SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Michael Brown and James White defend the doctrine of the Trinity

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
MyVeryHeart
Member



Joined: 2010/8/30
Posts: 449
Paradise, California

 Re:

Phanetheus,

I am concerned for you. For several reasons.

1) I am concerned that your love is growing cold. 2) I am also concerned that your views on the Holy Spirit may cause you to speak a word against him.

I do not want to debate our argue with you about this because I believe there will be no fruit in that. I am only concerned about your spiritual welfare, not about affirming my own understanding of God.

I believe that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity does Glorify Christ because the Spirit shows forth God's love for "my beloved son", and that divine love is so dynamic and powerful that the Spirit of that love is a person. Here is an excerpt from an essay on the Trinity by Jonathan Edwards.

"And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons."

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3106

"the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." Romans 5:5



_________________
Travis

 2010/9/25 15:57Profile









 Re:

Why are you all debating something that the Church stopped all debate on in the 4th century?

 2010/9/25 16:02









 Re:

Consider this for a moment.

Are we men of the world that when someone touches our teachings that we lash back? Muslims and Catholics do that very well, but it should not be so with us. The reason why we lash back is because we are apart of that ancient sect called the Pharisees, who uphold the traditions of men than the word of God.

It's not important how we view the Godhead. God is not at all offended if you see Him as One, Two, Three or Seven. He wants you and I to do one thing. Hear the word of Lord.

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.


 2010/9/25 18:41









 Re:

Hi Phanetheus,

You said, "After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself."

Were you referring to Christ's incarnation?

Do you believe the Lord changed from his divine form into a human form when he "made himself nothing"?

I've been discussing this on crosswalk.com and your statement sounded identical to some of the things I was saying on that forum.

Thanks,
naatmi (notme)

 2010/9/26 10:34









 Re:

Quote:
The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea.



Sounds as if Edwards is saying that Christ had a beginning. That at some time he was generated by the Father who is un-originated. That would actually go against what is normally taught as the Trinity doctrine. Normally people would say that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father". However, that statemet is an oximoron and an impossiblility. Being begotten implies a begetting. To be eternally begotten means for something to happened that never happened.

Quote:
Something that is, at its very simplest, a doctrine that we can never fully understand.

"When you read any great mystery, recorded in holy Writ, you are to prostrate your Reason to Divine Revelation."
-Thomas Ken



I know I'm entering this discussion a little late but these are statements I have a problem with. People will say that if you do not adhear to this "mystery" that they cannot realy explain then you are outside of "orthodox" Christianity and in some cases even considered as one who will go to hell. Never mind the fact that they cannot reconcile all the verses on the matter nor can they explain some of the problems with the doctrine of the Trinity. It will always be put for as the "mystery" doctrine that you cannot really understand but you must adhear to and believe to be saved.

I find that the amount of time the apostles spent preaching the trinity to be very telling on it's importance in salvation. Just go through every apostolic preaching event recorded in the book of Acts and see how often the trinity is presented as a doctrine that is necessary for salvation. See how important it was for them to present this mysterious doctrine to their hearers so they could make sure they are really saved and in agreement with the Christians who would tell them what to believe around 325 A.D. In fact, it may surprise many of you that Christ is never even once preached as almight God in the book of Acts. Jesus is always preached as a man, the Son of Man, or the Son of God, the man sent by God, the Just one, Prince and Savior..ect. It's interesting that today if one emphesis these truths over the preaching of the Trinity (when presenting these's things) it's almost considered heresey.

I wonder how many people will be guilty of consigning people to hell for them not believing in a doctrine that they cannot explain and that they apostles did not explain in their apostolic preaching. What could be a greater crime that condemn a soul that God has already accepted....

 2010/9/26 13:00
MyVeryHeart
Member



Joined: 2010/8/30
Posts: 449
Paradise, California

 Re:

Scott,

That excerpt was from the middle of the article.Edwards explains the eternal begetting of the Son in the first part. If one has eternal life then they will know God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. The scriptures lead to meditation upon this doctrine because the Father, the Spirit, and the Son are taught throughout. It is a sound doctrine that is profitable, glorifies Christ, and protects God's children against destructive heresies that cause spiritual death. I don't think it is unexplainable. I think Edwards explains it adequately from the scriptures. A proper presentation of the Gospel implies a Trinity. God the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father on the Cross and died,the Son was raised from the dead by the Spirit and "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 1:4

That wrath of God rightfully should fall on the entire human race because of our wicked rebellion, but God in his mercy, gave his only begotten Son so that those who believe in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Paul Washer said something to the effect that it had to be God who died on the cross. Do you really think that the blood of a created being was sufficient to atone for the monstrous crimes of Mankind?

and consider

Romans 8:11

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."


And Jonathan Edwards


"And this Person is the second person in the Trinity, the Only Begotten and dearly Beloved Son of God; He is the eternal, necessary, perfect, substantial and personal idea which God hath of Himself; and that it is so seems to me to be abundantly confirmed by the Word of God."

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3106

Grace, peace,and love in Christ,
Travis

Edited for clarity


_________________
Travis

 2010/9/26 14:52Profile









 Re:

Hi Travis,

Quote:
so that by God's thinking of the Deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another Infinite Eternal Almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same Divine nature.



That makes no sense....at least to me. That God, by His own thinking, generated another Almighty who is a distinct different person but the same God? And if the "generated" Almighty came from the "ungenerated" Almighty then there was a time when the person of the generated Almighty did not exist. He at least didn't exist in being a conscience sepereate person. That is the logical conclusion of what Edwards said in the above quote.

Quote:
God the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father on the Cross and died,the Son was raised from the dead by the Spirit and "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 1:4



So if the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father then who bore the wrath of God the Son? Was the Son (eternal almighty) not equally offeneded at our sin? Was our sin only against the Father and therefore the Son was not sinned against when man sinned? And what about the Holy Spirit? Was He not offeneded at our sin as well? If the Fathers wrath was satisfied then who satisfied the wrath of the Son and the Spirit? Could the Father haved died for the Son or the Spirit have died for the Father? Was it just a choice of which persons of the divine Godhead would play which parts OR is our sin against the Father and we have to be reconciled to Him?

Blessings in Christ,

Sean

 2010/9/26 15:15
MyVeryHeart
Member



Joined: 2010/8/30
Posts: 449
Paradise, California

 Re:

It was the Father who was pleased to crush his Son. It was Abraham who was going to plunge the knife into his Son Isaac.

However, God is still angry with the wicked everyday and He will tread the winepress of his wrath, and his anger will burn against those in hell eternally."And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Revelation 14:9-11)


_________________
Travis

 2010/9/26 15:34Profile









 Re:

by naatmi on 2010/9/26 6:34:23

Hi Phanetheus,

You said, "After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself."

Were you referring to Christ's incarnation?

Do you believe the Lord changed from his divine form into a human form when he "made himself nothing"?
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and yes. He made the earth and all that is in it out of nothing.
__________________________________________________________
naatmi:

I've been discussing this on crosswalk.com and your statement sounded identical to some of the things I was saying on that forum.
------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't been there, yet DV, if time affords, will look this week.
__________________________________________________________
n:

Thanks,
naatmi (notme)
-----------------------------------------------------------
ok, we can leave the Arabian religion out of this, once and for all settled.

When first responding to you back in April was it???
i thought notme and then something just clicked in what you posted sounding oh so (that other religion) it was thought your posting handle was relative.

See what thinking does for ya' sometimes???

i should have just asked.

The LORD bless you and keep you.
The LORD make his face to shine upon you
and be gracious unto you.
The LORD guide your path
and guard your way.
Amen.
Amen.

g

 2010/9/26 20:02









 Re:

NewCovWinDor,
(oh little town in Iowa, how still we see thee lie?)
===================================





NCWD:
Phanetheus, I appreciate your openness of heart, but a persistent leaning to the works of the Law is evident. Your views of the Godhead seem to be symptomatic of what appears to be the larger problem of a "flat-Bible" understanding. Perhaps others have brought this to you before; I don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:

H onest
O pen
T ransparent
remains the issue within

i read the words 'flat Bible' and thought, as opposed to a biblical sphere?

No, nobody has ever brought this to my attention. In fact, the term/label was looked up ...to no avail.

So, i asked around and got 3 different answers.
Maybe some of what you mean is below?


i am Flat Bible as in:

~all the pieces are a congruent whole, everything is valid for doctrine, reproof and correction to thoughroughly furnish us unto every good work.

~the OT is basis for the NT (being a commentary of the Old). If it were abolished, there is no foundation nor basis for the New.

~It all points to Jesus, and we cannot pick and choose determining what God's will is for us, because we have the answer in black and white, from Genesis to Revelation: Jesus Christ, King over all Kings, and Lord/Master over all . . .
(whether or not God has brought this fact to our attention.)

What you are calling 'works of the Law' is what?

Here's my perspective:

God first made us and then gave us the operator's manual (Torah) to tell us how things will work best for us. Jesus Christ has brought Law to full reality in His sacrafice. What once was hope in sacrafice, by animal proxy, became the completion of God's cutting all former covenants (which all were of promise until God's representative, Jesus Christ came and represented both God and man in the perfect offering of Himself). Now, in dying to thinking something of me can ever keep the Law, and recognizing Jesus let me die with Him in His sacrafice, he has made it possible for me to walk in His Spirit and so meet the very spirit of the Law and not just the letter.



The Spirit is the substance, and the written code is the shadow.

People can make a shadow play of whatever they whim, but the substance is not available in this to make it a reality. Only in our identification with Jesus crucified, entombed, and resurrected, do we experience life in His Spirit . . . and the benefits gleaned through the Law is part of this.

Are you an anarchist?



____________________________________
NCWD:
I fear for you, in your seeming to emphasize that Sunday worship and other things are an aspect of the "harlot church". This is classical Adventist doctrine, and has its roots in the ecstatic movements of the 19th century.

I know, I'm getting a little off subject!
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Well, off subject or not, it's appreciated.

i am hardly adventist. About 20 years ago, their teachings were looked into and there were things relative to Jesus Christ and prophecy that just did not sit right, though the exact 'whats' are not even remembered.

Harlot church was coined here after studying into Martin Luther/ John Calvin after seeing Brother Tom write and considering his good words. IT was first found that their reformation, in their own statements, was not a full and complete break from RCism. So, all the early councils of the Roman Catholic were researched, and these doctrinal decrees were compared to scripture.

There are many things very wrong, but three which seem to be at the root of it all are:

~Heaven(?) or Hell
~Trinity
~Negating the: observance of Mosaic Law, and the 4th commandment.

re: 7th day adventists
It was because we agreed Shabbat --
(that word, without the extra B means seven) was consecrated and designated by Godhead as a day to recognize our Creator/Source and a repose from all things He has given as for man
-- that the 7th day folk were looked into.
God gave us six days to do things, and 'betrothed' (STS , but pretty literally) Himself to the 7th to be part of and bless this observance.

According to promises regarding Sabbath, God has blessed me..
... and no man, nor his comments contrary to this, could ever superceed what God has proven in this life through obeying Him through this. He has blessed me through stronger relationship in Him, which just naturally flows out to others. He feeds me with the Heritage of Yakov, and i do ride the High Places of the earth.
(many just say i'm just lucky, but before i did this one thing, i was never so lucky. In fact, if it weren't for bad luck, i would have had no luck at all.

It's thought that the thinking of being a 7th dayer is only because Shabbat is recognized and recieved as the gift God gave it to be: remembering Him alone and seperate from everything He made for our use (with thanksgiving).

____________________________________
NCWD:
The Old Testament has a valid place in the Canon of Scripture, and Paul addresses the subject numerous times in the New Testament... especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews (please, everyone, don't skewer me for hinting that I think Paul wrote Hebrews! :)). These events and laws are examples that point us to the New Testament consummation (1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 3:24,25).
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You can skewer opinionated ole' gregg.
i suppose that it was Paul who wrote Hebrews. (look at the end note and check Paul's history. It just hints, but the hint is rather strong.)
____________________________________
NCWD:
An example of this "consummation concept" is the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" doctrine in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24). This was an example of God's justice, and was commanded to show us His unswerving Truth. But, Jesus told us in Matthew 5:38-42 that we are to "resist not evil". This is one of many, many examples of Old Testament commands that were clarified and put in their proper context by Jesus, our Messiah!
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the synoptics, 'returning good for evil' cannot be left out this passage from Matthew speaking about giving more than expected, rather than taking.

When thinking about these things, i think Jesus knew that the issue near to the heart of his hearers is "what will make me right (in my own eyes), and Jesus gave them a rude awakening. He was not emphasising the expectations from punishment, but rather expectations from returning good for evil.

Kinda' like, "there is no closure for you guys in exacting equality. Here, let's level the playing field... and you guys walk the high way instead of responding to others according to your expectations, straighten up, and act like you are God's child.

All this to say that the laws ordinances (rulings) against us were nailed to the cross, and we best walk in that forgiveness towards others.

Jesus was not invoking a doormat policy. Jesus example is retaliating with good in exchange for evil.

OK, enough with these comments. "Consummation concept is something that will have to be looked into. (this is new to me too.)

I believe God's standard remains as written.
Jesus made the validity or the Law that much more valid rather than negating it. He was for it and never against it.

It's the ordinances (against us) that are nailed to the cross, and those who fail to participate in this gift of Jesus Christ will not suffer an eye for an eye nor a tooth for a tooth, but hell itself, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is never quenched.
(Talk about consummation, hunh?)

i think i know what you are driving at so how about explaining Mt. 5.17-20 and Mt 7.21-23, particularily 7.23.

I'll look at I Cor. and Gal. again again though, to better see what you are pointing at, but are you sure you have the surrounding issues intact when you propose 'consumation?
____________________________________
NCWD
I feel the above similarities to Adventism and neo-Judaisim clearly puts some of your conclusions on the Godhead under suspicion.
--------------------------------------------------------------
i'm hardly neo-jewish.
I do not make any effort to observe anything out of tradition. Rather, the scriptures are reason enough to act and God is my source.
(Eph. 5.1-2)

i am not 7th day adventist, unless observing Shabbat makes me one.

I really do want to know what exactly it is that is so suspicious regarding 'conclusions(?)' regarding godhead because of judaism?

If it's any consolation, i was brought up within Protestantism: Missionary (and Christian) Alliance, Nazarene, Baptist, Evangelical Free . . . to name the more predominant influences of upbringing ...and even went through Confirmation via the Westminster Chatechism . . .

. . . then Jesus saved me, baptised me in His Holy Spirit, and everything changed ---constantly witnessing about Jesus, with various gifts operating as God tells me to do . . . moreso today than when beginning in Him..

Have i been misleading?
(i may not be the swiftest in openly expressing my opinions, according to the controversy seen springing up whenever i lay doings/beliefs on the table from here.)
i lay things on the table, but often fail to show all the details.

Some people avoid me.
Being an open, no holes barred, nothing up my sleeve, calling a spade a spade, kinda' guy they shy away . . . especially those who do not want to hear about Jesus.

Here on SI, i'll state what i believe and why, respond to whoeverybody i can if time affords, and learn many things as a result. Personal views have been changed as well as become more pristine here because of everyone who writes at SI.
____________________________________

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
-Colossians 2:16-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now, i never told anyone that they had to do as i do, though there is no hesitation in telling others to copy Jesus' example.

How any man walks in faith(fulness) towards God is between them and their Maker.

I never said that anybody had to, but that they should.

God did not give the Law to harm us. Walking in His standard with a circumcised heart reveals to me more and more how much God really loves us.
(Jn. 14.15. 21, 23)

My (personal) firm conviction is that God in/is love, through His grace gave us Torah and Himself--Christ Jesus,--
grace, and grace upon grace,
so that we could live a godly life.
It's all a matter of what promises one will believe (aka: walk in) and so recieve.
____________________________________
NCWD:
Based on this Scripture, another danger I see in this forum is that we are placing more emphasis on our personal experiences than what the plain Word of God teaches, and what our trusted brethren counsel us. It is good to decide things for ourselves personally, but it must also be tempered by taking counsel from others (Proverbs 11:14). This is not the Catholic route of "Tradition First", but rather a plea to consider what each has to say before we cast it out as "anathema".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and even after tried by scripture, i still will not (towards or against personal convictions) anathematize it.
(Often there are pieces to this big picture, that if thrown out, will make the puzzle incomplete. i don't want to wish i had listened.)
____________________________________


We are attempting to interpret the eternal Word of God through our own experiences, and we know that "God is true, and every man a liar". Therefore we must be extremely cautious of our own deceptive hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). Listening to counsel from other brethren is not a sign of weakness, but rather wisdom (Proverbs 9:9). Our own desires to "be right" or to "win" will cloud our judgment easily, which is why I NEED the input of my brothers.
--------------------------------------------------------------

i come to the table more firm in conviction, speaking what i know, (hopefully only ...but i slip up too.)
What i do not know is how my heart has decieved me (and it always does: if not with the wrong thing, in trying to make me think i am right just because i may have been revealed the right thing.)

Here it's not about winning.
It's about greater clarity regarding what God says and does . . . because that's my Abba and my big brother we're talking about.

Counsel from other bretheren without God's counsel, the scriptures, as the source, is questionable at best.

The world's opinion is virtually ignored.

It's been done for so long now --(ever since that first outpouring of His Spirit in this life, over 30 years ago)-- that i don't even know if i ever take any human literally at their word. i just don't know how literally a person is taken, unless we have a one on one relationship, or God tells me differently than what 'i have chosen' to assume. Scripture just comes to mind whatever the means of communication, kinda' like a watchguard towards discernment. It's like human opinion and doing sits second to Biblical counsel via the Holy Spirit.
This is why scripture proof is asked for when it seems unsupportive ( or non-existent) regarding what another says.

Sometimes around a meal, the things out that are brought up here --(only things i write and scripture or comment that stands opposite (no names are used save mine)-- are carried on with in discussion. This happens with both family and other followers of Jesus.

i have been corrected a time or three through this.

Anybody can be blunt and to the point with me.
You will be hardpressed to offend me. If soft or harsh words don't work, it's nothing that a cattle prod and a baseball bat will not solve.

God Bless you all,
gregg




 2010/9/26 20:29





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy