-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let’s review some basic Christian understanding
- Thread starter evangelist-7
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
One thing is certain. God did not become a man like you and me.
One thing is certain. You do not understand the passage. It was the human nature of Jesus Christ that died on the cross and paid the penalty for our sins. It was the human nature of Jesus Christ that cried out "I thirst"! It was the human nature of Jesus Christ that cried out "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me"!
To claim that God the Father forsook God the Son is to insist that there was a breech in the Godhead which is impossible. There is only one God and the person, God the Father, is not the God of the person, God the Son, or the person, God the Holy Spirit. Those three persons are the One God!
Your argument is reaching the silly stage now. You falsely accuse me of raising points that you raise and now you have discovered a breech in the Godhead!
Consider the following Scripture:
2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Peter 4:1. Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Are you going to claim that God became sin for us?
Notice that Peter tells us: Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.
No. Here is the truth.
From as early as post #10 and as late as post #77 you have quoted Gill as saying:
Since you are posting Gill in rebuttal of my comments you are the first one and the only one to bring such red herring comments up. Christ no more has a third nature then he was born of fornication (as the Jews accused him), or that he is simply an angel (as the J.W.'s believe). Why bring up these red herrings? Why quote Gill and his off the topic points. There is no one here who even suggested that Christ had a third nature, so why quote Gill?
OK, so you don't believe John 1:14. You have made that clear enough.
It is fairly obvious that "to have a human nature" he had to be a man; he had to become a man. There is common sense there.
You are trying to wrap your mind around the incomprehensible. There are some things we will never understand. You will have to admit that. Try this verse for example.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
--How can Jesus, at the time that he is speaking to Nicodemus as a human on earth, be in heaven at the same time?
See above.
Do you believe that Christ is seated on the right hand of
God right now in his human body? How then do you explain the "unity" of the "triune Godhead"?
That is what 1Pet.4:1 says. Christ is God. God suffered for us. God became sin for us. Are you going to deny the deity of Christ?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is not a "RED HERRING". I was presenting Gill's exegesis of John 1:14. Gill was simply DISMISSING some erroneous views of the Incarnation, one of which is "God became a man" and another which is "that a third nature was created during the Incarnation". Furthermore, my initial post in which I quoted Gill [post #10] was in response to a post by AiC. I have repeated Gill's remarks several times because you either dismissed them outright or misused them in an attempt to prove Gill said something he did not. That is dishonest to say the least!
It was you and you alone who really made the "third nature" an issue by falsely accusing me. And it was you and you alone who brought up the issue of "born of fornication" and "that he is simply an angel". So get your facts straight DKW before you get your bowels in an uproar!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you can see now that Gill was addressing perversions of the incarnation (a third nature).
He mentioned it. You posted it. No one here believes it. Ergo, a red herring.
However, go back to the word "incarnation."
What does it mean?
It means "enfleshment." Theologically, "God in the flesh."
God came in the flesh. It really is that simple.
What was the conversation that Christ had with Philip?
Show us the Father and it sufficeth us?
Have I not been with you long enough Philip that you don't know,
That he that has seen me has seen the Father.
Christ, the man is God.
Perhaps, Old Regular, you could find a quote from Gill, or Martin Lloyd Jones, or some other major church figure who actually states that "God did not become a man." or "God did not become human." or something like that.
The statements you have given so far don't exactly say that, including the chalcedonian creed.
The statements you have given so far don't exactly say that, including the chalcedonian creed.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The following is from post#59:
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. in his book God the Father, God the Son writes, page 257, more simple than Gill:
Now perhaps Dr Lloyd-jones semantics are a little difficult for you to understand but perhaps if you work on it!
This is not the same as saying "God became man."
God did become man.
God was not changed into a man. But he did become man. There is a difference. He is fully God and fully man at the same time. In order to be fully man, he had to become man. He wasn't changed into a man as the Catholics would have us believe that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood. Or, the superstitious would believe one creature can change into another creature as in some mythological stories. He became man.
The second person of the Godhead was born as a Human man, one without a Sin nature, and while here on earth, ALL of God the Sonwas in Jesus, as he was fully Deity/fully Human!
There was of course still God the father in heaven reigning, and the Spirit here on earth in ministry of christ!
Yes, we agree. The Word (the second person of the triune Godhead) became man (human).
OR denies that "God became man," but rather believes that He "took the form of a man," and draws a distinction considering the former heresy.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
That is not what Catholics would have you believe. You further express your ignorance of what Catholics actually believe. After all It was Catholics that defined the Trinitarian view of God to begin with Catholics don't hold God was changed into man that would be a form of modalism. However as with the bread and the wine which Catholics are following the teachings of Jesus that upon his thanks to the Father he said "take and eat this is my body" the reality behind the apearance of bread and wine is that Jesus Christ is fully present in those elements. Which is why Paul was saying
Another reason Catholics have a closed communion.
Last edited by a moderator:
What arrogance and "ignorance." To say that the Apostles themselves (and even Jesus, perhaps??) were ignorant of the trinity is absurd. To say that they never taught their followers of the trinity is also absurd. For the RCC to claim this teaching is on par with claiming that the RCC discovered that "Jesus was deity." Anything else you want to put a patent on?
Have it your way then. I go by a simple dictionary:
Mirriam-Webster.
But that is not what the RCC teaches nor is it what they ever taught. I was there. They still teach the same thing. The bread changes to the body of Christ. "It is the body of Christ," as the priest says, whereas it wasn't before.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
First of all two things: defining a doctrine, and teaching a consept. I said Catholics defined the doctrine of the Trinity. How God is 3 persons and a singular God simultaneously. We know that neither Apostles nor Jesus defined the Trinity as never once is the Trinity spoken of in scripture. Now that doesn't mean the consept of the Trinity is absent which both Jesus and the Apostles refer to in their teachings. But it is never dogmatically spelled out as it is in the doctrine of the Trinity which catholics defined using the consepts revealed in scripture. And that is the simple truth.
Yes I will and I'll eat my cake too.
As I have presented what the belief of the Eucharist is in the Catholic faith is accurate. It has always been believed as I presented it. And the fact that you were there means one of two things. You weren't properly taught it or you didn't understand what was being taught.
We are discussing two different things here. 1) The Trinity. 2) The Eucharist.
Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity and has existed from everlasting. He became a man he didn't change into a man but became a man. This is in the topic of the Trinity.
In The topic of The Eucharist, which is a different subject all together, Catholics are taught that yes the bread and the wine no longer are just bread and wine during the mass but have essentially changed in reality if not in appearance into Jesus very self. In latin reality and apereance are spoken as Substance (Reality) and Accidents (apperance). But the real presence of Jesus Christ is there. As can be seen presented in the Catholic Encylopedia.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Apostles were WELL aware of the truine Godhead, didn't paul give blessings at end of his letters at times to all 3 of them?
the OT had the glimmerings of god being 3 persons, and NT brought that doctrine fully out!
The RCC did NOT gave us the trinity, nor bible nor anything else doctrines wise, as ALL of them were altready recorded in the Bible !
And the mass IS a literal jesus dying again, reoffering again on our behalf for sins each mass, so that perverts the truth of hebrews that he died once and for all!