Fellowship with those who deviate from orthodoxy?

[Sothenes]

You are assuming that I assume that God did not breathe out the scriptures. Actually, what I’m saying is that the scriptures are not as focused on the metaphysical structure of God as they are on the essential theme that God is love and that he wants us to love one another.

We disagree.

 

[unred typo]

Cultic conformity is not Biblical Unity and the ones with schismatic doctrines are the ones causing division.
I do not teach error at all costs because we have to love one another. The fact that you can quote "love" one another and believe error does not mean you have unity. That is a false or make believe unity. Its putting on an acting face.

Trinity = schismatic doctrine that causes division.
The fact is that you can’t prove that God is a trinity. You can tweak the trinity concept from scriptures but that doesn’t mean there are only three persons in the Godhead just because there are three divine persons mentioned in the Bible. What will you do if you reject as heretical all who don’t confess the trinity, and when you stand before the throne, you find out that God has a ten-fold nature? Ooops. You have judged non-Trinitarians as unbelievers because they would not go beyond the scriptures in their definition of God, so you will be then judged by your own standard of a Christian. Imagine being cast into hell because you thought there were only three persons in the Godhead and there were in reality, ten: the Father, the Son, the Word and the 7-fold Spirits of God.

True unity will be around the person of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, who is Love.

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"-Amos 3:3
If you read the questions in Amos 3:3 and after, they are all rhetorical with the answer being "no".
"A perverse heart will be far from me. I will have nothing to do with evil."-Psalm 101:4
Do you know what the Father's will is if you agree with evil but want to protect unity at all costs by loving? God says,"I will have nothing to do with evil."
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
Having love doesn't mean that you are Christian because the Bible says:
Matthew 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The Father's will is:
John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
If you are worship with lies because you want to love your own then you don't worship God in spirit or truth. It is a lie.

OK. I see now. You think preaching love for God and fellow man, loving both friends and enemies, is “perverse†“evilâ€Â. Those who teach walking in love, as Jesus commands us to do, have hearts that are far from God because they refuse to teach divisive doctrines that are not commanded to be taught. Doesn’t this seem just a little strange to you?

I would teach love for Trinitarians as well as Muslims, for instance. I will pray that you both turn from your hate filled doctrines and believe the gospel of love as given to us by Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior of the world. You shall be saved if you believe Jesus, in what he taught us to do because you will do it. Do you remember his teaching? Love one another as I have loved you. Love your enemies and those that despitefully use you. Turn the other cheek. Set your affection on things above. Forgive as you have been forgiven. Give to the poor. Be humble. Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. And if you sin, we have an advocate with the Father who gave himself for us. Confess your sins and repent of them that you may have eternal life. Good stuff. I can’t believe that Jesus would condemn teaching like that, can you?

If you are looking for the gospel which saves, you are in the wrong chapter. Try looking in 1 Corinthians 15 which says,"By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." The message of the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and since you want to love a different Jesus (Galatians 1:8-9), you haven't kept in memory what Paul preached.

I love the Jesus who gave himself as an offering for my sin. The gift of his body was the only way we can be saved. If we are in him, we will be risen with him. If we walk in love, we dwell in Christ and God’s Holy Spirit dwells in us. This is the hope of glory, the faith delivered to the Saints that Paul speaks of. It’s not a few facts about who he was and what he did for us. That is just knowledge that puffs us up and doesn’t edify or save anyone. Sit down and read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They have more of Jesus’ teaching than what you claim to be the ‘gospel’.
Jesus said,"Verily, Verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, *hath* everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."-John 5:24

Do you remember Jesus said;"The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, they are life."? They are not hard to find. In some Bibles, they are even written in red.

 

[unred typo]

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Sothenes, I understand why you feel I am a blind guide. It wasn’t that long ago that I argued on the same side of the disagreement as you are on. I bought into the lie that the gospel was just a few facts to be held onto and any good works I did were just for rewards. It was during a discussion like this that I came to realize the true gospel. It was easier for me to swallow a camel than to admit I was wr-rr-wrong, but I could finally see how the words of Jesus and the cross came together to save those who believe and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. We don’t like fear and trembling, but it is the fear of God that is the beginning of wisdom, not hiding in man-made constructs that explain away things that he commands us to do in order to be saved. I am not as good a teacher as the dear soul who lead me out of darkness, but the Holy Spirit is. God bless your search for truth.

 

[Mathetes]

To read 1 and 2 John and suppose that the doctrine referred to is simply that Jesus has come in the flesh, is spiritual tunnel vision. The phrase, ‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh’, is not merely a statement of fact that ‘the one true God of the Jews’ has come to us in ‘the second person of the trinity.’ It isn’t even that ‘the second person of the trinity’ has come to live as a man and die for our sins and resurrect to heaven again. It is that the God of the universe has come in human flesh to demonstrate the great sacrificial love that he has for us and this amazing great mercy and grace that he has shown us demands that we who believe also follow in his steps to love one another, for it is by this love within us that God will consent to dwell in us and raise up our mortal bodies. God dwells in him that dwells in love.

Dear Mathetes,
To insist on your translation of a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God, his Son, his Word, his Holy Spirit, and any other unrevealed ‘persons’ of the ‘godhead’, is not the spirit of love that God demands of us. Judge this rather, that no one put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in another’s way. Where is this house church that is dedicated to learning this principle? I would want to go there and be built up in love, not doctrines that divide believers.
:fadein:

You are assuming that God did not breathe out the scriptures and you are using your own man made construct of interpretation.

Jesus said,"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:35) The truth that we have divides people between the goats and the sheep or the people who believe and the people who don't believe.

Loving our enemies does not necessarily make them our friend but if you love them at the expense of loving God and loving the Church then Jesus says you aren't worthy to be his disciple:

Jesus said,"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."-Matthew 10:37

So if you think that loving people is more important than following what Jesus said in His word then you aren't worthy to be His disciple because that is what Jesus said. The truth is that you are loving your self instead of denying yourself because it is His will that we follow and Jesus said," And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." so if you aren't taking up your cross and supporting the Words of Jesus, you aren't worthy of what Jesus said.

Well said, Sothenes. What I hear so often from professing believers is this all-pervasive postmodern idea that truth should take a second place to experience, feelings, sentiment, togetherness, etc. It has crept into the church to an alarming degree; it is difficult to go to a church nowadays that does not exhibit this mentality at least in some degree.

It's also interesting that you mentioned people loving themselves. I find it interesting that often the people who preach love and fellowship the loudest are the very same ones who are quick to condemn and to speak harsh, abrupt words. One person on this thread alone has already done it; I can only wonder how often it happens on the rest of this board.

If you believe that you are loving people and not telling people the truth then you are really lieing to them which isn't loving at all.

Quite true. The fact is that agape love is expressed by giving people what they need, not what they want. Therefore, to gather together with others without being concerned about telling them the truth about their errors is to be unloving, or at least to be lacking in agape love.

That is an inconsistency which would make anyone a hypocrite. Telling people that they have to believe in the true version of God is loving to help people to avoid hell and lieing to them because being polite is more loving than telling them truth is essentially similar to what Jesus told the Pharisees that they were straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24) because you are straining at loving (watering down the truth to be polite) and swallowing (allowing them to go to hell) a camel except you are doing things like but not as a Pharisee because you are more cunning.

You have pretty much described the majority of churches today (at least the majority of churches I have gone to). Feelings and perceptions are elevated in importance above revealed truth.

 

[Mathetes]

Dear Mathetes,
To insist on your translation of a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God, his Son, his Word, his Holy Spirit, and any other unrevealed ‘persons’ of the ‘godhead’, is not the spirit of love that God demands of us. Judge this rather, that no one put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in another’s way. Where is this house church that is dedicated to learning this principle? I would want to go there and be built up in love, not doctrines that divide believers.
:fadein:

This last statement is very interesting. I once heard someone make a very similar statement, but he was an unbeliever. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to imply that you are an unbeliever; this is no "guilt by association" argument. Anyway, it was at a discussion group recently, a group designed for "seekers." The leader asked the question, "How would you want someone to share the gospel with you?" to which one man (the unbeliever referenced above) replied to this effect: "I would not want someone to tell me I'm a sinner but rather that he would tell me about God's love so I could be built up." What this fellow didn't understand was that telling him about sin, and even that he is a sinner, would actually be a part of the process of building him up! What would be a stumbling block to him, tear him down, and be in his worst interest would be to withhold such truth from him so that he would walk away with a dangerous false assurance.

True love is always expressed by doing for others what they need, not what they want. Even if the person's statements are wrong, the fact that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for another is proof that he is acting in love. The worldly idea, however, is quite different and usually goes something like this: "Love is not pushing your beliefs on others, no matter whether those beliefs are true or not. Love is "building up" others by affirming them, encouraging them, etc." The fatal error in this kind of worldly thinking is that, like so much other error that exists in the world, it is only a half-truth. True love consists in doing both of the things mentioned above: 1) telling others what they need to hear, no matter how unpleasant it may be; and 2) encouraging and affirming others. Balance is the key.

Christians who go around telling others that we shouldn't focus on doctrines but rather on love and fellowship, need to understand the true meaning of agape love. Their notion of love is in grievous error because they are holding to only half the concept of love and rejecting the other half.

 

[unred typo]

Mathetes wrote:

Well said, Sothenes. What I hear so often from professing believers is this all-pervasive postmodern idea that truth should take a second place to experience, feelings, sentiment, togetherness, etc. It has crept into the church to an alarming degree; it is difficult to go to a church nowadays that does not exhibit this mentality at least in some degree.

It's also interesting that you mentioned people loving themselves. I find it interesting that often the people who preach love and fellowship the loudest are the very same ones who are quick to condemn and to speak harsh, abrupt words. One person on this thread alone has already done it; I can only wonder how often it happens on the rest of this board.

Since I am the only person who might conceivably fit this accusation, and Sothenes was writing to me when he wrote; “ If you are worship with lies because you want to love your own then you don't worship God in spirit or truth. It is a lie.â€Â, I will respond to your statement. I have never been good at mincing words to make them easier to swallow but in this case, I feel it is your own Sothenes who has spoken “harsh, abrupt words†while I have attempted to speak the truth in love. A difference of perception occurs depending on if we agree with someone’s view or not. No problem. The truth hurts and I need to learn to use more smilies when delivering it so I appreciate the reminder.

Mathetes wrote:

This last statement is very interesting. I once heard someone make a very similar statement, but he was an unbeliever. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to imply that you are an unbeliever; this is no "guilt by association" argument. J Anyway, it was at a discussion group recently, a group designed for "seekers." The leader asked the question, "How would you want someone to share the gospel with you?" to which one man (the unbeliever referenced above) replied to this effect: "I would not want someone to tell me I'm a sinner but rather that he would tell me about God's love so I could be built up." What this fellow didn't understand was that telling him about sin, and even that he is a sinner, would actually be a part of the process of building him up! What would be a stumbling block to him, tear him down, and be in his worst interest would be to withhold such truth from him so that he would walk away with a dangerous false assurance.

What makes you feel that I advocate teaching love without truth? If I tell you that love for one another is not committing adultery with your neighbor’s wife, and if a person in the group is committing this sin, he will realize that he is not loving his neighbor and be convicted and know he needs to repent and change his behavior. This is love for God and one another. Tell me how teaching the doctrine of the trinity is going to build up anyone except cause them to feel they have some superior knowledge that other ‘trinity unbelievers’ do not have? Puffing up is not building up.

Mathetes wrote:

True love is always expressed by doing for others what they need, not what they want. Even if the person's statements are wrong, the fact that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for another is proof that he is acting in love. The worldly idea, however, is quite different and usually goes something like this: "Love is not pushing your beliefs on others, no matter whether those beliefs are true or not. Love is "building up" others by affirming them, encouraging them, etc." The fatal error in this kind of worldly thinking is that, like so much other error that exists in the world, it is only a half-truth. True love consists in doing both of the things mentioned above: 1) telling others what they need to hear, no matter how unpleasant it may be; and 2) encouraging and affirming others. Balance is the key. J
Christians who go around telling others that we shouldn't focus on doctrines but rather on love and fellowship, need to understand the true meaning of agape love. Their notion of love is in grievous error because they are holding to only half the concept of love and rejecting the other half.

I don’t think I accused you of having wrong motives in your error. In fact, I believe I said that the real enemy is none other than Satan whose goal is to cause dissention among believers. I truly believe he is the only one who benefits from these exclusionary dogmas that are not taught by Jesus or the disciples. Do you have a problem with teaching that we must obey the words spoken by Christ?

 

[Mathetes]

Mathetes wrote:

This last statement is very interesting. I once heard someone make a very similar statement, but he was an unbeliever. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to imply that you are an unbeliever; this is no "guilt by association" argument. J Anyway, it was at a discussion group recently, a group designed for "seekers." The leader asked the question, "How would you want someone to share the gospel with you?" to which one man (the unbeliever referenced above) replied to this effect: "I would not want someone to tell me I'm a sinner but rather that he would tell me about God's love so I could be built up." What this fellow didn't understand was that telling him about sin, and even that he is a sinner, would actually be a part of the process of building him up! What would be a stumbling block to him, tear him down, and be in his worst interest would be to withhold such truth from him so that he would walk away with a dangerous false assurance.

[quote:edcc0]What makes you feel that I advocate teaching love without truth?

I got that impression when I read this statement of yours:

"To insist on your translation of a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God, his Son, his Word, his Holy Spirit, and any other unrevealed ‘persons’ of the ‘godhead’, is not the spirit of love that God demands of us. Judge this rather, that no one put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in another’s way. Where is this house church that is dedicated to learning this principle? I would want to go there and be built up in love, not doctrines that divide believers."

I interpreted this as saying that trying to share what one believes to be an important truth with others is not acting in love because it risks dividing believers. You also seemed to elevate being "built up in love" over and above "doctrines that divide believers." If the doctrine is true and important, then it must be shared and impressed upon others at some point.

If I tell you that love for one another is not committing adultery with your neighbor’s wife, and if a person in the group is committing this sin, he will realize that he is not loving his neighbor and be convicted and know he needs to repent and change his behavior. This is love for God and one another. Tell me how teaching the doctrine of the trinity is going to build up anyone...

In the case of the Trinity, even if you don't accept that doctrine, surely you will admit that worshiping God in spirit and truth (John 4:23) is highly important. If a person is not worshiping God in spirit and truth, then he is worshiping a false god. In that case, he is committing a sin and therefore needs to be admonished about it just as much as in the case of adultery.

...except cause them to feel they have some superior knowledge that other ‘trinity unbelievers’ do not have? Puffing up is not building up.

True. But I believe my response above about the sin of worshiping a false god answers this objection. To try to recover someone from a serious error is to try to build him up.

Mathetes wrote: True love is always expressed by doing for others what they need, not what they want. Even if the person's statements are wrong, the fact that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for another is proof that he is acting in love. The worldly idea, however, is quite different and usually goes something like this: "Love is not pushing your beliefs on others, no matter whether those beliefs are true or not. Love is "building up" others by affirming them, encouraging them, etc." The fatal error in this kind of worldly thinking is that, like so much other error that exists in the world, it is only a half-truth. True love consists in doing both of the things mentioned above: 1) telling others what they need to hear, no matter how unpleasant it may be; and 2) encouraging and affirming others. Balance is the key.
Christians who go around telling others that we shouldn't focus on doctrines but rather on love and fellowship, need to understand the true meaning of agape love. Their notion of love is in grievous error because they are holding to only half the concept of love and rejecting the other half.

I don’t think I accused you of having wrong motives in your error.

No; I was addressing a common error that takes place in the church nowadays. Your earlier posts sounded as if you held to that view, but now I have a clearer idea of where you are coming from. You don't believe that we should risk dividing believers over issues that are secondary or unimportant. Therein lieth the rub. As I pointed out above (hopefully clearly), what we believe about God is highly important because holding to a view about God that is inconsistent with the way He has revealed Himself is a sin. It is idolatry.

In fact, I believe I said that the real enemy is none other than Satan whose goal is to cause dissention among believers. I truly believe he is the only one who benefits from these exclusionary dogmas that are not taught by Jesus or the disciples. Do you have a problem with teaching that we must obey the words spoken by Christ?

[/quote:edcc0]

Not at all; do you? If you were in this house church with me and you knew I believe in the Trinity, and you yourself reject that doctrine as a false caricature of God -- or, to use your own words, "a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God" -- wouldn't you, in love, try to recover me from this horrible error, seeing how wrong and sinful it is (if, in fact, the Trinity is nothing more than a man-made construct)?

 

[unred typo]

Good post, Mathetes. I felt like you addressed the issue at hand and weren’t just spouting religious rhetoric.

Machetes wrote:

I interpreted this as saying that trying to share what one believes to be an important truth with others is not acting in love because it risks dividing believers. You also seemed to elevate being "built up in love" over and above "doctrines that divide believers." If the doctrine is true and important, then it must be shared and impressed upon others at some point.

In the case of the Trinity, even if you don't accept that doctrine, surely you will admit that worshiping God in spirit and truth (John 4:23) is highly important. If a person is not worshiping God in spirit and truth, then he is worshiping a false god. In that case, he is committing a sin and therefore needs to be admonished about it just as much as in the case of adultery.

To try to recover someone from a serious error is to try to build him up.

You don't believe that we should risk dividing believers over issues that are secondary or unimportant. Therein lieth the rub.
As I pointed out above (hopefully clearly), what we believe about God is highly important because holding to a view about God that is inconsistent with the way He has revealed Himself is a sin. It is idolatry.

You have, I believe, correctly identified the ‘rub.’ The devil is in the details, huh? Whether “the doctrine is true and important,†“highly important,†must be determined. What facts about the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit would be ‘highly important’ for us to know?

First, I believe we must know that he is the creator and only true God of all creation. God in the beginning was expressed in as the Word, the Father and the Spirit and still one God. I see that explained easily to humans who were created in his image as body, soul and spirit, yet one person that is not separated.

Second, we must believe that God performed a miraculous birth that brought the Word into human flesh. As human beings, we can’t fathom that concept of an image of the invisible God, so we must just accept it at face value, no pun intended. Maybe we can touch on it if we consider that a television image is an image of someone who is not physically visible to us. Terms like, co-equal, co-eternal, etc. are just pushing the limits of the text, and not essential, imho. The fact we must focus on is that he is the earthly representation of God to us and God has put all of us under his feet and he has the authority and power to do what he says and that his message is the true Word of God. We are trusting him with our eternal lives, giving up all claim to earthly riches and possibly going to be persecuted or killed for following his way, so we must believe that as Son of God, he is able to deliver us.

Third, we must believe that the Spirit of God is with us and is able to raise up our mortal bodies, make us born again and indwell us and lead us into the narrow way that will bring us to God. If we are to please God, we must worship him in our spirit and not with false motives or lying words that we know are not true and not insincerely pretending to honor him while doing things that we know he hates. Did I cover it to your satisfaction?


Machetes wrote:

unred quote: “Do you have a problem with teaching that we must obey the words spoken by Christ?â€Â
Not at all; do you? If you were in this house church with me and you knew I believe in the Trinity, and you yourself reject that doctrine as a false caricature of God -- or, to use your own words, "a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God" -- wouldn't you, in love, try to recover me from this horrible error, seeing how wrong and sinful it is (if, in fact, the Trinity is nothing more than a man-made construct)?

Not really. I would try to get you to understand the purpose of God in revealing specifically three aspects of his nature, as I have tried to do above, and also admonish you to not to cause divisions and offend ‘weaker’ brothers with your understanding of God. Your idea of what God is like is just that; an idea. If yours is closer than mine to reality, share it but don’t insist that it is the last word in truth, because you could be wrong. I couldn’t, but you could. :wink:

 

[Mathetes]

You have, I believe, correctly identified the ‘rub.’ The devil is in the details, huh? Whether “the doctrine is true and important,†“highly important,†must be determined. What facts about the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit would be ‘highly important’ for us to know?

Anything about the nature of God is highly important and crucial for us to know.

I would further say that a sound doctrine of God will hold that God is three Persons in one essence (deity). Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Machetes wrote: unred quote: “Do you have a problem with teaching that we must obey the words spoken by Christ?â€Â
Not at all; do you? If you were in this house church with me and you knew I believe in the Trinity, and you yourself reject that doctrine as a false caricature of God -- or, to use your own words, "a man-made construct concerning the unfathomable nature of God" -- wouldn't you, in love, try to recover me from this horrible error, seeing how wrong and sinful it is (if, in fact, the Trinity is nothing more than a man-made construct)?

Not really. I would try to get you to understand the purpose of God in revealing specifically three aspects of his nature, as I have tried to do above,...

Then I would say that if you are not trying to recover me from my error then you are not truly loving me. Insisting that what one is teaching is the truth and must be adhered to is love when it is done for the right reason, out of genuine concern for the other person.

...and also admonish you to not to cause divisions and offend ‘weaker’ brothers with your understanding of God.

In the Bible, offending means to make someone stumble. When Paul spoke about offending a "weaker brother" he was speaking of using one's Christian liberty in a manner that does not take into account the potential pitfalls to which that weaker brother may be susceptible:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Cor. 8:-13, emphasis mine).

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died" (Romans 14:13-15).

In both these passages the offense, or stumbling block, is something that leads a brother to sin.

Therefore, trying to recover someone from a serious error is not making them stumble. On the contrary, neglecting to try to recover them from their error will only result in their continuing to stumble. Thus, in that case what we'd be doing is failing to remove the stumbling block that has already been leading the person to sin in the first place. Now that would be a sin against them.

Your idea of what God is like is just that; an idea. If yours is closer than mine to reality, share it but don’t insist that it is the last word in truth,

Please show me from Scripture this idea that I am not to insist that what I believe is the last word in truth. When I share the gospel with people, I press it upon them as if it is "the last word in truth." The truth about
God's nature is no less crucial because to embrace an antibiblical view of God is to commit the sin of idolatry.

Your statement here smacks terribly of relativism and postmodernism. It seems to promote the idea that our ideas are just ideas and therefore should not be pressed upon others as if they were absolute truth. Since you seem to believe this philosophy, I say this to you, Unred Typo: Your idea that I should not insist that my idea is the last word in truth, is itself an idea. Therefore, according to your own logic, you should not "insist that it is the last word in truth." You have violated your own principle.

Postmodernist, relativistic ideas do not come from the mind of God but from the mind of men.

Mathetes

 

[unred typo]

Mathetes wrote:

Anything about the nature of God is highly important and crucial for us to know. I would further say that a sound doctrine of God will hold that God is three Persons in one essence (deity). Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God but that is not good enough for you, is it? There is enough doubt in this area to allow a person to interpret this the best way he can understand it, especially since the disciples who were with him for 3 years and his cousin, John the Baptist, didn’t have a firm grip on everything that entailed. Jesus himself commended Peter in Mat 16:16 that he had correctly identified him as the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Bible comes closest to saying Jesus is God when it says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. No where do you find the disciples or Jesus or Paul took the time and effort to state unequivocally that God is three Persons in one essence (deity). If it was even on the top ten things a person has to know about God, don’t you think it would be stated in black and white every time the gospel is mentioned? Now, maybe you have some ego and pride in this that you won’t acknowledge it publicly, but surely you can admit it to yourself that something is a little bit bogus about that.


Mathetes wrote:

Then I would say that if you are not trying to recover me from my error then you are not truly loving me. Insisting that what one is teaching is the truth and must be adhered to is love when it is done for the right reason, out of genuine concern for the other person.

I am trying to get you to recover from your error. I think you will be hanging your head over the way you have made something as trivial as this to be of such momentous importance when you stand to give an account to the Lord about things done here on earth.


Mathetes wrote:

In the Bible, offending means to make someone stumble. When Paul spoke about offending a "weaker brother" he was speaking of using one's Christian liberty in a manner that does not take into account the potential pitfalls to which that weaker brother may be susceptible:
………….In both these passages the offense, or stumbling block, is something that leads a brother to sin.

Therefore, trying to recover someone from a serious error is not making them stumble. On the contrary, neglecting to try to recover them from their error will only result in their continuing to stumble. Thus, in that case what we'd be doing is failing to remove the stumbling block that has already been leading the person to sin in the first place. Now that would be a sin against them.

Quite right….the examples are in regard to food offered to idols. Quite wrong is the idea that a person who believes that the Father is God, Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God as recorded in the Bible, is somehow sinning. If anyone is the weaker brother in this, it is the one insisting on their own biased interpretation and breaking the bond of love between believers in Christ.

Mathetes wrote:

Please show me from Scripture this idea that I am not to insist that what I believe is the last word in truth. When I share the gospel with people, I press it upon them as if it is "the last word in truth." The truth about
God's nature is no less crucial because to embrace an antibiblical view of God is to commit the sin of idolatry.

Where is Peter declaring the hypostatic union in his famous sermon in Acts 2? The closest he comes is Act 2:36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.†Hardly a declaration of the trinity as put forth by the anal Trinitarians of today. If you had been there, I suppose you would have considered it your duty to stand and accuse Peter of the sin of idolatry for his failure to tell the absolute truth about God in this highly important matter crucial to the salvation of all these people. Hard to believe such blatant sin in a guy just filled with the Spirit of God, isn’t it? :roll:


Mathetes wrote:

Your statement here smacks terribly of relativism and postmodernism. It seems to promote the idea that our ideas are just ideas and therefore should not be pressed upon others as if they were absolute truth. Since you seem to believe this philosophy, I say this to you, Unred Typo: Your idea that I should not insist that my idea is the last word in truth, is itself an idea. Therefore, according to your own logic, you should not "insist that it is the last word in truth." You have violated your own principle. Postmodernist, relativistic ideas do not come from the mind of God but from the mind of men.

My ideas are no more than just that, ideas. I’ve dropped more than I have kept over the years. I like the saying that goes, ‘keep your words soft and sweet, for you may have to eat them someday.’ If I could just remember that. The words that we can insist on are Jesus’ words. He said the words he spoke were spirit and life, and we would be blessed with eternal life if we followed them. Sounds like he spoke the last word in truth to me. I don’t recall him declaring the hypostatic union either.

 

[mutzrein]

There is only one thing that binds me to another in terms of fellowship, and that is the Spirit of God. I have fellowship with trinitarians and non trinitarians alike. It is not a doctrine that binds us but the same Spirit that dwells within each of us. And this is where unity abounds.

 

[Mathetes]

Unred,

Unfortunately I see little reason to continue this discussion with you, for two reasons:

1) I'm not trying to condemn you, but your words and manner of response have made it clear to me that you are not in the proper frame of mind to discuss this. In your last post you were not only insulting, but also you did not answer some of my questions directly. These are signs to me that all the discussion in the world with you will produce more heat than light.

2) My second reason is based on something you said:

My ideas are no more than just that, ideas. I’ve dropped more than I have kept over the years. I like the saying that goes, ‘keep your words soft and sweet, for you may have to eat them someday.’ If I could just remember that. The words that we can insist on are Jesus’ words. He said the words he spoke were spirit and life, and we would be blessed with eternal life if we followed them. Sounds like he spoke the last word in truth to me. I don’t recall him declaring the hypostatic union either.

Since you believe that your ideas, as mine, are nothing more than simply ideas that we might drop in the future, it would be a violation of this belief of yours to persist in this discussion. And saying that Jesus' words are absolutely true (which I believe) does not adequately address this problem with your thinking. Think about it: In order to understand Jesus' words, you have to interpret them. Interpretation of the Bible, as with any other text, involves a mental process in which we combine views and ideas of our own with the words of the text we're reading, to one degree or another, to arrive at a conclusion -- i.e., an interpretation. Therefore, our interpretations are derived (at least in part) from ideas that tomorrow might prove to be false for all we know. Hence, by your lights, you can have no certainty that even your interpretation of Jesus' words is correct. Why bother, then, to discuss this with me?

However, I will leave you with these verse references, since you say that Jesus' words are the final word in truth (which I believe). The verses need to be read together:

Revelation 1:8, 1:17-18, 22:13.

 

[unred typo]

New Unred Typo comments in bold, Mathetes in italics.
Mathetes wrote: Unfortunately I see little reason to continue this discussion with you, for two reasons:

1) I'm not trying to condemn you, but your words and manner of response have made it clear to me that you are not in the proper frame of mind to discuss this. In your last post you were not only insulting, but also you did not answer some of my questions directly. These are signs to me that all the discussion in the world with you will produce more heat than light.

And I hadn’t even broke into a sweat. :wink:
Seriously, Mathetes, I looked all through my last post for signs that I had insulted you or failed to answer your questions. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else on another thread. If you asked any questions at all, I couldn’t find them in any of your posts, except for the one before your last where you asked two and I answered them both in my next post. I asked, “Do you have a problem with teaching that we must obey the words spoken by Christ?†and you answered, “Not at all; do you?†and then you asked, …“wouldn't you, in love, try to recover me from this horrible error, seeing how wrong and sinful it is (if, in fact, the Trinity is nothing more than a man-made construct)?†to which I answered; “Not really. I would try to get you to understand the purpose of God in revealing specifically three aspects of his nature, as I have tried to do above, and also admonish you to not to cause divisions and offend ‘weaker’ brothers with your understanding of God. Your idea of what God is like is just that; an idea. If yours is closer than mine to reality, share it but don’t insist that it is the last word in truth, because you could be wrong. I couldn’t, but you could.†and I ended it with a winky :wink: to show my last remark was in jest.

Mathetes wrote: 2) My second reason is based on something you said:
Unred wrote: “My ideas are no more than just that, ideas. I’ve dropped more than I have kept over the years. I like the saying that goes, ‘keep your words soft and sweet, for you may have to eat them someday.’ If I could just remember that. The words that we can insist on are Jesus’ words. He said the words he spoke were spirit and life, and we would be blessed with eternal life if we followed them. Sounds like he spoke the last word in truth to me. I don’t recall him declaring the hypostatic union either.â€Â

Since you believe that your ideas, as mine, are nothing more than simply ideas that we might drop in the future, it would be a violation of this belief of yours to persist in this discussion. And saying that Jesus' words are absolutely true (which I believe) does not adequately address this problem with your thinking. Think about it: In order to understand Jesus' words, you have to interpret them. Interpretation of the Bible, as with any other text, involves a mental process in which we combine views and ideas of our own with the words of the text we're reading, to one degree or another, to arrive at a conclusion -- i.e., an interpretation. Therefore, our interpretations are derived (at least in part) from ideas that tomorrow might prove to be false for all we know. Hence, by your lights, you can have no certainty that even your interpretation of Jesus' words is correct. Why bother, then, to discuss this with me?

Why bother indeed. No problem. If I thought that you might actually be persuaded to concede to my point of view, I probably wouldn’t care to continue either. I prefer to beat my head against a solid wall of unbending opposition put up by someone who thinks he has absolute truth. It’s always better to discuss a doctrine with a person when no amount of verses, reasoning or enlightenment can dissuade him to let go of a single error, no matter how blatant it might be. Sure, right, uh huh. :roll:

Just for the record, the essentials of salvation are firmly fixed in my heart and mind. What I am not willing to beat up other believers about are doctrines that are not absolutely stated and that reasonable men differ on their interpretation because it is not unequivocally spelled out by Jesus or his disciples. That would include man made definitions of the nature of God, on both sides of the trinity issue.

Mathetes wrote: However, I will leave you with these verse references, since you say that Jesus' words are the final word in truth (which I believe). The verses need to be read together:
Revelation 1:8, 1:17-18, 22:13.

Since you asked that this not turn into another thread about the trinity issue itself, but rather on the validity of separating from others over this doctrine, I will ignore your inadvertent attempts to lapse into that discussion. :-D

It is amusing that all you 'get tough with doctrine' types have the thinnest skin. :wink:

 

[unred typo]

Mathetes wrote:Since you believe that your ideas, as mine, are nothing more than simply ideas that we might drop in the future, it would be a violation of this belief of yours to persist in this discussion. And saying that Jesus' words are absolutely true (which I believe) does not adequately address this problem with your thinking.

Please explain. Our ideas are not changable? Mine are. I could be wwwrrro-ong about things that are not clearly spelled out in Jesus' words. Are you saying that because I could change my mind to your way of thinking, we aren't going to discuss this anymore? Or are you saying that because you feel neither of us will ever change our minds that we shouldn't discuss this because it will disprove my statement that we could improve or even drop our ideas that are not grounded in actual scripture? I thought that was the whole idea here. To root out wrong ideas that have become entrenched in our thinking....but then, I've been wwrr-rrong before. :wink: