What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

Why are these beliefs deal breakers? Does the NT present any specific beliefs a person MUST have in order to be considered a disciple of Christ?

I understand that YOU feel these are deal breakers but does the NT back you up on-not the doctrine-but the absolute NEED to believe the doctrine?

I'm not sure if just believing one of the above things in and of itself would be a total deal breaker, but certainly together they all are.

As has discussed before the term 'disciple of Christ' isn't exhaustively defined anywhere, rather the NT gives us an over arching picture of what one believes and looks like.

However to give a more concrete example from Romans 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I think we would both agree that someone who is saved in the context of Romans 10 would be classed as a disciple of Jesus. Ok, but Romans 10 doesn't come to us in a vacuum there is the rest of the letter of Romans. Further the letter of Romans isn't in a vacuum either, it is part of the NT. So we have a context within which the words of this sentence have meaning. 'The Lord Jesus' isn't just any Lord Jesus he is the Jesus presented in the NT, the concept 'believe' isn't just a general belief it is a belief in the context of the NT and so on and so on.

Therefore if you were to confess to me ‘that Jesus is Lord and that you believe in him' and yet mean by your words things from my list above I would have to come to the conclusion that your words do not carry the same meaning Paul's words meant. Therefore I would come to the conclusion that you are not a disciple of Christ as the NT presents one to be.

I don’t come to that conclusion out of spite or out of a desire to ‘Mormon bash.’ It would be great if I could count LDS as my brothers and sisters in Christ but I do not believe the Bible gives me any warrant to think someone who believes the things I listed above has any part in the Christ of the NT.

[Vance]

I already posted a list previously but to summarize when someone who says they are followers of the Jesus of the NT and yet believes:

-That Jesus has not eternally existed as God (The God, not a god)

Sorry to break the news to you, but the Bible doesn't teach that. If you want to discuss this farther we can.

but rather is the literal offspring of the Father as a spirit child and as the only begotten son of God in the flesh.

Sorry to break the news to you, but the Bible does teach this.

-That Jesus is just one being of God among a number of others; polytheism

-That Jesus didn’t create all things; including the angels (Satan) and spirits of men

In a wider sphere I would also add

The Bible, when understood properly, teaches those things.

-That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

True Prophets aren't Biblical? Who knew?

-That faithful obedience to commands are necessary to receive the grace of God for exaltation.

That is also taught in the Bible.

Then I must conclude that such a person cannot be a Christian in the light of what I believe the NT presents to us about who Christ is and what it means to follow him.

Well, when you ignore any and all verses that don't agree with your preconceptions and interpretations it isn't surprising that you get it wrong.

[bluebell]

Would a preface like 'I believe . . .' work for that purpose?

I think so.

Like I said, there's a big difference between my beliefs and someone who looks at a verse in English and says 'To me, this verse means . . .' We have to make a distinction between educated exegesis and just opinions.

That's fine. If you prefaced educated exegesis with something like "scholars have claimed...", would that mark enough of a difference?

When you have interfaith discussions, of course you'll disagree on beliefs and sources of authority. I thought it was implied that basically everything that's said in an interfaith discussion has an implied preface of 'I believe . . .'

I think that's a normal implication, unless its the goal of one person to change the other person's beliefs (and maybe i'm wrong in assuming that has ever been your goal. If so i apologize).

If it's just two people sharing their beliefs then 'i believe' is the natural course the conversation will take. If one or either attempts to tell the other one 'you are wrong and God doesn't accept you', then 'i believe' doesn't really work anymore. 'I believe' has become 'God demands you believe as I do' and if someone's claiming THAT, then they have to have some kind of authority from God to do so.

And the reason you trust that institution is because of the Holy Ghost, right? So it's basically all based on receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost?

Ultimately, yes. I believe very much in John 12:26-

"26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Christ Himself said that the Holy Ghost was sent to 'teach us all things'. I believe Him.

You realize Protestants also look to the Holy Ghost for guidance, right? What makes your witness of the Holy Ghost more reliable than ours?

I know you believe in the Holy Ghost, but you have plainly declared that you trust the exegisis of men more than His witness.

You (general, protestant 'you', not you personally) ridicule LDS for our reliance upon the Holy Ghost. You refuse to ask God for wisdom or guidance in regards to your beliefs. You constantly quote the verse in the OT about how the heart cannot be trusted whenever an LDS person even talks about receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost and claim over and over again that scripture trumps such a witness every time.

If you don't believe the witness of the Holy Ghost is a reliable source of truth for you, why should i treat any witness that you claim differently?

Exegesis isn't all equal. Some approaches don't give enough attention to historical data from the period. Or some let one idea dominate their interpretations

We definitely agree about that!

Plus, some denominations disagree on non-critical stuff like structure of the church or eschatology. Some denominations are separated more by cultural differences than doctrinal differences. That doesn't mean they disagree on foundational issues.

I realize that. But some denominations in the protestant family disagree about foundational issues, right?

I served a mission in N. California and had a lot of experiences talking to protestant leaders and members-the dislike between some protestant churches is deep and very much doctrinal. And heated.

Christ set up the church, but he never said anything about apostolic succession or priesthood authority, and neither did any of the other NT authors.

Were the apostles wrong to continue what He had set up then?

15 ¶And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

A. I have faith that my understanding of the gospel is the correct one.

B. That gospel teaches that people who do not follow it are not accepting Christ's payment for their sins, so they pay for their own sins.

C. The Protestant gospel and LDS gospel teach very different things about grace and how we follow Christ.

All things we don't disagree on.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. How can I believe that my gospel is the correct one without also believing that contradicting gospels are wrong? It feels like you're saying 'You can believe whatever you want, but you're not allowed to make any logical conclusions about those beliefs.'

What I'm saying is, you can believe whatever you want, but unless you also believe you speak for God, you can't use your beliefs to judge my relationship with Christ.

One of us must be wrong. How can I believe my answer is correct without saying you're answer is wrong? Do you realize the difficult position we're in?

If we're both working on the same math problem and I come up with an answer of 42 and you come up with an answer of 24, we can't both be right.

No, we can't both be right. But thankfully Christ doesn't treat our attempts to follow His gospel as a math problem we have to either get 100% correct or we go to Hell.

If Christ's grace truly is sufficient to save us in our weaknesses and sins, then that MUST include our weakness of understanding as well. Christ never demanded perfect understanding of His doctrine before offering His grace in the NT. I have no idea why you believe He would demand such now.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bluebell

[Vance]

However to give a more concrete example from Romans 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I think we would both agree that someone who is saved in the context of Romans 10 would be classed as a disciple of Jesus.

How about someone who is saved in the context of Romans 2?

6 (God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Ok, but Romans 10 doesn't come to us in a vacuum there is the rest of the letter of Romans.

Does that include Romans 2?

Further the letter of Romans isn't in a vacuum either, it is part of the NT.

Does that include these teachings of Jesus found in Matt 25?

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I am sorry, but I don't find YOUR criteria for being a Christian in those verses.

So we have a context within which the words of this sentence have meaning.

YES!!! We do have that.

'The Lord Jesus' isn't just any Lord Jesus he is the Jesus presented in the NT, the concept 'believe' isn't just a general belief it is a belief in the context of the NT and so on and so on.

So, should we accept your interpretation of the words some of the words of Paul and reject all the stuff that doesn't agree with that interpretation?

Therefore if you were to confess to me . . .

WOW Just WOW!!!

It is you that we have to confess to?

Who knew?

Where can I find THAT in the Bible?

. . . ‘that Jesus is Lord and that you believe in him' and yet mean by your words things from my list above I would have to come to the conclusion that your words do not carry the same meaning Paul's words meant.

And, apparently neither do the words of Jesus Christ himself.

Therefore I would come to the conclusion that you are not a disciple of Christ as the NT presents one to be.

It is nice to know that you think you are the sole arbiter of who is and isn't a disciple of Christ. I hope you will let HIM know that.

I don’t come to that conclusion out of spite or out of a desire to ‘Mormon bash.’

Is it out of arrogance then?

It would be great if I could count LDS as my brothers and sisters in Christ but I do not believe the Bible gives me any warrant to think someone who believes the things I listed above has any part in the Christ of the NT.

What ever!!!

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

I'm not sure if just believing one of the above things in and of itself would be a total deal breaker, but certainly together they all are.

Where does the NT teach this? Where does it teach that one must believe as you have claimed to be saved?

I don't come to that conclusion of spite or out of a desire to ‘Mormon bash.’ It would be great if I could count LDS as my brothers and sisters in Christ but I do not believe the Bible gives me any warrant to think someone who believes the things I listed above has any part in the Christ of the NT.

I know.

I don't think you have come to that conclustion based on the NT teachings of Christ though. I think your beliefs deny the grace of Christ.

[djholmess]

In responding to the false teacher Noetus, Hippolytus [170 -236 AD]said:

OOPS!!! Another fine Christian thrown under the 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical anti-Mormon bus.

You might want to go away and read Hippoltus, you'll be very dissapointed I'm afraid. For one there is nothing in his quote that in context in any way in 'unchristian'

And from the very next paragraph after the one you quoted

"A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills."

and the very next paragrpah after that

"God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the word, He made it; and straightway it appeared, formed as it had pleased Him. For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality."

[Calm]

It is you that we have to confess to?

Perhaps he is using "confess" in the way we use "testify"?

[volgadon]

Djholmess, just in case you've missed it, in post #259 I responded to your claims regarding Deut. 6.

[Vance]

You might want to go away and read Hippoltus, you'll be very dissapointed I'm afraid. For one there is nothing in his quote that in context in any way in 'unchristian'

And from the very next paragraph after the one you quoted

"A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills."

I have no problem with that statement.

and the very next paragrpah after that

"God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the word, He made it; and straightway it appeared, formed as it had pleased Him. For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality."

And I agree with nearly all of that statement. So what is your point?

[djholmess]

Where does the NT teach this? Where does it teach that one must believe as you have claimed to be saved?

I know.

I don't think you have come to that conclustion based on the NT teachings of Christ though. I think your beliefs deny the grace of Christ.

I just explained how believing all those things would negate someone from being saved - believing those things means that they do not believe what the NT actually means when it says;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

So even though such a person would be saying the words what they mean by those words would not accord with the NT meaning and so they would be wrong to think they are now saved.

[djholmess]

Perhaps he is using "confess" in the way we use "testify"?

I was using it as it was used in the context of Romans 10:9 that is all (as I am sure it was clear from someone who was following bluebell and I's discussion) - I think Vance just enjoys being childish from time to time

[djholmess]

I have no problem with that statement.

And I agree with nearly all of that statement. So what is your point?

It seemed you were trying to say Hippolytus somehow taught something different from the Trinity and that therefore he couldn't be a Christian, clearly that is not the case.

[bluebell]

I just explained how believing all those things would negate someone from being saved - believing those things means that they do not believe what the NT actually means when it says;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

So even though such a person would be saying the words what they mean by those words would not accord with the NT meaning and so they would be wrong to think they are now saved.

I know you explained why you believe that, but you didn't use the NT to back up your explanation. I want to know, where does the NT teach what you believe?

I agree that a person can be saying things that are not in accord with the NT meaning (i personally think you've done so repeatedly in this thread, for example). But where does the NT teach that if a person does not believe 100% of the doctrine 100% correctly, they can't be considered Christians?

Do you believe that Christ would not have considered mary and martha His disciples, for example, if they didn't believe that He created satan, for example?

[Vance]

It seemed you were trying to say Hippolytus somehow taught something different from the Trinity and that therefore he couldn't be a Christian, clearly that is not the case.

He taught that the oneness of God was "one power". Isn't that different from the Trinity as "one being".

I do find it interesting that you would ignore those verses I posted and go right to that non-Biblical statement.

Edited to add,

The part of the trinity that I have a problem with is the part fabricated by Constantine.

"It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, p140-141).

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

Djholmess, just in case you've missed it, in post #259 I responded to your claims regarding Deut. 6.

Deuteronomy 4:35&39 was the main verse from Deuteronomy I was talking about, no one has yet explained to me how it doesn't mean what a simple reading would conclude - The Lord is God in heaven and on the earth, there is none else

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him... know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

[djholmess]

He taught that the oneness of God was "one power". Isn't that different from the Trinity as "one being".

I do find it interesting that you would ignore those verses I posted and go right to that non-Biblical statement.

I already discussed Romans 2 with you before in a previous thread and demonstrated from the context on Romans 1:18-3:18 how Paul concludes that none actually do seek after honour and glory, they all reject God and do not seek after him - that is why Gods salvation comes another way, through faith in Jesus apart from works. You never interacted with my much fuller comments then you just dismissed them so I don't see a reason to waste my time again - if someone else wants to discuss Romans 2 I would be happy to do it with them.

[djholmess]

He taught that the oneness of God was "one power". Isn't that different from the Trinity as "one being".

It's only different if by 'power' he is presenting a different concept to being which I see no reason to think he is. For example further down we read

"These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit"

Reading Hippolytus I see nothing that he says that would contradict the concpet of the trinity. Sure he doesn't use the exact same words I would but that's fine. Part of what went on at the council of Nicaea was a discussion about what way was the best way to express the concept of the trinity - the actual concept was always around as Hippolytus demonstrates.

[Vance]

I already discussed Romans 2 with you before in a previous thread and demonstrated from the context on Romans 1:18-3:18 how Paul concludes that none actually do seek after honour and glory, they all reject God and do not seek after him - that is why Gods salvation comes another way, through faith in Jesus apart from works.

Yes, I remember your pathetic excuse as to why those verses don't mean what they say. And there, as well as here, you totally ignore the words of Jesus that contradict your feeble explanations.

But I was specifically referring to those verses that CLEARLY and PLAINLY separate the Lord Jesus Christ from God.

You are unable to use the Bible to show that the LDS understanding of God and the oneness of the Godhead are unBiblical. You have to go, instead, to the extrabiblical doctrine of the trinity in your attempt to exclude us from Christianity.

You never interacted with my much fuller comments then you just dismissed them so I don't see a reason to waste my time again - if someone else wants to discuss Romans 2 I would be happy to do it with them.

Perhaps, when your "fuller comments" include a discussion of the words of Jesus found in Matt 25, I will respond.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[volgadon]

Deuteronomy 4:35&39 was the main verse from Deuteronomy I was talking about, no one has yet explained to me how it doesn't mean what a simple reading would conclude - The Lord is God in heaven and on the earth, there is none else

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him... know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

A declaration of supremacy and ascendancy. Even in English we don't always use "no" in its absolute sense. THERE IS NO BATHROOM!

[Vance]

It's only different if by 'power' he is presenting a different concept to being which I see no reason to think he is.

It is that he is NOT presenting "being" as an aspect of God's oneness. Which is what the doctrine of the trinity SPECIFICALLY does.

For example further down we read

"These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit"

And so, in the context of his previous statement, we are to conclude that the "oneness" is in "power". NOTHING in there about oneness in "being".

Reading Hippolytus I see nothing that he says that would contradict the concpet of the trinity.

And yet, it neither specifically supports it.

Sure he doesn't use the exact same words I would but that's fine. Part of what went on at the council of Nicaea was a discussion about what way was the best way to express the concept of the trinity -

As opposed to letting the scriptures do it. What ever happened to "sola scriptura"?

the actual concept was always around as Hippolytus demonstrates.

Not at all. It only demonstrates that something as similar to the trinity as it is similar to LDS doctrine was available around 200 AD.

[djholmess]

A declaration of supremacy and ascendancy. Even in English we don't always use "no" in its absolute sense. THERE IS NO BATHROOM!

Yes but we know that the person means a specific area...'there is no bathroom' said in a resturant would rightly be intrepreted 'there is no bathroom in the resturant'

Moses defines where there is 'no other God' for us - the heavens and the earth.

[KevinG]

I think I just found the Bible translation DJ is using...

And Christ taught the multitude to pray saying. "Our union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality, who art in heaven."

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Except those who believe I am a literal child of my Father, that the Father and I are separate personages of flesh and bone, that Satan is a spirit who rebelled and spirits are co-eternal, that prophets can be called in the Latter-days and obedience to my commandments is required of my disciples."

"I charge you therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; with the assistance of internet ministers and counter-cult experts."

-from the lost gospels of semantics

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Vance]

THERE IS NO BATHROOM!

There is no room.

There is no help.

There is no food.

There is no water.

There is no rain.

There are no clouds.

There are no airplanes.

There are no cars.

There is no money.

Just to name a few.

[Zakuska]

If Christ's grace truly is sufficient to save us in our weaknesses and sins, then that MUST include our weakness of understanding as well. Christ never demanded perfect understanding of His doctrine before offering His grace in the NT. I have no idea why you believe He would demand such now.

Isn't it amazing that the very people that put so much emphasis on grace and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, are the very ones to deny it's sufficiency.

[Gervin]

Years back when the Board changed format we were asked to give suggestions about threads to archive. I suggested that this thread

on the topic of the Trinity be saved for the benefit of future generations

Comments by the poster "rhinomelon" (whatever happened to that guy) were especially cogent and did a very good job of representing Christian thought on the topic. Enjoy.