The misuse and abuse of John 17:3 by Unitarians to promote Unitarianism.

[Johann]

The thread started as a discussion of a specific verse (John 17:3) in regard to who is God, and has evolved into a discussion on soteriology.
I suggest we transfer our discussion on how a person is saved to the Soteriology subforum.

I believe I have a deeper understanding of the Bahá'í faith than most here, brother.

However, with all due respect, I prefer not to continue this dialogue, @Pancho Frijoles.

Johann.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I believe I have a deeper understanding of the Bahá'í faith than most here, brother.

However, with all due respect, I prefer not to continue this dialogue, @Pancho Frijoles.

Johann.

I thank your honesty and respect your decision.

If someone else is interested in debating this aspect of soteriology, I have open a thread here:
https://berean-apologetics.communit...lood-atonement-or-physical-resurrection.2218/

 

[TomL]

Dear @Johann , @civic , @TomL, @synergy

You are having a conversation with a person who is not a Christian.
In a conversation of this kind, we exchange views on why we believe what we believe.

Let me insist on this:
I find no ethical problem in believing in the deity of Jesus, an atonement of sins based on blood shedding, and a physical resurrection, even if I hold different views. You have reasons to believe these things. You are all intelligent and sincere. You all have brought verses that, according to your understanding, support those beliefs. If such doctrines have helped to love God and your neighbor, I congratulate you. I wouldn't want you to change anything.

Having said that, I do have an issue with thinking that people who do not share these beliefs, which account to the majority of people on earth, deserve to be tormented forever, physically and mentally, due to their religious convictions. That's a not-negotiable item for me. I am absolutely committed to fight such idea, not only because it is wrong... but because it is also perverse. It distorts God character, the purpose of religion, and it justifies genocide (not in this life, but in the afterlife). Being an atheist would be much better than holding such view. I say it seriously. My wife identifies herself as an atheist, and she would never approve an eternal torment for any religious people. So, her atheism is infinitely more moral than a false Christianism that sees justice in the permanent torture of Jews or Muslims .

So, in summary

• I am not at war with the Trinity, or blood atonement, or physical resurrection, even when I hold different views about these things.
• I am at war with the justification of an afterlife genocide based on divergent views on such doctrines.

Let me know if I must clarify my position further.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion simply does not carry the weight of scripture.

Scripture states what it states, and it is contrary to your opinion.

So bottom-line your opinion means nothing to one who believe the bible is the word of God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion simply does not carry the weight of scripture.

Scripture states what it states, and it is contrary to your opinion.

So bottom-line your opinion means nothing to one who believe the bible is the word of God.

My stance is that Scripture does not support the notion that those beliefs are requested by God as a condition to get his grace.
My stance is that such view is not biblical.
I will be presenting the evidence on the corresponding thread. You are invited to discuss.

 

[TomL]

My stance is that Scripture does not support the notion that those beliefs are requested by God as a condition to get his grace.
My stance is that such view is not biblical.
I will be presenting the evidence on the corresponding thread. You are invited to discuss.

Well then address the scriptures which were posted


John 8:24Thus I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
John 6:53 (LEB) — 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves!

John 17:3 (LEB) — 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 14:6 (LEB) — 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[synergy]

You were not saved by the baptism or Lord’s Supper.
Ancient Israelites were not saved by circumcision or animal sacrifices.
Pastors or priests do not heal people spiritually by performing rituals on them or for them. That’s primitive paganism.

You are flat out rebelling against what John 3:5 explicitly states is a non-negotiable fact. One's entrance into the Kingdom of God is at stake here. You can never say that we never warned you.

(John 3:5) Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Only inasmuch as those beliefs lead you to seek repentance and be born again into a life of love.
If a belief leads you to think that a Jehovah Witness is not your brother and deserves eternal torment, then such belief is satanic and you must reject it.

• Scriptures don’t save.
• Rituals don’t save.
• Sacrifices don’t save.
• Creeds don’t save.
• God’s grace saves.

The verses you are quoting are not from the gospel of Matthew and do not represent Jesus direct teachings.
You are quoting Paul, who is speaking to the church in Rome within the context of the Greek-Judaizer controversy. A totally different context to discuss.

The word “creed” comes from the Latin word credo, which means "I believe" or "I believe and trust". What one believes must follow the following guidelines (Rom 10:8-13) if one is to be saved and is non-negotiable.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Jesus was not teaching salvation by rituals.
He was using metaphors like “being born again”, “water”, “wind/spirit”, “kingdom” as tools to convey spiritual truths: repentance and newness of life.

Another non-negotiable is the Lord's Supper through which we spiritually partake of the Life of Christ.

(John 6:53) Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.

It is Platonic Paganism that makes one rebel against the non-negotiables of the Christian Faith.

 

[synergy]

Of course it is the view Jesus had about forgiveness and salvation. He explained it several times in unequivocal terms and examples.
Haven’t you reflected on the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee? The parable of the prodigal son? The parable of the king who forgwve his subject’s debt? Havent you reflected on the words of the Lord’s prayer and the Sermon of the Mountain?
On the story of the woman who washed and anointed his feet? On the crippled man whose sins sere forgiven? On the prayer of intercession of Jesus for the Roman soldiers?

Only the Cross could possibly cure the sin infection that plagued mankind. It is sheer folly to think our sin infection can be eradicated in any other way.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations,
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross;

Jesus was bleeding and sweating in his way to Calvary for having sustained the pure, naive view of forgiveness that you had as a child.

Jesus had nothing to be forgiven of. To think otherwise is sheer heresy.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Only the Cross could possibly cure the sin infection that plagued mankind. It is sheer folly to think our sin infection can be eradicated in any other way.

No. It is a sheer folly to think that God requires blood, or the payment of a ransom, or a confession of a creed, to forgive a sin or change a life.
Sin infection is cured by God’s mercy, power, grace. Nothing else is required. He is All Powerful, All Merciful. He is Love.
Salvation is not a transaction. Not a ritual. Not an intellectual achievement.
This is Jesus’ teaching.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations,
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross;

In Colossians 2:13 and 14, Paul is not teaching that forgiveness requires accepting the doctrine of blood atonement.
Paul is saying that Jesus ended the need to follow the Law of Moses, in its ritual ordinances, like circumcision.

Jesus had nothing to be forgiven of. To think otherwise is sheer heresy.

I agree. Who said something different?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You are flat out rebelling against what John 3:5 explicitly states is a non-negotiable fact. One's entrance into the Kingdom of God is at stake here. You can never say that we never warned you.

I can respect many beliefs that I don’t share.
But believing that a ritual of sinking in water is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is not one of them.
It distorts God’s character, and the very concept of salvation by grace.
If you demand from others to be baptized in order to be forgiven, then how could you criticize those who demanded cutting the foreskin?

(John 3:5) Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The word “creed” comes from the Latin word credo, which means "I believe" or "I believe and trust". What one believes must follow the following guidelines (Rom 10:8-13) if one is to be saved and is non-negotiable.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Which confessions did Jesus require?
On the contrary, Jesus despised to be called “Lord, Lord” and exalted humble obedience to his teachings.
The verses you are quoting from Paul were written in the context of the Greek-Judaizer controversy in the church of Rome, that we will examine in the thread that I have opened in the Soteriology subforum.

Another non-negotiable is the Lord's Supper through which we spiritually partake of the Life of Christ.

It is great and inspiring that you participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Just don’t consider it a condition for God’s forgiveness.

 

[synergy]

No. It is a sheer folly to think that God requires blood, or the payment of a ransom, or a confession of a creed, to forgive a sin or change a life.
Sin infection is cured by God’s mercy, power, grace. Nothing else is required. He is All Powerful, All Merciful. He is Love.
Salvation is not a transaction. Not a ritual. Not an intellectual achievement.
This is Jesus’ teaching.


In Colossians 2:13 and 14, Paul is not teaching that forgiveness requires accepting the doctrine of blood atonement.
Paul is saying that Jesus ended the need to follow the Law of Moses, in its ritual ordinances, like circumcision.

I agree. Who said something different?

Let's take this step by step.
Col 2:14 clearly mentions our deviations (sins) being nailed to the Cross (Christ's Blood Atonement). You are flat out denying this fact.
Col 2:14 is not talking about rituals. It is talking about the Cross. You are presenting a non-sequitur here.

Conclusion: Muslims always lose whenever they attempt to transform the Bible into a Quran.

 

[mikesw]

I can respect many beliefs that I don’t share.
But believing that a ritual of sinking in water is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is not one of them.
It distorts God’s character, and the very concept of salvation by grace.
If you demand from others to be baptized in order to be forgiven, then how could you criticize those who demanded cutting the foreskin?

Uh oh. what would people say if you got baptized in water in accord with the conventions of Christ's teaching? That could be horribly embarrassing confessing that you came to God through Christ. That would be as big of a work of the law as taking a shower in the morning before going to your job. Pancho, baptism is hardly that action that should be despised by someone who has received the gift of grace through Christ Jesus blood shed for that person.
Your view distorts the way someone responds in kind to the grace they received. Your view can even remove the joy that people gain through baptism. Your view despises what God has done through Christ by rejecting the act that people should do out of obedience. But you do not believe in that obedience since you do not follow Christ. The equation is easy -- you do not come to God just to be disobedient to him.

 

[synergy]

I can respect many beliefs that I don’t share.
But believing that a ritual of sinking in water is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is not one of them.
It distorts God’s character, and the very concept of salvation by grace.
If you demand from others to be baptized in order to be forgiven, then how could you criticize those who demanded cutting the foreskin?

The abhorring of Biblical imperatives is a very Quranic and Islamic view.

Which confessions did Jesus require?
On the contrary, Jesus despised to be called “Lord, Lord” and exalted humble obedience to his teachings.
The verses you are quoting from Paul were written in the context of the Greek-Judaizer controversy in the church of Rome, that we will examine in the thread that I have opened in the Soteriology subforum.

Paul did not limit the audience scope of those verses. Therefore, those verses are imperatives applicable to anyone & everyone throughout the ages.

It is great and inspiring that you participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Just don’t consider it a condition for God’s forgiveness.

First and foremost, the Lord's Supper is the spiritual partaking of the Life of Christ. That's an alien concept to those who esteem the Quran above the Bible.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Paul did not limit the audience scope of those verses. Therefore, those verses are imperatives applicable to anyone & everyone throughout the ages.

I disagree and can discuss that in the other thread I opened. Paul was not bringing in a new religion with new requirements for salvation.
If we don’t understand the Greek-Judaizer controversy, we will not be able to understand the use of symbols in regard on atonement, Sabbath and circumcision.

First and foremost, the Lord's Supper is the spiritual partaking of the Life of Christ.

That’s a beautiful understanding.
My point is not whether you can profit spiritually from such partaking. I am glad you do.
My point is that it is not a condition to get God’s forgiveness.
God never demanded the participation in Lord’s Supper as a requisite to be forgiven. Do you agree with me on this?

 

[synergy]

I disagree and can discuss that in the other thread I opened. Paul was not bringing in a new religion with new requirements for salvation.

Nobody said that Paul was bringing in a new religion. He was reiterating the same Gospel that Jesus was proclaiming.

If we don’t understand the Greek-Judaizer controversy, we will not be able to understand the use of symbols in regard on atonement, Sabbath and circumcision.

If we don't break away from the disdain that the Quran has for Christianity, we will never understand Christianity.

That’s a beautiful understanding.
My point is not whether you can profit spiritually from such partaking. I am glad you do.
My point is that it is not a condition to get God’s forgiveness.
God never demanded the participation in Lord’s Supper as a requisite to be forgiven. Do you agree with me on this?

The reason I mentioned the Lord's Supper was to bring forward another Christian non negotiable that the Quran disdains. As for forgiveness, Col 2:14 exposes how the Quran is negligent and naive in its understanding of how man's sin infection can be cured by God.