Originally Posted by phil36

So do you believe then that someone can be a Christian without having the foundational belief as you call it of Christianity? I certainly don't and I doubt anyone else does on this website either

So what is according to the Bible the foundational belioef?

If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

If you are right why does that verse not say. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is God Himsefl God lives in him and he in Godf?

So you obviously believe in a Bible where the plainest of statements concerning the basis of the Christian faith cannot be relied on.

For God so lloved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John3:16

For my Father's will is that anyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. John6:40

I would prefer to be an immature Christian who believed the plainest of statements concerning the Christian faith than somene who considered themselves mature but would not accept them.

Jesus said his Father was the one true God, therefore you must believe Jesus is the Father if you accept Jesus words. But do you accept his words? Obviuously not.

Paul said clearly that Jesus was not God Himself. So you refuse to accept, the Father, Son, Apostle Paul and John.

And what does it say for an internatilonally renowned minister if you are right?

But scripturally you can only hold to your view by ignoring plain, emphatic statements in the Bible directly relating to this subject.

You can show me no plain direct literal scripture that says Jesus is the one true God. I can show you such plain scripture that says this is not the case.

So basically if someone believes the plain, emphatic, literal words of the Bible they are not believing in the foundational truth of the Christian faith. If that were true it would not say much for the Bible would it?

Maybe you can answer this? By acknowledging and agreeing with a post of AOK I take it you believe that in the ontological Trinity the Son cannot be subject to the Father but in the economic Trinity he always was and is now subject to the Father.
Paul says when all dominion, authority, and power has been defeated Christ will become subject to the Father. Paul cannot be speaking of the economic Trinity here, you believe Christ has always been subject to the Father in this and always will be .So in what sense will Christ in the future become subject to the Father?


.

I find it interesting that though many others agree with you that Jesus is God Himself I have not personally that I recall been continiuously told by them on this website I am a heretic. Why is that? Do they not have the truth you have? Are they lacking in their Christian duty unlike you? Or could there be another reason.

I do not profess to be a wonderfully mature Christian who has all the answers. But I do profess to stand on the plain emphatic, literal statements that I have quoted in this debate. I am sorry maybe I should not say this. But you have come accross to me and I am sure othjers in a mocking, deriosory way with some arrogance in your tone. That is not a sign of mature Chreistianity. Maybe that is why you out of all the people I have discussed this with have sidestepped and not even tried to answer so much of the scripture I have placed before you, or maybe it was just because it was plain, literal words of the Bible.

Mnay others on this website believe that Jesus is God Himself, I have not believed of them what I believed of your manner here.

I am away for a while so cannot reply to posts that often, but as you don't accept the plain words of the Bible and call people heretics who do I admit it does not say much for me either spending time debating with you.