Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who is "in" the Body?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    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".

    Comment


    • #62
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . 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 KJV

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

        Comment


        • #64
          (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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . 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 KJV

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

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #66
              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!

              Comment


              • #67
                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).

                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.
                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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.
                    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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.
                        That is fine. The reason Acts was cited before its reference source was it gives the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Psalm as cited by Paul. The reason for the references was because it refers to the Father begetting the Son in time - not eternity. And not mentioned but true, He was the Son prior to that begetting - His bodily resurrection which is post incarnation. He was always the Son the second person in God's Trinity. His Sonship was not caused.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . 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 KJV

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

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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.
                          The order itself is not canonical; it is merely conventional. "Canon" refers to its contents, not their arrangement.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            The order itself is not canonical; it is merely conventional. "Canon" refers to its contents, not their arrangement.
                            I would encourage you to send this word of correction to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: <http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible>.
                            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              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.
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                The order itself is not canonical; it is merely conventional. "Canon" refers to its contents, not their arrangement.
                                I.H. Marshall made that point in the intro to his excellent commentary on John's epistles. He put 2 John and 3 John first so they wouldn't be ignored like they usually are, stating the order was not part of the canon and suggesting it might be a good thing to make this change more widespread.

                                The opinion of Catholic bishops is irrelevant to me as I am not Catholic.
                                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X