2 John 1:9-11-Meaning

[Dathen]

I would take it more symbolically. To the fact don't let them come into your house, decieve and convert you. Rather, you try and convert them, and welcome them, just be careful...of the doctrines they may bring.

It happened to Solomon. He invited all these wives into his house, and ended up serving all these foreign Gods. So be careful!

 

[Cliff2]

G'day to everyone who posted here. I never thought it would bring such a suden response and a big thnks to all.

Just a reminder let's keep to waht the original question was about.

look at Matthew 25, how do we reconcile the two passages of Scripture?

Matthew 25:31-46


31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.

32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I do not think this chapter is about locking out the poor from our homes.

I also do not think 2 John is about locking out the poor.

 

[tall73]

#1 on my baptismal certificate:

I believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three CO-eternal Persons.

It means what it says. There is a Father, a Son, AND a Holy Spirit. They are united as one in purpose as God (like a husband and wife are one).

You may want to look more closely at the use of the term "person" in the development of Trinitarian doctrine. The formula used in our statement of belief has two components--three persons, one God:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.

The One God describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Together they comprise One God. Person is not always used in the same way as we think in Trinitarian discussion.

The co-eternal aspect is meant to deny the Arian views of James White, Uriah Smith etc.

One of the more famous historical statements clarifying the use of the term person in Trinitarian discussion is the Athanasian creed. Here is a portion of it:

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

Adventists do not go by creeds, but the language used in our fundamental beliefs statement has a history.

Notice Athanasias says there is One God, that the Son is God, Holy Spirit is God, etc. but they do not say the Son is the Holy Spirit, etc. The persons are not confounded, neither is the "essence" (another important Trinitarian term) divided.

The tension often found in Trinitarian discussion is an avoidance of two extremes--modalism and tri-theism.

Tri-theism--there are three separate gods
Modalism-God is just putting on different masks, expressing Himself at various times as the Son, Father and Holy Spirit.

Both of these are rejected in the traditional view.


Related to modalism is the other idea you have expressed, that the Father suffered with the Son on the cross. This is not the traditional view either, but a heresy known as Patripassianism. The traditional view does not hold that the Father suffered on the cross or died on the cross.

However, to avoid Nestorianism the traditional view does hold that the Divinity of Christ died on the cross, or else there could be no atonement, as only God could atone for His law.

Needless to say the subject is complex. But the traditional view holds that there is a One God who is a unity of three co-eternal persons. There are not three gods but One God.

 

[TrustAndObey]

You may want to look more closely at the use of the term "person" in the development of Trinitarian doctrine. The formula used in our statement of belief has two components--three persons, one God:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.

The One God describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Together they comprise One God. Person is not always used in the same way as we think in Trinitarian discussion.

The co-eternal aspect is meant to deny the Arian views of James White, Uriah Smith etc.

One of the more famous historical statements clarifying the use of the term person in Trinitarian discussion is the Athanasian creed. Here is a portion of it:

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

Adventists do not go by creeds, but the language used in our fundamental beliefs statement has a history.

Notice Athanasias says there is One God, that the Son is God, Holy Spirit is God, etc. but they do not say the Son is the Holy Spirit, etc. The persons are not confounded, neither is the "essence" (another important Trinitarian term) divided.

The tension often found in Trinitarian discussion is an avoidance of two extremes--modalism and tri-theism.

Tri-theism--there are three separate gods
Modalism-God is just putting on different masks, expressing Himself at various times as the Son, Father and Holy Spirit.

Both of these are rejected in the traditional view.


Related to modalism is the other idea you have expressed, that the Father suffered with the Son on the cross. This is not the traditional view either, but a heresy known as Patripassianism. The traditional view does not hold that the Father suffered on the cross or died on the cross.

However, to avoid Nestorianism the traditional view does hold that the Divinity of Christ died on the cross, or else there could be no atonement, as only God could atone for His law.

Needless to say the subject is complex. But the traditional view holds that there is a One God who is a unity of three co-eternal persons. There are not three gods but One God.

Hey Tall, can you start a new thread on this topic maybe? Cliff has asked us to stay on-topic with his OP.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Also Tall (it's good to see you btw, Happy Sabbath), mjona3 was talking about annihilation and I explained that we can't discuss that belief on CF. I told him he should add to your wonderful thread about the subject.

Can you provide the link again because I didn't bookmark it?

 

[Sophia7]

Also Tall (it's good to see you btw, Happy Sabbath), mjona3 was talking about annihilation and I explained that we can't discuss that belief on CF. I told him he should add to your wonderful thread about the subject.

Can you provide the link again because I didn't bookmark it?

Is this the one?
http://www.christianforums.com/t526...e-promised-discussion-of-annihilationism.html

 

[TrustAndObey]

Is this the one?
http://www.christianforums.com/t526...e-promised-discussion-of-annihilationism.html

Yep, that's it. THANK YOU!

I'll PM it to mjona3.

 

[No Swansong]

I am requesting that those who wish to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity do in deed open a new thread. The original poster has graciously asked that this thread return to the original topic and we need to do so.

Thanks
jtbdad

 

[Cliff2]

The only reason I see that we need to stick to the topic here or elsewhere is so that there can be seen direct answers to the question concerned without wading through many posts to see what the answer is or what the thread is about.

The best way is to keep opening up new threads so new topics can be looked at.

It is far better off to keep threads going with as little as possible thread drift.

Thankyou Mod.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The only reason I see that we need to stick to the topic here or elsewhere is so that there can be seen direct answers to the question concerned without wading through many posts to see what the answer is or what the thread is about.

The best way is to keep opening up new threads so new topics can be looked at.

It is far better off to keep threads going with as little as possible thread drift.

Thankyou Mod.

I totally understand Cliff. I'm sorry it got side-tracked.