The Trinity

[steaver]

I will only quote this portion and leave the rest. Yes we do have many differences in our understanding of what is Biblical truths. But I believe in being born again. The first part of this process is when we believe the gospel, then we affectionately embrace that gospel and this will motivate us to identify with Christ in his death and resurrection by being buried and raised again through the waters of baptism. This is being born again, or from above. All those who then remain faithful unto the end will be partakers of another birth, the resurrection to life everlasting in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns.

Kind regards
Trevor

As I said, Trevor has no understanding of being born-again. Has nothing to do with getting wet in water. Being born of God is having the very Spirit of Jesus Christ enter inside you transforming you into a New Creation, being made one with Christ spiritually. The Spirit of Christ is Eternal and is why it is said we have eternal life in Christ, Christ in you.

I will ask you a question Trevor, Is the Spirit of Christ Jesus indwelling you? Are you a new creation of God or just the same old Trevor with some new religious views?

 

[SovereignGrace]

TrevorL,

If I understand your position correctly, Christ is not God, therefore He is not eternal. If He is not eternal, then He is a created being, on par with angels, on the same level as us. So, in Revelation 5, where Jesus was worthy to take the book out of the Father's hand, by using your doctrine, any angel of God, they being created, could have done that.

Jesus is eternal, is the Son of God, is the Son of man, is Emmanuel/Immanuel, which means 'God with us.', Jesus is God. If Jesus is not God, then how gould He be called Emmanuel/Immanuel?

 

[Darrell C]

Idk brother, Wouldn't it depend on the doctrine?

Not at all, because in view is whether or not salvation is imparted based on an understanding of Biblical Doctrine.

For example, when I was saved, the issue of the Trinity was not even an element. It was very basic...I was a sinner, Christ died for my sin (in my stead), and I believed that.

How about you, brother? Did you understand that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh when you were saved? Or was your sin and Christ's righteousness the preeminent focus?

Now I am not saying that people who deny the Deity of Christ are all saved, so please don't misunderstand. In view in my response to brother Yeshua was the dogmatic denial of salvation in regards to anyone...based on doctrinal error.

It took me a long time to begin understanding the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, so was my salvation questionable until I did come to a better understanding? Was there a time when I was confused about it? Is it possible I still am (lol...absolutely, if you ask the right folks)?

Confusion is one thing, denial is yet another.

I agree, but that doesn't mean one is not saved. Those who might come to saving faith in Christ through questionable groups do have a responsibility to study Scripture in an effort to know God and His will for our lives better.

But can I point something out, brother Steaver?

Few actually do that. Most will get their weekly "feeding" at "church" and set their Bibles down on a shelf. They essentially starve themselves. So (not to sound condescending, because this is expected of babes, lol, who need to be fed) there are many who are saved who couldn't work their way through the Model Prayer, much less be expected to understand concepts such as Eternal Redemption as opposed to the redemption of the Old Testament (which was physical, temporary, and incomplete), or, something like the trinity.

The Deity of Christ is a problematic issue for even those who profess to be Trinitarian. I am always amazed, as I said, of the discrepancy of tolerance for certain's own inability to understand the Deity of Christ and the inability of others. As I mentioned in my post.

What if a person says they are trusting in Jesus Christ but they don't believe the part that God raised Him from the dead?

Let me show you a few of the Elect that are guilty of this:


Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)


4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


Does the fact that the Disciples did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ, despite the fact that they were told of this by Christ Himself...change the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has never been dependent on the efforts of men to be effective?

Here is another example:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


So I would think that if we can see those who were directly told by the Lord that He would rise again were unbelievers in the Resurrection, and that did not impact their salvation ultimately, we should keep that in mind when we are dealing with people who, at least, show they do honor the Word of God, despite the fact we feel they are in error.

Let's see a direct rejection of the Gospel by an unbeliever:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


You and I, brother, are charged with sewing and watering, and relying on God to give the increase. I think we do that when we confront error, and it is a good idea that, when we do, we keep in mind our own state prior to the increase God has given us in areas of understanding.

I don't think we are going to be effective in address of error if we assume those we seek to teach do not belong to the Lord. Doctrinal error? Sure. We know it is. But how many would we assume were saved who couldn't tell you where to find Genesis? lol

Salvation is not a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, but a matter of the Grace of God bestowed where no grace is owed. And when God works through us, that grace will never be absent from our presentation of Christ Jesus and His Gospel. No reason not to rebuke, reprove, and correct, and sometimes drop the hammer, lol, but, that doesn't change the Gospel itself, right?

By the way, have you noticed the forum slowing down when posts are longer? I keep having to reopen the forum to fix it?

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I am finding it very difficult to believe a person is saved who denies the very witness that is placed within that comes from being born-again.

Whereas I find it unusual to find those who have a reasonable understanding of Scripture.

That is why I always enjoy the chance to talk with you. You stand out among a very few that have a comprehension of the importance of the distinction between salvation prior and post-Cross. But did you always have the understanding you have now?

When you were saved, did you understand what it meant for the Old Testament Saint to be perfected?

So your efforts are geared for trying to help others understand. I see the equivalency that many on this forum give to redemption in the Old Testament to Eternal Redemption through the Cross of Christ every bit as erroneous as a denial of Christ's Deity. In fact, those are the people who confuse new believers with most of their doctrine. Their understanding of Christ as God and what He accomplished is lacking to the point where it is a denial of the Gospel itself. It is another gospel.

But do I think they are not saved? No. I just think they are very confused, even as I do those who deny Christ's Deity and the Trinity.

JW's say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, Mormons say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. Are they saved?

Not for me to say. I think it very possible that among those groups we are going to see the same thing we see in groups we might accept as orthodox (which in my book is very few), which is...

...tares among the wheat.

In their case, it would be more "wheat among the tares," lol (I know, that is terrible).

Christ taught a many/few ratio in regards to salvation, so it is more likely that among most groups it is a "wheat among the tares" issue.

And I think it is very possible there are people in those groups who love the Lord, they just need to be taught better. Indoctrination is probably the hardest things we are going to battle, brother, and this is prevalent in all groups.

Should we treat them as brothers in Christ?

No, we need to maintain a distinction based on Core Doctrine. I do not view Mormons and JWs as Christian Groups, and maintain that we are separate, and because of Doctrine there can be no reconciliation.

But that is different than assuming that no-one in those groups are saved, because again, salvation is not dependent on doctrinal flawlessness. I did not have to come to understand the Deity of Christ to believe the Word of God teaches salvation by believing on the Name of Christ, and in His Work.

Let's look at your statement again:

JW's say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, Mormons say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. Are they saved?

Catholics say the same thing. They believe in the Trinity. Does that mean that among Catholics there is none that are sincere in that profession? Does it mean that the confessions are true?

We don't know, and the best we can do is speak to individuals in those groups, and see what each individual believes. I have long since put off crusades (no pun intended) on trying to witness to Systematic Theologies, but rather have made my focus on what the Word of God states, what individuals state, and addressing discrepancies I see between the two.

We are not going to change Doctrinal Statements of groups, but we may, by examining and discussing the Word of God, be able to get some within those groups to consider the doctrine they currently hold to.

Isn't there certain doctrinal truths that accompany biblical conversion?

Yes of course, but as mentioned, the Gospel is not a Theologically complex concept one must understand before coming under obedience to it.

Believe on the Christ and you will be saved.

And after you are saved, God will begin a training program that will be impacted by the obedience that follows obedience to the Gospel. unfortunately, some will take the slow train, and for years sit in confusion, and this primarily due to poor teaching, poor discipleship, and poor choices in regards to progressive sanctification.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Trevor believes that born-again is the resurrection to come.

There is another on here that also believes that.

So what is the solution?

In my view, the only solution is the Word of God. That is why I run the thread "Were men Born Again Before Pentecost."

To date, I have seen no credible argument that they were.

That is a critical issue which I think you and I should have a focus on in our ministering, because it encompasses so many other critical Core Doctrines which are unfortunately...mangled by many Systematic Theologies.

Most people will become defensive when the issue arises, because it is a goad for some to realize...they had never really given it any thought before.

But that doesn't mean that people are not saved because they are confused about that. It just means they are ignorant of what Scripture teaches in regards to Resurrection.

He has very little understanding of most doctrinal truths.

Well, I am inclined to agree in large part, but to be fair...I see this in most of the antagonists I deal with. Modern Christendom has become a wasteland for Doctrinal Purity. Allegiance to groups has replaced allegiance to Christ. Allegiance to Scripture.

You made an observation a bit back when you said Trevor was basing his views on "translations" of words while disregarding the context of the subjects. You hit the nail on the head, this is why he cannot grasp the truths.

And that is what we have to try to get him to understand. That means we continually reiterate the points which cannot be denied. An example would be, in regards to the A-millennial view, is the question "How many Resurrections are listed in Revelation?" They won't address that question. So while we try to be thorough in addressing error, sometimes it is going to boil down to one question.

In trevor's case, we might look at the difference between Christ's Son-ship, which was reviled, and the son-ship Jews themselves claimed. Another would be his refusal to address Christ saying "I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." No point going beyond those arguments until he addresses them, and if he won't address them, there is little reason to go on to the next objection. Simply point out that until he is ready to address those issues, discussion is at a standstill, and we assume that it is just not the time for him to be honest...with himself.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

His focus is on finding so called "faults" in translations in order to prop up antichrist positions on Christ.

That is what everyone who is trying to discredit another view does, brother.

We do that too, lol.

And that is something that both sides have to prove (that they have actually done that).

He does not see these as antichrist positions and I have to assume it is because his heart remains in blindness.

Maybe consider you are dealing with a babe in Christ. Give him the benefit of the doubt, and continue to try to make him address the points which he avoids.

Just consider how you might feel if somehow you could speak with yourself right after you were saved. How would that conversation go? Would you be able to address young (in Christ) Steaver on errors he held to? On things he was not aware of? Did the young Steaver ever have a problem contextualizing?

How much latitude would you have shown to him?

And remember, all error can be basically placed in the same category. Is it any less diminishing for one to teach that Old Testament Saints were saved the same way the Body of Christ in this Age are? Doesn't that demand an ignorance of Mystery and progressive Revelation which is often seen...as intentional? Doesn't that equate on the most basic level the sacrifices of the Law (and those prior to the Law) with the Sacrifice of Christ?

They are just as much in need of having this brought to their attention as those who struggle, and even deny...the Deity of Christ.

They may profess that belief now, but that doesn't mean, just as the young Steaver needed instruction to clarify ignorance and confusion, that one day they will not understand.

And you have an essential role to play in that, brother Steaver. I believe that about you, anyway. And have felt that way about you for years.

Why he chooses this path is a mystery to me.

It's not so mysterious. No different than the disciples. It is not until they were ready for the truth that God revealed it to them, There is a distinct difference in that we see the ending of one Age and the beginning of another, but, on a basic level in regards to believers in this Age, we see a distinction between believers. Babes, and mature. Little children...and mature. Little children, Young Men, and Fathers.

All I am saying is rather than assume no salvation based on error, consider it something you just don't know. I don't even assume all those who profess to be atheists are actually unbelievers, but that some of them are simply disobedient children throwing a tantrum, lol. Many say "I was a Christian but now I am not, because ___________(fill in the blank)." I don't find it odd that babies throw tantrums, and understand that it may be a matter of restoring a brother in a fault, considering my own self, lest I come under similar condemnation.

I can only pray God removes the scales that he may one day see.

And, on top of that, continue to do what you do. Teach, Preach. Exhort. Edify.

Just leave the increase to God. If you are doing your part, He will do His, and that which might be considered of eternal value will inevitably be the result.


God bless.

 

[steaver]

Not at all, because in view is whether or not salvation is imparted based on an understanding of Biblical Doctrine.

For example, when I was saved, the issue of the Trinity was not even an element. It was very basic...I was a sinner, Christ died for my sin (in my stead), and I believed that.

How about you, brother? Did you understand that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh when you were saved? Or was your sin and Christ's righteousness the preeminent focus?

Now I am not saying that people who deny the Deity of Christ are all saved, so please don't misunderstand. In view in my response to brother Yeshua was the dogmatic denial of salvation in regards to anyone...based on doctrinal error.

It took me a long time to begin understanding the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, so was my salvation questionable until I did come to a better understanding? Was there a time when I was confused about it? Is it possible I still am (lol...absolutely, if you ask the right folks)?





I agree, but that doesn't mean one is not saved. Those who might come to saving faith in Christ through questionable groups do have a responsibility to study Scripture in an effort to know God and His will for our lives better.

But can I point something out, brother Steaver?

Few actually do that. Most will get their weekly "feeding" at "church" and set their Bibles down on a shelf. They essentially starve themselves. So (not to sound condescending, because this is expected of babes, lol, who need to be fed) there are many who are saved who couldn't work their way through the Model Prayer, much less be expected to understand concepts such as Eternal Redemption as opposed to the redemption of the Old Testament (which was physical, temporary, and incomplete), or, something like the trinity.

The Deity of Christ is a problematic issue for even those who profess to be Trinitarian. I am always amazed, as I said, of the discrepancy of tolerance for certain's own inability to understand the Deity of Christ and the inability of others. As I mentioned in my post.

...

I was saved at an early age after listening to a Billy Graham special. Remained unchurched until age 33 when God called me into fellowship and study. When we talk about "understanding" the Trinity, we have to distinguish what we are speaking of when we say "understand". Can we "understand" how God is three persons in One God? Not sure anyone could. Can we "understand" the Scripture states God is three persons in One God? Of course, the Scripture is saturated with this. I am not a smart man, but the Scripture is not written in riddles. I can see the Trinity all throughout as I simply read what it says. I would have to go out of my way to prove there is no Trinity. And this is what I see those who reject Jesus' Divinity doing. It's not that they simply cannot understand it, they set out to destroy the concept, removing Jesus Christ from His rightful Glory.

 

[steaver]

Let me show you a few of the Elect that are guilty of this:


Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)


4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


Does the fact that the Disciples did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ, despite the fact that they were told of this by Christ Himself...change the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has never been dependent on the efforts of men to be effective?

Here is another example:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


So I would think that if we can see those who were directly told by the Lord that He would rise again were unbelievers in the Resurrection, and that did not impact their salvation ultimately, we should keep that in mind when we are dealing with people who, at least, show they do honor the Word of God, despite the fact we feel they are in error.

Let's see a direct rejection of the Gospel by an unbeliever:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


You and I, brother, are charged with sewing and watering, and relying on God to give the increase. I think we do that when we confront error, and it is a good idea that, when we do, we keep in mind our own state prior to the increase God has given us in areas of understanding.

I don't think we are going to be effective in address of error if we assume those we seek to teach do not belong to the Lord. Doctrinal error? Sure. We know it is. But how many would we assume were saved who couldn't tell you where to find Genesis? lol

Salvation is not a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, but a matter of the Grace of God bestowed where no grace is owed. And when God works through us, that grace will never be absent from our presentation of Christ Jesus and His Gospel. No reason not to rebuke, reprove, and correct, and sometimes drop the hammer, lol, but, that doesn't change the Gospel itself, right?

By the way, have you noticed the forum slowing down when posts are longer? I keep having to reopen the forum to fix it?

Continued...

I don't think we can use the disciples as examples before they became born-again. We know that even though the Lord told them in so many words that He must be resurrected, the scripture tells us that they were blinded until after the Lord actually wanted them to know this..."Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke24:45). Paul also made believing in the resurrection part of salvation..."That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Ro10:9)

Yes, this slowing of type is annoying. Hope they can get it fixed. So far I am still preferring the other format.

 

[Darrell C]

I was saved at an early age after listening to a Billy Graham special. Remained unchurched until age 33 when God called me into fellowship and study. When we talk about "understanding" the Trinity, we have to distinguish what we are speaking of when we say "understand". Can we "understand" how God is three persons in One God? Not sure anyone could. Can we "understand" the Scripture states God is three persons in One God? Of course, the Scripture is saturated with this. I am not a smart man, but the Scripture is not written in riddles. I can see the Trinity all throughout as I simply read what it says. I would have to go out of my way to prove there is no Trinity. And this is what I see those who reject Jesus' Divinity doing. It's not that they simply cannot understand it, they set out to destroy the concept, removing Jesus Christ from His rightful Glory.

I think you understand better than you give yourself credit for, lol.

But you illustrate the point I sought to make.

Just as we might admit that our understanding is not perfect, even so should we understand the understanding of our antagonist.

As far as understanding the Trinity, it is a matter of balancing Scripture. We see the Son, for example, distinguished from the Father, and understand that both are the Creator.

I think what many who deny the Trinity are doing is arguing against a faulty understanding of what Trinitarians believe, that we embrace three Gods. I argue against that myself, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't think we can use the disciples as examples before they became born-again. We know that even though the Lord told them in so many words that He must be resurrected, the scripture tells us that they were blinded until after the Lord actually wanted them to know this..."Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke24:45). Paul also made believing in the resurrection part of salvation..."That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Ro10:9)

Yes, this slowing of type is annoying. Hope they can get it fixed. So far I am still preferring the other format.

What s the difference between the disciples before they were born again and those we witness to today who are not born again?

There is one significant difference we cold state: they were told directly by the Lord the Gospel. Yet it was not until God revealed it to their hearts that they understood.

And brother, that is still true for us, when it comes to the instruction program our Teacher has us under, lol.

I think a lot of times, and this has been the case for me, the Lord gets the parts straight before He puts them al together for us. In other words, the Student learns basic truths and when those elements are assembled with a singular focus on another issue...there it is.

How many times have you had an "a-ha moment?"

I know for me...I live for those moments.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Almost forgot, when it starts running slow, just open another page. I have to do that a lot when the responses are a little longer. You can do it even in the middle of the response. And there is some things I like better, and some things I don't. I have dealt with this type of forum (meaning the functions and layout) a couple times before, so am a little used to it.


God bless.

 

[steaver]

Whereas I find it unusual to find those who have a reasonable understanding of Scripture.

That is why I always enjoy the chance to talk with you. You stand out among a very few that have a comprehension of the importance of the distinction between salvation prior and post-Cross. But did you always have the understanding you have now?

When you were saved, did you understand what it meant for the Old Testament Saint to be perfected?

So your efforts are geared for trying to help others understand. I see the equivalency that many on this forum give to redemption in the Old Testament to Eternal Redemption through the Cross of Christ every bit as erroneous as a denial of Christ's Deity. In fact, those are the people who confuse new believers with most of their doctrine. Their understanding of Christ as God and what He accomplished is lacking to the point where it is a denial of the Gospel itself. It is another gospel.

But do I think they are not saved? No. I just think they are very confused, even as I do those who deny Christ's Deity and the Trinity.



Not for me to say. I think it very possible that among those groups we are going to see the same thing we see in groups we might accept as orthodox (which in my book is very few), which is...

...tares among the wheat.

In their case, it would be more "wheat among the tares," lol (I know, that is terrible).

Christ taught a many/few ratio in regards to salvation, so it is more likely that among most groups it is a "wheat among the tares" issue.

And I think it is very possible there are people in those groups who love the Lord, they just need to be taught better. Indoctrination is probably the hardest things we are going to battle, brother, and this is prevalent in all groups.




No, we need to maintain a distinction based on Core Doctrine. I do not view Mormons and JWs as Christian Groups, and maintain that we are separate, and because of Doctrine there can be no reconciliation.

But that is different than assuming that no-one in those groups are saved, because again, salvation is not dependent on doctrinal flawlessness. I did not have to come to understand the Deity of Christ to believe the Word of God teaches salvation by believing on the Name of Christ, and in His Work.

Let's look at your statement again:



Catholics say the same thing. They believe in the Trinity. Does that mean that among Catholics there is none that are sincere in that profession? Does it mean that the confessions are true?

We don't know, and the best we can do is speak to individuals in those groups, and see what each individual believes. I have long since put off crusades (no pun intended) on trying to witness to Systematic Theologies, but rather have made my focus on what the Word of God states, what individuals state, and addressing discrepancies I see between the two.

We are not going to change Doctrinal Statements of groups, but we may, by examining and discussing the Word of God, be able to get some within those groups to consider the doctrine they currently hold to.




Yes of course, but as mentioned, the Gospel is not a Theologically complex concept one must understand before coming under obedience to it.

Believe on the Christ and you will be saved.

And after you are saved, God will begin a training program that will be impacted by the obedience that follows obedience to the Gospel. unfortunately, some will take the slow train, and for years sit in confusion, and this primarily due to poor teaching, poor discipleship, and poor choices in regards to progressive sanctification.


Continued...

Brother Darrell, if I felt this matter doesn't effect salvation one way or the other, then I would not waste my time trying to change minds. I would have to embrace JWs and Mormons as brothers in Christ, even though they base their salvation on works. They are guilty of perverting the Word of God and I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well. I believe this perversion is shutting up the door to heaven and leading thousands into the pit of hell. I fear they will hear the words "depart from me...I never knew you". If I didn't feel this way, I would not spend much time on the issue.

 

[steaver]

What s the difference between the disciples before they were born again and those we witness to today who are not born again?

God bless.

But we are speaking about those who say they are already born-again not knowing what born-again means nor knows Jesus Christ is God. The very first subject the Lord lead me into was "born- again". It is not hid in the scriptures. It is there for anyone who simply searches what it entails.

 

[Darrell C]

Brother Darrell, if I felt this matter doesn't effect salvation one way or the other, then I would not waste my time trying to change minds. I would have to embrace JWs and Mormons as brothers in Christ, even though they base their salvation on works. They are guilty of perverting the Word of God and I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well. I believe this perversion is shutting up the door to heaven and leading thousands into the pit of hell. I fear they will hear the words "depart from me...I never knew you". If I didn't feel this way, I would not spend much time on the issue.

And I feel the same way.

Going back to the original statement you responded to, my point is simply that assuming everyone who does not have an understanding (as we think they should) is not saved is going to far.

No-one has the right to call Trevor an unbeliever because he doesn't understand the Trinity and rejects it. We can't say that.

What we can do is exactly what has been done, take him to the Word of God and challenge the basis for the beliefs he does hold to. If there is no Scriptural basis, and you can show that, then it is out of your hands, Then comes the presentation for the doctrine you are in disagreement with. Both aspects have to be handled.

And it is clear that this has been done, so now it is out of your/our hands. We can't bring conviction on this matter, only God can do that.

You can assume he is not saved if you like, I am not going to do that. If he is trusting in Christ as his savior, I see no reason to question his salvation to the extent where I publicly demean the man. As I said, there are many issues of doctrine which I think is good reason for us to seek to debate an antagonist.

So I will simply debate to the extent I can, and let the Lord determine salvation in others. I think we can be poor judges of people quite often.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

But we are speaking about those who say they are already born-again not knowing what born-again means nor knows Jesus Christ is God. The very first subject the Lord lead me into was "born- again". It is not hid in the scriptures. It is there for anyone who simply searches what it entails.

That's a great point, brother.

Look at the people on this forum and many others who say they are born again, yet have never really put any thought into what it means. How about the many Christians that think the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is simply empowerment? Are they not saved?

And I envy you, I was saved for quite a while, and told many people they had to be born again, and I didn't have a clue as to what it was. That was one of those "a-ha moments," when God showed me my ignorance, lol.

How many people who say they are born again could actually explain what that means?

What percentage of Christians would you guess?


God bless.

 

[steaver]

That is what everyone who is trying to discredit another view does, brother.

We do that too, lol.

And that is something that both sides have to prove (that they have actually done that).

God bless.

I have to disagree with you on translation errors. I understand the concept of saying the same thing in different ways. Not a problem, it says the same thing. But I totally reject the "mistranslation" arguments. Those who reject the core Christian beliefs always declare mistranslations. The JWs even went as far as to round up like minded "scholars" to create a bible that suits their agenda. Anyone can take a translation that has been approved by the sound body of Christ and read that Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost are all addressed as God.

 

[steaver]

How many people who say they are born again could actually explain what that means?

What percentage of Christians would you guess?


God bless.

Our churches are failing so bad. Being born-again is an absolute essential, Jesus said ye MUST be born-again! If a person does not understand what this is then they better get busy reading the NT, for it is a MUST BE for salvation! Trevor believes it is a process. A birth is an event. The Scriptures declare it is a one time miracle of God recreating the heart in a moment, instantly completed, the very Spirit of Jesus Christ becoming one with spirit and soul, God in you. This is not only explained in the Scriptures for us, but it is revealed by the Holy Spirit himself within us.

I said I was saved at a young age (ten or so). And I said I was unchurched until age 33. So what of those 23 years without reading scripture and without the teaching of the church? I was always led by the Spirit, I always prayed most everyday. My spirit was constantly crying out to God. I had no bible reading, but I always felt the Spirit guiding me into righteousness and convicting me of unrighteousness. How many people have the bible, read the scriptures, but are void of that inner cry that comes from the Spirit of God dwelling within? They have religion in their head, but their hearts are void of Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, brother Steaver, have to get going. I cannot explain my views any more than I have, and just want to clarify that I do not view groups as being equated to the Church. That does not mean that there is not one believer out there in those groups.

I have to disagree with you on translation errors. I understand the concept of saying the same thing in different ways. Not a problem, it says the same thing. But I totally reject the "mistranslation" arguments. Those who reject the core Christian beliefs always declare mistranslations. The JWs even went as far as to round up like minded "scholars" to create a bible that suits their agenda. Anyone can take a translation that has been approved by the sound body of Christ and read that Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost are all addressed as God.

Translational errors were not in view in my response, brother. Simply that we all seek to discredit the views of our antagonist.

Personally, I feel the NWT is the last thing a JW should mention, lol. It stands alone and apart from all manuscript evidence and the general agreement that the NWT is not based on manuscript evidence. Who knows, maybe they have found something that Joseph Smith missed when he found the golden texts.

And it's ironic that this should come up, because I did use a translational issue today, in regards to this...


2 Thessalonians 2:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.


Now if I told you there might be an issue of translational error on the part of the KJV what would your response be? First, we would have to understand if I meant the translators translated a word wrong, or, if I am simply speaking about the translation itself.

I am speaking about the word emphasized.

Some manuscripts have Christos, some kyrios. Which one is right? And does it impact the passage, the chapter, and interpretation efforts?

But that aside, can I ask...did Trevor say he was a JW and did he use the NWT to support his view?

And, where is Yeshua, lol. I would think he would be the one to upbraid me for my statement.

Just popped back in because I think I missed one of Trevor's posts.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This will be brief (don't thank me overmuch), as I have to go cut grass. I would rather be picking mulberries, lol. I did try cooking some chestnuts the other day, though, and wasn't much impressed, but, if that was what was for dinner, I'd be happy with them. Still rather have mulberries, lol, even though I've never tried them either...

Greetings again steaver and Darrell C,
Steaver, I do not share Darrell’s view that by saying that he was the Son of God, that Jesus was claiming equality with God. Darrell’s view would be similar to the first of the pictures I attempted to draw earlier, that Jesus was really claiming that he was God the Son come down from heaven. My view is that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God because God the Father was his father through the power of the Holy Spirit in his conception, while Mary was his mother. But Jesus is also declared to be uniquely the Son of God because of his Holy character, he was full of grace and truth and never sinned, and he has been resurrected, and this is like a new birth, where in the fullest sense he has become uniquely the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit 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.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Romans 1:1-4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

How about Christ saying He is Alpha and Omega, Trevor?

Still no address of that Scriptural presentation of Christ's equality with God.

I appreciate your thoughts on the Seraphim and the wings. I hold a different perspective in that although these things seemed to be contemporary with Isaiah, they are pictorial representations of things that were future to Isaiah’s time, and the greatest fulfillment was to be in Christ. One strong link is John 12, but I will not detail this except to say that John 12 quotes Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53 and draws attention to the glory revealed in Christ. One clue that Jesus is depicted by the Cherubim is that Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, he is God’s servant - ox, he is the Son of God – eagle, he is the Son of Man – the man in the cherubim. I understand the cherubim and seraphim to be essentially the same, but seraphim are especially depicting burning and judgement.

I think trying to show Christ in the Old Testament can get a little carried away sometimes. I do see Christ in the passage...

...He is the One sitting on the Throne.

One outstanding item, amongst the many, was your mention of the Theophany in Genesis 18. We could add another in Genesis 17 and another in Exodus 3. But in each of these I believe that the Theophany was an Angel representing God. I had hoped that if we agreed that the Judges represented God, as to me this is obvious in Exodus 21:6,22:8-9, Deuteronomy 1:17, 2 Chronicles 19:6, that then this concept could clarify Angels representing God. But I do not think we agreed concerning the Judges representing God.

And I addressed the issue of elohim being used in reference to God.

But glad this was noticed.

Consider:


Genesis 18

King James Version (KJV)

1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,


Doesn't say angels, does it?


33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.


Doesn't say angels, does it?

But we do see two with Him, and when they are identified...


Genesis 19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Now consider, my friend, that what we have to say in trying to make He who is designated as יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah in this passage an angel is that Scripture is in error. We follow the events and we see clearly the Lord appears to Abraham, and the "appearance" of three men is defined by the context.

Two get up and leave...


Genesis 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.


...then we read...


Genesis 19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Not really reasonable to see this as anything but what is stated.

See the link(s)...


Genesis 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.


Again, if you will but address the Scripture and points made, you will find it harder and harder to deny what is relatively clear. Until you can both address the points as well as present a suitable Scriptural Presentation for the views you present, you will never really make a credible satnd on this doctrine.

I will only quote this portion and leave the rest. Yes we do have many differences in our understanding of what is Biblical truths. But I believe in being born again. The first part of this process is when we believe the gospel, then we affectionately embrace that gospel and this will motivate us to identify with Christ in his death and resurrection by being buried and raised again through the waters of baptism. This is being born again, or from above. All those who then remain faithful unto the end will be partakers of another birth, the resurrection to life everlasting in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns.

Kind regards
Trevor

I might suggest the thread "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost."

I am not sure exactly what your position is based on what you say, but that it indicates that you have embraced Baptismal Regeneration and believe there is another birth associated with Christ's Return (which in itself is a discussion, as I have no idea as to your eschatological view).

I have another thread I usually run on forums called "Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration."

Interested?

But as to New Birth, feel free to join in on "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost." It's a great discussion, and one worthy of our attention.

And now, off to cut the grass. And I'll keep an eye out for mulberries while I'm at it.

Now what exactly does a mulberry look like, anyway?


God bless.

 

[steaver]

And it's ironic that this should come up, because I did use a translational issue today, in regards to this...


2 Thessalonians 2:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Some manuscripts have Christos, some kyrios. Which one is right? And does it impact the passage, the chapter, and interpretation efforts?

God bless.

Both are right. One does not change the other.