Wrangler
Well-known member
If the trinity is not a salvation thing, then why do trinitarians assert it, violating the 1C & 2C, is the central message of Scripture?
Salvation and Unitarians
- Thread starter praise_yeshua
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The fact "You've Sinned" is theology. The fact that "Judgement is coming" is theology. "Crying out to God" is theology.
Plenty of people are calling upon an Idol they've fabricated. Do you really think God answers such a call?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I wouldn't make it about the entirety of the doctrine. However, I do make it about the Divinity of Christ. God Incarnate.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
And the "WORD" referenced in John 1, who was incarnated as "Jesus" was there from the get-go.
civic
Well-known member
Yes Christ is the main issue. But I’m not sure most Christians understand who He really is would you agree?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
@civic not saying that a person has to know all the intricate details. However, they must see the nature of the Atonement. Which requires a sacrifice without spot or blemish. No mere man has ever been such a worthy sacrifice as Christ.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The intricate nature of Divinity.... I do agree that it is not necessary. The purity of the sacrificial offering and the uniqueness exclusively of Christ. Yes. At least those basic attributes.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Not when it's God Speaking directly TO YOU in Conviction of SIN. That's a "Live encounter". Nothing "Theological" about it. You're "ON THE SPOT" and you KNOW IT.
God looks on the HEART, not the outer appearance. According to His will, God probably honors prayers sent to the Catholic "Mary thing" even when it suits His purposes.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
This is where we have always disagreed. It is the knowledge of the sacrificial offering of Christ that begins conviction. Such comes from the preaching of Jesus Christ. The Spirit finishes the work. It does not start it like you're claiming.
Yes. The BLACK HEART of the sinner that needs salvation.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
I was there when it did. He showed me some of my sins, and there was a "sense" that it could be my last chance.
And Everybody in the Old Testament had "Black Hearts", and were sinners. "Theology" doesn't save, FAITH DOES.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
BTW. Many Catholics believe in the purity of Christ and the exclusive work of the Atonement. Yes. They make many mistakes afterwards but don't we all...... Mary is a mistake. Even sin but she does not cloud the narrative of Jesus Christ to the point of often obscuring the reality of the Atonement.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I was there too. There is a tendency to remember the power of the Spirit of God in conversion. That is what we remember most. However, we can not discount the work of the Gospel. It began that work in us brother.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
@civic @Bob Carabbio
To be clear, I'm not requiring deep extensive knowledge of Christ before conversion. In fact, I believe, at times, belief is actually the commitment to God to believe Him for exactly who He is. This really requires saying "I don't know but WHATEVER IT IS, I will trust you".
To be clear, I'm not requiring deep extensive knowledge of Christ before conversion. In fact, I believe, at times, belief is actually the commitment to God to believe Him for exactly who He is. This really requires saying "I don't know but WHATEVER IT IS, I will trust you".
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Like Abraham: "You want me to kill who????!!"
Last edited:
Wow. Your proof in refuting all that I have asserted amounted to....nothing.
You are at least consistent in your evasions.
APAK
Active member
I would not be too hasty in drawing that conclusion you have made based in the readings of Joel, Romans and Acts that Jesus is the same as God Almighty.
Actually the use of LORD or mostly translated as Lord in Joel and other places in the OT should be YHWH. And part of the confusion then lies in the fact that in the NT Jesus is also called Lord. They are not the same in meaning and person as you may think.
Now Paul and in Acts we both know that Jesus is being called out as our Lord and Savior, the Lord, better lord, and the mediator for us to his Father who is YHWH. Paul is emphasizing by quoting Joel that the RESPONSIBILY for salvation has changed or shifted from the Father God YHWH DIRECTLY of the OT to his Son directly for our salvation under grace then and today. Paul recognized this shift of responsibility from the Father to the Son. In other words, we go through the Son to be saved as delegated by YHWH his Father. The identities of each have not changed or merged to be the same person in anyway.
A clear biblical example:
This responsibility that our lord Jesus now has since the grace of God was foreshadowed in the OT record of Joseph: the people would go to Pharaoh for their needs to be met, but after Pharaoh elevated Joseph to second-in-command, he told them, 'Go to Joseph.' No one would conclude that Pharaoh and Joseph were the same being or person, and there is no reason to conclude that Jesus and God are both 'God' just because Jesus now has some of the responsibilities that God had until He exalted Jesus.
Wrangler
Well-known member
I've explained this several dozen times to our trinitarian friends. I even started a whole thread on the topic. Why The Trinity is Wrong: Lord v LORD. They continue confounding LORD with lord knowing it is incorrect.
Diserner
Well-known member
Wouldn't Trinitarians all be committing blatant idolatry? Why would you consider this forgivable?
I wonder too, what do you think would be different—how would your current perspective change—if let's just say theoretically, Jesus were God?
What would change about how you see him?
civic
Well-known member
When the NT quotes an OT passage that uses the Hebrew name YHWH and uses the Greek equivalent word Kurious ( Lord ) it means the same thing in the Hebrew- YHWH and Lord become synonymous terms in Scripture.
Last edited:
Diserner
Well-known member
Yes, that's right. I've often wondered why the NT never used the divine name directly.
My current theory is not to unnecessarily offend those coming out of Judaism.
Similar threads
