It's Impossible to Believe in Christ Without Believing the Trinity

[101G]

No one has to share an opinion on scripture or doctrine to be justified in Christ. But no one can speak on scripture unless they are speaking from an opinion. Some opinions have good foundations while others are lacking substantiation. That ability to share opinions is why you are posting here and why people don't agree with your opinion. You are able to share what you like, what you feel is the testimony of scripture. good luck!!

First thanks for the rep[y, second, 101G don't give his or anyone's opinions. just as said, opinions don't count, only the word of God. 101G will give scripture only, nor advice, or opinion on any scripture. what 101G will do is give an example so one may obtain an understanding of the scriptures, but anyone's opinion, including 101G's do not count.

now, as for KNOWLEDGE IN TRUTH, and without personal opinion, one is justified in Christ. ....... for the LACK of KNOWLEDGE will destroy the seeker, (just ask Eve), hence we post on this forum. ..... TRUTH and not opinions

as for a sure foundation, it is the TRUTH and not an opinion. this is the problem today; people give their own opinion instead of letting God lead them in TRUTH. for TRUTH need no opinion or any private interpretation.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

First thanks for the rep[y, second, 101G don't give his or anyone's opinions. just as said, opinions don't count, only the word of God. 101G will give scripture only, nor advice, or opinion on any scripture. what 101G will do is give an example so one may obtain an understanding of the scriptures, but anyone's opinion, including 101G's do not count.

now, as for KNOWLEDGE IN TRUTH, and without personal opinion, one is justified in Christ. ....... for the LACK of KNOWLEDGE will destroy the seeker, (just ask Eve), hence we post on this forum. ..... TRUTH and not opinions

as for a sure foundation, it is the TRUTH and not an opinion. this is the problem today; people give their own opinion instead of letting God lead them in TRUTH. for TRUTH need no opinion or any private interpretation.

101G.

I then will recognize that you provide an opinion of what a true knowledge of scripture and will follow the logic not follow it. I'm not sure then why God has not lead you to your expected destination. The way you post your opinions is very messy and mixed up. If you share any truths, I'm not sure how anyone could guess what they are based on. It is also spooky how you seem to hear what 101G is saying and then you transcribe it.

 

[101G]

I then will recognize that you provide an opinion of what a true knowledge of scripture and will follow the logic not follow it.

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second, again, 101G provides no opinion, the TRUTH stands on it's own. FOLLOW GOD.

I'm not sure then why God has not lead you to your expected destination.

see, this is your opinion, 101G suggest you leave 101G out of any opinion of scriptures. follow God, let him LEAD YOU..... ok.

If you share any truths, I'm not sure how anyone could guess what they are based on.

no need to guess. READ the scriptures, 101G only point them to you, or point them out to you.

It is also spooky how you seem to hear what 101G is saying and then you transcribe it.

again, "Spooky?" your opinion? this is what 101G speak of.......

101G.

 

[mikesw]

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second, again, 101G provides no opinion, the TRUTH stands on it's own. FOLLOW GOD.

see, this is your opinion, 101G suggest you leave 101G out of any opinion of scriptures. follow God, let him LEAD YOU..... ok.

no need to guess. READ the scriptures, 101G only point them to you, or point them out to you.

again, "Spooky?" your opinion? this is what 101G speak of.......

101G.

I follow the truth. That is why I emphasize the Trinity here. duh. Deal with it.

 

[101G]

I follow the truth. That is why I emphasize the Trinity here. duh. Deal with it.

no problem, if there is a trinity in the Godhead, then please tell us is this two person or the same one person. scripture, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." now Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

so mikesw, the Person who MADE ALL THINGS in both verses above, is this two separate and distinct person, or one person. your answer please.

101G

 

[mikesw]

no problem, if there is a trinity in the Godhead, then please tell us is this two person or the same one person. scripture, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." now Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

so mikesw, the Person who MADE ALL THINGS in both verses above, is this two separate and distinct person, or one person. your answer please.

101G

I'm surprised you do not know that God can refer singularly or in plural due to his triune nature. The answer is beyond your level of comprehension. Anyhow, Joh 1:3 first indicates Christ as part of the Godhead since we know it is God who is Creator. The verse shows the person we know as Christ Jesus created all things -- which is evident enough I'm sure. It does not however say Christ Jesus did this apart from being God or distinct from the Father. There may not even be reason to mention that since the verse itself speaks of Yahweh which can refer to Christ Jesus. But Christ Jesus is sent from the Father. So we have obvious multiple persons in the Godhead and they are distinguished from each other and are the same. So we learn the truth from the scripture, just as I have shared. Someone may be able to share this in better fashion and with more nuance.

 

[101G]

I'm surprised you do not know that God can refer singularly or in plural due to his triune nature. The answer is beyond your level of comprehension. Anyhow, Joh 1:3 first indicates Christ as part of the Godhead since we know it is God who is Creator. The verse shows the person we know as Christ Jesus created all things

GINOLJC, to all,
First thanks for the reply, second, this is what 101G is speaking of. JESUS the ... "Christ" made nothing. NOT the Christ, but Jesus the LORD did. for Christ is flesh bone and blood, and no flesh and blood CREATED NOTHING in the beginning. and if you read Isaiah 44:24, the "LORD" was ALONE, and BY HIMSELF. you do know what "ALONE" means right? if not, it means, having no one else present:. and no one else present means it's only ONE PERSON who made all things. meaning the person in John 1:3 whom many say is the Son, is the same one person who is the LORD, whom many say is the Father. well the bible is saying this is the same one person. ... hello. 101G suggest you read those verses again ... with the Holy Spirit who will teach and guide you in all TRUTH. and by being by himself, and alone, that means your other two persons in your trinity are not Omni Present.

see, you and many have been taught in ERROR, and is deceived. and your worship of the creator is not in Spirit nor TRUTH. 101G believes in a ONE PERSON God who is a diversity of himself in flesh and bone. this diversity of God himself is called the "Offspring", which the Greeks identify as G243 allos. or as the Hebrews identify as the H259 Echad.

now if you believe flesh and blood, (the Christ), made all thing we hope you re-evaluate your position based on the Scriptures, the truth.

so, in G.L. be blessed.

101G.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

As long as they believe and trust in Christ for the atonement of sins, they may be ignorant or blinded and still saved (it is still a grievous error).

I praise God to have given you this understanding.

Because they acknowledge God sent Christ as an atonement, and trust in that, the sufficiency is in the atonement itself.

Is the sufficiency in the atonement itself, or in the acknowledgement of the atonement?

Just as you realized that Jesus is who He is, regardless of whether people know it, understand it, or confess it, you will someday realize that Jesus achieved what he achieved, regardless people know it, understand it, or confess it.

If Jesus went ALL THE WAY to be arrested, tortured, mocked, exhibited naked in front of the crowd, crucified... do you really think He will refuse to be the Mediator of a sinner who comes to God with a contrite heart, and does not know, confess or understand PSA?

Please consider 100 persons taken randomly from your congregation... 100 frequent churchgoers. How many of them could EXPLAIN what penal substitutionary blood atonement is? How many of them could hold a decent defense in this Forum of such doctrine? Furthermore, how many would even be INTERESTED in studying about the topic? Are they all damned?

I understood penal substitutionary atonement when I was 14, as a Seventh Day Aventist... but teenagers of my congregation were far from understanding it... or showing any interest in understanding it... they could all repeat if asked: "Jesus died for my sins" but this didn't mean much. When they made something wrong, they asked forgiveness to God and to the person they have hurt... as billions of humans have done through ages.
So, I can deeply respect that you and my Christian brothers believe that PSA, as a fact, changed everything.
But I am deeply convinced that PSA, as a doctrine, does not change anything.

 

[Dizerner]

Just as you realized that Jesus is who He is, regardless of whether people know it, understand it, or confess it, you will someday realize that Jesus achieved what he achieved, regardless people know it, understand it, or confess it.

It would better for you to move to a Christian Universalist position. I have talked with several of them.

If you want to say all are saved by the merits of Christ alone and his suffering the penalty of sin, at least you are moving in the right direction.

I believe a Univeralist can possibly be saved—barely—if they cling very deeply to the acknowledgment God must pay for their sins in Christ.

If Jesus went ALL THE WAY to be arrested, tortured, mocked, exhibited naked in front of the crowd, crucified... do you really think He will refuse to be the Mediator of a sinner who comes to God with a contrite heart, and does not know, confess or understand PSA?

Yeah, I do, because the Bible tells me that, and I'm not God, he makes the rules.

It is not being lost because of a case of being "too sinful," you need to understand that, that's not the position here.

But you have a God with no enemy and no original sin, Satan is blinding the whole world through deception.

If one does not personally trust in Christ to be the sacrifice of their sins, and commit to follow Christ's Word, they cannot be saved in this dispensation. Scripture does not give us this option. The Holy Spirit will not allow it and constantly strive for those rejecting it.

Please consider 100 persons taken randomly from your congregation... 100 frequent churchgoers. How many of them could EXPLAIN what penal substitutionary blood atonement is? How many of them could hold a decent defense in this Forum of such doctrine? Furthermore, how many would even be INTERESTED in studying about the topic? Are they all damned?

It's not about knowing the technical term, that's a straw man. Someone can describe the position with no technical knowledge.

Have you placed all of your trust and hope in the fact that Christ Jesus suffered the penalty of your sins on the Cross and rose again after three days, to grant us by grace the gift we could never deserve of eternal life to worship him in heaven?

And because the atonement is SO strong even a person full of devils and error and sin can be saved if they completely trust personally in Christ.

But you have to DO it. It's not automatic.

I understood penal substitutionary atonement when I was 14, as a Seventh Day Aventist... but teenagers of my congregation were far from understanding it... or showing any interest in understanding it... they could all repeat if asked: "Jesus died for my sins" but this didn't mean much. When they made something wrong, they asked forgiveness to God and to the person they have hurt... as billions of humans have done through ages.

SDA, huh. Yes, they are full of confusion and legalism, I know some personally and have studied their doctrines.

They still often respect substitutionary atonement, and if they do, that power can save them.

So, I can deeply respect that you and my Christian brothers believe that PSA, as a fact, changed everything.
But I am deeply convinced that PSA, as a doctrine, does not change anything.

PSA is literally the Gospel.

You can be confused and stupid and it will still save you if you trust in Christ suffering for your sins and attempt to follow him.

But PSA literally is the Gospel.

 

[civic]

It would better for you to move to a Christian Universalist position. I have talked with several of them.

If you want to say all are saved by the merits of Christ alone and his suffering the penalty of sin, at least you are moving in the right direction.

I believe a Univeralist can possibly be saved—barely—if they cling very deeply to the acknowledgment God must pay for their sins in Christ.



Yeah, I do, because the Bible tells me that, and I'm not God, he makes the rules.

It is not being lost because of a case of being "too sinful," you need to understand that, that's not the position here.

But you have a God with no enemy and no original sin, Satan is blinding the whole world through deception.

If one does not personally trust in Christ to be the sacrifice of their sins, and commit to follow Christ's Word, they cannot be saved in this dispensation. Scripture does not give us this option. The Holy Spirit will not allow it and constantly strive for those rejecting it.



It's not about knowing the technical term, that's a straw man. Someone can describe the position with no technical knowledge.

Have you placed all of your trust and hope in the fact that Christ Jesus suffered the penalty of your sins on the Cross and rose again after three days, to grant us by grace the gift we could never deserve of eternal life to worship him in heaven?

And because the atonement is SO strong even a person full of devils and error and sin can be saved if they completely trust personally in Christ.

But you have to DO it. It's not automatic.



SDA, huh. Yes, they are full of confusion and legalism, I know some personally and have studied their doctrines.

They still often respect substitutionary atonement, and if they do, that power can save them.



PSA is literally the Gospel.

You can be confused and stupid and it will still save you if you trust in Christ suffering for your sins and attempt to follow him.

But PSA literally is the Gospel.

That sounds like the Calvinist who claims tulip is the gospel. Neither tulip or PSA is the gospel.

 

[Dizerner]

That sounds like the Calvinist who claims tulip is the gospel. Neither tulip or PSA is the gospel.

False.

A term stands for something, it MEANS something.

There IS a Gospel, and it is not "Jesus did something something and we all better now."

Calvinism is a demonic error.

PSA is how Scripture tells us we are saved.

He bore the penalty of our sins, THAT IS THE GOSPEL.

Not fuzzy Jesus saves anyone for any reason.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yeah, I do, because the Bible tells me that,

Don't let your life be guided by the Bible, but by God who inspired the Bible.
What I mean is that it is the Hol Spirit who speaks to you, using several instruments. One of them is the Bible.

The Bible, as I have shown in 30 passages, speak directly and unequivocally about God's mercy and forgiveness without demanding a particular understanding, adherence or confession to PSA.
So, I invite you to admit, that

• FACT A. Some passages of the Bible seem to teach that God forgives without asking a belief in PSA
• FACT B. Some other passages of the Bible seem to teach that God requires that belief as a condition to forgive

If you agree with this, then we can start thinking what makes more sense considering

• The number of passages, books, and authors that support Fact A and B
• Who, in the Bible, is speaking in the passsages to support fact A vs fact B
• Which is the context of the passages that support A or B
• Which fact, A or B, is more consistent with reason and our human understanding of love and justice. Yes, human understanding, as the Bible were written to humans, so that humans can understand it.

and I'm not God, he makes the rules.

But God lives in you now. It should make a difference.
So, don't be afraid that your concepts of "love", "mercy" and "justice" are messed up. They are not.
What would be the point of converting to Christ, if my concepts of "love", "mercy" and "justice" will continue to be unreliable? How can I tell good from wrong then? What would be the work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[civic]

False.

A term stands for something, it MEANS something.

There IS a Gospel, and it is not "Jesus did something something and we all better now."

Calvinism is a demonic error.

PSA is how Scripture tells us we are saved.

He bore the penalty of our sins, THAT IS THE GOSPEL.

Not fuzzy Jesus saves anyone for any reason.

There was no wrath from Father to Son in the atonement which is the heart of PSA. It’s a fallacy not found anywhere in scripture. It’s mentioned 36 times in the NT and not once is Christ the recipient of wrath. He is the One who dishes out the Divine wrath.

Next fallacy

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Calvinism is a demonic error.

Calvinist may be a demonic error, but you still believe God can save Calvinists.
Universalism may be a demonic error, but you still believe God can save Universalists.
Even if that is "barely saved", I am the happiest man in Forum to hear that.

You are walking in the right direction when, instead of 867 requirements for salvation that other Christians present, you seem to reduce them to one: believe that God has paid for your debts in Christ.

What we can both agree is that, forgiveness means God erases our debts.
I can go one step further and closer to you, in saying God erases my debts in Christ.

This is not PSA to me, but I can utter those words with sincerity.
The sentence would mean to me that Christ asks me to take my cross, follow Him, get crucified with Him and resurrected with Him to a new life.
In that spiritual sense, which is the sense I believe Paul was interested, I can say "God erases my debts in Christ".

 

[mikesw]

GINOLJC, to all,
First thanks for the reply, second, this is what 101G is speaking of. JESUS the ... "Christ" made nothing. NOT the Christ, but Jesus the LORD did. for Christ is flesh bone and blood, and no flesh and blood CREATED NOTHING in the beginning. and if you read Isaiah 44:24, the "LORD" was ALONE, and BY HIMSELF. you do know what "ALONE" means right? if not, it means, having no one else present:. and no one else present means it's only ONE PERSON who made all things. meaning the person in John 1:3 whom many say is the Son, is the same one person who is the LORD, whom many say is the Father. well the bible is saying this is the same one person. ... hello. 101G suggest you read those verses again ... with the Holy Spirit who will teach and guide you in all TRUTH. and by being by himself, and alone, that means your other two persons in your trinity are not Omni Present.

see, you and many have been taught in ERROR, and is deceived. and your worship of the creator is not in Spirit nor TRUTH. 101G believes in a ONE PERSON God who is a diversity of himself in flesh and bone. this diversity of God himself is called the "Offspring", which the Greeks identify as G243 allos. or as the Hebrews identify as the H259 Echad.

now if you believe flesh and blood, (the Christ), made all thing we hope you re-evaluate your position based on the Scriptures, the truth.

so, in G.L. be blessed.

101G.

I have no idea your argument. You miss the continuity of who Christ Jesus is. He is Son of God. There is continuity of this divinity into the flesh and blood of Jesus. If you just say that Jesus incarnate did not create everything, there is a half-truth there. The incarnation did not happen until 1BC. Just remember modalism is an old heresy, so you have added nothing new to that.

 

[mikesw]

Calvinist may be a demonic error, but you still believe God can save Calvinists.
Universalism may be a demonic error, but you still believe God can save Universalists.
Even if that is "barely saved", I am the happiest man in Forum to hear that.

You are walking in the right direction when, instead of 867 requirements for salvation that other Christians present, you seem to reduce them to one: believe that God has paid for your debts in Christ.

What we can both agree is that, forgiveness means God erases our debts.
I can go one step further and closer to you, in saying God erases my debts in Christ.

This is not PSA to me, but I can utter those words with sincerity.
The sentence would mean to me that Christ asks me to take my cross, follow Him, get crucified with Him and resurrected with Him to a new life.
In that spiritual sense, which is the sense I believe Paul was interested, I can say "God erases my debts in Christ".

No wonder Pancho Frijoles fell away from Christianity (if SDA fit that). He does not understand what Christ has done so he ends up seeking some alternative universalist theory. He also misunderstands the many Christians who summarize that it is not what we believe but in whom we believe that gives us justification. He says you do not have to trust Christ and you do not have to believe what Christ has done. He also denies what Christ has done. So he thinks a denial of who Christ is will still get him favor with God. What other dark views still makes one favorable with God?

One of the many big errors of Pancho Frijoles's views is understood by Jesus's words "My sheep hear my voice." But, Pancho Frijoles hears other voices instead. The voice he hears is someone 1800 years later.

 

[101G]

I have no idea your argument. You miss the continuity of who Christ Jesus is. He is Son of God.

that's the point, Son of God is flesh bone and blood. Son of man is Spirit.

here is continuity of this divinity into the flesh and blood of Jesus. If you just say that Jesus incarnate did not create everything, there is a half-truth there. The incarnation did not happen until 1BC. Just remember modalism is an old heresy, so you have added nothing new to that.

#1, 101G is not a modalist, again, #2. the Christ did not create anything, JESUS the LORD did. and #3, speaking of the incarnation, the Ordinal Last only REDEEMED man... do you understand now? if not last-ditch effort.... Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

now think, was the Spirit BORN, or flesh bone and blood? GL.

101G

 

[101G]

No wonder Pancho Frijoles fell away from Christianity (if SDA fit that). He does not understand what Christ has done so he ends up seeking some alternative universalist theory.

did Christ, (flesh bone and blood create anything at the beginning, per Genesis 1:1?) if you say yes, then you don't understand what christ did.
GL.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

that's the point, Son of God is flesh bone and blood. Son of man is Spirit.

#1, 101G is not a modalist, again, #2. the Christ did not create anything, JESUS the LORD did. and #3, speaking of the incarnation, the Ordinal Last only REDEEMED man... do you understand now? if not last-ditch effort.... Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

now think, was the Spirit BORN, or flesh bone and blood? GL.

101G

Maybe you will have a chance to say stuff clearly at some point. I do not know how Jesus can be two different people as you seem to say. Maybe someone else can explain your view in a subsequent post.

 

[101G]

Maybe you will have a chance to say stuff clearly at some point. I do not know how Jesus can be two different people as you seem to say. Maybe someone else can explain your view in a subsequent post.

ok, understand..... is your body you? no, but your body takes on the IDENITY of You, the spirit that dwells in it. example. if 101G died in a car accident, and the police come to 101G house and inform 101G wife that he had died in an Accident. and they ask her if she can IDENTIFY the ........ BODY, not the real Person in that body, "her husband", but the body that her husband dwelt in. for the spirit leave the body at death.
understand now? GL.
101G