• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Which person in the Trinity is the Judge?

cont​

Third century: Theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism​

[edit]
In the early 3rd century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which are sometimes considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology.[39] Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias), but the term was yet to have its Trinitarian meaning.[32][40] They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the 3rd century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.[citation needed]

216: Tertullian​

[edit]
Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology.[39] In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
— Against Praxeas 2[41]
Others,[who?] however, argue that Tertullian was unitarian,[42] claiming that Tertullian's use of the word "trinity" differs from later Trinitarian use: "For Tertullian, the one God is not the Trinity; rather, the one God is a member of the trinity";[43] "...Tertullian's trinity [was] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member".[3]
  1. c. 220: Hippolytus of Rome​

    [edit]
    In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas, claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross.[44] Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views:
    The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.
    — Against Noetus[45][46]
    Some,[who?] referring to other parts of Against Noetus along with Hippolytus' The Refutation of All Heresies, view Hippolytus as nontrinitarian, saying that "in his theology, the divine (but less divine than God) Logos came to exist from God a finite time ago, so that God could create the cosmos by means of him. On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian – that the "persons" are neither co-equal nor equally divine".[47]
 
cont

  1. c. 225: Origen​

    [edit]
    Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen's theology of the godhead is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches. However, it is argued that the word still did not have its later, Trinitarian meaning.[32]
    For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages... It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son.
    — [48]
    However, it is also argued in contradistinction that the word Trinity is utilized with a very similar meaning to its fourth century use.[49]
    This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father.[50]
    Some[who?] see Origen as holding what many scholars refer to as a "subordinist" Christology: in Origen, "the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father":[3]
    The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit...
    — Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3]
 
From this, it is argued that Origen was in fact unitarian.[3] Others,[who?] however, see Origen as teaching the ineffable begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit as the unity of power and operation. In this view the Son and Spirit have no less power than the Father, by virtue of literally being his power.[49] Both the Nicene[51] and Athanasian[52] Creeds affirm the Son is begotten of, and the Spirit proceeding from, the Father, co-equally and co-eternally.
  1. c. 256: Novatian​

    [edit]
    Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity.[53] It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence".[54]
    For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God.
    — Treatise on the Trinity, 11[55]
    Some, referring to chapter 31 of On the Trinity, maintain that when Novatian referred to Christ as 'God' he was still excluding him from being 'the one true God'.[3]

    262: Pope Dionysius​

    [edit]
    According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-3rd century Pope Dionysius wrote a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. He quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea .[56] In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
    Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together [...] Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity [...] Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved.
    — 'De decretis Nic. syn.26[57]

    265: Gregory the Wonderworker​

    [edit]
    Gregory was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Asia Minor,[58] and wrote a Declaration of Faith which treats the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary:[59]
    There is one God [...] There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever.
    — Declaration of Faith.[60]

 
cont

Notes​

[edit]
  1. ^ There is no scholarly consensus on when the New Testament was written, though most estimates fall within the 1st and 2nd centuries AD; the New Oxford Annotated Bible states that "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."[2]
  2. ^ "...the three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom".[18]

 
You have what is called a doctrine. It means you put together the verses you want in order to support the premise you are trying to prove.
Hilarious. How old are you? Quite often it seems along with violating whatever rule you choose, you may also have violated the rule that a person must be at least 16 years old. Just saying. I go by the way the posts have cognitive dissonance (selective perception, confirmation bias, even overt projection of their own methods onto others.) A brain not yet fully mature (age 25 in males) may struggle in these ways, unable to track smoothly.

The doctrines in Christianity were not cobbled together with preconceived doctrines already in place in the minds of those who participated. That was the opposite of their purpose. "Doctrines" has no such meaning as the one you give it. It is however, what you do and all you do.
However, what I am about to show you isn't a doctrine. It's pure scripture and it isn't compatible with your doctrine. Do you understand how your Trinity isn't in the Bible now?

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Do you even realize that when you give a Scripture such as you just did, and announce that that scripture teaches that the Trinity isn't in the Bible, you have just stated your doctrine on the matter? And that you presented a Scripture verse you want in order to support the premise you are trying to prove?

I won't even bother to go into the fact that it is removed from the entirety of the Bible, and all the rest of the teaching on Jesus' person and work, except to mention it in passing.
 
John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I'll be back in the morning early to prove just how wicked and corrupt your babbling is. Just got in from doing a few errands~I'm finished for today.

The words above spoken by the Lord were words spoken in his humanity as the Son of Man~and being found in the fashion as a man, worshipped God just as we do in the flesh, no difference whatsoever.

You claim to know God, yet you do not know Jesus Christ, who was indeed God manifest in human flesh!

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If a person denies the true identity of Jesus Christ, then that person does not have eternal life abiding within them.

Later...
 
Actually, I am glad you mentioned John 1:1 because it's one of my favorite verses that John wrote that show the Word is not literally God.

You will have to look in the Greek though, but it's pretty straight forward.
Agreed. . .
In John 1:1 the Word is demonstrably not God in context or grammar. For starters, the Greek grammar says
God is The God (Ton Theon)
and the Word is god (theos). The author wrote it this way to show distinction between God and the Word.
And you know this, how?

Greek grammar does not support your assertion.
John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
I. The use of the article "the" (ton) in the Greek does not change the meaning of theos, nor the meaning of logos.

In the Greek, theos is used with the article "the" (ton), and without it.
The English may not (or may) have need of the article, but that makes no difference in the Greek idiom.

In Ac 27:23 in Greek, ("the God whose I am"), "the" points out the special God whose Paul is, and is to be preserved in the English.
However, in the next verse in Greek ("the God has given you all the ones sailing with you), we do not need "the" in English. . .although
it is usual in English to use the article ("the") with a proper name, when mentioned a second time.

There are, however, exceptions to this, as when the article is omitted in order to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun (e.g.; theos). . .as in Jn 1:1, "and the Word was God," where a double stress is on theos--by the absence of the article ("the," ton) and by the emphatic position of theos (Greek: "God was the Word").

So contrary to your assertion, the use of the article "the" (
ton) in the Greek does not change the meaning of theos, nor the meaning of logos.

II. And now to the text's equating of Jesus with God:
In the polytheism of the Greeks, theos denoted a god or deity (Ac 14:11, 19:26, 28:6, 1 Co 8:5, Gal 4:8).
The word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote the one true God,
Elohim (indicating power and preeminence) and
Jehovah (unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence).

In the NT, the above and all other divine attributes are predicated of Jesus (unity, self-existence, immutability, eternity, universality, almighty power, infinite knowledge, creative power, absolute holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, love, mercy, truthfulness (Mt 20:18-19, Jn 1:1-3, 1:18, 5:22-29, 8:58, 14:6, 17:22-24, 20:28, Ro 1:4, 9:5, Php 3:21, Col 1:15, 2:3, Tit 2:13, Heb 1:3, 13:8, 1 Jn 5:20, Rev 22:12-13),

and also of the Holy of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19, Lk 1:35, Jn 14:16, 15:26, 16:7-14, Ro 8:9, 26, 1 Co 12:11, 2 Co 13:14).

The NT evidence in the Greek of the deity of Jesus, contrary to your assertion, overwhelmingly refutes your false claim denying his divinity, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
There are options here:
1. There are two divine beings with one being The Lord God Almighty and the other a lesser being.
2. The Word is something godly, i.e., God's words are godly.
3. Or this is personification.
To further enhance this point, there is no reference to an actual being known as the Word in the beginning with God in Genesis. Nor is there a reference to someone named the Word saying or doing anything later. Your interpretation lacks support at virtually every level.
So the way to work with this is to examine the body of Scripture and see what it says. Provided that there your interpretation doesn't have any support, the best alternative is that Jesus isn't God.
This is actually evident by the remainder of the narrative in John 1:1-14.
 
Last edited:
As you know I dont. Period.

But interesting that the Westminster Confession seems to have gotten this idea (along with baby baptisms) from none other then the self-appointed prophet John Calvin and if the Confession got this wrong then what else wrong did they get? (Written 1643 and 1648 )

(According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187))
( Written around 1536)
Without hijacking this thread, I will only say these few words: I do not understand people..... godly people, it seems to me, that will accept unconditional election to eternal life, of God's children, yet reject the reprobation of the rest~it is impossible to accept and believe one without also believing the other. It becomes simple to me, if we accept the truth that no one deserves to be saved from their sins and condemnation,

In God's foreknowledge of all things, he knew no one would have ever come to him on their own power if he did not have an election of grace for some, he knew perfectly the end from the beginning of all things that would have happen and that did happen.....so, according to his own will and good please which he purposed solely within Himself, he chose some and left others to their own destruction.

1st Peter 1:2​


“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

A wonderful scripture and easy to understand in light of other scriptures. God knew that if he had not elected some angels and men, none would ever been secured on their power~not even angels. for God alone is immutable. He secured the elect among men by the obedience and blood of one person~Jesus Christ, by whom the scriptures said that God purchased the church with his own blood!

Acts 20:28​


“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Which could only mean that Jesus was indeed God manifest in the flesh! Jesus was God, but God was not Jesus! The mystery of godliness.
 
You will have to look in the Greek, though, but it's pretty straight forward.

In John 1:1 the Word is demonstrably not God in context or grammar. For starters, the Greek grammar says God is The God (Ton Theon) and the Word is god (theos). The author wrote it this way to show distinction between God and the Word.

John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
All talk and no substance of any value for a sincere child of God. I have a quote that I have saved from a man of God that was written about forty years after our KJV came off the press. So this is almost five hundred years old.

"The Priests say that we know not the original, and our Bibles are not rightly translated, nor cannot be pronounced according to the original; besides in translations there are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. We demand of you, answer if you can; as to how know you that your Hebrew and Greek copies are true copies? Is it not possible for any to write contrary to their copy, if copies may be printed false, they may be written false, the art of Printing is not above 350 years old. Can you produce the first original copy, or any of those the Apostles wrote? If not, the cause is the same and you know the original no more than those that know not Greek or Hebrew? If you may depend upon the faithfulness of the Writer and Printer of your Copies, why not others upon those that did it upon oath? Doctor Fulke in his confutation of the Rheims Testament justifieth the English Translation of the Bible, in his “New Testament Confutation,” printed in 1589. But we receive not the truth by tradition. I would know of you that are so for Hebrew and Greek, &c., if the knowledge of the tongues be sufficient to teach those that have those tongues the mind of the Spirit of God in the Scriptures or no? If yea, then all that know these tongues know the mind of God; if no, then it is but an insufficient help, and what is an insufficient help worth more than nothing. The knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is a help to read a Greek and Hebrew Bible, because else they cannot read them. So the knowledge of the English tongue is of necessity to read the English Bible. The cause is the same; but the understanding the English tongue, and reading it in the Bible cannot give them to understand, the meaning of it no more than the knowledge of the tongues Greek and Hebrew though it helps them to read the Bible in those tongues, yet is not able to give them to understand the meaning of it. That this is so, some of them, who know the tongues confess; for Apollo was a learned man, he saw the first copies of the Bible, and if that could have caused him to know the mind of God what need had he to learn of Aquila a tradesman {one of the laity as the Priests use to say} and Priscilla his wife the mind of God as he did. Acts.18:26. Also what is the reason that those that know the tongues cannot agree among themselves? What is the mind of God in his Word, that some of you in your expositions are as contrary to each other as light is to darkness; the natural man cannot perceive the things that be of God; a natural man may be, and some are learned men it’s confessed; some of the Jesuits are good Scholars, &c., for they know the tongues, &c.; then it will follow a man may be such a learned man and yet cannot understand nor perceive the things of God. Nicodemus was a great scholar and teacher in Israel yet how simple was he concerning the meaning of Christ’s words. Tell me then what a help their human learning is to them in spiritual knowledge in the things of the Spirit. The Word saith that he reveals to us the deep things of God by his Spirit, I Cor.2:10; he saith not by Greek and Hebrew. If our translation be true then we can tell the meaning of it as well as you; if it be not true tell me what is that Preaching worth that is proved by a false translation, and if we must believe contrary to our translation because you say so, what is this but an implicit faith and human? And seeing you so differ among yourselves about the meaning of the word or the mind of God in it, tell me, how I may know which of you I am to believe? Also you confess that one word {in the ‘original’} could bear nine or ten divers significations; how know you which of them is the mind of God in that place, unless he reveal it to you? And if God please he can reveal it to a simple man, and God doth do so, and this is that for which Christ thanks his Father, because he hath hid these things from the wise and the learned, and revealed it unto babes, “the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.” “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” Isa.29:10-12. Neither of them can read it, both put it off for they cannot understand it, the unlearned thinks as he hath been taught, that if he were learned in Greek and Hebrew he could understand it; but the former who was such a learned man could not do it, it is hid from the learned; for it’s not in being learned, nor in not being learned. What then will some say, it is because God hath not revealed it to them therefore they do not know it. The Lord saith that none can know the things of God, but he to whom the Spirit will reveal them. “But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? 378 But we have the mind of Christ.” I Cor.2:9-16. “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.” Psal.119:99-100. The knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and English are all human learning of equal excellency, necessity, and use for the translation and reading of the Bible; and as without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, the Bible could not be translated into English, so he that translated the Bible into English, could not have done it without the knowledge of the English tongue; therefore there is the same use and help and necessity of the English tongue as of the Greek or Hebrew tongue; so there is the same to be said for the French and Dutch tongue, and all other tongues and therefore why the Greek and Hebrew tongues should be of any more use and excellency than other tongues, there is no reason to be given for it.

He said more, but this is the jest of what Samuel Richardson wrote...he was one of the men who put together the London Confession of Faith in 1643.
 
Without hijacking this thread, I will only say these few words: I do not understand people..... godly people, it seems to me, that will accept unconditional election to eternal life, of God's children, yet reject the reprobation of the rest~it is impossible to accept and believe one without also believing the other. It becomes simple to me, if we accept the truth that no one deserves to be saved from their sins and condemnation,

In God's foreknowledge of all things, he knew no one would have ever come to him on their own power if he did not have an election of grace for some, he knew perfectly the end from the beginning of all things that would have happen and that did happen.....so, according to his own will and good please which he purposed solely within Himself, he chose some and left others to their own destruction.

1st Peter 1:2​


“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

A wonderful scripture and easy to understand in light of other scriptures. God knew that if he had not elected some angels and men, none would ever been secured on their power~not even angels. for God alone is immutable. He secured the elect among men by the obedience and blood of one person~Jesus Christ, by whom the scriptures said that God purchased the church with his own blood!

Acts 20:28​


“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Which could only mean that Jesus was indeed God manifest in the flesh! Jesus was God, but God was not Jesus! The mystery of godliness.
Keeping in mind that the one person, Jesus, had two natures, human and divine, was both man and God, was God incarnate (Jn 1:14).
 
Keeping in mind that the one person, Jesus, had two natures, human and divine, was both man and God, was God incarnate (Jn 1:14).
Agreed. I have always taught that Jesus was a complex person, fully man, and fully God.
 
Without hijacking this thread, I will only say these few words: I do not understand people..... godly people, it seems to me, that will accept unconditional election to eternal life, of God's children, yet reject the reprobation of the rest~it is impossible to accept and believe one without also believing the other. It becomes simple to me, if we accept the truth that no one deserves to be saved from their sins and condemnation,

In God's foreknowledge of all things, he knew no one would have ever come to him on their own power if he did not have an election of grace for some, he knew perfectly the end from the beginning of all things that would have happen and that did happen.....so, according to his own will and good please which he purposed solely within Himself, he chose some and left others to their own destruction.

Ok, I see your point.... HOWEVER... I would have thought that God would have sized up a person as they were maturing and then chose them to be given the opportunity for eternal salvation.

What bothers me is the picture I have in my head of the spirits that were in the beginning that were to be issued to the people being in a pickle barrel and if you were lucky enough to receive one... good for you and if not.... well, it was all in the plan.

Sure does seem today there are more ending in their own destruction then otherwise so maybe the end of the allotment has happened?

1st Peter 1:2​


“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

A wonderful scripture and easy to understand in light of other scriptures. God knew that if he had not elected some angels and men, none would ever been secured on their power~not even angels. for God alone is immutable. He secured the elect among men by the obedience and blood of one person~Jesus Christ, by whom the scriptures said that God purchased the church with his own blood!

Yes it is... but how do any of us know we actually have been one of the elect?

Acts 20:28​


“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Which could only mean that Jesus was indeed God manifest in the flesh! Jesus was God, but God was not Jesus! The mystery of godliness.
 
Ok, I see your point.... HOWEVER... I would have thought
No disrespect. . .but surely you realize that is not the measure of God's truth. . .unless you see him as not much different than humans.
that God would have sized up a person as they were maturing and then chose them to be given the opportunity for eternal salvation.

What bothers me is the picture I have in my head of the spirits that were in the beginning that were to be issued to the people being in a pickle barrel and if you were lucky enough to receive one... good for you and if not.... well, it was all in the plan.

Sure does seem today there are more ending in their own destruction then otherwise so maybe the end of the allotment has happened?


Yes it is... but how do any of us know we actually have been one of the elect?
 
Agreed. I have always taught that Jesus was a complex person, fully man, and fully God.

What is a complex Jesus? Or is it just 'a word' you ascribe to Jesus?
 
No disrespect. . .but surely you realize that is not the measure of God's truth. . .unless you see him as not much different than humans.
I did not say that....

What I said was "Ok, I see your point.... HOWEVER... I would have thought that God would have sized up a person as they were maturing and then chose them to be given the opportunity for eternal salvation."

You see... I was taught that predestination meant that Long belore God stated the constructions of earth and then the vegetable life and animal life he predestined certain people to be one of the elect.

With the definitions ....

predestination /prē-dĕs″tə-nā′shən/

noun​

  1. The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.
  2. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.
  3. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Predestination is the idea that God has predetermined the fate or destiny of individuals, including their salvation or damnation, before the foundation of the world.
 
@ Eleanor.

Had more to say but says I timed out....

So here goes

At the same time I have heard always about how God loves us.

It took many decades to understand that love id for those who were predestined... only.

Even though the Bible says God does not wish any to perish or be damned... He still has foreordained some souls to damnation.

So the election is limited and still not a guarantee as one must place their faith solely in Jesus. As he says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Now it appears that not one person would have the ability to accept Jesus unless he had first been marked by God. Before the very first
man was made in Genesis.... And seems the same for angels too which probably is all because of Lucifer.

So as I said to Red..."I would have thought that God would have sized up a person as they were maturing and then chose them to be given the opportunity for eternal salvation."

You see... I believe in the shed blood of Jesus which my church taught me.

But isn't it reasonable to have a doubt that I might not actually been chosen before time began, as many say?

And not know if your children were either because you cannot do anything that would change which group you are in.
 
I did not say that....

What I said was "Ok, I see your point.... HOWEVER... I would have thought that God would have sized up a person as they were maturing and then chose them to be given the opportunity for eternal salvation."
"Sized up a person" indicates to me that the person somehow had something (merit) to do with Gods choice.

Salvation is not based on human merit, it is based solely in God's sovereign choice of whom he will spiritually re-birth (Jn 3:3-5), his sovereign choice being as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).
You see... I was taught that predestination meant that Long belore God stated the constructions of earth and then the vegetable life and animal life
he predestined certain people to be one of the elect.
That is correct. . .based on nothing but his sovereign choice to do so.
With the definitions ....
predestination /prē-dĕs″tə-nā′shən/
noun
  1. The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.
  2. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.
  3. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Predestination is the idea that God has predetermined the fate or destiny of individuals, including their salvation or damnation, before the foundation of the world.
Correct. . .
 
What is a complex Jesus? Or is it just 'a word' you ascribe to Jesus?
Jesus of Nazareth is the complex Person of God and man – He possesses both complete natures.
 
"Sized up a person" indicates to me that the person somehow had something (merit) to do with Gods choice.

I need to be brief because I had an accident. A fall and my back is very bad...plus foot and knee.


Salvation is not based on human merit, it is based solely in God's sovereign choice of whom he will spiritually re-birth (Jn 3:3-5), his sovereign choice being as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

But were we not told Tim 2: 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?

To show thyself approved..........

If you do not study God will still re-birth whom He chooses?


That is correct. . .based on nothing but his sovereign choice to do so.

Correct. . .
 
I need to be brief because I had an accident. A fall and my back is very bad...plus foot and knee.

But were we not told Tim 2: 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?
The word "study" is not in the verse.
To show thyself approved..........

If you do not study God will still re-birth whom He chooses?
Yes. . .

Jn 3:3-5 presents the new birth by sovereign (based on nothing but himself) choice the Holy Spirit, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).
 
Back
Top