Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

We're excluding you from those forums because your beliefs are not orthodox, not because we don't think you're a Christian in any sense.

Ah, being exclued from "Christian only" forum, is not in any sense?

Your martyr complex is duly noted.

If it is not a matter of salvation, then it is a secondary issue. What specific truth am I denying? [for clarity.] And then why is it essential to orthodoxy? This is important is it not?

[One Bad Pig]

I'm the one here being exclude as if not Christian from the "Christian only" forums. What essential of the Christian faith do I deny?

We're excluding you from those forums because your beliefs are not orthodox, not because we don't think you're a Christian in any sense.

What comes to mind, David when Saul sought to kill him wrote, "no man cared for my soul." While it is not the same, it came to mind.

Your martyr complex is duly noted.

[37818]

Amen... did you have a point with it though?

I'm the one here being exclude as if not Christian from the "Christian only" forums. What essential of the Christian faith do I deny?

What comes to mind, David when Saul sought to kill him wrote, "no man cared for my soul." While it is not the same, it came to mind.

[Leonhard]

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.

Amen... did you have a point with it though?

[One Bad Pig]

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.

What is this, a random bible verse? Or are you trying to imply that we're lost?

[37818]

Respectfully, you are not the arbiter of what words mean, here or anywhere.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.

[One Bad Pig]

Christianity 201

Laying on of hands isn't always a good thing. General topics within historic Christianity. Christian Only.

Respectfully, mossrose, your statement is false. Unorthodox is not to be a Christian. Non-christians, whether they use the label Christian or not, are lost, in need of salvation.

" . . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

Respectfully, you are not the arbiter of what words mean, here or anywhere.

[37818]

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.

Christianity 201

Laying on of hands isn't always a good thing. General topics within historic Christianity. Christian Only.

Respectfully, mossrose, your statement is false. Unorthodox is not to be a Christian. Non-christians, whether they use the label Christian or not, are lost, in need of salvation.

" . . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

[mossrose]

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.

[Pentecost]

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.

[DesertBerean]

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.

[Adrift]

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?"

[37818]

Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.

[Adrift]

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

[37818]

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?