|
Post by déjà vu on Oct 19, 2010 21:08:26 GMT -5
At a recent G.Meeting the statement was made that Christ was made by God ,I was always under the impression that He was Co- eternal with God
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 19, 2010 21:22:42 GMT -5
God created man who created God who created man. Or maybe it starts with man. Who can say? I guess I have to vote for co-something.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 21:23:50 GMT -5
At a recent G.Meeting the statement was made that Christ was made by God ,I was always under the impression that He was Co- eternal with God Begotten, not made. One in being with the Father.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 19, 2010 21:25:43 GMT -5
hey StAnne, quit parroting creeds and tell us what YOU think.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 21:30:26 GMT -5
hey StAnne, quit parroting creeds and tell us what YOU think. Truth is truth. Embrace it.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 19, 2010 21:31:41 GMT -5
hey StAnne, quit parroting creeds and tell us what YOU think. Truth is truth. Embrace it. How boring is that? If it were that simple, this board wouldn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 19, 2010 21:51:30 GMT -5
"The truth" is full of untruth. This is just one doctrine of many they aren't in agreement on. Agreed. On this topic, "the truth" sides with Matthew, James, Mark against John, Hebrews, Revelation. Which of the various biblical doctrines do YOU side with?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 21:55:45 GMT -5
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is God - therefor some higher being most likely would have had to have made Jesusgod as they couldn't make themselves.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2010 22:12:04 GMT -5
Begotten, not made. One in being with the Father. This means that there was a time when there was not a trinity.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 22:27:00 GMT -5
Begotten, not made. One in being with the Father. This means that there was a time when there was not a trinity. No. Doesn't mean that. "In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/creed
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 22:30:08 GMT -5
Truth is truth. Embrace it. How boring is that? If it were that simple, this board wouldn't exist. ;D
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 22:44:36 GMT -5
We attended Baptist for a number of years before we converted to Catholicism. The Trinity was such an accepted and preached doctrine in the two Baptist churches we attended that I thought everyone embraced the doctrine of the Trinity (including 2x2s). Much to my surprise, shortly after learning of Wm I., and finding this board, I also learn that the doctrine of the Trinity is not commonly 2x2 accepted. So. For your reading enjoyment...The Baptist version. From the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) 2. God and the Holy Trinity The Lord our God is the one and only living and true God; Whose subsistence is in and of Himself - Who is infinite in being and perfection; Whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but Himself; - Who is a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions - Who only has immortality - Who dwells in the light which no man can approach, Who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, in every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; - Who works all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; - Who is most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; - Who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin; - Who is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him; - and Who, at the same time, is most just and terrible in His judgements, hating all sin and Who will by no means clear the guilty. God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and from Himself, is unique in being all- sufficient, both in Himself and to Himself, not standing in need of any creature which He has made, nor deriving any glory from such. - On the contrary, it is God Who manifests His own glory in them, through them, to them and upon them. He is the only fountain of all being; from Whom, through Whom, and to Whom all things exist and move. - He has completely sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do through them, for them, or to them whatever He pleases. - In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and not dependant on the creature. - Therefore, nothing is for Him contingent or uncertain. - He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. - To Him is due from angels and men whatever worship, service, or obedience, they owe as creatures to the Creator, and whatever else He is pleased to require from them. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided. The Father was not derived from any other being; He was neither brought into being by, nor did He issue from any other being. - The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. - The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. - All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations. - This doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and our comfortable dependence on Him. www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part2
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Oct 19, 2010 22:58:44 GMT -5
The way I see it is... I call upon the Goddess Isis... sometimes Hecate... sometimes Gaia. They are one, different only in perception and need. I rather think Jesus and God are like that... One in Spirit... One Spirit... One Whole... One Consciousness... One Mind... One.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 23:03:17 GMT -5
Some of the early church fathers were onto something when they opposed "trinitarians."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 19, 2010 23:19:08 GMT -5
Some of the early church fathers were onto something when they opposed "trinitarians." So which ECFs were on to something and opposed the Trinity?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 20, 2010 7:22:44 GMT -5
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is God - therefor some higher being most likely would have had to have made Jesusgod as they couldn't make themselves. Hbr 1:8 But to the Son He says: " Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. God the Father calling the Son "O God"......
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 20, 2010 11:18:08 GMT -5
This means that there was a time when there was not a trinity. No. Doesn't mean that. "In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/creedIf nothing else, that is not boring. It surprises me that many Trinity advocates are not aware that Jesus is co-eternal with God under the Trinity doctrine. To make the doctrine work, we need to do quite the impressive mental gymnastics to make 'begotten' NOT mean 'begotten'. The Trinity/ Nicene creed uses the idea of "light from light" to convey the notion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 20, 2010 11:57:16 GMT -5
This means that there was a time when there was not a trinity. No. Doesn't mean that. You will have to explain. beget: 1) To father; sire. 2. To cause to exist or occur; produce In order for god to have done any of the above s/he would have had to be in existence for at least some moment. In that moment, before the begetting, there was no Jesus. No trinity. Or you need to redefine your words.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 20, 2010 12:54:16 GMT -5
No. Doesn't mean that. "In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/creedIf nothing else, that is not boring. It surprises me that many Trinity advocates are not aware that Jesus is co-eternal with God under the Trinity doctrine. To make the doctrine work, we need to do quite the impressive mental gymnastics to make 'begotten' NOT mean 'begotten'. The Trinity/ Nicene creed uses the idea of "light from light" to convey the notion. \Aww, the light to light thought eh? Well, God said let there be light and there was light and God saw that it was good. But later on God created the sun to rule by day and the moon by night! So yes, it seems creation came in light to light!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 20, 2010 13:07:48 GMT -5
No. Doesn't mean that. "In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/creedIf nothing else, that is not boring. It surprises me that many Trinity advocates are not aware that Jesus is co-eternal with God under the Trinity doctrine. To make the doctrine work, we need to do quite the impressive mental gymnastics to make 'begotten' NOT mean 'begotten'. The Trinity/ Nicene creed uses the idea of "light from light" to convey the notionYes it does use "light from light." The Nicene Creed also says: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ the only son of God, eternally begotten of God God from God, light from light true God from true God, begotten, not made one in Being with the Father... Eternally caused to be means just that.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 20, 2010 14:52:08 GMT -5
This means that there was a time when there was not a trinity. depends on if the trinity doctrine was invented in 312 like the catholics claim. then again, the catholics claim that the Jewish God was triune, even though they disagreed with the catholics about who their God was. it reminds me of what Paul preached to the Greek, when the Greeks were worshipping the 'unknown God' .....hey rational, maybe we are ALL worshipping the 'unknown God ' that the Greeks worshippped!! according to the Old testament , God was not a trinity Could you provide an authentic Catholic source for that statement--as to the Catholics claiming it was invented in 312? How could the Catholics have invented it when we read what St. John clearly defined in Jn 1:1-2. "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986)." www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htmConcealed in the Old. Revealed in the New. The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.) Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel." www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 20, 2010 15:40:23 GMT -5
You will have to explain. beget: 1) To father; sire. 2. To cause to exist or occur; produce In order for god to have done any of the above s/he would have had to be in existence for at least some moment. In that moment, before the begetting, there was no Jesus. No trinity. Or you need to redefine your words. Perhaps you can first explain to us how it is that God is eternal; and then we can proceed on the intricacies of how the Son is eternally begotten, or eternally caused, of the Father.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Oct 20, 2010 16:50:41 GMT -5
At a recent G.Meeting the statement was made that Christ was made by God ,I was always under the impression that He was Co- eternal with God The fact that this belief was taught from the platform, and even the fact of this thread with its title "Was Jesus created by God ?" and the fact that it's being debated here, are clear indications that the 2x2 church has degenerated to a cult. Maybe it always was one, we would need to know Irvine's doctrine and that of the early preachers. However, many of them would have had sound biblical training, unlike today's workers including whoever spoke the OP message at that recent Gospel Meeting. Here are some pretty standard definitions of a cult: How do you know if a religious group is a cult? Jesus said that you will know false prophets by their fruits. In stating this he was not only speaking of their words and actions but of their doctrinal beliefs as well. Cults deviate from biblical Christianity in several key areas of doctrine.
Cults promote false teaching on the nature of God. The Bible teaches there is one God revealed in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The central feature that distinguishes cults from biblical Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity. All cults have a distorted view of this doctrine. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses condemn the doctrine of the Trinity, and Mormons teach tritheism, three gods who make up the godhead.
Second, cults teach a false view of Jesus. The Bible teaches that Christ is 100 percent man and 100 percent God. This has been called the hypostatic union. In 2 Corinthians 11:4, Paul warned about false teachers teaching another Jesus. A modern-day example of false teaching is Christian Science which teaches that Jesus was not God but a man who displayed the Christ idea.
Third is a false teaching on salvation. All cults have a works-oriented Gospel. The death of Christ is believed to give followers the potential to be saved. So after believing in Christ, one must serve the organization to attain salvation. Salvation is found in the organization and one is never really sure if one has done enough to be worthy of salvation.Sound familiar? OK maybe you want to believe that the F&W are the Only Right Cult. Fine if that's what you want to believe. But don't pretend that it's scripturally sound. Not according to God's word in the bible. If anyone wants to debate these criteria for cults, let's start with the fruits....
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 20, 2010 17:35:00 GMT -5
If anyone wants to debate these criteria for cults, let's start with the fruits.... I'm up for it. How do you want to do it?
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Oct 20, 2010 17:53:23 GMT -5
What about you list all the current fruits of the 2x2 ministry that you can think of, and I'll do the same and we can compare our lists.
We might debate the pros and cons of some of those fruit.
We could also list historical fruits, to see if things have substantially changed over time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2010 17:56:17 GMT -5
If anyone wants to debate these criteria for cults, let's start with the fruits.... I'm up for it. How do you want to do it? Way cool! We haven't had the "threat" of a good debate since Jason the Calvinist departed for more rarefied climes.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 20, 2010 18:17:47 GMT -5
What about you list all the current fruits of the 2x2 ministry that you can think of, and I'll do the same and we can compare our lists. We might debate the pros and cons of some of those fruit. We could also list historical fruits, to see if things have substantially changed over time. That's awfully subjective, but it turns out that wouldn't work for me anyway. My approach on this portion of the debate will show that similar "fruits" can be produced by polar opposites in religion, proving they have absolutely nothing to do with pointing out correct doctrine or cult status. In this case, Jesus must have been wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2010 0:04:57 GMT -5
You will have to explain. beget: 1) To father; sire. 2. To cause to exist or occur; produce In order for god to have done any of the above s/he would have had to be in existence for at least some moment. In that moment, before the begetting, there was no Jesus. No trinity. Or you need to redefine your words. Perhaps you can first explain to us how it is that God is eternal; and then we can proceed on the intricacies of how the Son is eternally begotten, or eternally caused, of the Father. That would be one of those things that you take on faith and, as such, it is not supported materially nor logically. It sounds like you are hiding under the concept of eternity. It is like using infinity as a hedge against reality. Like claiming that an infinite amount and an infinite amount plus one are the same. If one entity created a second, however far in the past or future (eternal), one had to be there first. If you are claiming both have existed forever there is no creation at all.
|
|