kcnalp
Well-Known Member
They baptized in the Name of Jesus. They didn't disobey.See the thread about why the Apostles disobeyed the risen Christ.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They baptized in the Name of Jesus. They didn't disobey.See the thread about why the Apostles disobeyed the risen Christ.
Yeah, it says Jesus is God. lol
John 1 The Word was God!
They baptized in the Name of Jesus. They didn't disobey.
Well, you said it yourself, 'we're the sinners'. What's a sin, it's a transgression against God. So then, since God is the injured party, how can He resolve the offense, to Himself?
You trinitarians say the dumbest things.
I quoted Scripture. You don't have any.This has been thoroughly rebuked. A word is not a being.
No they didn't. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE!If the verse you cited is true, the repeatedly disobeyed.
I quoted Scripture. You don't have any.
No they didn't. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE!
So Who isn't God? Jesus? The Father? The Holy Spirit? You don't even know!Claiming so is irrelevant to the point.
No Scripture? Of course not!Wrong. Read elsewhere in this thread. It’s already been refuted. A lame and desperate reach using figurative speech.
...contradictions and utter demented nonsense.To embrace trinitarianism, you have to embrace all kinds of contradictions and accept all manner of redefinition of words. Son comes from the Father. There is no co-equal.
And the Bible says this over and over again.
1 Corinthians 11:3
The Voice
3 But it is important that you understand this about headship: the Anointed One is the head of every man, the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of the Anointed.
@BacklitThe fact of all this is that the nature and character of God remains largely a mystery. The fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that God is trinitarian in nature, but only implies it through comments that Jesus made about Himself, and John's introduction to his gospel.
yes, you quoted it (which is all that you are capable of), but @Wrangler exegeted it, ...competently.I quoted Scripture. You don't have any.
Yet with all that said we do need to know how to relate to the Son, have at least a fair understanding of who He claimed to be and why, as well as a respectful understanding of who the Spirit is. It whose Spirit He is. Or it is. Yep, there are many questions regarding the nature of the Godhead and how they relate ontologically to one another, but there ought to be no questions whatsoever in regards His character, and His relation to us. Some however question things that ought to be clear and obvious. One I personally dislike is that of strict trinitarianism is to be embraced, then a literal Farther Son relationship must be discarded for in Co equal co eternal paradigms that relationship becomes purely metaphorical. I am off that literal camp.@Backlit
That's true guys, that there's a great deal of audacity in being so assertive and dogmatic, about a doctrine that, just to begin, is devoid of a single definitional term in the entire Bible. Let alone, the utter and indisputable, confounding and implausible theology of the doctrine itself.
Thus, I would be so audacious to affirm that the doctrine is heretical. This much is within our jurisdiction and obligation to take a position on. We must denounce philosophies and principles that undermine God's glory, as in regard to His ontology, soteriology and biblical attestation. If, like you said, the doctrine is obscure, and only derived from implicit statements (eisegesis), when it is the most confusing and unfathomable tenet of them all (would require the most exposition), this becomes grounds to assertively discredit it. And then, coupled with all the previous accusations, we unequivocally denounce it, claiming it to be defamatory and heretical.
This, I think is reasonable, and justifiably within our saintly prerogative and authority.
Yes, I would agree, that definitively, we cannot ignore the implications of the emphatic and incessant appellations of Father and Son. Literal, of course. Meaningful and pragmatic, absolutely. Metaphorical, how so (rhetorical)?Yet with all that said we do need to know how to relate to the Son, have at least a fair understanding of who He claimed to be and why, as well as a respectful understanding of who the Spirit is. It whose Spirit He is. Or it is. Yep, there are many questions regarding the nature of the Godhead and how they relate ontologically to one another, but there ought to be no questions whatsoever in regards His character, and His relation to us. Some however question things that ought to be clear and obvious. One I personally dislike is that of strict trinitarianism is to be embraced, then a literal Farther Son relationship must be discarded for in Co equal co eternal paradigms that relationship becomes purely metaphorical. I am off that literal camp.
The truth is that we see through a glass darkly. We don't see the full picture. Believing or not in a trinity as describing the essential nature of God is not compulsory for getting saved and born again of the Holy Spirit.@Backlit
That's true guys, that there's a great deal of audacity in being so assertive and dogmatic, about a doctrine that, just to begin, is devoid of a single definitional term in the entire Bible. Let alone, the utter and indisputable, confounding and implausible theology of the doctrine itself.
Thus, I would be so audacious to affirm that the doctrine is heretical. This much is within our jurisdiction and obligation to take a position on. We must denounce philosophies and principles that undermine God's glory, as in regard to His ontology, soteriology and biblical attestation. If, like you said, the doctrine is obscure, and only derived from implicit statements (eisegesis), when it is the most confusing and unfathomable tenet of them all (would require the most exposition), this becomes grounds to assertively discredit it. And then, coupled with all the previous accusations, we unequivocally denounce it, claiming it to be defamatory and heretical.
This, I think is reasonable, and justifiably within our saintly prerogative and authority.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1). Who is the Word [God] made flesh? Jesus (Jn. 1:14). Where in Jn. 1:1 is it implied the Word was God?
Yes, there is an element of that, self-righteousness and being blessed above others, that is revealed when one claims to assert the very definition of Salvation. As I said to Backlit, I believe that there are some doctrines or tenets of the faith that are easily discerned as heretical, for the reasons that I gave, and it is incumbent to denounce them accordingly.The truth is that we see through a glass darkly. We don't see the full picture. Believing or not in a trinity as describing the essential nature of God is not compulsory for getting saved and born again of the Holy Spirit.
The trouble is that some think they see the full picture as if God respects them above the common herd and gives them a special revelation about Himself that ordinary believers cannot gain from their reading of the Bible.