- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Martian,
Thanks for that explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think you might be a little too bold in essentially declaring, “I know for certain that these are the motives and intentions of God, and I refuse to respond to any Scripture that might contradict what I perceive to be God's motives and intentions.” I think a good place to start would be to admit that we don't know God's ways perfectly, as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36, “Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of YHWH, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory to the ages. Amen.” AMEN!
So I think if we are going to use the motives and intentions of God as our starting point, we need to be very humble and not assume that we know them perfectly. And we certainly shouldn't let our understanding of God's ways block us from even dealing with certain Scriptures. And it's very important to remember that because we are evil sinners, we will certainly misunderstand God's motives and intentions, and thus need to rely solely on Scripture.
Quote I will not use scripture other then to point out the (what I hope is agreed upon) motives and intentions of God. I would caution you, that in addition to avoiding conclusions about the ways of God, you should also look to Scripture for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. These three functions are certainly relevant for the evaluation of any doctrine. Of course, sound teaching/doctrine is a constant emphasis in Paul's letters (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 4:9, Ephesians 4:19, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:9). So we are certainly called upon to know correct doctrine from the Scriptures.
Quote God’s motive is always love. I agree, because God is Love. I would caution you, however, against assuming that your understanding of love is the same as God's.
Quote Because God’s motive is always love He always operates in fairness toward His creation. I disagree. I don't remember reading the word fairness in the Bible. Maybe it's there, please show me. But I think a better statement is that God always acts with righteousness and justice toward His creation. Fairness brings to mind the pot complaining to the potter in Romans 9:21.
Quote God’s intention for creating man was to raise up children who would be in the image and likeness of Him I agree, of course adding that they should have dominion over the earth.
Quote Jesus’ purpose was two fold. To be a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind and to be a perfect and complete example to mankind on how to walk with God. I agree with the first, but I would say the second isn't nearly as important as His ministry of mercy. I know we are exhorted to imitate Him and walk as He walked, but I believe His main purpose was to save the world, by becoming a propitiation as you say, but also by being a life-giving spirit and to give the Holy Spirit to His saints. His perfect obedience to the law, I believe, was less intended for us to see and repeat, but more so that He could personally come to our aid. So basically I agree with you, but there needs to be a lot more emphasis on His saving role. And of course there are other purposes, such as coming so that He might be Lord both of the living and the dead. And of course He came to perfectly reveal God. Traditionally He has been called “Prophet, Priest, and King.” Would you agree that summarizes His purposes in coming?
Quote As followers of Christ, we are to become like Him. I agree. If I may suggest, perhaps you are letting this conclusion block your understanding of Who Jesus is? I think many of your conclusions about what would happen if God became a man are reasonable, but I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don't know for certain what would happen if God became a man and took on flesh; and if the Bible says this happened and Jesus is still like us in every way, we should accept it.
Quote Everything Christ did was for the purpose of being an example to us. No. Again, Prophet, Priest, King. He came to reveal God, to reconcile us to God, and to be our Lord. Being an example is certainly part of this, but it's not the purpose of everything He did.
Quote If the conclusion of whatever process a person uses to determine doctrine contradicts or works against the above intentions and motives of God, then that doctrine is wrong. Well I think this is where the circular reasoning comes in. You assert that these 6 conclusions are true and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might contradict them.
I'll just throw in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation. I believe the Bible is pretty straightforward, even though parts of it are told in proverbs and parables. For the most part I think we should just take what a Scripture says and accept it as true, without forcing it to fit with our understanding of God's motives and intentions. So if the Bible says the Word was God, that pretty much says it all. And if it says Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, well, I know he's not just a man.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
You say
“If I may suggest, perhaps you are letting this conclusion block your understanding of Who Jesus is? I think many of your conclusions about what would happen if God became a man are reasonable, but I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don't know for certain what would happen if God became a man and took on flesh; and if the Bible says this happened and Jesus is still like us in every way, we should accept it.”Where does scripture say God became a man?
Hi Martian,
Our good friend Athanasius has shown us some of the purposes of Christ's coming to earth:
John 6:38-40 -“I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of Him which sent Me, that everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 12:46 -“I come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness.”
John 18:37 -“To this end I was born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.”
1 John 3:8 -“For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.”
Hebrews 2:14,15 -“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”
Romans 8:3,4 -“For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”
Athanasius comments, “This, then, was the reason why the Saviour came among men, to bear witness to the truth of God, to die upon the cross for our redemption, to raise up from the dead, and defeate all the machinations of the devil. Had it not been for these ends, He had never assumed flesh; had not the resurrection of His body been necessary for ours, He had not died; and He could not have died unless He had taken upon Himself a mortal body.” From “Against the Arians,” page 146-147.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
You quote scripture
“God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh,”
then Athanasius
“”This, then, was the reason why the Saviour came among men, to bear witness to the truth of God, to die upon the cross for our redemption, to raise up from the dead, and defeate all the machinations of the devil. Had it not been for these ends, He had never assumed flesh; had not the resurrection of His body been necessary for ours, He had not died; and He could not have died unless He had taken upon Himself a mortal body.”So the Son of God is the Saviour spoken of here.
He partook of flesh to witness to God's truth.Quote (Tim2 @ June 05 2007,18:45) Hi Martian, Thanks for that explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think you might be a little too bold in essentially declaring, “I know for certain that these are the motives and intentions of God, and I refuse to respond to any Scripture that might contradict what I perceive to be God's motives and intentions.” I think a good place to start would be to admit that we don't know God's ways perfectly, as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36, “Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of YHWH, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory to the ages. Amen.” AMEN!
So I think if we are going to use the motives and intentions of God as our starting point, we need to be very humble and not assume that we know them perfectly. And we certainly shouldn't let our understanding of God's ways block us from even dealing with certain Scriptures. And it's very important to remember that because we are evil sinners, we will certainly misunderstand God's motives and intentions, and thus need to rely solely on Scripture.
Quote I will not use scripture other then to point out the (what I hope is agreed upon) motives and intentions of God. I would caution you, that in addition to avoiding conclusions about the ways of God, you should also look to Scripture for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. These three functions are certainly relevant for the evaluation of any doctrine. Of course, sound teaching/doctrine is a constant emphasis in Paul's letters (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 4:9, Ephesians 4:19, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:9). So we are certainly called upon to know correct doctrine from the Scriptures.
Quote God’s motive is always love. I agree, because God is Love. I would caution you, however, against assuming that your understanding of love is the same as God's.
Quote Because God’s motive is always love He always operates in fairness toward His creation. I disagree. I don't remember reading the word fairness in the Bible. Maybe it's there, please show me. But I think a better statement is that God always acts with righteousness and justice toward His creation. Fairness brings to mind the pot complaining to the potter in Romans 9:21.
Quote God’s intention for creating man was to raise up children who would be in the image and likeness of Him I agree, of course adding that they should have dominion over the earth.
Quote Jesus’ purpose was two fold. To be a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind and to be a perfect and complete example to mankind on how to walk with God. I agree with the first, but I would say the second isn't nearly as important as His ministry of mercy. I know we are exhorted to imitate Him and walk as He walked, but I believe His main purpose was to save the world, by becoming a propitiation as you say, but also by being a life-giving spirit and to give the Holy Spirit to His saints. His perfect obedience to the law, I believe, was less intended for us to see and repeat, but more so that He could personally come to our aid. So basically I agree with you, but there needs to be a lot more emphasis on His saving role. And of course there are other purposes, such as coming so that He might be Lord both of the living and the dead. And of course He came to perfectly reveal God. Traditionally He has been called “Prophet, Priest, and King.” Would you agree that summarizes His purposes in coming?
Quote As followers of Christ, we are to become like Him. I agree. If I may suggest, perhaps you are letting this conclusion block your understanding of Who Jesus is? I think many of your conclusions about what would happen if God became a man are reasonable, but I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don't know for certain what would happen if God became a man and took on flesh; and if the Bible says this happened and Jesus is still like us in every way, we should accept it.
Quote Everything Christ did was for the purpose of being an example to us. No. Again, Prophet, Priest, King. He came to reveal God, to reconcile us to God, and to be our Lord. Being an example is certainly part of this, but it's not the purpose of everything He did.
Quote If the conclusion of whatever process a person uses to determine doctrine contradicts or works against the above intentions and motives of God, then that doctrine is wrong. Well I think this is where the circular reasoning comes in. You assert that these 6 conclusions are true and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might contradict them.
I'll just throw in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation. I believe the Bible is pretty straightforward, even though parts of it are told in proverbs and parables. For the most part I think we should just take what a Scripture says and accept it as true, without forcing it to fit with our understanding of God's motives and intentions. So if the Bible says the Word was God, that pretty much says it all. And if it says Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, well, I know he's not just a man.
Tim
Thanks for that explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think you might be a little too bold in essentially declaring, “I know for certain that these are the motives and intentions of God, and I refuse to respond to any Scripture that might contradict what I perceive to be God's motives and intentions.” I think a good place to start would be to admit that we don't know God's ways perfectly, as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36, “Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind
of YHWH, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory to the ages. Amen.” AMEN!Response –
You elude to other motives that might be included, but give no examples. The possibility that there might be more to God’s motives in no way diminishes those that I have listed. The real question remains. Rather then try to elude the subject, do you or do you not agree that those motives I listed are correct?You say,
So I think if we are going to use the motives and intentions of God as our starting point, we need to be very humble and not assume that we know them perfectly. And we certainly shouldn't let our understanding of God's ways block us from even dealing with certain Scriptures. And it's very important to remember that because we are evil sinners, we will certainly misunderstand God's motives and intentions, and thus need to rely solely on Scripture.Response –
I doubt that I know God’s symptoms perfectly, but since my entire walk with God is dependent on knowing God and trusting Him, I know that He has revealed enough to me to walk with Him.
If you wish to believe that you are an evil sinner that is your problem. I am a sinner as the biblical definition of sin, which is that I have missed the mark, but I am not evil.You say –
I would caution you, that in addition to avoiding conclusions about the ways of God, you should also look to Scripture for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. These three functions are certainly relevant for the evaluation of any doctrine. Of course, sound teaching/doctrine is a constant emphasis in Paul's letters (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 4:9, Ephesians 4:19, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:9). So we are certainly called upon to know correct doctrine from the Scriptures.Response-
Before you endeavor to caution anyone you should earn their trust and respect. In so far as your ability to understand scripture or walk with God you have done neither with me.
Secondly –
No I will not play your game and please stop trying to take me there. You are dishonest with scripture and I am denying you that ability. In the process I am attempting to ascertain if you know God at all.You say –
Quote
God’s motive is always love.
I agree, because God is Love. I would caution you, however, against assuming that your understanding of love is the same as God's.I am sorry if you do not know God’s love. Perhaps that is part of the problem and why you insist on proving scripture from an intellectual standpoint rather then by the heart of God.
You state –
Quote
Because God’s motive is always love He always operates in fairness toward His creation.
I disagree. I don't remember reading the word fairness in the Bible. Maybe it's there, please show me. But I think a better statement is that God always acts with righteousness and justice toward His creation. Fairness brings to mind the pot complaining to the potter in Romans 9:21.Response –
Now you are playing symantics. Fine then let’s say God is just and righteous in all that He does.Quote
God’s intention for creating man was to raise up children who would be in the image and likeness of Him
I agree, of course adding that they should have dominion over the earth.Quote
Jesus’ purpose was two fold. To be a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind and to be a perfect and complete example to mankind on how to walk with God.
I agree with the first, but I would say the second isn't nearly as important as His ministry of mercy. I know we are exhorted to imitate Him and walk as He walked, but I believe His main purpose was to save the world, by becoming a propitiation as you say, but also by being a life-giving spirit and to give the Holy Spirit to His saints. His perfect obedience to the law, I believe, was less intended for us to see and repeat, but more so that He could personally come to our aid. So basically I agree with you, but there needs to be a lot more emphasis on His saving role. And of course there are other purposes, such as coming so that He might be Lord both of the living and the dead. And of course He came to perfectly reveal God. Traditionally He has been called “Prophet, Priest, and King.” Would you agree that summarizes His purposes in coming?
Response –
The saving role of Christ is only the beginning that takes us bact to a posistion of innocence before Him. We are still not perfected. That perfection comes through following Christ and becoming like Him. The fact that Chris is prophet king and priest does not mean those are not examples for us. We are to be kings and priests and Paul enchorages us to prophecy.You say –
Quote
As followers of Christ, we are to become like Him.
I agree. If I may suggest, perhaps you are letting this conclusion block your understanding of Who Jesus is? I think many of your conclusions about what would happen if God became a man are reasonable, but I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don't know for certain what would happen if God became a man and took on flesh; and if the Bible says this happened and Jesus is still like us in every way, we should accept it.Wrong again –
I am not going to admit to a mystery just because you think there is one. I do not base my beliefs on the possibility that there is some mystery involved. I prefer to believe and have faith that has substance not pie in the sky mystery.You say –
Quote
Everything Christ did was for the purpose of being an example to us.
No. Again, Prophet, Priest, King. He came to reveal God, to reconcile us to God, and to be our Lord. Being an example is certainly part of this, but it's not the purpose of everything He did.Response –
Nothing you listed is not to be an example for us. We are to be kings and priests and called to prophecy so your analogy is wrong.You say –
Quote
If the conclusion of whatever process a person uses to determine doctrine contradicts or works against the above intentions and motives of God, then that doctrine is wrong.
Well I think this is where the circular reasoning comes in. You assert that these 6 conclusions are true and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might contradict them.Response –
Do you have scripture that contradicts these motives of God? Do you have scripture that says these motives are not accurate? Post them.You say –
I'll just throw in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation. I believe the Bible is pretty straightforward, even though parts of it are told in proverbs and parables. For the most part I think we should just take what a Scripture says and accept it as true, without forcing it to fit with our understanding of God's motives and intentions. So if the Bible says the Word was God, that pretty much says it all. And if it says Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, well, I know he's not just a man.Response –
If this is the depth of your scriptural study, I am not surprised that you come up with wrong conclusions.
Do you think that Paul or John wrote in English? Don’t you think it important to understand the original languages, cultures and mindset of the writers to understand what they were trying to convey? Do you think that translations made hundreds of years after the originals are as accurate as the originals. Don’t you think you have to give the same meaning for the same word throughout scripture and not change it a few places to support a particular doctrine?Quote I am a sinner as the biblical definition of sin, which is that I have missed the mark, but I am not evil. Matthew 7:11 -“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children …”
Quote You elude to other motives that might be included, but give no examples. The possibility that there might be more to God’s motives in no way diminishes those that I have listed. I didn't say that God has more motives than you listed, I said that His ways are unfathomable. So to claim that you have fathomed the motives and intentions of God is wrong. Of course we know that He is just and He is Love, but to think that you can start with this very general understanding and declare that it would be unjust and unloving for God to become a man and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might say otherwise is wrong.
Quote I am sorry if you do not know God’s love. Perhaps that is part of the problem and why you insist on proving scripture from an intellectual standpoint rather then by the heart of God. None of us knows the heart of God so well that we can ignore passages of the Bible that say Jesus created heaven and earth. And even Paul said God's judgments are unsearchable and His ways are unfathomable.
Quote That perfection comes through following Christ and becoming like Him. Well let's be clear that perfection comes from the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:4. It is not a matter of us striving to imitate Christ under our own fleshly power.
Quote The fact that Chris is prophet king and priest does not mean those are not examples for us. We are to be kings and priests and Paul enchorages us to prophecy. In a sense these ministries are examples for us, but that is not their main point. The point is for Christ to be those things Himself.
Quote Do you have scripture that contradicts these motives of God? Do you have scripture that says these motives are not accurate? Post them Well I think I've already posted several that suggest that becoming an example was not Christ's top priority. But what you've listed is too general and vague to conclude that it is not possible for God to have become a man. Again, can't you just admit that you don't know for certain what would happen if the eternal Son of God took on flesh? You might think it would be impossible for Him to remain God and become human, but if the Bible says He did not change, isn't that enough? The problem is you think you know too much to allow Scripture to say what it says. If Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, He's not just a man. If He took on flesh and blood, that means He wasn't flesh and blood before He partook of them!
Quote Don’t you think it important to understand the original languages, cultures and mindset of the writers to understand what they were trying to convey? Of course, that's why I trust the scholars over the millenia who have studied the original languages, and better yet, people who actually spoke that language while they were alive, like Athanasius!
Tim
Hi Tim2
“He is Love, but to think that you can start with this very general understanding and declare that it would be unjust and unloving for God to become a man and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might say otherwise is wrong.”Where does it say God became a lowly man?
Was God too lower than the angels?Tim,
I missed judged you and I must ask your forgivness. I thought you were purposefully ignoring proper principles of interpretation. I was wrong. The fact is you do not know any.As appropriately named. this is a waste of time.
Martian, I have been enjoying this thread very much; and I agree with a lot of what you say. I also believe that iron sharpens iron, and you and Tim are doing just that. Even if you don't believe Tim is a worthy opponent, you have had the opportunity to share your view (and we all learn by sharing what we know). So in this way, I trust you will not see your time here as a waste of time.
Quote (martian @ June 07 2007,05:23) Tim,
I missed judged you and I must ask your forgivness. I thought you were purposefully ignoring proper principles of interpretation. I was wrong. The fact is you do not know any.As appropriately named. this is a waste of time.
martianThis is such a sad witness to “true biblical Christianity”.
To say “Tim dosnt know any principles of interpretation”, truly reveals your pride which is like filthy rags.
How do you expect to influence anyone to your truth by this kind of fruitless example?
You look down your nose at others because they dont accept your teaching of “Functionality”, which in my opinion is not “functional” at all.
You should “Truly Repent”, rather than just making a patronizing, sarcastic statement like this!
Go ahead, run off. Seeing that you are to cowardly to stand toe to toe and scripture to scripture with Tim.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2007,12:16) This is such a sad witness to “true biblical Christianity”.
I'm afraid this doesn't even come close to the thread where Tim and YOU call the rest of us (that don't share your truth), “wicked – pagen – heretics.”Now that is a great testimony of true Christianity!
The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind…….
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2007,12:16) How do you expect to influence anyone to your truth by this kind of fruitless example? You look down your nose at others because they dont accept your teaching of “Functionality”, which in my opinion is not “functional” at all.
Again, SPARE ME!What do you think you and Tim (Tim, especially) do to US when we don't accept your teaching of the Trinity?
My turn…..
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 07 2007,15:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2007,12:16) This is such a sad witness to “true biblical Christianity”.
I'm afraid this doesn't even come close to the thread where Tim and YOU call the rest of us (that don't share your truth), “wicked – pagen – heretics.”Now that is a great testimony of true Christianity!
The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind…….
not3Sorry you think I am a hypocrite, But all I have seen from Tim is an honest attempt to discuss with m42, the real hypocrite, his beliefs and if you notice m42 constantly condescends and patronizes him.
So I address it. If I am treating someone with disdain I hope they say something to me which I am quite sure they will.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 07 2007,15:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2007,12:16) This is such a sad witness to “true biblical Christianity”.
I'm afraid this doesn't even come close to the thread where Tim and YOU call the rest of us (that don't share your truth), “wicked – pagen – heretics.”Now that is a great testimony of true Christianity!
The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind…….
not3I didnt see Tim mention any names.
There has been and will continue to be heretics, pegans and wicked blasphemous men coming to this sight.
Dont be so quick to judge Tim.
Have you noticed some of the things he and myself and Is 1:18 and other Trinitarians have been called!
In fact I was called a Pig by a regular here. Recently someone accused me of making myself a god. LOL.
Trinitarians here are believed to be part of the “Great Whore”, of which I think recently you have participated in conversation about. Am I wrong?
We have been accused of being stupid and ignorant and that we are proud and blind, (I can hear many saying amen right now).
In fact just recently there was lots of little snickering and mockery and sarcastic remarks toward me regarding the Holy Spirit.
I am an emotional person and take those things to heart, but I am learning not to let it eat at me, but try to stay in the right Spirit.
But, I dont attack or engage into tearing into someones character or person. Name calling and using words like, ignorant and stupid and dumb, degrading words like this should not even be implied.
I get a little hard at NH sometimes and he me. We are big boys and can handle it. I am sure that Tim can too.
But I dont see Tim personally tearing into someones character or person. He may call out false doctrine for what he believes it is. But that is entirely different from engaging in degrading remarks and onlsaughts like m42 has done now and in the past.
So If I am considered a hypocrite well fine. I think I said the right thing. This kind of language should not come out of a professing saint toward any ones person.
If I am wrong correct me.
I agree with WJ on his point about Tim. He has exercised a lot of patience here, I think and practically every post he has written has been constructive. He's vey level headed in my estimation and the post in which he may have appeared offensive was probably an aberration. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I can also sympathise with WJ here too. Martian has shown a lot of disdain for his theological distractors at this site and deserves a lot of the criticism that comes his way, I think. Yeshua was probably more offensive in correcting others than WJ was with Martian. If Martian (and his mentor Music42) could perhaps bring himself down off the lofty theological pedestal that he's erected for himself, and relate to others in affable way, it would go a long way towards engendering respect.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 07 2007,17:13) I agree with WJ on his point about Tim. He has exercised a lot of patience here, I think and practically every post he has written has been constructive. He's vey level headed in my estimation and the post in which he may have appeared offensive was probably an aberration. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. I can also sympathise with WJ here too. Martian has shown a lot of disdain for his theological distractors at this site and deserves a lot of the criticism that comes his way, I think. Yeshua was probably more offensive in correcting others than WJ was with Martian. If Martian (and his mentor Music42) could perhaps bring himself down off the lofty theological pedestal that he's erected for himself, and relate to others in affable way, it would go a long way towards engendering respect.
Isaiahmartial is m42!
He has confessed!
Blessings
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2007,16:52) Trinitarians here are believed to be part of the “Great Whore”, of which I think recently you have participated in conversation about. Am I wrong?
The only participation I have had with the whole “Come out of her!” thing is to tell Olive that it was a poplular phrase to quote here by some – certainly not by me. That is probably what you remember reading.WJ and Isaiah, I respect you both – you must know this. I have had interacting with both of you gentlemen. However, Tim is very abrasive to all who do not share his doctrine. He, himself, name calls and attacks others and then cries to t8 when he is being attacked. I do not respect him because he says I cannot be a part of the family of God. He may appear to be constructive and patient, but in his wake he has left many wounded.
WJ, I know you are a emotional person as I am (we have decided this long ago about each other). So, you must know how much it hurts me when Tim lashes out at (no names, but I am included in this group he is attacking). He's mean and heartless to those who do not agree with him. You agree with him so he is your buddy. I do not agree with him and so I am cast out in the cold. This should not be…..
I'm shaking my head right now. I guess it just boils down to a personality clash, but I still say his behavior is not right towards those he condems.
Quote (Tim2 @ June 05 2007,18:45) Hi Martian, Thanks for that explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think you might be a little too bold in essentially declaring, “I know for certain that these are the motives and intentions of God, and I refuse to respond to any Scripture that might contradict what I perceive to be God's motives and intentions.” I think a good place to start would be to admit that we don't know God's ways perfectly, as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36, “Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of YHWH, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory to the ages. Amen.” AMEN!
So I think if we are going to use the motives and intentions of God as our starting point, we need to be very humble and not assume that we know them perfectly. And we certainly shouldn't let our understanding of God's ways block us from even dealing with certain Scriptures. And it's very important to remember that because we are evil sinners, we will certainly misunderstand God's motives and intentions, and thus need to rely solely on Scripture.
Quote I will not use scripture other then to point out the (what I hope is agreed upon) motives and intentions of God. I would caution you, that in addition to avoiding conclusions about the ways of God, you should also look to Scripture for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. These three functions are certainly relevant for the evaluation of any doctrine. Of course, sound teaching/doctrine is a constant emphasis in Paul's letters (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 4:9, Ephesians 4:19, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:9). So we are certainly called upon to know correct doctrine from the Scriptures.
Quote God’s motive is always love. I agree, because God is Love. I would caution you, however, against assuming that your understanding of love is the same as God's.
Quote Because God’s motive is always love He always operates in fairness toward His creation. I disagree. I don't remember reading the word fairness in the Bible. Maybe it's there, please show me. But I think a better statement is that God always acts with righteousness and justice toward His creation. Fairness brings to mind the pot complaining to the potter in Romans 9:21.
Quote God’s intention for creating man was to raise up children who would be in the image and likeness of Him I agree, of course adding that they should have dominion over the earth.
Quote Jesus’ purpose was two fold. To be a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind and to be a perfect and complete example to mankind on how to walk with God. I agree with the first, but I would say the second isn't nearly as important as His ministry of mercy. I know we are exhorted to imitate Him and walk as He walked, but I believe His main purpose was to save the world, by becoming a propitiation as you say, but also by being a life-giving spirit and to give the Holy Spirit to His saints. His perfect obedience to the law, I believe, was less intended for us to see and repeat, but more so that He could personally come to our aid. So basically I agree with you, but there needs to be a lot more emphasis on His saving role. And of course there are other purposes, such as coming so that He might be Lord both of the living and the dead. And of course He came to perfectly reveal God. Traditionally He has been called “Prophet, Priest, and King.” Would you agree that summarizes His purposes in coming?
Quote As followers of Christ, we are to become like Him. I agree. If I may suggest, perhaps you are letting this conclusion block your understanding of Who Jesus is? I think many of your conclusions about what would happen if God became a man are reasonable, but I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don't know for certain what would happen if God became a man and took on flesh; and if the Bible says this happened and Jesus is still like us in every way, we should accept it.
Quote Everything Christ did was for the purpose of being an example to us. No. Again, Prophet, Priest, King. He came to reveal God, to reconcile us to God, and to be our Lord. Being an example is certainly part of this, but it's not the purpose of everything He did.
Quote If the conclusion of whatever process a person uses to determine doctrine contradicts or works against the above intentions and motives of God, then that doctrine is wrong. Well I think this is where the circular reasoning comes in. You assert that these 6 conclusions are true and refuse to consider any Scriptures that might contradict them.
I'll just throw in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation. I believe the Bible is pretty straightforward, even though parts of it are told in proverbs and parables. For the most part I think we should just take what a Scripture says and accept it as true, without forcing it to fit with our understanding of God's motives and intentions. So if the Bible says the Word was God, that pretty much says it all. And if it says Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, well, I know he's not just a man.
Tim
Not3,
Here is one of Tim's posts, and I think it's a typical one for him. I just don't see the acrimonious dispersions that you apply to him. Maybe he has made one or two comments that were abrasive, but we all do that from time to time. Yeshua was also abrasive at times. Tim just doesn't strike me as the villain that your painting him as IMO….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
