Are you saying those men taught our Lord is in hell?
Again, the Talmud teaches our Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, is a false teacher, and a deceiver, and that He is in hell.
Judaism teaches that Jesus is not the Messiah, nor the Son of God.
JLB
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Are you saying those men taught our Lord is in hell?
That does not answer my question.Again, the Talmud teaches our Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, is a false teacher, and a deceiver, and that He is in hell.
Which is why I said there must inevitably be a New Covenant Judaism.Judaism teaches that Jesus is not the Messiah, nor the Son of God.
I would argue that scripture does define God's essence to a degree. I think you agree that there is a partial definition.Scripture does not define God's essence.
Thank you Google for internet searches as I had no idea what these terms meant.Christ is either homoousios or homoiousios. Who is right? Arius?
I could give pertinent verses that lead inconclusively to opinions. You probably know them. God does not answer the question directly. He has given us clues that men have used to come to a conclusion ... said conclusion not necessarily being true (precise). Aside: The definition we will ALWAYS struggle to understand a transcendent, infinite being.When, where and how did God answer this about Himself?
Agreed, save we are not completely in the dark. He provides clues for some questions. Deut. 29:29So God decides but provides no answer, means or mechanism? That leaves you completely in the dark, in total chaos.
I'm not a Christian historian. I know you have IMO extensive knowledge of the subject and I postulate you use it as a partial foundation in R.C. theology. Aside: Calvin was not first with these ideas. Augustine had similar doctrine.Again, who gets to define what God's essence is? I am trying to stick to Arius, but if we fast forward 1200 years from Arius, we get to John Calvin, who also introduced a completely different teaching on the essence of God.
Re: by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude .... agreed, though that doesn't mean I am wrong ... that there is an answer.There must be a means or mechanism otherwise by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude.
God's does not directly claim Arianism is a heresy directly. There is scripture that people use to indirectly show Arianism is a heresy. People are fallible, thus their opinions are fallible.I'm not interested in your opinion. You said God Himself determines what is or is not heresy. How, when and where did God declare Arianism a heresy?
LOL ... agreed. That's why I said "99% of what we know of God. (99% being a subjective estimate)"Don't omit the revelation of God in creation. See Rom 1 (NIV).
I'll have to think on that one. But I would think we at least need to look to Judaism to understand scripture to at least some extent, seeing as it comes from their culture and an understanding of their culture is necessary to understand context of many verses.OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.
Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.
But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.
You're aware, of course, that Luke, a Gentile, wrote two "books" of the New Testament.OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.
Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.
But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.
Agreed... there is evidence for both sides.I am not so sure that Luke was a gentile.
a Reformed jew,lol.Agreed... there is evidence for both sides.
My guess is that he was a Jew.
It has worked quite well actually, since in 2000 years there have only been two schisms.Your solution of 'one body' to determine what is true and Christian has never worked and will never work this side of the Second Coming.
It didn't work with Adam and Eve. It didn't work with Israel. It didn't work with the Church. No matter where the supposed true body is, there is satan also with 'yea hath God said'. And if there is only one body dictating what is true, then when it is infected by the 'yea hath God said', then all are affected.
And of course the Roman Church is the perfect example.
The Christian can examine the preachers teaching and compare it with Scripture. If he disagrees with the preacher then it remains for him to search it out further as he has the Bible and the Holy Spirit. He does so by his own study, and by seeking others older in the faith, either personally or by commentaries.
After a certain time the believer will come to a decision as to what he disagreed with concerning the pastors teaching. Whether the pastor was right or wrong in this area. If it is important enough to leave the Church, for example, if the pastor taught women should be allowed to preach in the assembly, then the Christian leaves.
And next time this believer hears a Bible teacher say women can preach in the assembly, then he already has done the study and knows immediately that that is wrong. He doesn't have to assume. He knows the Scripture concerning it. He now listens to see if any offer any new evidence in Scripture to support such teaching which would overturn what he already has determined.
Seeing no new Scripture has been presented that would change his mind, then he leaves and goes and find a fellowship of believers of like faith. The many denominations are a protection against heresy. They are not an impairment to the truth.
Quantrill
But then who decides if the preacher is right or if I'm right? Again, it renders Christianity entirely subjective. The Christian faith becomes whatever I say it is.Wal,
It's not a comparison with your subjective knowledge but a comparison of your preacher's content with what the Scriptures state. Every person has the responsibility of checking out the content of the preacher's preaching.
Oz
You just made my point. Who gets to declare what Arius taught is heretical? Who gets to declare Arianism is not Christianity?Wal,
How do you know Arius was a heretic? What did he teach that was contrary to Scripture?
Oz
Thank you again for the random Scripture verses, but you are still not answering my question.The Holy Spirit.
I promise you, the day will come when we stand before God, and He judges us according to our deeds; according to what we have done.
Those who promoted heresy will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
Those who promote heresies will go to the same place as murderers, adulterers, fornicators, drunkerds.
Do you understand what the term “not inherit the kingdom of God” means?
JLB
So God decides what is or is not heresy based on what Jews say?OK you asked for it. But I told you, you are not going to like it.
Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
There you have it. It is up to JEWS to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. God entrusted that to THEM and THEM ONLY. Since Paul writes in chapter 11 of the same book that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," that means HE has NOT TAKEN AWAY His entrusting the Scriptures to the circumcised.
But if you argue that no Jew has the right or the wherewithal to understand and interpret New Covenant Scriptures, then you need to see the necessity for a New Covenant Judaism.
Actually, our Lord's DOCTRINE fell neatly between the 2 major schools of pharasaism, School of Shammai and School of Hillel.
What they could not swallow was that He claimed to be Divine. That is a statement of identity, not doctrine.
The teaching on the essence of the God of Christianity developed over time and across several centuries. It was not done by simply pointing to a verse(s) from Scripture and saying "Voilà! See here Arius? See here Nestorius?"I would argue that scripture does define God's essence to a degree. I think you agree that there is a partial definition.
God essence, to a degree cannot be understood and to a degree He does not define what we might be able to understand. I.E. He is eternal. This concept can only be partially understood.
Well you just made my case. If the Scriptures are clear about the essence of God, and based on the clarity of the Scriptures to address this, by you saying Christ is homiousios, you are in Arius' camp.Thank you Google for internet searches as I had no idea what these terms meant.
Candidly, on my own I would not have the ability to determine who is right based on scripture. By myself I would probably (99%) go homoiousios. I rely on people I respect as they have studied it and brought to my attention pertinent verses ... based on those verses and my respect for those experts (my bias?, social pressure?, the Spirit's leading?) I go with God and Christ being of the same substance. Aside: Even the experts says the complete understanding is not possible.
So how then can you claim "God does" when I ask who decides what is or is not heresy? You have just demonstrated, in near real time, that if in fact "God does", He left no way for you to know His answer.I could give pertinent verses that lead inconclusively to opinions. You probably know them. God does not answer the question directly. He has given us clues that men have used to come to a conclusion ... said conclusion not necessarily being true (precise). Aside: The definition we will ALWAYS struggle to understand a transcendent, infinite being.
Agreed, save we are not completely in the dark. He provides clues for some questions. Deut. 29:29
The 'experts' say God's word gives us the information we need for salvation and obedience (sufficiency of scripture). Granted the experts could be wrong.
Aside: sure not much about Christ in the old testament.
Aside2: You can talk to for_his_glory about how people can be saved who never heard of Christ. Perhaps she can relate to you how people glean information from nature as to the essence of God (Aside: couldn't resist Ms. Glory)
I'm not a Christian historian. I know you have IMO extensive knowledge of the subject and I postulate you use it as a partial foundation in R.C. theology. Aside: Calvin was not first with these ideas. Augustine had similar doctrine.
Obviously, we disagree as to the doctrine of the apostles in these matters.
Anyways, God define His essence. He does so incompletely. Deut. 29:29
Aside: Covering same ground here IMO. I gave my fallible opinion.
Re: by saying "God just does" you are just repeating an empty platitude .... agreed, though that doesn't mean I am wrong ... that there is an answer.
I think you postulate that their must be an answer and the only answer put forward by Christians is the R.C. answer of the church is the means or mechanism of determining God's 'this or that'.
Re: There must be a means or mechanism ... I don't agree with this premise and can prove it logically IMO
Premise 1: God is transcendent
Premise 2: God is infinite in wisdom, knowledge, etc.
Premise 3: Only God knows himself (there a verse for that... too lazy to search)
Conclusion: 1 Corinthians 13:12 Thus we conclude that there is no means or mechanism to know all things in regard to God's essence (or maybe any aspect of God completely unless it can be reduced to simplistic knowledge like God knows 1 + 1 = 2
God's does not directly claim Arianism is a heresy directly. There is scripture that people use to indirectly show Arianism is a heresy. People are fallible, thus their opinions are fallible.
I think you are misapplying what I have said or my communication skills are lacking. I state the God is all knowing. If this be true then God is the one the determines what is and is not heresy. I do not state He always reveals what is and is not heresy on everything.So how then can you claim "God does" when I ask who decides what is or is not heresy?
I said hypothetically, left to my own abilities alone to interpret scripture, I guess I would embrace Arianism. I do not embrace Arianism. I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism.(For example, you embraced Arianism in this very post.)
I have a way. It is scripture alone. Do I infallibly interpret scripture ... the answer is NO. No one can save God and thus God alone infallibly determines what is and is not heresy. Since scripture is written by God, it is an infallible source of the determination of heresy, though not ALL heresies. (Deut. 29:29) There is not other infallible source that can determine what is and is not a heresy, though there are those that claim this to be an incorrect statement.This means you have no actual way of knowing what is or is not the Christian faith.
A thing cannot both be and not be (principle of non-contradiction).I think you are misapplying what I have said or my communication skills are lacking. I state the God is all knowing. If this be true then God is the one the determines what is and is not heresy. I do not state He always reveals what is and is not heresy on everything.
Example: I know there is but one God as God has revealed this in scripture.
I don't know if Christ slept on His back or His side or His chest the most. If I claim Christ slept on His back more than any other position and that is not true it would be a heresy (belief or opinion contrary to religious truth) if my statement was not true. I believe that scripture is the only infallible source of truth but not all truth ... for example, it doesn't tell me what position Christ took most often while sleeping.
I said hypothetically, left to my own abilities alone to interpret scripture, I guess I would embrace Arianism. I do not embrace Arianism. I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism.
I have a way. It is scripture alone. Do I infallibly interpret scripture ... the answer is NO. No one can save God and thus God alone infallibly determines what is and is not heresy. Since scripture is written by God, it is an infallible source of the determination of heresy, though not ALL heresies. (Deut. 29:29) There is not other infallible source that can determine what is and is not a heresy, though there are those that claim this to be an incorrect statement.
Aside: I think we are miscommunicating/misunderstanding.
Again, we have a misunderstanding. I can see how I could have misrepresented myself given my perceived understanding of what you are trying to ascertain.A thing cannot both be and not be (principle of non-contradiction).
Assertion 1: The reason you reject Arianism ---> "I do not rely exclusively on my reading of scripture; rather, I read what other people I respect have said and that influences me. That influence in this specific case has caused me to not embrace Arianism."
Assertion 2: Your rule ---> "I have a way. It is scripture alone."
Assertion 1 violates Assertion 2. In Assertion 1, you do not use scripture alone. Rather, you use what other people have said to determine what it is you believe. Ergo, you violate your own principle.
You conflate two different ideas and assume they are one. This is the source of your invalid conclusion.This is quite common. When pressed, I find people who claim sola Scriptura don't actually believe it. It's never Scripture alone, but always Scripture + _________ ( <--- fill in the blank with whatever you need to fit your theology).