Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
Yes the Jesus of the bible. My faith is based completely on the bible...just not the absurd fundamentalist interpretation you subscribe to.
Does God Love Unconditionally?
- Thread starter Lisa
- Start date
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
I hope he listens to both of us and contemplates what we are discussing and then hears the still small voice in his spirit.
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
It would make me sad if he believed you...but you do have the sirens song behind you.
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
It would make me sad if believes me also. I don't want anyone to believe me. I want them to believe the still small voice in their spirit that God speaks through. If the Spirit of God can use something I believe or say to impact someone else and draw them to God, that is a blessing and honor I cherish.
ThisGirlWoke
Established
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 161
I agree
DevaWolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 537
What is the reason you would say that? What makes him no Christian? Isn't everyone who believes in Jesus as their saviour a Christian?
DevaWolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 537
I am interested in your reasoning. Seems like a very bold thing to say.
DevaWolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 537
I will only listen to my own intuition and take everything here with a grain of salt (much to the annoyance of some) but I give your opinion an equal chance with the others here and so far what you have said has been interesting.
JoChris
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 6,168
From what I can remember (and Todd can clarify where I am wrong):
Todd believes in some variety of universalism, that there is a not (eternal) Hell - a place Jesus Himself mentioned frequently
Todd rejects all writings of the apostle Paul, a man whom the original apostles accepted as a brother-in-Christ.
At the barest minimum the believer in Christ should believe everything Jesus/ the apostles said.
ThisGirlWoke
Established
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 161
He's basically going against the Bible. He believes God is so loving that everyone will be saved in the end. Um, WRONG. Why do you think Jesus mentioned countless times that whoever puts their trust in him and repents and walks with him humbly will be saved, but those that don't will not? He, and his disciples have mentioned many times how we should live according to his ways, otherwise we shall all likewise perish. Matter of fact, if God never sent Jesus to die for us, then most of us would get cast into the lake of fire regardless unless God saves you and let's you inherit his kingdom as example, he did with Elijah when he was caught up in a whirlwind.
Another thought to add, is that all throughout the Law & Prophets(the OT), we read how the wicked will be destroyed forever, and only the righteous will inherit the earth and live with God. Psalm 37
DevaWolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 537
But if everyone is reconciled to God, there would be no wickedness left either. So I get how you can interpret it both ways.
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
The biggest stumbling block for most Christians to even consider Apokatastasis as a valid Christian doctrine is the literal interpretation of the greek and hebrew words that are translated in most english Bibles as "forever" and "eternal". It's only people who can can accept that english translations may not be perfect, who can even begin to consider the hope of univerisal reconcilliation, despite all the other verses in the Bible that speak to it.
Of course if those same Christians applied that same standard of literal interpretation to all of the words of Jesus, we would have alot of blind amputee Christians in this world, wouldn't we?
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
It depends on what you’re believing in when you say Jesus is your savior. If you are meaning that Jesus, God the Son, died for you a sinner, didn’t stay dead but rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father, then there is a good chance you are a Christian. However, if you fall away from all that, like Todd has, then you’re not anymore.
Some say that you can’t fall away from the faith that once you become saved you are always saved, however, I haven’t found that to be true scripturally speaking. So, that’s what I mean when I say Todd has fallen away from the faith. The true faith, not one where you want to bring other writings into the faith, drop out scripture from the Bible, talk about an apostle like he’s not really one..you can’t do all that and really claim to be a true Christian..O and say that Jesus isn’t God, that’s pretty big and a big indicator that you really aren’t a Christian.
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
God the Son? What verse did you find that in? If you change "God the Son", to "Son of God" then there is nothing in your paragraph above that is contradictory to what I believe and confess.
What other writings have I brought into the faith?
As far as Paul goes, I have not dropped the books he wrote from the Bible. I just don't buy into interpretations and doctrines based on his writing that contradict the actual words of Jesus. I actually quote Paul quite a bit in defense of UR.
Your last statement is the only one that is a valid argument that I don't fit YOUR definition of a Chrisitian. But then again you have to bring other writings into the faith to come up with the Trinity doctrine. Something you just claimed was an indicator that someone is not a true Christian.
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
I say it like that because you like to just think Jesus is one of God’s sons, not the Son come down from heaven..as in God the Son.
Aren’t you now trying to talk about Apokatastasis like this person is someone to read?
You might quote Paul but you don’t believe he’s an apostle.
What other writings do I bring into it? I’ve only ever quoted the Bible.
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
So you are manipulating or adding to scripture to make your point?
LOL! No. Apokatastasis is the greek word for restitution or reconcilliation (as used in Acts 3:21). The doctrine of UR is often referred to as Apokatastasis because that is what the early church fathers called it in their writings.
He is a self professed apostle. None of the other apostles confirm he is one in the Bible. It's not really an issue to me anymore. I've come to peace with just deferring to what Jesus said, when conclusions derived from Paul's writing contradict Jesus' words. We can just leave it at that, and what for the ages to come to find out if he really was an Apostle sent from God.
Without the writings of the Church fathers from the 3rd century, you would never have been exposed to the Trinity doctrine and you would not base your faith on it. Even the most respected Bible scholars and theologians admit the Trintiy doctrine is not explicitily taught in the Bible and it is a derived doctrine of the Church. Sure you can mis-interpret the Bible and make it appear that the bible implies a Trinity. But you cannot found it explicitly taught or stated in the Bible.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
I’m not manipulating anything, Jesus is the Son of God, His only begotten, God the Son.
I see. Restitution huh? Sure..That’s biblical
That right there is wrong. Many people have tried to show you that Paul is an apostle and that the other apostles accepted him, but you see what you want to see. And, no, I’m not going there with you.
QUOTE="Todd, post: 223241, member: 352"]Without the writings of the Church fathers from the 3rd century, you would never have been exposed to the Trinity doctrine and you would not base your faith on it.[/QUOTE]
Lol! The trinity is there in the Bible, Todd.
Who are they?
Todd
Star
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 2,525
if you have to change the order of the words "God" and "son", from the order used in the Bible to make your point (as you just did above) then you are manipulating scripture.
Yes it is right there in Acts 3:21. Thanks for agreeing with meI see. Restitution huh? Sure..That’s biblical
Okay. Still not sure where the bible says believing Paul is an apostle is a requirement for salvation though....
No it's not. It's an esoteric interpretation derived from supposed revelation. The word Trinity is not in the Bible and the concept is not laid out as a doctrine by any of the authors of the Bible.
Only because you asked....
New Bible Dictionary: “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries”(1996, “Trinity”).
A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, states that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile.” He admits that churches, “without pretending to understand,” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17-18).
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect” (1988, p. 1308)
Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity:“My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (1958, pp. 148-149).He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it” (p. 16).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “ ‘trinity’ is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement” (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]” (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”).
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that “primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, “God,” p. 84).
H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him” (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).
Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: “Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]” (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, “Trinity,” p. 782).
Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons” (1999, p. 89).
Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God” (p. 20).“Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion” (pp. 108-109)
Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).”
Theology professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall explain part of the puzzle in their book The Trinity: “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture . . . How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? . . .“The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)” (2002, pp. 1-2).
Lisa, I have read where you yourself have typed that ecumenicism is not of God, yet the doctrine you are so vehemently defending is the direct fruit of two of the most prominent ecumenical councils in history.