faithful witness writes: Test your doctrine today; from the pen of Edwards your doctrine will fall.
mlculwell said...
That is not how you test your doctrine? This is the mark of a false prophet! Where in scripture are we told to test our doctrine to other than the scripture? Find me that passage? Your reasoning is circular. That is what Catholics do! The Reformed are nothing more than watered down Catholics.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
J. L. Watts rightly points out some errors of Faithful witness
"J. L. Watts said...
You know, you should really check your sources before you post - it makes you look rather foolish.
The Epistles of Ignatius survive in two recensions - the Shorter and the Longer. Everyone and their brother recognizes that the Shorter Epistles are the originals, or closest to the originals. The Longer Epistles are spurious and interpolated by later Catholic Apologists. Even the Catholics accept this.
The original Epistle at this point says,
I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.
What you have posted is a fake.
I would encourage you to read this:
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/category/church-fathers/ignatius-of-antioch/
And please, stop lying"
The above writing By J.L.Watts caused FW the following retraction concerning his erroneous post of Ignatius in spurious long form admitted by everyone.
"Retraction
Regrettably I have made a terrible mistake by creating the post preceding this one. I, in no way meant to deviate from the truth. My inexperience in dealing with the patristics of the church has lead the acceptance of this fraudulent information. I accept full responsibility and I will retract the post in 24 hours.
I would like to thank JL Watts for notifying me of this error. He and I differ vastly theologically, and even though I disagree with him on most topics, I appreciate his appeal for truthful historicity.
I apologize to anyone that was mislead. Test all things by scripture, hold fast to what is good". . .
You know, you should really check your sources before you post - it makes you look rather foolish.
The Epistles of Ignatius survive in two recensions - the Shorter and the Longer. Everyone and their brother recognizes that the Shorter Epistles are the originals, or closest to the originals. The Longer Epistles are spurious and interpolated by later Catholic Apologists. Even the Catholics accept this.
The original Epistle at this point says,
I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.
What you have posted is a fake.
I would encourage you to read this:
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/category/church-fathers/ignatius-of-antioch/
And please, stop lying"
The above writing By J.L.Watts caused FW the following retraction concerning his erroneous post of Ignatius in spurious long form admitted by everyone.
"Retraction
Regrettably I have made a terrible mistake by creating the post preceding this one. I, in no way meant to deviate from the truth. My inexperience in dealing with the patristics of the church has lead the acceptance of this fraudulent information. I accept full responsibility and I will retract the post in 24 hours.
I would like to thank JL Watts for notifying me of this error. He and I differ vastly theologically, and even though I disagree with him on most topics, I appreciate his appeal for truthful historicity.
I apologize to anyone that was mislead. Test all things by scripture, hold fast to what is good". . .
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Irenaeus and his four persons and faithful witness
The following quote from Ireaeus was taken from faithful witnesses blog concerning his hatred of all things Oneness and his personal war.
How convenient of faithful witness to take a single quote from Irenaeus and stop there when He thinks they are in agreement, but I have another quote from Irenaeus he may not be so quick to embrace.
Notice above that if Irenaeus were teaching any kind of doctrine it was far from trinitarainism this is the reason we should give no thought to these writings concerning our salvation and what we should believe about God as we are not told to do so in scripture. it seems to me Irenaeus was very mistaken in his understanding and if Polycarp were his teacher they both lacked any understanding and would not have been taught by the Apostles. But we see faithful witness in his blogs quote historical figures and figures whom he agrees by isolating their words where he is agreement and doing so of those to whom he does not agree such as yours truly which is outright dishonesty! Note the following written by Faithful Witness
Folks when you take one little quote and dishonestly isolate a few words in a sentence you can come up with anything. I have also said there is not a Oneness person anywhere that does not believe Jesus is God! How that is so is where Faithful Witness and I take issue, as I do not believe the scriptures teach Jesus was a "God the son" the second person of the trinity.
I imagine this must have been what the enemies of the ancient Oneness did in dishonestly misrepresenting their writings and destroying them as we have no such writings in existence today when the ancient Oneness we were in the Majority of the believers as told by Tertullian himself.
By Irenaeus
Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.
"The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all"...
How convenient of faithful witness to take a single quote from Irenaeus and stop there when He thinks they are in agreement, but I have another quote from Irenaeus he may not be so quick to embrace.
Irenaeus writes:"There is One God, the Father,and one Word, and One Son,and one Spriit, and One salvation."
Notice above that if Irenaeus were teaching any kind of doctrine it was far from trinitarainism this is the reason we should give no thought to these writings concerning our salvation and what we should believe about God as we are not told to do so in scripture. it seems to me Irenaeus was very mistaken in his understanding and if Polycarp were his teacher they both lacked any understanding and would not have been taught by the Apostles. But we see faithful witness in his blogs quote historical figures and figures whom he agrees by isolating their words where he is agreement and doing so of those to whom he does not agree such as yours truly which is outright dishonesty! Note the following written by Faithful Witness
"One rather aggressive oneness apologist, Manuel Culwell, said this to me in regards to the eternality of the Son of God: "The son is the flesh God indwelt." This statement seems to be the normative understanding of the modalist mindset. Certainly the "Son" in the oneness pentecostal understanding is a "mere man," however indwelt by God. I find it highly revealing and interesting that Ignatius of Antioch hits on this point in this aptly named chapter. I can certainly see the providence of God in that Ignatius included those who preach a unitarian God in his warning to the church. This teaching according to Ignatius, was a type of the poison of heretics. Who can argue with that"?
Folks when you take one little quote and dishonestly isolate a few words in a sentence you can come up with anything. I have also said there is not a Oneness person anywhere that does not believe Jesus is God! How that is so is where Faithful Witness and I take issue, as I do not believe the scriptures teach Jesus was a "God the son" the second person of the trinity.
I imagine this must have been what the enemies of the ancient Oneness did in dishonestly misrepresenting their writings and destroying them as we have no such writings in existence today when the ancient Oneness we were in the Majority of the believers as told by Tertullian himself.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
James White Excuses John Calvin's sin
Watch James White writhe in pain listening to Dan Barker tell the truth about the Evils of John Calvin Who Killed the Oneness Preacher Michael Servatus .
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3258
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3258
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Blogger Faithfulwitnes ignorance is boundless!
FW:Tell me Manuel, what do you mean by unscriptural? Do you presume that your modalism is the scriptural explanation? Tell me, do you think Sabellius was correct?
mlculwell: First off, "Modalism" is a name trinity folks have given us that we do not use of ourselves. Second I noticed in your little thesis that you said;" we as Oneness did not exist until 1914." Then you contradict yourself by bringing up Sabellius who existed in the second and third century but before him we know that Praxeas and Noetus also existed who were Ancient Oneness believers, the only way we know about them is through their Enemies writings(The trinitarians) who more than likely destroyed their writings, as they were the dominate and majority belief.
Tertullian who died about (225 A.d.) wrote the following about Praxeas.
"The simple indeed I will not call them unwise and unlearned,who always constitute the majority of believers,are startled at the dispensation (of the three in one)on the very ground that their rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the only true God,not understanding that,although he is the only God he must yet be believed in with his own economy.The numerical order and distribution of the trinity, they assume to be a division of unity".
Tertullian was a Montanus who claimed to be the paraklete(The comforter) and practiced celibacy and said that he was the last great prophet before the end of the world. Which makes him a clear false prophet on all accounts and especially when invented the term unscriptual by the way trinity!
FW:In your juvenile consideration of the things of God, it is not suprising to me that you fail to see the obvious. Jesus said this:
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
mlculwell: The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ the son of the living God. What Peter did not say and what you are trying to force upon the text is Peter was teaching your false doctrine of "god the son" and that is not Peters confession nor is it scriptures! I certainly agree with peters confession 100% and disagree with yours!
FW:Your deviant view of God was absent for about 97% of the time that Christianity has been in existence.
mlculwell: This very untrue and proved by historical writings of the ancient Oneness enemies whom I believe destroyed their writings as oneness again was the majority belief. The fact of that was seen in the writings of the false prophet whose prophecy did not come to pass nor was he the comforter to whom Tertullian wrote of the Oneness believers in his time!
FW:Only until 1914 did oneness pentecostalism emerge as anything but a historic heresy. Even one of your movements founders recanted of it's nonsense and went on to be a Trinitarian apologist in Canada.
mlculwell: And who would that be? Why would that even matter as we are told that men would be drawn away of false doctrine, even the very elect.
FW:Your movement is just one more legalistic works-based cult that prostitutes the bible and perverts the nature and identity of God. I have destroyed the oneness baptismal soteriology,
mlculwell: UM No, you have not "destroyed anything", you are delusional! You were trying to argue for us that our doctrine is "baptismal regeneration" you began to knock down a strawman argument that we disavow and that is a big fat lie! We get regeneration through the Authority of the spoken literal name Jesus in Baptism, not through baptism! Jesus himself destroyed your doctrine of mental assent in (Luke 24:47) when he said; that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. he told us where the first true message was preached In Jerusalem and almost preached verbatim Peters message in (Acts 2:38) But the Lord cut the head clean off your false doctrine when he said that repentance which cannot be had until you believe and addition to belief and repentance joined by the conjunction *and* remission of sins teaching us you do not get remission of sins at mental assent belief as that is not belief at all.
Further Paul also destroys you false doctrine of mental assent by asking the absurd question:" have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"(Acts 19:2) of disciples of John the Baptist to whom he did not know they were such until he further questioned them.
Further the Lord Jesus totally annihilates your doctrine by saying:whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) This would be an impossibility according to your false doctrine of mental assent.
FW:and I have provided iron clad biblical proof (namley Philipians 5:7-8)that the Son of God is eternal.
mlculwell:No such passage exists but okay I think you meant (Philippians 2:7-8) and according to your so called iron clad proof all you are teaching is polytheism as you have the pre-incarnate God the son equal to god the father if God is equal to God then that for sure is polytheism.Your interpretation is dead wrong!
FW: I will pray for you friend, that your eyes may be opened by my soverign Lord. After all, it is He who ordains all things, even salvation.
mlculwell: I believe God is sovereign but not to the point where I deny his sovereignty and power enough in giving man his own free will and choice and Calvinism is an evil Godless doctrine that makes God more like the Devil as a ,murderer and Rapist forcing his will upon man but your problem is you cannot see how God could be powerful enough to do that, it is you that needs the prayer friend.
mlculwell: First off, "Modalism" is a name trinity folks have given us that we do not use of ourselves. Second I noticed in your little thesis that you said;" we as Oneness did not exist until 1914." Then you contradict yourself by bringing up Sabellius who existed in the second and third century but before him we know that Praxeas and Noetus also existed who were Ancient Oneness believers, the only way we know about them is through their Enemies writings(The trinitarians) who more than likely destroyed their writings, as they were the dominate and majority belief.
Tertullian who died about (225 A.d.) wrote the following about Praxeas.
"The simple indeed I will not call them unwise and unlearned,who always constitute the majority of believers,are startled at the dispensation (of the three in one)on the very ground that their rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the only true God,not understanding that,although he is the only God he must yet be believed in with his own economy.The numerical order and distribution of the trinity, they assume to be a division of unity".
Tertullian was a Montanus who claimed to be the paraklete(The comforter) and practiced celibacy and said that he was the last great prophet before the end of the world. Which makes him a clear false prophet on all accounts and especially when invented the term unscriptual by the way trinity!
FW:In your juvenile consideration of the things of God, it is not suprising to me that you fail to see the obvious. Jesus said this:
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
mlculwell: The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ the son of the living God. What Peter did not say and what you are trying to force upon the text is Peter was teaching your false doctrine of "god the son" and that is not Peters confession nor is it scriptures! I certainly agree with peters confession 100% and disagree with yours!
FW:Your deviant view of God was absent for about 97% of the time that Christianity has been in existence.
mlculwell: This very untrue and proved by historical writings of the ancient Oneness enemies whom I believe destroyed their writings as oneness again was the majority belief. The fact of that was seen in the writings of the false prophet whose prophecy did not come to pass nor was he the comforter to whom Tertullian wrote of the Oneness believers in his time!
FW:Only until 1914 did oneness pentecostalism emerge as anything but a historic heresy. Even one of your movements founders recanted of it's nonsense and went on to be a Trinitarian apologist in Canada.
mlculwell: And who would that be? Why would that even matter as we are told that men would be drawn away of false doctrine, even the very elect.
FW:Your movement is just one more legalistic works-based cult that prostitutes the bible and perverts the nature and identity of God. I have destroyed the oneness baptismal soteriology,
mlculwell: UM No, you have not "destroyed anything", you are delusional! You were trying to argue for us that our doctrine is "baptismal regeneration" you began to knock down a strawman argument that we disavow and that is a big fat lie! We get regeneration through the Authority of the spoken literal name Jesus in Baptism, not through baptism! Jesus himself destroyed your doctrine of mental assent in (Luke 24:47) when he said; that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. he told us where the first true message was preached In Jerusalem and almost preached verbatim Peters message in (Acts 2:38) But the Lord cut the head clean off your false doctrine when he said that repentance which cannot be had until you believe and addition to belief and repentance joined by the conjunction *and* remission of sins teaching us you do not get remission of sins at mental assent belief as that is not belief at all.
Further Paul also destroys you false doctrine of mental assent by asking the absurd question:" have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"(Acts 19:2) of disciples of John the Baptist to whom he did not know they were such until he further questioned them.
Further the Lord Jesus totally annihilates your doctrine by saying:whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) This would be an impossibility according to your false doctrine of mental assent.
FW:and I have provided iron clad biblical proof (namley Philipians 5:7-8)that the Son of God is eternal.
mlculwell:No such passage exists but okay I think you meant (Philippians 2:7-8) and according to your so called iron clad proof all you are teaching is polytheism as you have the pre-incarnate God the son equal to god the father if God is equal to God then that for sure is polytheism.Your interpretation is dead wrong!
FW: I will pray for you friend, that your eyes may be opened by my soverign Lord. After all, it is He who ordains all things, even salvation.
mlculwell: I believe God is sovereign but not to the point where I deny his sovereignty and power enough in giving man his own free will and choice and Calvinism is an evil Godless doctrine that makes God more like the Devil as a ,murderer and Rapist forcing his will upon man but your problem is you cannot see how God could be powerful enough to do that, it is you that needs the prayer friend.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Once again!
FW:The term Lord you have used is most definitley taken from scripture. The greek for Lord in this context, if my memory serves me correctly, is Curios. This word means YHWHand has direct correlation with the OT.
mlculwell: The passage says Jesus was made both Lord and Christ(Acts 2:36) and your were quoting me saying: Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because his humanity had a beginning. This passage along with host of others teaches he was made LORD!Because his humanity had a beginning.
FW:So, the logical deduction, if we go by what you have stated above, is that the Son is YHWH. Unfortunatly (for you anyway) YHWH has no begining, just an incarnation.
mlculwell: That incarnation was the beginning of at least one of your sons.LOL! I believe YHWH is in reference to God the father YHWH Only and not a fictitious "god the son".
"The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!"
FW:If God is unitarian, and the Son is the flesh of God indwelt with God, then the Son would be praying to Himself.
Please explain if this is not the case.
mlculwell: When I pray am I praying to myself also? Real men pray! Not God's! If a God prays he cannot be God as he is lower that God! But of course your Jesus just fakes everything anyhow. You do not even have a glimmer of a viable argument.
"ETERNAL LIFE WAS WITH THE FATHER(God)"
FW:I was speaking about John 1, not 1 John, clearly.
mlculwell: I was speaking of 1st. John 1.
FW:Dodging the question seems to be your area of expertise.
mlculwell: You again had no question of any substance that merited anything but for me to laugh at your argument! You can come up with anything trying to isolate a few Greek words.
FW:The Word was with God. pros ton theon can only mean a personal relationship and contact.
mlculwell That is the very reason I submitted 1st John 1:2 as it says eternal Life was(Pros) with the father. Now if with means a personal relationship then God was having a personal relationship with eternal life! But the fact is that is the word!
FW:The remainder of the Gospel (in conjunction with the synoptics) makes this point clear. We have love displayed between the Son and the Father, communication between two distinct persons, and key phrases such as "into your hands I commit my spirit,Father why have you forsaken me?" and "not my will but your will."
mlculwell: Do you not see how you are contradicting the scriptures by Giving the one God opposing wills? If YHWH is One God he cannot have opposing wills withing himself! I believe the will of Jesus is a human real will and not another will of God! I explained John 17:5 with verse 24 and Rev. 13:8 that the Love was not literal love between persons like Jesus was not literally slain in Rev.13:8 and that the Apostles or disciples at that time were going to witness his glory which can only refer to Jesus passion that was his glory ie his sacrifice for humanity.
"This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists!"
FW:Hardly. Within the one being that is God, there exists three co-equal co-eternal persons; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
mlculwell: that is an unscriptual mantra of trinitarians not found in scripture. The passage in Philippians 2:5-11 says nothing about "persons" there! According to your interpretation the passage has to do with the pre-incarnate god the son being eqaul to God the father thus your polytheism.
FW: I am not a tritheist. What you have said amounts to slander. To assume that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt decimates the atonement and renders it ineffective, (did you read the entirity of the post?)
mlculwell: I will not take anything back I have said about your doctrine it is based on both what you say and what scripture actually says and mean to point that out. God indwelling is what the scripture says In (John 14:10, Col. 2:9, 2nd. Cor.5:19)
But it is not God the son who is incarnate in man the son as you have no real incarnation anyhow but it is God the father in the son.
God was in Christ(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Not God became Christ!
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily(Col. 2;9) All that makes God, God was in Christ.
The father in me he doeth the works(John 14:10) as the son could do no works in and of himself.(John 5:30) He did not even know the time of His own second coming but the father ONLY.(Mark13:32) that is because there is nor was anything known as a "God the son."
"FW, you oppose the creeds, and yet the only theology that you have has been created by the Councils recognized by Rome"
mlculwell: I do oppose the creeds! As they should not be put on the same level of scripture if you feel they are maybe they should canonized in scripture!
mlculwell: The passage says Jesus was made both Lord and Christ(Acts 2:36) and your were quoting me saying: Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because his humanity had a beginning. This passage along with host of others teaches he was made LORD!Because his humanity had a beginning.
FW:So, the logical deduction, if we go by what you have stated above, is that the Son is YHWH. Unfortunatly (for you anyway) YHWH has no begining, just an incarnation.
mlculwell: That incarnation was the beginning of at least one of your sons.LOL! I believe YHWH is in reference to God the father YHWH Only and not a fictitious "god the son".
"The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!"
FW:If God is unitarian, and the Son is the flesh of God indwelt with God, then the Son would be praying to Himself.
Please explain if this is not the case.
mlculwell: When I pray am I praying to myself also? Real men pray! Not God's! If a God prays he cannot be God as he is lower that God! But of course your Jesus just fakes everything anyhow. You do not even have a glimmer of a viable argument.
"ETERNAL LIFE WAS WITH THE FATHER(God)"
FW:I was speaking about John 1, not 1 John, clearly.
mlculwell: I was speaking of 1st. John 1.
FW:Dodging the question seems to be your area of expertise.
mlculwell: You again had no question of any substance that merited anything but for me to laugh at your argument! You can come up with anything trying to isolate a few Greek words.
FW:The Word was with God. pros ton theon can only mean a personal relationship and contact.
mlculwell That is the very reason I submitted 1st John 1:2 as it says eternal Life was(Pros) with the father. Now if with means a personal relationship then God was having a personal relationship with eternal life! But the fact is that is the word!
FW:The remainder of the Gospel (in conjunction with the synoptics) makes this point clear. We have love displayed between the Son and the Father, communication between two distinct persons, and key phrases such as "into your hands I commit my spirit,Father why have you forsaken me?" and "not my will but your will."
mlculwell: Do you not see how you are contradicting the scriptures by Giving the one God opposing wills? If YHWH is One God he cannot have opposing wills withing himself! I believe the will of Jesus is a human real will and not another will of God! I explained John 17:5 with verse 24 and Rev. 13:8 that the Love was not literal love between persons like Jesus was not literally slain in Rev.13:8 and that the Apostles or disciples at that time were going to witness his glory which can only refer to Jesus passion that was his glory ie his sacrifice for humanity.
"This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists!"
FW:Hardly. Within the one being that is God, there exists three co-equal co-eternal persons; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
mlculwell: that is an unscriptual mantra of trinitarians not found in scripture. The passage in Philippians 2:5-11 says nothing about "persons" there! According to your interpretation the passage has to do with the pre-incarnate god the son being eqaul to God the father thus your polytheism.
FW: I am not a tritheist. What you have said amounts to slander. To assume that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt decimates the atonement and renders it ineffective, (did you read the entirity of the post?)
mlculwell: I will not take anything back I have said about your doctrine it is based on both what you say and what scripture actually says and mean to point that out. God indwelling is what the scripture says In (John 14:10, Col. 2:9, 2nd. Cor.5:19)
But it is not God the son who is incarnate in man the son as you have no real incarnation anyhow but it is God the father in the son.
God was in Christ(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Not God became Christ!
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily(Col. 2;9) All that makes God, God was in Christ.
The father in me he doeth the works(John 14:10) as the son could do no works in and of himself.(John 5:30) He did not even know the time of His own second coming but the father ONLY.(Mark13:32) that is because there is nor was anything known as a "God the son."
"FW, you oppose the creeds, and yet the only theology that you have has been created by the Councils recognized by Rome"
mlculwell: I do oppose the creeds! As they should not be put on the same level of scripture if you feel they are maybe they should canonized in scripture!
Friday, April 17, 2009
New nonsense from faithful witness
FW:Manuel you say that "The son is the flesh God(The father) indwelt." So an otherwise inanimate object is the Son of God.
mlculwell Faithful witness(So called) gives us his real view of his doctrine of Antichrist(1st. John 4:3) a clear denial of the real humanity of the son. Jesus is no more inanimate object than I am! But what we clearly see from these folks is a denial of the real humanity of the son.
FW:Does this son have two natures? Is that your way out of the subject-object relationship that the Father and Son share, ie:prayer.
mlculwell: Again I do not ever use that analogy, it is too confusing! I believe Jesus was very man and very God you will not ever hear me say anything about natures! The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!
BD: So the Son is really two natures. . . I see. Sounds like Dr. Bernards deafeted argument. Manuel you have given me essentially another non answer to my very clear and simple question.
mllculwell All you have done is lied on me! I never use the term nature for God in any of my explanations and that is a fact!Tyndale called the word an *it* in John 1:1 and Paul used the term *word* for two evil individuals not taking into account that you view the term as another person of God, soiling your view of the word as another person of *God the son8 which is not a doctrine taught By Paul, John, or anyone in scripture.
BD:Again what does this phrase mean in John 1:pros ton theon?
mlculwell: I gave you the answer already, you cannot isolate a few Greek words and ask what it means? The word *with8 is the same word *with*(Pros) used in (1st John 1:1-2) ETERNAL LIFE WAS *WITH* THE FATHER(God). Who was God giving eternal life to?
mlculwell:"By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made"
BD:The Son is the agent of creation who carried out the will of His Father. John 1 rules out subordination. The Son's role is of willful submission to His Father. Psalm 33:6 does not indicate word in the sense of John 1. It is a literal word. Are you that bent on scripture twisting? Read this:
Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
mlculwell: That is what I have claimed all along! You better go back and read my posts to you! God spoke the worlds into existence by the breath of his mouth! The son is not simply the agent of creation as the son did not exist.(Romans 5:14) Adam came before Jesus and was made in figure of him that was to come.(meaning Jesus was not back there!) (1st. Cor. 15:46) says Howbeit that was not first which spiritual but that which was natural(Adam) and AFTERWARD that which was spiritual. (refuting your false doctrine you insert in John 1:1)
BD:Obviously the context has nothing to do with the scenario in John 1:1. Context, Context, Context!
mlculwell:I just love how you ignore my arguments to simply insert your false doctrine in John 1:1! by the word /Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and* ALL* the host of them by the breath of his mouth! The word is not another person of god with God and you isolating a few Greek words still does not prove your failed doctrine! Any false prophet can do that nonsense you can prove anything doing that but it is not proper exegesis of passage nor is it using context properly either!
BD:By the way JL, why don't you tell me something since you can read greek. What is the time frame of Philippians 2:5-9?
mlculwell: I will let JL talk from himself But I am going to give you my take on how you must see that passage!
This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists! Because you believe the passage is speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus(God the son) thus you have god equal to God polytheism according to your view plin and simple.
mlculwell Faithful witness(So called) gives us his real view of his doctrine of Antichrist(1st. John 4:3) a clear denial of the real humanity of the son. Jesus is no more inanimate object than I am! But what we clearly see from these folks is a denial of the real humanity of the son.
FW:Does this son have two natures? Is that your way out of the subject-object relationship that the Father and Son share, ie:prayer.
mlculwell: Again I do not ever use that analogy, it is too confusing! I believe Jesus was very man and very God you will not ever hear me say anything about natures! The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!
BD: So the Son is really two natures. . . I see. Sounds like Dr. Bernards deafeted argument. Manuel you have given me essentially another non answer to my very clear and simple question.
mllculwell All you have done is lied on me! I never use the term nature for God in any of my explanations and that is a fact!Tyndale called the word an *it* in John 1:1 and Paul used the term *word* for two evil individuals not taking into account that you view the term as another person of God, soiling your view of the word as another person of *God the son8 which is not a doctrine taught By Paul, John, or anyone in scripture.
BD:Again what does this phrase mean in John 1:pros ton theon?
mlculwell: I gave you the answer already, you cannot isolate a few Greek words and ask what it means? The word *with8 is the same word *with*(Pros) used in (1st John 1:1-2) ETERNAL LIFE WAS *WITH* THE FATHER(God). Who was God giving eternal life to?
mlculwell:"By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made"
BD:The Son is the agent of creation who carried out the will of His Father. John 1 rules out subordination. The Son's role is of willful submission to His Father. Psalm 33:6 does not indicate word in the sense of John 1. It is a literal word. Are you that bent on scripture twisting? Read this:
Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
mlculwell: That is what I have claimed all along! You better go back and read my posts to you! God spoke the worlds into existence by the breath of his mouth! The son is not simply the agent of creation as the son did not exist.(Romans 5:14) Adam came before Jesus and was made in figure of him that was to come.(meaning Jesus was not back there!) (1st. Cor. 15:46) says Howbeit that was not first which spiritual but that which was natural(Adam) and AFTERWARD that which was spiritual. (refuting your false doctrine you insert in John 1:1)
BD:Obviously the context has nothing to do with the scenario in John 1:1. Context, Context, Context!
mlculwell:I just love how you ignore my arguments to simply insert your false doctrine in John 1:1! by the word /Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and* ALL* the host of them by the breath of his mouth! The word is not another person of god with God and you isolating a few Greek words still does not prove your failed doctrine! Any false prophet can do that nonsense you can prove anything doing that but it is not proper exegesis of passage nor is it using context properly either!
BD:By the way JL, why don't you tell me something since you can read greek. What is the time frame of Philippians 2:5-9?
mlculwell: I will let JL talk from himself But I am going to give you my take on how you must see that passage!
This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists! Because you believe the passage is speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus(God the son) thus you have god equal to God polytheism according to your view plin and simple.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
More nonsense and Fw's last Hurah!
FW:You have got to be joking. Unbelievable. You picked one of the most clear doctrines to deny. The doctrine is so clear that I won't even bother to argue for it. I will just say this; prove to me that original sin is not taught in the bible. I'll eat my hat if you do. In fact I'll sign over my website to you if you can prove a biblical case using proper hermanutics for the denile of original sin.
mlculwell: I have already given you (Eccl.7:29) how that God made man upright but he sought devices. This is not talking about Adam only! God made all of mankind upright but mankind sought out devices to sin accept Jesus who chose not sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth it shall die, the son SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER.NEITHER SHALL THE FATHER BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON.The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him.And the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. this refutes your false doctrine. if we all have inherited sin then Jesus would have it or you would not believe Jesus was a real man!( Hebrews 2:14) Jesus was partaker of the same flesh as you and I. if we have original sin then Jesus would also. Sin is something we do ourselves not what we inherit!
(2nd. Cor.5:10) We are all going to stand before Jesus to give an account for things we have done in our body. Not according to Adam's sins or our fathers or mothers sins but our own sins.
FW:1John1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
Theses verses clearly say that the Son was with the Father in the beginning. There is no credible scholar on the face of the planet that will argue against the fact that "the beginning" spoken of here is creation. Same with John 1.
mlculwell: I gave the passage, I know what the passage says! John was speaking from a knowing experience of the word made flesh. The is reason why *the word of Life,* *the word* and *the eternal life* is not called the son, because it is not the son! John is speaking of the word of Life which is the plan of redemption, there is no redemption without his sacrificial flesh.(1st. Cor.15:21) You are caught, you deny his flesh saves! To Whom was God going to give eternal life when nobody existed?
John 1:1 is not speaking about a pre-existent persons known as "God the son!" I have already given this passage and you ignore to submit your same passage I refuted this is the reason that after this your comments will be deleted I am not going to deal with you day after day after day!
By the Word/Logos(Septuagint Psalm 33:6) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
FW:John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here the Son's pre-existence is clear. He is speaking as the Son of Man here, which is interchangable with the Son of God.
mlculwell: I agree "son of man" is interchangeable with the "son of God" as that is the only way he is son of either! His mother was Mary his father was the Holy Ghost! (Math.1:20) That which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost.
The term "son of God" is not a term that proves Jesus was "god jr" because of *ontology* that is ridiculous doctrine! All you would have is a Hercules Hybrid, a mix of neither God nor man, A new species! We must remember Jesus mother was human.
FW: You cannot divide Him into two persons, this would go beyond anything any text would allow, let alone the context of this passage.
mlculwell: I do not divide him into two persons but I sure do not make him a hybrid new species as do you! God is not a person outside the person of the son. You said yourself God is spirit. You are the one who has either a hybrid mixture of neither God nor man or you have four persons of God based on your faulty definition of the word "person" which I know you will deny.
FW:John 8:58 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here Jesus speaking as the Son identifies Himself as YHWH. Note the context, especially verse 54.
mlculwell: Again I Must repeat myself this the reason this was your last chance I am not going to have ignore my arguments and me simply repeat myself. The spirit puts the son of man in heavenly places this is your false doctrine of Perechoresis interpenetration of spirit persons. Jesus in the passage you submitted is standing before Nicodemus as the son of man(That born of Mary as a real man) but Just like we are put there by the spirit(John 17:21) Jesus is also! the spirit of God puts our flesh in heavenly places in the unity of the spirit.
FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
mlculwell: Again I must repeat myself! Rev. 13:8 says the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Was the lamb literally slain from the foundation of the world? No! Jesus did not literally exist either back there as (Romans 5:14 and 1st. Cor:15:45-46) says he did not!
Romans 5:14 said Adam came first before Jesus and if that is not enough.
Paul writes and says howbeit that was not first which was spiritual but that which is natural AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.(1st. cor. 15:45-46) How is possible that was not first but after? Because we are speaking of the incarnation in the world.
FW:You said this in regards to the above verse; "his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION." Your explanation is so far fetched I cannot believe it. The word for glory used here the greek is doxa. No where in the scriptures does this word mean or infer anything even close to the passion.
mlculwell: I never said anything about the word glory meaning passion! I said it refers to his passion not that it was the meaning of the word. Pay attention, as this is your last hurah! I said Jesus was also slain back there(Rev. 13:8) this is the glory Jesus was talking about that he had with the father. John 7:39 says the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet G*L*O*R*I*F*I*E*D. This refers to his passion he was not yet glorified!The holy Ghost had to be purchased through his slain flesh(His glory) For us to receive.(1st. Cor. 15:21)
FW:Generally it means magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace or righteousness. Check every greek dictionary on earth.
mlculwell: I know what it means! You missed the point completely and the reason I am no longer going to deal with someone who has no spiritual eyes to see. His glory was his passion! His glory was about to be witnessed by the Disciples (John 17:24) again nothing was said about a definition of the word *Glory*.
FW:You are making up definitions now. In this text the Son is speaking to the Father about actual glory, not the passion. Apparently the passion occured independently numerous times if we go by your definition of glory, since we read this in verse 10:
John 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
The Son is glorified in the elect because they are regenerate and fear God.
mlculwell: What I said about *glory* had nothing to do with the definition of the word! (John 17:24) Jesus said they were about to behold his glory which God gave him(from the foundation of the world) the Glory of His passion. The holy Ghost was not given to anyone Because Jesus was not yet glorified this was the glory that happened from the foundation of the word(Rev.13:8) the glory he had with the father(John 17:5) not literally as(Rev. 13:8) explains.
FW:John 17:22-24 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world
You said this: "Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)" The Son's death glorified the Father becuase it was His will; "not my will but your will." The word glory in this text refers to the new birth given to the elect; eternal life via the Son's righteousness.
mlculwell: They could not have had NT salvation as the testator had not died and willed it to them! (Hebrews 9:16-17) the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified(John 7:38-39) you must be born again of the water and of the spirit and they had neither! (John 3:5) just the disciples of John the baptist they would have to be born of the water and spirit as the Law brings nothing(Acts 19:1-6)mental assent does not get you saved(Acts 19:2) have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? And neither does anyone else get it by your unscriptual mental assent(John 20:23) whose so ever sins you remit they are remitted and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. That is not possible with your mental assent doctrine.
FW:His righteousness was imputed to the account of the believer. Therefore the sonship of the Son can be also imputed to the believer. This is why in the text in Hebrews calls the believer the brother of the Son of God.
mlculwell: You get nothing at your mental assent faith otherwise it would have been silly for Paul to even suggest what he said in (Acts 19:2) have you received the holy Ghost since you believed? Paul did not know these were John's disciples, but you say "all receive the spirit at mental assent faith." Paul says you do not by asking the question and refutes your false doctrine as does Jesus in (Luke 24:47) By say that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.
You will notice the conjunction and between repentance *and* remission of sins? repentance does not happen until you believe and in addition to belief and repentance Jesus said *and* remission of sins which you do not get at mental assent if that is enough Jesus further destroys the false doctrine by his full refutation of it in (John 20:23) as i have already mentioned.
FW:The paramount passage that makes the pre-existence of the Son absolutley clear is the beginning of John. The apostle defines who the Word is in verses 14 and 18.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
mlculwell: The passage says the word?logos/plan was made flesh! It does not say: the son was made the son. Redundancy and ridiculousness!
FW:John 1:18 No one has ever seen God(Theos); the only God(Monogenes Theos), who is at the Father's side, he has made him known
mlculwell: The Only God who is next to the other only God???? Do you realize that by your scholars messing around with this manuscript they have promoted polytheism? The passage does not say: one person of God and another person of God, but uses the damning word "God." Then you are going to try and say the only "unique God." which only unique God? I thought your God was a trinity? Again polytheism! You simply use your unscriptual term person not found in scriptures according to your made up definition of the word.
FW:The two subjects identified in vs 18 are indisputably the Father and the Son.
mlculwell: No I do not see father and son I see you submitted the word God in the passage. You insert the word God for the first God and God for the second God and then insert your view father and son. That is not what the text you submitted says in verse 18!
FW: John identifies them as such; see my parenthesis. As I have stated the Monogenes Theos is directly translated as "Unique God."
mlculwell: The only unique God( the son only) that is One God, we then have the other God that is not the unique God?? This is the resulting contradiction of your doctrine and the dishonest men who try and perpetrate the lie further.
FW:Now in regards to "the Word was God;"
The proper and direct translation of the text will render the fragement "and what God was, the Word was." The term Theos is emphasised to ensure the Son's full diety made known. John could have easily used the word theios, which means godlike one. Unfortunatley for modalists like yourself, he didn't.
mlculwell: We as Oneness,* Not Modalist's* no such thing or term exists as it is a name ancient trinity folk gave us based on ancient Oneness using a term mode of existence to describe God why did they not call us "wayist's" as way of existence was also a term they used. We do not call ourselves Modalist's and shows more of your ignorance!
Now we do not believe the word By the breath of God's mouth(Psalm 33:6) Could be "godlike" as that would be impossible! Where do you get your faulty information? John 1:1 says: the word was with God and the word was God. You cannot separate God from his all powerful creative spoken word.
FW: The Word and the Theos spoken of are not identical in this text! Period.
mlculwell: I just said that above! But the word was with God and the word was God! God is not Just a spoken word, he is Spirit.(John 4:24) That is the distinction not between persons.
FW:Don't think the Son of God is eternal still? Here are some more texts that say otherwise...
mlculwell: No I do not!
Heb 7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
How long? FOREVER
mlculwell: Everyman resembles the son of God! after all we were created in his image. God made a temporary Body to inhabit. If that were the son of God then it was cruel of God to allow all those folks to die and not die without salvation he should have sacrificed then but that is not the fact and that was not Jesus Jesus was from the order of Melchizedek how can you come from or after the order and be at the same time?
Fw:Hebrews 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek
How long? FOREVER
mlculwell See above? Are you denying Jesus humanity had a beginning? This priesthood God made a temporary Body to inhabit so that Abraham could go to, God later made a permanent Body in his son forever as our high priest after the order of Melchizedek he was the same God(The father) but definitely the son in the flesh!
FW:Hebrews 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
mlculwell: yes I hardly see how this proves your doctrine of Course Jesus as the son passed through the heavens as this is well after God sent forth his son MADE of a woman MADE under the law.(Gal. 4:4) He was made son. He was made the Lord(Acts 2:36) he was made the life giving spirit(1st. Cor.15:45) he was given all power.(Math. 28:18) he did not exist as God the son!
FW:There is no text that implies that Christ is the Father.
mlculwell: (Isa. 9:6) says the child born and son given would be the Mighty God and the everlasting father.
(John 14:10) Says the father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works. as the son could do NOTHING(John 5:30)
FW:The name Lord Jesus Christ or Son of God are only given to the Monogenes Theos, never the Father.
mlculwell: Jesus was Made both Lord and Christ. he was not already as he as son in flesh had a beginning. There is no "God the son" and never was!
FW:Jesus' sonship didn't end at the ascension, the text says otherwise.
mlculwell: His sonship has fulfilled that which he had to do top bring about our salvation it is all rolled up into his humanity not of another person of God we do not need another person of God One God is Good enough! You most certainly deny his real flesh as son and in doing so deny the Lord who bought you which is the doctrine of Antichrist!(1st.John 4:3,1st. Cor.15:21)
mlculwell: I have already given you (Eccl.7:29) how that God made man upright but he sought devices. This is not talking about Adam only! God made all of mankind upright but mankind sought out devices to sin accept Jesus who chose not sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth it shall die, the son SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER.NEITHER SHALL THE FATHER BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON.The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him.And the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. this refutes your false doctrine. if we all have inherited sin then Jesus would have it or you would not believe Jesus was a real man!( Hebrews 2:14) Jesus was partaker of the same flesh as you and I. if we have original sin then Jesus would also. Sin is something we do ourselves not what we inherit!
(2nd. Cor.5:10) We are all going to stand before Jesus to give an account for things we have done in our body. Not according to Adam's sins or our fathers or mothers sins but our own sins.
FW:1John1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
Theses verses clearly say that the Son was with the Father in the beginning. There is no credible scholar on the face of the planet that will argue against the fact that "the beginning" spoken of here is creation. Same with John 1.
mlculwell: I gave the passage, I know what the passage says! John was speaking from a knowing experience of the word made flesh. The is reason why *the word of Life,* *the word* and *the eternal life* is not called the son, because it is not the son! John is speaking of the word of Life which is the plan of redemption, there is no redemption without his sacrificial flesh.(1st. Cor.15:21) You are caught, you deny his flesh saves! To Whom was God going to give eternal life when nobody existed?
John 1:1 is not speaking about a pre-existent persons known as "God the son!" I have already given this passage and you ignore to submit your same passage I refuted this is the reason that after this your comments will be deleted I am not going to deal with you day after day after day!
By the Word/Logos(Septuagint Psalm 33:6) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
FW:John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here the Son's pre-existence is clear. He is speaking as the Son of Man here, which is interchangable with the Son of God.
mlculwell: I agree "son of man" is interchangeable with the "son of God" as that is the only way he is son of either! His mother was Mary his father was the Holy Ghost! (Math.1:20) That which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost.
The term "son of God" is not a term that proves Jesus was "god jr" because of *ontology* that is ridiculous doctrine! All you would have is a Hercules Hybrid, a mix of neither God nor man, A new species! We must remember Jesus mother was human.
FW: You cannot divide Him into two persons, this would go beyond anything any text would allow, let alone the context of this passage.
mlculwell: I do not divide him into two persons but I sure do not make him a hybrid new species as do you! God is not a person outside the person of the son. You said yourself God is spirit. You are the one who has either a hybrid mixture of neither God nor man or you have four persons of God based on your faulty definition of the word "person" which I know you will deny.
FW:John 8:58 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here Jesus speaking as the Son identifies Himself as YHWH. Note the context, especially verse 54.
mlculwell: Again I Must repeat myself this the reason this was your last chance I am not going to have ignore my arguments and me simply repeat myself. The spirit puts the son of man in heavenly places this is your false doctrine of Perechoresis interpenetration of spirit persons. Jesus in the passage you submitted is standing before Nicodemus as the son of man(That born of Mary as a real man) but Just like we are put there by the spirit(John 17:21) Jesus is also! the spirit of God puts our flesh in heavenly places in the unity of the spirit.
FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
mlculwell: Again I must repeat myself! Rev. 13:8 says the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Was the lamb literally slain from the foundation of the world? No! Jesus did not literally exist either back there as (Romans 5:14 and 1st. Cor:15:45-46) says he did not!
Romans 5:14 said Adam came first before Jesus and if that is not enough.
Paul writes and says howbeit that was not first which was spiritual but that which is natural AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.(1st. cor. 15:45-46) How is possible that was not first but after? Because we are speaking of the incarnation in the world.
FW:You said this in regards to the above verse; "his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION." Your explanation is so far fetched I cannot believe it. The word for glory used here the greek is doxa. No where in the scriptures does this word mean or infer anything even close to the passion.
mlculwell: I never said anything about the word glory meaning passion! I said it refers to his passion not that it was the meaning of the word. Pay attention, as this is your last hurah! I said Jesus was also slain back there(Rev. 13:8) this is the glory Jesus was talking about that he had with the father. John 7:39 says the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet G*L*O*R*I*F*I*E*D. This refers to his passion he was not yet glorified!The holy Ghost had to be purchased through his slain flesh(His glory) For us to receive.(1st. Cor. 15:21)
FW:Generally it means magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace or righteousness. Check every greek dictionary on earth.
mlculwell: I know what it means! You missed the point completely and the reason I am no longer going to deal with someone who has no spiritual eyes to see. His glory was his passion! His glory was about to be witnessed by the Disciples (John 17:24) again nothing was said about a definition of the word *Glory*.
FW:You are making up definitions now. In this text the Son is speaking to the Father about actual glory, not the passion. Apparently the passion occured independently numerous times if we go by your definition of glory, since we read this in verse 10:
John 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
The Son is glorified in the elect because they are regenerate and fear God.
mlculwell: What I said about *glory* had nothing to do with the definition of the word! (John 17:24) Jesus said they were about to behold his glory which God gave him(from the foundation of the world) the Glory of His passion. The holy Ghost was not given to anyone Because Jesus was not yet glorified this was the glory that happened from the foundation of the word(Rev.13:8) the glory he had with the father(John 17:5) not literally as(Rev. 13:8) explains.
FW:John 17:22-24 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world
You said this: "Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)" The Son's death glorified the Father becuase it was His will; "not my will but your will." The word glory in this text refers to the new birth given to the elect; eternal life via the Son's righteousness.
mlculwell: They could not have had NT salvation as the testator had not died and willed it to them! (Hebrews 9:16-17) the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified(John 7:38-39) you must be born again of the water and of the spirit and they had neither! (John 3:5) just the disciples of John the baptist they would have to be born of the water and spirit as the Law brings nothing(Acts 19:1-6)mental assent does not get you saved(Acts 19:2) have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? And neither does anyone else get it by your unscriptual mental assent(John 20:23) whose so ever sins you remit they are remitted and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. That is not possible with your mental assent doctrine.
FW:His righteousness was imputed to the account of the believer. Therefore the sonship of the Son can be also imputed to the believer. This is why in the text in Hebrews calls the believer the brother of the Son of God.
mlculwell: You get nothing at your mental assent faith otherwise it would have been silly for Paul to even suggest what he said in (Acts 19:2) have you received the holy Ghost since you believed? Paul did not know these were John's disciples, but you say "all receive the spirit at mental assent faith." Paul says you do not by asking the question and refutes your false doctrine as does Jesus in (Luke 24:47) By say that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.
You will notice the conjunction and between repentance *and* remission of sins? repentance does not happen until you believe and in addition to belief and repentance Jesus said *and* remission of sins which you do not get at mental assent if that is enough Jesus further destroys the false doctrine by his full refutation of it in (John 20:23) as i have already mentioned.
FW:The paramount passage that makes the pre-existence of the Son absolutley clear is the beginning of John. The apostle defines who the Word is in verses 14 and 18.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
mlculwell: The passage says the word?logos/plan was made flesh! It does not say: the son was made the son. Redundancy and ridiculousness!
FW:John 1:18 No one has ever seen God(Theos); the only God(Monogenes Theos), who is at the Father's side, he has made him known
mlculwell: The Only God who is next to the other only God???? Do you realize that by your scholars messing around with this manuscript they have promoted polytheism? The passage does not say: one person of God and another person of God, but uses the damning word "God." Then you are going to try and say the only "unique God." which only unique God? I thought your God was a trinity? Again polytheism! You simply use your unscriptual term person not found in scriptures according to your made up definition of the word.
FW:The two subjects identified in vs 18 are indisputably the Father and the Son.
mlculwell: No I do not see father and son I see you submitted the word God in the passage. You insert the word God for the first God and God for the second God and then insert your view father and son. That is not what the text you submitted says in verse 18!
FW: John identifies them as such; see my parenthesis. As I have stated the Monogenes Theos is directly translated as "Unique God."
mlculwell: The only unique God( the son only) that is One God, we then have the other God that is not the unique God?? This is the resulting contradiction of your doctrine and the dishonest men who try and perpetrate the lie further.
FW:Now in regards to "the Word was God;"
The proper and direct translation of the text will render the fragement "and what God was, the Word was." The term Theos is emphasised to ensure the Son's full diety made known. John could have easily used the word theios, which means godlike one. Unfortunatley for modalists like yourself, he didn't.
mlculwell: We as Oneness,* Not Modalist's* no such thing or term exists as it is a name ancient trinity folk gave us based on ancient Oneness using a term mode of existence to describe God why did they not call us "wayist's" as way of existence was also a term they used. We do not call ourselves Modalist's and shows more of your ignorance!
Now we do not believe the word By the breath of God's mouth(Psalm 33:6) Could be "godlike" as that would be impossible! Where do you get your faulty information? John 1:1 says: the word was with God and the word was God. You cannot separate God from his all powerful creative spoken word.
FW: The Word and the Theos spoken of are not identical in this text! Period.
mlculwell: I just said that above! But the word was with God and the word was God! God is not Just a spoken word, he is Spirit.(John 4:24) That is the distinction not between persons.
FW:Don't think the Son of God is eternal still? Here are some more texts that say otherwise...
mlculwell: No I do not!
Heb 7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
How long? FOREVER
mlculwell: Everyman resembles the son of God! after all we were created in his image. God made a temporary Body to inhabit. If that were the son of God then it was cruel of God to allow all those folks to die and not die without salvation he should have sacrificed then but that is not the fact and that was not Jesus Jesus was from the order of Melchizedek how can you come from or after the order and be at the same time?
Fw:Hebrews 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek
How long? FOREVER
mlculwell See above? Are you denying Jesus humanity had a beginning? This priesthood God made a temporary Body to inhabit so that Abraham could go to, God later made a permanent Body in his son forever as our high priest after the order of Melchizedek he was the same God(The father) but definitely the son in the flesh!
FW:Hebrews 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
mlculwell: yes I hardly see how this proves your doctrine of Course Jesus as the son passed through the heavens as this is well after God sent forth his son MADE of a woman MADE under the law.(Gal. 4:4) He was made son. He was made the Lord(Acts 2:36) he was made the life giving spirit(1st. Cor.15:45) he was given all power.(Math. 28:18) he did not exist as God the son!
FW:There is no text that implies that Christ is the Father.
mlculwell: (Isa. 9:6) says the child born and son given would be the Mighty God and the everlasting father.
(John 14:10) Says the father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works. as the son could do NOTHING(John 5:30)
FW:The name Lord Jesus Christ or Son of God are only given to the Monogenes Theos, never the Father.
mlculwell: Jesus was Made both Lord and Christ. he was not already as he as son in flesh had a beginning. There is no "God the son" and never was!
FW:Jesus' sonship didn't end at the ascension, the text says otherwise.
mlculwell: His sonship has fulfilled that which he had to do top bring about our salvation it is all rolled up into his humanity not of another person of God we do not need another person of God One God is Good enough! You most certainly deny his real flesh as son and in doing so deny the Lord who bought you which is the doctrine of Antichrist!(1st.John 4:3,1st. Cor.15:21)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
More nonsense from Faithfulwitness the death blow!
FW: I am tired of your non answers.
mlculwell: Well I never expected you to like my answers. But for sure they do not fit with your false doctrine and I like it that way!
FW:The poetic devise called plural majesty was not invented until the 13th century by anglo-saxon kings. There is no biblical record of such a device and no extra-scriptural support for this device in antiquity.
mlculwell:The "plural of majesty" may have been a device used in literary writings and not brought about until the 13th century but God was a king way before all other kings of His subjects the Angels....All good gifts come from above and there is nothing new under the son!
FW: You claim that man was made in the image of God by God's foreknowledge of Christ Jesus. First, let me say this; man and women were created in God's image. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus must have been a hermaphradite in your view. The human body is not the image of God because God at the time of creation was purley spirit. The account is of creation, the context has nothing to do with redemption. It is a historical narrative and the text does not lend itself whatsoever to your greivous view.
mlculwell: Now for your nonsense on the image! Eve was taken from the man who was created in the image of God! Did you forget that fact? Yes you did you are trying to hide in plain site! Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col. 1:15) If he were back there as another person then he was also invisible but this simply shows me your polytheism! yes God was Spirit!(John 4:24) an invisible spirit. Saying so does not prove your ridiculous doctrine.
FW:What is a type to you? Passover was a type of the atonement. Circumsission was a type of baptism. The bronze snake in the book of Numbers was a type of Christ Crucified. The type precedes the fulfillment. Not the other way around. Adam was the federal head of fallen humanity (romans 5:12-13). Jesus was the fulfillment of that type in that He was the representitive of a new humanity. The text you keep qouting, calling it "another account of creation" has nothing to do with creation. The context is about original sin, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul never intended your isogetical interpretation. In a phrase: ad hock.
mlculwell: I do not believe in your false doctrine of Original sin! Man does not inherit the original sin of Adam! God made man upright but he sought devices(Eccl. 7:29) (Romans 5:14) is not about original sin! Was Adam made in the image Jesus or not? Was Jesus the image of the invisible God you simply give me your false doctrine based on what you have been taught from other trinity folk but not what is taught in scripture you have nothing for your false view! That is eisogesis inserting your view in the text!
you quote me:
Mlculwell:"The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing!"
FW: Another great non answer. The text is a prophesy in Psalms and a reality in Hebrews, that was the point. It is in the past tense and the author of Hebrews said "for which of the angels did God ever SAY." Not says or was going to say.
mlculwell: You ignored the fact that it is done in prophecy many times! You are refuting your own argument using the above and do not even see it as you have your mind on pre-existence and nothing else! let's look closer shall we?(Hebrews 1:5) For unto which of the Angels said he at anytime THOU ART MY SON *THIS DAY* HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE. THE PASSAGE AGAIN REFUTES YOUR DOCTRINE!
I just saw video the other day Of James White admitting this is one of the few passages that has him scratching his head! LOL! Tell me about this day have I begotten thee? You cannot be eternal and be begotten in a day! that is contradiction of your doctrine clear and simple! it was a prophecy of the coming birth of the Messiah and not your false doctrine!
FW:"for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
You must be suggesting that God loved an idea. I see. Science fiction anyone?
Create a genuine logical response to the oneness problem of love, and then let me know. When you get tired of your war on the scriptures repent and believe the gospel (by the way, that means faith in the Son of God not baptism).
mlculwell: The argument that you clearly missed was from (Rev. 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. tell me about the lamb being literally slain from the foundation of the world this passage speaks as though the lamb were literally slain but was he? NO! Just like the son was not literally back there being loved by "himself" or God loving on God, which is silliness compounded! Your doctrine of mental assent is unscriptural just like your doctrine of God loving God which is polytheism. God again was both eternal life and the word of Life but he had nobody to give eternal life to.(1st. John 1:1)
mlculwell: Well I never expected you to like my answers. But for sure they do not fit with your false doctrine and I like it that way!
FW:The poetic devise called plural majesty was not invented until the 13th century by anglo-saxon kings. There is no biblical record of such a device and no extra-scriptural support for this device in antiquity.
mlculwell:The "plural of majesty" may have been a device used in literary writings and not brought about until the 13th century but God was a king way before all other kings of His subjects the Angels....All good gifts come from above and there is nothing new under the son!
FW: You claim that man was made in the image of God by God's foreknowledge of Christ Jesus. First, let me say this; man and women were created in God's image. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus must have been a hermaphradite in your view. The human body is not the image of God because God at the time of creation was purley spirit. The account is of creation, the context has nothing to do with redemption. It is a historical narrative and the text does not lend itself whatsoever to your greivous view.
mlculwell: Now for your nonsense on the image! Eve was taken from the man who was created in the image of God! Did you forget that fact? Yes you did you are trying to hide in plain site! Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col. 1:15) If he were back there as another person then he was also invisible but this simply shows me your polytheism! yes God was Spirit!(John 4:24) an invisible spirit. Saying so does not prove your ridiculous doctrine.
FW:What is a type to you? Passover was a type of the atonement. Circumsission was a type of baptism. The bronze snake in the book of Numbers was a type of Christ Crucified. The type precedes the fulfillment. Not the other way around. Adam was the federal head of fallen humanity (romans 5:12-13). Jesus was the fulfillment of that type in that He was the representitive of a new humanity. The text you keep qouting, calling it "another account of creation" has nothing to do with creation. The context is about original sin, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul never intended your isogetical interpretation. In a phrase: ad hock.
mlculwell: I do not believe in your false doctrine of Original sin! Man does not inherit the original sin of Adam! God made man upright but he sought devices(Eccl. 7:29) (Romans 5:14) is not about original sin! Was Adam made in the image Jesus or not? Was Jesus the image of the invisible God you simply give me your false doctrine based on what you have been taught from other trinity folk but not what is taught in scripture you have nothing for your false view! That is eisogesis inserting your view in the text!
you quote me:
Mlculwell:"The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing!"
FW: Another great non answer. The text is a prophesy in Psalms and a reality in Hebrews, that was the point. It is in the past tense and the author of Hebrews said "for which of the angels did God ever SAY." Not says or was going to say.
mlculwell: You ignored the fact that it is done in prophecy many times! You are refuting your own argument using the above and do not even see it as you have your mind on pre-existence and nothing else! let's look closer shall we?(Hebrews 1:5) For unto which of the Angels said he at anytime THOU ART MY SON *THIS DAY* HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE. THE PASSAGE AGAIN REFUTES YOUR DOCTRINE!
I just saw video the other day Of James White admitting this is one of the few passages that has him scratching his head! LOL! Tell me about this day have I begotten thee? You cannot be eternal and be begotten in a day! that is contradiction of your doctrine clear and simple! it was a prophecy of the coming birth of the Messiah and not your false doctrine!
FW:"for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
You must be suggesting that God loved an idea. I see. Science fiction anyone?
Create a genuine logical response to the oneness problem of love, and then let me know. When you get tired of your war on the scriptures repent and believe the gospel (by the way, that means faith in the Son of God not baptism).
mlculwell: The argument that you clearly missed was from (Rev. 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. tell me about the lamb being literally slain from the foundation of the world this passage speaks as though the lamb were literally slain but was he? NO! Just like the son was not literally back there being loved by "himself" or God loving on God, which is silliness compounded! Your doctrine of mental assent is unscriptural just like your doctrine of God loving God which is polytheism. God again was both eternal life and the word of Life but he had nobody to give eternal life to.(1st. John 1:1)
The so called death blow to Oneness:Love
*Faithful witness* has on his blog a title to an article he wrote, which I have heard for many years before he came along and have actually had interaction with the so called "death blow" he says refutes the biblical Oneness doctrine. He says that God is Love and has love, so that there must have been someone with him for him to love meaning: "the eternal son." so that this refutes Oneness doctrine, well, there are many other things God is, that he does not need other persons of himself for!Such as, he is also the word of life,and eternal life(1st John 1:1) but there was nobody there for God to give eternal life to, unless he wants to count the son.
Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity#3
FW:The word image does not mean what you suppose. Your reverse logic doesn't add up simply because of the fact the Eve was also made in the image of God.
mlculwell: Eve being made in the image of God does not destroy what I have said!
FW:You have choosen a wooden litteral interpretation that goes far beyond what the text implies. Again, the passage does not have anything to do with God's redemptive plan. It is the account of creation as you have admitted.
mlculwell: First, It seems you want your cake and eat it too. You have accused me of taking a metaphorical account of the creation and now you deny man being literally made in the image and likeness of God.
FW: Talk about isogesis. The "image" is obviously the communicable attritubtes that God has given human kind, not physical form.
mlculwell:
*Image* has to do with what is seen as well as what is not seen the Apostles used the term in NT to describe God being seen and the only way God was seen, was by the image or figure or physical likeness of Jesus(Col.1:15) Jesus is the image of the invisible God...
Of course it is "physical form" as he made man a "physical form"! The passage I submitted that is also an account of creation says the following: Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(Romans 5:14)
The Gen. 1:26 passage not only uses the word form but likeness which takes care of any and all uses but if that is not enough the Romans passage uses a third term;Figure from the Greek: Tupos a die struck,stamp or scar, a shape, a statue,style or resemblance,a sampler, or model,imitation,fashion,figure,form, print. I would like to point out that because you repeat something that has been said by trinitrians for so long such as image likeness and figure having nothing to do with the physical does not make it so you will have to actually prove that here!
The other terms from (Gen. 1:26) in the Hebrew tselme/image are as follows: figure, shade,phantom,illusion,resemblance,representative.
All having to do with things seen!
Likeness/demuwth:resemblance ,model ,shape fashion,manner similitude.
it should be pointed out two different Hebrew words were used and I do not believe it is an accident nor do I believe God's word is being redundant but driving home the point that it is much more than attributes and Paul drove the point home even further by stating man was made in the image of jesu who was not back there in Physical form but god had the physical form in mind when he made man Jesus being the first and only perfect man which image and likeness man was created.
Later our friend tries to make a point with the Greek word prototokos(firstborn) from (Col.1:15) the same passage I used to show Jesus was the Image of the invisible God, Folks two glaring contradictions stand out in this passage! One is; they really do not literally believe Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. That is a contradiction to their false view of an eternal son the two terms contradict each other. the other is the passage uses the term image to point our Jesus is what is seen of the unseen. more on this later.
FW: Your argument is circular and therfore a fallacy; You claim that man was created in the image of God which was created in the image of man. It is illogical and totally foreign to the account in Genesis.
mlculwell: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st.Tim.3:16,2nd.Cor.5:19) not just a man! God made man in *his own image* that coming image!(Romans 5:14) says so it is not something I pulled out of the air to accommodate my doctrine as you are doing! Adam who was the figure(image,Likeness) of him that was to COME.
God was invisible, Jesus was the image of the invisible God! It is just as ridiculous to say man was made in the image of an invisible God and simply assume man was made according to attributes only when we have scriptural witness that says man was made in the coming figure of Jesus from (Romans 5:14)
FW:Satan is referred to elohim? In what context? If that is true, it would make sense because satan is not alone and is the god of this world and rules with his angels.
mlculwell: (II kings 1:2-3) Baalzebub is called elohim. I hope you are not suggesting there is more than one Satan? there most certainly is not! Satan my not be alone but there is not more than one Satan!
FW:You say that Genesis 11:7 refers to the angels? Lets examine that.
Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city
After God said "let us," who went? The text says "so the Lord," not the angels.
mlculwell: God did this many times where he spoke in the presence of his Angels and used the royal we or us by virtue of his kingly royalty in the presence of his subjects. Nothing you have said refutes this fact nor do we ever see God as a plural being. But we see plurality of attributes and majesty.
FW: There are no angelic references in any of those texts.The scriptural roll of angels takes two forms; receiving and delivering messages and proclamations, and protecting the garden.
mlculwell; The Angels were the subjects of the King(God) in his spiritual kingdom and included his subjects in the knowledge of his works by common courtesy as would have all kings. Nor was there ever a trinity of persons ever referred to in scripture that is your pompous forcing upon scripture based on a shallow reading of the text.
FW: Isaiah 6:8 makes no mention of angels and the text says "who will go for us," thereby implying that the sender is soverign and has a plan for implementation. Angels don't plan things, and angels have no say in the redemptive purposes of God.
mlculwell: That was never stated intended or said By me. God simply stated his intentions suing the royal we us our in the presence of his subjects(The Angels) i never stated they planned or had part in redemption. They most certainly knew about redemption and desired to look into those things.
FW:Your willing to admit that Gen. 1:26 refers to God, but not the other us and our passages? Your not too objective in your thinking are you? Bringing subjective decision making into theology is a certain way to isogesis.
mlculwell: I do not afford the other passages as I do (Gen. 1:26) because we have another view creation from (Romans 5:14) there is nothing saying God is plural in any passage anywhere and the usage of the plural pronouns most certainly does not prove anything of a plural God!
FW:You also said that Genesis 3:22 refers to angels. Lets examine that as well:
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
Your assumptiom must be that angels too know good and evil in the sense the text implies. Not suprisingly the context of the passage has proven otherwise. Read below:
Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Will be like who? God, not angels. Own up to the truth, you are so consumed with defending the oneness doctrine that you don't care how you have to bend the scriptures to do it.
mlculwell: Um, This shows your blatant, willful, ignorance of scripture as Angels, rulers, and human judges, are also called gods we already talked about that in the word elohim/Elohim. Yes Angels know Good from Evil Satan chose to do Evil rather than Good and fell from his first estate.
FW:Now so far as the eternality of the Son of God:
mlculwell: There was no such thing in scripture ever taught!
FW:You said this " The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation," regarding Hebrews 1:8-13/Psalm 110:1. This however is not true. How can I prove this? Easily:
Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
Note the text says "you have loved. . . and hated. . .." This text is in the PASSED tense.
mlculwell: The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing! In (Joshua 6:2) God also said I have given into thy hand Jericho(Past tense) before Joshua even went round the walls like he was instructed to do. if god says something you can take it to the bank! But a prophecy is a prophecy.
FW:Not the future tense as you suppose. The Son did these things while on earth and in pre-existence since He is divine. The time of the text is after the ascension.
mlculwell: No, I think you might better go back and figure another argument as this does not work.
FW:If I were to send you something, does that mean that it came into being while on the way? No. The word for send is pempo. This word literally means to consign one thing or person to another thing or person. Not create, but to send. Don't draw inferences when the text doesn't imply as much.
mlculwell: You blatantly ignore the context of the passage in verse nine looking foolish in doing so! I mentioned if the passage were talking about Jesus being a pre-existent person of God then there were more than Jesus the Holy ghost and God the father as God the father is talking in the passage and says he has anointed Jesus with the oil of Gladness(Holy Ghost) above his *fellows* now tell us about his fellow Gods?(The plural) the fact is that part of the passage is speaking about him being anointed with the Holy Ghost above all other men ass the son in the incarnation.
FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Does it get any clearer than this?
mlculwell: Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)
Father,I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am;(Present tense)that they(the future Apostles) may behold my Glory, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. What was the glory that the disciples were about to behold.
*His glory* had nothing to do with pre-existence of a fictitious "god the son." his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION. that is what was meant by Jesus both giving them his glory and them beholding his glory as rev. 13:8 states: the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was not literally slain back there but this passages makes it seem as though it was.
To further prove *his glory* he had with the father before the world was is his passion in the plan of God for future redemption we read In (John 7:39) The Holy ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet GLORIFIED. this is his glory, his passion that was planned from the beginning from the foundation of the world the glory the disciples were about to behold the glory they were also given from the father to behold.
FW:Paul calls Christ the "prototokos" or first born in Col.1:15-17. This word means the one who has pre-eminence. There is no inference to some sort of temperal generation of the Son.
mlculwell: Was he the firstborn of God according the flesh, are you denying that? That is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3) How many sons do you have? Do you have One Born, and One not born? The word prototokos does have to do with him being literally born to deny that is to deny his real humanity! You most certainly cannot have a redeemer(1st. Cor.15:21) nor a mediator(1st.Tim.2:5) with your view of hybrid.
FW:So far as John 1:18 the text which you seemed to have ignored: the litteral interpreation of the word monogenes is the unique God, with the clear distinction from the Father. The Monogenes is by definition is eternal and distinct.
mlculwell: I reject your term! "The only begotten God" which denies Jesus real humanity and makes Jesus hybrid new species. Begotten is a term you are denying is in relation to his humanity thus your doctrine is Antichrist! was he the only begotten according to the flesh?
FW:No getting past the pinnacle text that defies your doctrine sooo clearly; John chapter 1. The text clearly says that the Son pre-existed the incarnation. I defy you to argue otherwise.
mlculwell: That is just what I am going to do! You cannot deny my argument by ignoring it! The Septuagint of John 1:1 calls the Word/Logos "the creator!" But how? clearly by the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. I have not changed my argument. the day you can make the word by the breath of god's mouth a pre-existent person of God is the day you will have an argument from John 1:1 and again Tyndale calls the word an *it.* Paul uses the term logos of two individuals evil plans(2nd. Tim.2:17)
FW:Lets finish this. First let me admit, that I like this dialoge and that I personally don't hold anything against you. I think you can be somewhat abrasive at times, but I hope that we can ultimatley treat one another with respect even we differ drastically theologically. With that said, allow me to deliver the deathblow to your doctrine of God; you'll find it below.
mlculwell: I am going to deal with your so called death blow in another post! and if you actually had a death blow you should have given in an argument here instead of simply giving a link to your so called death blow.
mlculwell: Eve being made in the image of God does not destroy what I have said!
FW:You have choosen a wooden litteral interpretation that goes far beyond what the text implies. Again, the passage does not have anything to do with God's redemptive plan. It is the account of creation as you have admitted.
mlculwell: First, It seems you want your cake and eat it too. You have accused me of taking a metaphorical account of the creation and now you deny man being literally made in the image and likeness of God.
FW: Talk about isogesis. The "image" is obviously the communicable attritubtes that God has given human kind, not physical form.
mlculwell:
*Image* has to do with what is seen as well as what is not seen the Apostles used the term in NT to describe God being seen and the only way God was seen, was by the image or figure or physical likeness of Jesus(Col.1:15) Jesus is the image of the invisible God...
Of course it is "physical form" as he made man a "physical form"! The passage I submitted that is also an account of creation says the following: Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(Romans 5:14)
The Gen. 1:26 passage not only uses the word form but likeness which takes care of any and all uses but if that is not enough the Romans passage uses a third term;Figure from the Greek: Tupos a die struck,stamp or scar, a shape, a statue,style or resemblance,a sampler, or model,imitation,fashion,figure,form, print. I would like to point out that because you repeat something that has been said by trinitrians for so long such as image likeness and figure having nothing to do with the physical does not make it so you will have to actually prove that here!
The other terms from (Gen. 1:26) in the Hebrew tselme/image are as follows: figure, shade,phantom,illusion,resemblance,representative.
All having to do with things seen!
Likeness/demuwth:resemblance ,model ,shape fashion,manner similitude.
it should be pointed out two different Hebrew words were used and I do not believe it is an accident nor do I believe God's word is being redundant but driving home the point that it is much more than attributes and Paul drove the point home even further by stating man was made in the image of jesu who was not back there in Physical form but god had the physical form in mind when he made man Jesus being the first and only perfect man which image and likeness man was created.
Later our friend tries to make a point with the Greek word prototokos(firstborn) from (Col.1:15) the same passage I used to show Jesus was the Image of the invisible God, Folks two glaring contradictions stand out in this passage! One is; they really do not literally believe Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. That is a contradiction to their false view of an eternal son the two terms contradict each other. the other is the passage uses the term image to point our Jesus is what is seen of the unseen. more on this later.
FW: Your argument is circular and therfore a fallacy; You claim that man was created in the image of God which was created in the image of man. It is illogical and totally foreign to the account in Genesis.
mlculwell: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st.Tim.3:16,2nd.Cor.5:19) not just a man! God made man in *his own image* that coming image!(Romans 5:14) says so it is not something I pulled out of the air to accommodate my doctrine as you are doing! Adam who was the figure(image,Likeness) of him that was to COME.
God was invisible, Jesus was the image of the invisible God! It is just as ridiculous to say man was made in the image of an invisible God and simply assume man was made according to attributes only when we have scriptural witness that says man was made in the coming figure of Jesus from (Romans 5:14)
FW:Satan is referred to elohim? In what context? If that is true, it would make sense because satan is not alone and is the god of this world and rules with his angels.
mlculwell: (II kings 1:2-3) Baalzebub is called elohim. I hope you are not suggesting there is more than one Satan? there most certainly is not! Satan my not be alone but there is not more than one Satan!
FW:You say that Genesis 11:7 refers to the angels? Lets examine that.
Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city
After God said "let us," who went? The text says "so the Lord," not the angels.
mlculwell: God did this many times where he spoke in the presence of his Angels and used the royal we or us by virtue of his kingly royalty in the presence of his subjects. Nothing you have said refutes this fact nor do we ever see God as a plural being. But we see plurality of attributes and majesty.
FW: There are no angelic references in any of those texts.The scriptural roll of angels takes two forms; receiving and delivering messages and proclamations, and protecting the garden.
mlculwell; The Angels were the subjects of the King(God) in his spiritual kingdom and included his subjects in the knowledge of his works by common courtesy as would have all kings. Nor was there ever a trinity of persons ever referred to in scripture that is your pompous forcing upon scripture based on a shallow reading of the text.
FW: Isaiah 6:8 makes no mention of angels and the text says "who will go for us," thereby implying that the sender is soverign and has a plan for implementation. Angels don't plan things, and angels have no say in the redemptive purposes of God.
mlculwell: That was never stated intended or said By me. God simply stated his intentions suing the royal we us our in the presence of his subjects(The Angels) i never stated they planned or had part in redemption. They most certainly knew about redemption and desired to look into those things.
FW:Your willing to admit that Gen. 1:26 refers to God, but not the other us and our passages? Your not too objective in your thinking are you? Bringing subjective decision making into theology is a certain way to isogesis.
mlculwell: I do not afford the other passages as I do (Gen. 1:26) because we have another view creation from (Romans 5:14) there is nothing saying God is plural in any passage anywhere and the usage of the plural pronouns most certainly does not prove anything of a plural God!
FW:You also said that Genesis 3:22 refers to angels. Lets examine that as well:
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
Your assumptiom must be that angels too know good and evil in the sense the text implies. Not suprisingly the context of the passage has proven otherwise. Read below:
Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Will be like who? God, not angels. Own up to the truth, you are so consumed with defending the oneness doctrine that you don't care how you have to bend the scriptures to do it.
mlculwell: Um, This shows your blatant, willful, ignorance of scripture as Angels, rulers, and human judges, are also called gods we already talked about that in the word elohim/Elohim. Yes Angels know Good from Evil Satan chose to do Evil rather than Good and fell from his first estate.
FW:Now so far as the eternality of the Son of God:
mlculwell: There was no such thing in scripture ever taught!
FW:You said this " The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation," regarding Hebrews 1:8-13/Psalm 110:1. This however is not true. How can I prove this? Easily:
Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
Note the text says "you have loved. . . and hated. . .." This text is in the PASSED tense.
mlculwell: The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing! In (Joshua 6:2) God also said I have given into thy hand Jericho(Past tense) before Joshua even went round the walls like he was instructed to do. if god says something you can take it to the bank! But a prophecy is a prophecy.
FW:Not the future tense as you suppose. The Son did these things while on earth and in pre-existence since He is divine. The time of the text is after the ascension.
mlculwell: No, I think you might better go back and figure another argument as this does not work.
FW:If I were to send you something, does that mean that it came into being while on the way? No. The word for send is pempo. This word literally means to consign one thing or person to another thing or person. Not create, but to send. Don't draw inferences when the text doesn't imply as much.
mlculwell: You blatantly ignore the context of the passage in verse nine looking foolish in doing so! I mentioned if the passage were talking about Jesus being a pre-existent person of God then there were more than Jesus the Holy ghost and God the father as God the father is talking in the passage and says he has anointed Jesus with the oil of Gladness(Holy Ghost) above his *fellows* now tell us about his fellow Gods?(The plural) the fact is that part of the passage is speaking about him being anointed with the Holy Ghost above all other men ass the son in the incarnation.
FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Does it get any clearer than this?
mlculwell: Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)
Father,I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am;(Present tense)that they(the future Apostles) may behold my Glory, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. What was the glory that the disciples were about to behold.
*His glory* had nothing to do with pre-existence of a fictitious "god the son." his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION. that is what was meant by Jesus both giving them his glory and them beholding his glory as rev. 13:8 states: the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was not literally slain back there but this passages makes it seem as though it was.
To further prove *his glory* he had with the father before the world was is his passion in the plan of God for future redemption we read In (John 7:39) The Holy ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet GLORIFIED. this is his glory, his passion that was planned from the beginning from the foundation of the world the glory the disciples were about to behold the glory they were also given from the father to behold.
FW:Paul calls Christ the "prototokos" or first born in Col.1:15-17. This word means the one who has pre-eminence. There is no inference to some sort of temperal generation of the Son.
mlculwell: Was he the firstborn of God according the flesh, are you denying that? That is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3) How many sons do you have? Do you have One Born, and One not born? The word prototokos does have to do with him being literally born to deny that is to deny his real humanity! You most certainly cannot have a redeemer(1st. Cor.15:21) nor a mediator(1st.Tim.2:5) with your view of hybrid.
FW:So far as John 1:18 the text which you seemed to have ignored: the litteral interpreation of the word monogenes is the unique God, with the clear distinction from the Father. The Monogenes is by definition is eternal and distinct.
mlculwell: I reject your term! "The only begotten God" which denies Jesus real humanity and makes Jesus hybrid new species. Begotten is a term you are denying is in relation to his humanity thus your doctrine is Antichrist! was he the only begotten according to the flesh?
FW:No getting past the pinnacle text that defies your doctrine sooo clearly; John chapter 1. The text clearly says that the Son pre-existed the incarnation. I defy you to argue otherwise.
mlculwell: That is just what I am going to do! You cannot deny my argument by ignoring it! The Septuagint of John 1:1 calls the Word/Logos "the creator!" But how? clearly by the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. I have not changed my argument. the day you can make the word by the breath of god's mouth a pre-existent person of God is the day you will have an argument from John 1:1 and again Tyndale calls the word an *it.* Paul uses the term logos of two individuals evil plans(2nd. Tim.2:17)
FW:Lets finish this. First let me admit, that I like this dialoge and that I personally don't hold anything against you. I think you can be somewhat abrasive at times, but I hope that we can ultimatley treat one another with respect even we differ drastically theologically. With that said, allow me to deliver the deathblow to your doctrine of God; you'll find it below.
mlculwell: I am going to deal with your so called death blow in another post! and if you actually had a death blow you should have given in an argument here instead of simply giving a link to your so called death blow.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity #2
FW:Your explaination of Genesis 1:26 is ridiculous, here is why. You must either believe that the Genesis narritive is a historic account or that it is in some way metaphorical in its writing.
Mlculwell: I believe it is a historical account of creation! I gave the passages why God had no image to make man from. Jesus was the image of the invisible God! If Jesus were that God then he was also invisible and had no visible image in which to make man!
(Romans 5:14)is also an account of the creation of Adam and further expounds the Genesis account Adam who was(created)the figure(Image, Likeness) of him that was to come. You can say whatever you like and this does not fit your view but I care not!
FW:Did God actual say that what is written? Of course He did.
mlculwell: I have not denied that I Like the Genesis 1:26 passage just like it is but it can be compared to the other creation passages, one of those being found in (Romans 5:14)
FW:Therefore since the fall had not yet occured and the context of the passage has nothing to do with redemption, your argument is one of little basis.
mlculwell: The fall had not yet occurred But God in his omniscience knew what was going to happen and already spoke that he knew such.
FW:Perhaps it might have stood a chance if that were the only time the plural was used in reference to God by God. But as you well know this was no isolated incident. (Genesis 1:1, 3:22, 11:7-8,Isaiah 6:8.) For a relativley brief overview I will refer you to my post titled "The Triune God of the Old Testament."
mlculwell: I am not interested in your false view of the passages! If there were such a thing as a "triune God" then we would have found evidence from the Apostles writing about it, but no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere only that which you think teaches such a ridiculous view.
Gen. 1:1 is no passage to use to prove a trinity if you refer to Elohim Satan is referred to as *elohim* there is not more that one satan.
Gen. 3:22, 11:7 and Isiah 6:8 can easily refer to God and the Angels and is typically how the Jews explain the passages and even Gen.1:26 but I tend to disagree with the view of that passage since Romans 5:14 explains so much, I gave the reasons as to why partly above and in the last reply.
FW:Using the greek OT to derive word meaning may not be the best way to go. Why not use the Hebrew? Perhaps it is because your reading into words becomes far more difficult.
mlculwell:I understand you not wanting me to use it as it does not fit with your interpretation of (John 1:10 but even Tyndale called the word/Logos an *it* Paul used the term in (2nd Tim. 2:17) of two individuals evil plans and if Paul knew that the word/logos was the pre-existent persons of Jesus I do not think he would have soiled it's usage as he did of those two evil individuals, do you? The fact is both John and Paul being Apostles and Jews would have Known the meaning of the word only trinity folk attribute a new meaning to it that has never been and it is a false view of the word.
FW:Time and time again the scripture expounds upon the fact that the Son came from heaven. He was sent from heaven. Never does the scripture say that the Father has come to earth, or that the Father has been manifest in the flesh.
(Heb 10:5, John 3:16-17, Gal 4:4, John 6:33)
mlculwell: (Gal. 4:4) clearly tells us how the son was sent GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON(HOW?) MADE OF A WOMAN, MADE UNDER THE LAW.
Clearly You have ignored passages and falsely interpreted them according to your doctrine and not the word of God.
John 6:51 is the greatest of all the passages to tell us How Jesus was sent and takes care of all the so called pre-existent passages, this is in the same context of the passage you submitted in (John 6:33) Tell us how you were sent Jesus please?
(JOHN 6:51)I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND THE BREAD I WILL GIVE(Which came from heaven) is my *FLESH*. Corruptible flesh(That which dies, neither goes there, or comes from there.) Jesus was saying *God provided his flesh as our sacrifice from heaven like he provided the manna in the wilderness.
FW:1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
mlculwell: Yes the above is a well established fact! John Knew the true God. he knew the word made flesh what he did not know is your false doctrine of a pre-existent "God the son." Jesus was made the true God because his flesh had a beginning.
(Acts 2:36) This same Jesus whom ye have crucified was M*A*D*E both Lord and Christ.
(1st.Cor.15:54) Jesus was M*A*D*E the life giving spirit.
(Math. 28:18) Jesus was G*I*V*E*N ALL power in both heaven and earth. If Jesus has it all nobody else can have any more because all, means all!
(John 3:34) Jesus Was G*I*V*E*N the Spirit by no measure. everything he had was given or he was made because his humanity had a beginning.
FW:So far as my use of Genesis 2:24; The verse was used to demonstrate the meaning of the Hebrew word one, and nothing else. Don't isogete my own writings please. I know it is hard, but contain yourself.
mlculwell: If you are referring to the Hebrew word *Echad* it is only used 65 times out of 965 times of a compound unity it is the first word a Hebrew child learns in counting just like our word is One you are interjecting your false doctrine.
FW:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.
Tell me who walked with Adam, who appeared to Lot and Abram, who wrestled with Jacob?
Who spoke with Hagar? When was Christ at the side (or bosom) of the Father?
mlculwell: God in Theophany. God took upon him a temporary form that is all! That is the God though that incarnated the man or son Jesus. There was no "God the son."
FW:By the way, give me your expert exegesis on the verse below. After all your attitude suggests far superior wisdom to the likes of a simpleton like me.
Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
mlculwell: Okay! You just gave the passage that says "No man has seen God at *any time.*" There are plenty more passages that says the same thing. Stephen Saw Jesus at a place of Power and acceptance.. How do you get on the *right hand of a God* that is everywhere at the same time?
*Right hand of God* used in this passages shows that Stephen saw Jesus in his proper place, for it pleased the father that in him should all the fullness dwell(Col. 1:19) Right hand of God was used many times in the OT and taught it was a place of Power:
(Exodus 15:6-8,12-13) Right hand of God dashed enemies to pieces.
(Psalm 20:6,21:8) right hand of God shall find his enemies.
(Psalm 118:14-16) place of power.
It is also used of Jesus in the judgment Jesus sits on the throne Sheep Go to Jesus right hand(Acceptance... Math. 25:31)
Mlculwell: I believe it is a historical account of creation! I gave the passages why God had no image to make man from. Jesus was the image of the invisible God! If Jesus were that God then he was also invisible and had no visible image in which to make man!
(Romans 5:14)is also an account of the creation of Adam and further expounds the Genesis account Adam who was(created)the figure(Image, Likeness) of him that was to come. You can say whatever you like and this does not fit your view but I care not!
FW:Did God actual say that what is written? Of course He did.
mlculwell: I have not denied that I Like the Genesis 1:26 passage just like it is but it can be compared to the other creation passages, one of those being found in (Romans 5:14)
FW:Therefore since the fall had not yet occured and the context of the passage has nothing to do with redemption, your argument is one of little basis.
mlculwell: The fall had not yet occurred But God in his omniscience knew what was going to happen and already spoke that he knew such.
FW:Perhaps it might have stood a chance if that were the only time the plural was used in reference to God by God. But as you well know this was no isolated incident. (Genesis 1:1, 3:22, 11:7-8,Isaiah 6:8.) For a relativley brief overview I will refer you to my post titled "The Triune God of the Old Testament."
mlculwell: I am not interested in your false view of the passages! If there were such a thing as a "triune God" then we would have found evidence from the Apostles writing about it, but no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere only that which you think teaches such a ridiculous view.
Gen. 1:1 is no passage to use to prove a trinity if you refer to Elohim Satan is referred to as *elohim* there is not more that one satan.
Gen. 3:22, 11:7 and Isiah 6:8 can easily refer to God and the Angels and is typically how the Jews explain the passages and even Gen.1:26 but I tend to disagree with the view of that passage since Romans 5:14 explains so much, I gave the reasons as to why partly above and in the last reply.
FW:Using the greek OT to derive word meaning may not be the best way to go. Why not use the Hebrew? Perhaps it is because your reading into words becomes far more difficult.
mlculwell:I understand you not wanting me to use it as it does not fit with your interpretation of (John 1:10 but even Tyndale called the word/Logos an *it* Paul used the term in (2nd Tim. 2:17) of two individuals evil plans and if Paul knew that the word/logos was the pre-existent persons of Jesus I do not think he would have soiled it's usage as he did of those two evil individuals, do you? The fact is both John and Paul being Apostles and Jews would have Known the meaning of the word only trinity folk attribute a new meaning to it that has never been and it is a false view of the word.
FW:Time and time again the scripture expounds upon the fact that the Son came from heaven. He was sent from heaven. Never does the scripture say that the Father has come to earth, or that the Father has been manifest in the flesh.
(Heb 10:5, John 3:16-17, Gal 4:4, John 6:33)
mlculwell: (Gal. 4:4) clearly tells us how the son was sent GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON(HOW?) MADE OF A WOMAN, MADE UNDER THE LAW.
Clearly You have ignored passages and falsely interpreted them according to your doctrine and not the word of God.
John 6:51 is the greatest of all the passages to tell us How Jesus was sent and takes care of all the so called pre-existent passages, this is in the same context of the passage you submitted in (John 6:33) Tell us how you were sent Jesus please?
(JOHN 6:51)I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND THE BREAD I WILL GIVE(Which came from heaven) is my *FLESH*. Corruptible flesh(That which dies, neither goes there, or comes from there.) Jesus was saying *God provided his flesh as our sacrifice from heaven like he provided the manna in the wilderness.
FW:1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
mlculwell: Yes the above is a well established fact! John Knew the true God. he knew the word made flesh what he did not know is your false doctrine of a pre-existent "God the son." Jesus was made the true God because his flesh had a beginning.
(Acts 2:36) This same Jesus whom ye have crucified was M*A*D*E both Lord and Christ.
(1st.Cor.15:54) Jesus was M*A*D*E the life giving spirit.
(Math. 28:18) Jesus was G*I*V*E*N ALL power in both heaven and earth. If Jesus has it all nobody else can have any more because all, means all!
(John 3:34) Jesus Was G*I*V*E*N the Spirit by no measure. everything he had was given or he was made because his humanity had a beginning.
FW:So far as my use of Genesis 2:24; The verse was used to demonstrate the meaning of the Hebrew word one, and nothing else. Don't isogete my own writings please. I know it is hard, but contain yourself.
mlculwell: If you are referring to the Hebrew word *Echad* it is only used 65 times out of 965 times of a compound unity it is the first word a Hebrew child learns in counting just like our word is One you are interjecting your false doctrine.
FW:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.
Tell me who walked with Adam, who appeared to Lot and Abram, who wrestled with Jacob?
Who spoke with Hagar? When was Christ at the side (or bosom) of the Father?
mlculwell: God in Theophany. God took upon him a temporary form that is all! That is the God though that incarnated the man or son Jesus. There was no "God the son."
FW:By the way, give me your expert exegesis on the verse below. After all your attitude suggests far superior wisdom to the likes of a simpleton like me.
Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
mlculwell: Okay! You just gave the passage that says "No man has seen God at *any time.*" There are plenty more passages that says the same thing. Stephen Saw Jesus at a place of Power and acceptance.. How do you get on the *right hand of a God* that is everywhere at the same time?
*Right hand of God* used in this passages shows that Stephen saw Jesus in his proper place, for it pleased the father that in him should all the fullness dwell(Col. 1:19) Right hand of God was used many times in the OT and taught it was a place of Power:
(Exodus 15:6-8,12-13) Right hand of God dashed enemies to pieces.
(Psalm 20:6,21:8) right hand of God shall find his enemies.
(Psalm 118:14-16) place of power.
It is also used of Jesus in the judgment Jesus sits on the throne Sheep Go to Jesus right hand(Acceptance... Math. 25:31)
Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity
I have chosen to answer a person calling himself: Faithful witness on a blog called *Day of reckoning* with a bunch of shallow arguments he posts on a regular basis that he somehow thinks destroys Oneness doctrine, nothing could be further from the truth.... So At the following
http://onenessheresy.blogspot.com/2009/03/author-has-made-statement-that-because.html#comment-form
I decided to bring his comment over to my blog and answer him just in case he would not have posted it.
FW:Adam preceded Jesus in the sense that he was a type or shadow of Jesus the second Adam. Oh, and by the way, "In the beginning The Word was with God."
Mlculwell:(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint *Greek of the OT*)the word/Logos came from the breath of God's... So the day you can make the word/Logos by the breath of God's mouth another person of God is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1) and concerning your so called argument On Adam being a type or shadow of Jesus...
(1st.Cor. 15: 45-46) Says: howbeit that was not first which was SPIRITUAL but that which is natural, AFTERWARD that which is spiritual. if Jesus already existed as another person it would be impossible for this passage to be worded the way it is! the passage is talking about the incarnation. God always existed as spiritual but the passage has Jesus coming after Adam and that is because Jesus did not pre-exist accept as his deity that of God the father and not "God the son."
FW:Two natures cannot communicate with each other. A man without a spirit is dead.
Your argument is ad hock.
mlculwell: If you can find where I argued for two natures in this I will print this out and eat it? the fact is I did not! I am not talking about two persons of God! I am talking about the real son of God who was a man and the real spirit who is the only God and Jesus as the real man was given that spirit by no measure.(John 3:34)
FW:I did not imply that the Godhead or Jesus is a result of a sexual union. It is the other way around, the relationship with a married couple is meant to mirror the relationship held within the Godhead between the Son and the Father.
mlculwell: You gave the scripture pointing to the unity like a husband and wife which can only be explained in a sexual union. you wrote the following:"Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they become one(echad) flesh. (esv, parenthesis mine)"
FW:Now let me ask you how many Lord's do you see here?
Psalm 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord:Sit at my right hand,until I make your enemies your footstool
mlculwell: The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation...It is also found in (Psalm 45:6) and (Hebrews 1:8-9) Did you purposely omit those facts or was that an accident? Because the both says: God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. How does God have a God and fellow God's? The fact is the first part deals with his deity in the incarnation the other part deals with his humanity being incarnated By the One LORD above all men (Isa. 11:2, John 3:34, Rev. 5;6)
I initially dealt with your false view of Gen.1:26 where God said let us make man in our image after our likeness. God was not speaking to another person of God! God was already giving us a glimpse of the incarnation and included the son(His real sinless son man) in the incarnation when he said let us as God was invisible that no man ever saw nor could see(John 1:18,5:37,1st. Tim.1:17,) Jesus is the Image of the invisible God that Adam who came before Jesus was created..(Col.1:15, Romans 5:14)
http://onenessheresy.blogspot.com/2009/03/author-has-made-statement-that-because.html#comment-form
I decided to bring his comment over to my blog and answer him just in case he would not have posted it.
FW:Adam preceded Jesus in the sense that he was a type or shadow of Jesus the second Adam. Oh, and by the way, "In the beginning The Word was with God."
Mlculwell:(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint *Greek of the OT*)the word/Logos came from the breath of God's... So the day you can make the word/Logos by the breath of God's mouth another person of God is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1) and concerning your so called argument On Adam being a type or shadow of Jesus...
(1st.Cor. 15: 45-46) Says: howbeit that was not first which was SPIRITUAL but that which is natural, AFTERWARD that which is spiritual. if Jesus already existed as another person it would be impossible for this passage to be worded the way it is! the passage is talking about the incarnation. God always existed as spiritual but the passage has Jesus coming after Adam and that is because Jesus did not pre-exist accept as his deity that of God the father and not "God the son."
FW:Two natures cannot communicate with each other. A man without a spirit is dead.
Your argument is ad hock.
mlculwell: If you can find where I argued for two natures in this I will print this out and eat it? the fact is I did not! I am not talking about two persons of God! I am talking about the real son of God who was a man and the real spirit who is the only God and Jesus as the real man was given that spirit by no measure.(John 3:34)
FW:I did not imply that the Godhead or Jesus is a result of a sexual union. It is the other way around, the relationship with a married couple is meant to mirror the relationship held within the Godhead between the Son and the Father.
mlculwell: You gave the scripture pointing to the unity like a husband and wife which can only be explained in a sexual union. you wrote the following:"Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they become one(echad) flesh. (esv, parenthesis mine)"
FW:Now let me ask you how many Lord's do you see here?
Psalm 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord:Sit at my right hand,until I make your enemies your footstool
mlculwell: The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation...It is also found in (Psalm 45:6) and (Hebrews 1:8-9) Did you purposely omit those facts or was that an accident? Because the both says: God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. How does God have a God and fellow God's? The fact is the first part deals with his deity in the incarnation the other part deals with his humanity being incarnated By the One LORD above all men (Isa. 11:2, John 3:34, Rev. 5;6)
I initially dealt with your false view of Gen.1:26 where God said let us make man in our image after our likeness. God was not speaking to another person of God! God was already giving us a glimpse of the incarnation and included the son(His real sinless son man) in the incarnation when he said let us as God was invisible that no man ever saw nor could see(John 1:18,5:37,1st. Tim.1:17,) Jesus is the Image of the invisible God that Adam who came before Jesus was created..(Col.1:15, Romans 5:14)
Friday, April 10, 2009
The dishonesty of the Carm Board
I will no longer be frequenting Matt Slicks Carm Boards as they have a hypocritical double standard for the Oneness folks and for Trinity folks. The Oneness group is under the heading of Cults therefore when I point out the trinity folks are actually cultic which is another word for saying *false prophet* or *heresy* I have gotten infractions for calling names, therefor I no Longer want any part of the hypocritical group and have asked to be removed! They want to be able to call us names only with us not afforded that luxury! Sorry, I do not play that way. Just the way I see it though!
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Calling on the Lord from aomin.org
A person whom I will call DA submitted the following from Aomin.org
What, then, of Acts 22:16?
One theologian states:
Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:
Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."
We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language.
The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!
Source: vintage.aomin. org/bapreg.html
mlculwell: And that is where it Needs to stay! " Vintage aomin"! I would Give it back to Dr. White and tell my Old friend he needs to rewrite this mess.
Calling on the name of the Lord is being Baptized in Jesus name and having your sins remitted( Acts 22:16 )is all one event. The above would not make any sense to the Mental assenter as they would say belief( is calling on the name of the Lord, they then would be Baptized. The order of events would be for them to call and believe then be baptized. This contradicts what Paul has written in (Roman 10:13)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach except they be sent?
You cannot just *call on him to be saved*! You have to call on him the way a preacher sent of God tells you to call on him!
(John 17:17-18) tells us who the preachers are that are sent of God and it is not the Reformed! (Acts 2:38)is the way you call on the Lord
(Luke 24:46) Jesus said in Luke's account of the great commission:And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations *beginning at Jerusalem.* peter preached the message of repentance and remission of sins beginning at Jerusalem in( Acts 2:38) The Lord himself let us Know in the great Commission what truth sounds like By stating almost verbatim Peter 's Message on the first Pentecost after the resurrection .
Notice what the Lord said In (Luke 24:47) that refutes our mental assent friends doctrine completely? Jesus said; And that repentance and in addition to repentance remission of sins be preached in my name. Now you will notice what is not said *belief* it is inferred, one who repents has already believed but this is in addition to remission of sins refuting our friends doctrine and if that is not enough the Lord further says in (John 20:23) that whose soever sins the disciples remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins they retain they are retained. Cutting the head from the false doctrine of mental assent totally.
DA:
Another theologian, Bernie Gillespie writes an comprehensive article on this verse and how it relates to 3 step theology in UPCI/Oneness history
... here is the heart of the matter:
The question before us is: "How did Paul ‘wash away’ his sins?" Does Acts 22:16 prove that Paul washed away his sins by being properly baptized? Should we interpret this verse to mean that Paul needed to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? Is that how Paul received the forgiveness of sins? Is this what Paul believed or taught in his epistles in the New Testament?
mlculwell:
Paul Taught: As many as have Been Baptized into Christ, have Put on Christ(Gal. 3:27) You do not Believe into Christ apart from believing and being baptized.
Paul Taught we are buried with him In baptism(Roman 6:4)
Paul taught You do not get the Holy Ghost are baptized into Christ upon Belief/mental assent By asking the Disciples of John have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?(Acts 19:2)
Paul taught baptism(Acts 19:5)
DA:
First, notice very carefully the words of the text. Ananias said "arise," next he said "and be baptized," then, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
mlculwell: Notice how that the writer attempts to cut the passage up and section off what he believes to be the relevant part of the passage and highlight his own doctrine?
(Acts 22:16)Ananias said" why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord. The whole of the passage is meant to be one event. Why did he not already call on the name on the Lord when he believed? The passage and chronology and order of events does not even make sense to the mental assenter. These mental assenters Believe your sins are washed at belief and then you get Baptized because your sins are washed(Acts 8:37) tells us an unbeliever cannot be Baptized
DA:
It is not worded, "be baptized to wash away thy sins." If that is what Ananias meant he could have easily said it that way. But he placed the conjunction "and" between his verbs "arise," "be baptized," and "wash." If one attributes the washing to being baptized one could as well attribute it to the command to arise. Certainly this is not what is intended. The washing away of sins is more defined by the "calling on the name of the Lord." The meaning of this phrase would give us a clearer understanding of how Paul’s sins were washed away.
mlculwell: The passage could actually be a reiteration said two different ways to emphasize the point and bring home what actually happens at baptism, Now why tariest thou? Arise and Be Baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. the second part joined by the conjunction and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.
Is the same as to arise and be baptized. It does not have to be worded the way our friend above states.
But the passage would again contradict what our mental assent friends actually believe. For the passage to be relevant to them our mental ascent friends it would need to say: Call on the name of the Lord and wash away thy sins and be baptized.
DA:
The word "calling" (epikaleosamenos) comes from the root word (epikaleo) which means "to use an attribution in speaking of a person." (Louw-Nida Lexicon) This word is used in Acts 7:59 for the act of praying to Jesus by Stephen as he was dying. He spoke the name of Jesus as direct address in praying to Jesus.
mlculwell: This would be true but it has no relevance to what we are talking about because of the prohibition of calling being limited to a preacher sent of God (John 17:17-20) the Apostles and Brethern found in scripture and not the modern Reformed Preacher, are the only ones we know that are sent of God,telling us How to call(Romans 10:13-15) telling us what calling actually is. (Luke 24:46-47,Acts 2:38)
DA:
It is used in Acts 9:14 of Christians as those who call on the name of the Lord. They spoke the name of Jesus in confession, prayer and worship (and Baptism) as addressing the Person of Jesus and not technically as a formula.
mlculwell:There is no authority, or power, outside, or without spoken name Jesus in a knowing relationship. One does not have authority simply because they say they are a Christian.
DA:
When Paul appealed (epikaloumai) to Caesar (Acts 25:11,12,21,25) he called upon the name (title) of Caesar to invoke the authority of the whole person.
mlculwell: I would use the same Point, only the name, and not the title is the Authority and power of the whole person, we have been given in the absence of the person and he is there by faith. to wash away thy sins and the The calling is a reiteration of arising and being baptized in the case of the passage in (Acts 22:16)
DA:
It was not the mere use of the name, as an incantation or conjuring formula. It was a demand for the right to due process as a Roman citizen. Paul was already a citizen, therefore he was not asking for the right to become a citizen. He assumed that, as a Roman citizen, he had the rights of that citizenship which were embodied in Caesar. This is what is meant by the teaching of Paul: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) This was written to the Colossians in the context of worship. This phrase is used to identify those who have faith in Jesus as the object of their adoration, worship and hope.
mlculwell; (Col. 3:17) is a passage telling us to walk worthy of the name that bought us, I do not believe (Col.3:17) has anything to with what we are talking about. the Colossians were those who believed and were already Baptized In Jesus name and filled with the spirit.
You speak of of an "Incantation" Towards the name Jesus but James tells us about that so called incantation you hate so much.
(James 5:14) Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up.
Notice the conjunction *and * and how this is all tied into one event by meeting the conditions of the Lord by inspiration of the Spirit by faith?
DA:
These words "calling on the name of the Lord" occur first in Acts chapter two in Peter’s Day of Pentecost sermon. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel (2:32) and applies Yahweh’s last days promise of salvation for Israel to salvation in Jesus Christ. This expression "call upon the name of the LORD," in the Old Testament, is shorthand for placing exclusive faith in Yahweh, the One God of Israel, for mercy and salvation.
Remarkably, Joel’s words are quoted again in another place in the New Testament. It is found in the Apostle Paul’s own writing in Romans 10:13. This is most pertinent, because we have a direct interpretation of what it means to "call upon the name of the Lord" by Paul himself. Here the person told (in Acts 22:16) to call on the name of the Lord to wash away his sins gives us his understanding of what that meant in doctrinal terms. We cannot establish doctrine on an historical narrative (such as the account of Acts) without also supporting it clearly in the teaching portions (epistles) of Scripture.
mlculwell: Lol! The Epistles are Letters to churches and individuals (Folks already saved) these letters would not go to unsaved as the letters would fall to those who wrestle the scriptures to their own destruction not understanding. (Romans 10:13) clearly tells us we cannot simply call on the name of the Lord we have to have preacher sent from God (John 17:17-20) Our Lord tells us who is sent and even Gives the same message as (Acts 2:38) in(Luke 24:47) although not with as much detail in Peters first message but gives the starting place (Beginning at Jerusalem) and what would be preached in the first salvation Message repentance and remission of sins.
DA:
Since it is Paul who "called on the name of the Lord" and it was his sins which were "washed away," no one could explain that better than he.
mlculwell: Paul would not have called on the Lord if he were not Baptized in Jesus name.
DA:
In Romans ten, Paul says this:
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Romans 10:9-13 NIV]
mlculwell: The above is an epistle written to the Romans a group already who have applied the intricacies of the Gospel and it is being broken down for them for better understanding..
Before the above that you submitted as your proof text in verse 8 Paul says to these already saved individuals That the word is near them and already in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith which (WE PREACH) This is not a passage that can be used by the mental assenters to showcase their calling on the Lord apart from Baptism. The calling on the Lord is found in the book of Acts.
What, then, of Acts 22:16?
One theologian states:
Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:
Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."
We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language.
The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!
Source: vintage.aomin. org/bapreg.html
mlculwell: And that is where it Needs to stay! " Vintage aomin"! I would Give it back to Dr. White and tell my Old friend he needs to rewrite this mess.
Calling on the name of the Lord is being Baptized in Jesus name and having your sins remitted( Acts 22:16 )is all one event. The above would not make any sense to the Mental assenter as they would say belief( is calling on the name of the Lord, they then would be Baptized. The order of events would be for them to call and believe then be baptized. This contradicts what Paul has written in (Roman 10:13)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach except they be sent?
You cannot just *call on him to be saved*! You have to call on him the way a preacher sent of God tells you to call on him!
(John 17:17-18) tells us who the preachers are that are sent of God and it is not the Reformed! (Acts 2:38)is the way you call on the Lord
(Luke 24:46) Jesus said in Luke's account of the great commission:And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations *beginning at Jerusalem.* peter preached the message of repentance and remission of sins beginning at Jerusalem in( Acts 2:38) The Lord himself let us Know in the great Commission what truth sounds like By stating almost verbatim Peter 's Message on the first Pentecost after the resurrection .
Notice what the Lord said In (Luke 24:47) that refutes our mental assent friends doctrine completely? Jesus said; And that repentance and in addition to repentance remission of sins be preached in my name. Now you will notice what is not said *belief* it is inferred, one who repents has already believed but this is in addition to remission of sins refuting our friends doctrine and if that is not enough the Lord further says in (John 20:23) that whose soever sins the disciples remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins they retain they are retained. Cutting the head from the false doctrine of mental assent totally.
DA:
Another theologian, Bernie Gillespie writes an comprehensive article on this verse and how it relates to 3 step theology in UPCI/Oneness history
... here is the heart of the matter:
The question before us is: "How did Paul ‘wash away’ his sins?" Does Acts 22:16 prove that Paul washed away his sins by being properly baptized? Should we interpret this verse to mean that Paul needed to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? Is that how Paul received the forgiveness of sins? Is this what Paul believed or taught in his epistles in the New Testament?
mlculwell:
Paul Taught: As many as have Been Baptized into Christ, have Put on Christ(Gal. 3:27) You do not Believe into Christ apart from believing and being baptized.
Paul Taught we are buried with him In baptism(Roman 6:4)
Paul taught You do not get the Holy Ghost are baptized into Christ upon Belief/mental assent By asking the Disciples of John have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?(Acts 19:2)
Paul taught baptism(Acts 19:5)
DA:
First, notice very carefully the words of the text. Ananias said "arise," next he said "and be baptized," then, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
mlculwell: Notice how that the writer attempts to cut the passage up and section off what he believes to be the relevant part of the passage and highlight his own doctrine?
(Acts 22:16)Ananias said" why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord. The whole of the passage is meant to be one event. Why did he not already call on the name on the Lord when he believed? The passage and chronology and order of events does not even make sense to the mental assenter. These mental assenters Believe your sins are washed at belief and then you get Baptized because your sins are washed(Acts 8:37) tells us an unbeliever cannot be Baptized
DA:
It is not worded, "be baptized to wash away thy sins." If that is what Ananias meant he could have easily said it that way. But he placed the conjunction "and" between his verbs "arise," "be baptized," and "wash." If one attributes the washing to being baptized one could as well attribute it to the command to arise. Certainly this is not what is intended. The washing away of sins is more defined by the "calling on the name of the Lord." The meaning of this phrase would give us a clearer understanding of how Paul’s sins were washed away.
mlculwell: The passage could actually be a reiteration said two different ways to emphasize the point and bring home what actually happens at baptism, Now why tariest thou? Arise and Be Baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. the second part joined by the conjunction and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.
Is the same as to arise and be baptized. It does not have to be worded the way our friend above states.
But the passage would again contradict what our mental assent friends actually believe. For the passage to be relevant to them our mental ascent friends it would need to say: Call on the name of the Lord and wash away thy sins and be baptized.
DA:
The word "calling" (epikaleosamenos) comes from the root word (epikaleo) which means "to use an attribution in speaking of a person." (Louw-Nida Lexicon) This word is used in Acts 7:59 for the act of praying to Jesus by Stephen as he was dying. He spoke the name of Jesus as direct address in praying to Jesus.
mlculwell: This would be true but it has no relevance to what we are talking about because of the prohibition of calling being limited to a preacher sent of God (John 17:17-20) the Apostles and Brethern found in scripture and not the modern Reformed Preacher, are the only ones we know that are sent of God,telling us How to call(Romans 10:13-15) telling us what calling actually is. (Luke 24:46-47,Acts 2:38)
DA:
It is used in Acts 9:14 of Christians as those who call on the name of the Lord. They spoke the name of Jesus in confession, prayer and worship (and Baptism) as addressing the Person of Jesus and not technically as a formula.
mlculwell:There is no authority, or power, outside, or without spoken name Jesus in a knowing relationship. One does not have authority simply because they say they are a Christian.
DA:
When Paul appealed (epikaloumai) to Caesar (Acts 25:11,12,21,25) he called upon the name (title) of Caesar to invoke the authority of the whole person.
mlculwell: I would use the same Point, only the name, and not the title is the Authority and power of the whole person, we have been given in the absence of the person and he is there by faith. to wash away thy sins and the The calling is a reiteration of arising and being baptized in the case of the passage in (Acts 22:16)
DA:
It was not the mere use of the name, as an incantation or conjuring formula. It was a demand for the right to due process as a Roman citizen. Paul was already a citizen, therefore he was not asking for the right to become a citizen. He assumed that, as a Roman citizen, he had the rights of that citizenship which were embodied in Caesar. This is what is meant by the teaching of Paul: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) This was written to the Colossians in the context of worship. This phrase is used to identify those who have faith in Jesus as the object of their adoration, worship and hope.
mlculwell; (Col. 3:17) is a passage telling us to walk worthy of the name that bought us, I do not believe (Col.3:17) has anything to with what we are talking about. the Colossians were those who believed and were already Baptized In Jesus name and filled with the spirit.
You speak of of an "Incantation" Towards the name Jesus but James tells us about that so called incantation you hate so much.
(James 5:14) Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up.
Notice the conjunction *and * and how this is all tied into one event by meeting the conditions of the Lord by inspiration of the Spirit by faith?
DA:
These words "calling on the name of the Lord" occur first in Acts chapter two in Peter’s Day of Pentecost sermon. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel (2:32) and applies Yahweh’s last days promise of salvation for Israel to salvation in Jesus Christ. This expression "call upon the name of the LORD," in the Old Testament, is shorthand for placing exclusive faith in Yahweh, the One God of Israel, for mercy and salvation.
Remarkably, Joel’s words are quoted again in another place in the New Testament. It is found in the Apostle Paul’s own writing in Romans 10:13. This is most pertinent, because we have a direct interpretation of what it means to "call upon the name of the Lord" by Paul himself. Here the person told (in Acts 22:16) to call on the name of the Lord to wash away his sins gives us his understanding of what that meant in doctrinal terms. We cannot establish doctrine on an historical narrative (such as the account of Acts) without also supporting it clearly in the teaching portions (epistles) of Scripture.
mlculwell: Lol! The Epistles are Letters to churches and individuals (Folks already saved) these letters would not go to unsaved as the letters would fall to those who wrestle the scriptures to their own destruction not understanding. (Romans 10:13) clearly tells us we cannot simply call on the name of the Lord we have to have preacher sent from God (John 17:17-20) Our Lord tells us who is sent and even Gives the same message as (Acts 2:38) in(Luke 24:47) although not with as much detail in Peters first message but gives the starting place (Beginning at Jerusalem) and what would be preached in the first salvation Message repentance and remission of sins.
DA:
Since it is Paul who "called on the name of the Lord" and it was his sins which were "washed away," no one could explain that better than he.
mlculwell: Paul would not have called on the Lord if he were not Baptized in Jesus name.
DA:
In Romans ten, Paul says this:
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Romans 10:9-13 NIV]
mlculwell: The above is an epistle written to the Romans a group already who have applied the intricacies of the Gospel and it is being broken down for them for better understanding..
Before the above that you submitted as your proof text in verse 8 Paul says to these already saved individuals That the word is near them and already in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith which (WE PREACH) This is not a passage that can be used by the mental assenters to showcase their calling on the Lord apart from Baptism. The calling on the Lord is found in the book of Acts.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
The New Apollonarianism of the trinity doctrine which denies Jesus real human spirit
M2819 doctrine of Antichrist part 1/2 taken from my discussion on carm with someone named M2819 who will be referred to as M
M:I believe Scripture when it says the Word (God) BECAME flesh, not just entered and lived in a fleshly shell.
mlculwell: It would be impossible for the word to live in fleshly shell! By the Word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint) The word was not the pre-existent Jesus the word was the plan of God for future redemption. Tyndale Called the word an *it* in (John 1:1) but that is fine, I do not have to, but the day you can make the word by the breath of God's mouth another person of God is the day you will have an argument.
M:I don’t rely on Creeds for this truth; I rely on the Bible. The Creeds support this truth, but they are firmly rooted in Scripture. Scripture is the final authority, and it is not supportive of the nonsense you claim to believe.
mlculwell: Well then show me in the scriptures your nonsense? Your Ghost in the shell does not work and nonbiblical.
mlculwell: Do you even know what you believe? You are again admitting to your hybrid nonsense where you make no distinction between the spirit and flesh while Jesus walked the earth to fulfill that which his flesh had to accomplish not as your hybrid! If God becomes man, he is no longer God but man! God never pulled that trick! you are again contradicting yourself and to save face you go back and forth between my doctrine and yours so you will not be caught which you clearly are!
M:Response: I’m "admitting" to what Scripture teaches: THE WORD BECAME FLESH. It doesn’t say THE WORD CAME TO EARTH AND HUNG OUT IN A HUMAN SHELL.
mlculwell: LOL! Yeah, the plan of God was For God to take on flesh and redeem mankind by that sinless flesh, as he gave the man the spirit by no measure, it does not mean your hybrid doctrine nor has it ever!(1st. Cor.15:21) You deny the Lord who bought you with your Hybrid and deny this passage your salvation and your resurrection..
The same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is the same spirit that raises us from the dead(Romans 8:11)
M:If the Word became flesh, then that’s what happened. That’s not what you believe evidently. You cling to some bizarre belief that God entered a human existence, yet God never really, truly became human.
mlculwell: That is not at all what John 1:1 is teaching! Let me be clear John 1:1 is not teaching "God the son" became flesh! John 1:1 is teaching the plan of God was For God to give his real sinless son his spirit by no measure and redeem mankind. With this view you neither have redemption, resurrection or a mediator(1st.Cor. 15:21, 1st. Tim. 2:5)
M:It was all a farce according to your “theology”. You spend so much time telling me what I believe, that you don’t take the time to get a fraction of it accurate. You make statement after statement that is not representative of what I believe, and certainly is not faithful to what I have written in my previous posts. But I think that’s the Oneness way: Because your “religion” is such a complete joke the only chance you have of not coming off looking like a complete fool is by twisting what Trinitarians believe.
mlculwell: I do not take what you mean to say I take what you say literally and compare it to scripture and then point out you contradict logic and scripture! you do not like that well I will continue to do so! You talk about a Joke your doctrine is one contradiction after another I do not have that nor any at as yet!
M:That’s the only way you can make your own beliefs seem a little less heretical, and a wee bit more logical.
mlculwell: I am really happy and glad that a man with such a heretical doctrine as your hybrid shell game doctrine thinks I am heretical, that is Like a JW or Har'e Krishna calling me a heretic!
mlculwell: Um, that is not correct! I believe Jesus was a real man(Body, soul, and human spirit.) the same thing that has always been taught and debated against your ilk! I am not a "human shell," but if I had no real human spirit I would be a "human shell." If i had the spirit of God simply animating my body with no real human spirit I would neither be a real man but a Hybrid new species which is what I am accusing you of.
M:Response: So it sounds like to me that you are agreeing with Schmitty and Kjammer on their beliefs: You are saying that the son was nothing more than the humanity.
mlculwell: I will tall you what Schmitty and Kjammer were denying and that is your doctrine of "God the son" which I vehemently deny also! Like I said: there is not Oneness person anywhere that does not believe Jesus is God! I also told you though already that when you speak of Jesus while he walked this earth you cannot talk about him separate from the incarnation Now there was a distinction between the spirit and the flesh while he walked this earth but again that no longer even remains!
M: It’s the same old story of the divine spirit entering a human shell, not becoming human.
mlculwell: where do you get the Human shell? Especially when that is clearly your doctrine and you admit Jesus has no real human spirit thus a shell(Not my doctrine!) If the divine spirit "becomes a man?" then he is no longer a divine spirit but a man. That is a pretty neat trick but you spout your mantra and have given no thought to any of this. if anybody has the shell doctrine it is you with your Jesus who animated a shell who left the shell and then went back to the comfort heaven ignoring passages Like (Eccl. 3:21, Luke 23:46,1st. Cor. 15:21,Romans 8:11)
M:I don’t believe that Jesus had a divine spirit animating one half of his body and a human spirit animating the other.
mlculwell: No, you believe he had divine spirit animating his whole Body and not a real human spirit to make a real human man. You have your Hybrid Hercules and with the above said there is getting around it!
M:Jesus had ONE SPIRIT and this spirit was like no other before: the perfect synthesis of divinity and humanity.
mlculwell: Yeah and it is Called Hercules Hybrid! you are caught in your doctrine there is no way out of it! You deny Jesus real humanity which is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3)
M:Jesus was FULLY divine and FULLY human, yet Jesus was ONE PERSON; Jesus had ONE SPIRIT.
mlculwell: How can someone be fully human with no human spirit? I will tell you how, because you keep saying it enough that you actually believe your Antichrist doctrine is true! If I had no human spirit would I be truly man? No! I would not even exist, I wouldn't even be dead as the spirit goes on into eternity! I would be a lifeless shell. Thus your shell being animated by the divine spirit never really experiencing death nor humanity. your doctrine is an ancient heresy m known as Apollonarianism.
M:I’ve talked to a lot of Oneies over the past 10 years, but you are the most confused one I’ve ever encountered. I don’t think you have the first idea what it is you believe…
mlculwell: I could care less who you have talked with. You think I am confused all you want but I actually know what I believe and it is clear to you do not! I do not try and conform to anyone else but the scriptures if I stick with the scriptures I cannot go wrong!
mlculwell: That is real hard to tell as it seems I cannot pin you down on any one thing.. It seems you want your cake and eat it too in speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You did say God checked out concerning my doctrine meaning your God the son did not check out but what/?? splain that please?
M:Response: Explain it? I can’t even understand what you’re asking! I don’t believe God “checked out” – I NEVER said that! That’s your view of things.
mlculwell: Of course you do not as it is not sticking to your mantra. "Jesus was fully man and fully God." You just spout words you have heard other trinity folk say never giving any consideration how that is so.
you said explain being checked out? Well, let's see here. The spirit leaving the body is what constitutes death(Eccl. 3:21,James 2:26) You again thoughtlessly spout words giving no thought. God as spirit cannot experience death the man's human spirit only would have to rely that to the divine spirit. Just like the son did not even know the time of his own return the father cannot experience death as the divine spirit is not capable of dying.
mlculwell I said nothing about "natures." except natures do not die people die! God does not! I never said anything about "separate" either. If can that I will print this and eat it! I believe there was a real distinction between the humanity and divinity while Jesus walked the earth so as the son could fulfill that which he had to do. I do not believe that exists any longer! I deny your nonspiritual view of the incarnation! it is not bible!
M:Response: So, natures don’t die, huh?
mlculwell: People die! "If Natures die" then God can die? God is a spirit he is more than a nature! You only spout that to try and figure out how Jesus can be One person, it is not hard to figure that out... I am tired of hearing that mantra from both sides!
M:Jesus’ human nature didn’t die on the cross – it survived the physical death? That’s a pretty bizarre statement.
mlculwell: Yeah, it is, but I am not that one who said it, you did for me!
The human spirit leaving the Body is what constitutes death. That is what happened when Jesus died. it was not Just a human nature he was a real human man that was given the spirit by no measure(John 3:34) that is the real incarnation.
M:While Jesus may still have his glorified human body, is he still human and does he still possess a human nature?
mlculwell: The glorified Human man still possesses the spirit as his own spirit making One person of God, there now is no is distinction.
M: I hear you saying that you “believe” there was a distinction between the divinity and the humanity, but I disagree. Jesus was to fulfill his mission on earth as God incarnate, not just as a human being.
mlculwell: His real humanity purchased our resurrection, salvation, and is our mediator you have neither!(1st. Cor. 15:21, 1st. Tim. 2:5)
M:Sorry, but we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter, unless you can show me some Scripture that backs up what it is you claim to believe.
mlculwell: I have clearly stated what I believe the scriptures to teach on the matter! And How you deny Jesus real humanity and it is the doctrine of Antichrist.
mlculwell: No that is not what I am saying! But I am saying the shell doctrine is your doctrine, You have a puppet being animated by God and no real man in your view of the incarnation! If God "becomes a man," I would like for you to tell me how it is he becomes a man and is at the same time God? this is another one of those thoughtless doctrines of the trinity!
M:Response: See… what you say above is not even close to what I believe! Either you’re purposefully twisting my words, or you simply lack the ability to understand simple English. I don’t have a “shell” doctrine. Jesus was fully God and fully human,
mlculwell: You do have the shell doctrine unless you want to step out of your mantra and explain it!
M:not simply the divine spirit inhabiting a human shell. I don’t believe that. Jesus was not a puppet. Jesus was a holistic person who was both fully divine and fully human. He had ONE SPIRIT – a spirit that was fully divine and fully human –
mlculwell: "A spirit that was fully divine and human"??? How is that possible? That is definitely a hybrid mixture.LOL! Do I have a spirit that is both divine and human? We are told our unity is Just Like Jesus unity in (John 17:21) The human united to the divine same is true with Jesus read it! the Only difference being Jesus unity was by no measure or limits(John 3:34) Ours is by a measure.(Eph. 4:7) Come back and explain that?
M:that guided his thoughts and his actions. No puppet. Where do you come up with these ridiculous notions?
mlculwell: Simple, listening to you tell me and answer my questions! You have a puppet animated by "God the son."
M:I believe Scripture when it says the Word (God) BECAME flesh, not just entered and lived in a fleshly shell.
mlculwell: It would be impossible for the word to live in fleshly shell! By the Word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint) The word was not the pre-existent Jesus the word was the plan of God for future redemption. Tyndale Called the word an *it* in (John 1:1) but that is fine, I do not have to, but the day you can make the word by the breath of God's mouth another person of God is the day you will have an argument.
M:I don’t rely on Creeds for this truth; I rely on the Bible. The Creeds support this truth, but they are firmly rooted in Scripture. Scripture is the final authority, and it is not supportive of the nonsense you claim to believe.
mlculwell: Well then show me in the scriptures your nonsense? Your Ghost in the shell does not work and nonbiblical.
mlculwell: Do you even know what you believe? You are again admitting to your hybrid nonsense where you make no distinction between the spirit and flesh while Jesus walked the earth to fulfill that which his flesh had to accomplish not as your hybrid! If God becomes man, he is no longer God but man! God never pulled that trick! you are again contradicting yourself and to save face you go back and forth between my doctrine and yours so you will not be caught which you clearly are!
M:Response: I’m "admitting" to what Scripture teaches: THE WORD BECAME FLESH. It doesn’t say THE WORD CAME TO EARTH AND HUNG OUT IN A HUMAN SHELL.
mlculwell: LOL! Yeah, the plan of God was For God to take on flesh and redeem mankind by that sinless flesh, as he gave the man the spirit by no measure, it does not mean your hybrid doctrine nor has it ever!(1st. Cor.15:21) You deny the Lord who bought you with your Hybrid and deny this passage your salvation and your resurrection..
The same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is the same spirit that raises us from the dead(Romans 8:11)
M:If the Word became flesh, then that’s what happened. That’s not what you believe evidently. You cling to some bizarre belief that God entered a human existence, yet God never really, truly became human.
mlculwell: That is not at all what John 1:1 is teaching! Let me be clear John 1:1 is not teaching "God the son" became flesh! John 1:1 is teaching the plan of God was For God to give his real sinless son his spirit by no measure and redeem mankind. With this view you neither have redemption, resurrection or a mediator(1st.Cor. 15:21, 1st. Tim. 2:5)
M:It was all a farce according to your “theology”. You spend so much time telling me what I believe, that you don’t take the time to get a fraction of it accurate. You make statement after statement that is not representative of what I believe, and certainly is not faithful to what I have written in my previous posts. But I think that’s the Oneness way: Because your “religion” is such a complete joke the only chance you have of not coming off looking like a complete fool is by twisting what Trinitarians believe.
mlculwell: I do not take what you mean to say I take what you say literally and compare it to scripture and then point out you contradict logic and scripture! you do not like that well I will continue to do so! You talk about a Joke your doctrine is one contradiction after another I do not have that nor any at as yet!
M:That’s the only way you can make your own beliefs seem a little less heretical, and a wee bit more logical.
mlculwell: I am really happy and glad that a man with such a heretical doctrine as your hybrid shell game doctrine thinks I am heretical, that is Like a JW or Har'e Krishna calling me a heretic!
mlculwell: Um, that is not correct! I believe Jesus was a real man(Body, soul, and human spirit.) the same thing that has always been taught and debated against your ilk! I am not a "human shell," but if I had no real human spirit I would be a "human shell." If i had the spirit of God simply animating my body with no real human spirit I would neither be a real man but a Hybrid new species which is what I am accusing you of.
M:Response: So it sounds like to me that you are agreeing with Schmitty and Kjammer on their beliefs: You are saying that the son was nothing more than the humanity.
mlculwell: I will tall you what Schmitty and Kjammer were denying and that is your doctrine of "God the son" which I vehemently deny also! Like I said: there is not Oneness person anywhere that does not believe Jesus is God! I also told you though already that when you speak of Jesus while he walked this earth you cannot talk about him separate from the incarnation Now there was a distinction between the spirit and the flesh while he walked this earth but again that no longer even remains!
M: It’s the same old story of the divine spirit entering a human shell, not becoming human.
mlculwell: where do you get the Human shell? Especially when that is clearly your doctrine and you admit Jesus has no real human spirit thus a shell(Not my doctrine!) If the divine spirit "becomes a man?" then he is no longer a divine spirit but a man. That is a pretty neat trick but you spout your mantra and have given no thought to any of this. if anybody has the shell doctrine it is you with your Jesus who animated a shell who left the shell and then went back to the comfort heaven ignoring passages Like (Eccl. 3:21, Luke 23:46,1st. Cor. 15:21,Romans 8:11)
M:I don’t believe that Jesus had a divine spirit animating one half of his body and a human spirit animating the other.
mlculwell: No, you believe he had divine spirit animating his whole Body and not a real human spirit to make a real human man. You have your Hybrid Hercules and with the above said there is getting around it!
M:Jesus had ONE SPIRIT and this spirit was like no other before: the perfect synthesis of divinity and humanity.
mlculwell: Yeah and it is Called Hercules Hybrid! you are caught in your doctrine there is no way out of it! You deny Jesus real humanity which is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3)
M:Jesus was FULLY divine and FULLY human, yet Jesus was ONE PERSON; Jesus had ONE SPIRIT.
mlculwell: How can someone be fully human with no human spirit? I will tell you how, because you keep saying it enough that you actually believe your Antichrist doctrine is true! If I had no human spirit would I be truly man? No! I would not even exist, I wouldn't even be dead as the spirit goes on into eternity! I would be a lifeless shell. Thus your shell being animated by the divine spirit never really experiencing death nor humanity. your doctrine is an ancient heresy m known as Apollonarianism.
M:I’ve talked to a lot of Oneies over the past 10 years, but you are the most confused one I’ve ever encountered. I don’t think you have the first idea what it is you believe…
mlculwell: I could care less who you have talked with. You think I am confused all you want but I actually know what I believe and it is clear to you do not! I do not try and conform to anyone else but the scriptures if I stick with the scriptures I cannot go wrong!
mlculwell: That is real hard to tell as it seems I cannot pin you down on any one thing.. It seems you want your cake and eat it too in speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You did say God checked out concerning my doctrine meaning your God the son did not check out but what/?? splain that please?
M:Response: Explain it? I can’t even understand what you’re asking! I don’t believe God “checked out” – I NEVER said that! That’s your view of things.
mlculwell: Of course you do not as it is not sticking to your mantra. "Jesus was fully man and fully God." You just spout words you have heard other trinity folk say never giving any consideration how that is so.
you said explain being checked out? Well, let's see here. The spirit leaving the body is what constitutes death(Eccl. 3:21,James 2:26) You again thoughtlessly spout words giving no thought. God as spirit cannot experience death the man's human spirit only would have to rely that to the divine spirit. Just like the son did not even know the time of his own return the father cannot experience death as the divine spirit is not capable of dying.
mlculwell I said nothing about "natures." except natures do not die people die! God does not! I never said anything about "separate" either. If can that I will print this and eat it! I believe there was a real distinction between the humanity and divinity while Jesus walked the earth so as the son could fulfill that which he had to do. I do not believe that exists any longer! I deny your nonspiritual view of the incarnation! it is not bible!
M:Response: So, natures don’t die, huh?
mlculwell: People die! "If Natures die" then God can die? God is a spirit he is more than a nature! You only spout that to try and figure out how Jesus can be One person, it is not hard to figure that out... I am tired of hearing that mantra from both sides!
M:Jesus’ human nature didn’t die on the cross – it survived the physical death? That’s a pretty bizarre statement.
mlculwell: Yeah, it is, but I am not that one who said it, you did for me!
The human spirit leaving the Body is what constitutes death. That is what happened when Jesus died. it was not Just a human nature he was a real human man that was given the spirit by no measure(John 3:34) that is the real incarnation.
M:While Jesus may still have his glorified human body, is he still human and does he still possess a human nature?
mlculwell: The glorified Human man still possesses the spirit as his own spirit making One person of God, there now is no is distinction.
M: I hear you saying that you “believe” there was a distinction between the divinity and the humanity, but I disagree. Jesus was to fulfill his mission on earth as God incarnate, not just as a human being.
mlculwell: His real humanity purchased our resurrection, salvation, and is our mediator you have neither!(1st. Cor. 15:21, 1st. Tim. 2:5)
M:Sorry, but we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter, unless you can show me some Scripture that backs up what it is you claim to believe.
mlculwell: I have clearly stated what I believe the scriptures to teach on the matter! And How you deny Jesus real humanity and it is the doctrine of Antichrist.
mlculwell: No that is not what I am saying! But I am saying the shell doctrine is your doctrine, You have a puppet being animated by God and no real man in your view of the incarnation! If God "becomes a man," I would like for you to tell me how it is he becomes a man and is at the same time God? this is another one of those thoughtless doctrines of the trinity!
M:Response: See… what you say above is not even close to what I believe! Either you’re purposefully twisting my words, or you simply lack the ability to understand simple English. I don’t have a “shell” doctrine. Jesus was fully God and fully human,
mlculwell: You do have the shell doctrine unless you want to step out of your mantra and explain it!
M:not simply the divine spirit inhabiting a human shell. I don’t believe that. Jesus was not a puppet. Jesus was a holistic person who was both fully divine and fully human. He had ONE SPIRIT – a spirit that was fully divine and fully human –
mlculwell: "A spirit that was fully divine and human"??? How is that possible? That is definitely a hybrid mixture.LOL! Do I have a spirit that is both divine and human? We are told our unity is Just Like Jesus unity in (John 17:21) The human united to the divine same is true with Jesus read it! the Only difference being Jesus unity was by no measure or limits(John 3:34) Ours is by a measure.(Eph. 4:7) Come back and explain that?
M:that guided his thoughts and his actions. No puppet. Where do you come up with these ridiculous notions?
mlculwell: Simple, listening to you tell me and answer my questions! You have a puppet animated by "God the son."
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The nail in the coffin and Faithful Witness
Let's not forget to whom I am replying and who wrote this mess I am answering Faithful witness.
FW:Was Christ simply the flesh of God? Or was Christ a fleshly manifestation of God?
mlculwell:Yes Jesus was the flesh(A real man) God indwelt! " Indwelling" is not apart of the doctrine of the trinity! god to you is a trinity therefore I am correct in saying perechorisis is the doctrine of the interpenetration of God persons a rather silly doctrine where God overlaps each person.Yes: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st. Tim.3:16)
FW: Or was He a personification of the wisdom of God in flesh?
mlculwell: Jesus was Given the spirit of Wisdom(Isa. 11:2)
FW:I just wanna get my heresy detector calibrated here.
mlculwell; You should know heresy very well since you are so closely associated with it in your doctrine.
FW:The doctrine of indwelling or perechorisis is an undeniable truth.
mlculwell: indwelling is not perechorisis!
FW:Unfortunatley, your wikipedia definition didn't do it justice. Perhaps you should go a little deeper.
mlculwell:most of the trinity folk I know and especially on the carm boards will deny the indwelling and will usually take me to their doctrine of perechorisis, you can say you believe in indwelling but you are speaking more of the Oneness doctrine when you do so and it is not perechorisis!
FW:Stop by my blog and look for the post "nail in the coffin," there I touched on this doctrine.
Mlculwell: I am going to deal with your blog, point for point here and take it apart. First I will resubmit what was written about your actual doctrine of Perechorisis taught by the majority of trinity folk.
A popular argument from trinity folk on their so called doctrine of "perechorisis" goes something like this:
John14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves
"Here the Son is stating that He is in the Father. How is this possible if the Son is the flesh?
first the son is not just flesh.
The Disciples were in the father and son(John 17:21) As Spirit, God was able to put any human there. they were in the son because he was God manifest in flesh, he was also in heaven but standing before them as Spirit as the spirit of God put his flesh there(John 3:13) I believe the actual right of mankind to have the spirit was yet future(John 7:38-39) as the spirit had not yet been purchased through his slain flesh(1st. Cor.15:21)
I would make a plea to trinitarians to Stop using that argument .
God is spirit we can be in him and he in us, the only difference is the Spirit was given to Jesus without measure. (John 3:34)we have a measure(Eph.4:7)
FW:There are those within the oneness movement that love to expound on the fact that the bible does not provide us with a spelled-out text that proves the shared divine essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This they claim is the trump card of modalism. Certainly, essence was the concern, and rightly so in my opinion, at Nicea in 325AD. This was due primarily because of what was at stake; the deity of Jesus Christ. The Arian heresy was in full swing in those days. The majority of Bishops had bought into this devious belief prior to the council.
Mlculwell: I believe in a divine shared essence, but not between God persons, rather between the spirit of God(the father) and his real son the man Christ Jesus.9John 17:21) This is the indwelling spirit of God we are in unity of the spirit(John 17:21 spirit and flesh) Just like Jesus only the flesh and spirit of Jesus is by no measure.(John 3:34) Christians indwelling are a measure of the spirit(Eph. 4:7)
Arianism has nothing to do with what we are talking about and no council of man takes presidence over God and his word, if it does, then the creeds should be in scripture.
FW:Now, I will give credit where credit is due. Oneness believers do tend to hold strongly to the bible, even more so than many Trinitarian churches.
mlculwell: yes that is correct and the reason why we believe the Oneness of God(The scriptures teaching on God)and you believe the trinity.
FW:I recently went to one apostolic church where various scriptures were on huge signs on the walls. The high view given to the scriptures within these churches is great, but is that what makes their doctrine sound?
mlculwell: I would say it is and although a nice read we put no stock in creeds of men if they are wrong then we will be wrong! You have no way in knowing those men are correct you simply assume they were based on them being closer to the time of the Apostles. This flawed thinking we were already warned that false teaching was around and becoming even greater. Hymeneus and Philetus were right there with the Apostles and were even known by name but still managed to teach false doctrine with the Apostles being right there!(2nd. Tim. 2:15) Friend how much more being thousands of years removed?
FW:The fundamental question is, when it comes to God and His revelation, what is He concerned with? What is the scripture's focus so far as the doctrine of God? After considering the full counsel of the bible, what do we find being most expounded upon?
mlculwell; I contend that you destroy any credibility for your doctrine by admitting that Oneness puts greater emphasis on scripture than even trinity folk and it is true we do! I myself put zero emphasis on creeds or so called church fathers and I do not claim any of them as my fathers accept the apostles in scripture!(John 17:17-20) Neither pray I for these alone but for all them that shall believe on me through their words(Who are their?) The creeds? NO! The so called fathers? No!
FW:The focus of the bible, concerning the doctrine of God, is not essence.God may very well have an essence, but the concern of the scriptures lies elsewhere. The bible declares that all three are co-equal in divinity and united absolutely.
mlculwell; Where do I find the above passage you just qouted as truth? It does not exist, nor is it You created this creed for yourself and must prove it by the most remote inference from scripture for instance you see father, son, and spirit. All three titles are of the one God but where do find that God is three persons? wait a minute do you see what I just did? I made an inference like you and did not prove it! Oh, I can prove it, but why should I, when that is all you have done for your doctrine?
FW:The relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit is a personal one, and it is not based on some abstract essence. The scriptures are concerned with their relationship as three persons. Each of them indwells one another,
mlculwell: Perfect textbook trinity doctrine of perechorisis ie. interpenetration of persons that he denied above. Why if we have One single God do we need interpentration of persons? It is ridiculous. This is simply one way to attempt to get around the accusation of polytheism. God also indwells Christians,(John 17:21) but there are multiple, upon multiple persons that he indwells, this is not one mankind that he indwells , Just like there are multiple persons he indwells, their multiple persons of God are multiple Gods!(polytheism)
FW:every time you consider or read about one, you get them all. To loose focus on the biblical concern is to overshadow the most plain truth about God; that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, united, undivided, and resolutely equal and distinct. This is the nail in the coffin of the oneness doctrine.
mlculwell: The biblical son in the incarnation is united with the father through the spirit. Spirit and flesh real God and real man, very God and very man! The distinction is not between God persons. The distinction is only between the real man who as limited in knowledge as son, did not even know the time of his own coming(Mark 13:32) But the father Only. because the father is that which incarnated the son and had not yet revealed such as the one all knowing God incarnated in flesh (John 14:10) The son could do nothing in and of himself (John 5:30)but only as it was given him through the all powerful spirit.(Matt.28:18,John 3:34, Acts 2:36, 1st. Cor. 15:45-46) If there is a nail in the coffin for Oneness then I would like to see it but there is no nail but that which you falsely have set up in your own mind.
FW:In the next coming posts, I will display a comprehensive list of forshadowings of the Triune God that are found within the Old Testament.
mlculwell: That is real nice, But I would first like to see the nail you have put in the coffin for Oneness that you were talking about? I believe friend you are very delusional.
FW:Was Christ simply the flesh of God? Or was Christ a fleshly manifestation of God?
mlculwell:Yes Jesus was the flesh(A real man) God indwelt! " Indwelling" is not apart of the doctrine of the trinity! god to you is a trinity therefore I am correct in saying perechorisis is the doctrine of the interpenetration of God persons a rather silly doctrine where God overlaps each person.Yes: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st. Tim.3:16)
FW: Or was He a personification of the wisdom of God in flesh?
mlculwell: Jesus was Given the spirit of Wisdom(Isa. 11:2)
FW:I just wanna get my heresy detector calibrated here.
mlculwell; You should know heresy very well since you are so closely associated with it in your doctrine.
FW:The doctrine of indwelling or perechorisis is an undeniable truth.
mlculwell: indwelling is not perechorisis!
FW:Unfortunatley, your wikipedia definition didn't do it justice. Perhaps you should go a little deeper.
mlculwell:most of the trinity folk I know and especially on the carm boards will deny the indwelling and will usually take me to their doctrine of perechorisis, you can say you believe in indwelling but you are speaking more of the Oneness doctrine when you do so and it is not perechorisis!
FW:Stop by my blog and look for the post "nail in the coffin," there I touched on this doctrine.
Mlculwell: I am going to deal with your blog, point for point here and take it apart. First I will resubmit what was written about your actual doctrine of Perechorisis taught by the majority of trinity folk.
A popular argument from trinity folk on their so called doctrine of "perechorisis" goes something like this:
John14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves
"Here the Son is stating that He is in the Father. How is this possible if the Son is the flesh?
first the son is not just flesh.
The Disciples were in the father and son(John 17:21) As Spirit, God was able to put any human there. they were in the son because he was God manifest in flesh, he was also in heaven but standing before them as Spirit as the spirit of God put his flesh there(John 3:13) I believe the actual right of mankind to have the spirit was yet future(John 7:38-39) as the spirit had not yet been purchased through his slain flesh(1st. Cor.15:21)
I would make a plea to trinitarians to Stop using that argument .
God is spirit we can be in him and he in us, the only difference is the Spirit was given to Jesus without measure. (John 3:34)we have a measure(Eph.4:7)
FW:There are those within the oneness movement that love to expound on the fact that the bible does not provide us with a spelled-out text that proves the shared divine essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This they claim is the trump card of modalism. Certainly, essence was the concern, and rightly so in my opinion, at Nicea in 325AD. This was due primarily because of what was at stake; the deity of Jesus Christ. The Arian heresy was in full swing in those days. The majority of Bishops had bought into this devious belief prior to the council.
Mlculwell: I believe in a divine shared essence, but not between God persons, rather between the spirit of God(the father) and his real son the man Christ Jesus.9John 17:21) This is the indwelling spirit of God we are in unity of the spirit(John 17:21 spirit and flesh) Just like Jesus only the flesh and spirit of Jesus is by no measure.(John 3:34) Christians indwelling are a measure of the spirit(Eph. 4:7)
Arianism has nothing to do with what we are talking about and no council of man takes presidence over God and his word, if it does, then the creeds should be in scripture.
FW:Now, I will give credit where credit is due. Oneness believers do tend to hold strongly to the bible, even more so than many Trinitarian churches.
mlculwell: yes that is correct and the reason why we believe the Oneness of God(The scriptures teaching on God)and you believe the trinity.
FW:I recently went to one apostolic church where various scriptures were on huge signs on the walls. The high view given to the scriptures within these churches is great, but is that what makes their doctrine sound?
mlculwell: I would say it is and although a nice read we put no stock in creeds of men if they are wrong then we will be wrong! You have no way in knowing those men are correct you simply assume they were based on them being closer to the time of the Apostles. This flawed thinking we were already warned that false teaching was around and becoming even greater. Hymeneus and Philetus were right there with the Apostles and were even known by name but still managed to teach false doctrine with the Apostles being right there!(2nd. Tim. 2:15) Friend how much more being thousands of years removed?
FW:The fundamental question is, when it comes to God and His revelation, what is He concerned with? What is the scripture's focus so far as the doctrine of God? After considering the full counsel of the bible, what do we find being most expounded upon?
mlculwell; I contend that you destroy any credibility for your doctrine by admitting that Oneness puts greater emphasis on scripture than even trinity folk and it is true we do! I myself put zero emphasis on creeds or so called church fathers and I do not claim any of them as my fathers accept the apostles in scripture!(John 17:17-20) Neither pray I for these alone but for all them that shall believe on me through their words(Who are their?) The creeds? NO! The so called fathers? No!
FW:The focus of the bible, concerning the doctrine of God, is not essence.God may very well have an essence, but the concern of the scriptures lies elsewhere. The bible declares that all three are co-equal in divinity and united absolutely.
mlculwell; Where do I find the above passage you just qouted as truth? It does not exist, nor is it You created this creed for yourself and must prove it by the most remote inference from scripture for instance you see father, son, and spirit. All three titles are of the one God but where do find that God is three persons? wait a minute do you see what I just did? I made an inference like you and did not prove it! Oh, I can prove it, but why should I, when that is all you have done for your doctrine?
FW:The relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit is a personal one, and it is not based on some abstract essence. The scriptures are concerned with their relationship as three persons. Each of them indwells one another,
mlculwell: Perfect textbook trinity doctrine of perechorisis ie. interpenetration of persons that he denied above. Why if we have One single God do we need interpentration of persons? It is ridiculous. This is simply one way to attempt to get around the accusation of polytheism. God also indwells Christians,(John 17:21) but there are multiple, upon multiple persons that he indwells, this is not one mankind that he indwells , Just like there are multiple persons he indwells, their multiple persons of God are multiple Gods!(polytheism)
FW:every time you consider or read about one, you get them all. To loose focus on the biblical concern is to overshadow the most plain truth about God; that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, united, undivided, and resolutely equal and distinct. This is the nail in the coffin of the oneness doctrine.
mlculwell: The biblical son in the incarnation is united with the father through the spirit. Spirit and flesh real God and real man, very God and very man! The distinction is not between God persons. The distinction is only between the real man who as limited in knowledge as son, did not even know the time of his own coming(Mark 13:32) But the father Only. because the father is that which incarnated the son and had not yet revealed such as the one all knowing God incarnated in flesh (John 14:10) The son could do nothing in and of himself (John 5:30)but only as it was given him through the all powerful spirit.(Matt.28:18,John 3:34, Acts 2:36, 1st. Cor. 15:45-46) If there is a nail in the coffin for Oneness then I would like to see it but there is no nail but that which you falsely have set up in your own mind.
FW:In the next coming posts, I will display a comprehensive list of forshadowings of the Triune God that are found within the Old Testament.
mlculwell: That is real nice, But I would first like to see the nail you have put in the coffin for Oneness that you were talking about? I believe friend you are very delusional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)