The Temple Sanctuary

[RabbiKnife]

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

The phrase "with a due respect" also means "but without respect if it is not due," so it is essentially meaningless.  I don't need respect.

I am certainly willing to sit in the judgment seat; I take that risk.  Just as you say that only you have the truth, so do I.  So, an enigma, nu?   I am not condemning you.  I am criticizing what I believe to be an inaccurate understanding of Scripture in relation to the person of Jesus.

And no, you are correct, if you believe in a created Jesus, then no, I don't believe that you are a brother in Christ.

Faith in a broken chair will get your butt on the floor.
Faith in a frayed rope will get you dead at the bottom of the cliff.
Faith in a false Jesus will get you condemned to hell for all eternity.

Faith is only as meaningful as the object upon which one places that faith, and faith in a created Jesus is a false hope.

[RabbiKnife]

Where is the "hate"?

Does disagreement with you = hate?

And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition. 

It is what it is.  If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"

[JoshuaStone7]

The phrase "with a due respect" also means "but without respect if it is not due," so it is essentially meaningless.  I don't need respect.

I respect people out of my Christian love, not because you demand it.

I am certainly willing to sit in the judgment seat; I take that risk. 

I sincerely hope that works out for you.

Just as you say that only you have the truth, so do I. 

That's a lie; I never said that.

And no, you are correct, if you believe in a created Jesus, then no, I don't believe that you are a brother in Christ.

That's too bad. Christian love is lost in you; that's a shame.

Faith in a broken chair will get your butt on the floor.
Faith in a frayed rope will get you dead at the bottom of the cliff.
Faith in a false Jesus will get you condemned to hell for all eternity.

Faith is only as meaningful as the object upon which one places that faith, and faith in a created Jesus is a false hope.

Well, good thing my faith in Christ is all that matters.

I pray that your seat of judgement position is not counted against you, friend.

Joshua

[JoshuaStone7]

And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition. 

It is what it is.  If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"

So if I believe what you say is not scriptural it is okay to call you ungodly?

And you wonder where the hate is?

[RabbiKnife]

Christian love does not require one to call a Studebaker an apple.  In reality, Christian love requires one to call a spade a spade.  Truth sets us free; nothing else.

We all sit in judgment every time we set forth and proclaim a doctrinal position; by both implication and inference, when we affirmatively say "X is true" related to the Scripture, we are also saying "all not X is false".  We can't say otherwise, or else we really do not have the courage of our convictions.

Yes, your faith in Christ is all that matters, but only if that faith is actually in Christ and not in some created being.

[RabbiKnife]

And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition. 

It is what it is.  If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"

So if I believe what you say is not scriptural it is okay to call you ungodly?

And you wonder where the hate is?

Sure, if you believe that my doctrine is ungodly, then it is perfectly OK to call me ungodly.  I have no problem with that.

[JoshuaStone7]

Christian love does not require one to call a Studebaker an apple.  In reality, Christian love requires one to call a spade a spade.  Truth sets us free; nothing else.

We all sit in judgment every time we set forth and proclaim a doctrinal position; by both implication and inference, when we affirmatively say "X is true" related to the Scripture, we are also saying "all not X is false".  We can't say otherwise, or else we really do not have the courage of our convictions.

Yes, your faith in Christ is all that matters, but only if that faith is actually in Christ and not in some created being.

This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.

Do you think your righteous stance is anything new?

[RabbiKnife]

Didn't say that it was new.

I don't understand the point.  Is "every executioner" supposed to be persuasive in some way, or supportive of the idea that "no one may express a doctrinal statement" if opposed?

This is the mindset of the current post-Christian deconstructionist worldview.

Truth matters.

[JoshuaStone7]

Didn't say that it was new.

I don't understand the point.  Is "every executioner" supposed to be persuasive in some way, or supportive of the idea that "no one may express a doctrinal statement" if opposed?

This is the mindset of the current post-Christian deconstructionist worldview.

Truth matters.

As much I love going back and forth with someone who believes they are right over someone else, or more righteous, I think we should move on from this specific conversation.

[Athanasius]

This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.

Why do you think Martin Luther was executed as a heretic?

[JoshuaStone7]

This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.

Why do you think Martin Luther was executed as a heretic?

Yes, I misspoke and was wrong. He was considered a heretic and was tried, but died of natural causes.

Many heretics were condemned and died for the faith, was what I was getting at.

[Athanasius]

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.

I think affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for the proper understanding of God, so we agree on that. I don't think it's necessarily salvific, and to make it salvific changes the standard of salvation. We agree again, then, on the risks: if one does not believe the claims Jesus makes about His person, then we have to wonder -- not that it's our place to make soteriological determinations. (To say nothing about the denial of the Holy Spirit!)

So I think it's right to say that the doctrine of the trinity is required to properly understand God and the Christian faith. It's not required necessarily for salvation.

[Athanasius]

Yes, I misspoke and was wrong. He was considered a heretic and was tried, but died of natural causes.

Many heretics were condemned and died for the faith, was what I was getting at.

Right. Well, I think you're also wrong about ascribing to RK "Th[e] same position ... held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic". That's getting a bit ridiculous.

[JoshuaStone7]

Right. Well, I think you're also wrong about ascribing to RK "Th[e] same position ... held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic". That's getting a bit ridiculous.

I may have exaggerated by the use "every," but heresy was the cause of countless executions. That was my point. Every execution for heresey.

[RabbiKnife]

Alas, I haven't done a good execution in years...

As Argus Filch says, "I miss the old punishments."