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

Pentecost: The Parakletos

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

  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    You mean to say that James taught a more traditionally Jewish understanding of the Gospel, and so if Paul wanted support from the church in Rome then he'd need to address the concerns they'd have with him before getting to go to Spain? That is an insight I had not considered. If this summation of what you said is correct, I will be interested to check if the Scriptures have supporting evidence for this, and if so, it will be interesting to read Romans in that light. I can see the pastoral touch in many epistles well enough, but Romans almost reads like a work of theology for theologies sake.
    Have a read of Galatians 2 and A.Paul's confrontation with A.Peter. As I recall, the Jamesians were at Antioch and A.Peter was playing the Jew to please them. By A.Paul's account, A.Paul really got stuck into A.Peter.

    As you probably know, A.Peter is accredited to have administered the Church in Rome, but according to tradition others had gone before him - presumably sent by the Jamesian Church in Jerusalem.

    If you decide to investigate some really fascinating secular history: the early Christians were considered by the Romans to be just another Jewish sect and the Jews were from time to time persecuted in Rome and its environs. The Christians just got caught up in this anti-semiticism. Also, at one stage amonst the elite, it was the in-thing to "play" Jew...

    ps: almost forgot. Read up on the First Council in Jerusalem where the Church became open to the Gentiles. See Acts...
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-08-2015, 03:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    Originally posted by apostoli View Post
    It is rare I encounter someone at Theologyweb being online at the same time as me. It is 16:21 here in Sydney, so I'm guessing it is about midnight in your neck of the woods (?)
    As I write it is 23:35, but I am still very young, and it is not an unusual time for me to be awake.

    I was just having a quick think on your post #12. As I said (#13) "We fall into agreement from vs16 = The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit." Something else occured to me: Imu, tradition has it that A.Paul wanted to extend his activities to Spain, and in that endevour he was hoping to get financial support from the Roman church. The Holy Spirit would have prevented him from staying in Rome (cp. Acts 16:6). So apart from a stay over in Rome he'd be on his way. Imu, the Roman church at the time was a Jamesian church, so A.Paul might have expected less than a warm welcome given his attitude to the Law, so he had to explain himself...
    You mean to say that James taught a more traditionally Jewish understanding of the Gospel, and so if Paul wanted support from the church in Rome then he'd need to address the concerns they'd have with him before getting to go to Spain? That is an insight I had not considered. If this summation of what you said is correct, I will be interested to check if the Scriptures have supporting evidence for this, and if so, it will be interesting to read Romans in that light. I can see the pastoral touch in many epistles well enough, but Romans almost reads like a work of theology for theologies sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I had only just noticed the other thread, and am perusing it currently. :)
    It is rare I encounter someone at Theologyweb being online at the same time as me. It is 16:21 here in Sydney, so I'm guessing it is about midnight in your neck of the woods (?)

    I was just having a quick think on your post #12. As I said (#13) "We fall into agreement from vs16 = The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit." Something else occured to me: Imu, tradition has it that A.Paul wanted to extend his activities to Spain, and in that endevour he was hoping to get financial support from the Roman church. The Holy Spirit would have prevented him from staying in Rome (cp. Acts 16:6). So apart from a stay over in Rome he'd be on his way. Imu, the Roman church at the time was a Jamesian church, so A.Paul might have expected less than a warm welcome given his attitude to the Law, so he had to explain himself...

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    I had only just noticed the other thread, and am perusing it currently. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost
    I now understand your position, when I didn't before. In an eschatological sense I consider the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be the fulfillment of God's promise to replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, and give us a new spirit, and it is part of the process of redeeming our humanity, so that Christians no longer have their old spirit, but instead have the Holy Spirit, that dwells inside us. So in that sense, your position and mine may coexist peacefully, but I do think that Paul is a clever enough author, that both the layer you perceived, and that I perceived may have been intended. He was skillful with rhetoric as seen elsewhere in Romans.
    True. I've held my position for a lot of years regarding Romans 8:1-15. We fall into agreement from vs16 = The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit.

    I've spent the afternoon collating and editing my notes on Rom 8:1-16. I've posted the result here. It'll probably need revision, right now my intention is to wait for people to rip my study apart before I invest anymore time on it.
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-08-2015, 02:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    I now understand your position, when I didn't before. In an eschatological sense I consider the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be the fulfillment of God's promise to replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, and give us a new spirit, and it is part of the process of redeeming our humanity, so that Christians no longer have their old spirit, but instead have the Holy Spirit, that dwells inside us. So in that sense, your position and mine may coexist peacefully, but I do think that Paul is a clever enough author, that both the layer you perceived, and that I perceived may have been intended. He was skillful with rhetoric as seen elsewhere in Romans.

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Romans 8:10

    "And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

    Originally posted by Pentecost
    I can see an argument that the Spirit of Christ is not the Spirit of God because verse 10 speaks of Christ being in you, and we both agree Christ is not the Spirit, nor is the Spirit Christ.

    However, chapter 8 is contrasting flesh and death, with Spirit and life see verses 5,6 in verse 9 it is explained that the Spirit is in fact the Spirit of God the dwells in believers, the second half of verse 9 and verse 10 seem to teach that the Spirit of Christ is in those who have life. So the Spirit of life is the Spirit of God, and "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

    Meaning the Spirit of Christ when it is in the believer, is the Spirit of life. If there is only one Spirit of life, and the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God are both it, then the Spirit of Christ IS the Spirit of God.

    The only negation of this conclusion I can see is if there is more than one spirit of life, which I don't see claimed within the text.
    Pentecost, I think you are over thinking what A.Paul is saying (or maybe I am).

    the Spirit is life because of righteousness In my opinion vs10 just reiterates vs1. The Spirit in this verse I take to mean our mentality, or more particularly our heart (cp. vs27 "He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is"). I take the "righteousness" is our righteousness in Christ.

    Consider us having the Spirit of God in the light of 1 John 4:8-11 "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another".

    Notice what A.Paul teaches concerning love and the Spirit at Romans 8:27-39. Especially notice vs27 & 28.
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-07-2015, 11:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    Well*
    I've been procrastinating...

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    Well*

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    That was a fascinating link, and I thank you for sharing it. I pray for your health, and look forward to a more in depth response once you are ill, but certainly take no pains for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I do not come from a tradition of reciting the Creeds, but I have tested my orthodoxy against them, and found that I could not say honestly that the Spirit proceded from the Father and Son, but rather proceded from the Father, and was sent by the Son; which seems to be what was taught by Ratzinger, which I find interesting.
    I came across an Orthodox review of the talks on the filioque. The discussion is more complicated than I had thought, Augustine seems to present a road block...Have a read if you are curious...
    http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute...gle_source.htm

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I can see an argument that the Spirit of Christ is not the Spirit of God because verse 10 speaks of Christ being in you, and we both agree Christ is not the Spirit, nor is the Spirit Christ.

    However, chapter 8 is contrasting flesh and death, with Spirit and life see verses 5,6 in verse 9 it is explained that the Spirit is in fact the Spirit of God the dwells in believers, the second half of verse 9 and verse 10 seem to teach that the Spirit of Christ is in those who have life. So the Spirit of life is the Spirit of God, and "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

    Meaning the Spirit of Christ when it is in the believer, is the Spirit of life. If there is only one Spirit of life, and the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God are both it, then the Spirit of Christ IS the Spirit of God.

    The only negation of this conclusion I can see is if there is more than one spirit of life, which I don't see claimed within the text.
    I've been unwell this week and spent most of the time asleep, wrapped in a thick blanket. I'm on autopilot at the moment, and have limited myself to activities that require no in depth thought, consequently I have deferred my study of Roman 8:1-16 until I'm up to wading through commentaries, determining A.Paul's usage of "spirit/spirit" in scripture and can think coherently etc etc

    I've taken on board your previous comments and will think on your latest contribution. Be patient I'll respond intelligently soon - GW.

    At the moment I'm just running things through my head. For instance: I asked myself why A.Paul refers specifically to "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ" in Rom 8:9 but then uses an ambiguous phrase"the Spirit of Him" in vs11. Of course as we read on it is obvious that A.Paul is referring to God the Father for we read "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you".

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    Originally posted by apostoli View Post
    No worries these things happen, even to me

    I only highlighted your use of John 20:21 because I have encountered people who claim a Trinitarian belief but explain the Paraclete as being the Church itself, albeit endowed with the Holy Spirit just as Jesus had been endowed with the Holy Spirit (cp. John 3:34). A view I can accept if I ignore Trinitarian teaching on the treis hypostases (three persons) and the homoosiios (consubstantiality). To my mind, these guys , whether they intend to or not, reduce the Paraclete to an impersonal "active force" of God, an emanation of God.

    JWs at least openly admit such, no pretense about their teaching. To the JWs the Holy Spirit is simply the impersonal "active force of God" full stop. My ex-wife was a JW for about 16 or so years, so in that period I became well versed in JW thought. While Linda played the "suffering servant" and made it her business to persecute me mercilessly (convert my thinking) for that entire period, I made friends with various elders and overseers (though we did prosecute each others cases we agreed to disagree on doctrinal things, and ended up as friends enjoying discussion of the rest of scripture = stuff we agreed on). .One of hLinda's elders who became a very good friend of mine felt great sympathy for me, even saying to me (paraphrased) "It is people like Linda that give JWs a bad reputation. They should be locked up!" At the time I thought that could a solution, but who would take care of the kids ;-{

    That aside: if you present John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15 or 1 John 2:1 to a JW or the like, they usually change the subject. Some more informed JWs will acknowledge the hypostasis of the Spirit (1 John 2:1 more or less makes them), but will claim he was a creation of the Son.
    Before this conversation I wasn't aware of the first position, but since then, having done a little research it seems to line up with what was taught by the late Herbert W. Armstrong. JWs on the other hand, I am familiar with.

    Years ago I came across a paper by Ratzinger (emeritus Pope Benedict) from when he was prrefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The paper explained the RCC view of the Filioque and was presented at reconciliation talks between the RCC & the EOC/ROC. In it he explained that the RCC has always taught that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Son and the Spirit (the EOC/ROC position) but the Latin expression "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" has been misunderstood by the eastern churches to mean the Spirit has origins with both the Father and the Son. As I remember the paper (these days I haven't been able to locate it online), Ratzinger argued that John 15:16 makes it obvious that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. However, John 15:26 also tells us that the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, this is what the Filoque is meant to express - dual procession, not origin.
    I do not come from a tradition of reciting the Creeds, but I have tested my orthodoxy against them, and found that I could not say honestly that the Spirit proceded from the Father and Son, but rather proceded from the Father, and was sent by the Son; which seems to be what was taught by Ratzinger, which I find interesting.

    I did!

    I must admit I didn't look up John 20:21 before I replied to your post, I just accepted what you said (Heh! I haven't memorised all of scripture. Most of the time I just remember enough fragments to find a verse).

    I meant whatever it was I had said to 37818, not Romans 9. As I said "as a remedial exercise I've embarked on a study of Romans 8 and its use of the word "πνεῦμα" (spirit), the beginnings of which I've posted on a new thread called "37818: Romans 8:1-16".

    I've discovered the study of Romans 8 is a very time expensive exercise, after several full days of dedicated study I've only just gotten to Romans 9....be patient, I hope to complete my study during the week (well verses 1-16 anyway). I would really appreciate discussing what I've posted so far.

    Yes and no. It is my impression that the word "spirit" is used many ways in the NT and even more so in the OT. Us moderns have a habit of reading things into scripture, giving interpretation to an underlying principle. So I can agree as a retrospect that in Romans 8 the thought "unity of the Holy Spirit" could be implied . However, in A.Paul's vernacular I don't think that is what he is talking about. For instance:: Why does A.Paul use distinguishing terms such as "Spirit of God", "Spirit of Christ" etc if he means the indwelling of the physis (nature) of the "Holy Spirit"?
    I can see an argument that the Spirit of Christ is not the Spirit of God because verse 10 speaks of Christ being in you, and we both agree Christ is not the Spirit, nor is the Spirit Christ.

    However, chapter 8 is contrasting flesh and death, with Spirit and life see verses 5,6 in verse 9 it is explained that the Spirit is in fact the Spirit of God the dwells in believers, the second half of verse 9 and verse 10 seem to teach that the Spirit of Christ is in those who have life. So the Spirit of life is the Spirit of God, and "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

    Meaning the Spirit of Christ when it is in the believer, is the Spirit of life. If there is only one Spirit of life, and the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God are both it, then the Spirit of Christ IS the Spirit of God.

    The only negation of this conclusion I can see is if there is more than one spirit of life, which I don't see claimed within the text.

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I will get to the rest of my reply soon, I only want to mention I made a typo when I said Romans 9, I meant 8.
    I did something similar in my response. You wrote Romans 9, I read Romans 8:9. Then with that stuck in my head I wrote Romans 9 when I meant 8:9. So where ever I wrote Romans 9, read Romans 8:9....

    ps:

    My rambling about Ratzinger and the Filioque, were just that, ramblings. I had in the back of my mind how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise, because of a lack of clear communication. Something I often think about - which is probably why in my dotage I'm becoming so pedantic...
    Last edited by apostoli; 07-26-2015, 03:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentecost
    replied
    I will get to the rest of my reply soon, I only want to mention I made a typo when I said Romans 9, I meant 8.

    To be continued soon apostoli!

    Leave a comment:


  • apostoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    Oh Brother! I think perhaps there was a misunderstanding here that was my fault! I was searching for just the sort of texts you mentioned from chapters 14-16 and falsely remembered one of them to be in chapter 20, and in haste I used it without having double checked its contents. I am laughing at my foolishness, I see from your response that my mistake at least had plausibility.
    No worries these things happen, even to me

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    But to be clear, I did not mean that the apostles nor their successors are/were the Paraclete. I was hasty and unthoughtful as I snatched for a proof text to demonstrate my orthodoxy (which if I meant what I said, would have only proven my heterodoxy!)
    I only highlighted your use of John 20:21 because I have encountered people who claim a Trinitarian belief but explain the Paraclete as being the Church itself, albeit endowed with the Holy Spirit just as Jesus had been endowed with the Holy Spirit (cp. John 3:34). A view I can accept if I ignore Trinitarian teaching on the treis hypostases (three persons) and the homoosiios (consubstantiality). To my mind, these guys , whether they intend to or not, reduce the Paraclete to an impersonal "active force" of God, an emanation of God.

    JWs at least openly admit such, no pretense about their teaching. To the JWs the Holy Spirit is simply the impersonal "active force of God" full stop. My ex-wife was a JW for about 16 or so years, so in that period I became well versed in JW thought. While Linda played the "suffering servant" and made it her business to persecute me mercilessly (convert my thinking) for that entire period, I made friends with various elders and overseers (though we did prosecute each others cases we agreed to disagree on doctrinal things, and ended up as friends enjoying discussion of the rest of scripture = stuff we agreed on). .One of hLinda's elders who became a very good friend of mine felt great sympathy for me, even saying to me (paraphrased) "It is people like Linda that give JWs a bad reputation. They should be locked up!" At the time I thought that could a solution, but who would take care of the kids ;-{

    That aside: if you present John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15 or 1 John 2:1 to a JW or the like, they usually change the subject. Some more informed JWs will acknowledge the hypostasis of the Spirit (1 John 2:1 more or less makes them), but will claim he was a creation of the Son.

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father, and was sent by the Son. He is coequal, and coeternal with the Father and Son. There is one God, and three Persons.
    Years ago I came across a paper by Ratzinger (emeritus Pope Benedict) from when he was prrefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The paper explained the RCC view of the Filioque and was presented at reconciliation talks between the RCC & the EOC/ROC. In it he explained that the RCC has always taught that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Son and the Spirit (the EOC/ROC position) but the Latin expression "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" has been misunderstood by the eastern churches to mean the Spirit has origins with both the Father and the Son. As I remember the paper (these days I haven't been able to locate it online), Ratzinger argued that John 15:16 makes it obvious that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. However, John 15:26 also tells us that the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, this is what the Filoque is meant to express - dual procession, not origin.

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    It is good that you pushed on me here, because I said an untruth, but I made much work for you unintentionally. I hope you gained pleasure from the thought exercise.
    I did!

    I must admit I didn't look up John 20:21 before I replied to your post, I just accepted what you said (Heh! I haven't memorised all of scripture. Most of the time I just remember enough fragments to find a verse).

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    You said the matter of Romans 9 was under the bridge, I am still willing to discuss that if you are...
    I meant whatever it was I had said to 37818, not Romans 9. As I said "as a remedial exercise I've embarked on a study of Romans 8 and its use of the word "πνεῦμα" (spirit), the beginnings of which I've posted on a new thread called "37818: Romans 8:1-16".

    I've discovered the study of Romans 8 is a very time expensive exercise, after several full days of dedicated study I've only just gotten to Romans 9....be patient, I hope to complete my study during the week (well verses 1-16 anyway). I would really appreciate discussing what I've posted so far.

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I was under the impression that the spirits mentioned were all the same Spirit, and you seemed to disagree.
    Yes and no. It is my impression that the word "spirit" is used many ways in the NT and even more so in the OT. Us moderns have a habit of reading things into scripture, giving interpretation to an underlying principle. So I can agree as a retrospect that in Romans 8 the thought "unity of the Holy Spirit" could be implied . However, in A.Paul's vernacular I don't think that is what he is talking about. For instance:: Why does A.Paul use distinguishing terms such as "Spirit of God", "Spirit of Christ" etc if he means the indwelling of the physis (nature) of the "Holy Spirit"?
    Last edited by apostoli; 07-26-2015, 08:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:

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