Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How do you know he requires them of himself? Must he remind himself to be good, or even that he is good? Is it not enough for him to simply be What/Who he is?God does. He cannot contradict Himself.
How do you know he requires them of himself? Must he remind himself to be good, or even that he is good? Is it not enough for him to simply be What/Who he is?
Can you show from Scripture, and not inference, that he requires anything of himself?
Look how you and I both have a different take on the word, "just". Yet you think some dictionary is going to make the difference as to whether God is just? He needn't live up to any supposedly objective definition, nor anybody's subjective take on it. He simply is who and what he is, and that is just.Then the scriptures should say that God’s judgement is _______. The word “just” should’ve been omitted since apparently we don’t actually have a word that describes His judgement, at least according to what your saying here. No I don’t care how many times you say it the fact is that the scriptures did use the word “just” to describe God’s character and judgement and your removing the definition of the word “just” because that definition contradicts your theology. Hence your theology contradicts scripture. Scripture says God and His judgement are just and you are redefining the word just which is twisting what the scriptures actually state.
Where does it say he "requires" it of himself?Because that’s what’s written in the scriptures. Can God defy what He wrote describing Himself and His judgement?
Okay. . .because you are so nice, I will accommodate you.There is a discussion that I'm being doubted in ... when I asked if you were male or female ... Claire or Clarence .. I was sure you said male ... please correct me with the truth so as not to offend my brother further .. thanks
Wrong again. The scriptures, concerning the word, "just", do not contradict my theology. By the way, you have not yet shown me the definition of "just" from scripture, nor have you shown that the definition is not from (or by) God's very nature, as I claim.Then the scriptures should say that God’s judgement is _______. The word “just” should’ve been omitted since apparently we don’t actually have a word that describes His judgement, at least according to what your saying here. No I don’t care how many times you say it the fact is that the scriptures did use the word “just” to describe God’s character and judgement and your removing the definition of the word “just” because that definition contradicts your theology. Hence your theology contradicts scripture. Scripture says God and His judgement are just and you are redefining the word just which is twisting what the scriptures actually state.
When the scriptures were written the definition of the word “just” was already established before the author chose to use it. Are you suggesting that the author used the wrong word to describe God’s character and judgement?
From the Biblical use of it.Not if you don’t ignore the meaning of just judgement.
Where do you get your definition of the word “just”?
If God is not under the law, then why is he "required" to live up to "THE definitions" of his attributes, as you understand them? (And no, I am not saying he is under the law.)God doesn’t murder because murder is the unlawful killing of a person. God is not under the law. That doesn’t mean that God is not under the restraints that He imposed on Himself. By the written word of God He imposed on Himself that His judgement must be just. Unless you think He’s a two faced liar.
I meant "biblicist" in terms of theological development from Scripture ("a person who takes the a literal approach to Scripture").No, brother I meant that Biblicist is a word of various meanings and connotations. Even @Clare73 as I recall, has used it two different ways. Some take it to mean literalist to an absurd point and others simply literalist, and for the denier of plenary verbal inspiration, it is a term of contempt, while other believers are proud to accept the term. And there are other uses besides those.
I don't think she really believes the Trinity to be a challenge for literalists. After all, even she is a literalist. She only meant it is if literalism is taken to an absurd degree. At least, that is my take. She could answer better than I can.
My point is that there are many approaches to Scripture. Calvinism does not take a literal approach (although many Calvinists believe they do). I insist on a literal approach, that foundational (first order) doctrines must be in "what is written". Therefore I could not be a Calvinist (it is one or the other).
I don't know what she believes. But going off her posts it seems to me that she holds to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Her posts seem to at least hint towards applying the philosophies behind the theory to Scripture in order to develop a doctrine of what is being taught by Scripture while being absent from the text of Scripture.You must be referring to something I completely missed. I find [what I have heard of] her understanding of the Cross to be very much in the Bible.
What is "this method" you refer to, apparently the method you think she uses. What is it?
I think @Clare73 will surprise you.
There are many doctrines. The belief that Jesus was an incarnation of the Father is doctrine. I do not believe it is correct, but it is doctrine nonetheless.Au contraire. . .as presented in post #463,
three separate persons in the one Being, God, is doctrine,
the threeness in the oneness,
the three separate persons (as distinct from just three separate functions) in the one God,
the Trinity in the Unity.
For Scripture presents the following relationships among the three separate divine agents:
the Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (John 5:23,
36, 43),
the Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26), and
and the Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).
A person doesn't send oneself, a person sends someone else who is a separate person.
Three separate persons in the one Being, God, is doctrine.
Good grief! Where do you come up with this sort of thing? WHERE did she even begin to suggest the author used the wrong word to describe God's character? The question is, and remains unanswered by you, WHERE is this word defined in such a way that God is required to answer to that definition? Are you afraid to admit to what @Clare73 and I have both either claimed or alluded to, that God IS the definition for these, and thus (if for no other reason) need not answer to any of our notions?When the scriptures were written the definition of the word “just” was already established before the author chose to use it. Are you suggesting that the author used the wrong word to describe God’s character and judgement?
Here you are wrong.I can help you with that.
It goes to your assertion of only "literal" interpretation of Scripture, where the Trinity is not "literally" stated in the NT.
If you believe in the "Trinity," you are not employing a "literal" interpretation of Scripture.
Who planted the wheat, and who planted the tares? Who harvests the wheat and the tares? (No I did not ask who swings the sickle.) Who determines who is elect, and who is not, from the foundation of the world?That’s not what the scriptures say.
Defined by.... who?Because the word “just” already existed before it was put into the scriptures. It was already defined before the scriptures were written and that’s the word the authors choose to use to define God’s character and judgement.
I repeat,Because that’s what’s written in the scriptures. Can God defy what He wrote describing Himself and His judgement?
I told you my testimony of how I left Calvinism. What I did not tell you was how hard it was for me to set aside what I had for so long read into Scripture.Hopefully, at some point, you will see this differently. Calvinism/Reformed Theology is the only one I find in the end to be following a literal use of Scripture, including, as you mentioned, that foundational (first order) doctrines must be in "what is written". I'm curious what you think are the foundational doctrines of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.
I'm disappointed. No, not because you didn't keep it unresolved, but because I was hoping your name was a play on words, concerning clarity or something.Okay. . .because you are so nice, I will accommodate you.
I can see why you would be confused.
I am a woman, always have been and always will be.
I spell the name that way so it will be an uncommon name, for screen-name purposes only.
The NT shows the three divine agents to be persons, referred to withThere are many doctrines. The belief that Jesus was an incarnation of the Father is doctrine. I do not believe it is correct, but it is doctrine nonetheless.
Trinity means "three". The basic doctrine of the Trinity is that there is One God: Father, Son, and Spirit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?