That makes good sense. Any doctrine suggesting three separate subjectivities within the Godhead automatically collapses into tritheism.
Upvote
0
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.
That makes good sense. Any doctrine suggesting three separate subjectivities within the Godhead automatically collapses into tritheism.I believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit but I do not believe in 3 Persons within God that are different from each other but at the same time God. I believe that The Father is God, The Son is the Father's Word/Intellect become Flesh and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit/Power of God.
God bless
I believe I already explained about this in a recent post.Here it is again (for the umpteenth time):
Spiritual truth is always revelation, but the holy men who write of the doings of God are not similarly inspired. I don't have faith in the kind if corrupt holy men so biased and blind that they could put the Son of God through a trumped up trial, torture and murder! At the end of the day the church is a very human social institution.That might be true if it were I who speaks, but if it is the Holy Spirit whom speaks, as the scriptures say - then it is you who speak against God.
All authority belongs to God, whom also has providence over all people, their words, writings, and acts, according to His will. You seem to accredit Him with very little, I accredit Him with all.
The 'holy men' of that time of Christ's death were in fact the ones who wrote about the happenings from where we get our information in the NT. The scripture makes it clear that they are fallable individuals. And yet we are to believe their accounts or there is no Christianity, just as those who put to death did not believe what the OT prophets foretold either and so suffered the consequences.Spiritual truth is always revelation, but the holy men who write of the doings of God are not similarly inspired. I don't have faith in the kind if corrupt holy men so biased and blind that they could put the Son of God through a trumped up trial, torture and murder! At the end of the day the church is a very human social institution.
The creature may crave perfection but only the creator possesses it.
I have no problem with that. For me it's like the newspaper, we can get a general idea of the news bearing in mind the imperfection of the reporters. The imperfection of the scriptures is what we should expect to find. We should approach the miraculous through God not God through the miracle.The 'holy men' of that time of Christ's death were in fact the ones who wrote about the happenings from where we get our information in the NT. The scripture makes it clear that they are fallable individuals. And yet we are to believe their accounts or there is no Christianity, just as those who put to death did not believe what the OT prophets foretold either and so suffered the consequences.
That approach would mean all writings of any kind would be suspect, including the ones you have mentioned. But more importantly, that approach takes providence away from God, and conveniently gives it to you...you lean on your own understanding. And it also...does not take into account God's intentional blindness upon His own people for the sake of future generations. Providence is not yours, but God's.Spiritual truth is always revelation, but the holy men who write of the doings of God are not similarly inspired. I don't have faith in the kind if corrupt holy men so biased and blind that they could put the Son of God through a trumped up trial, torture and murder! At the end of the day the church is a very human social institution.
The creature may crave perfection but only the creator possesses it.
Indeed, anything touched by the hand on man should be considered accordingly. Nothing interferes with the providence of God, however the errors and ignorance of man does impede mans ability to see the larger picture. The concept of a providential but deceptive deity is the product of this same short sided immaturity. The blindness and deception that you blame God for is mans own pride blindness, the chosen people delusion. It was the Prophet Jeremiah long ago, preserved in the writings of the same holy men, who proclaimed that the human heart is deceitful above all things and sometimes even desperately wicked!That approach would mean all writings of any kind would be suspect, including the ones you have mentioned. But more importantly, that approach takes providence away from God, and conveniently gives it to you...you lean on your own understanding. And it also...does not take into account God's intentional blindness upon His own people for the sake of future generations. Providence is not yours, but God's.
The imperfections in the scriptures are the perfect revelations from God as to the mind of mankind and the dealings of the enemy. W/o which we are much less informed as to the state of things. So rather than writing them off as casual observation like you would a newspaper, I suggest you study them as to the intent of God in the revelation to find the learning therein.I have no problem with that. For me it's like the newspaper, we can get a general idea of the news bearing in mind the imperfection of the reporters. The imperfection of the scriptures is what we should expect to find. We should approach the miraculous through God not God through the miracle.
I think what he is talking about here is more on the order of teh numerous contradictions in the Bible.The imperfections in the scriptures are the perfect revelations from God as to the mind of mankind and the dealings of the enemy. W/o which we are much less informed as to the state of things. So rather than writing them off as casual observation like you would a newspaper, I suggest you study them as to the intent of God in the revelation to find the learning therein.
God's intentional blindness? No way. Completely erroneous understanding of God.That approach would mean all writings of any kind would be suspect, including the ones you have mentioned. But more importantly, that approach takes providence away from God, and conveniently gives it to you...you lean on your own understanding. And it also...does not take into account God's intentional blindness upon His own people for the sake of future generations. Providence is not yours, but God's.
Well, I don't think being Christian means you have to accept absolutely everything they say. There are major contradictions in Scripture, for example.The 'holy men' of that time of Christ's death were in fact the ones who wrote about the happenings from where we get our information in the NT. The scripture makes it clear that they are fallable individuals. And yet we are to believe their accounts or there is no Christianity, just as those who put to death did not believe what the OT prophets foretold either and so suffered the consequences.
Oops. It was Ezekiel who prophesized that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, not Daniel. Either way, it is an unfulfilled prophecy.The 'holy men' of that time of Christ's death were in fact the ones who wrote about the happenings from where we get our information in the NT. The scripture makes it clear that they are fallable individuals. And yet we are to believe their accounts or there is no Christianity, just as those who put to death did not believe what the OT prophets foretold either and so suffered the consequences.
Ezekial is just the substance of the pattern/shadow of Daniel, one fulfilled and the other not.Oops. It was Ezekiel who prophesized that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, not Daniel. Either way, it is an unfulfilled prophecy.
Your response is...of course...not biblical:God's intentional blindness? No way. Completely erroneous understanding of God.
Well, then that makes two of us. Your response isn't biblical either. The blindness referred to here refers to the fact that Israel is refusing to accept God, though God has communicated very clearly to them. The blindness is their fault, not something God willed on them. The Bible states clearly that God does not lie; hence, the Bible makes plain that God is not a deceiver, as you falsely claim.Your response is...of course...not biblical:
Romans 11:25
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
OK, well then, there are unfulfilled prophesies in Scripture, contrary to what you said earlier.Ezekial is just the substance of the pattern/shadow of Daniel, one fulfilled and the other not.
And God never confused all language either, or hid Himself, or sent the enemy to kill and conquer his own people. Right!Well, then that makes two of us. Your response isn't biblical either. The blindness referred to here refers to the fact that Israel is refusing to accept God, though God has communicated very clearly to them. The blindness is their fault, not something God willed on them. The Bible states clearly that God does not lie; hence, the Bible makes plain that God is not a deceiver, as you falsely claim.
God is said to have confused the languages. However, that does not mean, as I previously explained, that God was trying to confuse or deceive people, as you claim. The Bible raised a basic question: Why are there so many languages? The Bible gave a clear, concise answer, gave a clear and concise explanation how it understands God as going about this and why God did so. So there is no mystery or deception here at all.And God never confused all language either, or hid Himself, or sent the enemy to kill and conquer his own people. Right!
Your emotional hands are tied...so I guess this is all just a waste of time.
Where did I say that? Your confused...OK, well then, there are unfulfilled prophesies in Scripture, contrary to what you said earlier.
Maybe so. Sorry, maybe I got you mixed up with another member or something.Where did I say that? Your confused...
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?