-
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!
Oneness Vs. Trinity Debate
- Thread starter ONENESS
- Start date
No I have maintained all along that Jesus is truly God.
I am not the one who is maintaining that the human nature is praying to the divine nature. Your doing so has denied the hypostatic union of Christ and because of that has denied the diety of Christ. Because now he is either man or God not both. This error you further compound by leaving only a simple man hanging on the cross and thus negating the attonment bought by Christ, which is only something that can be paid by God.
Now if Jesus is fully God and fully Man why would the flesh need to pray to the divine?
No I have maintained all along that Jesus is truly God.
I am not the one who is maintaining that the human nature is praying to the divine nature. Your doing so has denied the hypostatic union of Christ and because of that has denied the diety of Christ. Because now he is either man or God not both. This error you further compound by leaving only a simple man hanging on the cross and thus negating the attonment bought by Christ, which is only something that can be paid by God.
Now if Jesus is fully God and fully Man why would the flesh need to pray to the divine?</font>[/QUOTE]Why would God need to grow? Why Would God need to sleep, Why Would God need to pray if he was the I am? Jesus has both natures, humanity and deity. Regardless of which deity it is still God. So the humanity can call out to the eternal Spirit. It was not the Deity crying out to diety.
Brian, yes, the words "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" were uttered for the sake of those present; but look at the words! This is my beloved son.
What you're proposing is that Jesus ran a scam on all those present. Instead of just saying, "I am God," He went through the dove, the voice, and the lifting up from the water, just to say "this is my son" instead of "I am God."
Face it: there's more to this than a simple "He did it for those present." EVERY JOT AND EVERY TITTLE is important. Thus, you MUST look at the words that were spoken, not just who they were spoken for.
That, my friend, is what you must resolve.
John did tell people who were trying to worship him that they must believe on the one who came after him; but scripture is crystal clear on the fact that he was baptizing in water for the remission of sins, and that his claim was that the one who followed would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Scripture is also crystal clear that the disciples who were found at Ephesus claimed John's baptism, and not the baptism of Jesus--who they would gladly profess if they had been baptized in His name. Instead, they relied on their baptism of repentence, instead of the one to follow that John proclaimed.
Word or deed? The context of Colossians 3:17 isn't talking about baptism in any way, shape, or form; instead, it's instructions on dealing with each other.
In fact--and you should think on this for several minutes before you reply--if there's nothing that you or I can do to obtain our salvation--i.e., Christ did it all, paid for it all, obtained it for us through His sacrifice--then any word or deed that we do is of no value whatsoever, because it gains us nothing.
Finally, your analogy about titles is fundamentally flawed. Yes, you and I can be husbands, sons, and fathers at the same time. But if I try to apply that analogy to God, then I must necessarily say that God had a father. To which, YOU must reply that it's not so. The title can mean nothing if the individual holding the title is not actually performing or fulfilling the function of that title.
See, the "title" of "Father" means more than just your and my Father--Jesus also referred to God as His father (my father, which is in Heaven--used about a half dozen times throughout the New Testament).
And no, Jesus praying to God in the garden doesn't put Him in a subordinate position to God. This is where you must look at your own answer about a voice, a dove, and the Messiah at the same time again.
You brought up Hebrews 5:7; a very powerful and apt verse to bring up. In fact, it's so powerful and apt that I suggest you also look at verse 8.
What you're proposing is that Jesus ran a scam on all those present. Instead of just saying, "I am God," He went through the dove, the voice, and the lifting up from the water, just to say "this is my son" instead of "I am God."
Face it: there's more to this than a simple "He did it for those present." EVERY JOT AND EVERY TITTLE is important. Thus, you MUST look at the words that were spoken, not just who they were spoken for.
That, my friend, is what you must resolve.
John did tell people who were trying to worship him that they must believe on the one who came after him; but scripture is crystal clear on the fact that he was baptizing in water for the remission of sins, and that his claim was that the one who followed would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Scripture is also crystal clear that the disciples who were found at Ephesus claimed John's baptism, and not the baptism of Jesus--who they would gladly profess if they had been baptized in His name. Instead, they relied on their baptism of repentence, instead of the one to follow that John proclaimed.
Word or deed? The context of Colossians 3:17 isn't talking about baptism in any way, shape, or form; instead, it's instructions on dealing with each other.
In fact--and you should think on this for several minutes before you reply--if there's nothing that you or I can do to obtain our salvation--i.e., Christ did it all, paid for it all, obtained it for us through His sacrifice--then any word or deed that we do is of no value whatsoever, because it gains us nothing.
Finally, your analogy about titles is fundamentally flawed. Yes, you and I can be husbands, sons, and fathers at the same time. But if I try to apply that analogy to God, then I must necessarily say that God had a father. To which, YOU must reply that it's not so. The title can mean nothing if the individual holding the title is not actually performing or fulfilling the function of that title.
See, the "title" of "Father" means more than just your and my Father--Jesus also referred to God as His father (my father, which is in Heaven--used about a half dozen times throughout the New Testament).
And no, Jesus praying to God in the garden doesn't put Him in a subordinate position to God. This is where you must look at your own answer about a voice, a dove, and the Messiah at the same time again.
You brought up Hebrews 5:7; a very powerful and apt verse to bring up. In fact, it's so powerful and apt that I suggest you also look at verse 8.
Chemnitz, how many natures does the "Son" have.
The deivine God or the "Father" or Jehovah or who ever you want to call him is a Spirit. He is the Same Spirit as the Holy Spirit. He is the Same spirit as the Spirit of Christ.
So are you telling me that the Devine Spirit of God was not on Earth?
Just answer my orginal question
Don do you know why the Son is called the “Son”. It is so simple to understand. And it is so simple to understand why it is loved so much my God.
Luke 1:35 gives us the reason why the Son was called the son.
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Think about it Don, it is so clear. Why else was the Son referred to as the “Word”. Please study that.
Just think of what the doctrine of the Son teaches. It teaches that all three are co eternal and co equal.
If Jesus was praying that makes Jesus inferior therefore they are not co equal. And that is contrary with the doctrine of the Trinity.
God caused the conception. The Person that causes the conception is the Father. So that enables the one that is born of God to be called the Son of God. It does not represent a separate person. Its only stating that God manifested him self as the Son.
Not at all. Jesus did not come down here to claim to be God, The bible says that he did not even come down here to make of himself a reputation (Php 2:7). His purpose was to seek and save those which are lost and to be the only perfect sacrifice.
The thing of it was that no one that heard Jesus speak thought he was a second person in the Godhead. The bible tells us that the Jews took up stones to kill him. Jesus said why do you stone me? Is it for my good works? And the Jews said, we are not going to stone you for you good works, but you are a man that is making him self to be God. That’s why we are going to stone you.
The Jews knew exactly who he claimed to be. They were not going to stone him for being the Second Person they were going to stone him for being God himself. They got it just a little backwards. He was not a Man who had made himself God. It was a God who had made himself man.
Everyone present at Jesus’ baptism did no see three separate persons. They understood what was going on. No scam was going on. The people understood exactly what was going on.
No everything that happened that day was for a sign to show everyone he was the one that was prophesied to come. As we mentioned the Voice was for the Peoples sake. John 1:32-34 lets us know plainly that the dove was for John the Baptist sake. The only reason he did those things was so that he could manifest himself to Israel as the Messiah.
Don, why do you think that everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus and not with the titles. And last, what do you think baptism is for?
My friend, you should think on this for several minutes as well. If there is nothing that you and I can do to obtain salvation than why do we even have to believe.
Christ died for us. He was the perfect sacrifice, shed his blood on the Christ that we could receive remission of sins. But in order for us to have that blood applied on us there are a few things that we must do to get right with God. If there was nothing we had to do than we would not need to be reborn. If there was nothing we could do there would be no need to repent. If there was nothing we could do than Peter would never of had to say, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins. If there was nothing we had to do that Peter would not have had to went to Cornelius’s (sp?) house. Read Chapter 11 in acts and find out why Peter went. The angle told Peter to show ol Corn how to be saved. If there was nothing we could do there would have been no need for Peter to command them to be baptized. If there was nothing we could do than John’s disciples would not have had to get rebaptized.
When we look at stuff like this we have to face the questions and look at our definition of believing. Obedience does play a huge roll in our salvation.
Brother, your reading to much into it. But if you want to look at it like that God did have a Father as the Son. Was The Father, not performing the duties of that title, was the son not?
God bless
Go burp yourself and answer the original question. Your just dodging it because you can't.</font>[/QUOTE]*hands bottle back to chemnitz*
No way sir, I can dish anything you got. So quit your squalking and answer the question or dismiss your self from this subject.
Thank you
If you can handle anything I dish out then why are you acting like a little kid and not answering the question.
Why don't you look it up? My namesake (Martin Chemnitz) wrote one of the major works concerning the natures of Christ. Have fun.</font>[/QUOTE]And what are those natures?