Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don’t know why I am bothering to reply anymore, but here is one last shot.

“Your theology” is being looked at negatively for a variety of reasons. Here are just a few I see:

1. It isn’t scriptural. You have repeatedly admitted in this thread a complete willingness to reject scripture when it conflicts with your personal belief and narrative, which it does....often.
I'd like to know where you think I reject Scripture. I see no basis for this accusation.

2. It denies God’s foreknowledge. There is a plethora of scripture confirming this aspect of God’s character. You reject all of it for the sake of keeping your elaborate philosophical web intact.
If you have a precommitment to gibberish you'll keep insisting on foreknowledge, or if you prefer a theodicy that doesn't cast God in the best possible light. If God foreknew the fall of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer, why not just create Bob, Sue, and Vincent instead? Is God a complete jerk in your view?

Many years ago I knew a pastor who was part of a prominent denomination and well respected in the community. I was a member of his congregation for three years. He once confided to me, "Much as I try to love God with all my heart, I have one beef with him that I can't seem to get past. WHY did He elect Saul as the leader of Israel, foreknowing the disaster?"

I never told him MY views on the matter because most Christians are unwilling to consider anything non-traditional.

Anyway the point is, please desist with the silly attitude of 'We mainstream people can't be wrong about anything" - all I'm interested in is your REASONS in this debate (both exegetical-based and common-sense based).

Since I have no such commitment to gibberish, I look for an APPROPRIATE interpretation of those passages. The simple explanation is that God's supposed foreknowledge alleged of those passages really boils down to:
(1) Events of divine ordination. If He has DECIDED there will be an earthquake tomorrow, it WILL happen.
(2) Events that combine divine ordination with inexorable realities. For example Peter could not mature overnight (without an outpouring). Evaluating the CURRENT state of his heart, the Father KNEW that he would not survive a three-fold temptation to deny Christ. Hence He arranged those scenarios so that Peter could see for himself the state of his own heart.


Open theists have argued much against foreknowledge. Not sure that I need to repeat all that material here, given that you haven't even refuted MY arguments against it.

3. Your “theology” judges God’s motivations on the basis of your own, as though God were a mere human.
(Sigh). See post #41. If you can't respect the hermeneutical principles outlined in post #41, you DEFINITELY are committed to gibberish and contradictions, at the expense of a legitimate eschatology of hope.

4. You blame and accuse God of evil or injustice unless He created man out of a non-Biblical need to create.
Finite beings INEVITABLY have needs/limits. So the real question is, Is God finite? Fact is, I don't see any clear scriptural evidence for the claim that God is infinite.

The Bible teaches that God MERITS praise. Merit is a status achieved over finite time. That's an argument based on Scripture. C'mon guys. Do I really need to make a list of 100 verses regarding divine merit before you admit that my position is based on scripture? I have spared both you and me that tedium. So grow up, theologically speaking, and handle this thread with some maturity.

By the way, see what I'm doing? I'm not making random negative generalizations like you do of my theology. Instead I'm giving you SCRIPTURE and ARGUMENTS.


5. You have manufactured your own characteristics of God wholly apart from any scriptural evidence whatsoever. God’s immune system? God’s near insanity? There are others, but I think you get my point.
The Immune System was a functionality-based NICKNAME that I coined for the purpose of conveying a clear analogy to our own Immune System - specifically on His sanctifying functionality.

So every verse that bespeaks of the Third Person's sanctifying role is a biblical basis for the NICKNAME. Again, do I need to make a list of 100 verses? Grow up, theologically speaking.

My CLAIM about the Immune System is that the Third Person applies sanctification to the Gohead Himelf, if or when needed. Do you deny this possibility? If so, Got a question for you. When Christ was on earth, did the Holy Breath function as His sanctification?

So we have a pretty solid biblical argument:
Christ is God.
The Third Person sanctified Christ.
Conclusion: The Third Person sanctified GOD.
Corollary: The Third Person functions for God as an Immune System by sanctifying the Godhead if or when needed.

If anyone's ignoring or flat-out denying Scripture in this debate, it MOST CERTAINLY is not I.

6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.
Like how the church has taught immaterialism for 2,000 years that FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL THE BIBLICAL DATA? That sort of thing?

Honestly, I wouldn’t call your views theological at all, but rather, philosophical...
Like the traditional doctrines of immaterialism (from Plato) and infinitude (from heaven knows where)? That sort of thing?

I'll comment more on the biblical basis for materialism shortly.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems that Staff deleted my earlier thread for being too hostile. Hopefully everyone will find this new thread less offensive.

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error. In fact, I will argue that a few mainstream doctrines seem needy of reform. Indeed the motto of the Reformation was, "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," (Reformed, AND ALWAYS REFORMING).

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
- They seem to favor the same erroneous approaches to sanctification, evangelism, and missions that triggered the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

There are a lot of doctrines in the church that need to be reformed. The problem is that they are too precious to mess with.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hermeneutics also requires that your logical non-gibberish conclusions not contradict or reject scripture, either. Your philosophy is guilty of both.
Don't just assert your conclusion. Argue it. Show your work.

This makes no sense to YOU! Unfortunately, most physicists and many in the scientific community would disagree with you, no need for religion at all! Time is a function of creation and did not exist prior. God created both. Once again, your philosophy is narrow by failing to look at more than one discipline.
This is the well-known logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and a silly intermixture of two different disciplines (religion and science) in the same statement.

What does science teach? What does religion teach? Certainly 'science' does not teach that time is a function of creation.

I won't comment further on this nonsense hodgepodge of assertions. Distinguish between the two disciplines, decide what each one has to say on the issue, and post something clear that we can actually discuss.

This is nothing but assertion. There is no scripture to back this and no logical requirement for this to be so. Just because YOU believe it should be this way doesn’t mean it is. In fact, scripture rejects angelic atonement. You are denying scripture with this.
(Sigh) It's not just ASSERTION. (You guys are the ones making mere assertions, I'm the one providing ARGUMENTS). It's a SUMMARY of an ARGUMENT provided earlier.

(Sigh). The argument goes like this. Love INTERVENES. It doesn't just ignore suffering, misery, and danger. If the world is STARVING TO DEATH, and you have no commitment to helping the world, that's not the biblical view of love. (Do I really need to cite 100 verses here?). The atonement is an eminent example of love and, you're correct, it DID NOT ATONE FOR THE FALLEN ANGELS. Precisely my point.

Therefore the atonement was not INFINITE LOVE (infinite intervention). It was FINITE intervention which flatly contradicts the notion that God is infinite.

You cannot say, "God is infinite in His love/intervention but intervenes to a finite degree, abandoning some of His creatures to the misery of hell which is probably more painful than STARVING TO DEATH." That's almost as bad as gibberish - it's a blatant logical contradiction.

The FACTS OF SCRIPTURE indicate a finite God. It is YOU who are in denial of Scripture and teaching what is unscriptural, certainly not I.

This is pure fabrication. No scripture, no logic, no reason. This violates scriptural revelation of the character and nature of God. This is a god manufactured by you.
(Sigh) Again, that statement was a MERE SUMMARY of the argument. You haven't addressed either the scriptural or common-sense bases of that argument.

This thread is pretty easy for you guys, isn't it? You just keep denying my conclusions while ignoring my biblical underpinnings and my arguments.


Two parter here. Your assertion of no foreknowledge is in direct violation of scripture.
No, actually it's a direct violation of YOUR interpretation of Scripture. Act like a grown-up. Defend YOUR interpretation by disproving my arguments.

Your assertion of a God who foreknew the fall being unkind fails to take into consideration the eternal nature of life and His sacrificial goodness.

If He foreknew the fall and thus could have easily prevented it by creatig Bob, Sue, and Vincent instead of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer, one has to ask: Is God a sadist in your view? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or both?

He could have easily PREVENTED the nailing of His Son to the cross but instrumented it anyway?
He could have easily SPARED us all this misery and eternal damnation but instrumented it anyway?

This is your definition of an infinitely kind God?

You keep ASSERTING that such a position doesn't seem to cast any doubt on the kindess of God, but ASSERTING it and PROVING it are two different things.

My theodicy, if properly understood, casts God in a dramatically better light. Enough said.

Please provide the origin of matter. This view is also rejection of scripture.
Don't just assert your position. Argue it.

The biblical evidence all points to God being physical. Therefore the most reasonable position is that matter is eternal - and this was the ancient Hebrew understanding, until heathen (Platonic) philosophy introduced the unbiblical doctrine of immaterial spirit, eventually culminating (around 100 A.D.) in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

As even mainstream scholars admit, the biblical words for 'create' cannot be assumed to mean 'creation out of nothing'. There's no clear biblical evidence for such a doctrine. Furthermore it's gibberish - unless you can show me how to pull a hammer out of an empty chest of tools.

Scripture please. Yet another assault on God’s Devine attributes. Are you even reading what you are writing?
You apparently didn't understand what I wrote. All too often, a mainstream assertion is purely philosophical, not scriptural.

In this case, the claim that God is innately, inherently, immutably holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent (etc) is a PHILOSOPHICAL CLAIM at variance with the biblical data, for reasons stated on this thread. Woops I forgot. You don't consider reasons. You just keep asserting YOUR conclusions and YOUR intepretation of Scripture and YOUR point of view.


You have not refuted anything, nor have you proved anything. Your philosophy itself is gibberish, given that it fails scripture, science and reason in some form in nearly all of your points! Again, YOU have created your own god in your image, which leads not to worship of the true God, but rather to the worship of self.
More negative generalizations without anything specific. Gee, what a surprise. I'm truly shocked.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.
Like how the church has taught immaterialism for 2,000 years even though it flies in the face of ALL the biblical data?

I've demonstrated materialism several times on this thread. Examples:
Post#44 commented on Ex 33.

Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?


I made another comment on Ex 33 at post 52.
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?


On that same post (52) I did a brief follow-up on the Third Person as physical Wind/Breath, citing several verses there.

My original comments on physical Wind Breath are found in post #5. (By the way, haven't seen much rebuttal on all these verses. For the most apart, participants on this thread sit around accusing me of failing to provide verses).
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

In that post (52) I also demonstrated that the title 'Holy Spirit' (as opposed to Holy Wind/Breath) is inherently too problematical for a responsible exegete to accept on its own terms. Meaning, it wasn't accepted ON AN EXEGETICAL BASIS (that would be impossible for the reasons I stated) but rather due to a precommitment to immaterialistic (heathen) PHILOSOPHY.

In post #89, I provided additional biblical data for materialism.
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

I also mentioned that I could easily walk anyone through several more similar passages spanning from Genesis to Revelation. But I was trying to keep it short, and thus I focused more on the logical underpinnings (as demonstrated in a few passages) instead of citing EACH and EVERY passage. In fact in my next post, I'm going to do the same thing - focus again on the logical underpinnings as related to a few key passages.

Then maybe later on I'll provide an additional set of passages to consider.
 
Upvote 0

Micah888

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
1,091
778
81
CALGARY
✟21,176.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In that post (52) I also demonstrated that the title 'Holy Spirit' (as opposed to Holy Wind/Breath) is inherently too problematical for a responsible exegete to accept on its own terms. Meaning, it wasn't accepted ON AN EXEGETICAL BASIS (that would be impossible for the reasons I stated) but rather due to a precommitment to immaterialistic (heathen) PHILOSOPHY.
Since it is God who calls the Holy Spirit "the Holy Spirit" in Scripture what you have stated above has no basis in fact.

It would appear that you wish to create your own theological system, and no one will stop you. But you cannot change what is embedded in Scripture. Otherwise it becomes "hot air" (not Holy Wind).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.
You words are very precise - a very precise description of traditional immaterialism, as I will further demonstrate here.

Since volume implies material substance, mainstream theologians define spirit as the opposite of volume. Hence:
(1) A spirit is unextended in space (has no size and shape).
(2) A spirit is indivisible into parts.
(3) A spirit is an intangible substance (a substance without substance? Huh?).


Points 1 and 2 logically contradict outpourings of the Third Person, wherein PART of the Trinity (Father and Son) remain seated on their thrones while the Third Person is sent to Earth (in mainstream theology this is known as the Procession of the Holy Spirit). The Trinity MUST be divisible into parts because it was only the Son who became flesh (Jn 1:14). Note that Pentecost dropped flames of Fire, each with distinctive size, shape, and volume upon the recipients, even as Israel saw divine Fire descend upon Mount Sinai as a distinctive volume (Ex 19). With his own physical eyes, John saw the Holy Breath descend upon Christ in the shape and volume of a dove.

Without size and shape, how can the human soul dwell within the human body, or the divine Glory fill the universe? Makes no sense. In the mainstream Doctrine of God, His Presence supposely resides fully/plenally/repletely at every point of space (essentially a carbon copy of ALL of it exists at EVERY point in space). This is purely philosophical, utterly unbiblical assertion that flatly contradicts ANY and EVERY outpouring, for how can the Third Person meaningfully be “sent” to a region where He was already plenally present? The famous evangelical theologian Millard J. Erickson accepted the orthodox Trinity but conceded it to be logically “absurd from the human standpoint” (his words).

Although Scripture documents God, angels, and men all engaging in speech, how can intangible spirits physically speak? Makes no sense. Moreover, are angels devoid of size, shape, and volume? Isaiah 6:2 states, “Each [seraph] had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly” (KJV). Nothing about immaterialism corresponds to Scripture. It flatly contradicts Scripture AT EVERY TURN and makes zero sense to the human mind. It's complete gibberish.

Let's talk a bit more about volume. Here an excellent point of departure is the biblical usage of the term FILLED. As responsible exegetes, we cannot simply make the Bible say anything that WE want it to say. HOW has that word been used historically in Greek and Hebrew? How is that word used today?

Certainly in Greek and Hebrew, and every language that I've ever sampled, it's a uniform concept that speaks of volume. Specifically:
(Scenario 1) It does NOT necessarily connote volume when it refers to emotions (viz. she was filled with joy).
(Scenario 2) It ALWAYS connotes volume - no exceptions - when referring to the filling of one SUBSTANCE with another SUBSTANCE (e.g. a cup filled with water). I'm confident you'll find no exceptions in the history of Greek, Hebrew, English - nor any other language - because, in regard to two existing substances, it is difficult to even IMAGINE an alternative interpretation.

Exegetical chaos would entail an indifference to the (preponderant) historic usage of a word. Such an irresponsible hermeneutic would allow us to draw ANY conclusion from ANY passage. Unacceptable.

So the question is, are substances involved (Scenario 2) in the biblical association of "filled" with the Third Person? Yes. The reference is to Him (an existing substance) filling ANOTHER substance, specifically the human body and/or soul (and He occasionally fills temples as well). Unless we are set on being irresponsible exegetes, we must interpret these accounts volumetrically.

Example. "The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle."

Sanctification is, in principle, a simplistic concept. "Be filled with the Holy Breath." It's a volumetric filling of the human body with the Holy Breath from top to bottom, precisely as the cloud filled temples and tents from top to bottom (perhaps I'll prove this point later on).

By that same token, MINISTRY is most effective when, instead of merely releasing ordinary words (ordinary wind/breath) to the audience, the preacher discharges from his lungs the divine Word. Example: "Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath'" (John 20:22). (The church has never understood what it means to preach the Word).


But this creates a problem, right? If I'm carrying around a volume of the Holy Breath granted to my body for my OWN sanctification, won't I forfeit sanctification if I discharge Him to others? Certainly. Common sense would DICTATE, therefore, that in order to do MINISTRY, I must continually pray the Father for extra volumes for discharge to others (hence the unending PROCESSION of the Third Person to the earth). Thus, "How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Breath to them that ASK him?" (Lk 11:13). The needed volumes are sent in response to PRAYER (see Pentecost).

Let's consider a biblical example. At one point God wanted to discharge a prophetic anointing from Moses' body to each of 70 elders. Obviously, this means that God must first outpour an extra volume of the Holy Breath/Wind (the pillar of Cloud for example) upon Moses' body to avoid depleting his existing supply. That's EXACTLY what Scripture documents. The Cloud first descends upon Moses' body and, from that vantage point, discharges to others:

"Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to [Moses]; and He took of the [Wind/Breath/Cloud] who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And it came about that when the [Wind/Breath/Cloud] rested upon them, they prophesied" (Num 11:25).

Notice that the Lord SPOKE to Moses when delivering the outpouring. This is what Galatians 3 is refering to as "Receiving the Holy Breath through the hearing of faith" (Gal 3) - yet another epistle completely misunderstood by the church for the last 2,000 years.

Again, I can provide plenty more examples of biblical physicality - from both testaments. The church father Tertullian (a staunch materialist) enjoyed citing examples concerning angels, for example.

I plan to provide some more examples later - but it should already be obvious that it requires considerable philosophic ingenuity to impose immaterialism onto the pages of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Since it is God who calls the Holy Spirit "the Holy Spirit" in Scripture what you have stated above has no basis in fact.
'Spirit' is an English word. You're assuming that, because you see this translation in your English Bible, that it is the correct translation.

Be aware that, even in English Bibles, it is not the ONLY translation of the term. The NORMAL translation (setting aside passages on the Trinity for the moment), is breath/wind (at least 100 times in the OT for example). No scholar disputes the translation on those 100 or so passages. They all agree that, in those cases at least, it means breath/wind.

So then the question is, what is the correct translation when referring to the Trinity? Spirit? Or Breath/Wind. I gave an example, "Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" (John 20:22). Most English Bibles translate it as "Holy Spirit", but there was a consensus in classical scholarship (read this as all of Christendom) that the most LITERAL RENDERING of the Greek, for this passage, was The Holy Breath.

John 20:22 is ONE example stated at post #5, but that post includes several additional examples as well.
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?


It would appear that you wish to create your own theological system, and no one will stop you. But you cannot change what is embedded in Scripture. Otherwise it becomes "hot air" (not Holy Wind).
You do not get to decide, for the rest of us, on the best translation. All you can do is provide your arguments and evidence - but you haven't provided any.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.

As a follow up on post #106, here's several more verses where 'filled' is used volumetrically:

"When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD FILLED the temple." The Fire burnt up the sacrifice. That's a physical dynamic. And it was of sufficient volume to fill the temple.

On Pentecost, "They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them...All of them were FILLED with the Holy [Wind/Fire]. .


"I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe FILLED the temple." (Ia 6:1)


"At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was FILLED with smoke" (Isa 6:4);


"I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if FULL of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him" (Ezek 1:27).

"FILL your hands with burning coals from among the cherubim and scatter them over the city...A cloud FILLED the inner court. Then the glory of the Lord rose from above the cherubim and moved to the threshold of the temple. The cloud FILLED the temple, and the court was FULL of the radiance of the glory of the Lord" (Ezek 10:2-4).


"Then the angel took the censer, FILLED it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake" (Rev 8:5).


"[He] gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls FILLED with the wrath of God...And the temple was FILLED with smoke from the glory of God and from his power" (Rev 15:7-8).

Given the foregoing, what part of the following passage screams 'immaterialism' to you? "Thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze" (Dan 7:9-11). Screams of volume.


Next we'll consider some passages laden with physical dynamics.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.


When Moses' face shone too brilliantly for Israel's eyes, he used a PHYSICAL VEIL to restrain the divine Light. If the divine Light were immaterial (intangible), a physical veil couldn't possibly restrain it.

The same Light singed Paul's optic nerves, physically blinding him for three days, and scales fell from his eyes when he received a miraculous healing (Acts 9:9, 17-18, 22:11).

And precisely as a flame illuminates a dark room, the Cloud transformed itself into Fire at night to provide Light for Israel’s travels (Ex 13:21)

In fact plenty of passages feature the Light "environmentally". Meaning, the text suggests that it illuminates the environment, not by creating some kind of immaterial light "in our mind" but rather in the usual sense of reflecting off the objects around us. For example, "Unto some shepherds at night the “angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them” (Lk 2:9, KJV). Did you catch that? The "night" is suddenly illuminated by Light shining AROUND them (environmentally).

The same Light shining in Stephen’s face was visible even to his assassins (Acts 6:15). Screams environmental. Acts 12:7 drives the nail in the coffin because “the angel of the Lord came upon [Peter], and a light shined in the prison" (12:7, KJV). The Light shone IN THE PRISON - and thus environmentally - not "in their minds".

Same with the Transfiguration. The first clue is that His face shone (reminiscently of Moses). The second clue is that His garments shone as well. The third clue is that the disciples, having fell asleep, did not see the vision until awakened (Luke 9:32). In other words it wasn't a vision "in their minds" but rather a physical exhibition requiring open eyes (although admittedly God is capable of cerebrally stirring up visions without recourse to our eyes).

Another environmental example. "The pillar of cloud [stood] between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long." Looks like physical dynamics to me. Why so? In order to accomplish this feat, the pillar of cloud MOVED INTO THAT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCALE. If it's all done magically from afar, or "in their minds" somehow, there's no need for a change of locale.


The divine Fire burnt up not only animal sacrifices (Lev 9:23-24; 1Ki 18:36-38; 2Chr 7:1) but even men (Lev 10:1; 2Ki 1:10-14; Rev 20:9).

When the divine Fire descended upon Mt. Sinai (Ex 19), it billowed up in smoke, and God's voice (His sound waves), physically shook it (Heb 12:26). Divine speech isn't immaterial. It's sonic (although admittedly He can physically stir up the sensation of sound directly in the brain without recourse to the eardrum).

How does God know our thoughts? When I'm thinking a thought, it is NOT a divine cogitation, He's not doing the thinking. I am. (Otherwise He too would be responsible for my sins). By default, then, it is logically impossible for Him to know what I'm thinking. Period. However, materialism affords a simple solution. He can HEAR my thoughts (my cerebral activity) precisely as you and I hear sound waves. Immaterialism provides no solution to such problems. It explains nothing, contributes nothing, clarifies nothing. It's useless.

After Jacob wrestled physically with a man until daybreak, he named "the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared" (Gen 32:30).


God has no size and shape? The 70 elders would beg to differ:
"Then went up [Mount Saini ] Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness Ex 24:9-10, KJV). Refers to the crystalline firmament of Genesis and Ezekiel (itself a commentary on biblical physicality if I had time to discuss it).

Oddly the expression "glory of the Lord" in the OT is a bit confusing at first, because sometimes it refers primarily to the Cloud but other times to the Figure cloaked by the Cloud (of course it's all the same God). In fact the glory of the Lord, ultimately, is said to fill the entire earth (Num 14:21).

Maybe I'll make a few comments on the physicality of angels.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.

A few comments on the physicality of angels. For starters, Scripture calls them pneuma, and I've already demonstrated both human pneuma and The Holy Pneuma to be material.

In fact Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary), argued that angels are physical since “the term spirit…in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401, 127). In that article he named several church fathers who viewed angels as physical: Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Caesarius. (I already mentioned Tertullian as the man who invented the word Trinity and insisted that God is physical).

Chafer served as president of DTS from 1924 until his death in 1952, but wrote the article in 1941. DTS was one of the most influential evangelical seminaries of the past century, as this website noted:
Top 10 Evangelical Seminaries in the U.S.
Interestingly enough, the following paragraph from Chafer's article (very subtly) implies that God Himself is physical (albeit without declaring such explicitly) because:
(1) It ascribes physicality to angels (using the word 'embodiment').
(2) To further prove the point, it then ADDUCES GOD AS AN EXAMPLE OF EMBODIMENT !!!! (Note carefully Chafer's surprising references here to John 5:37, Ex 33:23, and Ezek 1:1-28).

He wrote:
"As compared with human and animal existence, the angels may be said to be incorporeal; but only in the sense that they do not sustain a [decaying] organization. The Scriptures imply that the angels do have embodiment. God is a Spirit, yet, when addressing the Jews, Christ said of the Father, ‘Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape' (John 5:37; cf. Exod 33:23; Ezek 1:1–28; Ps 104:1, 2). It is essential to a spirit that it have localized, determinate, spiritual form” (Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 400).

Hebrews noted that believers entertained angels without knowing it.

Here's a physical dynamic. When God wanted to use an angel as a messenger, He sent the angel INTO THE PHYSICAL PROXIMITY of the believer, to speak to him or her. Why? Because angelic speech isn't magical - it's sound waves.

With his own hands, an angel physically rolled back Christ’s tombstone and then sat upon it (Mat 29:2-4).

Angels are sufficiently tangible to stand around the throne (Rev 5:6-11), strike Peter in the ribs (Acts 12:7), walk ahead for Peter to follow (12:9), draw a sword from a sheath (Jos 5:13; 1Chr 2:27), open prison doors (Acts 5:19), wear garments (Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4), ride horses (Rev 6:1-8), open sealed scrolls (Rev 6:1-8), carry weight-scales (Rev 6:5), sound trumpets (Rev 8:6ff.), play harps (Rev 5:8), hold bowls of incense (Rev 5:8-9), shout in thunderous voices (Rev 10:1-4), carry off the dead (Lk 16:22), be fettered by chains (2Pet 2:4; Jud 1:6; Rev 20:1) and rapture away our bodies (Mat 24:31). Indeed the fettering by chains was one of Tertullian’s favorite arguments for the materiality of angels.

In Ezekiel's vision of angels "their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot...Their wings were [physically] joined one to another" (Eze 1:7, 9, KJV). When they flew he "heard the [physical] noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of a host: when they stood, they let down their wings" (1:24, ASV). To fly is to swim within a physical atmosphere called wind or air. Throughout Revelation the inhabitants of heaven cry out in loud voices or mighty voices (e.g. Rev 1:10, 15; 5:11-14 6:1, 9-10; 7:2, 10; 8:13; 10:13; 11:12, 15; 12:10; 14:2, 7, 9, 15, 18; 16:1; 18:2; 19:1, 6, 17; 21:3). Loudness indicates physicality, because voices can DIFFER IN LOUDNESS only in virtue of gradations in the magnitude of sonic energy. John never categorized heavenly voices as purely “in the mind” or “in the heart.” Certainly he knew the difference, for he documented that earthly Babylon “saith in her heart, I sit [as] a queen” (18:7, KJV). At one point “there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour” (8:1, KJV). Silence means the cessation of objective sound, the environmental cessation of sonic energy. On the last day “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a [sonic] shout, with the [sonic] voice of the archangel, and with the [sonic] trump of God” (1Th 4:16, KJV), “for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible” (1Cor 15:52, KJV). In Isaiah's vision of seraphim, "each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly…[crying loudly] Holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:2-3, KJV). “Round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes…each of them with six wings about him…[crying loudly] Holy, holy, holy” (Rev 4:6-8, KJV). Using wings both to fly and to shade the eyes from unbearable radiance is physical motility.

John Fish rightly deduced from Isaiah’s vision that the seraphim’s wings not only facilitate flight but also shade their eyes from unbearable radiance (John H. Fish III, “The Commission of Isaiah,” Emmaus Journal, Vol 4:1 (1995), p. 51).

Clearly, Scripture doesn't leave much room to doubt the physicality of angels.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

InterestedApologist

Active Member
Aug 17, 2017
123
63
49
Earth
✟29,376.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So much time and energy spent on something that I never implied or said. Materialism or immaterialism have nothing to do with my point.

God is the creator. God has revealed Himself and His nature to us in scripture. When you believe that one of God’s essential attributes is the exact opposite to what God revealed it to be in scripture, and openly state you don’t care what scripture has said on the matter, you are creating a god in your image. Any belief you have that violates scripture isn’t a belief worth keeping.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Never heard that term before. Glad to hear it thanks. So the doctrine that God assumes a physical human-like form (e.g. Dan 7:9-11) is heresy? Too bad. Looks like we're gonna have to throw out quite a few scriptures.

Seeing as Daniel 7:9-11 doesn't say God has a physical form it doesn't look like we'll be throwing out any Scriptures any time soon.

What Daniel 7:9-11 does say is that the Son of Man is taken up to the Ancient of Days and given all authority and power. You might want to recall that the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven at His Ascension and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

"Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" - Psalm 110:1, Hebrews 1:13

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
A few comments on the physicality of angels. For starters, Scripture calls them pneuma, and I've already demonstrated both human pneuma and The Holy Pneuma to be material.

It, of course, isn't. And no, you haven't.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It, of course, isn't. And no, you haven't.
-CryptoLutheran
Silly comment. OF COURSE I haven't proven anything APODICTICALLY. I can't even prove that you exist.


But 'absolute proof' is not the goal here, is it? The goal is to compare degrees of biblical evidence, consistency, etc. as to determine ('demonstrate') which position has the highest degree of plausibility in light of the available data.

So far, I haven't seen a SHRED of plausible evidence for immaterialism - neither here nor ANYWHERE nor even any surveys of theology covering the last 2,000 years.

The irony of it all is that I don't have to prove ANTHING because THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON IMMATERIALISM. After all, everybody's familiar with matter empirically, but NO ONE can empirically demonstrate the existence of the immaterial.


So why I should believe apparent nonsense when matter is something I see with my own eyes every day.

In a nutshell, your assessment could hardly be more ridiculous. Pure bias. Nothing more.

Same nonsense in the next quote:

Seeing as Daniel 7:9-11 doesn't say God has a physical form it doesn't look like we'll be throwing out any Scriptures any time soon.
So it shows a figure seated on a throne with wheels.

No size and shape there? No form? This is more immaterial gibberish?

Tell you what, rather than take your word for it, I'll go with what Jesus said when He summarized the human condition thus, "You have neither heard His voice nor SEEN HIS SHAPE" (Jn 5:37).

Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So much time and energy spent on something that I never implied or said. Materialism or immaterialism have nothing to do with my point.

God is the creator. God has revealed Himself and His nature to us in scripture. When you believe that one of God’s essential attributes is the exact opposite to what God revealed it to be in scripture, and openly state you don’t care what scripture has said on the matter, you are creating a god in your image. Any belief you have that violates scripture isn’t a belief worth keeping.
The pattern is now clear. You're authoritarian. Anything who disagrees with YOUR interpretation has made up his mind to reject Scripture. Interesting evaluation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,255
5,974
64
✟333,140.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Hermeneutics precedes the exegesis. Of course it's not 'scriptural', nor is it non-scriptural, it's pre-exegetical.

Basically it asserts that, before we examine the text, we must have a mindset opposed to conclusions guilty of:
(1) Gibberish
(2) Logical contradiction.
That was clear enough, but you keep twisting things.

You seem to be making a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one. People might disagree with God about the AMOUNT or KIND of punishment, but the human concept of justice DOES involve punishment.

Not sure how much we can debate on quantity because:
(1) Neither you nor I know what hell feels like. It's not likely ordinary fire but physical divine Fire implementing torments of a magnitude unknown to either of us. The Fire is eternal but, in my opinion, the torment will probably wane over time until negligible. That too is part of my theodicy.
(2) Neither you nor I know the magnitude of our offenses as seen through God's eyes.

You keep mentioning what OTHER people ponder about hell because you're not really understanding what I mean by the 'human concept of justice'. It's really about YOUR definition of justice (and all the virtues). Post #41 is basically asking you to be consistent with your OWN human definition of justice (forget about what others think). For example, if I committed a crime but you were the one to get punished for it, against your protests of innocence, would you call it justice?

Or consider your own kids. Would you minimize their suffering BOTH short-term AND long-term if you could do so effortlessly? (I would certainly do it for mine). So this is really about being consistent, when you read the Bible, with YOUR own definitions of virtues.

Same admonitions apply here:
(1) See post #41
(2) It's YOUR responsibility to find a non-contradictory reading of the verse you just cited. I'm not doing your homework on this one. I already did it for you at Romans 9.

That's funny, a second ago (and multiple times before) you insinuated that we can't understand God's ways. So to us that would be gibberish, right? You're not making any sense. See post #41 for a reminder that, if we're going to refer to our beliefs as DOCTRINE, or THEOLOGY, they need to actually make sense to the human mind.

Otherwise it's like a bunch of theologians trying to discuss doctrine in Chinese, without knowing the language. Not very fruitful.

See post #41. Also I'm not really referring to 'humans' - I'm asking YOU to be consist with YOUR human concept of justice.

Ezekiel tells us about God's justice. Ezekiel is relevant because it recites the kind of justice that MOST humans would subscribe to (each man must pay for his own transgressions). Not sure why you think that's irrelevant to the discussion of God's justice in Romans 9. Perhaps you don't like the fact that it REFUTES your insinuation that Romans 9 ascribes non-human justice to God?

That passage, as I demonstrated, is about SINNERS (called 'objects of wrath' in some translations). OF COURSE God can have His way with people ALREADY GUILTY OF SIN. Even in a human system of justice, when a person commits a crime, he FORFEITS HIS RIGHTS. Duh.

You see that's why hermeneutics precedes the exegesis - that's why post #41 limits acceptable readings to logical consistency. Otherwise the exegete is liable to fly way out into left field into bizarre conclusions such as, "God can treat anyone any kind of way and we still have to call it justice even if it flatly contradicts what we humans mean by justice." That sort of thinking is nonsense.

But a RESPONSIBLE exegete will opt for a theodicy that at least LOOKS like perfect justice, supreme goodness, and unqualified kindness, if one is available.


How does a verse silent on the bone of contention support YOUR position? Seems you DO need a lesson in hermeneutics. (Although frankly I'm not sure what verse you had in mind).

You're trying to reject both option 1 (NEED) and option 2 (WANT) - the only two options - but you can't provide an alternative (because there is none). More gibberish. No surprise here.

Neither is the Trinity mentioned. It's a logical construct. Is there evidence for it? Yes but there's tons MORE evidence for the UNQUALIFIED goodness of God. I could give you HUNDREDS of verses regarding THAT. Which frankly rules out any mediocre theodicy that raises serious questions about the goodness of God. So given the two options:
(1) NEED - no theodicy-problem here.
(2) WANT - blatant theodicy-problems here.
The better choice is obvious BASED ON HUNDREDS OF SCRIPTURES. So yes, my theodicy is EVERYWHERE BASED ON SCRIPTURE.

And by the way, the above 2-choice dilemma isn't the only basis for my position. Basically, in my view, finite beings can reasonably be presumed to have needs. So an equally good question is, is God finite?

On that point I've alread submitted approximately six ADDITIONAL arguments on this thread that, as far as I can see, stand UNCONTESTED and UNREFUTED:

(1) The concept of an existing infinity doesn't make sense, for reasons stated.
(2) An infinite God would have atoned for EVERYTHING (including the fallen angels). OBVIOUSLY, God has needs/limits - based on the FACTS of Scripture.
(3) The Ancient of Days acquired a finite amount of knowledge and holiness over a finite period of time. This conclusion logically follows from the definition of merit UNANIMOUS IN THE CHURCH.
(4) He lacks foreknowledge. A person who comes to a decision out of free will does not foreknow the outcome of that deliberation. Moreover a God who foreknew the Fall would seem unkind.
(5) The only clear, unproblematical theory of creation has Yahweh emerging out of preexisting matter as a finite being with NEEDS like us. As a matter of fact, the weird doctrine known as creation ex nihilo (more apparent gibberish) didn't exist in ancient Hebrew culture but rather appeared around 100 A.D.
(6) Infinite attributes must be innate/immutable for lack of infinite time to acquire them. Problem is, God's holy attributes are NOT innate, as proven by the Incarnation. Christ's own life proves that God, by NATURE (setting aside the Immune Sytem for now), is NOT inherently omniscient, ominipotent, and untemptible. He thus had to acquire (finite amounts of) these qualities over (finite) time.

So basically, I find myself EFFORTLESSLY refuting EVERY argument that mainstream theodicy adduces for their infinite-God position, while at the same time providing NUMEROUS irrefutable arguments for my finite-God position.

So which position do you think I'm likely to stick with? Boy - that's a tough one!

Well for all your words you at least admit that your thoughts are NOT Biblical. In that they are only an opinion and quite frankly doctrinal opinions are worthless if not founded on scripture.

Secondly you haven't given one irrefutable argument for a finite God . Please, list ONE irrefutable argument and ONLY one. When I read through your posts I get lost as you jump from one thing to another.. Boil one argument down that you say is irrefutable for us and we'll see if we can refute it. I bet we can.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
....So then the question is, what is the correct translation when referring to the Trinity? Spirit? Or Breath/Wind. I gave an example, "Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" (John 20:22). Most English Bibles translate it as "Holy Spirit", but there was a consensus in classical scholarship (read this as all of Christendom) that the most LITERAL RENDERING of the Greek, for this passage, was The Holy Breath.
Logical fallacy. "Appeal to authority" who is this "consensus in classical scholarship?" Could you name some credible scholars who hold this opinion?
You do not get to decide, for the rest of us, on the best translation. All you can do is provide your arguments and evidence - but you haven't provided any.
And you don't get to decide for the rest of us based on a vague reference to "classical scholarship." I posted this once before but I don't think anyone responded.
.....Personal characteristics of the Holy Spirit, Access to God, Anoints for Service, Assures, Authors Scripture, Baptizes, Believers Born of, Calls and Commissions, Cleanses, Comforts, Communion with believers, Convicts of sin, Counsels, Creates, Empowers, Empowers Believers, Fellowship with believers, Fills, Forbids action, Gives gifts, Glorifies Christ, Guides in truth, Helps our weakness, Indwells believers, Inspires prayer, Intercedes, Interprets Scripture, Leads, Liberates, Molds Character, Produces fruit, Raises from the dead, Regenerates, Reveals, Sanctifies, Seals, Sends, Sent, Strengthens, Testifies of Jesus, Victory over flesh, Warns, Worship helper
The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, has a distinct will, a distinct mind, a distinct self, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 15:26).
…..Some heterodox religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., claim e.g. that the Holy Spirit is nothing but an impersonal force (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407). This is totally false. If the Holy Spirit was merely an impersonal force or power, He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Ephesians 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Corinthians 12:11), a self, (John 16:13), or a mind, (Romans 8:27).
…..There are, at least, seventy two (72) personal characteristics or attributes, listed in scripture for the Holy Spirit and He is a person the same as the Father and the Son are, within the Trinity.

Names of the Spirit
1. God -Acts of the apostles 5:3-4, Acts of the apostles 28:25-27, Hebrews 3:7-11, Hebrews 10:15-17
2. Lord - 2 Corinthians 3:18
3. Spirit - 1 Corinthians 2:10
4. Spirit of God - 1 Corinthians 3:16
5. Spirit of Truth - John 15:26
6. Eternal Spirit - Hebrews 9:14
Attributes of (9)
7. Eternal –Hebrews 9:14
8. Omnipotent - Luke 1:35
9. Omnipresent - Psalms 139:7-8
10. Distinct will from the father and the son– 1 Corinthians 12:11
11. Loves - Romans 15:30
12. Speaks - Acts of the apostles 8:29; Acts of the apostles 13:2
13. Distinct mind from the father and the son – Romans 8:27
14. Distinct self from the father and the son – John 16:13
15. Alive – John 14:17
Symbols of (3)
16. Dove - Matthew 3:15
17. Wind - John 3:5
18. Fire - Acts of the apostles 2:3
Sins Against (6)
19. Blasphemy - Matthew 12:31
20. Resist (Unbelief) - Acts of the apostles 7:51
21. Insult - Hebrews 10:29
22. Lied to - Acts of the apostles 5:3
23. Grieved - Ephesians 4:30
24. Quench - 1 Thessalonians 5:19
Power in Christ's Life (6)
25. Conceived of - Matthew 1:18-20
26. Baptism - Matthew 3:15
27. Led by - Luke 4:1
28. Filled with Power - Luke 4:14,18
29. Witness of Jesus - John 15:26
30. Raised Jesus - Romans 8:11
The Works of the Holy Spirit (42)
1 Access to God - Ephesians 2:18
2 Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18
3 Assures - Romans 8:15-16; Galatians 4:6
4 Authors Scripture - 2 Peter 1:20-21
5 Baptizes - John 1:32-34; 1 Corinthians 12:13-14
6 Believers Born of - John 3:3-6
7 Calls and Commissions - Acts of the apostles 13:24; Acts 20:28
8 Cleanses - 2 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:2
9 Comforts - Acts of the apostles 9:31
10 Communion with believers – 2 Corinthians 13:14
11 Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14
12 Counsels - John 14:16
13 Creates - Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4
14 Empowers - 1 Thessalonians 1:5
15 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
16 Fellowship with believers – Philippians 2:1
17 Fills - Acts of the apostles 2:4; Acts of the apostles 4:29-31; Acts of the apostles 5:18-20; Acts of the apostles 9:17
18 Forbids action - Acts of the apostles 16:6
19 Gives gifts - 1 Corinthians 12:8-11
20 Glorifies Christ - John 16:14
21 Guides in truth - John 16:13
22 Helps our weakness - Romans 8:26
23 Indwells believers - Romans 8:9-14; Galatians 4:6
24 Inspires prayer – Ephesians 6:18; Jude 1:20
25 Intercedes -Romans 8:26
26 Interprets Scripture - 1 Corinthians 2:1,14; Ephesians 1:17
27 Leads - Romans 8:14
28 Liberates - Romans 8:2
29 Molds Character - Galatians 5:22-23
30 Produces fruit - Galatians 5:22-23
31 Raises from the dead - Romans 8:11
32 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
33 Reveals – Luke 2:26
34 Sanctifies - Romans 15:16
35 Seals - Ephesians 1:13-14; Ephesians 4:30
36 Sends - Acts of the apostles 13:4
37 Sent - Galatians 4:6; 1 Peter 1:12
38 Strengthens - Ephesians 3:16; Acts of the apostles 1:8; 2:4; 1 Corinthians 2:4
39 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
40 Victory over flesh - Romans 8:2-4; Galatians 4:6
41 Warns – Acts of the apostles 20:23
42 Worship helper – Philippians 3:3
[91] Total scripture
Sources Consulted:
CARM.org
DTL.org/Trinity

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well for all your words you at least admit that your thoughts are NOT Biblical. In that they are only an opinion and quite frankly doctrinal opinions are worthless if not founded on scripture.

Secondly you haven't given one irrefutable argument for a finite God . Please, list ONE irrefutable argument and ONLY one. When I read through your posts I get lost as you jump from one thing to another.. Boil one argument down that you say is irrefutable for us and we'll see if we can refute it. I bet we can.
You guys haven't refuted any of about 10 arguments on this thread. How many more arguments do you want?

Meanwhile, give me one irrefutable argument for a infinite God - and no gibberish. Woops that's impossible because an existing infinitude is ALREADY GIBBERISH.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There was a consensus in classical scholarship (read this as all of Christendom) that the most LITERAL RENDERING of the Greek, for this passage, was The Holy Breath."
Logical fallacy. "Appeal to authority" who is this "consensus in classical scholarship?" Could you name some credible scholars who hold this opinion?

Not really a logical fallacy if I'm appealing to mainstream authorities, since I'm responding to mainstream Christians. But certainly I don't mind if you guys disregard such appeals of mine, since I hardly depend on them. My arguments are strong enough (read this as stronger than the opposing views) even without those appeals.


Thomas Oden is an evangelical theologian who wrote a somewhat unusual (multi-volume) systematic theology. Instead of drawing his own conclusions, his goal was to list all the major theological conclusions held unanimously in classical Christendom. That's why he wrote in the preface to it:

"My basic goal is to present an orderly view of the faith of the Christian community, on which there has generally been a substantial agreement between the traditions of the East and the West, including Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy."

He is well known for this important accomplishment. So when I refer to a consensus in classical scholarship, it's usually because I found it in his work. For example he surmised of Jn 20:22, "Jesus himself chose the expression 'Holy Breath’ to designate the Comforter to follow Him (John 20:22)'" (Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Volume Three (Peabody: Prince Press, 2001, reprint), p. 16)

And you don't get to decide for the rest of us based on a vague reference to "classical scholarship." I posted this once before but I don't think anyone responded.
I'm not 'deciding' for anyone in an AUTHORITARIAN sense. I'm just presenting my arguments and my reasons and, where I feel they are more compelling than traditional counterarguments, naturally I say so.

You continue on with a lengthy reiteration of orthodox opinions on the Third Person, much of which I agree with. You don't need to remind me that He is a Person, or that He sanctifies. I'm a Trinitiarian, so we already agree on those kinds of things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

InterestedApologist

Active Member
Aug 17, 2017
123
63
49
Earth
✟29,376.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The pattern is now clear. You're authoritarian. Anything who disagrees with YOUR interpretation has made up his mind to reject Scripture. Interesting evaluation.

I think you have us confused....I believe scripture is authoritative, not me. You on the other hand believe you are authoritative, not scripture.
 
Upvote 0