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)
4 comments:
FW:I have already refuted without a doubt everything you have stated here.
mlculwell: You are legend in your own mind!
FW:Your failure to provide a scriptural basis for your view has resulted in the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard : that orthodox Christians have engaged in manuscript manipulation.
mlculwell: You submitted a spurious text which does not teach anything what soever about "persons" but rather polytheism! Give some thought to your answers nothing is said in the text you provided about *persons* it says the Only or *unique God* Your god is a trinity is it not? the trinity died for no one! In addition to the unique God you have God the father. can you not see that man?
FW:So far as your ridiculous baptismal regeneration I have already destroyed that too some time ago on my site.
mlculwell: If you have destroyed "Baptismal regeneration" then you have not touched my doctrine as we do not believe regeneration comes through Baptism making Baptism the savior we believe the name in Baptism through faith which gives us the person you do not and cannot have! So you have not touched upon my doctrine with your silly little thesis!
FW:You have reduced your arguments to illogical absurdidty. Here is an example:
In response to my breakdown of the text of John 1:18 you said this:
"No I do not see father and son I see you submitted the word God in the passage."
mlculwell: Yes by you winking and nodding at the silly view of a manuscript that promotes polytheism you wink and nod at false doctrine! I stand by what I have said!
FW:I didn't submit anything in the text. I used the ESV,
mlculwell You submitted The ESV as a valid text as proof of Polytheism.
FW:which tends to be the current standard in Christianity.
mlculwell: Not in my Christianity it is not the reason so many of you false doctrine Calvinist reformed types are winking and nodding at the spurious nonsense is because you think it promotes your three persons when it really teaches Polytheism!
FW:The word "God" was already there in the broad majority of ancient manuscripts.
mlculwell: I am not talking about the word "God" I am talking about Mongenes theeos! the only unique God and then beside the Only unique God is the other God which is Polytheism!
FW:What are you KJV only? Please. Examine manuscript evidence!
mlculwell: No I am not KJB only but Just like *trutenfan* one of James Whites Reformed team Members I think it is for the most part reliable and even when it was tampered with God still preserved it pretty well and I happen to be able to use it and find it pretty trust worthy! More than your contradictory ESV baloney! There are other translations I would use before that mess which teaches Polytheism!
FW:Your case is dismissed. I have absolutley demolished any credible argument that you have established in regards to John 1:1-2.
mlculwell: like I said you are legend in your own mind! You ignored My submitting of the Greek of the OT in Psalm 33:6 which teaches By the word/logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
You ignored Paul In 2nd. Tim. 2:17 teaching of two individuals evil plan/word and his usage of the term Logos of those two. To just go headlong and tell me about your false view of John 1:1
FW:Since you must not read Greek, get a lexicon and dictionary. You'll soon see that your view is absolutley illogical. It appears that you didn't even read what I wrote.
mlculwell: I read what you wrote and it does not jive with scripture! You simply resubmit your unscriptual tradition of men!
FW:I won't beat a dead horse, and you seem to be defying logic at this point. Perhaps objective exegesis should be your next subject of study. Thanks for the debate, when you come up with something different that is directly from the text, let me know...
mlculwell: I have been giving that all along and you have been giving tradition men! You have absolutely nothing I fear to take on! You have been giving spurious readings of texts Nobody else was stupid enough until recently to insert the only unique God as they had more sense than the modern textual critique to add such polytheism as do the Reformed who lack any common sense or spirit of God!
Monogenes Theos. Mongenes Theos pronounced Mono-ga-naise tha-os does not mean: only unique! Theos is the Greek word for God! So you have the only unique begotten God in addition to God which is polytheism but you are trying again to hide plain site. other translations use commons sense in knowing God cannot be begotten!
FW: ignorantly submitts:"He was in the beginning with God."
Doesn't sound like John is saying that the Word is an idea or plan. Who did you get that from, TD Jakes?
mlculwell: First off I never heard of TD Jakes until about five years ago and I do not follow the mans teachings!
Second Jesus had already died resurrected and ascended before John wrote his Gospel to whom John wrote from an actual knowing experience of the *HE* One thing is for sure though John was not back there word from the breath of god's mouth But he also would have known the passage that apparently you give no thought to!
FW:the Logos was simply an idea in the mind of God, then why does John use "He." Why not use "the Word."
mlculwell: Again John Knew the He!
FW: John the Baptist also refers to the pre-incarnate Son as "He."
mlculwell: He what? He did not ever say that Jesus was the "pre-incarnate word" John Knew the Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, the One God though not God the son as no such thing existed!
FW:So the Logos is a pre-existent idea in the mind of God, and John describes this as the Word was with God, the Word was God? All things were made through an idea?
mlculwell: It was not just and idea but the spoken all powerful creative word of God and not another person of God!
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)
FW:The reality is that Christ is the agent of creation.
mlculwell: God does not need an agent of creation! God is the creator but the whole world was predicated on the coming son our creation is by him and for him! it does not mean he existed back there as the scriptures do not say he existed he is known as the creator because of the incarnation in other words because of the incarnation 0f the one God and he being Given the spirit by no measure was the creator(John 3:34)
FW: The pre-incarnate Son of God is not simply an idea or pre-existent plan of God.
mlculwell: There is no such thing in scripture as a pre-incarnate son! There is the only begotten (Only miraculously sired and born son) but there is no pre-incarnate son.
FW:The text says that the Son is divine and yet with the Father.
mlculwell: No it does not! We have already been round this horn three or four different times and it teaches no such thing from John 1:1
FW: If the Son is divine then He is eternal. You have in effect denied the diety of Jesus Christ.
mlculwell: I deny your false doctrine of "God the son"! I do not deny the Deity Of Jesus Christ!
I gave the passages that show he was made both Lord and Christ(acts 2:36)
He was given all power in heaven and earth.(Math.28:18)
He was made the life giving spirit
(1st.Cor.15:45-46)
He was given the spirit by no measure.(John 3:34)
He as God the son would not be in need of anything b ut because he was the only begotten son according to his flesh and his flesh had a begining then he was in need of all those things he did not even know the time of his own second coming(Mark 13:32) but the father Only because the father only was the deity that indwelt him the limited man by no measure making Jesus the one true God.
FW:There is NO text that suggests that Jesus Christ is the Father. The Son is Jesus Christ.
mlculwell: there is no text that says the son incarnated the son! there is only a couple of texts and One is in the passage I gave the father in me he doeth the works (John 14:10) as the son can do no works(John 5:30)
FW:Jesus Christ is divine. Therefore the Son is eternal. There is one God.
mlculwell: The son is divine and eternal because he was made that way but he was not a pre-existent person known as God the son!
FW: Yet we have three distinct beings claiming to be God.
mlculwell: No we do not! We have trinity folk falsely interpreting passages they think teaches such doctrine but when it is broken down we actually find no such doctrine exists!
FW: They speak to one another and they interact with one another, and they share eternal fellowship with one another.
mlculwell: The same way I do as a real man that does not make me another person of GOD AND NEITHER WAS JESUS! Jesus we see pray real prayers as a man and not another person of God, his will was that of a man and not another will of God. This neither makes two persons of God nor two wills of God but that is just what your doctrine has, which is silly!
FW:LSounds like the Triune God to me. Maybe you should have been an Arian. Your idea theory might have been easier to use with them. . .
mlculwell: I believe Jesus is God Arians do not! I am no Arian and I reject their false doctrine as Much as I reject yours! you might as well be one as you are not going to be saved as a trinitarian because you will reject the name that saves you!
FW:By the way, the term "only" is an English synonym for unique. The Son is eternally the Son.
mlculwell: You need to look closer at what was written by me! I said that very thing! Jesus is the Only begotten son and cannot be the only begotten God!
FW:This is your problem:
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
The word name in this text means "in the authority of" or "command of." Same with Matt 28:19. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.
mlculwell: I believe the scriptures teach you need the spoken name for the authority you are saying you have the authority because you assume so! I say Baloney you must have the literal spoken name of Jesus for the authority! You are going to fall into the hands of the judgment of god for rejecting the authority of his literal spoken name!
Manny, FW is a lying heretic, which we faced with the truth admits that only he has the truth - him and Chuckie Spurgeon of course. He will no longer post my comments - the ones which refute him. Oh well, hope he likes hot weather
Post a Comment