UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> the judaization of Christianity


9/2/10 12:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19833
 Are you ever honest Rooster?

Just because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible doesn't mean it can't be used to clarify God's reality.  I believe you believe in a Rapture, which is a non-biblical word.  And technically every translation in English is replete with non-biblical words since the original autographs were not written in English and every translation means adding new words to convey ideas expressed in the original words.  

You believe in a god that talks to himself.  If a human called himself his own father we would rightfully consider him insane.  The same thing applies here.  You can't answer how God is love without either bringing in the creation or claiming that God is self-love.  Agape love can't exist in a monad.  So you believe your god relies on creating creatures to love to fulfill his nature.

The last prayer of Jesus on earth is that his followers be one as he and his father are one.  If that was the case, then his followers would cease to be persons, but would become a single person in your view.  If, however, God is a communion of love, then other persons can join that communion and be "one" in the sense that the life of God is one.  

If the Theophany was not a Trinitarian moment the Father would have uttered "this is me in whom I am well pleased."  You are saying that your god is actually a person who utters to himself that he is well pleased with himself.  By simply claiming part of himself is on earth and part of himself is on heaven you don't get around this silliness.  You are making god out to be a person who talks to himself and gives himself compliments.

If Jesus is in heaven while he is on earth then he can't be fully god and fully man like you state.  He would be fully man and partially god.  You are actually dividing the nature of God in a way that no Trinitarian ever would.  

You really have to twist scripture to make any sense of the relationship of Father and Son.  Speaking of which, your church disobeys the command of Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I know you argue this was added to scripture later and also try to argue that the name is "Jesus," but that is not what is meant by "in the name."  It means in the authority such as an activist marching on Washington and saying "I come in the name of the disenfranchised."  

Your understanding of the early Christian fathers is atrocious.  I doubt you have read a single father as a primary source rather than perusing Oneness sites that pick and choose little snippets that appear to support your position.  Of course this is the same approach you take to scripture so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  

Not that I really care anymore about trying to convince you of anything.  We have all grown and learned from each other and you have remained exactly the same.  I am sure you see that as a sign of being right, but I see it as a sign of stagnation and a monomaniacal obsession with proving yourself right every time rather than a real love for truth.  

That is okay though.  Your position that the vast majority of Christians, including the vast majority of martyrs and saints who gave their lives for union with Christ, are polytheists and all going to hell.  At least with that position the truth nature of your tradition is laid bare and people can see it for what it is.  I would be far more concerned if you pretended that it was all okay and people could be forgiven their worship of multiple gods.




9/2/10 10:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2962
Ridgeback - That is okay though.  (rooster's) Your position that the vast majority of Christians, including the vast majority of martyrs and saints who gave their lives for union with Christ, are polytheists and all going to hell.  At least with that position the truth nature of your tradition is laid bare and people can see it for what it is.  I would be far more concerned if you pretended that it was all okay and people could be forgiven their worship of multiple gods.


 That's ok, they'll have plenty of company - atheist, polytheists, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, Hindus.. lol.

Oddly enough this is the same fate to which the Trinitarians would consign them, too.

By the time all is said and done, there won't be anyone left to go to heaven.
9/3/10 12:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17883
ridge: Are you ever honest Rooster?

Just because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible doesn't mean it can't be used to clarify God's reality. I believe you believe in a Rapture, which is a non-biblical word. And technically every translation in English is replete with non-biblical words since the original autographs were not written in English and every translation means adding new words to convey ideas expressed in the original words.

me: sure, I'll concede that (there I guess I'm honest sometimes). We do sometimes use words that try to capture a biblical truth. "Rapture" is used to describe how people will feel, although I've heard some people call it the "cathching away" because the bible says we will be "caught away".

The problem with the word "trinity" or "tri-unity, Triune, persons, entities, personalities, 3 in 1, etc ad nauseum" is that it's a whole host of words that are not only in the bible but they convey the *OPPOSITE* meaning of monotheism.

you: You believe in a god that talks to himself.

me: now are you ever honest? I've never said God "talks to himself". I have laid out the humanity expressing all of humanity (but sin) including prayer as part of being fully man.

But let's take a step back. Have you ever spoken to yourself? I have. When I was powerlifting I would often try to compel myself for a heavier lift. I would "pysche" myself up by telling myself over and over how I could do it. It was my spirit trying to push my mind and my flesh.

Paul talks about the war between the carnal man and the spirit man within a Christian. Is Paul referring to 2 men?!!? Is Paul saying that we are 2 in 1 beings?!!? Of course not.

you: If a human called himself his own father we would rightfully consider him insane.

me: Jesus is unique. What human was also the creator? The bible says that "Through Him and by Him (talking about Jesus) were ALL THINGS MADE. Since the bible says that Jesus was "...MADE according to the flesh..."

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was MADE of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Then Jesus (as God, as Spirit) made the tabernacle, the body that He dwelt in.

What man created His own flesh? None. Jesus is unique.

you: The same thing applies here. You can't answer how God is love without either bringing in the creation or claiming that God is self-love. Agape love can't exist in a monad.

me: of course I can and I have over and over. If God must have other gods to love to be love, then God must have had evil exist before Satan to be holy and pure. Thus you have created a duality in God of good and evil. And your very phrase "agape love can't exist in a monad" proves you ARE NOT MONOTHEISTIC. YOU REJECT A MONDAD for a Poly view.

Certainly God is outside of time. He defines and is Love, Holiness, Justice, Victorious etc. because He exists before and after time. The Logos (plan of the fall and redemption and the marriage of the bride) existed in God's mind before anything and HE LOVED IT.

YOU: So you believe your god relies on creating creatures to love to fulfill his nature.

ME: No, God was love before anything. Your God relies on other creatures (persons, gods) to fufill his nature. He is not complete without these other beings.

you: The last prayer of Jesus on earth is that his followers be one as he and his father are one. If that was the case, then his followers would cease to be persons, but would become a single person in your view. If, however, God is a communion of love, then other persons can join that communion and be "one" in the sense that the life of God is one.

me: wrong. It is in reference to being One in Spirit. The selfsame Spirit in Christ (the spirit of the Father) is the same Spirit in believers.

Not many different spirits. WE don't have the spirit of Christ and a separate spirit of the Father and a separate spirit of the Holy Ghost.

One Spirit that we can be one with.

you: If the Theophany was not a Trinitarian moment the Father would have uttered "this is me in whom I am well pleased."

me: you mean "would *not* have said".

The problem is you are reading that verse from a polytheistic view. The voice in heaven said, "This is my Son (my flesh) *IN WHOM I AM* well please. It please the Father to dwell in the Son. It pleased God to dwell in flesh with His humanity. One validates God's monotheistm, the other is a purely pagan, polytheistic view. Which you have.

you: You are saying that your god is actually a person who utters to himself that he is well pleased with himself. By simply claiming part of himself is on earth and part of himself is on heaven you don't get around this silliness. You are making god out to be a person who talks to himself and gives himself compliments.

me: God uttered to John (and to believers through the written word). He uttered that it pleased him to dwell in the Son.

And God does "give Himself compliments". Throughout the Old Testament He says, (paraphrase), "I AM the Lord God, who delivered you, a just God, a loving God, your creator, etc.". Look at His conversation with Job where He demands of Job to take a glimpse at His greatness and try to justify Himself. I know you don't believe in the OT but it's in there.

you: If Jesus is in heaven while he is on earth then he can't be fully god and fully man like you state. He would be fully man and partially god. You are actually dividing the nature of God in a way that no Trinitarian ever would.

me: no, I would be quoting Jesus to Nicodemus. TRY READING YOUR BIBLE:

Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which *IS* IN HEAVEN (CURRENTLY, PRESENT TENSE).

Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son of Man that was standing right in front of him, was also in heaven. Not me. So you are now claiming that Jesus is dividing God. Not me.

It's not that difficult. The Spirit in Christ was also in heaven. While God was tabernacling in Christ, His Spirit cannot be confined by man made or a human temple and was still everywhere (including heaven).

9/3/10 12:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09/03/10 12:26 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17884
you: You really have to twist scripture to make any sense of the relationship of Father and Son. Speaking of which, your church disobeys the command of Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I know you argue this was added to scripture later and also try to argue that the name is "Jesus," but that is not what is meant by "in the name." It means in the authority such as an activist marching on Washington and saying "I come in the name of the disenfranchised."

me: pathetic. Jesus said to baptize in the NAME (SINGULAR) *OF* (POSSESSIONAL MEANING BELONGING TO, OR PERTAINING TO) THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. What's the One name?

Clearly if we are wrong, so were the apostles! Also the only reason there is "authority" is because of THE NAME! You can see that when the apostles healed the lame man, that invoked THE LITERAL NAME OF JESUS. When they cast out demons, the did so IN THE NAME OF JESUS. They invoked the authority by the name. They said it was the NAME AND FAITH IN THE NAME THAT MADE THIS MAN WHOLE!

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS Christ for the remission of sins

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.)

Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were BAPTIZED in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

So who got it wrong Ridge? the philsophers and state/church monstrosity or the apostoles?

It wasn't just in baptism. The scriptures declare that "all ye do in word or deed, do all the name of the lord Jesus" for "...neither IS THEIR SALVATION IN ANY OTHER NAME, FOR THEIR IS NO OTHER NAME under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved."

In fact, the pharisees punished the apostles and told them "...NOT TO TEACH OR PREACH IN *THIS NAME* ANYMORE). What name? The name they declared to the lame man that through faith and the authority in the NAME (Jesus) made this man whole.

It's all about Jesus and Paul said we are buried with HIM (not them) in baptism.

I stand with the scriptures.

you: Your understanding of the early Christian fathers is atrocious. I doubt you have read a single father as a primary source rather than perusing Oneness sites that pick and choose little snippets that appear to support your position. Of course this is the same approach you take to scripture so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

me: ahem, yes, that's why I lay out all the scriptures that emphasize the declaration of the name of the savior (whom we love and testify of) and I now await your examples IN THE BIBLE of all the examples of people being baptized while they invoked the trinitarian formula (crickets). whose picking and choosing snippets? One verse (Matthew 28:19) that you can't even cross reference because there IS NO OTHER ONE, NO OTHER EXAMPLE. You see, the authority is in THE ACTUAL NAME NOT TITLES!

and have you read tertullians admissions, or Justin Martyrs reference to Jesus that border on arianism!?!? Am I a catholic church father (well besides the snippets taught to me when I grew up catholic?) I don't know and I don't care. they were not inspired. They are useful historical references but you view them like a Mormon viewes his added books or a muslim the Hadith. They are NOT GOSPEL. <

you: Not that I really care anymore about trying to convince you of anything.

me: and yet...here you are...

you: We have all grown and learned from each other and you have remained exactly the same.

me: thank God. The bible says to hold steadfast to the faith once delivered and Paul said "though I or an angel from heaven preach any other gosepl, let him be accursed."

I'm not looking to "grow" in a position I reject.

you: I am sure you see that as a sign of being right, but I see it as a sign of stagnation and a monomaniacal obsession with proving yourself right every time rather than a real love for truth.

me: that's your opinion.

you: That is okay though. Your position that the vast majority of Christians, including the vast majority of martyrs and saints who gave their lives for union with Christ, are polytheists and all going to hell. At least with that position the truth nature of your tradition is laid bare and people can see it for what it is. I would be far more concerned if you pretended that it was all okay and people could be forgiven their worship of multiple gods

me: I have no power or authority to put anyone in hell. Jesus said IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT *I AM* YOU SHALL DIE IN YOUR SINS.

I am repeating what Jesus said. He is the I AM and you will die in your sins if you don't accept that.

You use this to cast me as a villian, to pretend that I am hard hearted and view everyone as going to hell. If everyone that ever lived is in heaven, I will rejoice. I only communicate what I understand and have received just as a baptist thinks a muslim or mormon is going to hell, and you think a non believer is not saved (though not sure what that means to you since you white out huge chunks of the bible in favor of more ego gratifying philosophizing).

But whatever.

I dont hate you, I don't dislike you. I pray for you to be converted and receive the revelation that Jesus is all you need. In Him you are complete. In Him is all the fullness and when you call on His name in faith (whether in repentance, baptism, needs, prayer, blessings, etc.) you are calling on ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.

9/3/10 12:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17885
grakman: That's ok, they'll have plenty of company - atheist, polytheists, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, Hindus.. lol.

Oddly enough this is the same fate to which the Trinitarians would consign them, too.

By the time all is said and done, there won't be anyone left to go to heaven.

me: my point exactly. All religions that are dogmatic (muslims, trinitarians, etc) have some "door" you have to go through. That's a good point grakman.

I hope you are right about your view on hell :-)
9/3/10 3:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19868
Grakman - 
Ridgeback - That is okay though.  (rooster's) Your position that the vast majority of Christians, including the vast majority of martyrs and saints who gave their lives for union with Christ, are polytheists and all going to hell.  At least with that position the truth nature of your tradition is laid bare and people can see it for what it is.  I would be far more concerned if you pretended that it was all okay and people could be forgiven their worship of multiple gods.


 That's ok, they'll have plenty of company - atheist, polytheists, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, Hindus.. lol.

Oddly enough this is the same fate to which the Trinitarians would consign them, too.

By the time all is said and done, there won't be anyone left to go to heaven.
I am consistently against those people who like to speculate on the Judgment outcomes of others, which is why I am against Rooster as well as the Trinitarians who do the same thing.  
 
9/3/10 3:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2963
 rooster, are you a member of a particular denomination? And what is your view of the Atonement, i.e. penal substitution, Christus Victor, etc?
9/3/10 4:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 298
Rooster, do you believe that trinitarians are going to hell?

That would be a pretty harsh position to take, imo. You call it polytheism, but it isn't the same in the traditional sense of the word. And while it isn't explicitly laid out in Scripture, the Trinity can be inferred from Scripture, i.e. your explanations aren't a slam dunk rebuttal by any means.

So, both sides believe Jesus is God, and his death and resurrection have redeemed creation. I can't believe God would condemn somebody for an honest misunderstanding of a concept that is very difficult for humans to understand, whichever side you fall on.
9/3/10 4:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11303
 Go for it rooster, I know youre dying to correct us ! 
9/3/10 5:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19870
Grakman -  rooster, are you a member of a particular denomination? And what is your view of the Atonement, i.e. penal substitution, Christus Victor, etc?

 The last I heard he attended UPC (United Pentecostal Church) services.
9/3/10 5:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19871
 This is a link to UPC beliefs.  They are pretty much like any other fundamentalist pentecostal group in the US with the twist of being Neo-Sabellians.  

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/aof.html

BTW, I know that the link appears to be biased, but the statement of faith this links to is the UPC statement without commentary.

9/3/10 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17886
ridge:I am consistently against those people who like to speculate on the Judgment outcomes of others, which is why I am against Rooster as well as the Trinitarians who do the same thing.

me: um...so then it doesnt' matter whether one accepts the trinity or not right? Kind of semantics. Doesn't mean I cant' go to heaven right?

9/3/10 5:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17887
Hi Grakman, yes, I belong to the United Pentecostal Church.

Ridge, no problem, although the title seems to lend itself to "judging" (spiritual abuse).

I hope you as concerned with the physical and spiritual abuse many of these liturgical ministers are perpetrating on young boys.
9/3/10 7:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2966
Thanks Ridge, rooster. I'm familiar with UPI doctrine, I attended a few of their services many, many years ago (20+) and am familiar with Oneness theology.

The one I attended was very strict; women wore their hair long (not that there is anything wrong with that...) didn't wear pants or makeup; if I recall correctly no one was allowed to have a tv except the pastor, and that was just for 'news' so he could keep the flock informed. Although I think church members who had televisions could watch educational programs on tape?

If I recall correctly, they believed that one had to be baptized in the name of Jesus and give evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. Short of this, you were not considered 'saved.' Is this correct?
9/4/10 12:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17888
grakman: Thanks Ridge, rooster. I'm familiar with UPI doctrine, I attended a few of their services many, many years ago (20+) and am familiar with Oneness theology.

The one I attended was very strict; women wore their hair long (not that there is anything wrong with that...) didn't wear pants or makeup; if I recall correctly no one was allowed to have a tv except the pastor, and that was just for 'news' so he could keep the flock informed. Although I think church members who had televisions could watch educational programs on tape?

If I recall correctly, they believed that one had to be baptized in the name of Jesus and give evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. Short of this, you were not considered 'saved.' Is this correct?

me: hi Grak, that's a pretty succinct summary. Although licensed ministers could not own a tv (don't think they still can own one but that's probably going to change) and I would say that the application of John 3:3 (being born again of water and Spirit) is most closely explained by repentance (death), baptism (burial) and the infilling of the Holy Spirit (resurrection) and the pattern taught to both identify with Christ and to apply "saving" grace.
9/4/10 6:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
moJom
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/10/07
Posts: 188
Found a wonderful site I think you would enjoy rooster. If you get a chance take a look.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Redux/redux.html

This link as with many of his articles echos alot of what you are saying.


:)
9/4/10 2:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19887
the rooster - Hi Grakman, yes, I belong to the United Pentecostal Church.

Ridge, no problem, although the title seems to lend itself to "judging" (spiritual abuse).

I hope you as concerned with the physical and spiritual abuse many of these liturgical ministers are perpetrating on young boys.

I went looking for the statement of faith and found it on that site.  Nothing more, nothing less.
9/4/10 3:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2973
the rooster - grakman: Thanks Ridge, rooster. I'm familiar with UPI doctrine, I attended a few of their services many, many years ago (20+) and am familiar with Oneness theology.

The one I attended was very strict; women wore their hair long (not that there is anything wrong with that...) didn't wear pants or makeup; if I recall correctly no one was allowed to have a tv except the pastor, and that was just for 'news' so he could keep the flock informed. Although I think church members who had televisions could watch educational programs on tape?

If I recall correctly, they believed that one had to be baptized in the name of Jesus and give evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. Short of this, you were not considered 'saved.' Is this correct?

me: hi Grak, that's a pretty succinct summary. Although licensed ministers could not own a tv (don't think they still can own one but that's probably going to change) and I would say that the application of John 3:3 (being born again of water and Spirit) is most closely explained by repentance (death), baptism (burial) and the infilling of the Holy Spirit (resurrection) and the pattern taught to both identify with Christ and to apply "saving" grace.

 rooster... don't you feel that is ceding too much control over your life to other people?  What to wear, what you can have in your home, etc? That sounds a lot like the law from which Jesus supposedly set us free.
9/4/10 11:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CJJScout
49 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/20/04
Posts: 6341
Summary? Too long to read all this bickering.
9/5/10 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 707
Considering Rooster is so big on people being able to figure out the bible themselves and don’t need priests or Tradition, it is odd that he’s happy to rely on someone else on how to live his life, what to wear etc.

Why lock yourself off from the world?
9/5/10 11:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19935
 The really sad thing is that Rooster rejects the pacifism of the UPC, which is the one radical thing it has going for it.
9/6/10 11:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17890
Sorry guys, been off for a few days. Let me see if I can respond to each of you.

inlikeflynn: Rooster, do you believe that trinitarians are going to hell?

me: wow, good and tough questions. Man bro, I got out of the "picking who is going to hell" business after my first year of being radically saved and putting everyone in hell :-)

I am not the Judge. God is and only He ultimately has the authority and power to place anyone in heaven or hell.

I used to think that you could not be a trinitarian and be saved based on the apologetic doctrine of the trinity and verses that declared God is One, or if you do not believe Jesus is the I AM ye shall die in your sins.

But I have met many wonderful trinitarians who although they attend a trinitarian church and consider themselves trinitarian, their beliefs are practical monotheism. I'm very good friends with an Assembly of God pastor and you really can't find a difference between how I describe the Godhead and he does.

So it's not the label, its what you believe about the label that I believe is biblical or unbiblical.

However, there is a wonderful verse that has given me comfort and hope for anyone and everyone who doesn't believe like me.

It's when Moses asks to see God's glory.

Exd 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew MERCY ON WHOM I WILL SHEW MERCY.

So while I can pontificate as to what I believe and why, and who will be in heaven or not, God's word is supreme and if I was suprised at all the people in heaven I did not think would be there 1) that would be a good suprise and 2) if I questioned God, He could merely say, "...I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."

Period.

That being said, I know that when I received the revelation of God in Christ, Jesus, truly God and truly man, I could no longer worship Jesus as a part of the godhead and believe I was saved. That was my personal decison.

you: That would be a pretty harsh position to take, imo. You call it polytheism, but it isn't the same in the traditional sense of the word. And while it isn't explicitly laid out in Scripture, the Trinity can be inferred from Scripture, i.e. your explanations aren't a slam dunk rebuttal by any means.

me: fair enough.

you: So, both sides believe Jesus is God, and his death and resurrection have redeemed creation. I can't believe God would condemn somebody for an honest misunderstanding of a concept that is very difficult for humans to understand, whichever side you fall on.

me: again fair enough. I believe what I do for my sake, for how it impacts my course of action, thoughts, etc. And I think ultimately it's better to move people by the grandeur and goodness and power and might of God in Christ then to make them feel as if you are stealing what they already have.

I'm reminded of Paul taking Apollis aside and showing him a "...more excellent way". Or Peter bringing a higher revelation to Cornelius, or Paul bringing a greater revelation to the disciples of John in Ephesus.

In each of these situations, they were not bickering or "proving" one side or the other, because the Spirit moved on the situation and their hearts were hungry for more truth.

I am certainly very guilty of getting into proving my point and being more concerned sometimes about being right then being someone who builds up and ministers and for that I'm very sorry. I can get sucked in and the same personality that has helped me in judo and bjj and work etc can spill over to forum debates.

I pray we are all bowing at the feet of Jesus, confessing Him as Lord as we enter into His rest!
9/6/10 11:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17891
mojom:
Found a wonderful site I think you would enjoy rooster. If you get a chance take a look.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Redux/redux.html

This link as with many of his articles echos alot of what you are saying.


me: thanks bro, I will!
9/6/10 11:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17892
grakman: rooster... don't you feel that is ceding too much control over your life to other people? What to wear, what you can have in your home, etc? That sounds a lot like the law from which Jesus supposedly set us free.

lovetochoke: Considering Rooster is so big on people being able to figure out the bible themselves and don’t need priests or Tradition, it is odd that he’s happy to rely on someone else on how to live his life, what to wear etc.

Why lock yourself off from the world?

me: guys, great point. My first UPC church I went to had an older very conservative pastor who was an ex farm boy. He himself lived a very strict lifestyle (and probably would have if he hadn't been a UPC Pastor). He preached from the pulpit that just about any association with the word was damning sin.

I was so eager to please the Lord, I changed completely. I was a filthy mouthed, porn watching, drinking, fighting sinner and all of a sudden I wouldn't wear shorts or take my shirt off (I was bodybuilding before that and walked around 1/2 naked everywhere). I wouldn't curse, listen to secular music, watch tv (ok, I'd watch the chiefs :-) but I was a teetotaler. My friends thought i was both nuts and grudgingly admired the fact that I was such a sick puppy and was suddenly full of this newfound fire and passion and committment (albeit I think they thought it would be very short lived).

I did switch churches and their is some autonomy within each church. Pastors are required to have a more strict lifestyle (to be licensed, not that anyone checks per se) but my Pastor is a younger guy (my age) and contemporary. He doesn't preach all these individual lifestyle choices over the pulpit.

What he does preach is principles. So in a discussion of "living holy" topics like modesty, protecting yourself (ie from what you look at), gender confusion (the move towards androgony), etc. may be topics where he reaches out scripturally first with principles.

Some of these topics are then better left for individual bible studies and personal conscious. If you are not a "platform leader" (worship leader or involved in the ministry) you are not compelled to change anything about your lifestyle you do not wish to. If you want to be more involved in the ministry, then their are "house" rules (like you might find in business" and "God" rules.

So my Pastor asked me to wear pants when I do bible studies because I'm a worship leader. It's more of a house rule with underlying principles as to why he asks me. Because I respect him, his walk with God, his knowledge, etc. I subordinate myself and accept his request.

A God rule might be more specific (ie don't look at porn on the web :-)

Anyway, I'm not sure if this completely helps, hurts, or makes sense but the holiness movement in the UPC (and other churches have done this or still have this-some baptist, or anti modernist like the amish etc.)is really about protecting yourself, your mind, your testimony, and your family.

I get it now a lot more then when I was single and a new convert.
9/6/10 11:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17893
ridge: The really sad thing is that Rooster rejects the pacifism of the UPC, which is the one radical thing it has going for it.

me: yeah, that's a tough one for me. I can't harmonize the God given right to defend yourself (the weak and innocent, your children, etc.) and pacifism.

But you know, we do not stay monolithic in our beliefs, ever static. Maybe one day, in the right situation, God will move on me to stay my hand if i was in such a situation to reveal His own glory and His own hand, which is the ultimate in self defense.

By the way Ridge, we go toe to toe, many times and I do appreciate many of your posts, your own stubborness and it is not personal. I appreciate your own drive, your academic prowress and I don't mind you disagreeing. I'm sorry for times I'm personal when I'm disagreeing. It's not becoming.

Thanks for being Iron. Iron sharpens Iron.

Hate when I'm on here and I've had a long day, I'm tired, etc and I'm way to sensitive.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.