UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> My theology for Josh


5/9/11 4:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27687
I will be honest bro I feel talked down to maybe that is my issue

Rev
5/9/11 4:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 8
Hawker you asked: "Workman, how do you feel about the Trinity?"

My reply: Please don't take this the wrong way, but it all depends on how you define the term, Trinity.

Please allow me to explain using logic.

I assume that you'd agree that, according to the law of non-contradiction, a thing cannot be x and also non-x in the same way, at the same time, and in the same sense.

In other words, we can agree that God cannot be 1, while at the same time be 3, in the same way, at the same time, and in the same sense.

For example, in terms of numerical totals, I cannot have 1 peanut in my left hand, while in the same way, at the same time, and in the same sense have 3 peanuts in my same left hand.

No, of course not!

1=1, and 3=3, but 3 does not = 1, and neither does 1 = 3.

Therefore, upon affirming a belief in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity (aka Triune nature of God), I do not make the erroneous claim that 3 = 1.

In other words, I am not saying that God is 1 being and 3 beings.

Rather, I am making the claim that God is 1 being (1=1) and 3 persons (3=3).

And by the term person, I am not using excluding it to be used in context to a human.

So, it is simply a usage to convey personhood, which carries with it the attributes of volition, feelings, conscience, awareness, emotions, to speak, etc.

Hopefully this answers your question, if not, feel free to continue asking.

And by the way, how about yourself, do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
5/9/11 5:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 9
John you said: "I will be honest bro I feel talked down to maybe that is my issue"

My reply: Hey John, my apologies for making you feel this way, as it was not my intentions.
5/9/11 5:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27688
See I will give you an example of what is making me feel icky about this discussion

I specifically use the exact words "alienation from God" I also address here and now issues like violence and distrust as all results of our refusal to salvation of Christ. But you then say "do you think the results are maybe more sobering than depression? Like even separation from God?". See you first act like I didn't address anything else but depression and then you don't recognize that I in fact said separation from God as that is what alienation means. You pick one word ignore the rest and then act lime I didn't say what I in fact did say.

The truth is I always call the church to both a real world and and afterlife based faith. Why this pisses everyone off I have no idea. When we deny christs reign it is not only about future judgment but he'll in our own lives right now. It isn't either or it is both.

In addition the answer to your question is both we follow before and after belief because we don't believe fully til we have followed

Rev
5/9/11 5:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheHawker
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/05
Posts: 32035
me: nice new sn, rooster
5/9/11 5:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27689
Yeah that is how I was feeling too but maybe not

Rev
5/9/11 5:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
56 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 12823
TheHawker - me: nice new sn, rooster


lol i thought the same thing.
5/9/11 5:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4035

I don't think workman is rooster by any means, even if he is non-Trinitarian.

And reading through workman's posts, I feel there is definitely an element of condescension. He is another one who 'knows' with 100% certainty what he believes and everyone else is wrong, and it's his job to figure out where you err in your beliefs.

5/9/11 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27690
It's not just that it's his you said I respond thing as well as his style bit I don't think it's him

Rev
5/9/11 7:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4038
rooster always says whatever is on his mind anyway, I doubt he would create a new screen name just to do the same thing more politely lol. 
5/9/11 9:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
yusul
65 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13187
hi, quick post as i am job hunting and going through personal issues right now, so i can't reply in depth. i may not be able to engage in discussion until june, but i'll try here and there.

workman is a friend of mine (real life friend) and not rooster, whom i've never met. if you see my date, i've been here since, 01; actually i've been here since 99. so if you decide to trust my word (i know kirik does to a large degree), you can rest assured that workman is who he says he is; a poster from my space who enjoys religious topics.

he's not a troll or pseudonym, etc. i thought he would find the high level of religious discussions stimulating and worth engaging in.

also, workman is not a modalist either, so he's not rooster. if you have some threads saved, rooster was on the other side of the ug bjj/judo war back in the old days when luke beston first came on. this is a decade ago, but i could be mistaken.

5/9/11 10:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 23371
 Workman's post seemed like pretty standard Trinitarian theology (well as standard as you can be within the confines of a message board).  Despite the accusations of polytheism, Trinitarians don't believe God is three beings and Trinitarians have long taken the limitations of language to describe God for granted.  Language doesn't even do a particularly good job of describing our own little temporal reality most of the time.  Why would we expect it to coincide verbatim with the infinite?  It is a good thing that many ancient teachers have emphasized over and over again that Trinitarianism isn't something to understand through reason, but rather something to experience directly.  To use a crude parallel, you can study and talk about sex until you are blue in the face and it will still be nothing like the actual experience of sex.
5/10/11 12:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 10
John you said: See I will give you an example of what is making me feel icky about this discussion

I specifically use the exact words "alienation from God" I also address here and now issues like violence and distrust as all results of our refusal to salvation of Christ.

But you then say "do you think the results are maybe more sobering than depression? Like even separation from God?"

My reply: Respectfully John, I think you are making my point, as it would seem that you use the phrase "alienation from God" to be restricted to an earthly and temporary condition.

Whereas; when I read the plain passages in John 3:18 & John 3:36, it would seem to me that if I am correct in discerning a clear contrast between belief, versus unbelief, then it would stand to reason that there is as well a distinct contrast between a permanent & eternal life in the presence of God, versus that of a permanent & eternal separation from God.

But as always, please correct me if I am wrong about your usage of the phrase.

Sincerely, I do see how would view me to be twisting what you have previously stated by quoting one of your words, while ignoring the others, I can only hope my above response explains why.

That said, I do apologize for the confusion.

John you said: In addition the answer to your question is both we follow before and after belief because we don't believe fully til we have followed

My reply: John, if you review my original question; I specifically asked you if a person must 1) follow Christ Jesus to be Saved, or 2) follow Christ Jesus because he/she is Saved.

If you say both, then I'd say that you'd be incorrect, and could not support your position using the Scriptures.

In fact, the Word of God would prove your statement to be incorrect. After all, doesn't the Bible make it abundantly clear that a person is not Saved by works?

And if a person must follow Christ Jesus in order to be Saved, then it is not by Grace, and a person cannot be Saved by (both) Grace and works.

The Scriptures declares that Salvation is by Grace alone (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Are we in agreement on this, or do you have an alternative viewpoint?
5/10/11 12:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27698
It's the chicken and the egg read Matthew 25 the judgment of the sheep and the goats they were judged for their works The ones that did not care for the least still called Jesus lord did they not? Jesus also says if you don't forgive you will not be forgiven is that not a work? To say salvation is devoid of works is an incorrect reading of Paul as the very clear teaching and example says otherwise. And since we always should start with Christ the author and finisher of our faith and move from this foundation towards all else we must believe that in fact works are part of salvation. Why then did Paul say what he said? Because we don't earn salvation but through our works and faith we recognize the salvation Christ has wrought.

You read the very core of our missional impulse the great commission Jesus says make disciples (not converts or even believers) and teach them to obey. Or repent and believe, repentance is a work it is an action. You cannot separate faith and works, as James said without works faith is dead

And you assumed alienation from God meant in this life only I never said that in fact I said he'll in this life and after death
5/10/11 12:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27699
Oh and I said both not either because we continue to believe more and more as we follow and as we believe we follow more and more

Rev
5/10/11 1:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 11
John you said: It's the chicken and the egg read Matthew 25 the judgment of the sheep and the goats they were judged for their works The ones that did not care for the least still called Jesus lord did they not?

My reply: Anyone can refer to Jesus as Lord, that does not make them Saved.

I have already quoted Matthew 7:21-23, where those esteemed religious leaders referred to Jesus as Lord-Lord, yet we see that Jesus commanded them to depart from Him, why?

John you said: Jesus also says if you don't forgive you will not be forgiven is that not a work?

My reply: Is this an admittance that you believe and teach that a person is Saved by works?

John you said: To say salvation is devoid of works is an incorrect reading of Paul as the very clear teaching and example says otherwise.

My reply: John, no where have I made the statement that, "salvation is devoid of works".

If you had asked me of my beliefs regarding the relationship of works and salvation; I would have told you that a person is Saved unto Good Works (Ephesians 2:10).

For if you are correct John, that a person must perform good works to procure their salvation; then it would contradict with the Bible.

For example; Titus 3.5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

Who's right here; you John, or God's Word?

John you said: And since we always should start with Christ the author and finisher of our faith and move from this foundation towards all else we must believe that in fact works are part of salvation. Why then did Paul say what he said? Because we don't earn salvation but through our works and faith we recognize the salvation Christ has wrought.

My reply: John, if you agree that a person cannot earn (work for) their own salvation, then this necessarily excludes a person from working (or earning) their own salvation.

John you said: You read the very core of our missional impulse the great commission Jesus says make disciples (not converts or even believers) and teach them to obey. Or repent and believe, repentance is a work it is an action. You cannot separate faith and works, as James said without works faith is dead

My reply: John, if you are referring to the Great Commission in Luke 24:44-47, the commission is to preach the gospel of salvation.

The parallel passages in Matthew 28:18-20 is a reference to salvation, past tense, as indicated by

1) the fact that water baptism is an outward symbol of the new inner change,

and

2) verse 20 makes it clear that baptism occurs only after a person observes whatsoever Christ has commanded.

The support Scripture for my view can be found in Acts 2:42:

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

This confirms that doctrine is important and it as well confirms that there must have been a narrow and specific teaching as it pertained to salvation.

John you said: And you assumed alienation from God meant in this life only I never said that in fact I said he'll in this life and after death

My reply: John, thank you for correcting me on my incorrect assumption. Does this mean that we are in agreement; that you believe that unbelief amounts to eternal separation from God?
5/10/11 1:21 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 12
John you said: "Oh and I said both not either because we continue to believe more and more as we follow and as we believe we follow more and more"

My reply: I have already quoted Romans 11:6, which makes it abundantly clear that salvation cannot come via works and grace.

Who is correct here John, you or the Word of God?
5/10/11 2:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 23372
 What St. James clearly teaches is that we are not saved by faith.  The only time the phrase "faith alone" appears is in the Epistle of James, which is why Luther referred to it as an "epistle of straw."  

You can't build an entire theology around what you think St. Paul is saying.  Harmonize the gospels with the epistles with the teachings that are passed down orally (St. Paul refers to these explicitly) and then you have a soteriology.  Sola Fide didn't exist until the 16th century and this whole concern over faith vs. works was never an issue in the East whatsoever.  

If we have to decide, James was counted as greater than St. Paul (I find not contradiction between them) so what he said must stand firm since it is the word of God (the word word is never capitalized in the Bible, only Word when it refers to Jesus which makes referring to the Bible as the Word idolatry).

James 2:24: You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
5/10/11 7:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4039
A game of splitting hairs and semantics. How fun. Phone Post
5/10/11 8:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27700
I am done workman,

rev
5/10/11 8:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 13
Ridgeback you said: What St. James clearly teaches is that we are not saved by faith. The only time the phrase "faith alone" appears is in the Epistle of James, which is why Luther referred to it as an "epistle of straw."

You can't build an entire theology around what you think St. Paul is saying. Harmonize the gospels with the epistles with the teachings that are passed down orally (St. Paul refers to these explicitly) and then you have a soteriology. Sola Fide didn't exist until the 16th century and this whole concern over faith vs. works was never an issue in the East whatsoever.

If we have to decide, James was counted as greater than St. Paul (I find not contradiction between them) so what he said must stand firm since it is the word of God (the word word is never capitalized in the Bible, only Word when it refers to Jesus which makes referring to the Bible as the Word idolatry).

James 2:24: You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

My reply: I couldn't agree more, the teachings in Paul must reconcile with the teachings of James.

In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the whole council of the Bible must harmonize, otherwise, it isn't the Word of God, right.

Well, I see that you've quoted James 2:24, in this passage, James is speaking from about Justification from the horizontal position.

In other words, justification in light of our peers, which is from man's perspective.

The support for this can be found in James 2:14-16, where James speaks of the personal needs of individuals, whereby, proper faith will cause a person to act by providing for the needy.

The point being that, it is in this way that a person is Justified from the position of mankind.

Contrasting this point, James then goes on to harmonize with the doctrine of Justification from God's perspective, which deals specifically with Salvation, which no human can judge, since the Salvation experience is supernatural, right.

James 2:23

"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS IMPUTED UNTO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS: and he was called the Friend of God."

So we confirm here that, James borrows from the OT foundation of Justification in the eyes of God, to illustrate what he actually declares; that it is through belief alone, and this certainly harmonizes with Paul, who says the following:

Romans 4:3

"For what saith the scripture? ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS COUNTED UNTO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Both James and Paul agree with each other, because they both believed and understood the Scriptures, and were quoting from Genesis 15:6, which says the following:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

In each instance, the common theme is that Salvation from the Lord comes through FAITH ALONE.

Therefore Ridgeback, in concluding my response to your very fair question, James should be viewed in light of 2 uses for the term "Justified"; 1) Justification before God (which is through Faith alone, and 2) Justification before man (which deals specifically with charitable works which proves one's faith).

While you may still disagree, it is my hope that I have at least provided you with a rationale, and more importantly, a biblical reason why I take the stance that I do.

Thanks,

Workman
5/10/11 8:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Workman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/11
Posts: 14
John you said: I am done workman

My reply: John, again, I want to thank you for being hospitable. At no point did I feel personally attacked, or made to feel that I was not welcomed here.

And though it seems that my theology makes you uncomfortable, as you seem to disagree with much of it, I am happy to see that we can agree to disagree.

That said, it is my hope that you'll not take this experience to permanently cease all dialogued moving forward between us.

After all, though we may disagree, there can be no harm in a respectful and civil discourse between individuals who both affirm a love for Jehovah, and a belief that the Bible is our standard for all truth.

Thank you again John; I really have enjoyed our discussion.

Workman
5/10/11 9:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18254
Hi guys, perused this but workman is not me, although he exudes similar attributes of coolness ;-)

You can't kill the Rooster guys, they even made a song about it back in my hey day!

I've not been in the debate mood lately so, not me...
5/10/11 9:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4041
workman,
I don't know you at all, so perhaps I am unfair in my criticism, but nevertheless I will say that your politeness appears contrived, the type of politeness one might hear at royal court before ordering the beheading of a political enemy.  You're formal and civil, but you give the appearance of starting out this conversation with the rev in an attempt to prove him 'wrong' according to what you believe. "Who is correct John, you or the Word of God?" as though you speak from on high for God himself and your interpretation of various verses is the correct one, like some type of parent patiently telling a child where he is in error. 

5/10/11 9:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
147 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 27702
I have to say the sheep and the goats is either the judgement of all or of believers either way it proves works and faith are not separable Jesus said u are judged by your fruit which was again works

The word is true I just take Jesus to explain Paul not the other way around as I do not call Paul lord

Rev

Reply Post

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