One Blogger writes the following: With the Title heading: Jesus Christ the eternal son of God. first off, a son as old as his daddy just does not make sense.
Second, the son is the same God as his daddy but as two distinct persons of God . neither of which is logical or scriptural.
"2Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.(esv)
This text echoes the sentiments of Philippians 2:6-8. The essence of this text and that of the text in Philippians, stresses the humility shown by the Son of God in obeying the Father by becoming incarnate. In greater context of this chapter, specifically verse five, the text clearly distinguish God the Father from the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we do know with certainty that Paul was speaking of Jesus, the Son of God."
None of this is a problem for the Oneness view as their thesis above is wrong in the first place, the doctrine is contrived and invented and is forced upon the texts, something not really said. This person uses a vague passage as an opportunity to force their doctrine upon scripture.
Both of the above passages are starting from the incarnation. How do I know that? Is my thinking also something that I have contrived and forced? No, it is because the above view contradicts scripture.
The view is faulty because it isolates one passage to come up with a doctrine not considering other and all passages that deal with same subject on the matter.(vacuum isolation)
(Heb.11:3) Says the things which are made ( or seen) were not made of things which were seen or appear. Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col.1:16) In the incarnation Jesus is that which is seen,(the invisible) his deity(God the father in him DOING THE WORKS John 14:10) is that creative Force (in him) NOT SEEN. Yes, Jesus is the creator because of the incarnation.
Now our friend contradicts scripture especially when he uses (Philippians 2:6) as passage to try and prove Jesus was a pre-incarnate 2nd person of God and what that passage does for the Trinitarain is blatant polytheism because their view has God equal to God(You cannot be the that God your equal.)
The Oneness view does not view (Philippians 2:6) as pre-incarnational but rather incarnational Jesus thought it not robbery because his humanity had a beginning and was given and made all that he had without limits.(Math 28:18,John 3:34,Acts 2;36,1st.Cor.15:45-46)
The same person writes:
"With that said, why would this notion be a problem for those who hold to the oneness doctrine? The answer is simple; in order for oneness theology to be true, there can never be a time when both the Father and the Son exist simultaneously prior to the incarnation. Oneness adherents can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son of God. If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own, it cannot be said that He and the Father are the same person. This is without question, what the scripture presents. This co-eternal nature of the Son and the Father, leaves the oneness adherent without a scriptural foundation for their doctrine".
"If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own"??? Dear friends this person clearly shouts polytheism at every turn! The above person has neither proved that which he set out to do nor has dis-proven the Oneness doctrine and has in turn proven his doctrine polytheism all in one fell swoop.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
James Swan of AoMin. attempts to excuse John Calvin's sin
James Swan of Alpha and Omega ministries one of James White's apologetic writers and contributors writes the following:
"It is very common to hear the remark, "What about Servetus?" or, "Who burned Servetus?" There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know".
mlculwell: Paul??? Paul Never taught the "doctrines of grace" that they frequently force in their apologetic writings! As usual a Calvinist is being both pompous and presumptuous. Paul most certainly does teach us of grace but there is not anything in scripture that resembles their view!
Swan writes or quotes someone else: " I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are "out of court." They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.
Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles".
mlculwell: It is almost funny if it were not sad, it seems Calvinist justify Calvin's great sin and the Reformers by saying this was a law. What about the laws that protect abortion? Does it make it any less a sin to murder the unborn? Does it make it right for Muslim's to murder Christians because it is law in their countries? This is not sound reasoning it is an excuse for sin!
James Swan writes:" The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter".
mlculwell:Incompetent? The only "Incompetence" is the person who wrote the piece! What purpose would it serve to call a person incompetent? It is an attempt to appeal to those who see Calvin's writings as those on the same level as Scripture to not question said writings and sinful acts of their hero to then see him as the sinful murderous debase person that he actually was, as bad or worse as those murderous Muslim's who killed in the name of religion.
Someone wrote:Calvin tried to get the sentence mitigated to the quicker and more humane decapitation?
mlculwell:(can you imagine?) This must be how all Muslims feel about the poor Christian infidels.(Shaking of head) in disbelief someone would say such a thing, talk about incompetence to take up a case?
"It is very common to hear the remark, "What about Servetus?" or, "Who burned Servetus?" There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know".
mlculwell: Paul??? Paul Never taught the "doctrines of grace" that they frequently force in their apologetic writings! As usual a Calvinist is being both pompous and presumptuous. Paul most certainly does teach us of grace but there is not anything in scripture that resembles their view!
Swan writes or quotes someone else: " I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are "out of court." They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.
Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles".
mlculwell: It is almost funny if it were not sad, it seems Calvinist justify Calvin's great sin and the Reformers by saying this was a law. What about the laws that protect abortion? Does it make it any less a sin to murder the unborn? Does it make it right for Muslim's to murder Christians because it is law in their countries? This is not sound reasoning it is an excuse for sin!
James Swan writes:" The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter".
mlculwell:Incompetent? The only "Incompetence" is the person who wrote the piece! What purpose would it serve to call a person incompetent? It is an attempt to appeal to those who see Calvin's writings as those on the same level as Scripture to not question said writings and sinful acts of their hero to then see him as the sinful murderous debase person that he actually was, as bad or worse as those murderous Muslim's who killed in the name of religion.
Someone wrote:Calvin tried to get the sentence mitigated to the quicker and more humane decapitation?
mlculwell:(can you imagine?) This must be how all Muslims feel about the poor Christian infidels.(Shaking of head) in disbelief someone would say such a thing, talk about incompetence to take up a case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)