ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

As far as I am concerned, you are wrong, however,if you want to be understood speak with consideration. No one should have look up anyone's words. I'm not.

"As far as you are concerned" as a heterodox Third Wave Charismaticist is less than irrelevant for historical orthodox doctrine and truth, especially as a non-linguist.

Those terms are foundational theological terms. This is a theology forum. You're the one (along with most others, unfortunately) who is on the outside looking in while presuming your false autonomy and anthropocentrism has any validity. It doesn't.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

A fairly lofty position of one who doesn't need to learn or gain knowledge any longer:

I don't know if you understand the sad irony here...


Absolutely but:

He is 100%. John 1:1 was with AND was God.


Or man.


Ouch so "As we are, God once was" -Lorenzo Snow isn't heresy or blasphemy? Anything goes because it is 'difficult?'



:idunno: You lost me here.

Matthew 6:40 and Galatians 6:6 "the end is already predetermined."

Yes, and gnosis knowledge and epignosis knowledge (and oida knowledge) are not the same things. It matters. A lot.

It's sad when theological terms are dissed on a theology forum.

 

[Cross Reference]

"As far as you are concerned" as a heterodox Third Wave Charismaticist is less than irrelevant for historical orthodox doctrine and truth, especially as a non-linguist.

Those terms are foundational theological terms. This is a theology forum. You're the one (along with most others, unfortunately) who is on the outside looking in while presuming your false autonomy and anthropocentrism has any validity. It doesn't.

If that is what you and this thread is all about, I leave you and it to your unbelief.

 

[Cross Reference]

A fairly lofty position of one who doesn't need to learn or gain knowledge any longer:

Knowledge without relationship is no knowledge at all, nor is it salvation as a Gnostic or a Lapsarian might believe it is.

I don't know if you understand the sad irony here...

Correct. I don't. I have been very clear with you using the simplest of words.

Absolutely but:

He is 100%. John 1:1 was with AND was God.

And NOW, as the human He NEVER was preincarnate, He is and will remain so in His Glorified state of being, to be one day sole possessor of the Godhead. He won the victory over sin and death to be God in Divine flesh, which was the Ultimate intention of God for having ever created man, i.e., men as hiers of Himself and joint hiers with Christ Jesus. Only a man could ever be our example to follow in that, not God. If God, then our quest would be beyond us. It would be a barrier to our obedience and belief in Him that we make our excuses for not overcoming the law of our sinful flesh (Rom 7) thus preventing the new born of Him from entering Rom 8.

Ouch so "As we are, God once was" -Lorenzo Snow isn't heresy or blasphemy? Anything goes because it is 'difficult?'

God never was in human flesh unless you want to take into consideration His foreknowledge of His then made vulnerable but now perfected Son "in Whom I am well pleased", Who worked it all out through His finger tips in fear and trembling.. . .I add, which is the same LIFE given the new born of Him to follow suit and in the same way Jesus performed it . . Obedience, faith and allegiance.

I am not familiar with any Lorenzo Snow. Did he write any books?

:idunno: You lost me here.

I understand.

Matthew 6:40 and Galatians 6:6 "the end is already predetermined."

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Galatians 6:6 (KJV)

Absolutely! . . . And for the learner to understand that it is not by decree that the salvation or knowledge of God comes to men. The one being imputed, the other imparted. The former must be in proper order for the latter to have its intended effect."For he that soweth to his flesh [his head and not to his heart] shall of the flesh reap corruption. . . . ." Galatians 6:8 (KJV), which is what I see here in everyone who is desiring to advance his religious ideas; 'knowledge' without insight, insight that would advance HIM further along his own "knowing" of what is eternal life purposed for man by God, through and by Christ Jesus.(John 17:3)

Sorry, my Bible can't open up Matt 6:40.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If that is what you and this thread is all about, I leave you and it to your unbelief.

Yeah, all non-theologians and non-linguists want to self-determine doctrine and what is "Christian" without the ability to do so; and then they dismiss orthodoxy and historicity for their own false autonomous nonsense and continue obliviously on their way, presuming to tell everyone else what is true and insisting theologians and historians are in unbelief, etc.

You are such an one. It's just like all the fruitloop hyper-entitled progressive millennials.

Your "relationship" is with a God you have tangibly encountered and experienced rather the intangible God who is Spirit. You don't know the Son as the eternal and uncreated Logos of God, manifest in the flesh.

You only know a modern conceptualization of a historical man, just like Unitarians and Arians and Adoptionists, etc. It's an epidmemic; a plague upon the true Christian faith. Third Wave Charismaticism is not Christian. It's not even pseudo-Christian. It's anti-Christian.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Knowledge without relationship is no knowledge at all, nor is it salvation as a Gnostic or a Lapsarian might believe it is.

Correct. I don't. I have been very clear with you using the simplest of words.

And NOW, as the human He NEVER was preincarnate, He is and will remain so in His Glorified state of being, to be one day sole possessor of the Godhead. He won the victory over sin and death to be God in Divine flesh, which was the Ultimate intention of God for having ever created man, i.e., men as hiers of Himself and joint hiers with Christ Jesus. Only a man could ever be our example to follow in that, not God. If God, then our quest would be beyond us. It would be a barrier to our obedience and belief in Him that we make our excuses for not overcoming the law of our sinful flesh (Rom 7) thus preventing the new born of Him from entering Rom 8.

God never was in human flesh unless you want to take into consideration His foreknowledge of His then made vulnerable but now perfected Son "in Whom I am well pleased", Who worked it all out through His finger tips in fear and trembling.. . .I add, which is the same LIFE given the new born of Him to follow suit and in the same way Jesus performed it . . Obedience, faith and allegiance.

I am not familiar with any Lorenzo Snow. Did he write any books?

I understand.

Galatians 6:6 (KJV)

Absolutely! . . . And for the learner to understand that it is not by decree that the salvation or knowledge of God comes to men. The one being imputed, the other imparted. The former must be in proper order for the latter to have its intended effect."For he that soweth to his flesh [his head and not to his heart] shall of the flesh reap corruption. . . . ." Galatians 6:8 (KJV), which is what I see here in everyone who is desiring to advance his religious ideas; 'knowledge' without insight, insight that would advance HIM further along his own "knowing" of what is eternal life purposed for man by God, through and by Christ Jesus.(John 17:3)

Sorry, my Bible can't open up Matt 6:40.

For someone who has no clue of the difference between gnosis knowledge, epignosis knowledge, and oida knowledge (and many other related words from the inspired text of scripture), you sure bloviate about "knowing" and "knowledge" a lot.

You "know" nothing. Literally.

 

[Cross Reference]

For someone who has no clue of the difference between gnosis knowledge, epignosis knowledge, and oida knowledge (and many other related words from the inspired text of scripture), you sure bloviate about "knowing" and "knowledge" a lot.

You "know" nothing. Literally.

Knowing=intimacy. How more literal does your "gnosis" require?

 

[Cross Reference]

Yeah, all non-theologians and non-linguists want to self-determine doctrine and what is "Christian" without the ability to do so; and then they dismiss orthodoxy and historicity for their own false autonomous nonsense and continue obliviously on their way, presuming to tell everyone else what is true and insisting theologians and historians are in unbelief, etc.

You are such an one. It's just like all the fruitloop hyper-entitled progressive millennials.

Your "relationship" is with a God you have tangibly encountered and experienced rather the intangible God who is Spirit. You don't know the Son as the eternal and uncreated Logos of God, manifest in the flesh.

You only know a modern conceptualization of a historical man, just like Unitarians and Arians and Adoptionists, etc. It's an epidmemic; a plague upon the true Christian faith. Third Wave Charismaticism is not Christian. It's not even pseudo-Christian. It's anti-Christian.

You demonstrate your willful ignorance in a skillfully stupid way. Very interesting. First time for me on such a level with one such as you. I take it there are different degrees. Which one are you presently working on? Will you receive a "sheep skin" upon completion of your schooling?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Knowing=intimacy. How more literal does your "gnosis" require?

More clueless posturing.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You demonstrate your willful ignorance in a skillfully stupid way. Very interesting. First time for me on such a level. I take it there are different levels. Which one are you working on?

LOL.

 

[Cross Reference]

More clueless posturing.

No, fact. Seems you are working on another level of stupidity after all. Fascinating.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yeah, all non-theologians and non-linguists want to self-determine doctrine and what is "Christian" without the ability to do so; and then they dismiss orthodoxy and historicity for their own false autonomous nonsense and continue obliviously on their way, presuming to tell everyone else what is true and insisting theologians and historians are in unbelief, etc.

Cant hardly blame them.

You also have admitted that some of them church father's wrote and thought some purdy screwy things.

I cant really take Iraneus seriously when he believed John ran naked out of a bath house screamin' the place would fall down because a confused brother was inside.

Then he tried to justify believing that here say story by twisting some things Paul wrote.

Not saying you're wrong, but you and I both have been where CF is, just different experiences and backgrounds getting there.

All of us are hard heads, even sheep, like goats butt heads.

On that note I better go outside and mow the yard, no goats or sheep out there and the horses make to big a piles of fertilizer. lol

 

[Lon]

God never was in human flesh unless you want to take into consideration His foreknowledge of His then made vulnerable but now perfected Son "in Whom I am well pleased", Who worked it all out through His finger tips in fear and trembling.. . .I add, which is the same LIFE given the new born of Him to follow suit and in the same way Jesus performed it . . Obedience, faith and allegiance.

This cannot be entertained in this thread. It isn't even heterodox.
1 Timothy 3:16 John 1:14 Isaiah 9:6

Sorry, my Bible can't open up Matt 6:40.

Luke 6:40 rather

 

[Cross Reference]

This cannot be entertained in this thread. It isn't even heterodox.
1 Timothy 3:16 John 1:14 Isaiah 9:6

Your conclusion is without full/complete understanding built on a traditional foundation that doesn't fully explain what it states as fact. Perhaps you might want to clarify the definition of "manifested" because God should be manifested in and from YOU. However, we both know that "God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself." 2Cor.5:19 kJV.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, fact. Seems you are working on another level of stupidity after all. Fascinating.

The stupidity is you non-theologians and non-linguists presuming you can be the final arbiters of truth when you have no idea what the historical Christian faith IS and you can't read the inspired text without derailing into your own preconceived ideas that you presuppose to be "fact" just because you're biologically alive with functioning cognition of electrical impulses to your brain's synapses.

The New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism are NOT the Christian faith. YOUR logos is not God's Logos. Attributing your doctrines to relationship just exposes the fallacy of that relationship, not that you're some super-spiritual human with some superior connection to God that violates His Word rather than affirming it.

You are deceived. You're the apostasy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This cannot be entertained in this thread. It isn't even heterodox.
1 Timothy 3:16 John 1:14 Isaiah 9:6

Luke 6:40 rather

Wow, I missed that part. He's beyond heterodox.

 

[Lon]

Your conclusion is without full/complete understanding built on a traditional foundation that doesn't fully explain what it states as fact. Perhaps you might want to clarify the definition of "manifested" because God should be manifested in and from YOU.

Again, this thread is not about entertaining non-triune views. There is variance within the view but what is outside the view isn't trinity doctrine. Can you explain how you understand your view to be triune at this point?

However, we both know that "God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself." 2Cor.5:19 kJV.

John 1:1 "...was with God AND was God."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Again, this thread is not about entertaining non-triune views. There is variance within the view but what is outside the view isn't trinity doctrine. Can you explain how you understand your view to be triune at this point?

John 1:1 "...was with God AND was God."

THIS is an example of why I opposed Trinitarianism for years. Not because God isn't a Trinity; but because most modern professing Trinitarians AREN'T actual Trinitarians, but are functional Tritheists, Modalists, Arians, or Unitarians; many hiding behind odd contrivances of some form of Adoptionism and/or extreme Kenoticism.

CR is NOT a Trinitarian. Trinitarians MUST retain and represent the eternal and uncreated CONTINUOUS and IMMUTABLE divinity of our Lord relative to the Incarnation.

Internal arguments are fine, and mine can be the most pointed and scathing of all; but there are boundaries that must be maintained. Extreme Kenoticism far exceeds those boundaries.

 

[Cross Reference]

Again, this thread is not about entertaining non-triune views. There is variance within the view but what is outside the view isn't trinity doctrine. Can you explain how you understand your view to be triune at this point?

John 1:1 "...was with God AND was God."

Are you adjustable in your thinking? Lets see:

If, before the cross, jesus was God then why was it He was glorified after the cross? Why the "My God, My God, why have your forsaken ME"? Why the event of glorification in His life if he was already God? If He was God then why did God reward Him by giving Him a Name higher than any other in Heaven, on Earth and under the Earth? What that tells me is Jesus was given a Name higher than that even of His Father! If Jesus was God then He could not have been the second or last Adam. He could not have redeemed man. I gave you reasons. While God was the Author of creation, Jesus, the man, was the Author of our salvation. How come the distinction between the two Authors?

Last Question: Why, in your thinking, is it heresy for anyone to believe that is the way it happened? Where is the offense if you don't understand what the Bible says about Him as I have expressed it adnausm and if you still do it will be because you have, again, misconstrued my words to mean something I am NOT saying?

Now, do I believe Jesus IS GOD? With all my heart.

 

[Cross Reference]

THIS is an example of why I opposed Trinitarianism for years. Not because God isn't a Trinity; but because most modern professing Trinitarians AREN'T actual Trinitarians, but are functional Tritheists, Modalists, Arians, or Unitarians; many hiding behind odd contrivances of some form of Adoptionism and/or extreme Kenoticism.

CR is NOT a Trinitarian. Trinitarians MUST retain and represent the eternal and uncreated CONTINUOUS and IMMUTABLE divinity of our Lord relative to the Incarnation.

Internal arguments are fine, and mine can be the most pointed and scathing of all; but there are boundaries that must be maintained. Extreme Kenoticism far exceeds those boundaries.

You are simply saying that for one to be a trinitarian he has to believe a creed. Well, I have news for you. When you fully understand the sinlessness of Jesus and the equality with God it afforded Him maybe, just maybe, you will get a clue as to how the "I AM" could be of Himself as being from the Godhead. Eternal Life for Him was a continual intimacy with His Father.