The Trinity...my take.
- Thread starter heartwashed
- 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.
And I really don't think very highly of myself.
I do believe that I have the Holy Spirit and that I have learned my doctrine from Him.
That is something entirely different.
Any doctrine can be labeled biblical and everyone is right in their own minds everyone claims to have the truth. You speak of things like election and which you could use the common preaching of Paul spoke about being the elect but I didn't see him mention anything that pertains that only a select people can come to Christ when he preaches so often about the grace of Christ the constant preaching of salvation even for the geentiles
The common theme is that salvation comes by hearing the word the gospel and the not by being born lucky, salvation is called a free gift and that it is freely given.
That alone is a much more frequent and common theme in scripture and it plainly says he desires all to be saved I mean it doesn't get more clear than that.
I wasn't going to get involved in that part but you seem to think your teachings are to be taken as the truth yet the truth speaks against it.
I do agree with some of your things like how Jesus is both man and God how he preexisted but the elction thing though is different.
So Jesus was praying to himself? Or God sent the only true God? Or God sent Himself?
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
I wonder wht Peter didn't say:
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, God in the flesh among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
As I said, it's a false paradigm.
I'm out. Carry on.
Then why do you keep pointing to your doctrine when the holy spirit always points to God. Everyone claims their doctrine is from the holy spirit but doctrine is the issue to begin with.
Everyone has their doctrines their views their supposed understanding from the holy spirit, all I see is everyone holding their own truths the division in the body and in the understanding of the word of of God being so divided and opposing itself because of our doctrines.
But does anyone take into consideration of comparing the scriptures to God himself? He is not just in the bible he is a real person with real traits real attributes there are things that make him happy things that make him sad his personality doesn't align with a lot of the stuff I have seen all the confusion of the truth when no one seems to think something is off here.
If a kingdom divided cannot stand and if the enemies main tactic is to confuse divide and conquor then I would say how do we know our theology or doctrine is the actual truth when supposively everyone claims to hear from the holy spirit yet all you see is division.
So I am sure that your doctrine is the truth to you and that you may have heard it from the holy spirit but there are certainly certain things that you believe that go against his very nature
Jesus himself said before your father Abraham I am. Do you know what he was saying? he was calling himself the great I am and that he existed before Abraham actually I may be wrong about the name names are difficult for me to remember but I am pretty sure it was Abraham.
Also @heartwashed I am not meaning to attack you if that is how it seems as I do see you understand a good amount of God's person but if the doctrine itself is the main focus then it has lost it's purpose.
We have to be confident in him yes and that he will lead us to all truths but we also have to be able to understand that we are not always the best at understanding what the truth is and that we could also be wrong.
We have to always be willing to have our doctrines able to be torn down so that we can rebuild closer and closer to the truth.
How can he lead us to all truths if we are not willing to accept what we assume to be truth is not what he calls truth his ways are not our ways his thoughts are not his thoughts.
personally I am not holding any doctrine solid and without recourse because if one truly seeks the truth they have to not lean on their own understanding which means listen to the spirit with your spirit.
We have to be confident in him yes and that he will lead us to all truths but we also have to be able to understand that we are not always the best at understanding what the truth is and that we could also be wrong.
We have to always be willing to have our doctrines able to be torn down so that we can rebuild closer and closer to the truth.
How can he lead us to all truths if we are not willing to accept what we assume to be truth is not what he calls truth his ways are not our ways his thoughts are not his thoughts.
personally I am not holding any doctrine solid and without recourse because if one truly seeks the truth they have to not lean on their own understanding which means listen to the spirit with your spirit.
Please give my statement that you think is spoken against by the truth and the scripture that you think speaks against it.
Thanks.
Because I certainly don't want to be teaching anything falsely.
If anyone shows me that my doctrine is unsound with the use of holy scripture, I will readily admit that I am wrong and will conform my doctrine to that scripture.
Nothing at all wrong with doctrine (teaching). Even those who say doctrine divides are preaching their own brand of doctrine. Rather than throwing out doctrine, my prayer is the Lord will lead me to sound doctrine and the truth.
@Angela53510, instead of putting "X's" on my posts, why don't you put in your two cents?
Show how any of my doctrine in the OP is unbiblical and therefore heresy.
This is my challenge to you.
Show how any of my doctrine in the OP is unbiblical and therefore heresy.
This is my challenge to you.
Your premise on being baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved, if the baptism itself regardless if the name is used or not if you are implying that baptism is where we are saved or have to have it in order to be saved this is where I have issue.
And it could be I misunderstood you but if the case is that you believe baptism at least water batpism is what saves then that is why I tried to quote you before but I guess it didn't work I was trying to ask you about some the points you made as at first I found a lot of your op interesting.
But then the whole argument of baptism and using the name Jesus if say the name Jesus was not used and instead the God head does that make the baptism not effective? And for that matter if baptism to you is mandatory to be classified as saved or is it the believing by hearing ?
As I have said, we must have the real Jesus in order to be saved (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
So, if we have been baptized according to Matthew 28:19, the only requirement for salvation, you don't need to be baptized again in the name of Jesus (while if it will alleviate your doubts, it is expedient); all you need to do is acknowledge that the "name" (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, is "Jesus Christ", as a comparison of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 will tell you.
Because then you are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, even though the titles were spoken over you at baptism.
It is only the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that actually saves (Acts 4:10-12).
Therefore, if baptism saves (and I believe that it does, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27, 1 Peter 3:20-21), then it is baptism in the name that saves (not titles); but if you recognize the name that is referred to by the titles, I believe that you are saved.
For the real Jesus is declared to us in Colossians 2:9 (kjv).
However, I was asking you for scripture; not necessarily the fact that you take issue with my doctrine.
Taking issue with my doctrine is fine; but if you are going to show me that my doctrine is against the truth, you are going to have to come up with scripture that contradicts it.
I am not trying to prove you wrong I am trying tospeak on what appears to be a limited salvation kind of thing with you, I know you already believe in election I am not touching that argument again with a ten foot pole but then when I saw the condition of using Jesus name in baptism and don't get me wrong I don't disagree it seemed as if the name itself is what made the difference in your view and sadly this not the case as many use the name but they don't understand the actual gravity that the name brings.
It is a name that makes demons scream in fear people use his name all the time but yet it is just a name to them.
There is no actual power in the name if you see it as just another name, many are
So if one accepts him into their hearts they make Jesus their Lord and savior but are batpized not by water but by the spirit by fire if they do not get baptized in water does this mean they lost their salvation or never had it or do you consider the baptism of the holy spirit to equate the same purpose as water?
Also forgive me if I was a bit to quick to assume your thoughts on the matter the subject of salvation is one Idon't take lightly and the concept of limited salvation is one I have had far to much issues with and I can tend to have a but of spark left in me concerning the limitations or lack there of when it comes to salvation.