POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Actually, I'm not.
I agree and that was pretty much my point. In other words, Elin, unless I'm misunderstanding her, was saying that she believes that Christ originally came from within the Father's bosom or that He was somehow eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting heresy. That which is eternal can never be generated or begotten in that sense of the word. Seeing how she believes that Christ originally somehow mystically was generated from within the Father's bosom or that He somehow eternally was generated from within God Himself which sounds like what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, by the way, that Christ is some sort of begotten God, I was merely asking her if she also believes that Christ has now returned to the same place. In other words, she is the one who seems to be ignoring the type of anthropomorphic terminology that you just mentioned.
I agree and that was pretty much my point. In other words, Elin, unless I'm misunderstanding her, was saying that she believes that Christ originally came from within the Father's bosom or that He was somehow eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting heresy. That which is eternal can never be generated or begotten in that sense of the word. Seeing how she believes that Christ originally somehow mystically was generated from within the Father's bosom or that He somehow eternally was generated from within God Himself which sounds like what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, by the way, that Christ is some sort of begotten God, I was merely asking her if she also believes that Christ has now returned to the same place. In other words, she is the one who seems to be ignoring the type of anthropomorphic terminology that you just mentioned.
S
The Holy Spirit works by convicting the individual of what they must do/believe to be saved. He convicts them of their sin and draws them to Christ.
Once they have come the Holy Spirit will-if the individual is willing to learn from Him lead them into truth that will bring them to live an ever holier life. I do not believe the Holy Spirit leads us to make extra biblical demands of others, or for instance to spend much time trying to work out what happened ex nihilo. Such things may stir the academic mind of man but are not important to true Christianity. If they were, the bible which is God breathed would go into them in detail
Once they have come the Holy Spirit will-if the individual is willing to learn from Him lead them into truth that will bring them to live an ever holier life. I do not believe the Holy Spirit leads us to make extra biblical demands of others, or for instance to spend much time trying to work out what happened ex nihilo. Such things may stir the academic mind of man but are not important to true Christianity. If they were, the bible which is God breathed would go into them in detail
Last edited by a moderator:
You are confusing one's growing in understanding of scripture which is a revealed mandate that is to be attained through study, not inspiration, and a simple academic exorcize. What I have noticed about this kind of thinking is that those who feel threatened by concepts they do not understand or ideas that do not fit into their narrow mold of reasoning from the biblical text tend to immediately try to discredit the other person by challenging academics, marginalizing their level of education, attacking their level of intelligence, and then claiming that their own view is the correct one because the H.S has led them to this view even when it stands diametrically opposed to the language of scripture. All this is, is an attempt to assign credibility to ideas, theories, or concepts that scripture clearly will not support. This is what is otherwise known as an ad-homonym argument. Anyone who makes the claim that the H.S is directing them to accept something as truth that stands contrary to the written text is simply lying in attempt to establish credibility for themselves by extending credit for their ideas to the H.S. Don't blame what you believe on the H.S.
Last edited:
S
What does the NT go into in greatest detail? Accepting Christ into your life as Lord and saviour and living an ever more holy life. That therefore is of the most overriding importance in the christian faith. The bible does not delve into ex nihilo, nor many of the demands made by some to inherit eternal life
I couldn't agree more. Anyone who claims the Holy spirit is leading them to believe something contrary to the plainly written word is lying
I have chatted to many academically gifted people. For example. Some understand when Paul speaks of the christian not being under law and dying to the law, he means the whole law in this respect, including the Ten commandments. Other academically minded people refuse to accept Paul is including the ten commandments in his words. Therefore those who do not understand Paul is speaking of the whole law do not fail to understand because they are academically minded, but because they lean on that understanding to learn of the spiritual, rather than fully leaning on the holy spirit
I couldn't agree more. Anyone who claims the Holy spirit is leading them to believe something contrary to the plainly written word is lying
I have chatted to many academically gifted people. For example. Some understand when Paul speaks of the christian not being under law and dying to the law, he means the whole law in this respect, including the Ten commandments. Other academically minded people refuse to accept Paul is including the ten commandments in his words. Therefore those who do not understand Paul is speaking of the whole law do not fail to understand because they are academically minded, but because they lean on that understanding to learn of the spiritual, rather than fully leaning on the holy spirit
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not care about all of this. What I am saying is that I am getting tired of seeing you try to discredit someone's education, intelligence, or higher level of understand of something simply because you do not understand what they are talking about and then claiming that you get your understanding directly from the H.S when what you believe bears absolutely no resemblance to how scripture represents the nature of God.
S
I do not attack a person for having a great academic mind, but when such a person leans on that mind in order to understand the spiritual it is of no use. In truth they often end up contradicting the plainly written word with their great studying of it. Which is probably why some on websites such as these make demands unto salvation that hardly any ministers make from the pulpits, nor would most of their congregations
I repeat, anyone God accepts instantly sees Christ as God requires them to, for the Holy spirit gives them such conviction. Otherwise they could not be saved
I repeat, anyone God accepts instantly sees Christ as God requires them to, for the Holy spirit gives them such conviction. Otherwise they could not be saved
It's not "popular, it's historically orthodox.
Surely you are aware Jesus said that
he came forth out of God (Jn 8:42),
he came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27),
he came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28),
he came forth from the Father (you--Jn 17:8).
The Greek verb for "came forth from/out of" is exelthon.
It means "to proceed, to emanate (flow out, issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun),
to come out or go out of, to go forth."
See 1Co 14:36--"Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
See Mt 2:6 (where different form, exeleusetai, is used)--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
See Mt 15:18 (where a third form, like go, went and gone, is used, exerchontai)--"Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts."
When "proceed, emanate, come out, go out, go forth" is used with ek, which means "out from within,"
as in Jn 8:42, 16:28 above, it means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to come out from within, to go forth out from within," an emerging from within, an origin, and used by John in this sense, without exception, 336 times.
It is the meaning of being in the Father's bosom.
Surely you are aware Jesus said that
he came forth out of God (Jn 8:42),
he came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27),
he came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28),
he came forth from the Father (you--Jn 17:8).
The Greek verb for "came forth from/out of" is exelthon.
It means "to proceed, to emanate (flow out, issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun),
to come out or go out of, to go forth."
See 1Co 14:36--"Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
See Mt 2:6 (where different form, exeleusetai, is used)--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
See Mt 15:18 (where a third form, like go, went and gone, is used, exerchontai)--"Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts."
When "proceed, emanate, come out, go out, go forth" is used with ek, which means "out from within,"
as in Jn 8:42, 16:28 above, it means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to come out from within, to go forth out from within," an emerging from within, an origin, and used by John in this sense, without exception, 336 times.
It is the meaning of being in the Father's bosom.
Last edited:
I would like you to tell me what one thing all of these definitions have in common.
Definition of orthodoxy
1. of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.
7. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.
Definition of orthodoxy
1. of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.
7. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.