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

The Tree In The Center of The Garden

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Moderated By: Bill the Cat

    These are Modalistic heresies. If you continue to espouse them, you will be forced to change your faith designation here to Christian(Other) and forbidden from posting in the orthodox sections without prior moderator approval. You have ONE opportunity to reconsider your poor choice of words.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    The definitive definition of the heresy of modalism is that it denies existence of the three distinct persons that form the Trinity. I have not done that.

    The problem with discussions about the Trinity is that it always ends with the participants committing errors about the nature of the Trinity.

    The errors, apart from the abovementioned critical, make or break goof up, are:

    1. Denial of the Trinity
    2. Three different modes: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
    3. No simultaneous existence

    I have not denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

    I have stated that Christ though He was God, did not think that it was something to cling to but emptied Himself taking the on form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. IOW, Christ Himself went through a pre-incarnational form, incarnational form and post incarnational form. If you object to the use of the word "form" then your argument is with Scripture, not with my statements.

    Phillipians 2:5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

    Thirdly, it is held by scholars to be logical and sensible to view that every incident of God communicating with men in ways that men use to communicate, it was the Word of God communicating with men. That is the only view that can be reached when the idea that any other communication or contact with God would lead to death is taken to its logical conclusion.

    https://carm.org/modalism

    Quote
    Modalism
    by Matt Slick

    Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

    Present-day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    ____________________________

    In conclusion, do clarify where I have missed out in being orthodox.

    Else I will have to assume that the vaunted fairmindedness of TWeb no longer holds, and silencing radical and uncomfortable views through unfair means is becoming the order of the day.
    Last edited by footwasher; 06-01-2015, 12:34 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by footwasher View Post
      The definitive definition of the heresy of modalism is that it denies existence of the three distinct persons that form the Trinity. I have not done that.

      The problem with discussions about the Trinity is that it always ends with the participants committing errors about the nature of the Trinity.

      The errors, apart from the abovementioned critical, make or break goof up, are:

      1. Denial of the Trinity
      2. Three different modes: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
      3. No simultaneous existence

      I have not denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

      I have stated that Christ though He was God, did not think that it was something to cling to but emptied Himself taking the on form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. IOW, Christ Himself went through a pre-incarnational form, incarnational form and post incarnational form. If you object to the use of the word "form" then your argument is with Scripture, not with my statements.

      Phillipians 2:5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

      Thirdly, it is held by scholars to be logical and sensible to view that every incident of God communicating with men in ways that men use to communicate, it was the Word of God communicating with men. That is the only view that can be reached when the idea that any other communication or contact with God would lead to death is taken to its logical conclusion.

      https://carm.org/modalism

      Quote
      Modalism
      by Matt Slick

      Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

      Present-day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

      ____________________________

      In conclusion, do clarify where I have missed out in being orthodox.

      Else I will have to assume that the vaunted fairmindedness of TWeb no longer holds, and silencing radical and uncomfortable views through unfair means is becoming the order of the day.
      Moderated By: Bill the Cat


      Source: http://www.theopedia.com/Modalism

      Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Source: http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html


      The Modalistic Concept of the Trinity

      According to the modalistic concept of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not equally and eternally co-existent, but are merely three successive manifestations of God, or three temporary modes of His activity. Modalism, which is actually a form of unitarianism, denies that God in His own inner being is triune. Rather, it claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are either temporary or successive roles adopted by God in carrying out the divine plan of redemption and that they in no way correspond to anything in the ultimate nature of the Godhead.

      © Copyright Original Source




      You said "God assumes different forms for different roles". He does not. Philippians 2:6 and 2:7 are noting that He is in the "form of God" but took on an ADDITIONAL nature of the "form of a servant". So, no. you do not affirm the Trinity because the Trinity does not say that God has "different forms for different roles". Your view is heretical, and thus, you must change your faith designation to Christian(Other). This is not a request. It is a moderator notice. Failure to comply will result in moderation and we will change it for you and remove your ability to change it back. You have 24 hours to comply.

      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        [notice=Bill the Cat]Snip
        Guess I made a bo-boooo with my positionally God theory, anyway Mr. Cat and Mr. Footwasher can we get back to that darn tree.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
          Genesis 2: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

          Interested in discussing the Tree of Life that God placed in the center of the Garden of Eden.

          What does scripture indicate was God’s purpose.
          What effect did it have on God’s creation.
          How important was God’s placement in the garden.
          What did God’s prohibition of eating from the tree establish
          Was the tree physical different from the other trees of it’s kind?
          ## If the story is an Israelite folk-tale, the purpose of one of the trees is to be a taboo object, so that the first humans can have a taboo to violate. The result - loss of everlasting life, since they lose access to the tree that has the food that confers everlasting life. It is fairly clear that the second tree did not originally belong in the story, but came from a different story - an alternative version, maybe.

          As a story-element, it is the function of the taboo to be be broken. The story has a theme of transgressing boundaries, and the eating of the fruit is this. Rather strikingly, the word "sin" is not used in the story even once. There is far more to the story than appears on the surface.

          Comment

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