Yes, but once revelation concerning it can be seen from God's holy word, one can extrapolate from nature many of the doctrines that we see in the Bible concerning God's eternal power and Godhead.
Jesus is God in the Flesh!!
- Thread starter GISMYS_7
- Start date
-
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!
And man also is a bipod, whereas many of the lower animals are quadropods. I have never heard of a living creature being a tripod. I do have a tripod for my camera, but being man-made, it probably doesn't count.
But remembering that every man is a liar, if what hold to be truth is not, could you not then mislead someone into your own error?
We can only go by what we think we know. If that is in error, will God hold us accountable for lying, if we believed that what we were saying was the truth? Especially if we took great pains to study to shew ourselves approved, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth; so that we might not be deceived ourselves and so that we might not deceive anyone else.
I believe that, if we have taken the pains to study; and also do not depart from what we know because of the Lord's unction (1 John 2:20) when preaching the word, that we will not be found guilty of purposefully lying on the day of judgment.
Yes, we are do the best that we can, but we need to be talking and surrendering continuously to God so that He will take up the slack. At the end there can be no slack. Jesus came to make that impossible thing a possible thing by means of God in us:
"And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible." Mark 10:26-27
God in us will do what we cannot... if we will allow Him to do it!
Do not depend on study alone to get you through on the Lord's side. By the verse you cited we are told to study, "to rightly divide", but Truth is found only by the Holy Spirit. If a man studies led by his own mind alone, he will find himself here:
"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Ecc 12:12
Look then here:
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26
Last edited:
101G
Well-Known Member
I believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of truth; and that He is with us at all times (even with those who do not have Him indwelling them).
So, if we have a commitment to taking the scriptures literally, except in cases where the language is clearly allegorical, or defined to be a parable; and if we have a commitment to understanding the holy scriptures as absolute truth, and also seek to exegete them with sound hermeneutical principles when we study them: I believe that a man, even without being filled with the Holy Ghost, can come to the knowledge of the truth.
What I am saying is that the holy scriptures are written in plain language (see 2 Corinthians 3:12 (kjv)) that everyone can understand.
What then, of the following verse?
1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
It does not mean that God wrote the holy scriptures in language that cannot be understood by the common man; nor that the natural man cannot understand what is written in the holy scriptures.
It is saying that the spiritual truths found therein appear to be foolishness to the natural man and that he will not receive them for that reason. And also, the spiritual truths that are found within holy scripture do not register with the carnal mind; because they are foolishness to him.
Last edited:
What every man has is a glimmer of Light he is able to see, which makes it possible for him to decide to seek more or not... but the decision to follow or not is ours. That light is mentioned here:
"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9
This light alone visible to every man born in the flesh is not salvation, but if followed we will come to the greater Light, which is how Jesus describes himself:
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12
A man led by the Holy Ghost can come to the knowledge of truth, but without the Holy Ghost it is not possible as I see it. Your way would mean that the most dedicated Bible students and the most intelligent men would be the ones who most able to closely approach God. That is not how God works. God is and always has been no respecter of persons.
Each man has as much or as little as God gave him. God judgement of each of us is based upon what each of us has done with what he has been given. Even an illiterate sees that little bit of Light upon natural birth and may choose to follow it... or not. Study is done out of obedience and when the Spirit quickens what a person has heard and/or read it becomes the Word of God within him without regard to his particular abilities. The humble uneducated fisherman [e.g. Peter] may be lifted up just as high as the highly educated Bible student [e,g, Saul/Paul].
Definitely not true! In a secular school there are some at the top and some at the bottom of the class with most students lying somewhere in the middle according to natural ability [intelligence quotient] and the of study. If God were give a grade it would be something like an A for most effort and enthusiasm without regard to how many questions were answered right or wrong in examination. It would be an F for even the smartest people who because they did not have to therefore did not put forth any effort and had no enthusiasm at all. The enthusiasm would include the necessary Love. Remember this?
"And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love" I Cor 13:13
It means that any man who remains completely carnal or often reverts to his carnality will obtain and retain only dead works from his Bible studies no matter how much effort and time he puts into it. It requires the quickening of the Spirit to bring it to Life within a person.
"[God] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." II Cor 3:6
The giving of Life is the quickening.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " John 6:63
Yet, you quoted previously a verse that said that there is a light that lighteth every man.
So, I assume that you are saying that every man has the light of the Holy Spirit to help him to understand God's word.
At the very least, He is available to anyone who asks for Him to illuminate the word to them.
I would say that those who accept what the holy scriptures say at face value are in compliance with the Spirit of truth.
A light only seen from a distance drawing any man [the Father as per John 6:44] to go toward Jesus for the Light which quickens [brings to Life] the Word consumed [the flesh of Jesus = to the Word of God as per John 1:14] by us [read or heard]. Without the quickening Spirit, it is Jesus dead on the cross still. That light to draw us only does that draws us, attracts us. It does not make us alive. What is needed in us is the Resurrected Jesus. It is his flesh we must eat and his blood we must drink. That is the Word of God. That dead body drained of even its red blood on the cross had no life in it until the 3rd day. Even when he resurrected for us there was still only the flesh. The blood to be poured out, to be drunk, was and is the Holy Spirit, the Life blood of the Body of Christ.
101G
Well-Known Member
101G
Well-Known Member
Hello tigger 2!
It is great to be able to communicate with you! After having read some (not exhaustively) of what you have written on this forum and on your website, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on Philippians chapter 2. But first let me state that I am no theologian, so though I believe the doctrine of the trinity please don't consider me any kind of authority or hold me too firmly to my ramblings
Regarding Phil. 2, I understand you to believe that "morphe" should be understood not to mean "nature" but rather "appearance" or "likeness to the eye" (for both verses 5 and 6...and morphe can indeed mean "appearance", as you have pointed out). Thus, we should understand this chapter to be compatible with the belief that Christ is a highly exalted created being that is perhaps very similar to God, but not God. If we assume this understanding of "morphe", however, I am inclined to believe that we lose the entire thrust of Paul's intent in this passage (2:1-11), which I believe you have rightly identified as an exhortation to humility.
Let me try to clarify. All created things are by their nature and appearance slaves/servants of God (if something is a servant of God, then its appearance is that of a servant of God). If Christ is a created being, then he has the nature and appearance (glorified to whatever degree) of a slave/servant--and has always had the nature and appearance of such from the moment he was created (whatever his appearance or appearances, it/they would still be the appearance of a slave/servant). However, the language of verse 7 seems to quite clearly imply that before his incarnation, Christ did not have the form of a slave/servant. Rather, he "took a slave's [servant's] form" during the incarnation. If morphe in this passage means "appearance", then Paul's statement seems nonsensical. Why would Paul tell us that Christ "took" on the "appearance" of a slave/servant when he already had the appearance of one? I guess it could be said that Paul is telling us that Christ exchanged one appearance of a slave/servant (highly exalted spirit being appearance) for another (human appearance). I'm sure that such a transformation would be from higher to lower aesthetically, and to be willing to do that would take a measure of humility. But I don't think the context suggests that this is the thrust of Paul's use of Christ's example.
However, if we understand "morphe" to mean "nature" (which it can also sometimes mean), then the force of the passage really comes through. Christ, who from eternity was not a servant by nature (only God is not a servant by nature), took on the nature of a servant (to be human is to be a servant). This is condescension indeed and a better example of humility I don't think is possible to imagine. This condescension went beyond appearance to the character, actions, and attitude that Christ exemplified while on earth ("became obedient to the point of death"). It was an attitude that willingly forsook his rights and privileges in order to serve others who were not greater (either positionally or ontologically) than he. And this is the attitude that Christians should have towards one another--though we are all equal in Christ, we are to set aside any rights due to this fact and serve one another humbly and in love.
In regards to verse 6b, there are seemingly two different possible Greek renderings. One favors a unitarian view and the other a trinitarian view. I think Dr. James White does a good job discussing the possible interpretations in chapter 8 of his book, "The Forgotten Trinity".
May God direct you and I into his will and ways.
It is great to be able to communicate with you! After having read some (not exhaustively) of what you have written on this forum and on your website, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on Philippians chapter 2. But first let me state that I am no theologian, so though I believe the doctrine of the trinity please don't consider me any kind of authority or hold me too firmly to my ramblings
Regarding Phil. 2, I understand you to believe that "morphe" should be understood not to mean "nature" but rather "appearance" or "likeness to the eye" (for both verses 5 and 6...and morphe can indeed mean "appearance", as you have pointed out). Thus, we should understand this chapter to be compatible with the belief that Christ is a highly exalted created being that is perhaps very similar to God, but not God. If we assume this understanding of "morphe", however, I am inclined to believe that we lose the entire thrust of Paul's intent in this passage (2:1-11), which I believe you have rightly identified as an exhortation to humility.
Let me try to clarify. All created things are by their nature and appearance slaves/servants of God (if something is a servant of God, then its appearance is that of a servant of God). If Christ is a created being, then he has the nature and appearance (glorified to whatever degree) of a slave/servant--and has always had the nature and appearance of such from the moment he was created (whatever his appearance or appearances, it/they would still be the appearance of a slave/servant). However, the language of verse 7 seems to quite clearly imply that before his incarnation, Christ did not have the form of a slave/servant. Rather, he "took a slave's [servant's] form" during the incarnation. If morphe in this passage means "appearance", then Paul's statement seems nonsensical. Why would Paul tell us that Christ "took" on the "appearance" of a slave/servant when he already had the appearance of one? I guess it could be said that Paul is telling us that Christ exchanged one appearance of a slave/servant (highly exalted spirit being appearance) for another (human appearance). I'm sure that such a transformation would be from higher to lower aesthetically, and to be willing to do that would take a measure of humility. But I don't think the context suggests that this is the thrust of Paul's use of Christ's example.
However, if we understand "morphe" to mean "nature" (which it can also sometimes mean), then the force of the passage really comes through. Christ, who from eternity was not a servant by nature (only God is not a servant by nature), took on the nature of a servant (to be human is to be a servant). This is condescension indeed and a better example of humility I don't think is possible to imagine. This condescension went beyond appearance to the character, actions, and attitude that Christ exemplified while on earth ("became obedient to the point of death"). It was an attitude that willingly forsook his rights and privileges in order to serve others who were not greater (either positionally or ontologically) than he. And this is the attitude that Christians should have towards one another--though we are all equal in Christ, we are to set aside any rights due to this fact and serve one another humbly and in love.
In regards to verse 6b, there are seemingly two different possible Greek renderings. One favors a unitarian view and the other a trinitarian view. I think Dr. James White does a good job discussing the possible interpretations in chapter 8 of his book, "The Forgotten Trinity".
May God direct you and I into his will and ways.
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
White did a great job in that book the Forgotten Trinity.Hello tigger 2!
It is great to be able to communicate with you! After having read some (not exhaustively) of what you have written on this forum and on your website, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on Philippians chapter 2. But first let me state that I am no theologian, so though I believe the doctrine of the trinity please don't consider me any kind of authority or hold me too firmly to my ramblings
Regarding Phil. 2, I understand you to believe that "morphe" should be understood not to mean "nature" but rather "appearance" or "likeness to the eye" (for both verses 5 and 6...and morphe can indeed mean "appearance", as you have pointed out). Thus, we should understand this chapter to be compatible with the belief that Christ is a highly exalted created being that is perhaps very similar to God, but not God. If we assume this understanding of "morphe", however, I am inclined to believe that we lose the entire thrust of Paul's intent in this passage (2:1-11), which I believe you have rightly identified as an exhortation to humility.
Let me try to clarify. All created things are by their nature and appearance slaves/servants of God (if something is a servant of God, then its appearance is that of a servant of God). If Christ is a created being, then he has the nature and appearance (glorified to whatever degree) of a slave/servant--and has always had the nature and appearance of such from the moment he was created (whatever his appearance or appearances, it/they would still be the appearance of a slave/servant). However, the language of verse 7 seems to quite clearly imply that before his incarnation, Christ did not have the form of a slave/servant. Rather, he "took a slave's [servant's] form" during the incarnation. If morphe in this passage means "appearance", then Paul's statement seems nonsensical. Why would Paul tell us that Christ "took" on the "appearance" of a slave/servant when he already had the appearance of one? I guess it could be said that Paul is telling us that Christ exchanged one appearance of a slave/servant (highly exalted spirit being appearance) for another (human appearance). I'm sure that such a transformation would be from higher to lower aesthetically, and to be willing to do that would take a measure of humility. But I don't think the context suggests that this is the thrust of Paul's use of Christ's example.
However, if we understand "morphe" to mean "nature" (which it can also sometimes mean), then the force of the passage really comes through. Christ, who from eternity was not a servant by nature (only God is not a servant by nature), took on the nature of a servant (to be human is to be a servant). This is condescension indeed and a better example of humility I don't think is possible to imagine. This condescension went beyond appearance to the character, actions, and attitude that Christ exemplified while on earth ("became obedient to the point of death"). It was an attitude that willingly forsook his rights and privileges in order to serve others who were not greater (either positionally or ontologically) than he. And this is the attitude that Christians should have towards one another--though we are all equal in Christ, we are to set aside any rights due to this fact and serve one another humbly and in love.
In regards to verse 6b, there are seemingly two different possible Greek renderings. One favors a unitarian view and the other a trinitarian view. I think Dr. James White does a good job discussing the possible interpretations in chapter 8 of his book, "The Forgotten Trinity".
May God direct you and I into his will and ways.
Similar threads
