Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 83

Thread: Who is "in" the Body?

  1. #61
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,437
    Amen (Given)
    16103
    Amen (Received)
    3089
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The Nicene Creed includes "begotten of the Father before all worlds." Which I reject. So according to that then, I am not saved - so not a actually a Christian. Yet I believe in the interpretation of the Trinity believing in the eternal Sonship and personhood of the Holy Spirit! That the three Persons are the One Yahweh being the only true God.
    Jesus as the begotten Son of God is pretty explicit in the Bible.

    You rejected this phrase, and started coming up with convoluted explanations like Jesus having two natures prior to the incarnation. I don't think anyone on this site has really figured out what you meant by that since then.

    Most explanations I've seen of "begotten" is taken to mean "one and only", or "unique". I'm thinking you do hold to that, even if you don't hold to the "Eternal Generation of the Son". Your the only one I've encountered that has argued against it, and from what I saw most of your argument was based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "begotten of the Father".
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  2. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  3. #62
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    112
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    I would agree that dogmatic acceptance of the doctrine of eternal generation is not required in order for one to be received as a Christian.
    But I think that stand (on eternal generation) makes Trinity and Incarnation optional. Unless there is a view (almost) within orthodoxy which accepts those doctrines but not eternal generation.

    To be honest, I can see that one can be Christian, within the Body, and not accept the Trinity through lack of knowledge. But we also generally define "Christian" by some checklist of doctrines which includes the trinity. But in reality, the average Catholic or Baptist is not far removed from the average Mormon. So Trinity is useful for categorizing groups such as JW, Catholic, Baptist, and LDS, but then is useless for applying to individual.

    CP is not the only one with a headache from this thread.

  4. #63
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,427
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Jesus as the begotten Son of God is pretty explicit in the Bible.
    Where? He is the unique or only or only begotten Son of God. The reference to Christ being begotten refers to His bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33; Psalm 22:7; Hebrews 1:5-6; Colossians 1:18).
    You rejected this phrase, and started coming up with convoluted explanations like Jesus having two natures prior to the incarnation. I don't think anyone on this site has really figured out what you meant by that since then.
    You can believe what you like. John 1:1-2 says He was with God twice. Yes, it says He was God. It says with God, not with the Father, though it is true with God is being with the Father.
    Most explanations I've seen of "begotten" is taken to mean "one and only", or "unique". I'm thinking you do hold to that, even if you don't hold to the "Eternal Generation of the Son". Your the only one I've encountered that has argued against it, and from what I saw most of your argument was based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "begotten of the Father".
    Doctor Walter Martian not only denied it, he also denied that the second Person of the Trinity was the eternal Son, which I do not deny. Doctor Martin did not deny the Trinity, only eternal Sonship of the Son.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  5. #64
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,427
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    404
    (Acts 13:33; Psalm 22:7; Hebrews 1:5-6; Colossians 1:18)
    A 2 got double typed. It should read, (Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5-6; Colossians 1:18)
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  6. Amen The Remonstrant amen'd this post.
  7. #65
    tWebber The Remonstrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    604
    Amen (Given)
    164
    Amen (Received)
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    A 2 got double typed. It should read[:] Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5-6; Colossians 1:18[.]
    In canonical order: Psalm 2.7; Acts 13.33; Colossians 1.18; Hebrews 1.5–6.

    Thank you for striving for improvement in your citations.
    ‘To say that God deliberately brings about a sinful human race so that he may [unconditionally] elect some to salvation, and then deliberately sends the nonelect to hell so that his saving gace may appear all the more glorious, is the opposite of grace.’
    —Jack W. Cottrell, ‘Responses to Robert L. Reymond’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006), p. 202, emphasis in original



  8. #66
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,508
    Amen (Given)
    6169
    Amen (Received)
    5930
    Quote Originally Posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    In canonical order: Psalm 2.7; Acts 13.33; Colossians 1.18; Hebrews 1.5–6.

    Thank you for striving for improvement in your citations.
    In chronological order it probably should go Psalm 2:7; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:5-6; and then Acts 13:33, and that largely depends on whether or not Colossians was written by Paul, since Colossians is often considered a disputed letter.

    Man, I like you, but you gotta chill on the whole formalization of people's posts. This is a casual forum, not an English grammar course. Whatever OCD issues you're dealing with you might just need to bury because you're beginning to annoy folks.

    Take that advice for what it's worth, and if you correct this post, I'm'a have words!

  9. #67
    tWebber The Remonstrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    604
    Amen (Given)
    164
    Amen (Received)
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    [1] In chronological order it probably should go Psalm 2:7; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:5-6; and then Acts 13:33, and (2) that largely depends on whether or not Colossians was written by Paul, since Colossians is often considered a disputed letter.
    (1) Attempting to arrange the New Testament (NT) writings chronologically can be a dubious task (as you yourself have conceded), but thank you for the attempt. (2) Yes, I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether Paul was responsible for penning Colossians (amongst other epistles in the NT, such as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians).

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Man, I like you, but you gotta chill on the whole formalization of people's posts. This is a casual forum, not an English grammar course. Whatever OCD issues you're dealing with you might just need to bury because you're beginning to annoy folks.

    Take that advice for what it's worth, and if you correct this post, I'm'a have words!
    If I may divulge a bit of personal information, I do not suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). As for my habit of making editorial revisions, there is always the risk of upsetting someone, I suppose. I do understand what you are saying, though.
    ‘To say that God deliberately brings about a sinful human race so that he may [unconditionally] elect some to salvation, and then deliberately sends the nonelect to hell so that his saving gace may appear all the more glorious, is the opposite of grace.’
    —Jack W. Cottrell, ‘Responses to Robert L. Reymond’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006), p. 202, emphasis in original



  10. #68
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,508
    Amen (Given)
    6169
    Amen (Received)
    5930
    Quote Originally Posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    (1) Attempting to arrange the New Testament (NT) writings chronologically can be a dubious task (as you yourself have conceded), but thank you for the attempt. (2) Yes, I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether Paul was responsible for penning Colossians (amongst other epistles in the NT, such as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians).



    If I may divulge a bit of personal information, I do not suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). As for my habit of making editorial revisions, there is always the risk of upsetting someone, I suppose. I do understand what you are saying, though.
    The OCD bit was mostly kidding. Hope you didn't take it personally.

  11. #69
    tWebber The Remonstrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    604
    Amen (Given)
    164
    Amen (Received)
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    The OCD bit was mostly kidding. Hope you didn't take it personally.
    I have read a bit on obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is a very troubling condition.
    ‘To say that God deliberately brings about a sinful human race so that he may [unconditionally] elect some to salvation, and then deliberately sends the nonelect to hell so that his saving gace may appear all the more glorious, is the opposite of grace.’
    —Jack W. Cottrell, ‘Responses to Robert L. Reymond’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006), p. 202, emphasis in original



  12. #70
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,508
    Amen (Given)
    6169
    Amen (Received)
    5930
    Quote Originally Posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    I have read a bit on obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is a very troubling condition.
    You're correct, it is, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it in jest. There appears to be some successful headway in helping those who suffer from the condition though. If you're interested, the Jewish/Christian psychiatrist, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, is making progress in the field of neuroplasticity in helping those who suffer from the condition. I often recommend his book "You Are Not Your Brain" which deals with the subject of breaking brain locks, and helping folks suffering from habit formation of all types.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •