Fw, takes my qoute and runs with it:" Preaching: The MEANS by which God saves people." he then says the following: "Get a grip.The greatest preachers/evanglelists that ever existed were calvanists".
mlculwell said...
I "have a grip" of the scriptures and your *opinion and bias for Calvinism* has been noted, however, not one iota of Calvinism lines up with scripture no matter how much you say it does!
Calvinism does not line up with what is taught in scripture and you simply saying so and misinterpreting passages that seemingly teach your doctrine, shallowly and glossary readings of the same and you lying on your blog about Oneness working for salvation was just precious...
We neither teach "Baptismal regeneration"(*Jesus is the savior* by the grace of God or God given) nor can we work to purchase our salvation.However, Faith and or belief are not your *mental assent* doctrines. *Faith* COMETH BY HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD.(Romans 10:9-17) That is how God Gives faith! Not by him pre-inputting salvivic information before we existed, that is silly, bad teaching and preaching(Eisegesis.)
Did God Give Baptism in Jesus name?
Of Course he did! Then it is of Grace and not of works! Baptism in Jesus name is no more a work than repentance, or *belief* which real belief actually includes all of the above!
Grace means: God Given! Doing Baptism apart from "Jesus name" as you do, is a work!
The name *Jesus*literally spoken in Baptism is the authority of the person and remits or washes away the sin!(Acts 2:38,John 20:23) Whose-so-ever sins you remit, they are remitted and whose-so-ever sins you retain, they are retained unto them.
Your doctrine fails miserably in explaining these passages and I have heard every "But, but, but," from you guys possible concerning (John 20:23) as also you cannot reconcile (Luke 24:47)
And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations begging at Jerusalem.
One would have to believe first before they could repent, then conjunction is not reiterating the point as it does in Acts 2;38 but is now stating in addition to belief and repentance is remission and actually belief is inclusive of repentance and baptism in Jesus name and does not exclude otherwise it is not true biblical belief)
(Acts 19:2) Paul asked have you received the holy Ghost since you believed? Faitfulwitness says: "Yes everyone who believes like him does." Paul says: no! by asking the question and if it were even a remote fact, Paul should not have asked it in the first place and that is just the beginning!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
My Harangue.
It has been the Catholics(Trinitarain's) One of the earliest of the false doctrines that killed other Trinitarain's and hid the scriptures from the common man.(causing themselves the problem they now whine about) And the very reason for the restoration movement trinity folk are a part of, Luther himself coming out of said Catholic doctrine and taking with him some of their thinking(The trinity.) No One after him even considering the very doctrine might be wrong and un-scriptural (tradition) you could have been killed for thinking otherwise which influenced many and remains to this day unquestioned and it has been passed down, false doctrine compounded until brave men like Michael Servetus and a very few others questioned the false doctrine.
To take further what was said above, It should be noted; no trinity doctrine, nor idea, was ever taught by the Apostles or any of the writers of the New testament, the trinity was a later invention and it was the proponents of the doctrine starting with the infant Catholic(Trinity) church and those who influenced it that caused all the problems in the first place and when the Reformers came along, they took with them the false unquestioned doctrine of the trinity, further compounding error that remains to this day and when challenged, accusations such as heretic, and false teachers, are hurled at those who question said doctrine that is clearly not taught in scripture... Trinity doctrine taking hold so many years ago has gotten a foothold and influence where it should have never been.
To take further what was said above, It should be noted; no trinity doctrine, nor idea, was ever taught by the Apostles or any of the writers of the New testament, the trinity was a later invention and it was the proponents of the doctrine starting with the infant Catholic(Trinity) church and those who influenced it that caused all the problems in the first place and when the Reformers came along, they took with them the false unquestioned doctrine of the trinity, further compounding error that remains to this day and when challenged, accusations such as heretic, and false teachers, are hurled at those who question said doctrine that is clearly not taught in scripture... Trinity doctrine taking hold so many years ago has gotten a foothold and influence where it should have never been.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Many are called but Few chosen
It should be pointed out that every passage given below I agree and believe but I am addressing the passages as though the Calvinist has highjacked them into their doctrine as proof text.
" The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel."
Calvinism:I never said election was random, be honest and don't exaggerate. So, you say that the basis on which God elects people, is that He looks down the corridor of time and sees the response of that individual? So salvation is predicated on whether or not a man responds positively to God's grace? I see. Well friend, name that verse. I say that election is based not on a man's will or response, but simply on the sovereign grace of God. Here are my texts to prove that:
mlculwell: No, I do not believe that "the basis on which God elects is that he looks down the corridor of time and calls individuals that way." No, He calls individuals based on what he has given(grace) which would be the sacrifice of the sinless humanity of the son not that he again randomly elects individuals which is a false doctrine and silly at that. We are as individuals being placed in the body of Christ based on our response to preaching which you bypass. We are elected in him, The Body is foreordained, made up of individuals, not predestined as individuals to salvation randomly one over another willy nilly apart from preaching.
Calvinism:John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (esv)
mlculwell: Of course it is not the will of the flesh! We could will all we wanted but unless God permits, or wills, we would be hopeless, but what the Calvinist has done and has not been called on, is inserted the false doctrine that "God already called individuals before we were known apart from the response to the Gospel" or "made us respond positively" to get around the blaring contradiction." Every man who hears is afforded the same right to become children of God, not everyone will respond the same, we see that from the parable of the sower who sowed Good seed, by the seed falling upon different ground.
Calvinism:Romans 8: 29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (esv)
Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (esv)
mlculwell:Here we are seeing the same thing we see in Romans 10 where Paul leads us to systematic logical conclusions: how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without preacher? and how shall they preach accept they be sent?
We are only called, Justified, and glorified, in him. Many are called but few are chosen Jesus says in( Math.20:16,22:14)our Calvinist friend would try and tell us everyone to whom God calls is chosen and this passage contradicts that assumption forced upon many texts by Calvinists because of bad glossary interpretation.In other words at first glance a passage seemingly teaches said doctrine based on a glossary reading but when compared to other passages it contradicts the scriptures The above passage would contradict most of the passages submitted by our Calvinist friend.
Calvinism:Romans 9:11-13 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”(esv)
mlculwell: This is one of my favorites that Calvinist's use and I am afraid I have to laugh every time I hear a Calvinist ignorantly quote this passage as a supposed proof text. The passage is not at all talking about God Choosing One brother over another for salvation, the passage is talking about God choosing one brother over another to fulfill his purpose, neither brother did *evil* or Good as babies cannot. If a Calvinist can show me in the text that is what is talking about I would be glad to hear about it?
Calvinism:Romans 9:16-18 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.(esv)
mlculwell:Certainly apart from God we cannot will ourselves to salvation but God has given grace which has appeared to all men now! The Calvinist assumes the above passage is speaking about *individual salvation* and it is not! Again, God has used individuals through out time to fulfill his purpose and he did not just magically harden Pharaoh's heart or predetermine Pharaoh was that way. God hardened his heart and knew just how to do so by extending chance after chance to fulfill his purpose. The Calvinist doctrine in every way is a silly unscriptual doctrine.
Now that we have come to the time of the new covenant we are told in the new testament that Jesus is the Saviour of ALL men, and not Just all but *especially those who accepted the offer or believe* which contradicts the Calvinistic false doctrines.(1st. Tim. 4:10) Is Jesus the Lord of All men even though all do not accept that offer? In other words Jesus offers salvation to all men not just all kinds of men and the passage refutes that false notion along with the sower who sowed Good seed.(Math. 13:5-20)
Calvinism:Romans 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?(esv)
mlculwell:The passage says nothing about *the vessels prepared to predetermined destruction* you submit the passage to me as a proof text of your doctrine but I do not read what I know you are trying to assume with all of these passages you submit. You attempt to add the notion to the text by even submitting it, now why would God wait or "endure in much patience" upon something he predetermined as a vessel of destruction? God made every vessel, did he not? We are the Body of Christ, what he sees,in him.
Calvinism; Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—(esv)
mlculwell: We are made alive by being in Christ, we cannot bypass that in any way! How is it Calvinists bypass preaching? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.(Romans 10:13-17) I will tell you how,you believe God somehow miraculously makes you a believer apart from preaching.Then you try and skirt that fact by deflecting when you are caught.I agree with everyone of these passages you submit, but I have to explain your ridiculous interpretation of them as I know what you teach.
Calvinism:Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast
mlculwell:Grace is something *given* by God, in other words, he extended the offer of salvation freely to all men not just all kinds of men.(1st. Tim.4:10,Gal. 6:10)There was nothing we could do as men to force God to give or offer such, he simply did because of His love, but not all will accept that offer. The above passage does not negate our response to the preaching of the Gospel God gave(Grace) the foolishness of preaching of the Gospel to save them which believe(1st. Cor. 1:21)There are many other things involved that God gave through his grace that the Reformed and many others exclude with the new mental assent doctrine.
Calvinism:Ephesians 1:5 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will(esv)
mlculwell: Everything is in and through him(Jesus Christ)The Body is predestined to Glory not individuals. We as individuals are predestined to glory as long as we are in that body predestined to Glory.
Calvinism;Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (esv)
mlculwell: I see nothing in any of these passages that explains the Calvinist doctrines.
Calvinism:Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days (esv)
mlculwell:The elect refer to those in him and it is pompous and presumptuous to try and force a glossary reading upon passages and assume they teach any of the Calvinist doctrines which they wrestle to their own destruction.
Calvinism;I don't see anything about God basing election on a man's response here. Your wrong about the Trinity, and your wrong about Calvinism. Repent, and receive the forgiveness of sins.
mlculwell; Of Course you don't, but the very phrasing of calling and believing in (Romans 10:5-17, John 17:20) tells us How we should call and believe and it has nothing to do with the Calvinist interpretation of God making us such apart from our will and response to the Gospel preached, you purposely avoided such texts.
" The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel."
Calvinism:I never said election was random, be honest and don't exaggerate. So, you say that the basis on which God elects people, is that He looks down the corridor of time and sees the response of that individual? So salvation is predicated on whether or not a man responds positively to God's grace? I see. Well friend, name that verse. I say that election is based not on a man's will or response, but simply on the sovereign grace of God. Here are my texts to prove that:
mlculwell: No, I do not believe that "the basis on which God elects is that he looks down the corridor of time and calls individuals that way." No, He calls individuals based on what he has given(grace) which would be the sacrifice of the sinless humanity of the son not that he again randomly elects individuals which is a false doctrine and silly at that. We are as individuals being placed in the body of Christ based on our response to preaching which you bypass. We are elected in him, The Body is foreordained, made up of individuals, not predestined as individuals to salvation randomly one over another willy nilly apart from preaching.
Calvinism:John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (esv)
mlculwell: Of course it is not the will of the flesh! We could will all we wanted but unless God permits, or wills, we would be hopeless, but what the Calvinist has done and has not been called on, is inserted the false doctrine that "God already called individuals before we were known apart from the response to the Gospel" or "made us respond positively" to get around the blaring contradiction." Every man who hears is afforded the same right to become children of God, not everyone will respond the same, we see that from the parable of the sower who sowed Good seed, by the seed falling upon different ground.
Calvinism:Romans 8: 29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (esv)
Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (esv)
mlculwell:Here we are seeing the same thing we see in Romans 10 where Paul leads us to systematic logical conclusions: how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without preacher? and how shall they preach accept they be sent?
We are only called, Justified, and glorified, in him. Many are called but few are chosen Jesus says in( Math.20:16,22:14)our Calvinist friend would try and tell us everyone to whom God calls is chosen and this passage contradicts that assumption forced upon many texts by Calvinists because of bad glossary interpretation.In other words at first glance a passage seemingly teaches said doctrine based on a glossary reading but when compared to other passages it contradicts the scriptures The above passage would contradict most of the passages submitted by our Calvinist friend.
Calvinism:Romans 9:11-13 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”(esv)
mlculwell: This is one of my favorites that Calvinist's use and I am afraid I have to laugh every time I hear a Calvinist ignorantly quote this passage as a supposed proof text. The passage is not at all talking about God Choosing One brother over another for salvation, the passage is talking about God choosing one brother over another to fulfill his purpose, neither brother did *evil* or Good as babies cannot. If a Calvinist can show me in the text that is what is talking about I would be glad to hear about it?
Calvinism:Romans 9:16-18 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.(esv)
mlculwell:Certainly apart from God we cannot will ourselves to salvation but God has given grace which has appeared to all men now! The Calvinist assumes the above passage is speaking about *individual salvation* and it is not! Again, God has used individuals through out time to fulfill his purpose and he did not just magically harden Pharaoh's heart or predetermine Pharaoh was that way. God hardened his heart and knew just how to do so by extending chance after chance to fulfill his purpose. The Calvinist doctrine in every way is a silly unscriptual doctrine.
Now that we have come to the time of the new covenant we are told in the new testament that Jesus is the Saviour of ALL men, and not Just all but *especially those who accepted the offer or believe* which contradicts the Calvinistic false doctrines.(1st. Tim. 4:10) Is Jesus the Lord of All men even though all do not accept that offer? In other words Jesus offers salvation to all men not just all kinds of men and the passage refutes that false notion along with the sower who sowed Good seed.(Math. 13:5-20)
Calvinism:Romans 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?(esv)
mlculwell:The passage says nothing about *the vessels prepared to predetermined destruction* you submit the passage to me as a proof text of your doctrine but I do not read what I know you are trying to assume with all of these passages you submit. You attempt to add the notion to the text by even submitting it, now why would God wait or "endure in much patience" upon something he predetermined as a vessel of destruction? God made every vessel, did he not? We are the Body of Christ, what he sees,in him.
Calvinism; Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—(esv)
mlculwell: We are made alive by being in Christ, we cannot bypass that in any way! How is it Calvinists bypass preaching? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.(Romans 10:13-17) I will tell you how,you believe God somehow miraculously makes you a believer apart from preaching.Then you try and skirt that fact by deflecting when you are caught.I agree with everyone of these passages you submit, but I have to explain your ridiculous interpretation of them as I know what you teach.
Calvinism:Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast
mlculwell:Grace is something *given* by God, in other words, he extended the offer of salvation freely to all men not just all kinds of men.(1st. Tim.4:10,Gal. 6:10)There was nothing we could do as men to force God to give or offer such, he simply did because of His love, but not all will accept that offer. The above passage does not negate our response to the preaching of the Gospel God gave(Grace) the foolishness of preaching of the Gospel to save them which believe(1st. Cor. 1:21)There are many other things involved that God gave through his grace that the Reformed and many others exclude with the new mental assent doctrine.
Calvinism:Ephesians 1:5 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will(esv)
mlculwell: Everything is in and through him(Jesus Christ)The Body is predestined to Glory not individuals. We as individuals are predestined to glory as long as we are in that body predestined to Glory.
Calvinism;Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (esv)
mlculwell: I see nothing in any of these passages that explains the Calvinist doctrines.
Calvinism:Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days (esv)
mlculwell:The elect refer to those in him and it is pompous and presumptuous to try and force a glossary reading upon passages and assume they teach any of the Calvinist doctrines which they wrestle to their own destruction.
Calvinism;I don't see anything about God basing election on a man's response here. Your wrong about the Trinity, and your wrong about Calvinism. Repent, and receive the forgiveness of sins.
mlculwell; Of Course you don't, but the very phrasing of calling and believing in (Romans 10:5-17, John 17:20) tells us How we should call and believe and it has nothing to do with the Calvinist interpretation of God making us such apart from our will and response to the Gospel preached, you purposely avoided such texts.
Revised A total lack of common sense. We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world
I had to add this post script revision since he(faithful witness) has answered me on his blog **Day Of Reckoning** This has more to do with the false doctrine of individual election than with Oneness versus the trinity which is fine with me.
FW:writes on his blog: Oh my. This is silly. Manuel, it was the Father who foreknew the Son.
mlculwell; LOL! "The father and son are supposed to be God" are they not? You would think God would foreknow of himself? This is the the blatant contradictions of the doctrine of the trinity. God foreknew the humanity of the son which is the son in the incarnation that God the father indwelt in said incarnation(John 14:10)
FW:It was also the forknown soverign plan of the Father that the Son obeyed in becoming a man and completing the atonement.
mlculwell: So God was smart enough to foreknow that 1/3 of himself would obey himself and go down to mankind more nonsense of the trinity doctrine.
FW: God's elect were forknown before the foundation of the world. I find it somewhat amazing that you are engaging in an debate about foreknowledge with a Calvanist.
mlculwell: LOL! The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel.
FW: Ever consider a career in comedy? Perhaps you should write a comedic novel with a science fiction twist.
mlculwell; The real comedy is your false doctrine of Calvinism and the trinity.
FW:Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.(esv)
mlculwell: The plan/Logos of God you know very well refers to the sacrifice of the son which is Grace(God giving) grace is not anything less! predestination and foreknowledge are both scriptual doctrines the Calvinist take on them are not scriptual!
FW:Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,(esv)
mlculwell: We are chosen in him not apart from, we only get in him through hearing the preaching and our response to the Gospel(Romans 10;8-17) which resembles nothing of the Reformed doctrine in any way shape or form.
FW:Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.(esv)
mlculwell: All you are doing is proof texting with no comment as we read the same passages. You are quoting texts you think help you and they do not! Paul already shows us how we are predestined and foreknown by being in him according to our response to the preaching of the gospel you read your doctrine into the text.
FW:1Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (esv)
mlculwell: Obedience does not help your cause and is as far from your doctrine as the north pole is from a goose neck! Grace is God Giving his only begotten son he gave for all man to accept or reject you do not think God is strong enough or powerful enough to give man a free will and that we can somehow over throw God by him doing so!
I do not blame you for not wanting to argue for your false doctrine of the trinity though you could not do any good on the subject so you which but that is fine I will be happy to take you to task with the scriptures on that subject also.
FW:Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (esv)
All who are saved are forknown.
mlculwell: Choosing us in him has nothing to do with individuals being chosen over another you have pompously inserted that false doctrine in the text. we get into him by hearing the word preached(Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God) that is how God gives mankind faith not by some magical Calvinistic nonsense. Grace is God allowing us access to himself through the sacrifice of his son(The sinless flesh of Jesus 1st. Cor. 15:21) we cannot be saved by God the son!
FW:
Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.
Oh, wait a minute. Manuel has responded. Lets see what he says now. . .
mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.
*************************************************************************************
FW:Ok. Lets look at the 1 Pet text.
1Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (esv)
mlculwell: Can you imagine? The ESV has single handidly destroyed the doctrine of the trinity! LOL! Take the phrase **"he was foreknown before the foundation of the world."** I would think that since he was "god the son" that God would know of himself??? Was that not just genius of the ESV? Further those who did not exist were foreknown also? There being written in the book of Life was predicated on the slaying of the humanity and them being in Him. There is absolutely no way around the blood and faithful witness is trying really hard to hide in plain site but he is failing miserably. This seems to be the hallmark of the Reformed who think they can get around the blood of the Lamb which is the grace of God, all the faith in the world cannot get you anything without the shed blood.(His grace)We were chosen in him, meaning his sacrifice.
FW:Well Manuel, I don't see anything here about the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world either. This says that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world, not slain.
mlculwell: Of course you don't you are not using any common sense I have ran into this problem with you folks many times who think more highly of yourselves than you should. It is very clear you are giving zero thought to my argument and looking very foolish in process. We are saved by his life both the giving off and the resurrection of, you must have both or have neither! without shedding of blood is no remission of sins so then how are we chosen in him from the foundation of the world? The KJB used great foresight in doing the work and stating the great truth "the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world" that you clearly lack in trying to appear intellectual.
mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foundation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.(esv)
FW:Those whose names that are in the Lamb's book of life are written there because of the sovereign choosing of the Father (Romans 8:28-30).
mlculwell: Absolutely not! You are living in a fairy tale world! It is not because Some are on a saved list and others are not, because of your nonsense Calvinism! We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world, not randomly based on God simply choosing, you miss everything, not only do you want to by pass Jesus sacrifice but our response to the preaching of the Gospel because of the grace(Jesus sacrifice) given.
You submit a passage(Romans 8:30) that make Calvinist's look very ignorant in their interpretation, because in trying to proof text you again bypass the process you simply see that *God predestined* and he did but it was based on our being in Christ we were not chosen as individuals but chosen in him according to our response to the gospel you mistakenly add that we were chosen as individuals over another individual bypassing the Grace(Jesus sacrifice) and the preaching of the Gospel.
(Romans 10:16-17) They have not all obeyed the Gospel. so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. whose soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.(Romans 10:13) You cannot just call on him! Paul said you must call on him the way a man sent of God tells you to call.
(Romans 10:14)
Jesus said the same thing(John 17:20)Neither pray I for these alone,but for them also that shall believe on me through their word. who is Jesus talking about? Who are the "their word"? Is it the Reformed preacher? No! Jesus was talking about the message his disciples were given to preach and it looks nothing like what the Reformed preach!
Jesus said: that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.(Luke 24:47)
He preached Peters message from (Acts 2:38) almost verbatim showing us what the true message would look like. He also refuted the notion that mental assent(The Reformed view of faith or belief) By adding the conjunction *and* between repentance and remission of sins letting us know by common sense that one who repents must have already believed thereby the conjunction and adding remission in addition to belief and apart from refuting the false notion.
Paul also refutes the notion by asking the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? The answer would be ridiculous according to the Reformed view and would have been understood by Paul.
If that is not enough Jesus cuts the head clean off of the false doctrine by saying to his future Apostles whose soever sins you remit, the are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23)
FW: The Father's plan of atonement had not been completed until the cross.
mlculwell: Can you imagine? Faithful witness wants us to believe God the father was taken by total surprise and did not know this was going to happen?? No, that is not what he is saying but it sure sounds ridiculous. Nobody said: "the atonement had been completed until the cross." I certainly did not but God most certainly had this planned from the foundation of the world and we were chosen in him and it was not that we were just chosen we were chosen in him based on his sacrifice which is the Grace of God not just some random nonsense that bypasses Jesus sacrifice.
FW: The text below points out that those who died and were justified by faith before Christ, received their justification based on what Christ would and did do in the future.
mlculwell: Now you are contradicting yourself this is what I have been saying all along and the reason the KJB included it in (Revelation 13:8) we cannot be saved without his sacrifice and being chosen before the foundation of the world is based on being in him and you cannot be in him or chosen for that matter without his sacrifice which refutes your Calvinistic doctrine and affirms what has been said by me.
FW:All people are saved the same way, whether before the incarnation or after; by faith. This idea that you have of the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world is ridiculous and baseless.
mlculwell: Clearly I was correct and FW bypasses the Blood and sacrifice of Christ. without shedding of Blood is no remission(Hebrews 9:22)I do not have the lamb literally being slain which is ridiculous! But it was part of the plan/Logos of God that you having no spirit of understanding or discernment.
FW:Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
mlculwell: Most certainly the scriptures are correct. "Faith" is not your mental assent view. We must be in Christ and the scriptures teach we are Baptized into Christ by the water and the spirit(John 3:5, Gal.3:27) Baptism in Jesus name is not a work of man, but the spiritual work of God and "baptismal regeneration is not what we preach or teach! Regeneration comes through the name of Jesus in water baptism, making Jesus that savior. You not only bypass the blood of Jesus but the preaching of the word with your ridiculous doctrine.
FW:For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
mlculwell: Faith is not your mental assent doctrine and you contradict all the passages given ( Luke 24:47,John 17:20,20:23,Acts 19:2 Romans 10:14,)
FW:This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(esv, bold mine)
mlculwell: You wrongly assume that that the *Reformed view of faith* which is not the faith that the scripture teach ie. your mental assent doctrine. I have given the passages which refute such doctrine, especially the following.
(Romans 10:14)faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You bypass!
(Luke 24:47) and that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Faith is separate from the remission of sins in this passage real faith is ongoing and included. mental assent faith stops before the remission of sins(Which comes through Jesus name in water baptism )
(Acts 19:2) Teaches you do not get the Holy Ghost at belief by Paul asking the question have you received the Holy ghost since you believed?
(John 20:23)Jesus himself refutes the mental assent doctrine by saying to his disciples whose soever sins you remit they are remitted.
FW:writes on his blog: Oh my. This is silly. Manuel, it was the Father who foreknew the Son.
mlculwell; LOL! "The father and son are supposed to be God" are they not? You would think God would foreknow of himself? This is the the blatant contradictions of the doctrine of the trinity. God foreknew the humanity of the son which is the son in the incarnation that God the father indwelt in said incarnation(John 14:10)
FW:It was also the forknown soverign plan of the Father that the Son obeyed in becoming a man and completing the atonement.
mlculwell: So God was smart enough to foreknow that 1/3 of himself would obey himself and go down to mankind more nonsense of the trinity doctrine.
FW: God's elect were forknown before the foundation of the world. I find it somewhat amazing that you are engaging in an debate about foreknowledge with a Calvanist.
mlculwell: LOL! The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel.
FW: Ever consider a career in comedy? Perhaps you should write a comedic novel with a science fiction twist.
mlculwell; The real comedy is your false doctrine of Calvinism and the trinity.
FW:Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.(esv)
mlculwell: The plan/Logos of God you know very well refers to the sacrifice of the son which is Grace(God giving) grace is not anything less! predestination and foreknowledge are both scriptual doctrines the Calvinist take on them are not scriptual!
FW:Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,(esv)
mlculwell: We are chosen in him not apart from, we only get in him through hearing the preaching and our response to the Gospel(Romans 10;8-17) which resembles nothing of the Reformed doctrine in any way shape or form.
FW:Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.(esv)
mlculwell: All you are doing is proof texting with no comment as we read the same passages. You are quoting texts you think help you and they do not! Paul already shows us how we are predestined and foreknown by being in him according to our response to the preaching of the gospel you read your doctrine into the text.
FW:1Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (esv)
mlculwell: Obedience does not help your cause and is as far from your doctrine as the north pole is from a goose neck! Grace is God Giving his only begotten son he gave for all man to accept or reject you do not think God is strong enough or powerful enough to give man a free will and that we can somehow over throw God by him doing so!
I do not blame you for not wanting to argue for your false doctrine of the trinity though you could not do any good on the subject so you which but that is fine I will be happy to take you to task with the scriptures on that subject also.
FW:Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (esv)
All who are saved are forknown.
mlculwell: Choosing us in him has nothing to do with individuals being chosen over another you have pompously inserted that false doctrine in the text. we get into him by hearing the word preached(Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God) that is how God gives mankind faith not by some magical Calvinistic nonsense. Grace is God allowing us access to himself through the sacrifice of his son(The sinless flesh of Jesus 1st. Cor. 15:21) we cannot be saved by God the son!
FW:
Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.
Oh, wait a minute. Manuel has responded. Lets see what he says now. . .
mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.
*************************************************************************************
FW:Ok. Lets look at the 1 Pet text.
1Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (esv)
mlculwell: Can you imagine? The ESV has single handidly destroyed the doctrine of the trinity! LOL! Take the phrase **"he was foreknown before the foundation of the world."** I would think that since he was "god the son" that God would know of himself??? Was that not just genius of the ESV? Further those who did not exist were foreknown also? There being written in the book of Life was predicated on the slaying of the humanity and them being in Him. There is absolutely no way around the blood and faithful witness is trying really hard to hide in plain site but he is failing miserably. This seems to be the hallmark of the Reformed who think they can get around the blood of the Lamb which is the grace of God, all the faith in the world cannot get you anything without the shed blood.(His grace)We were chosen in him, meaning his sacrifice.
FW:Well Manuel, I don't see anything here about the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world either. This says that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world, not slain.
mlculwell: Of course you don't you are not using any common sense I have ran into this problem with you folks many times who think more highly of yourselves than you should. It is very clear you are giving zero thought to my argument and looking very foolish in process. We are saved by his life both the giving off and the resurrection of, you must have both or have neither! without shedding of blood is no remission of sins so then how are we chosen in him from the foundation of the world? The KJB used great foresight in doing the work and stating the great truth "the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world" that you clearly lack in trying to appear intellectual.
mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foundation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.(esv)
FW:Those whose names that are in the Lamb's book of life are written there because of the sovereign choosing of the Father (Romans 8:28-30).
mlculwell: Absolutely not! You are living in a fairy tale world! It is not because Some are on a saved list and others are not, because of your nonsense Calvinism! We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world, not randomly based on God simply choosing, you miss everything, not only do you want to by pass Jesus sacrifice but our response to the preaching of the Gospel because of the grace(Jesus sacrifice) given.
You submit a passage(Romans 8:30) that make Calvinist's look very ignorant in their interpretation, because in trying to proof text you again bypass the process you simply see that *God predestined* and he did but it was based on our being in Christ we were not chosen as individuals but chosen in him according to our response to the gospel you mistakenly add that we were chosen as individuals over another individual bypassing the Grace(Jesus sacrifice) and the preaching of the Gospel.
(Romans 10:16-17) They have not all obeyed the Gospel. so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. whose soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.(Romans 10:13) You cannot just call on him! Paul said you must call on him the way a man sent of God tells you to call.
(Romans 10:14)
Jesus said the same thing(John 17:20)Neither pray I for these alone,but for them also that shall believe on me through their word. who is Jesus talking about? Who are the "their word"? Is it the Reformed preacher? No! Jesus was talking about the message his disciples were given to preach and it looks nothing like what the Reformed preach!
Jesus said: that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.(Luke 24:47)
He preached Peters message from (Acts 2:38) almost verbatim showing us what the true message would look like. He also refuted the notion that mental assent(The Reformed view of faith or belief) By adding the conjunction *and* between repentance and remission of sins letting us know by common sense that one who repents must have already believed thereby the conjunction and adding remission in addition to belief and apart from refuting the false notion.
Paul also refutes the notion by asking the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? The answer would be ridiculous according to the Reformed view and would have been understood by Paul.
If that is not enough Jesus cuts the head clean off of the false doctrine by saying to his future Apostles whose soever sins you remit, the are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23)
FW: The Father's plan of atonement had not been completed until the cross.
mlculwell: Can you imagine? Faithful witness wants us to believe God the father was taken by total surprise and did not know this was going to happen?? No, that is not what he is saying but it sure sounds ridiculous. Nobody said: "the atonement had been completed until the cross." I certainly did not but God most certainly had this planned from the foundation of the world and we were chosen in him and it was not that we were just chosen we were chosen in him based on his sacrifice which is the Grace of God not just some random nonsense that bypasses Jesus sacrifice.
FW: The text below points out that those who died and were justified by faith before Christ, received their justification based on what Christ would and did do in the future.
mlculwell: Now you are contradicting yourself this is what I have been saying all along and the reason the KJB included it in (Revelation 13:8) we cannot be saved without his sacrifice and being chosen before the foundation of the world is based on being in him and you cannot be in him or chosen for that matter without his sacrifice which refutes your Calvinistic doctrine and affirms what has been said by me.
FW:All people are saved the same way, whether before the incarnation or after; by faith. This idea that you have of the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world is ridiculous and baseless.
mlculwell: Clearly I was correct and FW bypasses the Blood and sacrifice of Christ. without shedding of Blood is no remission(Hebrews 9:22)I do not have the lamb literally being slain which is ridiculous! But it was part of the plan/Logos of God that you having no spirit of understanding or discernment.
FW:Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
mlculwell: Most certainly the scriptures are correct. "Faith" is not your mental assent view. We must be in Christ and the scriptures teach we are Baptized into Christ by the water and the spirit(John 3:5, Gal.3:27) Baptism in Jesus name is not a work of man, but the spiritual work of God and "baptismal regeneration is not what we preach or teach! Regeneration comes through the name of Jesus in water baptism, making Jesus that savior. You not only bypass the blood of Jesus but the preaching of the word with your ridiculous doctrine.
FW:For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
mlculwell: Faith is not your mental assent doctrine and you contradict all the passages given ( Luke 24:47,John 17:20,20:23,Acts 19:2 Romans 10:14,)
FW:This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(esv, bold mine)
mlculwell: You wrongly assume that that the *Reformed view of faith* which is not the faith that the scripture teach ie. your mental assent doctrine. I have given the passages which refute such doctrine, especially the following.
(Romans 10:14)faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You bypass!
(Luke 24:47) and that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Faith is separate from the remission of sins in this passage real faith is ongoing and included. mental assent faith stops before the remission of sins(Which comes through Jesus name in water baptism )
(Acts 19:2) Teaches you do not get the Holy Ghost at belief by Paul asking the question have you received the Holy ghost since you believed?
(John 20:23)Jesus himself refutes the mental assent doctrine by saying to his disciples whose soever sins you remit they are remitted.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
This is precious, wrong but precious all the same..
mlculwell:Our Friend faithful witness has taken it upon himself to answer only half of a post that was written about John 1:1 and the trinity view but most of the critique dwells on the passage in Revelation 13:8...
FW:Oneness apologist Manuel Culwell has undertaken a "critique" of my exposition of John 1:1. I found his response to be rather humorous. I normally refrain from interacting with those who take a juvenile approach to apologetics, but this was just too rich to pass up.
mlculwell: We shall see if that is so when I am done.
Manuel: "(Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? "
FW:Ok Manuel. I'd be happy too. Lets look at that verse:
Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (esv)
mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.
King James Bible
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
American King James Version
For as much as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who truly was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
American Standard Version
knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;
but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,
FW:Hmm. Wait a minute here Manuel. This verse doesn't seem to say what you said it did. The text speaks of the names that were not written before the foundation of the world. There is also another verse that seems to be correlated with 13:8. Lets look at that, perhaps you quoted the wrong verse?
mlculwell: I guess it depends on your favorite translation and the ESV seems to be yours and that of the Reformed.
FW:Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.(esv)
mlculwell: This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about but I will tell you the passage that does and why the KJB used common sense the ESV apparently lacks by not considering 1st. Peter 1:20!
FW:Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.
mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foun dation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. all that dwell upon the earth-being of earth earthy; in contrast to "them that dwell in heaven."
whose names are not written-A, B, C, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas read singular, "(every one) whose (Greek, 'hou'; but B, Greek, 'hon,' plural) name is not written."
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world-The Greek order of words favors this translation. He was slain in the Father's eternal counsels: compare 1Pe 1:19, 20, virtually parallel. The other way of connecting the words is, "Written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." So in Re 17:8. The elect. The former is in the Greek more obvious and simple. "Whatsoever virtue was in the sacrifices, did operate through Messiah's death alone. As He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so all atonements ever made were only effectual by His blood" [Bishop Pearson, Exposition of the Creed
International Standard Version (©2008)
All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world.
King James Bible
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
American King James Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
American Standard Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.
Bible in Basic English
And all who are on the earth will give him worship, everyone whose name has not been from the first in the book of life of the Lamb who was put to death.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.
Darby Bible Translation
and all that dwell on the earth shall do it homage, every one whose name had not been written from the founding of the world in the book of life of the slain Lamb.
English Revised Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.
Webster's Bible Translation
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Weymouth New Testament
And all the inhabitants of the earth will be found to be worshipping him: every one whose name is not recorded in the Book of Life--the Book of the Lamb who has been offered in sacrifice ever since the creation of the world.
World English Bible
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed.
Young's Literal Translation
And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
FW:Oneness apologist Manuel Culwell has undertaken a "critique" of my exposition of John 1:1. I found his response to be rather humorous. I normally refrain from interacting with those who take a juvenile approach to apologetics, but this was just too rich to pass up.
mlculwell: We shall see if that is so when I am done.
Manuel: "(Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? "
FW:Ok Manuel. I'd be happy too. Lets look at that verse:
Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (esv)
mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.
King James Bible
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
American King James Version
For as much as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who truly was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
American Standard Version
knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;
but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,
FW:Hmm. Wait a minute here Manuel. This verse doesn't seem to say what you said it did. The text speaks of the names that were not written before the foundation of the world. There is also another verse that seems to be correlated with 13:8. Lets look at that, perhaps you quoted the wrong verse?
mlculwell: I guess it depends on your favorite translation and the ESV seems to be yours and that of the Reformed.
FW:Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.(esv)
mlculwell: This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about but I will tell you the passage that does and why the KJB used common sense the ESV apparently lacks by not considering 1st. Peter 1:20!
FW:Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.
mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foun dation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. all that dwell upon the earth-being of earth earthy; in contrast to "them that dwell in heaven."
whose names are not written-A, B, C, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas read singular, "(every one) whose (Greek, 'hou'; but B, Greek, 'hon,' plural) name is not written."
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world-The Greek order of words favors this translation. He was slain in the Father's eternal counsels: compare 1Pe 1:19, 20, virtually parallel. The other way of connecting the words is, "Written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." So in Re 17:8. The elect. The former is in the Greek more obvious and simple. "Whatsoever virtue was in the sacrifices, did operate through Messiah's death alone. As He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so all atonements ever made were only effectual by His blood" [Bishop Pearson, Exposition of the Creed
International Standard Version (©2008)
All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world.
King James Bible
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
American King James Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
American Standard Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.
Bible in Basic English
And all who are on the earth will give him worship, everyone whose name has not been from the first in the book of life of the Lamb who was put to death.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.
Darby Bible Translation
and all that dwell on the earth shall do it homage, every one whose name had not been written from the founding of the world in the book of life of the slain Lamb.
English Revised Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.
Webster's Bible Translation
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Weymouth New Testament
And all the inhabitants of the earth will be found to be worshipping him: every one whose name is not recorded in the Book of Life--the Book of the Lamb who has been offered in sacrifice ever since the creation of the world.
World English Bible
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed.
Young's Literal Translation
And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
The son of man and John 6:62
Here are a couple of passages that trinitarain's notoriously get wrong every time in not paying attention to detail to try and prove their doctrine of "god the son" they simply look for their doctrine of pre-existence and ignore the rest. Let's look at the following two passages
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.(esv)
There is a common passage that will tie both John 3:13 and 6:62 together, I will get to that later on. But what is usually ignored by the trinitarain is the term *son of man* in reference to Jesus what is the*son of man*? Well, to put it short and sweet where everyone can understand, it is that which everyone is born of, that being mankind. Jesus was simply saying God provided his humanity or that which was born of a woman as the sinless sacrifice, the tying together will be brought out in the next couple of passages, in the context of John 6....
John 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (esv)
to find out what was meant by John we should back up earlier in the context of John 6:51 where Jesus explains exactly what is meant.Jesus was answering the Jews who were murmuring among themselves saying How could you come from heaven(John 6:42 KJB) and likely so but Jesus explain in (verse 51)
I am the living bread which came down from heaven,if any shall eat of this bread he shall live forever: and *the bread I will give(Which came from heaven) IS MY FLESH* Flesh and blood neither comes from or goes to heaven in the current state of being able to die(1st. Cor. 15:50 KJB) Jesus was simply saying God provided his flesh from heaven as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. not that he literally came from heaven as that would contradict scripture the passage takes care of any and all so called pre-existence passages trinity folk might use.
The Word from John 1:1 trinitarain, or Oneness?
mlculwell: Again, I will refer to the writer of the following blog to whom I address in using the initials *DR*: for *Day of Reckoning* and it's writer of said Blog.
DR:The historic Christian understanding of the Logos of John 1 is that the Logos is the eternal Son of God.
mlculwell: Now notice the following from the same writer who chides another(J.L Watts) for submitting historical accounts from Encyclopedia's of Religion,New Bible Dictionary Etc. of writers who are themselves trinitarian but admit the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preaching originally but rather the doctrine was developed and contrived. From the day of reckoning blog we get the following from it's writer:
DR:"Let God be true, and every man a liar. The Trinity is the only doctrine of God that satisfies God's revelation of Himself in the scriptures.".
mlculwell: No, the trinity is the only doctrine that satisfies the trinitarain since it was developed by the trinitarian, it is actually a very contradictory doctrine. If it were to "satisfy God" it would have been inspired of God and written about in scripture, but no such doctrine exists in scripture and was never written about of any Apostle or writer of the New Testament.
DR:The majoritive oneness understanding of the Logos is a radical departure from the historical /reformed interpretation.
mlculwell: As Oneness we should not base our doctrines upon the "majoritive understanding of the Logos." The Catholics were at One time claimed the majoritve understanding of salvation (because they were the majority) and the Reformed were outside that majority. So the above quote by our friend is not sound in proving he has truth or that his doctrine is true that is done with scripture.
DR:To the oneness person, the Logos is the knowledge, wisdom, and reason of the divine monad. The Logos is not distinct in any way from God and is certainly not the Son of God until John 1:14. In other words, the oneness Logos is the unrealized wisdom or reason of God that is realized in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
mlculwell: "Unrealized wisdom or reason"??? We make no such claim, I do not even know what that means and is a blatant lie.
DR:considering these two opposing truth claims, one must objectively survey both the entirety of God's revelation and the goal or purpose behind each interpretation. Doctrines hold together much like a home;
mlculwell: There are no"opposing truth claims" as what you have set up for us is not our claim, this is not the Oneness view of the Logos.
The Logos is the all powerful way in which God creates by his spoken word. (Psalm 33:6)
By the Word/Logos(The Septuagint) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
DR:the essential doctrines compose it's foundation, and the secondary or non-essential doctrines compose the remainder of the house. The doctrine of God is unarguably a foundational doctrine, and the understanding of the Logos is a large part of that doctrine.
mlculwell: Neither the trinity nor your understanding of the Logos form any part of the essential, foundational doctrines of God and his word, that is simply pompously assumed based on years of finally hijacking the view into a(so called) majority that is held by both Catholics and protestants.(trinitarains)
DR:One's interpretation of John 1:1-2 will, in a nutshell, explain who the Son of God is. If a home's foundation is undermined, that house will inevitably fall. Likewise, if either the Trinitarian or oneness interpretation of the Logos is incorrect, the theological implications would be devastating and would virtually leave no doctrine untouched.
mlculwell: Well let's look at the "trinitarain view" and see the blatant contradiction, as the trinity folk believe the word was the pre-existent "God the son."
In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the father, and the son was the father.
The above is how the trinitarain views the passage but when you try and pin them down they say we misrepresent their view. Yes, the view is devastating but not for the Oneness view.
DR:What then are the goals of the Trinitarian and oneness understanding of the Logos of John 1? Trintarians look to the John 1:1-2 text to define and defend the eternality and divinity of the Son of God.
mlculwell: Yes, trinitarains do try and define and defend the eternality and divinity much to their demise in which they continually wiggle and squirm out of the further contradictions of their contrived doctrines even after compounding contradiction after contradiction much as we see with their view concerning the Logos and to further the compounded contradiction and add insult to injury they claim The Greek word for with(*Pros* pronounced Pr-aas) means: face to face so that my submitted son was the father is true of their claims and is not a misrepresentation of their view.
DR: Oneness believers derive the origin of the Son of God, and look to the text to remove any misconception that God is anything other than one undivided, simple being. Simple in that, within God there is no complexity of persons or relationships.
mlculwell: This is completely untrue! We believe there was the real The father as Spirit was that which overshadowed the virgin and caused the conception(Math. 1:19) and the father existed before the son as that is how that usually works except with the trinity doctrine.
The relationship between the father and the son was of spirit and flesh not of two persons with in God who were eternally existing calling one the father and the other son which would be *multiple personality disorder*. So that actually the Human persons that have such disorder are really made in God's image and those of us who do not are less than normal. This is the resulting absurd contradictions that we get from their doctrines.
DR:Which claim is true? Lets examine the actual text and see what John tells us about the Logos.
* "In the beginning was the Word," Greek: "En arche en ho logos,"
Here the Logos is presented as having existed in eternity past. the Greek word "en" indicates an unending beginning or timelessness.
mlculwell: It makes sense to me that God could not be seperated from the all powerful way in which he creates and that their never was a time that he could be separated from that power.
DR: So, from this verse fragment, we can derive that the Logos is eternal. At this point, the text is compatible with both the Trinitarian and oneness doctrines. God's wisdom and reason must maintain eternal continuity with God.
mlculwell: We see from (Isaiah 11:2) Jesus was given wisdom, not that he was wisdom prior to his incarnation he most certainly was the wisdom of God because he was made such not because he pre-existed.. Once again the logos is the all powerful way in which God creates and it is explained by (Psalm 33:6) in way in which we as humans scan understand by stating the word by the breath of his mouth likened to speech not simply reason or anything else.
DR: This seems like a rather obvious statement. In fact, so obvious that it begs the question; What God-fearing person reading John's gospel would doubt the eternality of God's wisdom or reason, especially in light of the fact that the Jewish understanding of God included immutability (Malachi 3:6)?
* "and the Word was with God," Greek: "kai ho logos en pros ton theon,"
Here in part two of verse one, John tells us that the Logos was "with" God. John indicates an actual interpersonal relationship held between the Logos and God. Unfortunately only when we examine the text in the original language, does this point show through. The Greek indicates an eternal fellowship, held between the Logos and God. The two key words here are "en" and "pros." "En" tells us of the eternality of the "pros" if you will. The word "pros" literally means to be with someone. So, to put it another way, the Logos was with God in fellowship for eternity.
mlculwell: I believe the trinitarains are on the right track but miss the mark completely in trying to prove their doctrine is correct. (Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. A couple of blaring contradictions come to mind when I read this passage. First; this is speaking of eternity, so why is "God the son" being shown that he would be slain, if he actually could be? The answer is he did not exist, therefor he would not be shown anything and that God was looking forward to the incarnation and did have his son view throughout eternity and all of creation was predicated on his coming. The Second is it is the plan of God to redeem mankind highlighted by the fact he as the lamb( sinless, innocent, Flesh) was slain.
If "pros" literally means to be with someone then God was *with eternal life* as a person in a personal relationship also in (1st.John 1:2) who would God be giving eternal life too in Eternity? Eternal life is for those outside of eternal life eternal life was in the sacrifice of flesh of the sinless son of God.(1st. Cor. 15:21) God the son would not be able to purchase anyone's salvation as he would not and could not be our kinsmen redeemer.
DR:This literal interpretation falls directly in line with the historic Trinitarian understanding of the Logos. If as the Trinitarians say, the Logos is the eternal Son of God, then the Logos had to have shared a Father/Son relationship eternally.
mlculwell: The father and son to the trinitarain are supposed to be the "One God" but with in that "one God" there are persons calling each other father and son *in name only*? This is a most ridiculous doctrine and One trinitarains have tried to hang on Oneness believers in saying our God was had a multiple personality disorder which is actually their own doctrine and them trying to hide in plain site by projecting their own ridiculous beliefs upon us.
DR:How does the oneness interpretation fare? Remember that the Logos is to the oneness person God's impersonal reasoning and wisdom (in the sense that the Logos is an imminent plan or idea existing only in the mind of God).
mlculwell: Paul himself being Lawyer of the Jews and intimately understanding the O.T.scriptures in (Psalm 33:6) and an Apostle and writer of the New Testament himself Used the term logos/word of two individuals evil plan(2nd Tim. 2:17) in the same sense modern Oneness use the term.
If Paul understood the Logos/logos as the trinitarains understood it, he most certainly would not have soiled it with such a common usage of two individuals evil plans, he would have been more careful to guard the term and not at all use it in the way in which he did which confirms the Oneness usage and understanding.John Being and Apostle would have been in agreement with both the Psalmist and Paul.
DR:This literal translation of the second fragment of John 1:1 does not bode well for the oneness doctrine. In fact it poses an extremely difficult and perhaps fatal problem.
mlculwell: It does absolutely zero damage to "our understanding."
DR: How can an idea have fellowship or interaction with the individual who thought it? If God is unitarian, John's description of the Logos in this text is absolutely befuddling. Can a thinking God personally interact or be face to face with His own thought?
mlculwell: Just Like the lamb was being slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in the plan for future redemption God the father by himself and alone Looked to the time of the incarnation when he himself would come down to mankind and redeem said mankind.
DR:Perhaps He could. This would require the oneness God to be somehow divided from His own reason or wisdom, thereby rendering Him more than a monad.
mlculwell: God's plan for redemption was with him but Could not be separated from him as He was the the plan, that being God himself would take the flesh of of his only begotten son and redeem mankind through the sacrifice of the sinless flesh.
DR: * "and the Word was God." Greek: "kai theos en ho logos."
This text again inserts the eternality of the subject with the word "en." If we were to identify the literal meaning of what the text says, we would have "and the Word was eternally God."
mlculwell: What is "perplexing" has nothing to do with our doctrine but rather it is that in trying to make the distinction between the father, and son, you destroy your own doctrine.
The word was "God the son" according to you and distinct from *God the father* to whom you say he was *with* and then further you make him God the father to whom you say he was *with*.
DR:This text is quite perplexing since just just told us that the Logos shared an eternal fellowship with God.
mlculwell: please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? This bodes very well with all of the council of God and the Oneness understanding and does not contradict scripture as does your understanding.
DR;The only logical and objective conclusion that could be made is that John is telling us that the Logos is both eternal and divine. The obvious goal of John 1:1 is to describe the Logos. The identity of God in the text, is assumed.
mlculwell: The Logos cannot be separated from God the word was both with and was at the same time God thus both eternal and divine ut most certainly not a separate person of God.
DR:For the Trinitarian this harmonizes well. It is an assertion of the eternality and deity of the Son of God. For the oneness position, this verse fragment seems redundant and emphatic.
mlculwell: What this shows me is that the trinitarian is being dishonest to highlight his way of thinking on the passage as the trinity view of John 1:1 is foreign to the scriptures and is a new understanding never before considered by either the Apostles or of the psalmist in the old Testament.
DR: The oneness translation might say, "God's reason and wisdom is eternally God." Or perhaps "God's plan or idea of the Son was eternally God." In retrospect, the oneness understanding of the text of John 1:1 would seem to simply emphasize the obvious to the reader, and thereby complicate an ordinary and presumed truth.
mlculwell: God's word was both with and was God(God is nothing less than eternal and it would ridiculous to think otherwise. The plan of the eternal God to redeem mankind came from eternity into this world in time(Gal. 4:4) when the fullness of time was come God sent forth his son(Where God?) *Made of a woman* Made under the law. he sent his son from time and entered himself as God(The father) from eternity. The trinitarain understanding is foreign to scripture and is forced upon the text to contradict when read as they see it.
DR:The Trinitarian understanding of the word logos is a departure from the common Greek understanding of the word. Whereas the oneness interpretation falls directly in line with the common Greek understanding of the word logos.
mlculwell: This is not the first time that the Apostles adopted a pagan understanding and used it to the good, such as Paul addressing the *unknown God at Mars hill* or adopting the name Christian as the believers were called Christians first at Antioch by unbelievers outside of their fold. But the understanding of the term word was already used in (Psalm 33:6) long before John or Paul came about to use the term.
DR:This adds an interesting point to the argument. The Trinitarian position seems to be using a semantically unorthodox definition of the word,
mlculwell: That has been my point all along they use it in new way that has never before been used nor is it the way in which Paul used the term which lines up with the Oneness understanding(2nd. Tim.2:17) Who would have been in agreement with john as an Apostle which you contradict Paul by the way!
DR: making somewhat of a symbolic/typic hybrid. Lets consider hermeneutics for a moment. Hermeneutics tells us that in scripture, words must take on only the meaning that the context has given them. Does the context of the Johannine prologue permit the Trinitarian understanding of the Logos? Absolutely. The oneness understanding renders the passage clumsy and unnecessary.
mlculwell: This is is a blatantly dishonest assessment of the Oneness view! it is actually the trinity view which is clunky and contradicts all known use's of the term and adds a new meaning never before seen anywhere in scripture.
DR:This reality is rather ironic as well. It is common for oneness advocates to assume a Greek philosophical derivation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately, it seems that the oneness doctrine is derived from a Greek origin, at least in regards to the Logos. At this point, an examination of John 1:2 would only serve to add insult to injury to the oneness position.
mlculwell: Paul himself gives us the understanding of the way in which he used the term logos of two individuals and if it were the way in which you have stated he again would not have soiled the term in using it of such a common understanding but of course he did and I believe it was to blatantly shoot down the coming false doctrine of the trinity.
DR:The historic Christian understanding of the Logos of John 1 is that the Logos is the eternal Son of God.
mlculwell: Now notice the following from the same writer who chides another(J.L Watts) for submitting historical accounts from Encyclopedia's of Religion,New Bible Dictionary Etc. of writers who are themselves trinitarian but admit the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preaching originally but rather the doctrine was developed and contrived. From the day of reckoning blog we get the following from it's writer:
DR:"Let God be true, and every man a liar. The Trinity is the only doctrine of God that satisfies God's revelation of Himself in the scriptures.".
mlculwell: No, the trinity is the only doctrine that satisfies the trinitarain since it was developed by the trinitarian, it is actually a very contradictory doctrine. If it were to "satisfy God" it would have been inspired of God and written about in scripture, but no such doctrine exists in scripture and was never written about of any Apostle or writer of the New Testament.
DR:The majoritive oneness understanding of the Logos is a radical departure from the historical /reformed interpretation.
mlculwell: As Oneness we should not base our doctrines upon the "majoritive understanding of the Logos." The Catholics were at One time claimed the majoritve understanding of salvation (because they were the majority) and the Reformed were outside that majority. So the above quote by our friend is not sound in proving he has truth or that his doctrine is true that is done with scripture.
DR:To the oneness person, the Logos is the knowledge, wisdom, and reason of the divine monad. The Logos is not distinct in any way from God and is certainly not the Son of God until John 1:14. In other words, the oneness Logos is the unrealized wisdom or reason of God that is realized in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
mlculwell: "Unrealized wisdom or reason"??? We make no such claim, I do not even know what that means and is a blatant lie.
DR:considering these two opposing truth claims, one must objectively survey both the entirety of God's revelation and the goal or purpose behind each interpretation. Doctrines hold together much like a home;
mlculwell: There are no"opposing truth claims" as what you have set up for us is not our claim, this is not the Oneness view of the Logos.
The Logos is the all powerful way in which God creates by his spoken word. (Psalm 33:6)
By the Word/Logos(The Septuagint) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
DR:the essential doctrines compose it's foundation, and the secondary or non-essential doctrines compose the remainder of the house. The doctrine of God is unarguably a foundational doctrine, and the understanding of the Logos is a large part of that doctrine.
mlculwell: Neither the trinity nor your understanding of the Logos form any part of the essential, foundational doctrines of God and his word, that is simply pompously assumed based on years of finally hijacking the view into a(so called) majority that is held by both Catholics and protestants.(trinitarains)
DR:One's interpretation of John 1:1-2 will, in a nutshell, explain who the Son of God is. If a home's foundation is undermined, that house will inevitably fall. Likewise, if either the Trinitarian or oneness interpretation of the Logos is incorrect, the theological implications would be devastating and would virtually leave no doctrine untouched.
mlculwell: Well let's look at the "trinitarain view" and see the blatant contradiction, as the trinity folk believe the word was the pre-existent "God the son."
In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the father, and the son was the father.
The above is how the trinitarain views the passage but when you try and pin them down they say we misrepresent their view. Yes, the view is devastating but not for the Oneness view.
DR:What then are the goals of the Trinitarian and oneness understanding of the Logos of John 1? Trintarians look to the John 1:1-2 text to define and defend the eternality and divinity of the Son of God.
mlculwell: Yes, trinitarains do try and define and defend the eternality and divinity much to their demise in which they continually wiggle and squirm out of the further contradictions of their contrived doctrines even after compounding contradiction after contradiction much as we see with their view concerning the Logos and to further the compounded contradiction and add insult to injury they claim The Greek word for with(*Pros* pronounced Pr-aas) means: face to face so that my submitted son was the father is true of their claims and is not a misrepresentation of their view.
DR: Oneness believers derive the origin of the Son of God, and look to the text to remove any misconception that God is anything other than one undivided, simple being. Simple in that, within God there is no complexity of persons or relationships.
mlculwell: This is completely untrue! We believe there was the real The father as Spirit was that which overshadowed the virgin and caused the conception(Math. 1:19) and the father existed before the son as that is how that usually works except with the trinity doctrine.
The relationship between the father and the son was of spirit and flesh not of two persons with in God who were eternally existing calling one the father and the other son which would be *multiple personality disorder*. So that actually the Human persons that have such disorder are really made in God's image and those of us who do not are less than normal. This is the resulting absurd contradictions that we get from their doctrines.
DR:Which claim is true? Lets examine the actual text and see what John tells us about the Logos.
* "In the beginning was the Word," Greek: "En arche en ho logos,"
Here the Logos is presented as having existed in eternity past. the Greek word "en" indicates an unending beginning or timelessness.
mlculwell: It makes sense to me that God could not be seperated from the all powerful way in which he creates and that their never was a time that he could be separated from that power.
DR: So, from this verse fragment, we can derive that the Logos is eternal. At this point, the text is compatible with both the Trinitarian and oneness doctrines. God's wisdom and reason must maintain eternal continuity with God.
mlculwell: We see from (Isaiah 11:2) Jesus was given wisdom, not that he was wisdom prior to his incarnation he most certainly was the wisdom of God because he was made such not because he pre-existed.. Once again the logos is the all powerful way in which God creates and it is explained by (Psalm 33:6) in way in which we as humans scan understand by stating the word by the breath of his mouth likened to speech not simply reason or anything else.
DR: This seems like a rather obvious statement. In fact, so obvious that it begs the question; What God-fearing person reading John's gospel would doubt the eternality of God's wisdom or reason, especially in light of the fact that the Jewish understanding of God included immutability (Malachi 3:6)?
* "and the Word was with God," Greek: "kai ho logos en pros ton theon,"
Here in part two of verse one, John tells us that the Logos was "with" God. John indicates an actual interpersonal relationship held between the Logos and God. Unfortunately only when we examine the text in the original language, does this point show through. The Greek indicates an eternal fellowship, held between the Logos and God. The two key words here are "en" and "pros." "En" tells us of the eternality of the "pros" if you will. The word "pros" literally means to be with someone. So, to put it another way, the Logos was with God in fellowship for eternity.
mlculwell: I believe the trinitarains are on the right track but miss the mark completely in trying to prove their doctrine is correct. (Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. A couple of blaring contradictions come to mind when I read this passage. First; this is speaking of eternity, so why is "God the son" being shown that he would be slain, if he actually could be? The answer is he did not exist, therefor he would not be shown anything and that God was looking forward to the incarnation and did have his son view throughout eternity and all of creation was predicated on his coming. The Second is it is the plan of God to redeem mankind highlighted by the fact he as the lamb( sinless, innocent, Flesh) was slain.
If "pros" literally means to be with someone then God was *with eternal life* as a person in a personal relationship also in (1st.John 1:2) who would God be giving eternal life too in Eternity? Eternal life is for those outside of eternal life eternal life was in the sacrifice of flesh of the sinless son of God.(1st. Cor. 15:21) God the son would not be able to purchase anyone's salvation as he would not and could not be our kinsmen redeemer.
DR:This literal interpretation falls directly in line with the historic Trinitarian understanding of the Logos. If as the Trinitarians say, the Logos is the eternal Son of God, then the Logos had to have shared a Father/Son relationship eternally.
mlculwell: The father and son to the trinitarain are supposed to be the "One God" but with in that "one God" there are persons calling each other father and son *in name only*? This is a most ridiculous doctrine and One trinitarains have tried to hang on Oneness believers in saying our God was had a multiple personality disorder which is actually their own doctrine and them trying to hide in plain site by projecting their own ridiculous beliefs upon us.
DR:How does the oneness interpretation fare? Remember that the Logos is to the oneness person God's impersonal reasoning and wisdom (in the sense that the Logos is an imminent plan or idea existing only in the mind of God).
mlculwell: Paul himself being Lawyer of the Jews and intimately understanding the O.T.scriptures in (Psalm 33:6) and an Apostle and writer of the New Testament himself Used the term logos/word of two individuals evil plan(2nd Tim. 2:17) in the same sense modern Oneness use the term.
If Paul understood the Logos/logos as the trinitarains understood it, he most certainly would not have soiled it with such a common usage of two individuals evil plans, he would have been more careful to guard the term and not at all use it in the way in which he did which confirms the Oneness usage and understanding.John Being and Apostle would have been in agreement with both the Psalmist and Paul.
DR:This literal translation of the second fragment of John 1:1 does not bode well for the oneness doctrine. In fact it poses an extremely difficult and perhaps fatal problem.
mlculwell: It does absolutely zero damage to "our understanding."
DR: How can an idea have fellowship or interaction with the individual who thought it? If God is unitarian, John's description of the Logos in this text is absolutely befuddling. Can a thinking God personally interact or be face to face with His own thought?
mlculwell: Just Like the lamb was being slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in the plan for future redemption God the father by himself and alone Looked to the time of the incarnation when he himself would come down to mankind and redeem said mankind.
DR:Perhaps He could. This would require the oneness God to be somehow divided from His own reason or wisdom, thereby rendering Him more than a monad.
mlculwell: God's plan for redemption was with him but Could not be separated from him as He was the the plan, that being God himself would take the flesh of of his only begotten son and redeem mankind through the sacrifice of the sinless flesh.
DR: * "and the Word was God." Greek: "kai theos en ho logos."
This text again inserts the eternality of the subject with the word "en." If we were to identify the literal meaning of what the text says, we would have "and the Word was eternally God."
mlculwell: What is "perplexing" has nothing to do with our doctrine but rather it is that in trying to make the distinction between the father, and son, you destroy your own doctrine.
The word was "God the son" according to you and distinct from *God the father* to whom you say he was *with* and then further you make him God the father to whom you say he was *with*.
DR:This text is quite perplexing since just just told us that the Logos shared an eternal fellowship with God.
mlculwell: please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? This bodes very well with all of the council of God and the Oneness understanding and does not contradict scripture as does your understanding.
DR;The only logical and objective conclusion that could be made is that John is telling us that the Logos is both eternal and divine. The obvious goal of John 1:1 is to describe the Logos. The identity of God in the text, is assumed.
mlculwell: The Logos cannot be separated from God the word was both with and was at the same time God thus both eternal and divine ut most certainly not a separate person of God.
DR:For the Trinitarian this harmonizes well. It is an assertion of the eternality and deity of the Son of God. For the oneness position, this verse fragment seems redundant and emphatic.
mlculwell: What this shows me is that the trinitarian is being dishonest to highlight his way of thinking on the passage as the trinity view of John 1:1 is foreign to the scriptures and is a new understanding never before considered by either the Apostles or of the psalmist in the old Testament.
DR: The oneness translation might say, "God's reason and wisdom is eternally God." Or perhaps "God's plan or idea of the Son was eternally God." In retrospect, the oneness understanding of the text of John 1:1 would seem to simply emphasize the obvious to the reader, and thereby complicate an ordinary and presumed truth.
mlculwell: God's word was both with and was God(God is nothing less than eternal and it would ridiculous to think otherwise. The plan of the eternal God to redeem mankind came from eternity into this world in time(Gal. 4:4) when the fullness of time was come God sent forth his son(Where God?) *Made of a woman* Made under the law. he sent his son from time and entered himself as God(The father) from eternity. The trinitarain understanding is foreign to scripture and is forced upon the text to contradict when read as they see it.
DR:The Trinitarian understanding of the word logos is a departure from the common Greek understanding of the word. Whereas the oneness interpretation falls directly in line with the common Greek understanding of the word logos.
mlculwell: This is not the first time that the Apostles adopted a pagan understanding and used it to the good, such as Paul addressing the *unknown God at Mars hill* or adopting the name Christian as the believers were called Christians first at Antioch by unbelievers outside of their fold. But the understanding of the term word was already used in (Psalm 33:6) long before John or Paul came about to use the term.
DR:This adds an interesting point to the argument. The Trinitarian position seems to be using a semantically unorthodox definition of the word,
mlculwell: That has been my point all along they use it in new way that has never before been used nor is it the way in which Paul used the term which lines up with the Oneness understanding(2nd. Tim.2:17) Who would have been in agreement with john as an Apostle which you contradict Paul by the way!
DR: making somewhat of a symbolic/typic hybrid. Lets consider hermeneutics for a moment. Hermeneutics tells us that in scripture, words must take on only the meaning that the context has given them. Does the context of the Johannine prologue permit the Trinitarian understanding of the Logos? Absolutely. The oneness understanding renders the passage clumsy and unnecessary.
mlculwell: This is is a blatantly dishonest assessment of the Oneness view! it is actually the trinity view which is clunky and contradicts all known use's of the term and adds a new meaning never before seen anywhere in scripture.
DR:This reality is rather ironic as well. It is common for oneness advocates to assume a Greek philosophical derivation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately, it seems that the oneness doctrine is derived from a Greek origin, at least in regards to the Logos. At this point, an examination of John 1:2 would only serve to add insult to injury to the oneness position.
mlculwell: Paul himself gives us the understanding of the way in which he used the term logos of two individuals and if it were the way in which you have stated he again would not have soiled the term in using it of such a common understanding but of course he did and I believe it was to blatantly shoot down the coming false doctrine of the trinity.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Polycarp trinitarian?
One Trinitarain from a blog called Day of reckoning wrote the following to whom I will assign *TB* for *trinity believer* and answer his unscriptual assumptions.
TB:(110-140AD). *
Polycarp 0:1 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church of God sojourning in Philippi; mercy and peace from God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Saviour be multiplied to you.
mlculwell: If Polycarp who supposedly sat directly under the Apostle John who famously wrote John's Gospel the epistles under his name and the book of Revelation. If Polycarp were a trinitarain he most certainly would not start a letter off by stating: Almighty God and in addition to that Almighty God as seen by the conjunction *and* Jesus Christ our savior. An Arian or Oneness believer could just as well make the same claim. Polycarp who was not one of the canonized writers of the 66 books we know as the bible which is the all sufficient rule of our faith given by God. of course this something the trinity folk always fail to tell you when they quote the so called fathers.
TB:Polycarp 1:1 1 I rejoice greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ that you have followed the pattern of true love, and have helped on their way, as opportunity was given you, those who were bound in chains, which become the saints, and are the diadems of those who have been truly chosen by God and our Lord.
mlculwell: Nothing in this that would lead us to believe this was trinitarain either. The son who was the flesh of God(The father John 14:10) in the incarnation paid for our salvation through his real humanity.(1st Cor. 15:21) "God the son" could not pay for anything as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
TB:Polycarp 6:2 2 If then we pray the Lord to forgive us, we also ought to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God and "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself."
mlculwell: How many Lords are there? The writer Polycarp, I believe is making a real distinction between the flesh of the son who purchased us with his real humanity and his deity Lord through the sacrificial flesh in the incarnation and that which indwelt the flesh God the father. The distinction must be made as God cannot purchase anyone's salvation without a blood sacrifice that sacrifice being made through his flesh the son. Nothing above would lead me to believe Polycarp was a trinitarain, Like I said before he could just have easily been Oneness or Arian, But of course the doctrine of the trinity really did not exist nor was it taught by the Apostles.
TB:Polycarp 12:2 Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the "eternal Priest" himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in long suffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his "Father who raised him from the dead."
I think it is safe to say that Polycarp was a Trinitarian.
mlculwell: There is absolutely nothing from the following that leads anyone to believe such nonsense especially since the conjunction *and* would separate the father from God and our Lord Jesus Christ and that would be the argument our trinity friends would try and make but it is a rather silly argument as that would make the father and our Lord Jesus Christ Outside of God because of the conjunction. The truth is there is nothing said by Polycarp to lead anyone to believe he was at all trinitarain and that he was more than likely Oneness but we do not need Polycarp's writings as our rule of faith in the first place as we have the all sufficient scriptures inspired of God.
TB:(110-140AD). *
Polycarp 0:1 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church of God sojourning in Philippi; mercy and peace from God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Saviour be multiplied to you.
mlculwell: If Polycarp who supposedly sat directly under the Apostle John who famously wrote John's Gospel the epistles under his name and the book of Revelation. If Polycarp were a trinitarain he most certainly would not start a letter off by stating: Almighty God and in addition to that Almighty God as seen by the conjunction *and* Jesus Christ our savior. An Arian or Oneness believer could just as well make the same claim. Polycarp who was not one of the canonized writers of the 66 books we know as the bible which is the all sufficient rule of our faith given by God. of course this something the trinity folk always fail to tell you when they quote the so called fathers.
TB:Polycarp 1:1 1 I rejoice greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ that you have followed the pattern of true love, and have helped on their way, as opportunity was given you, those who were bound in chains, which become the saints, and are the diadems of those who have been truly chosen by God and our Lord.
mlculwell: Nothing in this that would lead us to believe this was trinitarain either. The son who was the flesh of God(The father John 14:10) in the incarnation paid for our salvation through his real humanity.(1st Cor. 15:21) "God the son" could not pay for anything as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
TB:Polycarp 6:2 2 If then we pray the Lord to forgive us, we also ought to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God and "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself."
mlculwell: How many Lords are there? The writer Polycarp, I believe is making a real distinction between the flesh of the son who purchased us with his real humanity and his deity Lord through the sacrificial flesh in the incarnation and that which indwelt the flesh God the father. The distinction must be made as God cannot purchase anyone's salvation without a blood sacrifice that sacrifice being made through his flesh the son. Nothing above would lead me to believe Polycarp was a trinitarain, Like I said before he could just have easily been Oneness or Arian, But of course the doctrine of the trinity really did not exist nor was it taught by the Apostles.
TB:Polycarp 12:2 Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the "eternal Priest" himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in long suffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his "Father who raised him from the dead."
I think it is safe to say that Polycarp was a Trinitarian.
mlculwell: There is absolutely nothing from the following that leads anyone to believe such nonsense especially since the conjunction *and* would separate the father from God and our Lord Jesus Christ and that would be the argument our trinity friends would try and make but it is a rather silly argument as that would make the father and our Lord Jesus Christ Outside of God because of the conjunction. The truth is there is nothing said by Polycarp to lead anyone to believe he was at all trinitarain and that he was more than likely Oneness but we do not need Polycarp's writings as our rule of faith in the first place as we have the all sufficient scriptures inspired of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)