Predestination a biblical perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
It makes sense. I see differently, however. I don't see everyone's sins forgiven. The ransom was not a payment to God, it was to ransom man from Satan. That is why man having been redeemed is still guilty of his sins against God. That is why even though Jesus is the ransom for mankind not all mankind is saved. The Scriptures are replete with statements about God forgiving sins. Payment and forgiveness of the same debt are mutually exclusive. If a debt is forgiven it isn't paid, likewise, if it's paid it isn't forgiven.

Ok then. The scripture does say........... "For this Purpose was the son of God manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil."

Whole reason Jesus came, was because of the devil. The devil came to kill, steal and destroy, Jesus came to put a stop to that.

Not sure how we can work out the other parts though.

Even if someone does believe on Jesus, there are lots of believers the devil is using as a throw rug just through unbelief.

Lots of believers don't fully submit to God.

There are whole lots of things to look at.

Be blessed Brother.
 
Yet they weren't to go out and do this until the Holy Spirit came. And what did Jesus command them? Did it have anything to do with the laws of Moses? No. He told them that this new covenant had only one law: to love God and people. He told them to be holy, but never tied this holiness to observance of the old law.

But you're missing the point about how Israel had rejected their King, and so the promised "gospel of the kingdom" was also rejected. In the face of that, not only would their Temple and Jerusalem be destroyed, but God would turn to the Gentiles. And what do we see in scripture about what the Gentile believers were told? Look at Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council. Was it anything to do with Judaism beyond being sensitive to their taboos against eating meat with blood still in it, and to abstain from sexual promiscuity? No. Jesus never taught his disciples to perpetuate Jewish law for the church, because he taught a new covenant.

But what Jesus said about the kingdom of God was the announcement given to the nation of Israel exclusively. Everything he said about their law, such as tithing, was said to those under the law. And if you don't believe me, then believe the writer of Hebrews. That whole Letter is all about the inferiority and end of the laws of Moses for those who are in Christ. So here again, the "all things" Jesus taught them was nothing about the old Law.

I didn't say He taught the Law. I said He told them to teach all that He had commanded them. We have Mathew 5-7 for starters, that all pertains to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jews just like the Gentiles was save by grace through faith. There is one hope for Jew and Gentile.
 
I didn't say He taught the Law. I said He told them to teach all that He had commanded them. We have Mathew 5-7 for starters, that all pertains to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jews just like the Gentiles was save by grace through faith. There is one hope for Jew and Gentile.
Yet since you've been saying that there is no difference between what Jesus said before the cross and what he said afterwards, then it follows that you think he perpetuated the law. Perhaps you were not thinking about what is implied by saying that there is no difference.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, of course the general principles he taught were applicable to all people. But before the cross, Jews had to be saved by obedience to the law, which of course included the reasons for the obedience: love and holiness and faith. No one is saying no faith was required under the law. But after Pentecost, salvation was ONLY by faith in the risen Jesus, without any of the old practices. The only way in which there is one hope for Jew and Gentile is by becoming "a new creation"; Gal. 3:28 tells us that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek. Being saved by grace alone was never applicable to the Jews under the law. To fail to observe all the precepts was to be cast out.
 
Right off the bat you are still not seeing what I wrote, No where did I say God chooses who would be saved and who will not. Man is ultimately responsible for his salvation. It is mans choice weather or not he will be a child of God. This is why I said more people fight over this more than any other thing in the Bible, because they simply do not understand it. The Lord God knew from the beginning your choice, in fact he knows every thought, and every word that will come forth from your mouth, and he knew this from the beginning. No, I am not a "Calvinist" or any other man made up words that describe people.
There is no way man could ever be saved without God knowing what would happen, even in the garden. You can not take humanity and place him back into the first Adam as he was already tainted with sin. There had to be another with seed, and without sin to save man. The Devil knew God could not save man using his existing man, which is why he killed Jesus. If he had known what the Lord had done he would have never crucified the Lord of Glory. It was a mystery hidden in God that he told no body about. But we do get glimpses of it through out scripture.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

This goes way back to the beginning. Notice in verse 4 in him (the Word, Christ) was life. Then it tells us exactly what that life was. the life was the light of men. !!! It did not say that the light was God, as God is light, it said the light of men. Men where alive in the Word, that was in the beginning!!!!
I wonder who these men where? It is very simple to know as God the Father told his Son Jesus to ask him for the nations (different tongues, and nations) and I will give them to you for your inheritance!!! This was before the creation of the worlds.

Psa 2:6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."
Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
Psa 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." (ESV)

The very first thing in the beginning was God the Father bringing forth his Son (word)
The father tells his Son to ask for the nations and I will give them to you... We know Jesus asked for this and received it as it tells us this in the Book of Revelations....

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Then in verse 9 Jesus tells this to those who overcome. They also shall do the same....

Psa 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

The word rule actually means to teach....The vessels that shall be broken are doctrines of men that the Word destroys and breaks into pieces that are not of the truth.

Yes, your seeing some of it. Jesus is the light of man, from the very start. Before the World was made.

Yet you still can't have God knowing who gets saved and not gets saved without lots of scriptural issues.

So it has to be something else when Paul said he has choosen us before the foundation of the World to be in Christ.

Can't be God's foreknowledge. You did touch on it though.

A few scriptures out of 50 or more even.
(What did God say about what He knows?)

1Ch 28:9 kjva And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

The Lord has to search............ Understands all hearts.

Psa 44:21 kjva Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

Jer 17:10 kjva I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

2Ch 16:9 kjva For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

If God knows before the foundation of the World who will follow him, then God must have wasted a whole lot of time searching and trying hearts for things He already knew.

God also must have forgotten where these folks are at on the Earth because He has to go looking for them again.

So this foreknowledge of who would choose Him before the foundation of the World can't be true. Unless God just forgets and gets confused, which I don't think is the case.

It's in scripture...... What does Paul mean we were predestined to be in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the World?

What was the original plan? You touched on it, but we can't have a doctrine with contradicting scriptures............ I am just getting started, but I hope you see it before I go through all 50+ scriptures.

God would not search a blessed thing for something He already knew, God is not that stupid.

Pretend I am like a student asking these question........what would you tell me?
 
Ok then. The scripture does say........... "For this Purpose was the son of God manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil."

Whole reason Jesus came, was because of the devil. The devil came to kill, steal and destroy, Jesus came to put a stop to that.

Not sure how we can work out the other parts though.

Even if someone does believe on Jesus, there are lots of believers the devil is using as a throw rug just through unbelief.

Lots of believers don't fully submit to God.

There are whole lots of things to look at.

Be blessed Brother.

This may need it's own thread because it looks at the atonement and there are three different models of it. I reject the Penal model which is what is typically taught today. I hold what is known as the Classic or Ransom view of the Atonement, this is the view that was held for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Here is a quote from Irenaeus an early writer showing how they understood this issue.

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.
 
I think I posted this on another thread, but the first item has to do with the atonement: http://www.fether.net/index.php?page=refuting-universalism-a-quick-reference/

Regarding the thread topic here, I've said before that if predestination to salvation is true, then there is no point in debating it. What matters is how people are saved, why they are saved, and to what they are saved. How are we saved? By placing faith in the risen Jesus alone to reconcile us to God. Why are we saved? So we can spend eternity with God in His Kingdom rather than in the realm of Satan. To what are we saved? A life of increasing holiness, being the fragrance of God in this world, and telling everyone that faith in this Jesus is their only hope for eternity.

I think it's rather silly and presumptuous for mere humans to think we can ever fathom the inner workings of all this. Knowing exactly how the process works of someone turning to Jesus does not make it any more amazing; knowing that we are "a new creation" does not make it any less miraculous; knowing that we can, with time and effort, grow spiritually does not make it any less hopeful.

Certainly it does matter that Paul told us of three, not two, groups of people ("Jews, Greeks, and the church of God" - 1 Cor. 10:32), and that each of these has a particular destiny in prophecy, so how we understand this will affect how we understand prophecy. It will also affect how we live to some extent, since whether or not Christians are under any part of the laws of Moses is a big deal. But for salvation itself, this topic called Predestination doesn't seem to have any value for either evangelism or holy living, since the same Gospel is preached to all.
 
My response was about the Spirit permanently indwelling each believer literally. But you brought up the issue of "with" vs. "in" vs. "among", so I addressed that too.

No straw man on my part. I explained as best I could that being indwelt by the Spirit does not mean we are no longer still human beings and sinners. I never said the Spirit would not be present; that's your straw man. I said the Spirit did not participate in our sins. There is no mutually-exclusive relationship between indwelling of the Spirit and our still being sinners.

I didn't say the Spirit was present, I asked how you deal with that logical conclusion.

As for individuals, surely you remember that on Pentecost the Spirit split up and landed on each individual, rather than one "tongue of fire" over the whole group. There are also many other incidences recorded in Acts where individuals were "filled with the Spirit". I don't know why you're finding this individual filling so hard to accept.

Yes, the Spirit did fill people at times, that is clear in the Scriptures. However, I don't see the word "permanent" in those passages. A temporary filling would not have any difficulty with a person sinning as I put forth, however a permanent one would. However, this is not relevant to the issue of time and what Jesus said. I don't see how one can conclude that the coming of the Holy Spirit changes what Jesus said.
 
Yet since you've been saying that there is no difference between what Jesus said before the cross and what he said afterwards, then it follows that you think he perpetuated the law. Perhaps you were not thinking about what is implied by saying that there is no difference.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, of course the general principles he taught were applicable to all people. But before the cross, Jews had to be saved by obedience to the law, which of course included the reasons for the obedience: love and holiness and faith. No one is saying no faith was required under the law. But after Pentecost, salvation was ONLY by faith in the risen Jesus, without any of the old practices. The only way in which there is one hope for Jew and Gentile is by becoming "a new creation"; Gal. 3:28 tells us that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek. Being saved by grace alone was never applicable to the Jews under the law. To fail to observe all the precepts was to be cast out.

The Jews were not saved by keeping the Law. Salvation has always been by grace through faith, even to the Jews. That is Paul's argument throughout the NT. The Jews misunderstood the purpose of the Law, which Paul makes clear in the NT. He tells the Galatians that the Law as a teacher until Christ would come.

There is no faith alone teaching in the Scriptures one is saved the same way throughout the Scriptures, it is by an obedient, loving and faithful relationship with God. This is how Abraham was saved, how David was saved, how Paul was saved, how the apostles were saved, and how everyone else is saved.
 
I didn't say the Spirit was present, I asked how you deal with that logical conclusion.
And I explained this already. There is no necessary mutually-exclusive situation between a sinner and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I explained that this indwelling does not mean we lose our individuality, nor that the Spirit participates in our sin. You, in turn, have not supplied any logical argument that forces us to conclude otherwise. What scripture do you use to support the claim that we are not individually indwelt by the Spirit? So far you've only given your opinion that it cannot be so since that would mean the Spirit participates in our sin, and I've argued that this is not a logical conclusion to which anyone is forced.


Yes, the Spirit did fill people at times, that is clear in the Scriptures. However, I don't see the word "permanent" in those passages. A temporary filling would not have any difficulty with a person sinning as I put forth, however a permanent one would. However, this is not relevant to the issue of time and what Jesus said. I don't see how one can conclude that the coming of the Holy Spirit changes what Jesus said.
My point was that the Spirit can and does come upon individuals. Earlier you had argued, as far as I can tell, that the Holy Spirit only is "with" or "among" Christians generally, rather than in them individually.
 
This may need it's own thread because it looks at the atonement and there are three different models of it. I reject the Penal model which is what is typically taught today. I hold what is known as the Classic or Ransom view of the Atonement, this is the view that was held for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Here is a quote from Irenaeus an early writer showing how they understood this issue.

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

That was the same year the "ORIGINAL" Trinity doctrine was created. We know what contraversy that has caused. Just saying.

That would be a Cathloic doctrine though, and they believe santification through suffering, Pugatory and a whole list of other steps.

The Orignal and true Trinity Doctrine of 325 AD was not bad though, it's the modern fakes that came later based off the original which are bad, even to 1914 when Oneness was invented.
 
The Jews were not saved by keeping the Law. Salvation has always been by grace through faith, even to the Jews. That is Paul's argument throughout the NT. The Jews misunderstood the purpose of the Law, which Paul makes clear in the NT. He tells the Galatians that the Law as a teacher until Christ would come.
Any Jew who did not keep the law was cast out. Failure to keep it sometimes even meant death. And as Paul explained it, the law was a "schoolmaster" or custodian whose purpose was to bring the nation to the point where their Messiah could come, and though the law could never save anyone, they were required to keep it nonetheless.

But when you keep equating salvation before Jesus with salvation after, you've been arguing is that people could be saved by faith in Jesus' resurrection before it even happened. Thus there are two "gospel" messages: one of the kingdom promised to the nation of Israel, and the other of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The former was before Jesus rose again; the latter was after. These cannot be mixed, as they are two different covenants.

There is no faith alone teaching in the Scriptures one is saved the same way throughout the Scriptures, it is by an obedient, loving and faithful relationship with God. This is how Abraham was saved, how David was saved, how Paul was saved, how the apostles were saved, and how everyone else is saved.
Eph. 2:8-9 says point blank that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Paul explained also that grace is not wages, and faith is not work. Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God, nothing else.
 
This thread has branched off into about sixteen different directions. Now we're debating whether salvation is by faith alone, and whether individual Christians are permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This makes discussing any topic rather chaotic.
 
This thread has branched off into about sixteen different directions. Now we're debating whether salvation is by faith alone, and whether individual Christians are permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This makes discussing any topic rather chaotic.

The original poster has not taken interest in their own thread. So things branch out if there is no direction given. Predestination leaks into many areas of the Word, like OSAS and steps to Salvation itself.

I now finally understand Butch is taking Cathloic material and introducing it into the mix. Had he just said so, it would have shortened things up a few pages.

Cathloics believe in a santification process. Which Butch quoted from the so called "Fathers" of 325ad which was Rome. Same place the Trinity concept came in and started all Statements of faith till today.

I don't see any Calvinist around either, but the opposite called God's foreknowledge which is not predestination doctrine.

So can someone who comes here to learn something follow the thread? It would be hard.

Does it give us something to do? Yep.
 
The original poster has not taken interest in their own thread. So things branch out if there is no direction given. Predestination leaks into many areas of the Word, like OSAS and steps to Salvation itself.

I now finally understand Butch is taking Cathloic material and introducing it into the mix. Had he just said so, it would have shortened things up a few pages.

Cathloics believe in a santification process. Which Butch quoted from the so called "Fathers" of 325ad which was Rome. Same place the Trinity concept came in and started all Statements of faith till today.

I don't see any Calvinist around either, but the opposite called God's foreknowledge which is not predestination doctrine.

So can someone who comes here to learn something follow the thread? It would be hard.

Does it give us something to do? Yep.
Yeah, I'm not complaining, just saying that it gets difficult to keep track of what we're even talking about after a while.

Agree about the Catholic material. It makes us have to define everything very carefully before we can even start a real discussion, since we often presume that basics such as salvation by faith isn't even a question.

But yeah, anyone clicking on this thread to learn about predestination is going to get really confused.
 
And I explained this already. There is no necessary mutually-exclusive situation between a sinner and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I explained that this indwelling does not mean we lose our individuality, nor that the Spirit participates in our sin. You, in turn, have not supplied any logical argument that forces us to conclude otherwise. What scripture do you use to support the claim that we are not individually indwelt by the Spirit? So far you've only given your opinion that it cannot be so since that would mean the Spirit participates in our sin, and I've argued that this is not a logical conclusion to which anyone is forced.

You've simply made a claim here. If the believe is indwelt with the Spirit permanently, then wherever the believer goes the Spirit must be there. That's just logical. The logical conclusion from this is that if the believer commits adultery the Spirit is there. It's not about the sinner having the Spirit, it's about the location of the Spirit. That is what I asked you to address.



My point was that the Spirit can and does come upon individuals. Earlier you had argued, as far as I can tell, that the Holy Spirit only is "with" or "among" Christians generally, rather than in them individually.

Nowhere did I say the Spirit is "only." What I said was that I believe Christians have misunderstood this concept of indwelling. I submit that Paul's use of the plural "you" supports an among you interpretation.
 
You've simply made a claim here. If the believe is indwelt with the Spirit permanently, then wherever the believer goes the Spirit must be there. That's just logical. The logical conclusion from this is that if the believer commits adultery the Spirit is there. It's not about the sinner having the Spirit, it's about the location of the Spirit. That is what I asked you to address.
You too have "simply made a claim". I never disputed that the Spirit goes wherever the believer goes. But what I do dispute is that this means the Spirit is participating in our sin. Is not God omnipresent? So by your argument, even without the indwelling of the Spirit, God is there if a believer commits adultery. In other words, your viewpoint does not solve the problem of the presence of God when we sin. Or do you believe that God is not omnipresent? This is what "location" is all about; can there be a place where God is not? As per Psalm 139:8, we cannot hide from God even when we sin.

Nowhere did I say the Spirit is "only." What I said was that I believe Christians have misunderstood this concept of indwelling. I submit that Paul's use of the plural "you" supports an among you interpretation.
And I submit that nothing Paul ever said precludes individual indwelling of the Spirit, and that you instead have misunderstood the concept. So here we are "submitting" to each other, which is scriptural, right? ;)
 
That was the same year the "ORIGINAL" Trinity doctrine was created. We know what contraversy that has caused. Just saying.

That would be a Cathloic doctrine though, and they believe santification through suffering, Pugatory and a whole list of other steps.

The Orignal and true Trinity Doctrine of 325 AD was not bad though, it's the modern fakes that came later based off the original which are bad, even to 1914 when Oneness was invented.

Actually, what I posted is not Catholic, the Catholics may use it but it was stated before the Roman Catholic church existed. You are correct about the Trinity, the modern concept is not the original. Here's something else to consider, Christians in the past and the Roman Catholic church changed the original Trinity teaching and the original teaching of the Atonement, how many other things did they change? How many things do Protestants today believe, that were changed back in the day, that are not the original teachings of the Church. I'd submit there's more than Protestants are aware of. We have to remember that Protestantism came out of Catholicism and the Reformers didn't get rid of all of the erroneous teachings that the Catholic church had established, they're still promoted by Protestants today.
 
You too have "simply made a claim". I never disputed that the Spirit goes wherever the believer goes. But what I do dispute is that this means the Spirit is participating in our sin. Is not God omnipresent? So by your argument, even without the indwelling of the Spirit, God is there if a believer commits adultery. In other words, your viewpoint does not solve the problem of the presence of God when we sin. Or do you believe that God is not omnipresent? This is what "location" is all about; can there be a place where God is not? As per Psalm 139:8, we cannot hide from God even when we sin.


And I submit that nothing Paul ever said precludes individual indwelling of the Spirit, and that you instead have misunderstood the concept. So here we are "submitting" to each other, which is scriptural, right? ;)

Firstly, we aren't discussing the Father, we're discussing the Spirit. Please stick with the issue at hand. I didn't say anything about the Spirit participating in sin. I said it's about location. The issue is with this claimed "permanence." I only see one logical conclusion.

Regarding the indwelling, I didn't state anything as fact, I simply said, I believe Christians misunderstand this concept. So far the answers you've given me have done nothing to convince me that I'm wrong. It seems to me that you're avoiding the real question.
 
Firstly, we aren't discussing the Father, we're discussing the Spirit. Please stick with the issue at hand. I didn't say anything about the Spirit participating in sin. I said it's about location. The issue is with this claimed "permanence." I only see one logical conclusion.

Regarding the indwelling, I didn't state anything as fact, I simply said, I believe Christians misunderstand this concept. So far the answers you've given me have done nothing to convince me that I'm wrong. It seems to me that you're avoiding the real question.
God cannot be dissected in such a manner. There is only one God. The three Persons share a single will, or else they'd be three gods. So nice try making the omnipresence of God only apply to one part. And besides, that Psalm begins with this: "Where can I go from your Spirit?" Now who is trying to divert from the issue at hand?

Yes, you were arguing that the Spirit cannot indwell us individually or that would mean participating in our sin. If you didn't intend to make that argument, you really need to find another way to word whatever it is you're trying to say. And again, I've addressed the issue of location. I can't make you see anything.

As for Christians allegedly misunderstanding the concept of indwelling, you yourself have done nothing to prove your claim. You have merely asserted that we have it wrong. So until you actually make a scripture-based case for what you're claiming, I have nothing to respond to and nothing to allegedly avoid. What have you given as evidence that we have it wrong?
 
Actually, what I posted is not Catholic, the Catholics may use it but it was stated before the Roman Catholic church existed. You are correct about the Trinity, the modern concept is not the original. Here's something else to consider, Christians in the past and the Roman Catholic church changed the original Trinity teaching and the original teaching of the Atonement, how many other things did they change? How many things do Protestants today believe, that were changed back in the day, that are not the original teachings of the Church. I'd submit there's more than Protestants are aware of. We have to remember that Protestantism came out of Catholicism and the Reformers didn't get rid of all of the erroneous teachings that the Catholic church had established, they're still promoted by Protestants today.

Butch, that council is the Roman Cathloic Church. At the end of the "Original" Trinity doctrine it states something about being part of the Cathlic Church.

Granted, it may not resemble what Rome is today but that is where the doctrine came from, I check it out.

Rome is the oldest orginzed church dating back just a hundred or so years after John Finished Revelation.

It was in 381 ad that things started to get a bit messed up.

In the early 1600's though, Rome let a bunch of junk in, including the Pope accepting the new and revised understanding of the Trinity Doctrine by which the Western cilivazation bought, hook line and sinker. Athanasius of Alexandria claimed to have coughed this one up and Pope Julius made it offical.

We had Calvin with his election doctrine at this time, and Ersimus having to include the new version of John for his 3rd edition Greek.

That's when things got messed up.

As you know, these things have been carried over into most churches today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top