"Where is the free will in Love Me Or Burn Forever?"

[The Parson]

Titus, I didn't know "churchianity" was a word.

[Titus]

Titus, I didn't know "churchianity" was a word.

It even has a Webster's Dictionary definition, first coined in 1837.

The official definition is more what a specific church teaches, but the common, modern, understanding is what the modern mainstream churches of today teach. It is the common, most trendy and popular, understanding of christianity, but it is not sound Biblical doctrine.

It is more along the lines of cherry-picked verses, to create the impression of a religious foundation based on the Bible, mixed with New Age, self-help and pop-psychology, philosophies.

It veers widely from what the Bible actually teaches and it is a thorn in the side of every True Bible-believing Christian that strives to speak Truth to the professed Christians they know and care about.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of which will never believe, or even hear, the Truth because they are so mesmerized by what is taught from the exalted pulpit and what is made popular on television and corrupt so-called christian radio.

[The Parson]

So if I took a verse, say; "choose you this day who you will serve", what does that mean and am I cherry picking?

[Athanasius]

Contrary to what modern mainstream churchianity would have you believe, John 3:16 is not all that is stated upon the subject within the Scriptures.

The is purely imagined. No church teaches that John 3:16 is "all that is stated upon the subject within the Scriptures". You do yourself no favours by predicating your argument - even portions of - on a strawman.

The Bible must be taken as a whole, not cherry-picked apart to support favorite doctrines by anybody. Layman or well-respected Professors, Pastors or church leaders, etc.

You also suggested we ignore words in Proverbs 18:1 so that the verse fits your eisegetical conclusion. You're making demands on others that you yourself do not keep to.

Eph. 2:8 cannot be stating what you claim as long as all the other verses support my stated claim. It is speaking of Faith being a gift because the weight of the Scriptures support that concept. Look again at the supporting verses that I posted.

Allow Bill Mounce to help you https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/antecedents-and-faith-eph-2-8-9.

[Titus]

So if I took a verse, say; "choose you this day who you will serve", what does that mean and am I cherry picking?

Cherry-picking is simply using a verse that is vague, or that is refuted by many other verses/passages, to support a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible.

Like basing the whole trinitarian doctrine on Matt. 28:19 when the premise of that verse, according to trinitarians, is contradicted not only by the Bible it its entirety, but by the subsequent actions of the very disciples Christ happened to be speaking to in that verse.

They all baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ after the Great Commission. Every example of baptism in the Bible is done in that manner. Not a single example of baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

[The Parson]

You don't believe in the Godhead Titus?

[Titus]

You don't believe in the Godhead Titus?

I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.

The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3

The only true usage of the term is in Colossians 2:9. The other two usages are defined as divine nature.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that it means a trinity concept, that God is three people.

[Athanasius]

I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.

The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3

You're referring to the phrase, κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός but this is "head (of) Christ)", not "Godhead" (as in the essential nature of God; "divine nature" is relevant), so the term isn't used in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

As you note, we could instead look at Colossians 2:9, which the KJV renders "fullness of the Godhead bodily". Though again, that's πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς (fullness of the Deity bodily). Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication", but as you're using people instead of persons, it's questionable what understanding of the doctrine you actually hold.

For some light reading, here is Gregory of Nazianzus against Eusonius https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm.

[Titus]

I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.

The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3

You're referring to the phrase, κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός but this is "head (of) Christ)", not "Godhead" (as in the essential nature of God; "divine nature" is relevant), so the term isn't used in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

As you note, we could instead look at Colossians 2:9, which the KJV renders "fullness of the Godhead bodily". Though again, that's πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς (fullness of the Deity bodily). Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication", but as you're using people instead of persons, it's questionable what understanding of the doctrine you actually hold.

For some light reading, here is Gregory of Nazianzus against Eusonius https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm.

As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.

I do not.

For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.

We differ.

I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.

[Athanasius]

As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.

I do not.

I like the name Athanasius because it starts with an 'A', and he was known as Athanasius contra mundum (Athanasius against the world). You like to think of yourself as contra ecclesiae, but I don't think the historical Titus would approve. Perhaps you're reading too deeply into names, hmm? It would be a shame for such a thing to be an ad hominem in place of a proper argument.

As it is, no, I don't hold Athanasius or any other ECF in especially high regard, or as determiners of what is legitimately biblical doctrine and what isn't. What you see as an 'indication' is little more than a mechanism for selecting usernames online.

And so, this is not second grade where we play 'greater than thou' on dubious grounds -- my dad can beat up your dad. You construct for yourself antagonistic contexts which is rather telling, disappointing, and insulating. But why take my word for it? I'm sure anyone else here could show you just how good a Catholic believer I am.

For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.

And yet you reply with an ad hominem. Tsk tsk.

I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.

It's right here:

"Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication"..."

The verse is just one consideration out of many verses.

[Titus]

As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.

I do not.

I like the name Athanasius because it starts with an 'A', and he was known as Athanasius contra mundum (Athanasius against the world). You like to think of yourself as contra ecclesiae, but I don't think the historical Titus would approve. Perhaps you're reading too deeply into names, hmm? It would be a shame for such a thing to be an ad hominem in place of a proper argument.

As it is, no, I don't hold Athanasius or any other ECF in especially high regard, or as determiners of what is legitimately biblical doctrine and what isn't. What you see as an 'indication' is little more than a mechanism for selecting usernames online.

And so, this is not second grade where we play 'greater than thou' on dubious grounds -- my dad can beat up your dad. You construct for yourself antagonistic contexts which is rather telling, disappointing, and insulating. But why take my word for it? I'm sure anyone else here could show you just how good a Catholic believer I am.

For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.

And yet you reply with an ad hominem. Tsk tsk.

I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.

It's right here:

"Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication"..."

The verse is just one consideration out of many verses.

I could've written that entire post minus the comment about your name and it had the exact same purpose and effect. You just latched onto a very small part of the post and ran with it.

You have mentioned extra-biblical sources of varying kinds multiple times in the short time I've been here. That is where the sentiment came from. Your name is a non-issue.

And no, you didn't address God being 3 people in that post at all.

Deity means God. That's all it means.

'Fulness of the Deity bodily' means Jesus is fully God Almighty.

And there is mounds of evidence within Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, to support that.

[Athanasius]

I could've written that entire post minus the comment about your name and it had the exact same purpose and effect. You just latched onto a very small part of the post and ran with it.

You could have, but you didn't. The intent was to create a position of moral and theological superiority while casting doubt: look at Athanasius, named after an extra-biblical figure! But I, I'm Titus, of the Pauline epistle -- see how much I respect the Bible?

And no I didn't run with anything or ignore the rest of your post by latching onto 'a very small part'. Listen gaslighting is boring, and at some point, it becomes intolerable when it's done repeatedly.

You have mentioned extra-biblical sources of varying kinds multiple times in the short time I've been here. That is where the sentiment came from. Your name is a non-issue.

I accept your apology. It takes a grown woman to know when she's wrong, so thank you.

And no, you didn't address God being 3 people in that post at all.

Deity means God. That's all it means.

'Fulness of the Deity bodily' means Jesus is fully God Almighty.

And there is mounds of evidence within Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, to support that.

Right, so now we have a notion of (1) God and (2) Jesus, who is also God. But then that raises the questions those early Christological controversies were famous for. So do you include the 'i' or exclude it, are you advocating for Binitarianism, or something else?

[Titus]

... Jesus, who is also God.

Jesus is the ONLY God. No also.

Exod. 3:14
John 8:24
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:3, 10, 11, 14-15
Isaiah 44:7, 11-12, 15, 18, 21

[Athanasius]

... Jesus, who is also God.

Jesus is the ONLY God. No also.

Exod. 3:14
John 8:24
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:3, 10, 11, 14-15
Isaiah 44:7, 11-12, 15, 18, 21

Passionate agreement is always great to see.

[Titus]

Passionate agreement is always great to see.

Perverting my comments is not.

God is one individual person. Not three.

Christ is that person.

No trinity.

No twinity.