Biblical inerrancy vs. Creeds

Dino246 · Oct 24, 2017

What ales you, Willie?

bluto · Oct 25, 2017

Your partly right enoch regarding the "firstborn" issue because the title "firstborn" does not necessarily refewr to the one born first or even born at all. The father can designate whomever he chooses "firstborn." Exodus 4:22, And thou shal say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." Also David was chosen as firstborn, by God, although he was not the eldest of his brothers.

What I do disagree with is when you said the following: " I think the Bible's point is one the sons' of God was chosen to be God the Son. God knew that Jesus would be the obedient son." Jesus Christ who is the God the Son was not chosen by God His Father. Since Jesus Christ is God He always existed as God and then at the appropriate time God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.

Please read Philippians 2:3-10 for starters and then I'll give you more proof that Jesus was "NOT" chosen by God His Father as you say. Btw, regarding the creeds, there is nothing wrong with the creeds and they serve a valuable service. they served for the purposes of correcting various heresies that would arise. The Nicene Creed addressed the Arian heresy for example.

Creeds are also essention Christian truth. The Athanasian Creed affirms the truth of the Trinity, Christ's incarnation, resurrection, ascension, second coming, and final judgment. I could give other reasons regarding the purpose of the creeds but I hope you get the idea.

And for your information there are "Creeds" within the Bible itself. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 is a creed. So is 1 Timothy 2:5-6. Some of them sort of summarize Christian beliefs. Any other questions I will be happy to address.

PS: Again, please read Philippians 2:3-10 and tell me how you understand what the verses are teaching.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Bumped for enoch987. What say you enoch?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

maxwel · Oct 25, 2017

Enoch987 said:

Thoughts: My Typical Experience with CC Debate
1. We start with vague, confusing, or poorly defined terms... which everyone will misunderstand, and therefore, there is no ability for anyone to even ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
2. I suggest we define terms, or use more clear terms, so we can all understand the main issue of the OP.
3. People get upset by my suggestion to be clear, so we can all understand what we're talking about.
4. I stare.
5. I scratch my head.
6. I wonder why people have such overwhelming need to keep their arguments as confusing as possible.

Actual Response to Enoch's comment:
His accusation that my call for "clarity" is some kind of trickery... when it is actually the exact opposite.

If I suggest that people be rational, and debate terms that are actually defined -
that is neither a red herring nor a straw man.

That is just a call to rational debate, which everyone can understand.
The opposite of this would be... IRRATIONAL DEBATE.

Problems with Enoch's accusation of me using a "red herring" or a "straw man".
1. Red Herring:
For me to use a "red herring" to pull you away from the main issue is impossible, because that would necessitate that I could actually identify a main issue from which to pull you.

- When this thread first began, there was no clearly defined main issue.
- There were only accusations against a particular word which was undefined and extremely vague, which could thereby only lead to more confusion.
- To ask for better CLARITY to overcome some CONFUSION is hardly committing a logical fallacy (both "red herrings" and "straw men" are logical fallacies).

2. Straw Man:
For me to use a "straw man" to intentionally misrepresent your main issue is also impossible, because again, that would necessitate I could actually identify a main issue.

- When this thread first began, there was no clearly defined main issue.
- There were only accusations against a particular word which was undefined and extremely vague, which could thereby only lead to more confusion.
- To ask for better CLARITY to overcome some CONFUSION is hardly committing a logical fallacy (both "red herrings" and "straw men" are logical fallacies).

Conclusion:

1. Whenever I ask for people to simply BETTER DEFINE whatever it is they're arguing about, or USE TERMS THAT ARE MORE CLEAR, they always get upset.

2. This response is entirely irrational.

A. If we're having a DEBATE, there is inherent necessity to define, precisely what we are debating -
otherwise, how can everyone know what is being debated?

B. If we're having a POLITE DISCUSSION, or TEACHING, rather than debating, there is still inherent necessity to BE UNDERSTOOD clearly by the people we're talking to.

C. CONFUSION is bad for DEBATE, and it's bad for TEACHING, and it's bad for any NORMAL DISCUSSION... it's simply bad communication.

3. People always get upset by a call to "clarifications", and I have absolutely no idea why; it isn't a rational response, so it must be something else.
A. It isn't rational to WANT your communication to be unclear.

B. If this isn't a rational response, it must be an irrational response, something purely emotional.

4. Maybe people prefer to debate VAGUE TOPICS...
because if you never state precisely what you mean, then no one can actually prove you wrong.

maxwel · Oct 25, 2017

Final Comment.

I don't know why I keep asking people on CC to EXPLAIN what they're debating, so we can all debate it clearly and intelligently.

People LIKE to be vague, and they LIKE their arguments to be meandering, endless, and pointless.

This isn't a matter of rationality, it's a matter of emotion...
people simply like their arguments to be vague and malleable so they can just argue forever with no possibility of resolution.

Have fun guys.
: )

Enoch987 · Oct 25, 2017

bluto said:

Philippians 2:6 "Jesus was in His nature God." or NIV footnote, also KJV translation. "Jesus was in the form of God" (form is having the body of God which is difficult for us to understand since we are taught that God is Spirit).
2:6 continued. "Jesus did not use His equality with God to His own advantage." KJV says "Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal to God." New American Bible (Catholic) "Jesus did not grasp at equality with God." This contrasts with Satan who would grasped at equality with God in my theory (Isaiah 14:14, "Satan wanted to make himself like God" which is the role that God the Father choose for Jesus in my theory) wanting to make Himself like God the Father. We are taught that Satan wanted to set Himself above God, in other words Satan wanted to conquer God. My theory is Jesus was chosen before creation (1 Peter 1:20).
I won't be able to explain every verse to fit my theory. Paul says we see through a dim glass. My estimate is the Creeds are 80% accurate and my theory fits the Bible at 95% accuracy but I know I can't explain every verse.
I know the Creeds addressed the Arian heresy. The Creeds did this by stating the opposite. Arius said Jesus was begotten as a human and all humans have a beginning and all humans have one nature.
Athanasius said Jesus was eternally begotten (Christ did not have a beginning, Athanasius did not explain "eternally begotten," these are 2 words that don't belong together, eternal the opposite of begotten) and Jesus does have 1 nature but it was a dual divine and human nature. Athanasius took Arius' claims about Jesus' human nature which are true to ridicule Arius to win the argument.
The Chalcedonean Creed upheld the 1 nature that is dual divine and human.

Philippians 2:11 Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Paul follows the old testament convention of LORD God of hosts and LORD of hosts.
Greek does not have a word for YHWH which is translated LORD.
Paul calls Jesus Lord and Christ but not God to follow the old testament convention.
I can see Paul's frustration when the Jews didn't accept Paul's teaching of God the Father and Jesus the Son mentioned in the old testament as LORD God of hosts and LORD of hosts when the Jews didn't accept what Paul knew.
I think Paul taught my theory but it was confusing to see settled for One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).
He backed away by warning "don't study endless genealogies" and "don't worship angels." Don't worship angels could be code for don't study the hierarchy of the sons of God.
The Creeds don't have 1 Peter 1:20 and Hebrews 1:8-9.
Jesus is the God is Israel (Isaiah 41-44) because the God of Israel is the first and last like Jesus in Revelation 1.
Jesus is the co-Creator with God the Father.
Jesus is not the God of the gentile nations in the old testament. The Most High God is over all nations.

Enoch987 · Oct 25, 2017

phil36 said:

I'm admitting where I might be wrong.

Enoch987 · Oct 25, 2017

maxwel said:

Hypothetically, the label of "creed" has no ability to make a thing either good or bad.

It's either a biblical creed, or it's not a biblical creed.
We either agree with it or we don't.
Even many cults have creeds, and lets not forget, you can have an active "creed" and never even call it that.
So the word "creed", in itself, can refer to just about anything.

So first of all, we could dispense with attacking the word "creed", and just get back to whether or not certain doctrines are biblical, or whether "particular" creeds are biblical.

But I don't think anyone gets to attack the word "creed" as if it's inherently evil.
Because in actuality, that person probably holds to some kind of creed, even if it isn't written down.

It's fine to debate doctrine.
But the word "creed" isn't a doctrine, it's a set of beliefs, and theoretically it can be ANY set of beliefs.
So in order to be coherent, we need to stop attacking vague words that can mean anything, and get back to discussing particular doctrines... doctrines which we can identify and articulate.

If the Creeds disagree with what the Bible teaches or if the Creeds teach what the Bible teaches but omits some of what the Bible teaches or if the Creeds make what the Bible teaches unclear, this should be argued.

Billyd · Oct 25, 2017

Something's still missing here. I'm still at a loss as to what creeds are you talking about. Please give us a short outline of the creeds you are talking about.

Enoch987 · Oct 26, 2017

Billyd said:

Allow me to go back to the beginning of this thread. 1 Peter 1:20. "Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the world." Jesus was not created. He was chosen. For God the Father to have a choice, there had to be 2 to choose from. With Shem and Abram, God choose the 3rd born son to show us what firstborn son means. Jesus as Firstborn son is in Colossians and Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:8-9 "Jesus was anointed from among his companions." Who are his companions? Not angels because they were created. Jesus companions before He was chosen and anointed were the other sons of God. Jude calls them archangels. Daniel 10 calls them princes. Princes are sons of the King.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 from the Septuagint reads "the Most High God divided the nations according to the sons of God. But YHWH's portion is Israel." sons of God were a problem for the Masoretic text so this was changed to "sons of Israel." Jesus and the Father share the title YHWH except in Psalms 110:1 (YHWY said to my adonai, "Sit by my side until I put all of your enemies under you).
Jesus is the God of Israel. He will become the King of kings at his return. 1 Timothy 6, the King of kings verse has two subjects. God the Father is the primary subject. Jesus is the secondary. It's easy to read Jesus as the King of kings because He will be (Revelation 19) but it's a prophecy of almost but not yet.
So play on my field for now. Trinitarians don't know what to do with 1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:8-9, Luke 9:35 which reads "This is my chosen Son," at the transfiguration. The KJV reads, "This is my beloved Son," as do Matthew and Mark in KJV and modern bibles. It seems there was adjusting of the text. The terms "beloved" and "only" apply to Isaac when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. I have been told that "only" can also mean unique. Isaac and Jesus were unique in the way they were conceived. Isaac's parents were old. Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit with Mary. Interesting that the Holy Spirit is a feminine noun (I have heard). This prevents the heresy that God the Father impregnated Mary.

phil36 · Oct 26, 2017

Enoch987 said:

Hebrews 1:8-9 "Jesus was anointed from among his companions." Who are his companions? Not angels because they were created. Jesus companions before He was chosen and anointed were the other sons of God. Jude calls them archangels. Daniel 10 calls them princes. Princes are sons of the King.
.

So was Jesus an Arch Angel?

Nehemiah6 · Oct 26, 2017

Enoch987 said:

This is a good example of how modern versions lead to false doctrine.

That word which you have quoted as "chosen" has been improperly and incorrectly translated by whichever version you have used. That word is NOT "chosen", but as the King James Bible, and other translations show, it is FOREORDAINED. Which makes your whole argument null and void.

CRITICAL TEXT
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς

TEXTUS RECEPTUS
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δι' ὑμᾶς

So the critical text and the Textus Receptus are identical, and here is what proegnōsmenou (προεγνωσμένου) means in this context:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4267: προγινώσκω

c. 42; προγινώσκει (ὁΘεός) τιναςἐκμετανοίαςσωθήσεσθαιμέλλοντας, id. Apology 1:28); ὅνπροέγνω, whose character he clearly saw beforehand, Rom. 11

Lachmann in brackets), (against those who in the preceding passages from Rom. explain προγινώσκειν as meaning to predestinate, cf. Meyer, Philippi, Van Hengel); προεγνωσμένου, namely, ὑπό τοῦΘεοῦ (foreknown by God, although not yet 'made manifest' to men), 1 Peter 1:20. (Wis. 6:14 Wis. 8:8 Wis. 18:6; Euripides, Xenophon, Plato, Herodian,Philostr., others.)

New American Standard Bible
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

King James Bible
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

In fact foreordained in much more accurate, since to foreknow something is to simply know beforehand, but to foreordain if to APPOINT and PREDESTINANTE beforehand. Thus:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
He was appointed beforehand to this before the foundation of the world and was manifested at the end of times for you;

Once again the King James Bible is vindicated.

bluto · Oct 26, 2017

Enoch987 said:

I apologize enoch987, I forgot to address what you posted to me regarding Philippians 2:6-11. However, I did read this post of yours and I now see the problem your having. Your misunderstanding what 1 Peter 1:20 is teaching because your understanding of the word "chosen" does not mean chosing between two parties.

The Greek word is actually the English word, "forordaine or foreseen" This means that the messiahship of Jesus was foreordained or foreseen by God before the foundation of the world. Christ's advent was "NO" afterthought by God. It was known from the beginning by both the Father and the preincarnate Son, but they waited for "the fulness of the time." Please read Galatians 4:4 or even Hebrews 1:1-2.

The Apostle Peter said Christ was "manifest" (phanerothentos, made apparent, incarnated" in these "last times etc. Now, the reason I gave you the Philippians 2 verses was to point out that Jesus could not have been chosen because He already preexisted His incarnation as God. Please look closely at Phillipians 2:5,6, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, vs6, who "ALTHOUGH" He/Jesus existed in the form of god etc. In other words, despite the fact or in spite of the fact (this is what the word although means) that Jesus Christ existed as God He (vs7) emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant, being found in the likeness of men."

So Jesus Christ who is God at the fulness of time to another form and became a man/flesh John 1:14. This is why Jesus Christ has two natures, one on His Fathers side which is deity and one on His mothers side which is human. If you recall Jesus often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God."

I can also see from reading your post the reason why your bringing up other sons of God like the angels because it's the only way you can explain how Jesus was chosen between other beings. Again, He was not chosen the way you think the word "chosen" means. Does this make sense to you?

I almost forgot, check out the following. Strong's Greek: 4267. προγινώσκω (proginóskó) -- to know beforehand

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Enoch987 · Oct 27, 2017

phil36 said:

Arch angel is the term that Jude uses for the sons of God. Jesus was one of the sons of God because he was chosen to be the firstborn son of God before creation (1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:8-9). In the beginning (at creation), Jesus was God and was with God (John 1:1).

Enoch987 · Oct 27, 2017

bluto said:

You have convinced me that chosen means to know beforehand. What about appointed by the Father to be heir (Hebrews 1:1 and anointed from among His companions (Hebrews 1:8-9). Clear this us for me to; It takes 3 to make the Hebrew plural -im. Father, Son and Holy Spirit make 3 and make the Elohim. The work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished whether or not the Holy Spirit is a person as John's gospel indicates (Conforter, Advocate) or the same work is done if the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit which Paul likens to a man's spirit. The difference between man's spirit and the Holy Spirit is a man's spirit can't be given to another while the Holy Spirit indwells us.
So for the Trinitarian, Elohim has to be Father, Son and Spirit. The Spirit has to be a person. The 3 are 1 so there is 1 God.
For my system, God the Father and God the Son make the Godhead. 2 is not a plural in Hebrew so 2 in 1 is not necessary because 2 is not plural. However the Elohim are Father, Son and the uncreated eternal sons (princes or archangels put in charge of territories) and the Holy Spirit does not have to be a person.

Enoch987 · Oct 27, 2017

bluto said:

I apologize enoch987, I forgot to address what you posted to me regarding Philippians 2:6-11. However, I did read this post of yours and I now see the problem your having. Your misunderstanding what 1 Peter 1:20 is teaching because your understanding of the word "chosen" does not mean chosing between two parties.

The Greek word is actually the English word, "forordaine or foreseen" This means that the messiahship of Jesus was foreordained or foreseen by God before the foundation of the world. Christ's advent was "NO" afterthought by God. It was known from the beginning by both the Father and the preincarnate Son, but they waited for "the fulness of the time." Please read Galatians 4:4 or even Hebrews 1:1-2.

The Apostle Peter said Christ was "manifest" (phanerothentos, made apparent, incarnated" in these "last times etc. Now, the reason I gave you the Philippians 2 verses was to point out that Jesus could not have been chosen because He already preexisted His incarnation as God. Please look closely at Phillipians 2:5,6, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, vs6, who "ALTHOUGH" He/Jesus existed in the form of god etc. In other words, despite the fact or in spite of the fact (this is what the word although means) that Jesus Christ existed as God He (vs7) emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant, being found in the likeness of men."

So Jesus Christ who is God at the fulness of time to another form and became a man/flesh John 1:14. This is why Jesus Christ has two natures, one on His Fathers side which is deity and one on His mothers side which is human. If you recall Jesus often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God."

I can also see from reading your post the reason why your bringing up other sons of God like the angels because it's the only way you can explain how Jesus was chosen between other beings. Again, He was not chosen the way you think the word "chosen" means. Does this make sense to you?

I almost forgot, check out the following. Strong's Greek: 4267. προγινώσκω (proginóskó) -- to know beforehand

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

My reference for Paul's explanation that man's spirit similar to the Holy Spirit is in 1 Corinthians. 2

Search

Biblical inerrancy vs. Creeds

Dino246

Senior Member

bluto

Senior Member

maxwel

Senior Member

maxwel

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

Billyd

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

phil36

Senior Member

Nehemiah6

Senior Member

bluto

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member

Enoch987

Senior Member