Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, that would be the exception to the rule wouldn't it? You can't define the rule by the exception. That person was wrong.

It's not just this one person who believes that.
There are a lot of people who say that all you have to do is believe that you are saved, then you are, and nothing can make you un-saved.
There are a lot of people in my church who believe what this preacher was saying in that video. It has to do with these two men who were the editors of the Adventist religious periodical publication, who adopted some of the theological work being done at Princeton, revamping Luther's ideas on justification by faith, and gave a lecture on the subject at the 1888 church general conference.
This issue has lately gotten revived due to documents coming to light that some people in the church actually agreed with the presentation, and wrote about it in such a way, in certain until-now unpublished conversations.
The problem is that there was no transcript made of the lecture (that was given 125 years ago), so no one knows exactly what was said that anyone agreed with. What people like the preacher in the video do is to guess what they said (based on books those two men wrote years later), and then it somehow gets retroactively "sanctioned". The people who believe all this deceptive propaganda are like people possessed, and it is really weird even trying to talk to them about it.

Originally posted by truejew
You are providing an incorrect view of Modalism. The Spirit of God/The Father is everywhere present. He was present in heaven, descending, and in Christ at the same time. All without being three persons/gods.

Then you reject the text, because the text clearly indicates three distinct persons, existing simultaneously, which is impossible in modalism, which has one person, switching between different roles.

Either you're terrible at explaining this, or you're just a confused trinitarian.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Paul is obviously talking about the teaching of others in the church . . .

I don't see how it is obvious in 1 Corinthians 15, since it does not mention any other teaching, or anyone else teaching.

I'd say that "if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you" is an admonition to listen to Paul, not someone else. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, so what other context can you see that in?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, if it's that prevelant then I think it's safe to make the assumption that the Arminianism/Calvinism debate still after centuries isn't "settled law". I understand the points both sides make, and I admit both sides seem to have a pile of verses in their respective camps to support their contradictory views. What guides me is that either our salvation/Justification is either our work or God's work. If it's our work I don't see how anyone can be saved and if it's God's work I don't see how any believer could be lost.

And one thing that always seemed absurd with me is the idea that a person could commit a sin so grevious after being justified that would make God reject them. That argument or theological belief assumes that a person could do something so sinful that they would be less deserving of the grace and mercy of God than they were before they became a Christian.

I tend to hold onto the statement by Jesus that all that the Father had given to Him would come to Him and subsequently of all that came to Him He would lose none. That that was the will of the Father who sent Him, and if a Christian believer were to somehow be lost then He would have failed in carrying out that portion of His mission.

"For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."

2 Timothy 1:12

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
You are providing an incorrect view of Modalism. The Spirit of God/The Father is everywhere present. He was present in heaven, descending, and in Christ at the same time. All without being three persons/gods.

Then you reject the text, because the text clearly indicates three distinct persons, existing simultaneously, which is impossible in modalism, which has one person, switching between different roles.

Either you're terrible at explaining this, or you're just a confused trinitarian.

The text does not indicate three distinct persons since we are not taught that in Scripture. All we are taught is that there is one God. So all we can say is that the baptism of Jesus is that the one God was in multiple roles. God, man, and His Spirit in action.

reply to post by truejew


TJ

I'll make this as simple as possible

This is how my wife was taught the trinity

Light three candles and place the flames together

One glorious light all separate and yet all the same flame

They teach this to 7/8 years old and they can understand it

Cody

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
You are providing an incorrect view of Modalism. The Spirit of God/The Father is everywhere present. He was present in heaven, descending, and in Christ at the same time. All without being three persons/gods.

Then you reject the text, because the text clearly indicates three distinct persons, existing simultaneously, which is impossible in modalism, which has one person, switching between different roles.

Either you're terrible at explaining this, or you're just a confused trinitarian.

The text does not indicate three distinct persons since we are not taught that in Scripture.

That's what you are being taught in that passage.

You reject the teaching simply because you disagree with it, because your cult needs something to back up its elitist "Jesus only" baptism that you think makes you better than Christians.

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by truejew

 

TJ

I'll make this as simple as possible

This is how my wife was taught the trinity

Light three candles and place the flames together

One glorious light all separate and yet all the same flame

They teach this to 7/8 years old and they can understand it

Cody

Sounds like polytheism.

reply to post by adjensen

I'd say that "if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you" is an admonition to listen to Paul, not someone else. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, so what other context can you see that in?

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that Paul founded a church there, went on to other places, then heard that the church had slipped into sin.
Now if you were reading 2 Corinthians, you may see the type of context that you are wishing for, where other preachers came in and were asking for financial support as self-appointed "apostles".

Originally posted by adjensen

That's what you are being taught in that passage.

Incorrect. You are using eisegesis. Taking your knowledge of Plato's trinity and interpreting Scripture from it.

Originally posted by adjensen

You reject the teaching simply because you disagree with it, because your cult needs something to back up its elitist "Jesus only" baptism that you think makes you better than Christians.

We believe that it makes us Christians, not better than Christians.

reply to post by truejew


It is monotheism
With an acceptance that one God is all, and has many aspects.

That God is prepared to present the divine spirit in different ways in order to help us understand the enormity of love

It's pretty simple stuff

Cody

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by truejew

 

It is monotheism
With an acceptance that one God is all, and has many aspects.

That God is prepared to present the divine spirit in different ways in order to help us understand the enormity of love

It's pretty simple stuff

Cody

I see three separate flames, not just one.

reply to post by truejew


You need to open your eyes

Even I get it and I don't believe in God

Cody

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by truejew

 

You need to open your eyes

Even I get it and I don't believe in God

Cody

My eyes are open. God tells us that there is one God and there is none beside Him.

All of the many times that God said that He was one God. Never once did He claim to be three persons. Just one of those times would have been a good time to do that.

reply to post by truejew


That's the whole point

You walk around wearing blinkers like a shire horse stomping on everything

Eyes open and seeing nothing except what is directly in front of you

I feel sorry for you when you meet your God and get laughed at

Cody

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That's what you are being taught in that passage.

Incorrect. You are using eisegesis.

No, it isn't -- the trinity is clearly present throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. As has been demonstrated numerous times, applying your modalism to the Bible makes a mess of it, as in the scene of Jesus' baptism I just posted.

We believe that it makes us Christians, not better than Christians.

As you have been told, by rejecting the Nicene Creed, you are rejecting Christianity and may not call yourself a Christian. Your cult of 20 people or whatever it is cannot take possession of a term that has been uniformly applied to holders of the Creed since its inception. That's the equivalent of me saying "to be an American is to have been born in Brazil and live on the moon" and all of the sudden you're not an American any more, just because I said so.

You are a modalist, not a Christian.

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by truejew

 

That's the whole point

You walk around wearing blinkers like a shire horse stomping on everything

Eyes open and seeing nothing except what is directly in front of you

I feel sorry for you when you meet your God and get laughed at

Cody

I believe that God has told us who He is. We do not need philosophy to figure it out. It is not man's place to tell God who He is.

Originally posted by adjensen

No, it isn't -- the trinity is clearly present throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

If that is the case, the Jews would have been trinitarian.

Originally posted by adjensen

As has been demonstrated numerous times, applying your modalism to the Bible makes a mess of it, as in the scene of Jesus' baptism I just posted.

Modalism does not make a mess of the Bible. As I said before, your idea of Modalism is incorrect.

Originally posted by adjensen

As you have been told, by rejecting the Nicene Creed, you are rejecting Christianity and may not call yourself a Christian.

The apostles were first called Christians at Antioch. Way before there was a Nicene Creed. Accepting the Nicene Creed does not make one a Christian. There is no salvation in the creed.

reply to post by truejew


And it isn't your place to tell us what God (non gender)
revealed to others on a personal level

Cody

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, if it's that prevalent then I think it's safe to make the assumption that the Arminianism/Calvinism debate still after centuries isn't "settled law".

I was giving as an example, what is happening in the Adventist church, this attack on the moral law (10 commandments) that is bringing in antinomianism.

. . . our salvation/Justification is either our work or God's work.

You don't have a biblical definition of those terms, and just plug in ones from theories.
You think that they mean a nonrevocable golden ticket to heaven.
According to biblical usage, they mean two things, one is entering into the congregation of the saved, the church, which is under God's protection, the One who keeps it safe.
The other term describes the shaping of the character of the person while in the church, into one that conforms to God's model.
Neither one means that you have now been given a nonrevocable golden ticket to heaven. Nothing means that because it is not taught in the Bible, it only exists in the imaginations of the people who have bought into the Free Grace theories.

. . . If it's our work I don't see how anyone can be saved and if it's God's work I don't see how any believer could be lost.

You are reciting the Free Grace party line.
No one is advocating that we will go on to the better place after we die by our own work. If we could, there would be no need for God, or any belief in such a person. Considering that we are talking about people who at least think of themselves as Christians, I think that it is safe to assume that none of the parties are claiming that they can get to heaven merely by their own efforts.
Now, that being said, since everyone has to depend on God's help to get to heaven (or wherever people go that is not hell), then we can dispense with the idea that everyone is going to heaven since God is helping, and "how could God fail, right?". The fact that it is possible for anyone at all to fail means that we can fail, having no reason to feel exempt to what everyone else is libel to have happen to them.
I think this feeling that you cannot possibly be lost comes from a form of narcissism, rather than from true faith.

And one thing that always seemed absurd with me is the idea that a person could commit a sin so grievous after being justified that would make God reject them.

That is because you think that "being justified" means having a nonrevocable golden ticket to heaven.
Justification is not a one-time event, except according to theories from the Free Grace party.
"Justification" is what the Free Grace party wrongly calls sanctification, where that term (sanctification) is only applied biblically to groups, such as an individual church, or the church in general.

That argument or theological belief assumes that a person could do something so sinful that they would be less deserving of the grace and mercy of God than they were before they became a Christian.

This is based on your lack of understanding of the biblical usage of the terms, grace and mercy. You are using the plug-in definitions from the Free Grace party theories. "Grace and mercy" is the granting of the opportunity to have God's holy spirit dwell in you, something that you on your own do not deserve, but are given for Christ's sake.

I tend to hold onto the statement by Jesus that all that the Father had given to Him would come to Him and subsequently of all that came to Him He would lose none. That that was the will of the Father who sent Him, and if a Christian believer were to somehow be lost then He would have failed in carrying out that portion of His mission.

Jesus was just saying that he was God's authorized representative. He was not giving a lecture on the mechanism of drawing people, but on who and why someone like himself can claim to have that power.

"For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."

2 Timothy 1:12

Which is just the writer of that so-called letter reiterating the belief that Paul had in a future resurrection. It is not him saying that everyone who merely believes that Jesus died is going to go to that blessed place.