Would you still be a Christian without the incentive of Heaven?

[SPF]

I don't know who or what charles is. But tell me what you think ive said that you say is Heresy?

I told you who Charles Russell was, he was the founder of the Jehovah's Witness cult. A cult based upon heretical teachings, primarily focused around denying the Divinity of Christ. They do not believe that Jesus is God. They deny the Trinity.

This statement of yours would be considered heresy: "they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD"

When you created your account, you had to acknowledge the Nicene Creed, which in part says this:

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)

I suspect your theology does not line up with the above.

 

[thetruth0]

I told you who Charles Russell was, he was the founder of the Jehovah's Witness cult. A cult based upon heretical teachings, primarily focused around denying the Divinity of Christ. They do not believe that Jesus is God. They deny the Trinity.

This statement of yours would be considered heresy: "they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD"

When you created your account, you had to acknowledge the Nicene Creed, which in part says this:

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)

I suspect your theology does not line up with the above.

you didn't read my response properly. What have i said that is Heresy. I didn't disagree with the Trinity. I just explained how the trinity operates. When did i say there was more than one GOD?

 

[SPF]

you didn't read my response properly. What have i said that is Heresy. I didn't disagree with the Trinity. I just explained how the trinity operates.When did i say there was more than one GOD?

I recommend you clarify then what you mean by: "they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD" because that statement sounds an awful lot like modalism, which is heresy.

It sounds like you're saying that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are NOT three distinct persons. And if you're not, then you've wandered into the realm of heresy.

And I don't know why you're asking me when you said there was more than one God. I never suggested you did.

 

[thetruth0]

I recommend you clarify then what you mean by: "they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD" because that statement sounds an awful lot like modalism, which is heresy.

It sounds like you're saying that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are NOT three distinct persons. And if you're not, then you've wandered into the realm of heresy.

And I don't know why you're asking me when you said there was more than one God. I never suggested you did.

So if you never suggested i said that, then where is the Heresy? Did i not say that are Co-existing and Co-eternal? This is why i said: you didn't read my comment properly.

 

[SPF]

RDKirk said this: "God is comprised by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... The three are of one Substance, but they are three individual Personalities."

In response, you said this: "No, they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD. All 3 are co-existing and co-eternal. "

To further clarify your position, you offered this:

The liquid water can be likened to GOD the FATHER who is ever present in heaven, who does not leave HIS absence in the heavens, where HE is the source of light. When HE wants to visit a world and be tangible, HE proceeds from the FATHER as GOD the Son (as the GOD in HIS capital size cannot enter a world, hence HE is indescribable in size), so that HE can fit into the world, appear and interact also with the citizens of that works in a size they can relate to. That is the Melchizedek that Abraham saw, that is Jesus Christ (H.P). This state can be likened to the solid water. Like solid water(ice block), in this state, HE has a limited presence and ability (my Father is greater than I am, referring to HIS Fatherhood state). But when the GOD wants to visit a thousand places at the same time and be fully operational, HE proceeds as the Most Holy Spirit, this state can be likened to the gaseous water. The same GOD, 3 different states of operations, 3 different characteristics, same potency and strength.

Simply put, your position is heretical. Here is the opening to what John Piper says about the Trinity, it represents the fundamental, and orthodox Christian position:

"The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3–4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays? The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but he is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity? | Desiring God

My understanding of what you're saying is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are NOT distinct persons, but are different MODES under which God acts. If this is incorrect, please simply affirm what Piper and RDKirk said above. If what I think you're saying is correct, then you're preaching heresy, heresy that the church dealt with over 1,000 years ago.

What you're saying sounds like a form of Modalism.

Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitariandoctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.

Modalism was condemned by Tertullian (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Also known as Sabellianism, it was condemned as heresy by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (c. 262). Modalism | Theopedia

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Meaning that you could only enjoy limited life with the Lord on this Earth. No eternal life, just this one.
For some people, some Christians, it seems Heaven has already started for them here. They walk so close to God everyday. They are in love. And I respect that a lot. I think these people aren't so much focussed on the reward of heaven. They love the Lord so much now, they are just happy to serve Him now in this earthly life. Their reward is now.
I'm thinking that is a healthy approach. Because if our motivation to follow the Commandments and serve the Lord, is an extrinsic reward like Heaven, we are not really motivated by love. We are motivated by what is in it for us.

I got saved becuase I wanted to end up in heaven and not hell.... also I wanted to be a part of the body of christ but yeah so I can't say if I would be saved without the incentive of heaven.


Also that is a healthy perspective because the bible mentions that when you're saved you enter the kingdom of God it's almost like a state of being in heaven on Earth in a sense or getting a taste of it.

 

[thetruth0]

RDKirk said this: "God is comprised by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... The three are of one Substance, but they are three individual Personalities."

In response, you said this: "No, they are 3 modes of operation for the one GOD. All 3 are co-existing and co-eternal. "

To further clarify your position, you offered this:

Simply put, your position is heretical. Here is the opening to what John Piper says about the Trinity, it represents the fundamental, and orthodox Christian position:

"The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3–4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays? The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but he is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity? | Desiring God

My understanding of what you're saying is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are NOT distinct persons, but are different MODES under which God acts. If this is incorrect, please simply affirm what Piper and RDKirk said above. If what I think you're saying is correct, then you're preaching heresy, heresy that the church dealt with over 1,000 years ago.

What you're saying sounds like a form of Modalism.

Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitariandoctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.

Modalism was condemned by Tertullian (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Also known as Sabellianism, it was condemned as heresy by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (c. 262). Modalism | Theopedia

when you say the church has dealt with this 1000 years ago, by which Apostle or Prophet was this dealt with by? Or was it just some pastor or theologian? You say its Heresy, and yet this is only because it is different to what you believe. So if you can reveal to me which Prophet or Apostle "dealt with this" i would gladly check them out.

Secondly, i said all are Co-existing and Co-eternal. perhaps you should check to see what those terms mean. You are free to disagree with what ive said, but to call it Heresy without the word of An apostle or Prophet, is in Error, and reveals that it is strictly what you believe, and not what is the truth.

 

[SPF]

when you say the church has dealt with this 1000 years ago, by which Apostle or Prophet was this dealt with by? Or was it just some pastor or theologian? You say its Heresy, and yet this is only because it is different to what you believe. So if you can reveal to me which Prophet or Apostle "dealt with this" i would gladly check them out.

Spoken like a true Protestant with no understanding or knowledge of Church history. Where do you think you even got the Canon of Scripture you read in front of you?

Secondly, i said all are Co-existing and Co-eternal. perhaps you should check to see what those terms mean. You are free to disagree with what ive said, but to call it Heresy without the word of An apostle or Prophet, is in Error, and reveals that it is strictly what you believe, and not what is the truth.

No, you're just flat wrong on this. The Trinity is one of the core, foundational tenants of Christianity. What you've typed is a rejection of the orthodox belief in the Trinity. You don't seem to have a problem using the word Trinity, which was coined by who? The same Early Church Father's that dealt with the heresy that you've come to believe.

I don't know who taught you what you believe, or if you came up with it yourself. If you came up with it yourself, then take advantage of this opportunity to learn and grow. Realize that what you've come to believe is actually considered heresy. What you have promoted here with regards to an understanding of the Trinity is rejected by all three branches of Christianity - that should give you pause.

 

[thetruth0]

Spoken like a true Protestant with no understanding or knowledge of Church history. Where do you think you even got the Canon of Scripture you read in front of you?
No, you're just flat wrong on this. The Trinity is one of the core, foundational tenants of Christianity. What you've typed is a rejection of the orthodox belief in the Trinity. You don't seem to have a problem using the word Trinity, which was coined by who? The same Early Church Father's that dealt with the heresy that you've come to believe.

I don't know who taught you what you believe, or if you came up with it yourself. If you came up with it yourself, then take advantage of this opportunity to learn and grow. Realize that what you've come to believe is actually considered heresy. What you have promoted here with regards to an understanding of the Trinity is rejected by all three branches of Christianity - that should give you pause.

I am not a Protestant. see there you go assuming things again. In fact im not in any religion or denomination as none have the truth.

There is one that will come, and is come to restore all things. the Christianity you speak of knows not the GOD, nor HIS son, nor the Son of Man. Malachi 4:4-6, Acts 3:19-23, Rev 10:7

Secondly, my fathers are Father Adam H.E, and the Elijah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Joshua, and Jonah, i could continue...

The church fathers you refer to, are not my fathers. Thirdly, im sure it was the GOD incarnate who said: call no man father.

And lastly, like i said, what you call Heresy, is not Heresy because it is not true, but only because it is not in line with your belief. there are those that worship in Spirit and truth and they are not from any of your fathers.

 

[SPF]

I am not a Protestant. see there you go assuming things again. In fact im not in any religion or denomination as none have the truth.

Thank you for clarifying your position, it's actually very helpful in understanding why you have gone astray in your beliefs and have tread into heresy. You consider yourself your own authority.

I wonder, do you accept the entirety of Scripture as God's Word? Do you have your own personal Bible that you created? On what basis did you determine which books of the Bible actually qualified as inspired? How did you come to that? Do you have any clue what process was used to decide what books made it into Scripture or not?

 

[thetruth0]

Thank you for clarifying your position, it's actually very helpful in understanding why you have gone astray in your beliefs and have tread into heresy. You consider yourself your own authority.

I wonder, do you accept the entirety of Scripture as God's Word? Do you have your own personal Bible that you created? On what basis did you determine which books of the Bible actually qualified as inspired? How did you come to that? Do you have any clue what process was used to decide what books made it into Scripture or not?

I didn't say i was my own authority. Again this is you assuming things. And again, what you call Heresy is only because it is against what you believe. Well this conversation is going no where. Good day, sir.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I am not a Protestant. see there you go assuming things again. In fact im not in any religion or denomination as none have the truth.

Weren't you here not long ago under another user name? I seem to remember this particular merry-go-round.

 

[Soyeong]

Meaning that you could only enjoy limited life with the Lord on this Earth. No eternal life, just this one.
For some people, some Christians, it seems Heaven has already started for them here. They walk so close to God everyday. They are in love. And I respect that a lot. I think these people aren't so much focussed on the reward of heaven. They love the Lord so much now, they are just happy to serve Him now in this earthly life. Their reward is now.
I'm thinking that is a healthy approach. Because if our motivation to follow the Commandments and serve the Lord, is an extrinsic reward like Heaven, we are not really motivated by love. We are motivated by what is in it for us.

Genesis 15:1 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

"Heaven" is just a circumlocution for "God". For instance, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven both refer to the same thing. Christianity is just as much about getting us into God as it is about getting God into us, and He is our very great reward.

 

[SPF]

I didn't say i was my own authority. Again this is you assuming things. And again, what you call Heresy is only because it is against what you believe.

If not your authority, than from where do you derive your position? What evidence can you make to support your view and understanding of the Trinity? Is there anything outside what you've read from Scripture?

And what I call heresy is your position that goes against the fundamental and orthodox understanding that Christianity has held to over the Trinity since its inception. Tertullian is credited with first using the term Trinity, and he didn't live long after the apostles. We see people come along throughout history who challenge the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

I'm not calling your position on the Trinity heresy simply because only I disagree with it. Your position on the Trinity goes against the universal Churches position on the Trinity dating back to the time of the apostles and Early Church Father's.

Clearly you have absolutely no education and no knowledge of Church history, how our beliefs developed. You don't even realize that the Bible you pickup and pull your interpretations from went through a lot of discussion before the Early Church Father's landed on the number of books as inspired. So at least on some level you accept what the ECFs did if you accept the Bible you read as inspired.

Bottom line, as a brother in Christ listen to me - your understanding of the Trinity is heretical. Instead of doubling down on self-interpretation, you should look to the rich history of Christianity and read up on the development of the Trinity, how it faced heretical ideas, and marvel at how this cornerstone of Christianity is still held by all three branches of Christendom.

 

[thetruth0]

If not your authority, than from where do you derive your position? What evidence can you make to support your view and understanding of the Trinity? Is there anything outside what you've read from Scripture?

And what I call heresy is your position that goes against the fundamental and orthodox understanding that Christianity has held to over the Trinity since its inception. Tertullian is credited with first using the term Trinity, and he didn't live long after the apostles. We see people come along throughout history who challenge the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

I'm not calling your position on the Trinity heresy simply because only I disagree with it. Your position on the Trinity goes against the universal Churches position on the Trinity dating back to the time of the apostles and Early Church Father's.

Clearly you have absolutely no education and no knowledge of Church history, how our beliefs developed. You don't even realize that the Bible you pickup and pull your interpretations from went through a lot of discussion before the Early Church Father's landed on the number of books as inspired. So at least on some level you accept what the ECFs did if you accept the Bible you read as inspired.

Bottom line, as a brother in Christ listen to me - your understanding of the Trinity is heretical. Instead of doubling down on self-interpretation, you should look to the rich history of Christianity and read up on the development of the Trinity, how it faced heretical ideas, and marvel at how this cornerstone of Christianity is still held by all three branches of Christendom.

Your church fathers and your religion claim authority over the trinity? The trinity is not something that can be owned by the church. Secondly, your early church fathers and all this time have been apostate, because the wiondows of Heaven have been shut - this is the falling away written about. And i also know that the bible which we all have has gone through much, from translations, and the Spirit in the WORD is lost in those translations. I also know that the ones who put it together are the same which killed the Apostles, stole the scrolls, hijacked the church and preached a counterfeit Christ. So, you can keep your early church fathers beliefs, and i will remain in the knowledge i have of the GOD of Creation and HIS Divine Eucharistic Revelations.

So once again. Good day Sir.

 

[SPF]

Secondly, your early church fathers and all this time have been apostate, because the wiondows of Heaven have been shut - this is the falling away written about.

How do you know that? Did you receive some gnostic revelation from God? Why have you received this revelation and nobody else?

And i also know that the bible which we all have has gone through much, from translations, and the Spirit in the WORD is lost in those translations.

How do you know that the Spirit in the Word is lost? How have you learned what you have about God if not through Scripture?

Is it possible for me to find the same knowledge that you have? How would I go about doing it?

 

[Anguspure]

Spoken like a true Protestant with no understanding or knowledge of Church history. Where do you think you even got the Canon of Scripture you read in front of you?
No, you're just flat wrong on this. The Trinity is one of the core, foundational tenants of Christianity. What you've typed is a rejection of the orthodox belief in the Trinity. You don't seem to have a problem using the word Trinity, which was coined by who? The same Early Church Father's that dealt with the heresy that you've come to believe.

I don't know who taught you what you believe, or if you came up with it yourself. If you came up with it yourself, then take advantage of this opportunity to learn and grow. Realize that what you've come to believe is actually considered heresy. What you have promoted here with regards to an understanding of the Trinity is rejected by all three branches of Christianity - that should give you pause.

Why so dogmatic about something so difficult to truly understand? The writers of the bible do not carry on like this about such things, how can we who have never even met the Man in the flesh?

The foundational fundamental of Christianity is in fact the death, burial and subsequent resurrection from the dead of Jesus of Nazareth (who we call Christ).
It seems to me that much of mainstream Christianity can't even get its head around this core truth (especially the idea that Christ was indeed truly dead), let alone a doctrine so difficult to get ones head around as Trinity.

Paul proclaims Him as the image of the unseen God and while it is true indeed that an image of a person portrays the person as completely as is possible within the constraints of the media upon which it is portrayed (so we can say that anybody who has seen the image has seen the person), it is also true that the image is in itself is not same as the actual person that the image is portraying. So it is also true for someone to maintain that the person and the image are 2 different things.

It seems to me that on this issue (as with a number of difficult and seemingly ambiguous theological positions) both positions may well be correct on what is affirmed but are wrong in their denial.

 

[SPF]

Why so dogmatic about something so difficult to truly understand?

I'm really only dogmatic about it from a 30,000 foot view. I accept that the Trinity is not contradictory in nature, but incomprehensible in nature.

The basic formula is God is one in essence, three in persons. That's about as much as I defend, and I think it's about as much as anyone can say.

Every analogy that people come up with is going to fall short, and upon close examination of the analogy we will probably find that it's heretical because there's just no way to make a flawless analogy.

But then there are people like thetruth0 who's view of the Trinity are flat out heretical in nature. And other Christians should rebuke and call out outright heresy when they see it. Truth is not relative. Views can be and often are mutually exclusive. And while we don't know everything about God as most of Him is constituted by incomprehensible attributes, we do know some things. And we should be willing to defend those things that we do know.

 

[thetruth0]

How do you know that? Did you receive some gnostic revelation from God? Why have you received this revelation and nobody else?

How do you know that the Spirit in the Word is lost? How have you learned what you have about God if not through Scripture?

Is it possible for me to find the same knowledge that you have? How would I go about doing it?

You ask me where this knowledge comes from. Are you not aware of the sign of the times? Am i right in saying that your asking out of Pride, and not because you truly want to know the GOD? If ye seek, ye shall find. But as you have already rejected a foundational truth, i will no longer continue this discussion from you. Many Christians who claim to know the WORD, and the events leading up to the return of the GOD, do not even know that it is written, a restorer will first come and restore all things - revealing that things that your fathers have built, and the mother harlot and her daughters, are incomplete and incorrect and thus need to be restored. You wouldnt even know that HIS return is even at the doors, and if you don't seek, ye will not be able to watch for HIS arrival, and HE shall come on those who don't seek HIM and the thief called death, shall rob their house (body) and then the only thing you can hope for is to be resurrected. For there are truly a people that shall be living at HIS return, because they are in Zion, where the truth is reigning (raining).

So, ill say again - What you call Heresy, is not Heresy because it is untrue, but because it does not line up with what you believe or accept. There is only one truth, and the rest are lies. As Chidlren of the kingdom, you are expected to know what that is, you are expected to know who HE has sent. Well, good day sir.

 

[SPF]

You ask me where this knowledge comes from. Are you not aware of the sign of the times? Am i right in saying that your asking out of Pride, and not because you truly want to know the GOD?

As someone who strives for both intellectual and spiritual integrity, I want all my beliefs to line up with Scripture and reflect reality. I'm always open to hearing what people say and testing it against Scripture. I do not consider myself as holding the cornerstone of Truth, I am very well aware that I can be wrong about many things.

Many Christians who claim to know the WORD, and the events leading up to the return of the GOD, do not even know that it is written, a restorer will first come and restore all things - revealing that things that your fathers have built, and the mother harlot and her daughters, are incomplete and incorrect and thus need to be restored.

Are you the restorer? Has the restorer already come? What has the restorer taught?

I'll be honest, I struggle with people who come in and say that the Church is all wrong about everything and that they don't belong to any branch or any group - and yet they use the Bible. Why? Because the Bible we all use was canonized by the very people that you and others demonize! Do you see the irony there? I do!

But yea, I'm open to listening to anything. Will I accept anything? No, of course not. But I'm here on this forum to dialogue with others, to sharpen my faith, and to change what needs to be changed. So don't run from conversation. Get in here and talk.