- This topic is empty.
- Posts
A Christian devotee, Anil Antony, asked Me some questions just now. He asked whether the salvation is a free gift of God and not based on the work. This is the climax of foolishness. Even in the worldly affairs, a selection board sits and filters the deserving candidate to give the gift. If any body in this world gives a free gift without seeing the deserving qualifications, people will call him as a full mad person. Do you treat God as mad person, who is wiser than the wisest in this world? Jesus asked His devotees to go to villages and propagate His knowledge. Even today the Christian fathers wander all over the earth and they are propagating the diving knowledge by constant lecturers. Is this not work? If salvation is a free gift why should they work? How much divine work Jesus carried on? In Hinduism you can support free gift by saying that a soul might have done lot of good work in the previous birth and the gift may appear as free gift because the soul did not perform any good work in this birth. But Christianity does not believe the re-birth and therefore such possibility of explanation is also ruled out here.
His another question is that Christianity encourages the praise and prayer of the Lord for certain materialistic benefits. He asks whether such prayer is correct. The answer is that such a stage is not incorrect but it is a lower stage. The LKG class is the beginning of school education. You cannot say that LKG is class is not correct. It is correct but it is lowest. The first step is true but is the lowest step existing on the ground. If you take the case of Jesus, He is in the highest step. He also praised and prayed the Lord but never asked anything for himself. He asked any thing only for the propagation of the fame of the Lord. The lowest step is certainly better than the pit, which is lower than the ground. Thus the beginner is certainly better than the atheist, who does not believe God at all. Even though the beginner is selfish, at least he believes the existence of God.
YO Kiddo's my name is Mr.H!
Happy to be here.I see there is a lot of overcomplicity going on and I myself was raised on the trinitary belief. Ater I read James1:13 I had to agree that Christ and God are a lil different. It's hard so pray for me. I am askin God for wisdom in what Im doing today.Im 17 and I grew up in church and around religion and I kno salvation has nothing to do with religion. So I decided to look p something for my apostolic friends who are comepletely blind to the truth because they believe that the physical baptism and it(baptism) being done in Jesus' name get's you into heaven. They are HUGE on the whole oneness thing. So help me out here… Gimme some good sciptural things to tell them. THanx…Hi Mr. H.
There is lots on here that we could direct you to. You are right about James 1:13. It says that with evil things God cannot be tried. Yet, we know that Satan tried to tempt Jesus while on earth. (Mat 4) It's ridiculous to think that God could be tempted.
If it is the trinity you would like to discuss with them, here are some points to mention:What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?
Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra´kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.
Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?
Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)
John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)
See also pages 197, 198, under “Jehovah.”
Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the c
reation produced by God.Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe´] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
The Hebrew word Shad·dai´ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra´tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?
Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)
For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”
In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “
? [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “? ? [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the ?µ? ?? [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143. So like I was sayin… I just want the truth. I know the Devil will use the truth and twist it up and it'll sound correct but he's the father of all lies. So In Revelation19: says that Jesus is on the white horse and on his robe is a name written that no one knows except him, but it also say's that he has a robe and on his thigh the name is written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.Also in Revelation21:6 God say's (THe Father) I am the Alpha and Omega..etc. Then in Revelation22:13 Jesus(The Son) say's I am the Alpha and Omega…etc. SO Unless they are one, their are either 2 Gods, or scripture is fake. HElp Me with this one!Hi Mr. H.
First off, if a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.Alpha and Omega:
To whom does this title properly belong?(1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.
(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there.
(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)
(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.
(5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
Quote SO Unless they are one, their are either 2 Gods, or scripture is fake. HElp Me with this one!
I hope this helps.david.
Just thought I'd add this:
The final occurrence of the title is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. “The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.”
The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.
Well I happen to be a Christian… C.O.G.I.C. Church of God in Christ and I was raised on the beliefe of trinitarianism. I fear the fact that denoucing Christ as Lord might be the wrong decision. I am prayin very hard about what I am reading. Try some explanations in lamens terms. I would like to show my pop(dad) these too so Lamens. It would be easier to just read it to him without having to double back. If you dont mind me askin, What religion are you 2 that replied to my ?'s???
Hi FNMBG,
Many of us are not from any denomination. We believe that we are the Church as apposed to going to church.
You may want to try this writing. It is also available in PDF format which is good for printing the whole writing. You could also just try printing the second page titled ” The Father is the Supreme and Most High God“. This page has some very challenging scriptures for those who believe in the Trinity doctrine.
BTW there are a number of discussions that talk about the Trinity and certain aspects of it. We should discuss that subject there. It makes it easier for people to find discussions when they are discussed under an appropriate heading and description. This discussion is about Salvation being a free gift.
Try the following Trinity discussions:
- Trinity – True or False?
- Who is Jesus? – The nature and person of Jesus
What does the trinity here have to do with this topic?
Then i'm accused of posting out of topic, or hijacking a topic? You got to be kidding, then who are the ones that hijacked this original topic?
The topic was salvation is it a free gift was it not?
The first posters post only mentions salvation does it not?
Quote whether the salvation is a free gift The first topic poster only posted once in the top first post in the entirety, and never posted again, WHY or what then..
What does the trinity here have to do with this topic?
Then i'm accused of posting out of topic, or hijacking a topic? You got to be kidding, then who are the ones that hijacked this original topic?
Eliyah,
Like I said it was sorted and the guy who posted here was new. If you have a problem with him, then get a doll of him and stick pins in it. (This is a joke OK.)
Personally if someone is new, then they may not post perfectly first time around and you know what, that is perfectly understandable. But when you post regularly, you are expected to keep to a discussion.
I think that is fair and it keeps discussions consistent.
You are starting to sound a bit like Adam, when he said “it was the woman who made me do it”.
How many more pages of posts Eliyah is it going to take for you to allow normal conversation based on the topic, as apposed to complaints and other things?
Would you want me to jump over to the Baal discussion and say complain and talk about everything but the subject itself. I would imagine that you too would be saying stick to the subject, stop avoiding the topic, and stop wasting my time and answer me please.
OK back to the discussion.
Is salvation a free gift?
I think yes. It is given to us by God even though we are undeserving of it. We need to accept it however.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2006,01:06) Eliyah, Like I said it was sorted and the guy who posted here was new. If you have a problem with him, then get a doll of him and stick pins in it. (This is a joke OK.)
Personally if someone is new, then they may not post perfectly first time around and you know what, that is perfectly understandable. But when you post regularly, you are expected to keep to a discussion.
I think that is fair and it keeps discussions consistent.
You are starting to sound a bit like Adam, when he said “it was the woman who made me do it”.
How many more pages of posts Eliyah is it going to take for you to allow normal conversation based on the topic, as apposed to complaints and other things?
Would you want me to jump over to the Baal discussion and say complain and talk about everything but the subject itself. I would imagine that you too would be saying stick to the subject, stop avoiding the topic, and stop wasting my time and answer me please.
Like I said it was sorted and the guy who posted here was new. If you have a problem with him, then get a doll of him and stick pins in it. (This is a joke OK.)
that's funny You wrote what I was going to say before I got a chance.
Here's an interesting question that sort of relates to what we're discussing in another thread:
Once a person is saved, is he always saved?
Jude 5, RS: “I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who SAVED a people out of the land of Egypt, AFTERWARD DESTROYED those who did not believe.”
Matt. 24:13, RS: “He who endures to the end will be saved.”
(So a person’s final salvation is not determined at the moment that he begins to put faith in Jesus. t8, what do you think of this?)Phil. 2:12, RS: “As you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
(This was addressed to “the saints,” or holy ones, at Philippi, as stated in Philippians 1:1. Paul urged them not to be overly confident but to realize that their final salvation was not yet assured.)Heb. 10:26, 27, RS: “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.”
(Thus the Bible does not go along with the idea that no matter what sins a person may commit after he is “saved” he will not lose his salvation. It encourages faithfulness. See also Hebrews 6:4-6, where it is shown that even a person anointed with holy spirit can lose his hope of salvation.)david
Quote (david @ Feb. 06 2006,22:12) Matt. 24:13, RS: “He who endures to the end will be saved.”
(So a person’s final salvation is not determined at the moment that he begins to put faith in Jesus. t8, what do you think of this?)
I agree.We are saved, but we can lose it. I look at it like putting something on HP. You can pay a deposit, which means that it is yours if the final payment is made, but if you do not make the final payment, you lose it. We must endure to the end.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does NOT believe will be condemned.WILL be saved, WILL be condemned.
If it was now and forever then not believing would result in eternal condemnation immediately with no chance of repentance. But we know that one day you may not believe, but later you may believe. It can also work the other way.
Of course we also know that God respects a man's free will. If a man chooses to follow God, but later rejects God, will God force such a man to exist with him for eternity? I think not.
You can lose your salvation while you are in this body. But if you love and serve God to the end, then as you were with him in this life, so shall you be with him in the next.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
