Calvinism

[reformed1689]

That was all I was asked....and 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

No it wasn't. You have to establish that there IS a Trinity. All you did was establish a biunity.

 

[Mjh29]

If that is what you believe it means that is fine. I question your hermeneutics (that would be "I am the Father").

No, that's not what I believe at all. I'm just adhering to the same logic you were using!

This says that the father and I are one. That doesn't prove Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity... it proves Jesus is the Father!*

*According to your logic. I do not and will never hold to this abominable heresy. This was merely satirically used to show the error of your logic.

 

[John Caldwell]

Wages of sin is death. The punishment for sin is death. Why do I think this is what it means? Because of the rest of the verse. In other words, CONTEXT. But the gift of God is eternal life. In other words, because Jesus took the payment/punishment/consequence/wage for sin. We get to have eternal life. We no longer have to be punished by death, it is a corporal punishment, because Christ did it in our place. The debt was satisfied.

I understabd tge wages of sin are death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

I was asking you to back up the rest (what is not in Scripture) by Scripture. But you already told us it is not there. You cannot see your theology in the text of Scripture because it is not there. You believe that is what the text is talking about or referencing.

I think a more literal approach is necessary, one closer to the text of Scripture.

We disagred on method so we will never agree on the results.

 

[Mjh29]

I was asking you to back up the rest (what is not in Scripture) by Scripture.

Explain what the "rest" is please.

 

[reformed1689]

I understabd tge wages of sin are death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

I was asking you to back up the rest (what is not in Scripture) by Scripture. But you already told us it is not there. You cannot see your theology in the text of Scripture because it is not there. You believe that is what the text is talking about or referencing.

I think a more literal approach is necessary, one closer to the text of Scripture.

We disagred on method so we will never agree on the results.

I'll stick to the Biblical method. You stick to whatever nonsense you put forth. But by your standard you must denounce the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Why do you believe that Jesus Christ mean the Second Person of the Trinity? Or in the Trinity at all?



Simple: He doesn't. What he is saying is that the distinction you are trying to make is petty at best, and has absolutely 0 grounds.

The wages of sin is death. What you earn from sin is death. Christ then had to beat this debt on the Cross, because His blood is the only payment that would suffice.

So call it what you will; it means the same thing, even if you don't believe it does.
Christ had to bear the debt/punishment for sin on the cross.

Any person denying PSA is preaching a false gospel. They generally need to use lots of nonsensical and antibiblical jargon to try and pull off their errors. Romans 16:18 comes to mind.

Here is an observable fact, those who deny these truths have a plethora of inconsistent false teachings in their camp. They like, endorse, applaud even those who preach a false gospel and false Christ. There is a deep antipathy of truth witnessed in said behavior.

As for the Reformed, since the teachings are truthful and biblically accurate there is both a consistency and deep affection for truth. Paul's example in 2 Corinthians 2 and 4 show the example we follow of not peddling the word, not preaching ourselves, handling the word right, a complete antithesis to the other camps errant methodologies.

 

[Mjh29]

Any person denying PSA is preaching a false gospel. They generally need to use lots of nonsensical and antibiblical jargon to try and pull off their errors. Romans 16:18 comes to mind.

Here is an observable fact, those who deny these truths have a plethora of inconsistent false teachings in their camp. They like, endorse, applaud even those who preach a false gospel and false Christ. There is a deep antipathy of truth witnessed in said behavior.

As for the Reformed, since the teachings are truthful and biblically accurate there is both a consistency and deep affection for truth. Paul's example in 2 Corinthians 2 and 4 show the example we follow of not peddling the word, not preaching ourselves, handling the word right, a complete antithesis to the other camps errant methodologies.

Good to hear from you again, brother!

 

[John Caldwell]

No, that's not what I believe at all. I'm just adhering to the same logic you were using!

This says that the father and I are one. That doesn't prove Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity... it proves Jesus is the Father!*

*According to your logic. I do not and will never hold to this abominable heresy. This was merely satirically used to show the error of your logic.

I do not believe Him the 2nd person of the Trinity. A lot of trinitarian doctrines are philosophical (and open to discussion).

I think you are missing the point. Our understandings are always additions to Scripture. I believe many things that are products of systematic theology. And I would be wrong to insist they are Scripture ot that Scripture states thise things. I can discuss them.

But I should never insist my view trumps what God actually wrote.

 

[Waiting on him]

Lol, a man once told me that Noah ties his ass to a tree of golfer wood and walked forty mile, I had to deduce that skin is the most elastic substance on earth.

 

[reformed1689]

I do not believe Him the 2nd person of the Trinity. A lot of trinitarian doctrines are philosophical (and open to discussion).

Huh? I'm sorry, did you just deny the Trinity?

 

[Mjh29]

I do not believe Him the 2nd person of the Trinity. A lot of trinitarian doctrines are philosophical (and open to discussion).

 

[John Caldwell]

Huh? I'm sorry, did you just deny the Trinity?

Try out your reading comprehension skills. Did I?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Good to hear from you again, brother!

Thanks, you as well! I had to take a break for a little while.

 

[Mjh29]

I do not believe Him the 2nd person of the Trinity. A lot of trinitarian doctrines are philosophical (and open to discussion).

Thanks, you as well! I had to take a break for a little while.

I can understand why

 

[reformed1689]

Try out your reading comprehension skills. Did I?

That's why I'm asking for clarification on what in the world you are saying.

 

[reformed1689]

Lol....

David's comment should serve as an illustration of the error of infering what was neither implied nor stated. I suspect this is part of the reason he interchanges words from his theology with words from Scripture.

We have to be objective with Scripture especially when discussing things with people who do not hold our presuppositions.

You may read "three wise men" but a careful look should demonstrate the statement absent from the actual text. The principle applies here.

John I'm done playing games. Answer the following questions yes or no.

1. Is there a Trinity?
2. If so, is the Trinity three distinct persons yet one God?
3. If so, is it God the Father, the first person, God the Son, the second person, and God the Spirit, the third person?

Yes or no. No spin. No twists, just yes or no.

 

[Mjh29]

John I'm done playing games. Answer the following questions yes or no.

1. Is there a Trinity?
2. If so, is the Trinity three distinct persons yet one God?
3. If so, is it God the Father, the first person, God the Son, the second person, and God the Spirit, the third person?

Yes or no. No spin. No twists, just yes or no.

Clarification?

Sorry.... fresh out!!!

 

[John Caldwell]

That's why I'm asking for clarification on what in the world you are saying.

I meant exactly what I said - no more and no less.

I made a very simple statement and wanted to see if who would make assumptions. The reason is that if one makes assumptions on my simple comment then how on earth can they be trusted not to make assumptions with God's Word?

 

[Willie T]

John I'm done playing games. Answer the following questions yes or no.

1. Is there a Trinity?
2. If so, is the Trinity three distinct persons yet one God?
3. If so, is it God the Father, the first person, God the Son, the second person, and God the Spirit, the third person?

Yes or no. No spin. No twists, just yes or no.

Actually, Biblically, we don't truly know the answers to any of those questions.

 

[John Caldwell]

Clarification?

Sorry.... fresh out!!!

Monk!