith versus living faith. Essentially, someone who says they are loyal to God but has no good works has a non-existent faith (and I think this would apply to Romans 2:13 as well).

                          My main point in this isn't that genuine Christians won't do good works, generally speaking, virtually all Christians will have some good works. Good works are an indication of a living faith. My main point is that it is Jesus's sacrifice that justifies us (makes us right in God's eyes) not any work on our part. I am trying to distinguish the Christian doctrine of salvation through faith from other religions that believe in works based salvation. I do agree with you that works are involved (in the sense that they demonstrate saving faith and would naturally follow from a saving faith) but my point is that they aren't the means by which we become righteous in God's eyes.
                          According to Revelation 20:13 those that are judged in the 2nd Resurrection are judged according to their works "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works".

                          As for Jesus' sacrifice: that was for the whole world = 1 John 2:2; 4:14 "And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life".
                          Last edited by apostoli; 08-26-2015, 12:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Paula View Post
                            But that isn't Paul's complete thought. Prior to that Paul writes:

                            (1 Cor 8:4-6)4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.(emphasis mine)
                            The "for us" is by no means insignificant. In Koine Greek, your bolded point can be interpreted to mean "no such thing as an idol" - it can also mean "an idol is nothing". If interpreted to mean the former, the affirmation - "indeed there are many gods" makes the sentence self contradictory. "There is no such thing as ..... (an idol, Santa Claus, just war, etc) means that the nominated object does not exist. Idols most certainly do exist, and the fact was quite evident to the author - therefore "idols are nothing" is the more acceptable interpretation. The statement, "(To me/Ultimately), they are nothing," does not indicate that "they" do not exist, only that "they" are beneath notice.

                            I think Paul here is addressing "weak" Christians who feel uncomfortable eating meat offered to idols given that they used to worship those idols. "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one" is a statement of monotheism. Paul isn't ascribing the weak Christian's "gods" ontological status nor giving approval of henotheism, he is discussing "gods" as an object of worship.
                            Quite so - other gods are beneath notice: they play no role in a Christian's life.

                            I don't think works are involved in justification in the sense that they are grounds for justification.
                            accepted.

                            I think what happens is they follow justification. Romans 5:9 says we are justified through Jesus's blood (so not works) and Acts 13:39 says those who believe are justified when you couldn't be justified through following the law (so not works).
                            In the absence of information to the contrary, it would be reasonable to assume the possibility that "Justified by blood" and "justified by belief" implies not by works of any kind. In point of fact - the only works specifically stated to be not involved in justification are works of the (Old Testament) law.


                            Regarding James 2:24 the prior context indicates that James is not necessarily talking about faith versus works but dead faith versus living faith. Essentially, someone who says they are loyal to God but has no good works has a non-existent faith (and I think this would apply to Romans 2:13 as well).
                            James is discussing here the interplay between faith and works.
                            James 2:18
                            But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
                            Paul preached, not a gospel that promised ultimate salvation based on belief, but on action commensurate with belief - declaring "first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." (Acts 26:20)

                            My main point in this isn't that genuine Christians won't do good works, generally speaking, virtually all Christians will have some good works.
                            Just that Christians are not required to produce good works, perhaps?

                            Good works are an indication of a living faith. My main point is that it is Jesus's sacrifice that justifies us (makes us right in God's eyes) not any work on our part.
                            It would seem that Peter doesn't quite agree:
                            Act 10:34-35
                            34Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
                            I am trying to distinguish the Christian doctrine of salvation through faith from other religions that believe in works based salvation. I do agree with you that works are involved (in the sense that they demonstrate saving faith and would naturally follow from a saving faith) but my point is that they aren't the means by which we become righteous in God's eyes.
                            The body of evidence is quite compelling, and summed up by
                            Rom 8:3-4
                            3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
                            Verse 3 - Of and by itself, the law was insufficient to achieve justification - the underlying "sin in the flesh" could not be dealt with until sin was condemned.
                            Verse 4 - (Sin was condemned in the flesh) so that it would be possible for us to meet the righteous requirement of the law.


                            Gal 2:16
                            “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
                            All up: we are not commanded to adhere to works of the law, but we are commanded to adhere to the requirement (ultimate aim) of the law.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 08-26-2015, 12:19 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I amen'd your last post because I thought it was very good...

                              However, one element I think you may have neglected is the "born again" mentality (I've accepted Christ, nothing else for me to do).

                              Back in the 1970s when Bill Graham (BG) was doing his crusades the little "c" christians were running around with the slogan "Are you born again?" to test people out. If you didn't proclaim loudly in the affirmative then you were branded a non-Christian and got a tongue lashing, or as one old fellow (Open Brethren) did to me wipe their feet and turn away. This large band of imbeciles didn't last too long in my country, though remnants are still around. Why? Simply because apart from articulating the words such people did not evidenced any change in their lifestyles - they remained judgemental, bigotted & partisan just as the Temple elite were in Jesus' day. In short there was no outward sign of their transformation (eg: works).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                I amen'd your last post because I thought it was very good...

                                However, one element I think you may have neglected is the "born again" mentality (I've accepted Christ, nothing else for me to do).

                                Back in the 1970s when Bill Graham (BG) was doing his crusades the little "c" christians were running around with the slogan "Are you born again?" to test people out. If you didn't proclaim loudly in the affirmative then you were branded a non-Christian and got a tongue lashing, or as one old fellow (Open Brethren) did to me wipe their feet and turn away. This large band of imbeciles didn't last too long in my country, though remnants are still around. Why? Simply because apart from articulating the words such people did not evidenced any change in their lifestyles - they remained judgemental, bigotted & partisan just as the Temple elite were in Jesus' day. In short there was no outward sign of their transformation (eg: works).
                                That seems to happen a lot when people sit back and expect God to do everything. ... but for all that they aren't visible as a bloc, they are still here, and there is (to the best of my knowledge) no denomination that they haven't managed to penetrate. (BTW - I'm in Adelaide.)
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X