Wet Paint Principle (Freedom)

[justbyfaith]

I'm done posting refuting vv that you won't read anyway,

God is the Head of Christ.
Not even the Son knows, only the Father.

I have read these verses many times and will address them for you.

The latter verse (Mark 13:32) is answered by the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus was both God and Man. The Father dwells in eternity, is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent. Jesus emptied Himself of some of the attributes of Deity in order to take on the nature of humanity. So Jesus, while being fully God, is not Omnipresent (being confined to a finite human body) and yet He is Omnipresent (in that His Spirit permeates the entire Universe). These things are possible through God's triune nature. Likewise, as the Son, the Lord does not have Omniscience; but the Father who dwells in eternity, whose thinking is not confined to a finite human brain, is fully aware of the exact day and hour of Jesus' return (which day and hour, btw, will be basically different at every location on the globe, because of the nature of the earth, and the nature of time on the earth).

Now that God (the Father) is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3), I have addressed in a different thread. So now I think I will go and retrieve that post.

Prove the Trinity wrong challenge.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have read these verses many times and will address them for you.

thanks, but no thanks wadr

 

[justbyfaith]

thanks, but no thanks wadr

"Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your heart as in the provocation."

 

[bbyrd009]

"Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your heart as in the provocation."

ah, you are the voice in that scenario, i take it?

 

[justbyfaith]

ah, you are the voice in that scenario, i take it?

Obviously not. But hopefully the Holy Spirit is speaking through me; and you should consider the possibility of that.

 

[bbyrd009]

Obviously not. But hopefully the Holy Spirit is speaking through me; and you should consider the possibility of that.

imo if the Spirit is speaking through you then you would be that guy, and i didn't mean to imply that that was not possible, but to illuminate the other...probabilities. See,

I have read these verses many times and will address them for you.

just contains a...um, certain syntax that i have learned to be on the lookout for, let's say.

The latter verse (Mark 13:32) is answered by the doctrine...

and this part kind of seals the deal imo...so maybe @amadeus or someone could come and interpret here maybe,
but i am putting him on the spot now lol

so then just in case, or,
i have to object to this v being answered by that doctrine, is there a way you could um "answer" without the doctrine?
(noting that i don't really need an answer, a reply will work fine?) ty

 

[justbyfaith]

i have to object to this v being answered by that doctrine, is there a way you could um "answer" without the doctrine?

Again, see 2 Timothy 1:13 and Titus 1:9.

 

[bbyrd009]

Again, see 2 Timothy 1:13 and Titus 1:9.

Proof of the Trinity. No takers?

may as well consolidate i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

but hopefully it can be seen that insisting upon a doctrine for an answer is like insisting that i must agree to an interpretation?

 

[justbyfaith]

Proof of the Trinity. No takers?

may as well consolidate i guess

but hopefully it can be seen that insisting upon a doctrine for an answer is like insisting that i must agree to an interpretation?

I'm not insisting on anything; but I would encourage you to continue reading your Bible and search for the doctrine in question in your personal reading.

Just know that the doctrine that I have specified is an adequate answer to the question that you had put forth.

 

[farouk]

I'm not insisting on anything; but I would encourage you to continue reading your Bible and search for the doctrine in question in your personal reading.

Searching the Scriptures is always healthy. The Berean Jews were commended in Acts for seeing if these things were so, from the Scriptures.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm not insisting on anything

Just know that the doctrine that I have specified

ok then, and ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Searching the Scriptures is always healthy. The Berean Jews were commended in Acts for seeing if these things were so, from the Scriptures.

my impression is that doctrines most often fail by the inclusion of a single term/concept that does not belong there, and can be discredited in other Scripture--well i say "my" but i'm sure i ripped that off of someone lol.

 

[justbyfaith]

my impression is that doctrines most often fail by the inclusion of a single term/concept that does not belong there, and can be discredited in other Scripture--well i say "my" but i'm sure i ripped that off of someone lol.

If you can think of a scripture that in your mind contradicts the concept of the hypostatic union, by all means bring it up for the sake of discussion.

 

[bbyrd009]

If you can think of a scripture that in your mind contradicts the concept of the hypostatic union, by all means bring it up for the sake of discussion.

wadr putting the onus on me here, when it is the doctrine that should be required to stand up by itself but does not.
Meaning not all believers agree on that doctrine already, ergo i am not required to refute it wadr
i am required to ask for Scripture, see, no offense meant ok

 

[justbyfaith]

I was of the impression that you had scripture in your mind that contradicts the concept. If there is no scripture that you are really thinking of, then you should be quiet. Because we are both aware of the fact that there is scripture that substantiates the doctrine. For example, Jesus is both "the Son of God" and "the Son of man."

Okay, now your turn.

 

[bbyrd009]

I was of the impression that you had scripture in your mind that contradicts the concept. If there is no scripture that you are really thinking of, then you should be quiet. Because we are both aware of the fact that there is scripture that substantiates the doctrine. For example, Jesus is both "the Son of God" and "the Son of man."

Okay, now your turn.

oh, like you said, we are both aware of the Scriptures that contrast it too, and i'm afraid i have to stand on the point; Scripture cannot be answered with doctrine imo. Now, since i've asserted that i guess i could make a case for why if you like, since it's your thread, but tbh the reason should be obvious, and wadr i find most of this to be an attempt to run from the point

It was a crucifying offense that Jesus claimed to be God in Mark 14:61-64. He was crucified from the Jews' perspective for the sin of blasphemy according to that passage.

pretty sure the penalty for blasphemy was stoning btw

 

[bbyrd009]

1

1 I am not obligated to obey the law. Romans 6:14, 7:4, 7:6.

That said I can Agree to the first post

ah, how bout now that i've stripped all of the irrelevant stuff from it? And i guess i came late here or something, if you choose to ignore this post i'll understand

 

[bbyrd009]

1 I am not under the law, am dead to the law, and am delivered from the law—I am not obligated to obey the law for my salvation. Romans 6:14, 7:4, 7:6.

2 But because I am saved, I desire to obey the word, including the law of the Old Testament—I desire to obey the law because I am saved.

3 If I fail to obey the law, I am not condemned—but because I am not condemned—because I am born of God—1 John 3:9—I will not fail to obey the law.

4 If I fail to obey the law, the Lord will not impute it to me as sin—Romans 4:8. Now I cannot sin because I am not under the law, am dead to the law, and am delivered from the law—and sin is the transgression of the law. Because where the law does not apply, there is no transgression. Romans 4:15, 5:13.

5 Therefore I am perfect in Christ no matter what I do[/QUOTE]
bc imo at least one of us is insane. Every one of these is seriously warped imo, note the complete lack of confession--bc of course none of these ever sin, right --and the complete focus on the self. Count the "I"s. Note the lying to self; "I desire to obey the law because I am saved" and several other self-deceptions. i am a full blown anarchist and having to obey many laws that assume i also cannot drink from a cup without a lid drives me insane if i let it.

no offense meant ok JBF, i don't know you, and you might be a wonderful heart ok. Ppl try on all kinds of disciplines on their walk, and i don't doubt that there is even a kernel of truth in the discipline somewhere, there usually is. But i could refute every single one of these wadr, i'm pretty sure with a single word;
"Confession."

 

[justbyfaith]

1 John 1:8-9 is not contradicted by 1 John 3:9 and its immediate context.

My answer to your objection is the fact that the Father looks down on us and sees us through Jesus' blood and righteousness: He looks at us and He sees the blood and righteousness of Christ.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is after relationship; and He does not look at us as being sinless as Jesus, through the rose-colored glasses of seeing the blood when He looks at us. It is His job to sanctify us so He has a relationship towards us as sinners; and this is where confession comes in.

From the Father's perspective, however, He sees us as being "not under the law but under grace" (Romans 6:14), "dead to the law" (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19), and "delivered from the law" (Romans 7:6).

If you look up the scriptures referenced you will see that my statements are substantiated by scripture.

But if you look at it with the natural or carnal mind, I am certain that you will find apparent contradictions in what I write; even as the world looks at the holy scriptures of the Bible and complains that "there are many contradictions in the Bible." The reality is that there are no contradictions; only contrasting ideas that amount to paradox for that no one who is finite can comprehend the mind of the Lord.

I believe there is even a verse somewhere in the middle of the tract that addresses this idea of contradictions. Maybe I will go to the document now and give you the reference for that verse in the booklet/tract.