My Vow Concerning Doctrines

[CalledToServe]

I too would say the same thing...but how do you mean it? Are you saying that Christ-the-human is a different person and that Christ-the-Father-manifested is another different person? Unless you're saying this, we still are left with the same Person in relationship and interacting with the self same Person.

On the other hand, if you're indeed differentiating between Christ-divine and Christ-human as different Persons, then aren't you slipping into stating that the self-same God could exist as different Persons?

I obviously don't adhere to modalism but please don't mistaken me to be trying to prove any position here. I genuinely am interested in knowing how one reconciles that which I find paradoxical or contradictory and would like to find out where exactly our beliefs diverge.

Interesting questions and I do appreciate them. The way you're looking at this is from Plato's perspective in that God is a person. Under Greek mythology, the gods were merely powerful people. There wasn't the concept of them being invisible, without sin, and perfect. Greek gods had the same flaws that humanity does and sins against one another quite frequently. If you use the Greek theory of forms to explain the unexplainable then you'll get contradictions.

However, God of the Old Testament is invisible, without sin, and does not succumb to the flaws of humanity. The reason why is that God is not human. Granted that we are created in His image, but that does not make Him human.

Since Jesus is both fully human and fully divine there is no split in the divinity as stated under the theory of forms. The reason being is that is how God manifested Himself at that time. Jesus being fully human and being completely sinless elevates Him above all other created beings. Keep in mind that God created Jesus in His image. By taking into account that Jesus the man is a separate creation than God then no, there is not a different person in the 'Godhead'. Jesus as a man is separate like we are separate from God. Jesus as God is still singular since it is God. No split in God and stated under the Greek theory of forms.

 

[ivdavid]

However, God of the Old Testament is invisible, without sin, and does not succumb to the flaws of humanity.

I don't believe otherwise. Just to clarify - do you in any way believe trinitarianism implies otherwise?

The way you're looking at this is from Plato's perspective in that God is a person....Granted that we are created in His image, but that does not make Him human.

Now assume I haven't read Plato or Aristotle and the likes. Is there a strict correlation between believing that the Father is a Person and consequently, having to believe He is human? Can I not believe that the Father is invisible, without sin, is not human and yet is a Person of the God-head - is there any internal inconsistency here?

For the sake of clearing any semantic confusion - how would you describe "nature" and "person"?

 

[CalledToServe]

I don't believe otherwise. Just to clarify - do you in any way believe trinitarianism implies otherwise?

The heretics Tertullian and Origen adapted the pagan theory of forms to Christianity. You would have to ask them since it is their position.

Now assume I haven't read Plato or Aristotle and the likes. Is there a strict correlation between believing that the Father is a Person and consequently, having to believe He is human? Can I not believe that the Father is invisible, without sin, is not human and yet is a Person of the God-head - is there any internal inconsistency here?

Take a look at the definition of person then look at the definition of manifestation. Which one fits God the best?

per-son 4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

be-ing 2. conscious, mortal existence; life. (I used number 2 since it fits within the pagan theory of forms.)

man-i-fes-ta-tion 3. outward or perceptible indication; materialization.

5. Spiritualism. a materialization.

Do you believe that God the Father is a mere human? That is what the pagan theory of forms presents. To answer your question, yes it is internally inconsistent.

For the sake of clearing any semantic confusion - how would you describe "nature" and "person"?

Nature is defined as the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. I defined person above. Both state that it is material in the world. God is invisible, but can manifest Himself in any number of ways. If you are referring to His characteristics then that is not nature, but His characteristics.

char-ac-ter-is-tic a distinguishing feature or quality.

From the above definition of characteristic it does not denote a material object inherently nor does it denote a human being. It denotes an invisible quality.

All definitions provided by Merriam Webster dictionary.

 

[ivdavid]

Do you believe that God the Father is a mere human? That is what the pagan theory of forms presents.

No, I don't believe the Father is of the flesh. But I see that you accept the definition of "Person" to be "a self-conscious or rational being" and that a "being" is "mortal" and consequently you believe "it is material in the world", thereby contradicting the eternal and invisible attributes of the Father. Fair enough that way.

But tell me why "a self-conscious or rational being" has to be "mortal/material"? Cannot a "self-conscious and/or rational being" be spiritual? How have you arrived at this premise? Is it just through defining these words this way?

What if I hold -
"being" to be "3. substance or nature" or according to Collins World English Dictionary later in that page - as "2. essential nature; self" and
"nature" to be "7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour" and "9. sort; kind; character" according to Collins World English Dictionary later in that page -

If I defined these terms as above, would the same inconsistency arise?

 

[CalledToServe]

No, I don't believe the Father is of the flesh. But I see that you accept the definition of "Person" to be "a self-conscious or rational being" and that a "being" is "mortal" and consequently you believe "it is material in the world", thereby contradicting the eternal and invisible attributes of the Father. Fair enough that way.

But tell me why "a self-conscious or rational being" has to be "mortal/material"? Cannot a "self-conscious and/or rational being" be spiritual? How have you arrived at this premise? Is it just through defining these words this way?

What if I hold -
"being" to be "3. substance or nature" or according to Collins World English Dictionary later in that page - as "2. essential nature; self" and
"nature" to be "7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour" and "9. sort; kind; character" according to Collins World English Dictionary later in that page -

If I defined these terms as above, would the same inconsistency arise?

Considering that the definition of substance means that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material. Then yes you still have the same inconsistency.

 

[ivdavid]

Considering that the definition of substance means that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material. Then yes you still have the same inconsistency.

Do you really base all your conclusions on the way words have been defined on a particular website? Is it absolutely comprehensive? Can you determine truth on this basis?

Since you seem to hold the definition of "substance" to strictly be "physical matter or material" and not perhaps points 7a or 8 according to Collins World English Dictionary later in the page or something else that perhaps might capture the exact meaning in -

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Going by your definition, I am forced to conclude that faith is a form of physical matter or material of things hoped for - which I hope you too can see the absurdity in. Is such an approach then valid? How else do you validate your beliefs?

 

[ivdavid]

Jesus being fully human and being completely sinless elevates Him above all other created beings. Keep in mind that God created Jesus in His image.

Again clarifying, is Jesus completely sinless as human or is He sinless as the Father-manifested... seeing that you distinguish between the two. (To me, Jesus is a divine Person in the God-head who is come in the flesh into our world - Him being in the flesh does not separate Him from His God-nature.)

By taking into account that Jesus the man is a separate creation than God then no, there is not a different person in the 'Godhead'.

In Hebrews 1, is the Father talking to Jesus-the-man or Jesus-divine(Himself)?

In John 17:5, is Jesus-the-man praying to the Father or is Jesus-divine praying to Himself?

 

[CalledToServe]

Again clarifying, is Jesus completely sinless as human or is He sinless as the Father-manifested... seeing that you distinguish between the two. (To me, Jesus is a divine Person in the God-head who is come in the flesh into our world - Him being in the flesh does not separate Him from His God-nature.)

I believe Philippians 2:9 makes it clear that Jesus the man is a sinless man. "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,"

In the Book of Revelation, you have Jesus standing separate and is the right hand of God. Can the One True God, split Himself into two separate entities and speak as two different people? Can the One True God, sit on both the highest throne and on the right hand throne at the same time? No, but it does show that this is Jesus the man and the One True God in heaven. If you said yes then you have created the Two True Gods and turns Christianity into a polytheistic religion. Judaism, which Christianity is a sect of, acknowledges only the One True God.

In Hebrews 1, is the Father talking to Jesus-the-man or Jesus-divine(Himself)?

He is talking about Jesus the man. In verses 8-9 God says about Jesus the man, "“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

Can God set Himself above His companions as a separate entity? No, because God is One. The scriptures repeatedly state that we have One True God. In this chapter is proves that Jesus is a man and created by God to serve as the final atoning lamb of sacrifice.

In John 17:5, is Jesus-the-man praying to the Father or is Jesus-divine praying to Himself?

I believe in using the full context of the scripture, thus I will use 17:1-5.

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Why would God have to glorify Himself? He doesn't, since in every appearance of God as a manifestation in the Old Testament appears already glorified. This is further proof that this is Jesus the man asking God the Father to glorify Him and to glorify God during the final atoning sacrifice. Make note of where Jesus says, "Now this is eternal life; that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." God was already present in the world and it is recorded of every manifestation in the Old Testament. Why did God have to send Himself as a second divine individual to the world when He has always been there? He can't because then you are splitting the One True God into Two True Gods. He can, however, send Jesus the man and the divine into the world. Why would God send Jesus the man and the divine manifestation of God into the world? What was His entire purpose for it?

 

[ivdavid]

I believe Philippians 2:9 makes it clear that Jesus the man is a sinless man. "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,"

Have you put the above two statements together, intentionally? If so, you seem to be implying that God-the-Father exalted Jesus-the-man to the highest place because Jesus is sinless as man - have I got this wrong in any way about what you believe here?

You also noted earlier that Jesus-the-man is created just as any other man. Do you then believe as a concept, that it is possible for any created man to be sinless as Jesus is - just that none have been so. OR do you believe that no created man can be sinless unless He is of a divine nature?

Correspondingly, do you believe Jesus-the-man is sinless because He-as-man could be sinless and He did see to it that He is sinless OR do you believe that Jesus is sinless because He is of a divine nature(I'm not focusing on whether that divine nature is God-manifested or a distinct God-Person here right now - perhaps later).


Also, now that we're here, let's take a closer look at Php 2 -
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Here, v.5 follows from v.4 where each person is exhorted to not look at his own things but also the things of others - and then v.5 states that this is the mind in Christ Jesus.

v.6 continues this parallelism where Christ did not mind His own benefit by becoming equal with God when He could have, given that He is of the same form of God. Now which Christ Jesus is Scripture referring to here... Jesus-the-man or Jesus-the-Father-manifested?

I don't know if it would make sense to you if the Self-same-Father-manifested-as-Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with Himself, then humbled Himself and was obedient to Himself to be exalted by Himself. If this is the case, do you have an explanation as to how this kind of intrinsic comparison may arise within the Self-same-Person?

On the other hand, if the above passage is referring to Jesus-the-man, how is it that this man is in the same form of God that such a man could actually be able to make himself equal with God? And more importantly, how is it that Jesus-the-man is referred to in v.6 when only subsequently in v.7 is He described to have been made in the likeness of men? Jesus is said to have taken on the "form of a servant, in fashion as a man" instead of remaining in the "form of God" that He had before such a humbling of Himself - does this not imply that the Jesus referred to here existed before the man was made and therefore cannot be Jesus-the-man? Of course, I'd like to know how you see this entire passage.

 

[ivdavid]

Can the One True God, split Himself into two separate entities and speak as two different people?

If I believed two distinct Persons could be the same One Being, I don't see how that violates our monotheistic beliefs. Of course, you may say that this is not possible given our current pre-suppositions gleaned from our current worldly wisdom and I may say that this is revealed as such but not enough to decipher the mystery that shall be fully known eventually - and the both of us would get nowhere. But given its possibility, which I believe lies in the accurate defining of what we mean by "Person","Nature","Being" etc., the Trinitarian belief could be reconciled in consistency.

I have now avoided explaining my beliefs on the Trinity elaborately because every time I begin to try to understand another's beliefs, I am simultaneously asked to share mine(understandably) but then it turns from a cordial sharing of beliefs to a heated debate. So unless you are directly asking me to share my understanding of the Trinity, which I would readily do once we're done with this current thread of discussion, I will not voice out my beliefs on this except where it may aid/clarify the discussion - rather, I'd simply prefer knowing more about yours.

In Hebrews 1, is the Father talking to Jesus-the-man or Jesus-divine(Himself)?

He is talking about Jesus the man. In verses 8-9 God says about Jesus the man, "“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; ....

There are two points I'd like to get clarified here - firstly, did Jesus-the-man exist before He was made to be born in our world? How do you see this being witnessed in Psalms 45:6-7 ?

Secondly, you earlier differentiated between Jesus-the-man and Jesus-the-Father-manifested in order for you to "not see it as God talking to Himself". Here in v.8, the Father is seen addressing Jesus-the-man as "O God" - is the Father addressing Himself or can a created man be called "God"?

Again, I'm only trying to see how you reconcile all aspects of your belief system. I do not intend imposing my first premises on your belief system - I'm only trying to explore and discern yours.

 

[ivdavid]

In John 17:5, is Jesus-the-man praying to the Father or is Jesus-divine praying to Himself?

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
My focus in John 17:5 was on the latter part of it - where Jesus-the-man is implied to have existed in glory with the Father before the world was. Do you hold such a belief?

Why would God have to glorify Himself?

I don't think it's to be understood as God needing to add something to Himself or His already gloried nature - rather, it's an expression of who He is and the accompanying glory in all that He does. As to your question, does it still apply to the following verse -

Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Why did God have to send Himself as a second divine individual to the world when He has always been there?

Inherent in your question is your belief that God is only One Person (given your usage of "God-the-Father sending Himself as a second Person") - which is not necessarily true for a trinitarian who believes that God is One Being of 3 distinct Persons and where God-the-Father didn't send Himself but rather the Second Person in the God-head, Christ Jesus.

As to the purpose, each Person of the God-head is employed in a specific task that is unique as well as united in themselves. I need to build on so much more to comprehensively answer this - if you wish, we could take it up after our current line of discussion.

 

[CalledToServe]

Have you put the above two statements together, intentionally? If so, you seem to be implying that God-the-Father exalted Jesus-the-man to the highest place because Jesus is sinless as man - have I got this wrong in any way about what you believe here?

You also noted earlier that Jesus-the-man is created just as any other man. Do you then believe as a concept, that it is possible for any created man to be sinless as Jesus is - just that none have been so. OR do you believe that no created man can be sinless unless He is of a divine nature?

Correspondingly, do you believe Jesus-the-man is sinless because He-as-man could be sinless and He did see to it that He is sinless OR do you believe that Jesus is sinless because He is of a divine nature(I'm not focusing on whether that divine nature is God-manifested or a distinct God-Person here right now - perhaps later).


Also, now that we're here, let's take a closer look at Php 2 -
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Here, v.5 follows from v.4 where each person is exhorted to not look at his own things but also the things of others - and then v.5 states that this is the mind in Christ Jesus.

v.6 continues this parallelism where Christ did not mind His own benefit by becoming equal with God when He could have, given that He is of the same form of God. Now which Christ Jesus is Scripture referring to here... Jesus-the-man or Jesus-the-Father-manifested?

I don't know if it would make sense to you if the Self-same-Father-manifested-as-Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with Himself, then humbled Himself and was obedient to Himself to be exalted by Himself. If this is the case, do you have an explanation as to how this kind of intrinsic comparison may arise within the Self-same-Person?

On the other hand, if the above passage is referring to Jesus-the-man, how is it that this man is in the same form of God that such a man could actually be able to make himself equal with God? And more importantly, how is it that Jesus-the-man is referred to in v.6 when only subsequently in v.7 is He described to have been made in the likeness of men? Jesus is said to have taken on the "form of a servant, in fashion as a man" instead of remaining in the "form of God" that He had before such a humbling of Himself - does this not imply that the Jesus referred to here existed before the man was made and therefore cannot be Jesus-the-man? Of course, I'd like to know how you see this entire passage.

If I believed two distinct Persons could be the same One Being, I don't see how that violates our monotheistic beliefs. Of course, you may say that this is not possible given our current pre-suppositions gleaned from our current worldly wisdom and I may say that this is revealed as such but not enough to decipher the mystery that shall be fully known eventually - and the both of us would get nowhere. But given its possibility, which I believe lies in the accurate defining of what we mean by "Person","Nature","Being" etc., the Trinitarian belief could be reconciled in consistency.

I have now avoided explaining my beliefs on the Trinity elaborately because every time I begin to try to understand another's beliefs, I am simultaneously asked to share mine(understandably) but then it turns from a cordial sharing of beliefs to a heated debate. So unless you are directly asking me to share my understanding of the Trinity, which I would readily do once we're done with this current thread of discussion, I will not voice out my beliefs on this except where it may aid/clarify the discussion - rather, I'd simply prefer knowing more about yours.


There are two points I'd like to get clarified here - firstly, did Jesus-the-man exist before He was made to be born in our world? How do you see this being witnessed in Psalms 45:6-7 ?

Secondly, you earlier differentiated between Jesus-the-man and Jesus-the-Father-manifested in order for you to "not see it as God talking to Himself". Here in v.8, the Father is seen addressing Jesus-the-man as "O God" - is the Father addressing Himself or can a created man be called "God"?

Again, I'm only trying to see how you reconcile all aspects of your belief system. I do not intend imposing my first premises on your belief system - I'm only trying to explore and discern yours.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
My focus in John 17:5 was on the latter part of it - where Jesus-the-man is implied to have existed in glory with the Father before the world was. Do you hold such a belief?


I don't think it's to be understood as God needing to add something to Himself or His already gloried nature - rather, it's an expression of who He is and the accompanying glory in all that He does. As to your question, does it still apply to the following verse -

Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.


Inherent in your question is your belief that God is only One Person (given your usage of "God-the-Father sending Himself as a second Person") - which is not necessarily true for a trinitarian who believes that God is One Being of 3 distinct Persons and where God-the-Father didn't send Himself but rather the Second Person in the God-head, Christ Jesus.

As to the purpose, each Person of the God-head is employed in a specific task that is unique as well as united in themselves. I need to build on so much more to comprehensively answer this - if you wish, we could take it up after our current line of discussion.

I believe I answered your questions already and you splitting hairs like this shows that you have no intention to learn. You're looking for a way to show that my beliefs are wrong. I have already demonstrated with proof that I will not adhere to manmade doctrines and the baseline God gave to me. I will say this, "Blessings and peace be to you."

 

[Eventide]

The Father is in you... Christ is in you... The Holy Spirit is in you...

Perhaps one way to help us to understand the triune nature of God (not that we can fully understand that) is by experiencing the miraculous nature of the Christian life..

When a person is born again... they have the Holy Spirit in them, they have Christ in them, and the Father is in them.

We're not born again three separate times, only one time..

These are simple biblical facts.. and through experience we can see that these three always act in one accord.. I can't tell the difference between the Father in me, Christ in me, or the Spirit in me, although they are in every born again believer according to the word of God..

.02

 

[ivdavid]

I believe I answered your questions already

If that is so, then I shall apologize for being dense. I only wanted to make sure of what you believed rather than drawing conclusions from my own assumptions.

My main questions in the previous posts were -
ivdavid - "My focus in John 17:5 was on the latter part of it - where Jesus-the-man is implied to have existed in glory with the Father before the world was. Do you hold such a belief?"

ivdavid - "Do you then believe as a concept, that it is possible for any created man to be sinless as Jesus is - just that none have been so. OR do you believe that no created man can be sinless unless He is of a divine nature?"

I have re-read our discussion so far and I've again failed to see where you've already answered these. Kindly point me to where you've answered these.

you splitting hairs like this shows that you have no intention to learn.

It's quite unfortunate that my intents have to be vilified now. I guess if I've continued asking questions that you've already answered, it may seem as if I'm going nowhere - but honestly, I don't know where you've answered these. So please give me the benefit of doubt and show me where I may find these answers.

Of course, if you do not want to answer, that's entirely your prerogative - I'm not entitled to an answer and you're not obligated to give one. From where I stand, I have asked questions that I have no answers to, yet - in that, there is scope for new knowledge to be added about your belief system.

You're looking for a way to show that my beliefs are wrong.

No, not at all. I have not dealt with you slyly. In post#80 itself, I made my intent clear -

ivdavid - "I obviously don't adhere to modalism but please don't mistaken me to be trying to prove any position here. I genuinely am interested in knowing how one reconciles that which I find paradoxical or contradictory and would like to find out where exactly our beliefs diverge."

I've already voiced out that I don't subscribe to modalism, that I'm not here to prove trinitarian beliefs are true, and that my intent is to find out how you reconcile that which I find paradoxical or contradictory. Given this publicly known intent, it's quite obvious that I'd question you only on what I find paradoxical or contradictory - and the expected response is that you share with us how exactly you reconcile these issues - and through such sharing of your beliefs, I get to know more about your belief system as a whole. Why then get offended when I'm simply exploring your belief system? If you feel I'm just wrangling with words without making any progress, point me to such needless verbosity and I shall make amends.

I have already demonstrated with proof that I will not adhere to manmade doctrines and the baseline God gave to me.

Why have you stated this here? You use "demonstrations" and "proofs" where none are needed - for a vow needs no proving. As far as I've understood, this is a vow that you have taken - like how Paul took a vow to shave his head. Others not abiding by it is not wrong in the sight of God at all. So if your vow entails you not subscribing to any doctrines formulated after the first apostolic line, then who is to stop you. But you surely don't imply that this must be imposed on all believers, do you? Because if you impose your vow on all believers, then it ceases to be a personal vow, rather it becomes a doctrine formulated by you, a man, which by its very teaching needs to be rejected.

On the other hand, if it's just a personal vow, then others could subscribe to the teachings of all who have reminded us of the truth in Scripture, without it being counted wrong in the sight of God. Our only concern should then be that of the berean people(Acts 17) - focusing not on who does the preaching but whether that preaching itself is to be reconciled in Scripture as a whole.

I will say this, "Blessings and peace be to you."

Peace be to you too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

CalledToServe,

This revelation you've had should eventually be leading you to the realization that topics like this are curious matters, not essential ones. This is where your revelation will help you not get overly engrossed in non-essential topics, and the divisions that result from them, and stay focused on what really does matter, which is being careful to live for God according to the fruit of the Spirit. That is the manifestation of faith in Christ that counts. That is the faith that pleases God. That is the faith that people who truly know God will have sooner or later and by which we can recognize them as being true followers of God.

 

[dadof10]

And so we should ignore all that prophets do and keep the passage within your narrow understanding of prophet?

When did I say we should ignore all the prophets do? I have no "narrow understanding" of the role of a prophet. Sheesh, because I say Jesus is speaking specifically about false PROPHETS in one verse of Scripture, you draw this conclusion?

You're ignoring the close link between prophet and teacher and how prophets don't just foretell the Word of God, but also teach and expound on the Word of God. Beware of those prophets (who foretell and forth tell the Word of God)

who bear the fruit of lawlessness.

I'm ignoring nothing. You seem to be under the impression that the terms "false teacher" and "false prophet" are interchangeable. If this were the case, Peter would not have differentiated between the two. Not every teacher is a prophet and vice -versa.

Lawlessness is the signifying mark of the false prophet. Prophets foretell and forth tell (teach and expound on) the Word of God.

That's not what Peter is saying. He doesn't say what you want him to say, and neither does Jesus. Peter is describing SOME (not all) false teachers. He NEVER says "here is how you will know if a teacher is false, if he does X,Y,Z...". That is what you WANT him to say.

You're not going to get that easily out of Strong's, if at all. You get that from

reading the Bible.

No one "reads" Strong's. It's a reference work and I do read Scripture. We should use all the tools at our disposal and if a well respected resource goes against our view, our view needs to change. We shouldn't hold onto our view and kill the messenger.

Are you saying, then, it's too hard to draw the line on prophets and teachers who have bad behavior so we can just ignore what Jesus and Peter said about false prophets/ teachers?.

No, I'm saying "bad behavior" is subjective, Truth is not. Again, neither Jesus nor Peter says that the way to tell if someone is teaching false doctrine is to look at their "behavior". Good behavior is no more telling of True doctrine than bad. Can you think of ANY upstanding "teachers" of doctrine that have taught outright heresy? I can. If you believe that "bad behavior" is the "signifying mark" of a false teacher, "lawfulness" or good behavior must point to true doctrine, right?

If you're not saying that, how do you draw the line in order to obey what prophets Jesus and Peter teach us in the Bible about prophets and teachers who bear the fruit of lawlessness and who seek to introduce destructive heresies into the church?

I don't draw that line because that's not what they are saying. ANYONE can "introduce destructive heresies into the church" whether they are like the people Peter is describing or not.

Are you refusing to acknowledge the traits/ characteristics Peter says these false teachers have?

No, I'm objectively reading Scripture and concluding Peter is speaking of SOME teachers, not all, and taking into consideration historical fact that; 1) Not all false teachers had these attributes, and 2) Some false teachers had none of them. You can't make the case logically that Peter is saying all false teachers will behave this way, and if a teacher doesn't, then his teaching is OK.

How are you missing this? The sinful leaders Peter is talking about are "secretly (introducing) destructive heresies". Their lawless fruit is the signifying mark of this agenda. That's the whole point of this

.

Please stop with the backhanded insults. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm "missing" anything. Where does Peter say in this tirade that "Their lawless fruit is the signifying mark of this agenda." Please provide the verses.

The early church hated the Jews. As direct result of that hate and prejudice destructive heresy was crafted and brought into the church. That's the point.

What do you have, 4 quotes in 300 plus years of ECF writings that you can point to as "antisemitic"? That hardly constitutes the "early church". The reason they disliked the Jews was because the Jews sided with the Romans during some (not all) of the persecutions of the first 300 years. Judaism was LEGAL, Christianity was not. I'm not excusing the writings, but you can probably see why the anger in them.

It's an example to defend the fundamental truth of the OP's argument.

C'mon, Jethro, it's more than that to you.

The early, gentile church was anti-Semitic. The result, for example, was their misguided and uneducated doctrines about law keeping. I defend the church's freedom to not have to keep the Sabbath/ Festival laws. But it was dead wrong to declare keeping those laws anathema. It was born out of a sinful prejudice and hatred toward the Jewish people.

All this vitriol concerning four quotes over 300 years? Say you are right and those four ECF's were antisemitic, how do these four guys translate into "the early gentile church"? What about the other...say...200 or so ECF's that didn't write against the Jews? How will you demonize them so you can be the only ones who keep all 10 commandments?

The point is, you stay out of churches and denominations that are lawless. You don't seek truth in a church with a leadership that knows little or nothing about the fundamental command of the Christian faith "love your neighbor as yourself" and doesn't practice it. The warnings in the Bible to avoid lawless leadership in the church were not given to us for nothing.

That is your point, but not Peter's. There were no "denominations" until the 14th century. The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. What constituted a "false teacher" was what they TEACH, not what they do.

 

[Elijah674]

Dad/of/ten says in part:

______
But first this sentence by another below :

The point is, you stay out of churches and denominations that are lawless. You don't seek truth in a church with a leadership that knows little or nothing about the fundamental command of the Christian faith "love your neighbor as yourself" and doesn't practice it. The warnings in the Bible to avoid lawless leadership in the church were not given to us for nothing.
_______



That is your point, but not Peter's. There were no "denominations" until the 14th century. The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. What constituted a "false teacher" was what they TEACH, not what they do.
____________


Hi friend: The Bible is the Lords WORD we will agree on, right? (none of the Jer. 17:5 ones!)

So to believe Christs WORD of Matt. 4:4 + 2 Tim. 3:16, take note also Paul by INSPIRATION in 1 Cor. 14:32 meaning again ALL of the WORD OF CHRIST!
[32] And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


Isa. 5’s Vineyard + House is Inspired [TRUTH]!

Stevens Holy Spirit filled testimony in Acts 7:38 + ibid 55 has [CHRIST IN HIS CHURCH] in the O.T. wilderness + Stephen FILLED FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST!

Exod. 25:8-9
[8] And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
[9] According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

(surely you can see other names all used in God's [WORD] for a [[place where WORSHIP IS ACCEPTED!]]

+ Heb. 9:23
[23] It was therefore necessary that [[the patterns of things in the heavens]] should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(this surely finds NO Place for a replacement of Christ either )

+ Psalms 77:13
[13] Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
(and another name for where God will 'require' US to meet Him!)


+ Temple! & SURELY John 10:16
You can see that when Christ was on earth, that there were 'FOLDS' all around Him on earth. Church folds that were Christ/less, or why MUST THEY LEAVE?? Exactly as seen in Rev. 18:4! But you never address these verses of scripture, why??? Do you even read them????

+ Rev. 18:4 with Rev. 3:9 called Synagogue! (satan’s!)
Just another name of many for where to worship, where mankind were to originally meet Christ for His required Worship

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

Dad/of/ten says in part:

______
But first this sentence by another below :

The point is, you stay out of churches and denominations that are lawless. You don't seek truth in a church with a leadership that knows little or nothing about the fundamental command of the Christian faith "love your neighbor as yourself" and doesn't practice it. The warnings in the Bible to avoid lawless leadership in the church were not given to us for nothing.
_______



That is your point, but not Peter's. There were no "denominations" until the 14th century. The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. What constituted a "false teacher" was what they TEACH, not what they do.
____________


Hi friend: The Bible is the Lords WORD we will agree on, right? (none of the Jer. 17:5 ones!)

So to believe Christs WORD of Matt. 4:4 + 2 Tim. 3:16, take note also Paul by INSPIRATION in 1 Cor. 14:32 meaning again ALL of the WORD OF CHRIST!
[32] And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


Isa. 5’s Vineyard + House is Inspired [TRUTH]!

Stevens Holy Spirit filled testimony in Acts 7:38 + ibid 55 has [CHRIST IN HIS CHURCH] in the O.T. wilderness + Stephen FILLED FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST!

Exod. 25:8-9
[8] And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
[9] According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

(surely you can see other names all used in God's [WORD] for a [[place where WORSHIP IS ACCEPTED!]]

+ Heb. 9:23
[23] It was therefore necessary that [[the patterns of things in the heavens]] should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(this surely finds NO Place for a replacement of Christ either )

+ Psalms 77:13
[13] Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
(and another name for where God will 'require' US to meet Him!)


+ Temple! & SURELY John 10:16
You can see that when Christ was on earth, that there were 'FOLDS' all around Him on earth. Church folds that were Christ/less, or why MUST THEY LEAVE?? Exactly as seen in Rev. 18:4! But you never address these verses of scripture, why??? Do you even read them????

+ Rev. 18:4 with Rev. 3:9 called Synagogue! (satan’s!)
Just another name of many for where to worship, where mankind were to originally meet Christ for His required Worship

--Elijah

Are you trying to make the case that because Scripture speaks of different "folds" or singles out some geographical churches for different reasons, that there were denominations in apostolic times, and that these "denominations" taught DIFFERING DOCTRINES like the Protestant churches do? Please (with as little fanfare as possible) show me the verses that back this up. Show me, either in Scripture or on historical documents, where these geographical churches taught differing doctrines and where this was accepted by the apostles or other Church leaders. Please.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

dadof10,

Your resistance to what I'm saying is not surprising at all. Many, many people in the church think possessing correct, doctrinal facts, and exercising proper worship practices, and being involved in ministry and the right denomination are what it means to 'believe in' and obey God and please him. That is why they can't see the important connection between what a leader does and what he believes.

Jesus said it very plainly in Matthew 7, "Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes". But the church is so certain that they are. It stems from the belief that what you believe doctrinally and what you do morally are two completely different and unrelated things...the former being the more important thing and the measure of a man! Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. What constituted a "false teacher" was what they TEACH, not what they do.

3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:3-13 NASB)


5...appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. (Titus 1:5-11)