The Temple Sanctuary

[JoshuaStone7]

I have to give it to you, very well said, well presented, and thought-provoking.

It's rare someone, in my experience, takes the time to actually understand (or the ability to) and then present a viable counter position. And this is vital in my ability to move forward in perfection, and recognize sinful conditions within myself, and assist others.

Well done indeed...

You immediately went on the defensive, which doesn't seem like assuming positive intent.

Perhaps you're right; whether I was correct about you assuming or not, I should have replied with another question allowing you to define your inference pertaining to my irrational statement.

Yes, you are correct.

In fact, that you seem confident that my understanding results from a negative outlook is interesting, and betrays something of the shortcomings in your own perspective.

Perhaps you're right, and this is an imperfection on my part.

I will say that my entire life, from childhood on, has been surrounded by people who twist your words into negativity, and it is a soar point. Perhaps this is the reason I allow no leeway within myself as to interpretation. But in our imperfect state, it's inevitable. Trama is no excuse for sin, but it helps to recognize it as part of its origin.

So yes, no matter how much I despise "re-interpretation," it's still ever-present in me. I don't mean I'm perfect in any way; I'm just saying I wish I could be perfect and strive in that direction, as scripture reminds us.

although given what you mentioned above regarding the 'think rationally' comment, I'm not sure that you're considering the viewpoint of others as empathetically as you might ideally be.

Perhaps... But I can't foresee someone taking offense to something being said; otherwise I would be constantly questioning myself.

It's like the game Pool or playing an instrument. In order to be good at it, you have to have complete confidence that you are the best at it. You can't doubt or worry about what others think. I don't mean to not consider others' feelings and be rude; I mean I'm just the kind of person that's going to speak up in public or private—someone who speaks their mind and doesn't care if others aren't going to like it. I'm not afraid or shy to speak my mind or be concerned if others are going to take offense or not.

To me, it's one thing to intentionally offend someone, and quite the other if others take offense without the intent. There is no communication handbook in the world, and we all gotta make our own ways...

No?

I am dysphoric, but let's give my metaphysic some credit.

I understand...

Speaking for myself: I have to deal with imperfection every day, no matter how much I strive to get rid of it or work on it. I actually appreciate when someone can rightfully point out an error in my understanding because that means it's from God, and I'm one step closer to correcting those imperfections. I now will ask someone back if they believe I was saying they were being irrational, as an example.

Can I get rid of sin and imperfection in this world? No, but I ever want to strive down that path...

Anyway, I appreciate you even being able to have this conversation with me. Few would even be able to...

Joshua

PS:

Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.

Is that your interpretation, is it?

Perhaps...

But I think it's interesting what scripture says about the satan speaking lies from his own character.

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jhn 8:44

Wasn't the first lie that of twisting God's words?

[RandyPNW]

Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.

Is that your interpretation, is it?

Sounds like that's in the same genre as "I don't trust scholars," or "I don't trust Man." And so we're left with somebody's subjective judgment about what "truth" is, and there is no standard by which to judge it objectively.

We just have to trust the one who claims everything else, but his opinion, is bunk. I hope that's not what is meant by "interpretation is sin!"

I've heard my whole life how Religion is responsible for all the wars in history. And Religion is banned from the bar because it causes people to fight and argue--in a *bar* no less!

[Athanasius]

I have to give it to you, very well said, well presented, and thought-provoking.

It's rare someone, in my experience, takes the time to actually understand (or the ability to) and then present a viable counter position. And this is vital in my ability to move forward in perfection, and recognize sinful conditions within myself, and assist others.

Well done indeed...

Ha, thanks. I just like words, and have spent far too much time thinking about how they might be received.

I will say that my entire life, from childhood on, has been surrounded by people who twist your words into negativity, and it is a soar point. Perhaps this is the reason I allow no leeway within myself as to interpretation. But in our imperfect state, it's inevitable. Trama is no excuse for sin, but it helps to recognize it as part of its origin.

I'm ASD as well (that is, in addition, to be being dysphoric) so to your hyper-awareness of negativity, I bring to the table a relentless commitment to taking everything literally, and then I don't stop there; oh, no, because to that I add a certain bluntness that puts a lot of people off.

Being ASD I also don't tend to get worked up over these kinds of discussions. I've often been accused of looking positively bored.

Perhaps... But I can't foresee someone taking offense to something being said; otherwise I would be constantly questioning myself.

There's something to be said for prescience. For the record, I wasn't offended. Mind you, I'm not sure I know what offence is meant to feel like, so. It's fascinating when I see other people get offended.

To me, it's one thing to intentionally offend someone, and quite the other if others take offense without the intent. There is no communication handbook in the world, and we all gotta make our own ways...

No?

For sure.

Anyway, I appreciate you even being able to have this conversation with me. Few would even be able to...

Joshua

I'll take your word for it; but yes, I appreciate a good conversation. Or that could just be the estradiol. Apparently, I'm much more conversant than I used to be.

Don't go thinking the wrong thing, either. I'm a living ethical dilemma, so I have an interesting perspective. Well, I think I do, anyway.

Perhaps...

But I think it's interesting what scripture says about the satan speaking lies from his own character.

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jhn 8:44

Wasn't the first lie that of twisting God's words?

Hmm, no sure. I wouldn't consider it an interpretation of God's words, or even a reinterpretation.

He tells Eve - with silent Adam somewhere in the vicinity - that she won't die if she eats the fruit. That's a blatant lie, and it's the only lie. It reads like an attack against God's character: God told you this, but actually, He said this because He knows you'll be like Him... (we can wrestle with the implications of that some other time). God's words themselves aren't disputed.

It's interesting. If Eve truly believed she'd die if she touched the fruit, and in the course of her exchange with the snake, held the fruit and didn't die, then she likely would have been that much more swayed by the snake. There's no need to twist words: just leverage a misunderstanding and a seed of doubt.

I agree, by the way, that there is a definitive meaning to a given text and we should strive to determine what it is. That's often not an easy task.

[JoshuaStone7]

Sounds like that's in the same genre as "I don't trust scholars," or "I don't trust Man."

Yep, and look at the spiritual dangers out there. JW's say you have to believe everything they do, or you aren't saved.

Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.

And so on, and so on...

Yet both parties should realize that there is only one salvational subject, right? Faith in Christ, and then presenting that faith through our works.

Trusting the majority throughout Biblical history has always been a dangerous thing. It was usually only one person who had the truth, or at most a very small minority. And this was at any given time throughout history. Would it really be such a surprise if the same thing were to be today?

And so we're left with somebody's subjective judgment about what "truth" is, and there is no standard by which to judge it objectively.

I've run a forum for over a decade and have been part of others for two. Here are a few things I have come to believe.

#1 Changing someone's mind is one of the hardest things in this world, and in most cases, impossible.

#2 The only way the truth of scripture will be visible is by Christ Jesus' return. If someone on earth, such as the two witnesses, had the truth, no one is going to believe them unless or until God decides to fulfill prophecy in His time.

#3 I've come to believe Bible study is like climbing a mountain. There is only one peak that no one has yet reached; however, some people are higher up the hill than others. (The height of the hill represents facts in scripture within my scenario.) However, how factual someone is in scripture does not affect their confidence in what they understand. Everyone from the beginner with milk to the one with meat all believe they already have the truth.

Only God can repair what the world has done to His Word, in my humble opinion...

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

Yep, and look at the spiritual dangers out there. JW's say you have to believe everything they do, or you aren't saved.

Differences between different Christian sects are one thing, and disrespect for Christian scholarship is another. Obviously, if a sect like the JWs do not adhere to the orthodoxy of the scholars, they will show no respect for them.

And Christians who are orthodox in their doctrine will not show respect for JW scholarship either, though they may respect the fact they are scholars. There will not, and cannot, be agreement on matters that determine what group you belong to.

Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.

Yes, the Christian creeds were determined, by scholars and leaders, to present essential beliefs for Salvation. In this there is an historical consensus on what Christian Salvation means. Modalists believe in enough essential doctrine to have Salvation, in my opinion. But part of Trinitarian doctrine is belief in the Deity of Christ, and Modalists believe that.

In my view, it is essential to believe in the Deity of Christ. Otherwise, how are we forgiven by anything that Christ did? How do we receive the Holy Spirit from Christ? How do we become like Christ spiritually? Trinitarianism contains essential doctrine for Salvation, as I view it.

And so on, and so on...

Yet both parties should realize that there is only one salvational subject, right? Faith in Christ, and then presenting that faith through our works.

Only orthodox Christian groups agree on what Christian Salvation actually consists of. It isn't just "getting to heaven." It is getting to know Christ now. Salvation begins now. So no, not all Christian groups will agree because some liberal Christian groups downplay the supernatural aspects of Christianity, believing that Christ was just a good example of how we should behave. And they leave out much of the spiritual elements in this.

Trusting the majority throughout Biblical history has always been a dangerous thing. It was usually only one person who had the truth, or at most a very small minority. And this was at any given time throughout history. Would it really be such a surprise if the same thing were to be today?

I've run a forum for over a decade and have been part of others for two. Here are a few things I have come to believe.

#1 Changing someone's mind is one of the hardest things in this world, and in most cases, impossible.

People are generally resistant, but do they change? Of course! It's all about patience. Some will change, and some will not.

We do not make them change. We can serve others, and give them information. But God has to convict them in their soul, and only God can convert their hearts.

#2 The only way the truth of scripture will be visible is by Christ Jesus' return. If someone on earth, such as the two witnesses, had the truth, no one is going to believe them unless or until God decides to fulfill prophecy in His time.

I'm not sure what that means. But I don't at all agree. We don't need Jesus to Return to understand the truth of God's word, whether spoken to our conscience or read in the Scriptures. God gave mankind the Bible as a testimony and His people as witnesses to the truth. And God expects men to receive that testimony, or not.

#3 I've come to believe Bible study is like climbing a mountain. There is only one peak that no one has yet reached; however, some people are higher up the hill than others. (The height of the hill represents facts in scripture within my scenario.) However, how factual someone is in scripture does not affect their confidence in what they understand. Everyone from the beginner with milk to the one with meat all believe they already have the truth.

Only God can prepare what the world has done to His Word, in my humble opinion...

Joshua

Well Joshua, I don't understand what you mean by things God has "done to His Word?" But I do agree that people are generally proud, largely because others are always trying to devalue them, and they get defensive.

But as proud as we all are, we can respond to God's word. We can humble ourselves, and enjoy the meekness of Christ through the Spirit he wants to give us.

This is basic Christianity--not just a pile of Scriptural knowledge, but the personal knowledge of how to apply them in our lives, producing the fruits of good character. Christ has to live within us, and produce these fruits as we learn to work with him, and learn to obey him.

[JoshuaStone7]

In my view, it is essential to believe in the Deity of Christ. Otherwise, how are we forgiven by anything that Christ did? How do we receive the Holy Spirit from Christ? How do we become like Christ spiritually? Trinitarianism contains essential doctrine for Salvation, as I view it.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean.

I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.

I believe the new kingdom is on earth, not in Heaven.
I don't believe in life after death.
I don't believe in the eternal soul.
I don't believe in a place of Hell.
I believe when you die, you cease to exist.

I don't believe these subjects are salvational; I believe only faith in Christ brings salvation. This subject of the Trinity is extremely complex, and I just don't believe it is required understanding for faith. Even those who hold the Trinitarian view themselves claim they don't understand it. Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer. (Link below)

So you see, you and I have very different belief structures all taken from that same book, and we can't both be right. There is only one right answer to every one of these points.

Even though we disagree, I see us as brothers because I believe our common faith in Christ Jesus is what brings salvation, but you may disagree. There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.

Either way, every single Christian I know has varying understandings in scripture, and over the years, I have just determined that the only way the truth of God's Word will be "repaired" in the world will be through the fulfillment of prophecy.

But that's just me...

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

Let me give you some examples of what I mean.

I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.

The language you use, if you are learned in the subject, is intentionally stating heresy. The Trinity is biblical, regardless of whether the word "trinity" is used. Jesus, being Deity, is eternal. Jesus, as a divine Person, was not created--only his human personality was created.

Therefore, your claim to believe that Jesus is God is contradicted by your belief that Jesus was not eternal but created. Pure heresy. You have a religion that is foreign to conventional Christianity. And I'm disinterested in building bridges between conventional Christianity and heretical Christianity.

These issues are so important that for many they are what enables or prevents the salvation experience. And I want to preserve the message that brings the experience of salvation.

I believe the new kingdom is on earth, not in Heaven.
I don't believe in life after death.
I don't believe in the eternal soul.
I don't believe in a place of Hell.
I believe when you die, you cease to exist.

More deliberate attacks on conventional Christianity. The Scriptures teach, and the historic Church has taught, that the Kingdom of God is "near," but not yet "here." Paul warned, in 2 Thes 2, against those who would claim that the Kingdom comes prematurely. Jesus warned of the same in his Olivet Address.

The eternal soul of Man was created in the image of God, who is eternal. When Man was offered to eat from the Tree of Life, he was offered not just eternal existence, which he already had. But he was being offered an eternal spiritual life with God, a fellowship with God that lasts forever.

But Christians have long understood that there will be eternal punishment and eternal reward, since Man lives forever after the image of his Creator. Now a lot of these issues have been repeated, in a perfunctory, obedient way for centuries such that many Christians perhaps don't understand them or represent them properly. But to just take a stand against them reflects a disinterest in common belief with historic Christianity. So why do you seek brotherhood with conservative Christians? Seek fellowship with liberal or cultic Christians--they may accept you into fellowship with themselves.

I don't believe these subjects are salvational; I believe only faith in Christ brings salvation.

It really doesn't matter what you believe. It's what is true to God that matters, with respect to salvation. I believe a lot of people will get through the pearly gates with lots of errors in their history. And it will be their loss. Why not get it right, and serve God for real?

You're not talking about the "faith" formula taught by Paul. You've  concocted a different gospel of faith that is foreign to historic Christianity. Faith *requires* a proper object. And if that object, ie God, requires our acceptance of a certain set of believes to present His gospel to others, then we need to do that. Otherwise, we won't be delivering the message of salvation to anyone.

This subject of the Trinity is extremely complex, and I just don't believe it is required understanding for faith. Even those who hold the Trinitarian view themselves claim they don't understand it.

The Trinity is complex, but I do understand it. I've explained it many times on several forums. The Father is the source. The Son is the human expression. And the Spirit is actively represented in finite space. They are all necessary for God to deliver salvation to men. They are all God, and they all represent distinct persons in the Godhood.

Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer. (Link below)

I'm hoping in the future you write a different kind of book!

So you see, you and I have very different belief structures all taken from that same book, and we can't both be right. There is only one right answer to every one of these points.

You're right. Both you and historic Christianity are at odds. Only one can be right.

Even though we disagree, I see us as brothers because I believe our common faith in Christ Jesus is what brings salvation, but you may disagree. There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.

Yes, but you've disagreed on the essentials that make Christianity what it is. You've chosen to belong to a set of beliefs that historic Christianity is disallowed from signing onto, or it will lose both its identity and its power.

Either way, every single Christian I know has varying understandings in scripture, and over the years, I have just determined that the only way the truth of God's Word will be "repaired" in the world will be through the fulfillment of prophecy.

But that's just me...

Joshua

Yes, we disagree on that too. Prophecy in the end will, of course, resolve everything, because the show will be over, and all will be revealed. But for now, to wait until then and neglect what we have now for salvation is a big mistake.

To experience true salvation, you need to believe the essentials of the faith, not as if you're signing onto a list of demands, but rather, because logically, if we don't do what God says, then He won't do for us what we need to have Him do, and what only He can do. Not my plan, but it's His plan.

[Athanasius]

Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.

That's a shame. A more rigorous Trinitarian position would be that an understanding of the Trinity is essential for a proper understanding of God as He's revealed Himself to us. But, affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity isn't soteriologically significant, or else there would be plenty of otherwise faithful Christians, damned, for not holding to this or that doctrinal belief.

I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.

Do you mean created, or generated? I'm wondering how you believe Jesus is created, God, but not a separate God?

Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer.

A whole chapter.

There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.

Tell that to the 4th century.

(It's interesting how we've now come back to the views theMadJW was espousing, or well, being belligerent about.)

[RandyPNW]

Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.

That's a shame. A more rigorous Trinitarian position would be that an understanding of the Trinity is essential for a proper understanding of God as He's revealed Himself to us. But, affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity isn't soteriologically significant, or else there would be plenty of otherwise faithful Christians, damned, for not holding to this or that doctrinal belief.

I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?

Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven." Salvation is that, for sure, but it's much more broad than that. Part of the salvation experience is in serving God and in bringing the message of salvation to others. If we're not equipped to bring truth to others that can bring them into the true salvation experience, then we've failed in our mission. We must "get saved," but we will have dishonored both God and ourselves by not serving Him properly and by not properly representing Him.

Again, true salvation is not just getting into heaven, but much more, having a spiritual fellowship with God right now. To bring people into that experience we must serve God by bringing them the message that Jesus is God and the source of God's redemptive word. Through him we can receive a pure spirituality even though we are convicted as law-breakers. This enables others to experience the righteousness of grace.

[Athanasius]

I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?

It's quite possible to view Jesus as the source of our salvation without also believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Joshua above notes his belief in Jesus' diety/Godship, and so what we have are distinct questions: (1) is Jesus God? (2) is the doctrine of the Trinity faithful to Scripture? Joshua would answer: Yes to (1) and No to (2).

I think the danger lies in the possibility that disagreeing with the doctrine of the trinity then severely misinforms one's view of Jesus. If we then doubt the claims Jesus made about Himself, then that's where soteriological questions start to spring up. But, it's also not our place to make soteriological pronouncements, even in light of extreme theological disagreement. We just can't know what's going on between a person and God.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven."

My underlying assumption is that Jesus looks for faithful individuals, and faithful individuals aren't necessarily identical to individuals who have their theology in order. Salvation, for me, is about a reconciled relationship with Jesus, and then wherever that leads (new creation) is wherever that leads. Jesus might say, "You were faithful but you didn't get to know me as well as you could have", or "You were faithful but you believed some things that eehhhh weren't quite on point". Either way, it's our faith in Jesus that matters.

Faith is difficult and it's complicated.

[JoshuaStone7]

The language you use, if you are learned in the subject, is intentionally stating heresy. The Trinity is biblical, regardless of whether the word "trinity" is used. Jesus, being Deity, is eternal. Jesus, as a divine Person, was not created--only his human personality was created.

Therefore, your claim to believe that Jesus is God is contradicted by your belief that Jesus was not eternal but created. Pure heresy. You have a religion that is foreign to conventional Christianity. And I'm disinterested in building bridges between conventional Christianity and heretical Christianity.

More deliberate attacks on conventional Christianity. The Scriptures teach, and the historic Church has taught, that the Kingdom of God is "near," but not yet "here." Paul warned, in 2 Thes 2, against those who would claim that the Kingdom comes prematurely. Jesus warned of the same in his Olivet Address.

Woe, the judge tried and jury.  A complete conviction in one post. Where is the stake, and let's bring the fire...lol Don't worry, I already know and understand this kind of response is from a lack of knowledge.

Good thing salvation comes from faith alone in Christ Jesus. Anything beyond that is from men.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luk 6:37

(It's interesting how we've now come back to the views theMadJW was espousing, or well, being belligerent about.)

From what I've read from that individual on here, I am in disagreement with what they presented...

[RabbiKnife]

Let's put that "judge not" thing in context.

The "not judging" is not an instruction to refrain from sound judgment, but a warning simply that one will be judged by the same standard by which one judges, as is seen in Matthew's account.

Yes, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but only in a Jesus that is indeed God and not a created being.  Jesus is also the name of my landscaper, but he won't get me to heaven.  Now, I understand that depending on the exact nature of the description of Jesus folks may have a Jesus/God doctrine that is not Trinitarian but is nonetheless a belief that Jesus is God i.e., eternal and not created (I'm thinking Oneness Pentecostalism, just off the cuff).

But in order for faith in Jesus to be salvific, Jesus has to be Deity and equal in essence and nature with God, otherwise that whole atonement/propitiation thing falls apart.

And the response is not necessarily from "lack of knowledge."  The response could just as easily be from "a more complete and informed knowledge."

[RandyPNW]

I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?

It's quite possible to view Jesus as the source of our salvation without also believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Joshua above notes his belief in Jesus' diety/Godship, and so what we have are distinct questions: (1) is Jesus God? (2) is the doctrine of the Trinity faithful to Scripture? Joshua would answer: Yes to (1) and No to (2).

I think the danger lies in the possibility that disagreeing with the doctrine of the trinity then severely misinforms one's view of Jesus. If we then doubt the claims Jesus made about Himself, then that's where soteriological questions start to spring up. But, it's also not our place to make soteriological pronouncements, even in light of extreme theological disagreement. We just can't know what's going on between a person and God.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven."

My underlying assumption is that Jesus looks for faithful individuals, and faithful individuals aren't necessarily identical to individuals who have their theology in order. Salvation, for me, is about a reconciled relationship with Jesus, and then wherever that leads (new creation) is wherever that leads. Jesus might say, "You were faithful but you didn't get to know me as well as you could have", or "You were faithful but you believed some things that eehhhh weren't quite on point". Either way, it's our faith in Jesus that matters.

Faith is difficult and it's complicated.

Your answers are always thoughtful, and I appreciate that and respect it. Nevertheless, I have to say....

You're at least partly right, as I see it. People were getting saved in the Early Church well before Trinitarian Theology was formulated as a creed. But as I said, its the corollaries to this doctrine that are essential to salvation, which is why it was formulated in the 1st place.

It was in the 1st few centuries of the Church that certain heretics tried to locate loopholes where the doctrine of God and the Son could be exploited. One of those early places of vulnerability was in understanding how the Son could be divine and yet separate, as a person, from God the Father. Rejecting Jesus as divine is capable of destroying the salvation experience, if not salvation itself.

And as I said, we are not just talking about "getting into heaven." Rather, we're talking about the salvation experience, in which Jesus in a sense enters into our life through the Spirit, the Spirit Himself coming in through our obedience. If we don't accept Jesus as divine, and his word as redemptive, we're not going to understand and demonstrate real spiritual change.

In this I'm not making soteriological pronouncements. I'm just stating the fact that certain doctrines, like Trinitarianism, were found to be necessary in an atmosphere of opposition, where people sought to confuse faith and therefore destroy the salvation experience. Christian cults, like JW and Mormonism, do that today. In making subtle or even not-so-subtle changes, true faith in Christ is lost, along with a real spiritual change that represents salvation.

It is not too harsh to say that ungodly people deliberately do this, confuse essential doctrines about God, because they do not wish to believe a complete spiritual change is possible. That would mean people have to give up their autonomous life, making choices apart from God's word.

But we are to live in partnership with our Creator. He always gets the last word. And if we're obedient, we will receive His Spirit, and be able to receive the redemption Christ died to give us.

[JoshuaStone7]

The "not judging" is not an instruction to refrain from sound judgment, but a warning simply that one will be judged by the same standard by which one judges, as is seen in Matthew's account.

Yea, but how sure are you to be in the judge's seat? Sounds like to me you're saying only you have the truth, and are in the position to condemn me based on you're more righteous knowledge...lol

Look, like I said, unlike you, I see you as a brother because only faith in Christ brings salvation.

Yes, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but

There is no BUT in scripture, that is from man...

With all due respect...

Joshua

[JoshuaStone7]

before Trinitarian Theology was formulated as a creed.

Formulated by man, no?

which is why it was formulated in the 1st place.

Formulated by man, no? lol

I'm just stating the fact that certain doctrines, like Trinitarianism, were found to be necessary in an atmosphere of opposition, where people sought to confuse faith and therefore destroy the salvation experience. Christian cults, like JW and Mormonism, do that today. In making subtle or even not-so-subtle changes, true faith in Christ is lost, along with a real spiritual change that represents salvation.

It is not too harsh to say that ungodly people deliberately do this, confuse essential doctrines about God, because they do not wish to believe a complete spiritual change is possible. That would mean people have to give up their autonomous life, making choices apart from God's word.

So I am ungodly now? This doctrine you hold sure has a lot of hate behind it... I guess that's why heretics were burned at the stake.

Joshua