Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

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

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?
    Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?


    I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away.
    Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.


    You're playing games again.
    You are not making any sense.
    The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.
    Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"


    [quote]
    John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.[quote]Yes.






    More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.
    The text does not say "Father" but "with God."


    Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.
    His human nature became His second nature.


    If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.
    Yes, I have said this.


    Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.
    Well maybe at this point what is being called orthodox is not orthodox.





    Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.
    Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indecationg He was also someone other than God.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?
      Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?


      I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away.
      Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.


      You're playing games again.
      You are not making any sense.
      The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.
      Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"


      John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.
      Yes.






      More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.
      The text does not say "Father" but "with God."


      Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.
      His human nature became His second nature.


      If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.
      Yes, I have said this.


      Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.
      What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.





      Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.
      Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.
      Last edited by 37818; 03-12-2015, 10:37 PM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        No. I'm not digging the hole. But I am being pushed in to one that was already dug, not by me.

        There is a saying:

        "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity." -- Rupertus Meldenius

        Now I see this disagreement on the preexistent nature of Christ before His incarnation to be a secondary issue. Not a matter, necessarily regarding salvation. Now if this disagreement leads to denial of some essentials of the faith, then in that case it is a problem.

        The church teachers were teaching the Son of God being the only-begotten was do to some kind of being begotten of the Father before all ages. Which the person known as Arius is attributed to have written or said, "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

        My view is the only-begotten is of the Father before all ages, not begotten, not made. That the Nicene Creed intention is to quell the false view of Arius, saying "begotten, not made."

        It is my understanding that the Biblical use of the term "begotten" regards to the Son of God is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). Signifying that Christ is the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

        If this "hole" is do to my asking for the Biblical basis for "begotten of the Father before all ages." I have no disagreement with the intent. Just that it is unique as as fare as I can discern not Biblical. And as an interpretation not a matter against salvation to those who accept that in that creed. That "hole" has been here a lot longer, before I asked (4th century). Arius' error is based of this unbiblical notion of being "begotten of the Father" before creation.
        Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature.

        Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

        There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
          There are two things I feel I must note here, first, the reason 37818 that you have proposed for coming up with this second nature pre-incarnation is that you seem to think that if a being only has one nature, then an inherent quality of that nature must be that it is the only nature, which is false. Adding a human nature would not change the God nature unless that was a quality held by the God nature, which is not the usual understanding at all. An imperfect example is that if I am standing alone at a bus stop I have the quality of being alone, but it is not part of my nature to be alone, and so if someone joins me in waiting, I am no longer alone, but I retain my nature. Therefore, the idea that I needed an unmentioned essentially meaningless second person waiting with me before the person mentioned in my narrative arrived so as to make sure I never lost the quality of being alone, is pointless. And further, if we are adding arbitrary qualities to the nature of God, then one might say that the divine nature of the Son changed because the union changed from being between divine and temporal to divine and human, which is just as much a change as the one you are seeking to avoid. The orthodox understanding is the only one that may be logically held here.

          My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it? Is it mentioned in Scripture other than your proof text of John 1:1-2? Which is properly understood imo, in the idea that Jesus was both God and with another who was God, aka the Father, or the Spirit. Which removes the perogative to imagine how Jesus could have been both God and with Himself without a second nature, because this text is not referring to his nature, it is referring to his essance of oneness within the Trinity, but distinctness from the Father, and Spirit.
          Immutability is the characteristic of truth. What is immutable is static. God's omniscience is static. Truth is immutability. The relationship of God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit allows change/mutability. That is on the account of the temporal relationship of God to the Son of God.

          "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -- Mark 1:11.
          " And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." -- Mark 9:7.
          "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:7.
          "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why?
            I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.

            If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?
            That's not really relevant to our discussion.

            Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.
            I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.

            Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God.
            You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.

            Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"
            The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures.

            The text does not say "Father" but "with God."
            So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father? Another compromise?

            His human nature became His second nature.
            Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature.

            What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.
            That's what every unorthodox person claims.

            Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.
            Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature.

              Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

              There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.
              Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

              Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
              Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
              Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
              Leaving everything else believed intact.
              Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
              Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
              Can you do that in your mind?

              Now with only those changes - how does that negate salvation?
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

                Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
                Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
                Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
                Leaving everything else believed intact.
                Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
                Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
                Can you do that in your mind?
                I have absolutely no problem understanding that you are making an issue out of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed that no one else here has an issue with, and I have no problem imagining that Jesus had an in-time second nature before his incarnation, which turned into a human nature at the incarnation (even though that isn't the case). I've repeated your argument back to you a number of times throughout this thread, so its strange that you repeat it again and again as though I didn't know it. And I never said your view negates salvation (though, I suppose it could).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.
                  I know I am now saved (Ephesians 2:8-9) That I now know I have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 9-13).


                  That's not really relevant to our discussion.
                  Oh, but it is: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ." -- 2 John 9 (Also John 8:24)


                  I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.
                  So are you saying orthodox does not need to be according to God's word?


                  You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.
                  You are not understanding. Jesus was fully a human. Which is not to be God (Numbers 23:19). Yet He was also fully God (John 5:18). If He was not God, He would be a sinner being a man (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15).


                  The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures.
                  No I am not confusing Persons with Natures. Where John 1:1 says "was God" refers to natures. Where John 1:1, 2 says "with God" refers to Persons. One who is "with God" is not the Person God.


                  So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father?
                  Of course is refers to the Son with the Father. The Son "of God." The Father is God. The Son is "of God." But the text says "with God" it is not saying it in the form "with the Father." Indicating being someone else than God. They are both the same God. Two Persons. The Son is not God apart from God.


                  Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature.
                  It is His second nature now and forever (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 13:8).


                  That's what every unorthodox person claims.
                  For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                  So your admit being unorthodox?

                  Seriously, do you think I set out to believe what I should know is not true? I believe the word of God. Show me from the Bible. I have tried to convey what I believe is Biblical. And that what is truly Biblical is truly orthodox. If it be contrary to the Bible it is then not orthodox.


                  Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.
                  I understand the Son and Father is in mind. But text does not use "with the Father" rather "with God" making it explicit twice (v.1 and v.2) emphasizing that the Word was someone else beside God. And also was God too (v.1 and v.3). That is what it says.
                  Last edited by 37818; 03-12-2015, 11:58 PM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    I have absolutely no problem understanding that you are making an issue out of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed that no one else here has an issue with, and I have no problem imagining that Jesus had an in-time second nature before his incarnation, which turned into a human nature at the incarnation (even though that isn't the case). I've repeated your argument back to you a number of times throughout this thread, so its strange that you repeat it again and again as though I didn't know it. And I never said your view negates salvation (though, I suppose it could).
                    Supposing something does not make it true, just because you choose not to believe what you disagree with.

                    Can you show my view is not according to the word of God?

                    Then why did you say or suggest I should not call myself Christian?
                    Last edited by 37818; 03-12-2015, 11:55 PM.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      I know I am now saved (Ephesians 2:8-9) That I now know I have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 9-13).


                      Oh, but it is: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ." -- 2 John 9 (Also John 8:24)


                      So are you saying orthodox does not need to be according to God's word?


                      You are not understanding. Jesus was fully a human. Which is not to be God (Numbers 23:19). Yet He was also fully God (John 5:18). If He was not God, He would be a sinner being a man (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15).


                      No I am not confusing Persons with Natures. Where John 1:1 says "was God" refers to natures. Where John 1:1, 2 says "with God" refers to Persons. One who is "with God" is not the Person God.


                      Of course is refers to the Son with the Father. The Son "of God." The Father is God. The Son is "of God." But the text says "with God" it is not saying it in the form "with the Father." Indicating being someone else than God. They are both the same God. Two Persons. The Son is not God apart from God.


                      It is His second nature now and forever (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 13:8).


                      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                      So your admit being unorthodox?

                      Seriously, do you think I set out to believe what I should know is not true? I believe the word of God. Show me from the Bible. I have tried to convey what I believe is Biblical. And that what is truly Biblical is truly orthodox. If it be contrary to the Bible it is then not orthodox.


                      I understand the Son and Father is in mind. But text does not use "with the Father" rather "with God" making it explicit twice (v.1 and v.2) emphasizing that the Word was someone else beside God. And also was God too (v.1 and v.3). That is what it says.
                      This is getting boring. Here's a commentary on the passage by D.A. Carson. Hopefully it'll pinpoint for you where you're off in your understanding.

                      Source: The Gospel According to John by D.A. Carson

                      Because this Word, this divine self-expression, existed in the beginning, one might suppose that it was either with God, or nothing less than God himself. John insists the Word was both. The Word, he says, was with God. The preposition translated ‘with’ is pros, which commonly means ‘to’ or ‘toward’. On that basis, many writers say John is trying to express a peculiar intimacy between the Word and God: the Word is oriented toward God, like lovers perpetually running toward each other in a beach scene from a sentimental film. That surely claims too much. In first–century Greek pros was encroaching on the territory normally occupied by other words for ‘with’. In the NIV, the following instances of ‘with’ all have pros behind them: ‘Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ (Mk. 6:3); ‘Every day I was with you’ (Mk. 14:49); ‘at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8); ‘I would have liked to keep him with me’ (Phm. 13); ‘the eternal life, which was with the Father’ (1 Jn. 1:2). What we notice about all these examples, however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:15), pros may mean ‘with’ only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the ‘Word’ he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him.

                      More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Comment


                      • Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Then why did you say or suggest I should not call myself Christian?
                          I didn't. What I asked was, "shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view?"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.
                            Not sure who told you that...but if it was from us staff, it would have been rather a request to designate yourself Unorthodox.
                            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Immutability is the characteristic of truth. What is immutable is static. God's omniscience is static. Truth is immutability. The relationship of God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit allows change/mutability. That is on the account of the temporal relationship of God to the Son of God.
                              I no longer understand you. Can you please clarify? Until I understand you I cannot morally choose to divide from you. In fact, having progressed to where we are in the conversation, I am doubtful this is even a conversation of orthodoxy, but because we are touching on the the basics of Christian theology. Your denial of the Nicene Creed, either Western or Eastern seems odd because you seem to deny it based on a false understanding of it. I agree with you that the creeds are not in any way equivalent to Scripture, but the Nicene Creed is a summary of Biblical faith when understood the way it was intended.

                              "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -- Mark 1:11.
                              " And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." -- Mark 9:7.
                              "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:7.
                              "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32.
                              I assume this was in response to my asking for texts that support your view? If so thank you. Unfortunately, I do not know how you would argue they support your unique position.

                              Edit: I found your post in unorthodox theology, if you are no longer allowed to post in this section I would love to continue speaking to you there.
                              Last edited by Pentecost; 03-13-2015, 09:51 PM.
                              Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.
                                No, you were asked to change to "unorthodox". There is a setting for Christian (unothodox), that would have been fine, but you apparently didn't understand what I told you to do. I will take the blame for that since I apparently didn't know you wouldn't understand me.


                                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Dave L, 01-08-2022, 01:43 PM
                                18 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Dave L, 01-07-2022, 09:03 AM
                                114 responses
                                596 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Dave L, 01-07-2022, 06:13 AM
                                31 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Dave L, 01-04-2022, 09:35 AM
                                80 responses
                                271 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X