SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : godhead

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 Next Page )
PosterThread
Nasher
Member



Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK

 Re:

Quote:
And this is exactly the point, when we worship God, we worship the Holy Spirit, but when we worship the Holy Spirit, of Whom Jesus stated: He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John 16:14), we go beyond to what we are told to do, since:


Hans, so what you're saying is, it's ok to worship God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) together, but to worship the Holy Spirit separately is wrong? But worshiping the Father or the Son separately is ok?



Quote:
What I do know is that the more people worship and focus on the Holy Spirit, instead of on the Father, very amazing, but to me, very scary things happen.


Are you saying that if a person worships the Holy Spirit that He will lead them astray in some way?


_________________
Mark Nash

 2005/11/7 13:22Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I agree that God is a person, much like we are persons. However, God is not three persons, He is one person. He has one "personhood". There is not a seperate 'consciousness' in God, for if there were, then God would conflict. Jesus would think something seperate from the father, and those thoughts would conflict, thereby creating a conflict in God. This cannot be.

Conflict is caused by differing opinions, differing opinions are the result of either one party (or both parties) being wrong in the position that they take. In the godhead there is no such conflict of opinion, nor could there be. Please explain to me how this conversation works when there is no separate consciousness...“the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (Psa. 2:7-8, KJVS)Who is Christ talking to in John 17?

Quote:

Have you ever had a conversation with your own word? Imagine if you spoke and your words stopped in mid-air, turned around, and spoke back to you.

"Have I ever had a conversation with my own word?" No I haven't. I have had a conversation with myself but never with my word. It is prayer and answered prayer that makes it crystal clear that Christ is not talking to Himself:“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, [u]and made intercession for the transgressors[/u].” (Is. 53:12, KJVS)

“Save Me from the lion’s mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!
[u]You have answered Me[/u].” (Psa. 22:21, NKJV)

“Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that [u]thou hearest me[/u] always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 11:41-42, KJVS)

“Who in the days of his flesh, when [u]he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him[/u] that was able to save him from death, [u]and was heard[/u] in that he feared;” (Heb. 5:7, KJVS) What we have here is plainly communication which has both 'transmit' and 'receive' elements. How can this be if Father and Son do not have separate consciousness?

Quote:
My word can be written. When it is written, it can exist longer than I can. It can exist apart from my presence. However, my word is not a seperate person from me. It does not have a seperate consciousness than me. It is my consciousness. It is the expression of my thoughts. My word cannot say or do anything that is different from me or my consciousness. Neither could Jesus do anything seperate or different from God.

Have you ever acted in a play? Have you ever wrote a story to demonstrate something? Have you ever set an example to your children by acting it out first?

This is a perfect example of modalism. If you hold this and claim not to believe in modalism it can only be that you do not understand modalism. The whole point about 'modalism' is that 'one person' is being revealed in different ways at different times. And your 'play-analogy' is exactly the kind of reasoning the modalists have always employed.

Quote:
God came to earth to reveal His true person to us, so that we could know Him personally.

When 'God came to earth' who was 'my Father which is in heaven'? “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21, KJVS)

Quote:
My word can be written. When it is written, it can exist longer than I can. It can exist apart from my presence. However, my word is not a seperate person from me. It does not have a seperate consciousness than me. It is my consciousness. It is the expression of my thoughts. My word cannot say or do anything that is different from me or my consciousness. Neither could Jesus do anything seperate or different from God.

You blame me for 'logic and reason'. This paragraph is a classic example of someone using neither. My 'word' does not have consciousness; not when it is spoken nor written. My word is a 'thing'; Christ as the Word was not a 'thing' but had consciousness. The 'reason' that your 'word' does not have 'separate consciousness' is that it has no consciousness at all!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/7 13:45Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2735
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
I agree that God is a person, much like we are persons. However, God is not three persons, He is one person. He has one "personhood".



Again, I have to ask you, if God is one person then how could there be love and communication before the foundation of the world as found in John 17:24 and Genesis 1:26? Answer these questions;

1)Can there be love and communication with only one person?
2)Did God need to create in order to love and communicate?

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2005/11/7 13:46Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi BeenBlake,

Quote:
However, I don't suspect it will change my mind. [u]I don't like the doctrine of the trinity.[/u] I understand why it was developed, and what it was trying to accomplish.




I should hope to encourage you to dig into how the doctrine of "Jesus name only" developed. It happens that during the Pentecostal revivals of the early 20th century R. McAlistern, Frank Ewart, G.T.Haywood, Glenn Cook became proponents of a new baptism formula 'discovered' by McAlister based on a complete misunderstanding of water baptism in the Book of Acts. This new formula essentially split the early pentecostal movement. Since the name of Jesus 'only' is found in Acts baptisms as opposed to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" it was reasoned that in Christ must "dwell all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" and so from there 'Sabellianism' was revived with a fresh spin.

This error could have been avoided by simply understanding that the use of Jesus' name in baptism in Acts was for the purpose of differentiating it from "John's Baptism." Today we cannot understand this, but in those days if you asked a person if they had been baptised they may have said 'yes' and yet still needed to be baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which was Jesus' baptism- as He gave us the model in Matthew 28:19:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This command was given just a weeks before Pentecost. It does not reason that between Matthew 28 and Acts 2 that this should change. The distinction had to be made between John's Baptism of repentance and Baptism post Pentecost.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19)



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/11/7 14:26Profile
LetUsPray
Member



Joined: 2004/10/12
Posts: 173


 Re: The Godhead

Dear Nasher,

Quote:
Hans, so what you're saying is, it's ok to worship God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) together, but to worship the Holy Spirit separately is wrong? But worshiping the Father or the Son separately is ok?


May I ask you some questions?

When Jesus spoke, did He speak as Jesus, did He quote the Holy Spirit or did He speak as the Holy Spirit?

When Jesus praised and worshiped the Father, did He worship the Holy Spirit? When Jesus told us “in that day” to ask Him no longer any questions but to ask the Father in His name, did He mean the Holy Spirit?

When you pray “in the Spirit,” do you pray led by the Spirit, or do you pray to the Holy Spirit?

When you have received the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Spirit of His Son and – according to God’s Word - you cry out Abba! Father! what does this mean? Does it mean that you cry out Holy Spirit, or does this mean that you cry out Jesus, or this it mean that you cry out Holy Spirit, or all three of the Triune Godhead. Or just maybe, it means that you cry out Abba! Father! just as it is recorded in God’s Word.

The Christians who attend the Toronto Blessing focus in their worship and prayer primarily on the Holy Spirit. According to the Trinitarian Doctrine, this is totally defendable. Yet, the manifestations that take place at the Toronto Blessing make some Christians very uncomfortable. Is the uneasy witness to the spirit of these Christians just a misunderstanding of the “power of God,” or is it the warning by the Holy Spirit that something is radically wrong?

Here is my last question Nasher.

How do we test the spirits that operate in an environment as the Toronto Blessing, when they primarily worship the Holy Spirit, One God of our Triune God?


_________________
Hans Prang

 2005/11/7 14:32Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37110
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
The Christians who attend the Toronto Blessing focus in their worship and prayer primarily on the Holy Spirit.



Actually brother Hans,

People from this blessing move talk more about the "father" then most christians and the emphasis on the Fathers love is paramount in the teachings and doctrines.

I think if it was such an important thing to God to be called by one name he would have said it so. God reveals Himself in many names and all of them are sufficient and explain the magnifigance of God.

If you think that the word Jesus or Father can fully explain or catigorize God that is not true. I am not trying to come down hard on your brother but know that God desires those who worship in Spirit in truth. The scripture does also speak of the Son as the only true God and that the fullness of diety is in Him.

The trinity is simply given to us of weak minds being in this carnal body that cannot apprehend heavenly truths in heavenly terms. The Lord contextualizes the heavenly terms in earthly terms for our understanding.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2005/11/7 14:39Profile
LetUsPray
Member



Joined: 2004/10/12
Posts: 173


 Re: The Godhead

Brother Greg, I stand corrected.

I only attended the introductory service in Ottawa which was heavily focussed on the Holy Spirit.

Christians I regularly meet who attend the meetings at TB, pray primarily to the Holy Spirit. I attended one meeting were we were led to ask the Holy Spirit to forgive us, because we had "ignored" Him so long.

I have to confess that this was enough to keep me away from TB.


_________________
Hans Prang

 2005/11/7 14:44Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear RobertW,

I am not of the "Jesus name only", I do not like it either. The Jesus only movement, as was established, denies that God could be Jesus and the father at the same time. I disagree with this.

I also disagree with modalism, for it also divides God into modes.

Thank you though for pointing this out to me,

Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/11/7 15:28Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear Philologos,

I don't have all the answers. However, my point is this: the trinity is a contradiction.

Just because I cannot explain in finite terms the way in which God can exist both as a son and father in communication to each other, does not mean that they must in fact be seperate persons. What you are doing is taking an infinite and perfect God, and placing Him into your own finite mind of logic and reason. I am not so sure we should do that, for it immediately leads to error.

I realize the Trinity has been accepted by the Church for many years. And as such, it has also been established that anyone who disagrees with it, is a heritic or unsaved. This is foolish talk for God does not send His Spirit to dwell in our logic and reasoning, rather, His Spirit dwells in our hearts. There are many Christians out there that don't believe in the Trinity. They know Christ in thier heart.

And so, I am not as worried if everyone doesn't jump on the bandwagon with me and believe exactly what I believe. The truth lives in our hearts. And sometimes, we cannot always express the truth that lies in our heart accurately.

I have been trying to explain how the trinity is a contradiction and searching for some evidence otherwise. However, I found none yet. Anyhow, let's begin this discourse at the beginning. The trinity is Catholic dogma, established by the Catholic Church. And so, it would only reason that if we should engage in a conversation as such, we would turn to the writings of Catholicism.

The Athanasian Creed states, "Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance."

There are two ways in which to read this: Either God is three persons who are three identities, or God is three persons in that He is three individuals. Either God has three faces, or He is three seperate beings.

Obviously, the creed states, "nor dividing the substance." Why does it say this?

According to the "The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI":

Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. If several were to exist, none of them would really be infinite, for, to have plurality of natures at all, each should have some perfection not possessed by the others.
.....
If the question, for example, be asked: Why may there not be several self-existing beings? The only satisfactory answer, as it seems to us, is this: Because a self-existent being as such is necessarily infinite, and there cannot be several infinities.

This seems to make sense. In order for God to be God, a supreme and infinite being, He must be one God.

However, the creed also states "Neither confounding the Persons." What does this mean?

Well obviously, there in lies the debate. What is a person? Is a person merely a persona as defined by the Greeks, meaning God is a face wearing a mask? Or is a person an individual, a being with a seperate "self" and "consciousness"?

The Catholic Encyclopedia established under the definition of a "person" that this debate arose and it was established that God was three individuals.

According to the "The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI" on "Person":

The classic definition is that given by Boethius in "De persona et duabus naturis", c. ii: Naturæ rationalis individua substantia (an individual substance of a rational nature).

It goes on to tell about the debate that arose over the definition of "person", and how it was settled upon the fact that God is in fact three substances.

Eventually in the West, it was recognized that the true equivalent of hypostasis was not substantia but subsistentia, and in the East that to understand prosopon in the sense of the Latin persona precluded the possibility of a Sabellian interpretation. By the First Council of Constantinople, therefore, it was recognized that the words hypostasis, prosopon, and persona were equally applicable to the three Divine realities.

If we accept that God is three individuals, we come to a contradictory conclusion. God is of one substance. Therefore, God is of an individual substance. This means, he cannot be three individuals for that would be the equivalent of saying He is three substances. As established above, we cannot divide the substance. So how can God be three persons?

Can you see this contradiction?

In love,
Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/11/7 16:53Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi BeenBlake,

[quoteThe Jesus only movement, as was established, denies that God could be Jesus and the father at the same time. I disagree with this.




I suppose I am unable to understand where you truly stand on this as you seem to have a unique view of these things. I think though, that you are certainly Unitarian, but may have some subtle differences from 'modalism', yet I am not convinced you are not actually in that category due to your acknowledgment of Jesus as God and the Father as God; but not seperate 'persons'. As I understand you, you believe that God the Father is the same as God the Son. Modalists generally believe God the Father became God the Son, etc. Oneness believe that in Christ dwelled all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily and just varied in manifestations. It seems you are not in agreement with this totally, but would prefer to say God merely has different [u]names[/u]? That's my best summary of what you have said.

Is that correct?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/11/7 16:59Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy