Poll: Are You a Quarrelsome Person?

By the way this isn't what Reformed theology teaches.

Unsaved people are not "robots" but they are enslaved to their fallen nature and their choices reflect this. This is plainly taught in Scripture and the denial of it is Pelagianism, at some level. Read Romans 6 and John 8 in this regard. It plainly teaches the unsaved are in a state of bondage to sin.

Reformed theology teaches that God changes the nature, and faith and repentance follows.

Non-Reformed people are masters at misrepresenting our theology. Sam Storms has written this article in regards to many of these misunderstandings.

Thanks for being a fine illustration of these misrepresentations, and giving me the opportunity to post this pdf document refuting your comments.

By the way, here's a fine study sheet supporting Reformed theology. I don't agree with all the Scriptures used to support it, but the majority are good.

Radical corruption (total depravity) is the teaching that man has been affected by the Fall in such a manner that he is unable to pursue a relationship with God until He replaces their heart of stone with a heart of flesh.

It does not mean that mankind is as evil as he could be.

Pelagians and free-willers deny this, to varying degrees, and claim that man still retains the ability to pursue God without this special work of grace. Somehow they must dredge faith and repentance out of their heart of stone. This view is called decisional regeneration.

If only Calvinists taught the scripture in biblical context instead of doctrinal bias.

How does a cold heart take God's grace for itself and deny the same opportunity to all others? No doubt an unusual doctrine of love.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

PLEASE READ THIS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THIS: IT STATES THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS BELIEVED DIFFERENTLY THAN TODAY'S MODERN DAY TRINITY VIEWS:


Quote from New Catholic Encyclopedia: The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the fourth Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective’ Unquote.

The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” Unquote.

^
That is my view of God, the same as the Church Fathers!


So that ^ alone proves even within the Church started by Christ the idealism has changed from its original format. That makes me wonder, if we are not following how the first Church believed, which is how Jesus personally taught, how does the Modern Trinity view no it is aligned with God since it is completely different from God taught?


The Bible speaks of Witchcraft, Baalism, Paganism, Greco-Roman deities. And it claims these are False/Idol deities. And when you study them, they are all designed around the triangle to form a trinity. I am just mentioning that because its odd hw Modern Day Trinity uses a triangle.

But read the first portion that is a copy/paste. That shows even though the First Church and Church Fathers believed in God the Father, the WORD, and the WISDOM, they saw it completely different than today's Modern Trinity view.

edit limits *know*

Personally, I follow the Church Fathers view because they never had the distorted English Bible. They had Hebrew/Aramaic, and a Greek Translation. Somehow, the English Bible does not align with the Hebrew/Aramaic/Translated Greek that the Church Fathers had. So, I go by the Church Fathers are less than 50 years from the Apostles, including 2 Church Fathers IGGY and POLYCARP were Disciples of John (Disciple/Apostle). That puts the Church Fathers closer to the actual source of Jesus Himself while upon Earth. We are 2,000 years away from that event and believe our own creative definition which is not WORD for WORD with even the English Bible. Thus why I trust the Church Fathers over anyone's view of TODAY!

God chose me first.
But it is on me to decide if the First Church and the Church Fathers views, being literally 50 years from the source of jesus Himself, are the views I should be following instead of Today's view. Which is man made. The words used are man made and none of the words match what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written.

You believe as you want to.

But I am going to believe those who had access to John the Disciple/Apostle, who had direct access to Jesus Himself, than to follow TODAY's false prophets!

And it's also why you see me using the Hebrew/Aramaic/ and the oldest Translated Greek!

It sounds like you have it figured out. The church Fathers were a little buggy though. It took time to know the truth once the scriptures came together.

Just a note..the notion that the Trinity is the same as triads of gods by pagans is false.

Pagans believed in polytheism, not the Triune God.

I also don't believe this guys' thesis that early church fathers denied the Trinity. A number of factors need to be considered when reading the writings of the church fathers anyways. Some were clear forgeries, such as the majority of Clement's documents. Others are quoted out of context.

I don't really see too many anti-Trinitarians quoting church fathers anyways.

By the way, a lot of these guys will use Alexander Hislop's general thesis presented in Two Babylons to claim that Christianity is basically the Babylonian mystery religion of worshiping Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. Some individuals attempt to relate this triad to the Trinity. Hislop's book has been discredited because it quoted source materials out of context. In some cases, the source materials didn't even say anything remotely similar to Hislop's use of the materials.

I don't think Hislop was an anti-Trinitarian but his general mentality is one that anti-Trinitarians have adopted. Roman Catholicism influenced evangelical Christianity, therefore all Rome teaches is false. Well, Rome was right on some things and the Trinity is one of those.

Of course, if you are an individual with a conspiracy theory view of all things, then you are never going to listen. You are one of the handful of elite who understand "the truth". Been there, done that, bought the T shirt as an anti Trinitarian cultist.

Uh oh. Someone has me on ignore.

It happens. But it usually results in less bickering.

I am not claiming it's the same in reference to paganism and satanism. And the Church Fathers aren't anti-trinity in the sense they believe in God the Father, the WORD, and the WISDOM. They just do not define God's Deity like Modern Day. And that is what scares me. Because if the Church Fathers are on the same page with John (Disciple of Jesus/Apostle) through IGGY and POLYCARP, it means John taught them this view, which means Jesus taught John this view. But Modern Trinity is not even close to this view.

So that leaves the question:
If Modern Day Trinity is not even close to the view of the Church Fathers, who were initially taught by the Apostle/Disciple John the Beloved, who was taught by the WORD made flesh (Jesus), shouldn't the Modern Day view change?

If your view is not the same as Jesus, ultimately, why do you think Jesus is going to reward you heaven?

Doesn't the Demons and Satan also believe in Jesus, and aren't they in HELL even with Believing in Jesus?

I don't believe someone can say, I Believe in Jesus as my Lord and Savior but not go by His Doctrine!

If today's Doctrine does not match the Church Fathers Doctrine which matches the Apostle/Disciple John's Doctrine who got it directly from Jesus, how does today's Doctrine think they are going to Heaven?

Aaaaand...commence the quarreling!!!

Answering questions with a sincere heart doesn’t lead to arguments with me.

Jesus did so speaking the truth and that really stirs up the insults.

I can see your glowing halo and angel wings from here...

Why are you bringing this up on multiple forums?

What matters is what Scripture says, not what the early church fathers taught.

Another consideration is that some of those who claimed to be disciples of the apostles, or disciples of disciples, might be lying or exaggerating their position.

Additionally, the quotes you are bringing up don't consider the full context and teaching of these individuals.

You are likely cherry-picking your quotes to promote your own heretical views.

Ultimately what matters is what Scripture teaches.

There is one God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
These three are distinct persons, exhibiting interpersonal relationships between them.
These three are co-eternal (existing since eternity past).
These three are co-essential and mutually indwell each other.

The doctrine of the Triune God is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. Anyone who is anti-Trinitarian is simply teaching false doctrine.

And, by the way, this is one of the core teachings of Christianity that is worth fighting over. If someone does not have a clear understanding of the Trinity, that is one thing, but if a person is perpetually denying the Trinity doctrine, they are engaging in false teaching.

By the way, you are making false claims.

Here's one quote from Polycarp:


Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna (where he was also Bishop) in the year 155. It is said by Irenaeus of Lyons that he was a pupil of the Apostle John. In his final prayer before his martyrdom, he "praises, glorifies, and blesses" the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:


Here's another quote from Ignatius:


Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD,[16] wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church:

Unitarians would argue that Ignatius is not indicating that the Father, the Son and the Spirit 'are one substance anymore than he is saying flesh and spirit are one substance'.[13]


But, like I said, the writings of the early church fathers are not the main issue. Scripture is.

Additionally, heretics are well known for doctoring the writings of the early church fathers, or attributing to them writings that they did not even write.

A good example of this is the Gnostic gospels. Gnostic heretics created a whole body of literature claiming to be authored by apostles or other notable figures, which were created to fool other Christians into believing gnostic teachings.

Additionally, if you are a Oneness guy, you are already believing false teachings because Oneness theology teaches that there is no distinct personhood between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This CANNOT be true because we see interpersonal activity exhibited throughout the NT in this regard. So, Oneness theology is easily and plainly demonstrated to be false. Additionally, they generally claim the Son did not exist before the Incarnation, which is a false teaching. Jesus has eternally existed distinct from the Father. In fact, he is the "Angel of the Lord" who spoke as God before men, even though the Father was never seen or heard (John 5:37).

Oneness guys simply cannot explain in a coherent manner how the Father and Son love one another and communicate with one another if their distinct personhood is denied. Same with Jesus interceding for man with God. Intercession makes absolutely no sense in the Oneness worldview.

UnitedwithChrist,

I bring this up because what I am copying/pasting for you comes directly from a Modern Day Scholar and Theologian:

The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

So, this quote ^ also explains your quotes from Polycarp and Iggy.

But it proves that how they Believed is very different than how you Believe.

And that brings to question:
If they knew the Truth, and Modern Day is not following the Truth as they viewed it, how does the Modern view know it is correct?