- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 05 2005,06:37) another Greek scholar, Weust, translates the verse in a way that indicates he clearly believes it to be teaching that Jesus and the Father are both God, “John 1: 1 – 3
In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. This Word was in the beginning in fellowship with God the Father. All things through His intermediate agency came into being, and without Him there came into being not even one thing which has come into existence.”
So E,
The Word was separate so as to be in fellowship with God. So he was not part of that God but they both had separate divine natures?I can agree with that.Hi E,
Fellowship is about a relationship not about a singularity. God is one. The Son is begotten of God and has divine nature. He is in a unified relationship with God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 05 2005,22:06) Hi E,
Fellowship is about a relationship not about a singularity. God is one. The Son is begotten of God and has divine nature. He is in a unified relationship with God.
you said “Are these bemused theologians your true masters?”
Now you are getting it Nick! Way to go! YES! Exactly right! I always follow theologians I consider to be bemused, in fact, I was thinking of following you next.At this point, the primary reason for responding to you is that you do continue to provide excellent examples of informal fallacies… although it is a little sad that we can’t get beyond these very basic issues when it comes to clear thinking…. For your ad hominem argument, ie calling the Westminster theologians bemused (I suppose you are thinking of the word “bemused” as something along the lines of meaning “confused” rather than the definition of the word which is “deep in thought”) is nothing more than an infantile exercise in name calling. You certainly have not done the responsible or mature thing, by showing exactly how it is you think they are confused, you seem to think that by calling them names, like some 7 yr old on the playground, you have somehow established that you are right and they are not. If you think they are confused, fine, I happen to think you are extremely confused on a number of issues, but unless you do a little more than banal name calling, you are doing no one, least of all yourself, any good.
Secondly, you continue to insult me simply because I cite their writings as what I take to be simply good theology. You are again showing your immaturity by saying that they must be my “masters”, simply because I agree with them. Well if that is the case, if that is all it takes for someone to be another person’s “master” is to agree with them, then I would venture to say you are “guilty” of having another master besides God, for every time you agree with t8, he must therefore also be your master. If he is not your master, you just happen to agree with him on issues like your nontrinitarianism, then I urge you to show some maturity by not insulting someone like myself, a person you know to be a Christian, as having any other master then God, just because agreement exists on theological ideas and doctrine.
Nick, I am wondering, how old are you…? 18? 19? You have so much immaturity in your thought and reasoning processes when it comes to biblical thinking, and putting together arguments both for your position, and in formulating objections to others, that I can only hope that the reason you write as you do is because you are simply chronologically immature. If you are much older then this, then you situation is all the more severe.
you ask “Is much truth found in their musings compared with the Word of God?”
why YES! I am so glad you asked! There is MUCH more truth to be found there, versus your musings for instance…. the reason that there is much truth is that their thoughts actually mirror the Word of God, and since you are apparently so antagonistic against the truth you did not take the time to notice this fact, even though I supplied the biblical references for you… but I guess you would rather continue your rampage against the truth and rather then recognize that these men were trying to be biblical, providing the biblical passages that they feel support their beliefs, you would rather ignore all their hard work and pretend as if there were no references at all… because that’s the easy way out…. but then, that does not surprise me Nick, its what you have been doing all along.You continue to act as if your pithy questions, which are themselves riddled with fallacies, false dichotomies, straw men, equivocations, etc are somehow serious objections or even support for your beliefs, but, they are not.
You do ask “I prefer the true ore don't you?”
Which I appreciate, because even though this is obviously intended to be a sarcastic rhetorical question, given what you had just written, in fact I do prefer truth, that’s why I am trying to point out to you your fallacious attempts at argumentation. If I didn’t care Nick, I would go merrily on my way, leaving you in your ignorance, but I have hopes for you yet…. Not that you would embrace trinitariansim, though this is really nothing less or nothing more than biblical Christianity, but rather that you would at least attempt to be cogent in your defense of your position, and equally so in your criticisms of trinitarianism. Yet you continue to misrepresent, its rather odd really. I am not altogether sure why you continue to do this, other then it being the easy way out of serious discussion. Is that why Nick?You write “Hi E
“this points to a unity of essence without equating the persons”Are the “persons” coequal or not? Your source seems to be further evolving the trinity here?”
Nick, you are not reading very carefully. Look again at the statement you quoted, especially at the word “equating”. Now tell me, does this word indicate an attempt to show equality? No. I apologize then, that this sentence is difficult for you, I have been guilty of assuming that your reading level was higher then it apparently is. Let me slow it down and try to explain the sentence in simpler English for you Nick. “without equating the persons” means “without confusing them with one another”. I appreciate your honesty in not understanding tyhis Nick, this is something I can much more deal with, just admitting you do not know if far better then assuming you do know, then building all kinds of castles built on sand when your arguments or disagreements do not accurately reflect the actual intention of the author. Maybe this is why you have such a propensity towards erecting straw men. If that is the case, then by all means, lets slow things down a little.
You said “So E,
The Word was separate so as to be in fellowship with God. So he was not part of that God but they both had separate divine natures?I can agree with that.”This was in response to Wuest’s interpretation which went like this: “another Greek scholar, Weust, translates the verse in a way that indicates he clearly believes it to be teaching that Jesus and the Father are both God, “John 1: 1 – 3
In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. This Word was in the beginning in fellowship with God the Father. All things through His intermediate agency came into being, and without Him there came into being not even one thing which has come into existence.”Actually Wuest is simply saying what Westminster had just said, that neither the Son nor the Father should be equated (confused) with one another, even though they share the same divine essence. This is simply another way of saying that the Son is not the Father who is not the Holy Spirit who is not the Father etc. One in essence, Three in person, that’s what Wuest was saying.
Lastly, you say “Fellowship is about a relationship not about a singularity. God is one. The Son is begotten of God and has divine nature. He is in a unified relationship with God.”
This is sheer dogmatism. You offer no proof for this, so are you inviting me to follow you as master Nick? Do you think I should accept what you say as true simply because you are the one who said it? And you have the nerve to criticize the writers of Westminster!! LOL!!! At least they supplied biblical verses and passages to support their views. I guess you must think that because Nick has spoken, that is all that is necessary. You may want to seriously co
nsider the word you used earlier of the Westminster theologians, “bemused”. See definition number 2 at http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/BEMUSED under adjective.As to the content of this statement, you know. For once you are onto something. Fellowship is NOT about singularity, and this is one of the strongest philosophical AND theological arguments for the Trinity! The Bible clearly says God is love, but love must have an object. But if God were an absolute singularity, there would have been no object for God to love, thus God would have been without love, and this would destroy God’s perfection and immutability. Therefore there must have always, from all eternity, been an object of God’s affection. And indeed, there was, and it’s none other then the Son. This is why John tells us that in the beginning, there was the Word, the Logos, the Son…. How far back do you want to go? It doesn’t matter. As far back in time, and beyond, there was always the Son, God always had an object of His affection, as did the Son. John 1:1-2 NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God.”
You say “God is one”. Very good Nick, the problem is, the Trinitarian does not dispute this, I am not sure how much mileage you think you can get out of constantly bringing up facts that are agreed upon, as if they are not, but as far as I am concerned, you mileage reached its culmination long ago.
You say “The Son is begotten of God and has divine nature.”
This is true, no dispute here either. The Son has a divine nature, exactly like that of the Father. The NET Bible translate Phil 2:5-6 like this: “You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though he existed in the form of God(11) did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,” where ftnote 11 explains “11sn The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.”Lastly you say “He is in a unified relationship with God.”
Yep.blessings
Hi E,
I hold up a mirror to your words and those of theologians and when you see what they say you seem to feel personally affronted?Why is this?
They are all interpretations or logical derivations of what you say and yet you do not like to see them in reflection.
I do not mean to personally upset you but sometimes when people see the conclusions of their logic they can see the ironical side themselves.
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 06 2005,04:36) As to the content of this statement, you know. For once you are onto something. Fellowship is NOT about singularity, and this is one of the strongest philosophical AND theological arguments for the Trinity! The Bible clearly says God is love, but love must have an object. But if God were an absolute singularity, there would have been no object for God to love, thus God would have been without love, and this would destroy God’s perfection and immutability. Therefore there must have always, from all eternity, been an object of God’s affection. And indeed, there was, and it’s none other then the Son. This is why John tells us that in the beginning, there was the Word, the Logos, the Son…. How far back do you want to go? It doesn’t matter. As far back in time, and beyond, there was always the Son, God always had an object of His affection, as did the Son. John 1:1-2 NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God.”
Hi Epistemaniac,
I think you have made an excellent point, God is immutable and love could not have been something that He had to learn it must have been an intrinsic attribute. He must have always known how to love and if there was at one time no one to love then that would only leave himself to love. But self love is narsicism and not really genuine love at all. Therefore, on that basis alone the eternality of both the Son and the Father must be assumed. Thank you for your insight here Epistemaniac.Quote (epistemaniac @ July 05 2005,06:37) This is a very common “argument” found among the JW's, and has, thankfully, been responded to in great depth and convincingly so…. so to give a little more balance to the resources you have been offered, I would encourage you to see
http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html
http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
Thank you for these links Epistemaniac. I found them a very useful resource. Its a travesty that some mistranslate and abuse John 1 v1 so blatantly, do they think we are stupid? It is obvious what John intends for us to understand about the Word of God in the context of his first chapter of his gospel. I enjoy reading your posts thank you for speaking the truth about our Lord. You will not lose your reward.Hi E,
Your source says the Jesus is the Creator. Is that written in the Word? Or was everything created through him?You have however said it was “through his intermediate agency” That is true.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2005,05:31) Hi E,
I hold up a mirror to your words and those of theologians and when you see what they say you seem to feel personally affronted?Why is this?
They are all interpretations or logical derivations of what you say and yet you do not like to see them in reflection.
I do not mean to personally upset you but sometimes when people see the conclusions of their logic they can see the ironical side themselves.
I think that the analogy of a mirror is very apt Nick, for your conclusions, based on this reflection, are often quite backwards.I do not mind you holding their teachings up before the light of Scriptures though, I do the same to your teachings and it is the solemn responsibility of all persons who claim to follow Jesus to do the same. What I take as an affront is when you criticize the writings and especially the writers of Westminster without ever showing how it is exactly that their teachings violate Scripture, and in fact, while you accuse them of violating Scripture, you provide no Scripture yourself in these last posts to support your views or to show Westminster or the Westminster Divines to be mistaken. Surely your claim that they are befuddled requires some sort of proof from you, otherwise it is simply engaging in petty name calling based, presumably, on the fact that you disagree with their theology, eg the Trinity.
I further take affront at what you write because while you complain that people are not to take theologians beliefs as being worthy of any acceptance except insofar as they accurately portray the teachings of Scriptures, and that they have Scripture to support your beliefs (which I agree with in principle), but you then proceed to offer nothing but your own criticisms and complaints as if we are to accept what you say based solely on the fact that it is you who said it. This is clearly hypocritical, if you complain about others not supplying support for their beliefs with Scripture, then surely you are obligated to follow your own rules for authority, are you not? Why should you be above this Nick? Why hold others to standards you yourself fail to adhere to?
You say “They are all interpretations or logical derivations of what you say and yet you do not like to see them in reflection.”
But you cannot simply assert this Nick. You have to prove that this is the case, and thus far I do not see any such proof coming from you. You can claim all sorts of things as logical conclusions, but unless you are willing to work this out in some way that is viewable by others, in a way that allows others to see your reasoning processes, then there is no reason to accept your conclusions as being anything other then your opinion, and this carries no weight whatsoever with me, just as my bare opinion carries no weight with you.Lastly, you say “I do not mean to personally upset you but sometimes when people see the conclusions of their logic they can see the ironical side themselves.”
The only reason I am upset Nick, is that you accuse men like the writers of Westminster of being “befuddled”, and you do it in such a flippant manner. Do you have any idea who these men were? Do you have any idea what they went through to write Westminster? Do you realize that it many cases these men’s very lives were in jeopardy for believing what they believed? They did not come to the conclusions they came to regarding doctrine as if they were on some sort of vacation or because they had nothing better to do. These were passionate men of God devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ and His church. They came to the conclusions they came to through very serious reflection and prayerful thought. Now none of this means that they were somehow infallible, I would never suggest that for a minute. What it does mean, however, is that when a person like you, comes along in what seems to amount in sheer ignorance, saying the sorts of things you say about them, it reflects a serious lack of reflection, and a demeanor that seems willing to sink to serious lows in order to promote a belief by resorting to tearing down others who hold to differing beliefs.
blessings
Hi E,
Theology is a contradiction in terms. It is an attempt to understand God through the use of our very limited minds. God has told us it is useless as our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts.
It is possible to know God and He invites us all into a personal relationship with Him through His son. Such a path is obedience to his will. If we then obey and follow Jesus then we are introduced to the deeper things of God.
So looking back at those who are trying to understand God without entering the “gate” their reflections seem shallow and empty. Their thoughts seem confused and facile. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.
God does not encourage us to understand Him first, but to meet with Him in His Son and in His teachings.The intellectual approach to God and scripture is as useful as the scripture study was to the scribes and Pharisees. They saw all the pixels but missed the picture they made up. They missed the Son of God those teachings revealed.
So I do not care how learned men claim to be about God. We do not follow them but Christ. If we learn from their teachings instead of going to the source we will find we are allowing their assumptions and falsities to become our beliefs.
Trinity is one of their derived teachings. They will agree it is not taught in the Word but they feel they are entitled to draw unrevealed conclusions from the Word. To stray from Revelation is to stray from Truth. They err in doing so and we need to identify and repudiate false teachers rather that following them into their folly.Quote (Guest @ July 07 2005,10:41) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 06 2005,04:36) As to the content of this statement, you know. For once you are onto something. Fellowship is NOT about singularity, and this is one of the strongest philosophical AND theological arguments for the Trinity! The Bible clearly says God is love, but love must have an object. But if God were an absolute singularity, there would have been no object for God to love, thus God would have been without love, and this would destroy God’s perfection and immutability. Therefore there must have always, from all eternity, been an object of God’s affection. And indeed, there was, and it’s none other then the Son. This is why John tells us that in the beginning, there was the Word, the Logos, the Son…. How far back do you want to go? It doesn’t matter. As far back in time, and beyond, there was always the Son, God always had an object of His affection, as did the Son. John 1:1-2 NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God.”
Hi Epistemaniac,
I think you have made an excellent point, God is immutable and love could not have been something that He had to learn it must have been an intrinsic attribute. He must have always known how to love and if there was at one time no one to love then that would only leave himself to love. But self love is narsicism and not really genuine love at all. Therefore, on that basis alone the eternality of both the Son and the Father must be assumed. Thank you for your insight here Epistemaniac.
you are most welcome Laurreaus…blessings
Nick, you said
“Hi E,
Theology is a contradiction in terms. It is an attempt to understand God through the use of our very limited minds. God has told us it is useless as our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts.
It is possible to know God and He invites us all into a personal relationship with Him through His son. Such a path is obedience to his will. If we then obey and follow Jesus then we are introduced to the deeper things of God.
God does not encourage us to understand Him first, but to meet with Him in His Son and in His teachings.The intellectual approach to God and scripture is as useful as the scripture study was to the scribes and Pharisees. They saw all the pixels but missed the picture they made up. They missed the Son of God those teachings revealed.
So I do not care how learned men claim to be about God. We do not follow them but Christ. If we learn from their teachings instead of going to the source we will find we are allowing their assumptions and falsities to become our beliefs.
Trinity is one of their derived teachings. They will agree it is not taught in the Word but they feel they are entitled to draw unrevealed conclusions from the Word. To stray from Revelation is to stray from Truth. They err in doing so and we need to identify and repudiate false teachers rather that following them into their folly.”Theology is not a contradiction in terms Nick, you see what I mean by your continual dogmatic unproven statements? Firstly, it cannot be a contradiction in terms simply because it is only one term, eg “theology”. That is, it is impossible for it to be a contradiction in terms simply due to the fact that there is only one term and it is impossible for a term to be a contradiction when it is not opposed to some other proposition for it to be in contradiction to.
Further, theology is simply the action of rational minds… God-given rational minds btw…. attempting to understand God through the means He has given us to know Him…. Thus theo (God) –logy (study) is simply the study of God via special revelation (the Scriptures) and natural (the order in nature etc see Ps 19:1 and Ro. 1:18ff) revelation.
So it seems contrary to God's nature to reveal Himself to us in these several ways, and then turn around and make it so that it is, as you say, useless. And if it were in fact, an impossibility, it seems that the giving of the Scriptures to His people was nothing more than an exercise in futility. Seems rather silly for God to go to all that effort to provide His word to us, knowing full well that we cannot understand God anyway, doesn’t it Nick?
Of course we cannot comprehensively and exhaustively understand God. No one is saying any such thing, and this is part of the on-going problem the anti-Trinitarian has…. they think that by the Trinitarian appealing to mystery or some element of God that we cannot fully and comprehensively understand as a reason why we may not exhaustively and comprehensively understand the trinity, then it must therefore be false. I would also add at this point that it is very ironic that you have complained that Trinitarians say that the doctrine of the Trinity is somewhat of a mystery and that it cannot be totally understood by man due to his finite nature, and then you turn around and say, in agreement with the Trinitarians (!!!), that not only is the trinity itself beyond the capability of finite minds to fully comprehend, you go “all the way”, so to speak, and say that all of God , His nature and His ways, are beyond the ability of the finite mind to understand!! And the double standards and hypocrisy just keep on going Nick. How in the world you can venture to lecture the Trinitarian for appealing to some measure of mystery, and then go way beyond the Trinitarian in the very thing you complained about continues to be a mystery to me. You can avoid this embarrassment Nick, by simply applying the same standards to others as you apply to yourself.
Further, you reveal the impossibility of your position by quoting God's revealed word (you allude to Rom. 11:33ff) in order to state we cannot understand God…. but, if it were the case, in an absolute sense, that we cannot understand Him because His are not His ways, then how can you even understand that you cannot understand Him, because His ways are not our ways? You cannot appeal to information supplied by God in Scripture in order to prove that you cannot understand God.
Next, if it is the case that you are hung up on the word “theology”, then by all means, don’t use it. Nor is it necessary for me to use it. Its simply a shorthand way of describing any effort to understand God in a systematic way. So it is with the word “theologians”. The fact is, you are a theologian Nick, anyone who attempts to understand God is, but again, if you are hung on the word “theologian” itself, don’t use it. But the fact that you do not want to use the words “theology” or theologian” doesn’t change the fact that the word still aptly describes at least some of the activity that goes on at this board. And this little petty disagreement well describes the same petty way that some try to say the Trinity can’t be true or biblical simply because the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible. It’s a ridiculous point because people use non-biblical words all the time to describe their faith. So too, just because the word “theology” or “theologian” does not appear in the Scriptures, doesn’t change anything in the slightest as to the fact that the activities these words describe do in fact go on all the time.
Nick, you go ahead and cement my earlier accusation by your saying “So looking back at those who are trying to understand God without entering the “gate” their reflections seem shallow and empty. Their thoughts seem confused and facile. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.”
Prove to me that the persons involved in the production of Westminster documents have not entered the gate you speak of. Prove it, and if and when you fail to do that, you owe it to God, yourself, and others to repent and be honest that own reflections are actually shallow and empty. This is the case because you cannot stand in judgment over people you do not know have never met and who lived long before you. You are simply not in any position to judge their spiritual walk. You have taken for yourself that ability and activity that rightly and only belongs to God. You are continuing to sink to greater and greater depths of moral depravity Nick, what will you stop at in your effort to promote your understanding of the Scripture? If you will say such ungodly things about the states of other person’ s souls, its difficult to take what you say seriously, that it carries any weight of a man of God who is honestly and sincerely trying to think through these things. On the other hand, while you have proven the shallowness and pettiness of your own spirit, you have not shown one instance of any similar activities from the ones you condemn.Nick, the rest of your post is filled with the same tired old fallacious reasoning’s and double standards. You appeal to mystery as the first step in any approach to God, then you condemn any appeal to mystery in the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact is, despite your empty emotive appeal you cannot “meet with Him” if you do not understand who it is and how it is you are meeting with Him in the first place. Given your route, one could just as well be meeting with the devil as with God, your method of approach to God gives one no resources as to know, at the outset, which is which… just follow your feelings says Nick! (again I stress the word “feel” as you continue to do little more than to pontificate, thinking that people should act and believe as you say to, merely because it is you who says so, and this, without any proof from you as to why this would be the biblical thing to do, maybe you shou
ld turn back to your Romanism Nick? You seem to continually gravitate towards their ways of thinking and proving doctrine… believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin because Rome says so… believe that the writers of Westminster failed to “enter the gate because Nick said so…)You say “So I do not care how learned men claim to be about God. We do not follow them but Christ.”
Nick, aren’t you thinking at all!?!? I already stated that the word alone is the final authority. The point here is this: you are assassinating the character of these men, plain and simple. That is the complaint here. At this point I could care less concerning the specifics of what they believe. What you are doing is sinful, saying things about these men, making judgments about these men, and the nature of their walk with God when in fact you have absolutely no right to do so. That’s your problem Nick, and it simply shows the depths to which you will sink… if you cannot refute with Scripture, then by all means, tear down others by making false and sinful accusations against them! That is truly your modus operendi… and not only is it so with the Westminster divines, it is the way you operate here at this board with anyone who dares to disagree with you. Its sickening really.AMEN Epistemaniac!
Quote You are continuing to sink to greater and greater depths of moral depravity Nick, what will you stop at in your effort to promote your understanding of the Scripture? If you will say such ungodly things about the states of other person’ s souls, its difficult to take what you say seriously, that it carries any weight of a man of God who is honestly and sincerely trying to think through these things. On the other hand, while you have proven the shallowness and pettiness of your own spirit, you have not shown one instance of any similar activities from the ones you condemn. Trinity theory is not revealed E,
It is added to scripture as a derived teaching. Please do not claim adherence to a scripture basis if you promote what is non scriptural as equal in validity to the Word of God.Where did I hear that before?Mk 7.13
Hi E,
We need the mind of Christ in the Spirit of God to grasp the things of God.
1Cor 2.10f
“For to us God revealed them through the Spirit;for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God”
v16″…But we have the mind of Christ”
Who is the “we” here? all men? No. These letters were only written to the SAVED, those who have obeyed and been born again of Water and the Spirit into the Body of Christ”
They share in the Spirit of God.Do those who teach share that Spirit?
Jesus said “by their fruit you will know them”.
If they are of the Spirit they would fear God and respect the Word of God and encourage others to do the same. They would not go beyond the Word of God into speculations such as trinity theory. If their fruit is to elevate their own understandings to be equal to what is revealed that fruit exposes their master as not being Jesus Christ surely.
There you go Nick, ignoring what has been said, and merely trying to side strp your very serious ethical and moral failings…. they will not go away simply by your ignoring them Nick… the fact is, you have sinned against others in your pursuit to disprove the trinity by your engaging in character assassination…. disbelieve in the trinity Nick… do it with all yur heart and soul… its what one would expect anyone to do who has a passion for their beliefs and a passion for God…. but this pursuit never ever gives you a right to tear down and stand in spirtual judgment over the souls of men whom you never knew, and to condemn them simply becasue they do not believe as you do….
all I can say at this point is that your ignoring the wrong you have done reveals serious inner problems Nick, and casts a negative light on your character such that I can see no reason to continue to discuss these matters with you… you have a responsibility to own up to what you have done, if you can't do that then I need to leave this discussion in hopes that more time away from discussing this issue may give you time to reflect and to have the courage to finally do what is right…. I am glad to discuss these issues with you Nick, they are extremely important, but it is more important that you set things right with the Lord and then with the members of the board… being an admin does not exempt you from this responsibility… if anything… it increases the responsibility you have to do the right thing. You are supposed to be setting an example, and while it is the case that setting an example is an inevitability, that is, you are setting an example, its just a matter of what type of example you will set, the Bible is clear that those who presume to teach have the greater risk of condemnation… are you man enough to admit your wrong Nick? are you Christian enough? I hope so….
Hi E,
1Jn 2.18
” Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen;from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown they all are not of us”
1 Jn 4.2
“By this you know the Spirit of God;every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ HAS COME IN THE FLESH is from God;and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God;this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now is already in the world”Those who profess trinity must say that God has come in flesh as they say Jesus is that God or Yahweh. Where do you stand on this matter E? Do your beliefs pass the test?
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 11 2005,21:06) There you go Nick, ignoring what has been said, and merely trying to side strp your very serious ethical and moral failings…. they will not go away simply by your ignoring them Nick… the fact is, you have sinned against others in your pursuit to disprove the trinity by your engaging in character assassination…. disbelieve in the trinity Nick… do it with all yur heart and soul… its what one would expect anyone to do who has a passion for their beliefs and a passion for God…. but this pursuit never ever gives you a right to tear down and stand in spirtual judgment over the souls of men whom you never knew, and to condemn them simply becasue they do not believe as you do…. all I can say at this point is that your ignoring the wrong you have done reveals serious inner problems Nick, and casts a negative light on your character such that I can see no reason to continue to discuss these matters with you… you have a responsibility to own up to what you have done, if you can't do that then I need to leave this discussion in hopes that more time away from discussing this issue may give you time to reflect and to have the courage to finally do what is right…. I am glad to discuss these issues with you Nick, they are extremely important, but it is more important that you set things right with the Lord and then with the members of the board… being an admin does not exempt you from this responsibility… if anything… it increases the responsibility you have to do the right thing. You are supposed to be setting an example, and while it is the case that setting an example is an inevitability, that is, you are setting an example, its just a matter of what type of example you will set, the Bible is clear that those who presume to teach have the greater risk of condemnation… are you man enough to admit your wrong Nick? are you Christian enough? I hope so….
Hi E,
Who gave you the right to judge us? By whose standards do you judge? Your own? How long have you been perfect we all would like to know?Back to the drawing boards, back to the Word of God, and find the God of the bible and who He is my friend and then perhaps you will have a little more validity in your judgements.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
