Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[Jeremy Mason]

The Bible is very clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one God. I admit that it is somewhat hard to understand, but it would be bold for anyone to claim that anything they can't understand is automatically false. What about God(or the universe so atheists don't feel left out)? How did he or it come into existence in the first place? Everything that we understand in our physical universe has a cause, so what caused the first thing to "come into" existence, whether you believe it to God or the physical universe? Even though we have no idea how, the only conclusion to come to is that God had no cause, he has always existed. Are you going to explain to me how something can come into existence without any cause? Are you going to start believing that nothing exists anywhere because we don't understand how something had no cause?

Either you believe the Bible is true or not, don't give me that "as far as it is translated correctly" crap. You can go learn Hebrew and Greek, read the manuscripts, and translate them yourself if you don't believe any current translations are correct. Here are a few of the verse stating there is one God and no other, and you can find lots more, so feel free to look them up in whatever translation you want:

• Exodus 8:10
• Deuteronomy 6:4
• Psalms 86:10
• Isaiah 44:8
• Isaiah 45:21
• Isaiah 45:22
• Isaiah 46:9
• Isaiah 45:5
• Isaiah 45:18
• Mark 12:32
• Mark 12:29
• 1st Timothy 2:5
• 1st Corinthians 8:4
• Galatians 3:20
• James 2:19

Christ was very adamant in telling people they need to obey, which included believing in him. Yes, it is important to obey, but not because obeying saves you. Obeying is the result of faith, so if you aren't obeying then you don't have faith, but just because you are doing good things doesn't mean you have faith. It is certainly possible to be doing good things but not have faith. Obeying is important, but God does not give the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins because you obey the law (Galatians 3:5), and in Galatians 5:4 it says that anyone who is seeking forgiveness of sins through obedience of the law has but separated from Christ. Obeying is a result of gratitude toward God, those who have faith will want to obey, but obeying doesn't save you.

Judging people means to pass sentence upon people, saying they should not receive forgiveness. On top of that, the only thing I did was point out what the Bible says, which is the standard we are already being measured against, so I'm not creating any new standard for myself to be measured against. The Bible is very clear about what a person must do to be saved and it is my job to tell people, not to cover it up or change it because others feel offended.

Katspur, did you really say these thing? I'm having a hard time finding them.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

One who trusts alone in Christ alone to have paid for their sins and imputed his righteousness unto them is saved to the uttermost forevermore.

 

[Troublemane]

The second point Paul makes is that the believer must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Indeed, that's the basis upon which God Himself has indicated that Jesus is his true son rather than yet another failed Messianic pretender. Thus it is also the basis upon which a person is to put their trust in Jesus. Christians put their faith in Jesus because God has demonstrated to the world that Jesus is his son by raising him from the dead. (Romans 1:3 - 4.)

Therefore, to be included in God's family, one must do only two things:

(1) Submit to the Lordship of Jesus; and
(2) Believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

No matter what else that person believes, even if it's kooky or contrary to some of the Creeds, we as believers must treat that person as a brother or sister (even if that brother or sister requires some guidance or education). There is a wafer-thin theological commitment involved here. And to burden people with more at the outset is, in my view, counterproductive (and may stand in the way of a person's salvation).

The term Christian should apply broadly to those people who follow the red letters:-- Love God with all thy heart (etc.), Love thy neighbor, and so forth. Any additions later (requiring to believe in irrational, unprovable things such as the ressurection and the miracles) tend to water these original, profound notions down and repell reasonable, responsible people away from the church. I thinks its like saying people need to like both the cake and the icing, theyve gotta like the substantive parts but also the little frilly sugary parts---when its really the core message thats most important.
:angel2:

 

[uss_bigd]

From a trinitarian point of view, I read all passages that involve communication between the Son and the Father as follows. God the Father (who is one being with the Son but a distinct person from the Son) speaks to God the Son (or the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Himself fully divine in the same sense as the Father but a distinct person from the Father), and vice versa. This communication is a monologue in the sense that the conversation is internal to the One God. However, the conversation is conducted between two distinct persons of the Godhead (thus it's also a dialog).
.

I have not seen any verses that will authenticate your claim that is indeed a monologue. care to explain why it is a monologue? and what is the spiritual significance of verses showing mologues( as you claim they are)

if you cannot produce the explaination i am looking for according to the bible, i will declare as a matter of fact that you are INVENTING your own interpretation of things.

I can explain the spiritual significance of HEB 5, that will authenticate the fact that God, Jesus and the Hily sprit are three DISTINCT beings...

let me see you do the same...

 

[uss_bigd]

Au contraire, mon ami!

Let's rehash the Matthew passage, shall we?

...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In GREEK (not English), if the article (the) is repeated in a list, it emphasizes the distinction to be made between the items. In fact, the inclusion of "and" makes this even more forceful. Thus "the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit" in GREEK emphasizes that these three "items" are distinct from each other in some way. So far, I think that you and I agree.

However, if the writer intended to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct and separate ONLY and that they had nothing essential in common (i.e., that they were three different sorts of things, so to speak), he should have said "in the names" (note the plural). However, the author says "name." By using this grammatical structure (I wish we all spoke Koine Greek, but alas it's a dead language!), the writer forces the reader to understand that these three "items" share one name. In context, the name is obviously the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh). But to share the name is to share the essence, identity, or nature of the thing. To sum up, this one sentence says (not just implies) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct from each other yet one in essence.

Obviously, this falls short of a full affirmation along the lines of the Athanasian Creed. However, one can easily see how passages such as this made the Athanasian conclusion almost inevitable, strange as it may be.

I can see how my previous exposition of "let us make man in our image" missed the mark of your objection. So please permit me to try again.

The puzzle for us is what "us" and "our" might mean when the Triune God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". From a trinitarian point of view, there are two possibilities. First, perhaps the persons of the trinity spoke to each other, in which case the dialog is internal to the godhead. Or second, the Triune God spoke to the heavenly host (angels). Either way, plural pronouns are acceptable. For in one case there is a plurality of speakers, and in the other case a singular speaker who subsists as three persons.

I hope that clarifies the position. If I've still missed your point, please try to show me how. I don't want to talk past you.

i have to ask a greek language isntructor for that... let us stick to bible facts, besides 2 CHR already replied on this point. please find my other reply. thank you!

 

[Dunemeister]

i have to ask a greek language isntructor for that... let us stick to bible facts, besides 2 CHR already replied on this point. please find my other reply. thank you!

1. Do that. He'll bear me out.
2. I am sticking to bible facts -- facts about how exactly texts appear in the bible.
3. 2 Chr has complained about it but not addressed it. He complained about English grammar (when the issue is Greek grammar), and he complained about how some Oneness group interprets the passage (in English). So if by "replied" you mean simply "typed something" I'm willing to agree. But if by "replied" you mean "dealt with directly" I disagree.

4. Your post:

I have not seen any verses that will authenticate your claim that is indeed a monologue. care to explain why it is a monologue? and what is the spiritual significance of verses showing mologues( as you claim they are)

if you cannot produce the explaination i am looking for according to the bible, i will declare as a matter of fact that you are INVENTING your own interpretation of things.

I can explain the spiritual significance of HEB 5, that will authenticate the fact that God, Jesus and the Hily sprit are three DISTINCT beings...

let me see you do the same...

You keep pointing out how there are these conversations and that somehow they pose a problem for trinitarians. But they don't. Trinitarians hold to a DISTINCTION OF PERSONS in the ONE, INDIVISIBLE GOD. So, the trinitarian DOES NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE between monologue and dialogue. For the trinitarian, the dialogue is internal to YHWH, the Triune God, thus a monologue. But the conversation is also between DISTINCT PERSONS of the trinity, hence a dialogue. For the trinitarian, it's not either/or but both/and.

I DON'T say that these conversations necessarily demonstrate the truth of the trinity as a whole. All they show is that there is a distinction between three divine persons, a notion trinitarians accept. The truth of the trinity is expressed in scripture in many ways. There are passages in the bible that affirm that there is one and only one God. There are passages that affirm that the Father is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Son is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Holy Spirit is that one and only God. And there are passages that affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are somehow distinct -- such as in those passages you mention where the Father and the Son engage in conversation. (I could enumerate them, but I won't for reasons that appear in the next paragraph.) The bible nowhere treats the trinity as a theological point in any sustained way. Rather, it provides the data I just described. The doctrine of the trinity tries to make sense of these passages without distorting them. I think it does so successfully.

I think that this will be my last response to you. I can tolerate only so much of your rudeness. I don't mind debates, actually I enjoy them. But you have impugned my motives and insulted my intelligence enough to demonstrate that you are more concerned with belittling those who disagree with you than engaging in any sort of sincere discussion which might have the effect of converting them. Last time I checked, you convert no one through insult. I leave you with a couple of passages to mediate on. They have proven invaluable to me:

1 Peter 5:8 - 16

Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called -- that you might inherit a blessing. For

"Those who dsire life and desire to see good days,
let them keep their tongues from evil
and their lips from speaking deceit;

let them turn away from evil and do good;
let them seek peace and pursue it

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are open to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame.

Philippians 2:3 - 11

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look out not to your own interests but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness

And being found in human form
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death
even death on a cross

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name

So that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend
in heaven and on earth and under the earth
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father

​

 

[Katzpur]

Katspur, did you really say these thing? I'm having a hard time finding them.

You lost me, Jeremy. You just quoted ratiocinactive and then asked me if I said these things. I'm not sure what "things" you're talking about, but I haven't deleted any of my posts on this thead so if you can't find something I supposedly said, it's a safe bet I didn't say it.

 

[Ratiocinative]

Of course I care. Why would I not want to believe what is true? My convictions are every bit as strong as yours. I simply have no use for people who cannot treat me civilly. If you are interested in why I believe as I do, you may wish to follow the one-on-one between Dunemeister and me. You have given me no reason to believe that you are capable of a respectful exchange of ideas; Dunemeister has.

I have done nothing but post scriptural examples and ask you some questions. If you feel that is uncivil, then sorry, but this is what happens in a debate. I'm sorry that I don't accept your opinion as valid without asking some questions first. This is, after all, a Christian debate thread so I assumed that you believed the Bible to be true, but after dodging the question so many times it seems that you do not believe the Bible is true. If your convictions are every bit as strong as mine then I would think you wouldn't be afraid to tell us what those convictions are. If you don't want to answer, then fine, but don't blame your being shy on me.

 

[Dunemeister]

I have done nothing but post scriptural examples and ask you some questions. If you feel that is uncivil, then sorry, but this is what happens in a debate. I'm sorry that I don't accept your opinion as valid without asking some questions first. This is, after all, a Christian debate thread so I assumed that you believed the Bible to be true, but after dodging the question so many times it seems that you do not believe the Bible is true. If your convictions are every bit as strong as mine then I would think you wouldn't be afraid to tell us what those convictions are. If you don't want to answer, then fine, but don't blame your being shy on me.

Ratio, you have been impolite. You have impugned Katzpur's motives, intelligence, and morality on more than one occasion. Although you have not been as bad as uss_bigd, I can appreciate why she is not that interested in discussing things further with you. If you find these charges confusing, perhaps you should re-read this entire thread and examine your posts. See if an impartial person wouldn't wince several times at your words and your tone. If you can't see it, I guess there's not much more to say. If you can, I'm sure that an acknowledgment and an apology will go some distance to repairing the relationship. Since we all claim to be Christian, let us all treat each other with the charity and respect due to fellow human beings created in the Image of our Creator.

 

[uss_bigd]

1. Do that. He'll bear me out.
2. I am sticking to bible facts -- facts about how exactly texts appear in the bible.
3. 2 Chr has complained about it but not addressed it. He complained about English grammar (when the issue is Greek grammar), and he complained about how some Oneness group interprets the passage (in English). So if by "replied" you mean simply "typed something" I'm willing to agree. But if by "replied" you mean "dealt with directly" I disagree.

4. Your post:

You keep pointing out how there are these conversations and that somehow they pose a problem for trinitarians. But they don't. Trinitarians hold to a DISTINCTION OF PERSONS in the ONE, INDIVISIBLE GOD. So, the trinitarian DOES NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE between monologue and dialogue. For the trinitarian, the dialogue is internal to YHWH, the Triune God, thus a monologue. But the conversation is also between DISTINCT PERSONS of the trinity, hence a dialogue. For the trinitarian, it's not either/or but both/and.

I DON'T say that these conversations necessarily demonstrate the truth of the trinity as a whole. All they show is that there is a distinction between three divine persons, a notion trinitarians accept. The truth of the trinity is expressed in scripture in many ways. There are passages in the bible that affirm that there is one and only one God. There are passages that affirm that the Father is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Son is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Holy Spirit is that one and only God. And there are passages that affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are somehow distinct -- such as in those passages you mention where the Father and the Son engage in conversation. (I could enumerate them, but I won't for reasons that appear in the next paragraph.) The bible nowhere treats the trinity as a theological point in any sustained way. Rather, it provides the data I just described. The doctrine of the trinity tries to make sense of these passages without distorting them. I think it does so successfully.

I think that this will be my last response to you. I can tolerate only so much of your rudeness. I don't mind debates, actually I enjoy them. But you have impugned my motives and insulted my intelligence enough to demonstrate that you are more concerned with belittling those who disagree with you than engaging in any sort of sincere discussion which might have the effect of converting them. Last time I checked, you convert no one through insult. I leave you with a couple of passages to mediate on. They have proven invaluable to me:

I apologize if you find me offensive. but please know and this goes to everyone, i dont know you personally, so it is really impossible for me to be personal with you people.

but know this, and this goes to everyone this is the Christ's instruction to the early Chritians, of whom we must emulate.

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

Titus 1:13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith
Titus 2:15
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee
Hebrews 12:5
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

Revelation 3:19
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

and finally

Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

You lost me, Jeremy. You just quoted ratiocinactive and then asked me if I said these things. I'm not sure what "things" you're talking about, but I haven't deleted any of my posts on this thead so if you can't find something I supposedly said, it's a safe bet I didn't say it.

Sorry for the confession. It was late and I was tired. I think the subject at hand was about the trinity and it looked like people were saying that you didn't believe in the deity of the Father ,Son and the Holy Spirit. I thought you did and was wonder why all the hub-bub.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry for the confession. It was late and I was tired. I think the subject at hand was about the trinity and it looked like people were saying that you didn't believe in the deity of the Father ,Son and the Holy Spirit. I thought you did and was wonder why all the hub-bub.

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, we do believe what you had assumed we do. :yes:

 

[uss_bigd]

1. Do that. He'll bear me out.
2. I am sticking to bible facts -- facts about how exactly texts appear in the bible.

How about including biblical meaning?

One of the significance Hebrews 5 has is that Paul was sending the message that priesthood is someone of whom God the father Chooses, that even Christ did not want to be the high priest by his own choice but because of the Father sent him. hence the authenticity of the verse

John 14:28
You have already heard me say that I am going and that I will also come back to you. If you really love me, you should be glad that I am going back to the Father, because he is greater than I am.

hence, can the father be greater than Christ if they were the same person anyway?



no! they are seperate and distinct person ... This is based on biblical meaning and biblical sense (such as the one above) which you cannot refute
if you will no longer reply, then Good, this will be Good for those who are searching for truth. this reply is for those that seek. to God be te glory!!!

 

[sojourner]

Christians are people who follow Christ's teachings in tHe bible, NOTHING ADDED ... NOTHING OMITTED.

So, those who use a different Biblical canon than you ascribe to are not Christians? Or you are not a Christian? By your definition, either you or the Orthodox are not Christian. What about those early Christians who did not have a Bible, since it did not, as yet, exist? Were they fake Christians? Maybe your definition is too narrow to be really useful in defining who is and is not a Christian.

 

[sojourner]

the deutero canocical books was added by the catholics. it was not suppose to be there. i am referring to the original bible with the new and old testaments. the closer it is tranlated from the original greek bible the better.

thank you for asking, and thank God for the opportunity.

The "original Greek Bible" is the LXX. It contains more books than the Protestant canon.
What about the OT, which was not written in Greek, but mostly in Hebrew? Should we translate it from the Greek, too?

 

[sojourner]

For whatever reason, people seem to downplay the level of commitment required to be a true Christian. Perhaps it is because the predominantly Christian societies are all democratic, so very few Christians have to risk anything to call themselves Christians. In some countries, though, people are not so care-free about calling themselves Christians. In those countries people have to be prepared for the fact that they might be killed if they pronounce faith in Christ. Christ said in Luke 9:62, anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God. Just because us Christians who live in democratic societies are rarely forced to choose between having faith in Christ, doesn't mean that we aren't still called to be willing to make that choice.

Anyway, to the topic. Faith in Christ is the only thing that is need, but questions arise, such as what is faith? Or, especially when talking to Mormons, who is Christ? So I tried to be as specific as possible so there wouldn't be any loopholes. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situation that someone who fits all 5 of these things could be unsaved, but perhaps there could be a loophole somewhere. But anyway, these are the five things that I would say are absolute, core, fundamental requirements for being a Christian:

1. You must believe that there is only one God.
2. You must believe that forgiveness of sins is only possible because Jesus, who is God incarnate, died on the cross.
3. You must believe that faith in Christ alone is how we obtain said forgiveness, and not through our own actions.
4. You must be willing to do what God says even if you don't understand the reason why at the time.
5. Your faith in Christ must be more valuable to you than your own life.

If you do not fit, #1,2, or 3, then you are not saved because you do not know who God is, and if you do not fit #4 or 5 then you do not have the required faith to be saved.

2) What about those many of us who don't believe in the substitutionary atonement? Forgiveness, according the OT, is possible for Jews, without Jesus dying on the cross.
3) Sola fide is a Protestant concept, coined by Martin Luther. It has no basis in early Christian salvation theology. Does that mean that no Christian before Martin Luther was really a Christian?

Perhaps these are Protestant core beliefs, but they certainly are not applicable to the majority of Xy.

 

[sojourner]

What matters is we follow the bible.... we shouldn't choose what to beleive....

So...you're a "Biblian" and not a Christian? Christians follow Christ -- always have. The Bible is one tool of the Church that we use in order to do that.

 

[sojourner]

you are distortng english grammar sir .... so when Jesus said the church and i are one ... IN YOUR LOGIC ... if i am a member of the churh i am Jesus ... that is screwed....

Is the Church not the Body of Christ? Is the Church not comprised of individual believers? That's the core of the mystery of the faith: That since we are the Body of Christ, through that mystery we have become one with him.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus is God's own Son, but still he had to suffer before he could learn what it really means to obey God. 9Suffering made Jesus perfect, and now he can save forever all who obey him. This is because God chose him to be a high priest like Melchizedek.


Was Jesus doing a MONOLOGUE? i don't think so..... Jesus and God are two seperate beings ....

I really don't believe that suffering is part of God's plan for us. You really need to delve deeper into theodicy before making such statements.

Was Jesus doing a monologue? No. Jesus and the Father are clearly two distinct persons, but with one Being.

 

[Dunemeister]

I really don't believe that suffering is part of God's plan for us. You really need to delve deeper into theodicy before making such statements.

Are you kidding me? The whole book of Revelation is about the suffering of Christians and how they ought to cope while God delays his vengeance. If suffering weren't supposed to be the lot of Christians, this whole book ought to be jettisoned from canon. But then again, so should those portions of James, Peter, Paul, and John which likewise indicate that we are to suffer. So good-bye to the Gospel of John (actually, all of them because they all indicate that believers will suffer).

God doesn't inflict the suffering, but he does in fact permit it. So it fits into God's will somehow. That's the mysterious and frustrating part of living as a human. But we can have assurance that God sympathizes with the sufferers because he himself became incarnate in Jesus and took the suffering of the world upon himself. He didn't shirk it. He didn't call down legions of angels to rescue himself. No, he suffered humiliation and torture and death at the hands of those whom he loved so much.