Salvation and Unitarians

[civic]

No, it just means you are confused about what lawlessness is and what the priorities of the Gospel are.

I'll call it a day. May God give you a pleasant night and a greater understanding of the supremacy of love over theology.

Just as an FYI I'm all about love as the mark of the believer. But that does not mean we cannot rebuke, correct those who oppose sound doctrine. So the question becomes what is sound doctrine.

BTW- I really like you and enjoy reading your thoughtful posts even though we may disagree on some things. I'm glad you are here my friend.

 

[101G]

I don't know if I am accurate in deeming your view as modalist, but I believe that modalism is the easiest and most logical way that Christians could embrace to keep worshiping One Person while recognizing the deity of Jesus.

Certainly it is the closest perspective to my view as Baha'i, since we believe in Jesus as a Manifestation of God, and not just a man.
It is in this sense that whoever loves Jesus loves God. Whoever rejects Jesus rejects God.

Having said that, I also think this view is conflicted by the fact that Jesus prays to The True and Only God (especially at Gethsemane, and at the cross), or that Jesus submits his will to the will of God. How do you interpret those passages, my brother?

thanks for the reply. but 101G is what God has asked us to be...... "holy". now 101G's doctoral belief is "Diversified Oneness". Based on God SHARNING "of" HIMSELF in Flesh and Blood. this is purly bible based, plain and clear.
101G must disagree, when one understands the "ECHAD" of God then one will know and understand God as plurality of, of, of, ONE PERSON. and a great example of this is clearly seen in John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Pancho, this verse Cleary display Diversified Oneness. while "Equally Shared" in flesh and blood on earth as the Ordinal Last talking to Nicodemus, he the Lord Jesus, at the very same time was in heaven without flesh, without bone, and without blood. yes, at the same time.

101G.

 

[civic]

thanks for the reply. but 101G is what God has asked us to be...... "holy". now 101G's doctoral belief is "Diversified Oneness". Based on God SHARNING "of" HIMSELF in Flesh and Blood. this is purly bible based, plain and clear.
101G must disagree, when one understands the "ECHAD" of God then one will know and understand God as plurality of, of, of, ONE PERSON. and a great example of this is clearly seen in John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Pancho, this verse Cleary display Diversified Oneness. while "Equally Shared" in flesh and blood on earth as the Ordinal Last talking to Nicodemus, he the Lord Jesus, at the very same time was in heaven without flesh, without bone, and without blood. yes, at the same time.

101G.

101 are you a politician by chance ?

in all seriousness I'm glad you are here

 

[101G]

101 are you a politician by chance ?

(smile).... LOL, ............................ NO. .......... 101G never change his view.... (smile).

in all seriousness I'm glad you are here

same here.

and thanks again for the invite afore time.

101G.

 

[synergy]

So, what do you say?
Do you accept publicly that God will not burn in hell millions of people for not believing in the deity of Jesus, including members of this Forum?

Far be it for me to venture an opinion on who is saved and who is not.

Please be aware that most (if not all) heresies, like Arianism, have been annihilated by Historical Saints and there is very little excuse for anyone to lead others into those very same heresies. Proceed at your own risk.

It is anathema for us to lead or allow others to go down a destructive path. It is love that compells us to speak out. Many times I don't communicate in the most eloquent way (forgive me) but our hearts are in the right place.

 

[Studyman]

Without the bodily resurrection which was permanent one has no Savior and you are still dead in your sins according to the Apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:17

Many deny Jesus was Resurrected and Ascended into heaven bodily( a human body with real flesh and bones) and are still dead in their sins even though they might claim to be a christian. That is an oxymoron.

No, I believe Jesus Body and mind was raised from the dead but was not the same flesh and blood HE dies with. I believe this because Paul believed this and taught as much. He was Raised from the dead, like Lazarus, but Lazurus still grew old and died with his raised human body. Jesus was "Changed" with a body that even John didn't know would be like.

As Paul said "51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but "we shall all be changed", 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 John 3: 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man "that hath this hope in him" purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Lazarus will be raised again, only this time, when Jesus appears Lazarus will be changed, just as Jesus was changed "in a twinkling of an eye".

We will no longer have the same flesh, bones and blood of a human body. Something different that is not yet revealed.

John 6: 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus wasn't raised a Spirit, But HE also wasn't raised a mortal human just as Lazarus. Because Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, therefore, Jesus was changed, and became the first fruit of all humans who would strive to walk, even as HE walked.

This is hard for this world's religions to accept, because they preach that Jesus wasn't really a mortal human, but was God and overcame death, sin, and temptation "because" He was God, not because HE had Faith in God.

Me and John don't know what the Body of Crist was like after HE was changed. I hope to someday find out.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ be not risen your faith is in vain and you are still dead in your sins- an unbeliever who is lost. Those who deny the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus such as the JW's who teach that Jesus is now a spirit based being fit into this camp. They deny the resurrection.

I have never denied that Jesus was raised from the dead. There are those who preach to the world that Jesus couldn't die, because HE came as God and not really flesh and blood. And HE overcame Sin and temptation, not as a mortal human like the rest of us, but because HE was immortal God and couldn't be tempted, couldn't die, and therefore didn't lay down His Life for anyone.

John teaches us that those "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, but don't believe the Christ came in the same flesh and blood as other men, is the anti-Christ. This is why I don't listen to those who preach that Jesus came to earth as God, disguised as a man.

If we look at what Paul is saying in this passage, it is that corruptible flesh and blood shall not enter the kingdom.

This is why Jesus was changed, to rid Him of His Human flesh and blood, and cloth Him with something worth fighting for, and striving for, and pressing for, as Paul teaches.

Paul says corruptible does not inherit the incorruptible. Paul is not saying the resurrection body will not have flesh but what he declares is that the resurrected body will not have perishable flesh.

That is your opinion, and since you promote that Abraham or Caleb or Zacharias wasn't "Born again", and that God placed impossible Laws you call a "Yoke of Bondage" on the necks of men who placed their faith in Him, and then killed them when they couldn't keep them, and other doctrines that are not aligned with scriptures, I am told to "Take Heed" of your preaching.

Remember in Luke Jesus said see here My hands and feet, touch Me a spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. Peter, Paul and John all agree that Jesus still had flesh well after His ascension. 1 John being the last of the books of the three Apostles declared that Jesus having come in the flesh and those who deny this are the spirit of antichrist. John makes it clear that the Incarnation was permanent. Jesus is forever both God and man. This is what Paul teaches in the whole 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. The glorious physical bodies that we will have in the resurrection. We will have incorruptible bodies just as Jesus now has in heaven.

I don't believe you have been given the answers to the mysteries that even Paul and John were not given. Jesus came in flesh and blood, born of a woman. He didn't ascend into the Kingdom of God with the same flesh and blood HE died with.

Of this I am certain.

 

[mikesw]

I have never denied that Jesus was raised from the dead. There are those who preach to the world that Jesus couldn't die, because HE came as God and not really flesh and blood. And HE overcame Sin and temptation, not as a mortal human like the rest of us, but because HE was immortal God and couldn't be tempted, couldn't die, and therefore didn't lay down His Life for anyone.

It is good you have not also fallen for that heresy that you are rejecting here. I'm not sure how far that gets you into an argument against the Triune nature of God.
Of course the aspect we find in scripture is that the Son experienced this through the normal human lifecycle. God knows how to do this without contradiction and without the humanity being just a facade or fakery. If the triune sense of God was not found in scripture, it hardly is a concept that people would create out of thin air.

 

[Studyman]

It is good you have not also fallen for that heresy that you are rejecting here. I'm not sure how far that gets you into an argument against the Triune nature of God.
Of course the aspect we find in scripture is that the Son experienced this through the normal human lifecycle. God knows how to do this without contradiction and without the humanity being just a facade or fakery. If the triune sense of God was not found in scripture, it hardly is a concept that people would create out of thin air.

I am cautious concerning the doctrines and traditions of this world's religions, given the Warnings of Christ and my 30 years of experience. Is God a collection of persons, or does the Godhead consist of a hierarchy with God at the Top, and then His Son, who is the head of God's Church that I strive to be a member of?

It wouldn't make much difference, in my view, if I rejected the Sayings of the Christ while believing in a triune God, or if I rejected the Sayings of the Christ while believing in an individual God.

It seems more important to "Seek the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness", as opposed to making judgments about the nature of God.

Nevertheless, it's always good to have these discussions, in my view.

 

[mikesw]

I am cautious concerning the doctrines and traditions of this world's religions, given the Warnings of Christ and my 30 years of experience. Is God a collection of persons, or does the Godhead consist of a hierarchy with God at the Top, and then His Son, who is the head of God's Church that I strive to be a member of?

It wouldn't make much difference, in my view, if I rejected the Sayings of the Christ while believing in a triune God, or if I rejected the Sayings of the Christ while believing in an individual God.

It seems more important to "Seek the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness", as opposed to making judgments about the nature of God.

Nevertheless, it's always good to have these discussions, in my view.

I keep noting around here that the individual views are not so much the problem. It is a problem when the church groups hold to the misconceptions of the Godhead. The other teachings can incorporate destructive concepts of Christ and justification. This may not happen all the time but it becomes like a doberman that has been unleashed.
Until a better conception of the Godhead exists, I stick with the Trinitarian doctrine since it tends to weed out the inconsistencies found in other doctrines of Christ.

 

[civic]

I keep noting around here that the individual views are not so much the problem. It is a problem when the church groups hold to the misconceptions of the Godhead. The other teachings can incorporate destructive concepts of Christ and justification. This may not happen all the time but it becomes like a doberman that has been unleashed.
Until a better conception of the Godhead exists, I stick with the Trinitarian doctrine since it tends to weed out the inconsistencies found in other doctrines of Christ.

I always say sound doctrine begins with Gods nature and character. If one gets that wrong then it all rolls downhill from there with numerous misunderstandings with a persons beliefs.

 

[mikesw]

I always say sound doctrine begins with Gods nature and character. If one gets that wrong then it all rolls downhill from there with numerous misunderstandings with a persons beliefs.

Sure. I thought of this analogy last night about knowing God.
It is like a husband bringing home a lovely bouquet of roses to his wife. She reminds him she is allergic to roses just as she has an allergic reaction that requires hospitalization. Then she reminds him that it was his previous girlfriend that loved roses.

 

[101G]

I am cautious concerning the doctrines and traditions of this world's religions, given the Warnings of Christ and my 30 years of experience. Is God a collection of persons, or does the Godhead consist of a hierarchy with God at the Top, and then His Son, who is the head of God's Church that I strive to be a member of?

Until a better conception of the Godhead exists, I stick with the Trinitarian doctrine since it tends to weed out the inconsistencies found in other doctrines of Christ.

why not go with what God says in his word about him.

101G.

 

[Studyman]

why not go with what God says in his word about him.

101G.

That's a good start, God doesn't call Himself a Triune God.

 

[101G]

That's a good start, God doesn't call Himself a Triune God.

True, and yes this is a good and only way to start. we all must follow and understand God by his Spirit and not by what we have been taught by men. not putting down any former teachers, but coming to the TRUT in Christ Jesus by the LEAD of the Holy Spirit.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

why not go with what God says in his word about him.

101G.

Of course, that is where it all has started. Take the whole counsel of scripture. I'm glad that the Trinitarian debates accomplished that. We see how Peterlag dislikes the passages about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Even if someone finds some significant and different conception of Christ and the Trinity, it should be treated tentatively until the idea becomes a convincing alternative to the broad community of believers.

 

[101G]

Of course, that is where it all has started. Take the whole counsel of scripture. I'm glad that the Trinitarian debates accomplished that. We see how Peterlag dislikes the passages about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Even if someone finds some significant and different conception of Christ and the Trinity, it should be treated tentatively until the idea becomes a convincing alternative to the broad community of believers.

agreed. but the question, "what is the correct doctrine?" many are out there. maybe a process of elimination? a healthy discussion is needed. no argument, but discussion by scripture.

101G.

 

[synergy]

agreed. but the question, "what is the correct doctrine?" many are out there. maybe a process of elimination? a healthy discussion is needed. no argument, but discussion by scripture.

101G.

Why don't you refer us to a well thought out YouTube video or article that takes us step by step through your understanding of God? Bouncing all over the place does not help. I'm sure you're not the only one in history and in the entire world that thinks like you do, so send us a video or article and I promise to read its primary portions.

 

[101G]

Why don't you refer us to a well thought out YouTube video or article that takes us step by step through your understanding of God? Bouncing all over the place does not help. I'm sure you're not the only one in history and in the entire world that thinks like you do, so send us a video or article and I promise to read its primary portions.

first thanks for your suggestion but will a You-tube video or an article written by 101G or any other man or woman will do? as suggested the Word of God will take us step by step in understanding the Godhead. sure, 101G can present many documents over the course of years that he has written, as well as here in this forum. but in all honesty, it is God himself by his "WRITTEN" word that will change hearts and mind. but until one is willing to hear God, they will never change. 101G know this.... FIRST HAND. it took an OUT of BODY experience from the Lord Jesus for me to change my mind set as to what 101G was taught about the trinity. 101G had to do what God require, which is his First Principle. Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Hebrews 5:13 "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

101G found himself with a baby bottle in his mouth. so 101G went back, yes to Genesis 1, and God guided my understanding from Genesis 1 when my first understanding came forth. and from there it was easy learning. as the old saying states, "if one want to end right, start right. and that's what 101G did, start at Genesis 1:1. there was so much information in verse 1 till all the rest of understanding was a cake walk ... for understanding the Godhead.

so, one must have a mindset to hear God and not man for understanding. when one do, God will open up one's mind of understanding. and this understanding must be built on a solid foundation. and that foundation is FAITH, until the end of basic training. once the basic is mastered, as said the rest is a cake walk.

101G suggest start at the beginning and take notes form God.

101G.

 

[Studyman]

Good. Then you can't do everything that Jesus did/does. I agree.

Doesn't matter. You're not recognizing the differences at all. Let me take your examples above and deal with them....

John 14: 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I already told you no one was more faithful than the Lord's Christ, in my view. But like Him, there were others who also strived for the Faith of Jesus, and through this faith were able to perform many of the "Works" Jesus Himself performed. Just as Jesus promised in His Words I posted, but you didn't acknowledge.

Peter started to sink.

True, when HE took his eyes off of God. But in the moment, by the Spirit of God, Peter walked on water, just as Jesus said he could do, if he had faith. Was his faith as great as the Lord's Christ, No. And yet God glorified Peter to this day, centuries after Peter was dead and buried, by showing us the Faith that was in him, and also available to us, if we only believe.

But you don't see the righteousness or faith of Peter, you only see his failures. Clearly God saw something different than you do in Peter.

This is why I listen to God, and not all of the "other voices" in the garden God placed me in.

Elijah... RAN away....

True, when HE considered his own thoughts in his distress. Nevertheless, through the same Faith and Spirit of God that was in Christ, he too, raised a dead person back to life. And God glorified him too, that even today, centuries after he died, his works of Faith, that were many, was preserved by God and written for my admonition, to give me hope in my time of need, and encouragement when I fall. Was HE given a name above that of God's Son Jesus? No! Nevertheless, Elijah was an example of a Faithful man.

But you don't see his righteousness or his faith, you only see his failures. Clearly you and God are not on the same page concerning Elijah. Perhaps you would be better served examining your own self, and not only the failures in others.

Lazarus died AGAIN....

Again, Jesus did a great "work" here, by Faith in the Power of His God, and HE raised a dead man from the dead. But look what you see? Not the great, supernatural work Jesus did, by Faith and the power of His Father. Rather, you look for or create if you can't find, an imperfection, and that is what you see.

It seems I have a different spirit in me that isn't so cynical and bitter.

Nothing even close to being like Jesus. Similar? Maybe. Close. No. There are NONE like Him. Even among the faithful. God.

That title offends you relative to loving Jesus Christ. It shouldn't at all.

Again, you create something that isn't there in your opinion, "That Title offends you". I am not offended that the Lord's Christ is better than I, stronger than I, more righteous than I at all. Neither am I offended that HE is the greatest man and most Faithful men ever to exist on earth.

Nevertheless, He gave me instruction and even though you and "many" who "Come in Christ's Name", preach to me that Jesus, like HIS Father, gave men instructions without the capacity to walk in them, I will still press toward the prize of this High calling of God, that was in Christ Jesus, simply because I don't believe you, I believe in the Jesus "of the bible.

As Paul also instructs the Body of Christ.

1 Cor. 9: 24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

So I will not let you or Civic or Kenneth Copeland or any other "minister of righteousness" discourage me into denying the Christ's instruction by Judging Him as a Master that lays a "Yoke of Bondage" on the necks of men who place their faith in Him.

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But I keep under my body, "and bring it into subjection": lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

I never said that He pretended be dead. He died in the flesh. Through that experience "God" tasted of death.

I am more interested in what the scripture actually says, here let's read it together.

Heb. 2: 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, (He was made a mortal man) crowned with glory and honour; (Judged by His Works) that he by the grace of God should taste death "for every man".

He didn't "taste death" for God, HE tasted death for man. You imply that God didn't understand the death of a mortal human. I would not assume to make such a judgment. And certainly, it is foolishness to imply that "God" died.

I disagree with your teaching that "God" tasted death as there is no scripture that says He did. But His Son Jesus, a mortal man, certainly did die, in my understanding.

Jesus didn't almost fail..........Jesus easily TRIUMPHED over death. The weakness of God is great than man. Do you remember those words?

This is easy for you to preach how easy it was for the Jesus "of the bible" to fulfill His mission, in your ivory tower, since you don't believe HE overcame as a man, but was an immortal God. But when a man actually reads what is written about Him, God's truth is brought to light.

Luke 22: 41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel "unto him" from heaven, "strengthening him".

44 And "being in an agony" he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Clearly it wasn't "Easy" for Jesus to lay down His Life for me. At least not the Jesus "of the Bible".

Jesus suffered but He didn't once come close to acting contrarily to His Divine nature. You see a weak Jesus. I see a TRIUMPH Jesus. One with more power than any man. God Incarnate.
You seem to insist that you must drag Jesus down to your own sinful level.

I understand how powerful religious traditions are with their image of God created in the Likness of man. And of course, if you are going to create an image of God, make him a long-haired incredibly handsome man with a perfect profile.

You wouldn't want to create an image of God after the following description of the Jesus "of the bible".

Is. 53: 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, "there is no beauty that we should desire him". 3 He is despised and rejected of men; "a man" of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

It isn't me who teaches that Jesus was a man, it was God Himself. I just believe Him.

You're making mistakes. I have no agenda apart from this. Just a LITTLE LEAVEN.... leavens the entire lump. You might want to apply that fact to yourself and that fact the Impeccable nature of Christ Jesus.

Realize just how pure and powerful Christ is. Till you do, you will always place yourself equal to or above Him in your theology.

I have not exalted myself over the Christ, nor have I said anything that would cause you to make up such things about me. And only a man who strives to be like Jesus, as instructed, can understand the commitment and effort HE gave to finish the Work God gave Him to do. The same Job you said was "Easy" for Jesus.

I will never diminish His effort or sacrifice by insulting Him in that manner, or insulting God for giving Him such great Glory, for simply doing, as you and Civic preach to others, what any God could do.

You no different any man. All men do.
Christ was more than a man. God Incarnate. He deserves the praise. If you can do what Jesus did... .ALL of it... then YOU deserve the praise.

Not flesh shall Glory in the presence of Jesus Christ.
He suffered once. Only three days dead..... Three days and He is alive forever more.

I don't want your praise, or the praise of man that you seek. I seek the Praise of God. It's doesn't praise God, in my view, by claiming His Son overcame sin, not by Faith or effort or commitment to His God, but because He was an immortal God, and cannot sin, and cannot die.

You are free to promote your Jesus that easily overcame this world if you like. I'm sticking to the Jesus "of the bible".

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

thanks for the reply. but 101G is what God has asked us to be...... "holy". now 101G's doctoral belief is "Diversified Oneness". Based on God SHARNING "of" HIMSELF in Flesh and Blood. this is purly bible based, plain and clear.
101G must disagree, when one understands the "ECHAD" of God then one will know and understand God as plurality of, of, of, ONE PERSON. and a great example of this is clearly seen in John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Pancho, this verse Cleary display Diversified Oneness. while "Equally Shared" in flesh and blood on earth as the Ordinal Last talking to Nicodemus, he the Lord Jesus, at the very same time was in heaven without flesh, without bone, and without blood. yes, at the same time.

101G.

My apologies for not having contacted you within the two last weeks.
I have committed entirely to the workload for the job I have received as a mission (the evaluation of adverse events of medications) and then my closest family.
I appreciate a lot your response and I now understand a bit better your position on the unity of God.