|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 29, 2010 13:27:29 GMT -5
Ok, I need to get something off my chest and it involves recent dealings with some people and certain other websites. Let me say right off the bat I am not a Preterist. I am not a Futurist. I am not an Anglo-Franco-Irish-Native American-American. I am not a Right-Wing Fundamentalist. I am not a Left-Wing Liberal. I am not anything any of those things such stereotypical terms might suggest. Here's the problem with such labels: they are "discussion-enders." Here's what I mean (and I will cite two recent examples from my own recent past to illustrate my point.) Up until a few months ago, I was very active on another website (PM me if you want the name of it), and underwent a massive transformation there in my understanding of prophecy. I had been there for about 4 years and had learned quite a bit (thank you Retrobyter and Bob97, if you ever happen to read this). As a result of my learning there, I had abandoned most of what people consider the "mainstream futurist" view of prophecy. As a result of my posts, which reflected my evolving learning, I was told by the administration of that website to restrict all future posts to the "Preterist One-Stop Thread." In all my years of church and Christian college experience, I had never heard the term "preterist" nor even knew what it meant! When I had embarked upon my search for the truth, I had decided to follow the evidence wherever it might lead. If the scripture could be shown to support the mainstream view, I would've gone with that. However, the more I read from the defenders on that website of the mainstream evangelical view, as typified by LaHaye, Jenkins, van Impe, et al, the more nonsensical the view became. When I repeatedly tried to point out the nonsense of the positions they were taking, I was banned for life from that website for failing to keep my posts in the "Preterist-only" thread: a kind of intellectual and doctrinal "ghetto" that people could avoid because of the supposed dangers such views represented to the faith of others. (I guess that's where they keep the people they believe to be heretics while still maintaining a veneer of free and open discussion.) Does that mean I am a Preterist? No, and here's why: A few weeks ago, when I asked the pastor at a new church my wife and I were attending to explain why the word "tribulation" (thlipsis) is never mentioned in any form AFTER Revelation 7:14 (he was teaching on Revelation), he said, "Oh, so you're a preterist", then proceeded to ignore my question. "Preterist", as it happened, was a label that allowed him to think he knew everything about my eschatology and theology there was to know and, in knowing, to ignore me. He placed me in the same doctrinal ghetto in his mind to which a website had likewise relegated me. All I did was ask a question pertaining to the teaching I had just heard. I'm not writing this to garner sympathy or support. I am writing this to warn people of the danger in labels which are - more often than not - used to relegate people of a certain point of view (any point of view) to a place of cold indifference, or worse, outright disdain. I will never allow myself to be called "preterist" or "futurist" because - as even those in the Body of Christ have shown - such labels engender prejudice and animosity, neither of which has any place in our search for the truth. I, therefore, remain committed to following the evidence where it leads and leaving the labels to people who cannot seem to think any deeper about the Bible than that which they can read on a bumper sticker or billboard. And that is the end of my rant. (P.S. I am a conservative Christian, so if that offends anyone, I'm OK with that. We're used to being ignored.  |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 29, 2010 13:35:41 GMT -5
Ok, I need to get something off my chest and it involves recent dealings with some people and certain other websites. Let me say right off the bat I am not a Preterist. I am not a Futurist. I am not an Anglo-Franco-Irish-Native American-American. I am not a Right-Wing Fundamentalist. I am not a Left-Wing Liberal. I am not anything any of those things such stereotypical terms might suggest. Here's the problem with such labels: they are "discussion-enders." Here's what I mean (and I will cite two recent examples from my own recent past to illustrate my point.) Up until a few months ago, I was very active on another website (PM me if you want the name of it), and underwent a massive transformation there in my understanding of prophecy. I had been there for about 4 years and had learned quite a bit (thank you Retrobyter and Bob97, if you ever happen to read this). As a result of my learning there, I had abandoned most of what people consider the "mainstream futurist" view of prophecy. As a result of my posts, which reflected my evolving learning, I was told by the administration of that website to restrict all future posts to the "Preterist One-Stop Thread." In all my years of church and Christian college experience, I had never heard the term "preterist" nor even knew what it meant! When I had embarked upon my search for the truth, I had decided to follow the evidence wherever it might lead. If the scripture could be shown to support the mainstream view, I would've gone with that. However, the more I read from the defenders on that website of the mainstream evangelical view, as typified by LaHaye, Jenkins, van Impe, et al, the more nonsensical the view became. When I repeatedly tried to point out the nonsense of the positions they were taking, I was banned for life from that website for failing to keep my posts in the "Preterist-only" thread: a kind of intellectual and doctrinal "ghetto" that people could avoid because of the supposed dangers such views represented to the faith of others. (I guess that's where they keep the people they believe to be heretics while still maintaining a veneer of free and open discussion.) Does that mean I am a Preterist? No, and here's why: A few weeks ago, when I asked the pastor at a new church my wife and I were attending to explain why the word "tribulation" (thlipsis) is never mentioned in any form AFTER Revelation 7:14 (he was teaching on Revelation), he said, "Oh, so you're a preterist", then proceeded to ignore my question. "Preterist", as it happened, was a label that allowed him to think he knew everything about my eschatology and theology there was to know and, in knowing, to ignore me. He placed me in the same doctrinal ghetto in his mind to which a website had likewise relegated me. All I did was ask a question pertaining to the teaching I had just heard. I'm not writing this to garner sympathy or support. I am writing this to warn people of the danger in labels which are - more often than not - used to relegate people of a certain point of view (any point of view) to a place of cold indifference, or worse, outright disdain. I will never allow myself to be called "preterist" or "futurist" because - as even those in the Body of Christ have shown - such labels engender prejudice and animosity, neither of which has any place in our search for the truth. I, therefore, remain committed to following the evidence where it leads and leaving the labels to people who cannot seem to think any deeper about the Bible than that which they can read on a bumper sticker or billboard. And that is the end of my rant. (P.S. I am a conservative Christian, so if that offends anyone, I'm OK with that. We're used to being ignored. Crow, I am glad you're here.  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Dec 29, 2010 13:46:20 GMT -5
LOL - you think you got it bad? I am not only a full preterist but a calvinist to boot! the horrors! Blessings, brother!
PS: I am glad you are here too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 29, 2010 13:48:27 GMT -5
I don't care for labels either but sometimes the label fits. I am a Preterist. I believe in all things fulfilled. I would rather be known as a Biblist but that label is not interpreted fairly either. How I define and refine my preterism is not exactly the same as another Preterist but the label seems to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 29, 2010 13:58:22 GMT -5
Stormcrow,
What you said was not a rant. It is a common occurrence on sites who believe they know everything, like CARM, for instance...
Here are my most basic definitions and how I use them:
Preterist - One who believes the Lord's parousia coming is a past event. Believers today will not experience the parousia spoken of in the Scripture.
Futurist - One who believes the parousia is a yet future event.
There are lots of mixes in both points of view...
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 29, 2010 14:11:33 GMT -5
LOL - you think you got it bad? I am not only a full preterist but a calvinist to boot! the horrors! Blessings, brother! PS: I am glad you are here too! Yeah Wanda and some of our Calvinist "brothers" think that you and I are traitors. Yet Reformation Theology was just about the five solas. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 17:24:53 GMT -5
And while you all are consoling one another about being rejected for your unpopular or heretical views (preterist, calvinist, what have you), how many will draw their line in the sand for non-trinitarian views? I don't like labels, either, but it seems that even those who don't like labels and have experienced the sting of rejection for one heresy or another, will step into the shoes of their persecutors when it comes to something else, your "heresy of choice."
Someone here recently posted that he doesn't believe in breaking fellowship over differing doctrines and beliefs, as long as they don't deny this, this, and that. Everyone has their line in the sand.
"But we have to draw the line someplace, don't we?" Yes, I think so. How about we use the same line drawn in the Scriptures:
These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? (1 John 2:22)
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1)
"But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to him, "You are the Christ." (Mark 8:29)
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 30, 2010 17:44:01 GMT -5
Since you asked, Bev, I refuse to disfellowship with a non-trinitarian (if that is what you want to be labeled with  ) because I believe that even though I do not agree with you concerning the Trinity we still share the truth that Jesus Christ came to earth as a babe, lived a sinless life among men, offered forgiveness of sin to all, and allowed Himself to be crucified as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who come to Him in faith. At least this is what I hope we share in faith. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 17:59:47 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
It depends on the particular view of the particular non-trinitarian. The Father sent the Son who is THE Savior of the world. Many non-trinitarians have a problem with this. They redact this to mean, "The Father IS the savior and He sent the Son to be a savior." But it says that Jesus Christ is THE Savior of the world!
Non-trinitarianism not always but ususally leads to the denial that Jesus Christ is THE Savior.
If a father and a son are walking down the street and the father sees a child slip from his mother's hand and run into the street and says to his son, "Go save that child", the father does not become the savior of that child by the sending of his son. His son who took the hit by the car and died and is THE Savior of the child.
The apostle John said that Jesus Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins. This means that Jesus Christ alone took the hit! And Revelation 5 says that the Lamb is worthy of praise and worship for it. The Father did not bear any reproaches. Paul said that Jesus Himself bore all reproaches even those against His Father.
Jesus Christ is THE Savior. In Isaiah 43:11 God said, "Besides Me there is no Savior." The implication is clear! Therefore, Jesus cannot be a savior besides God. It is truly amazing how non-trinitarians are such sticklers with expressions like "only God." Yet they allow more latitude with expressions like "only Savior." They allow for Christ to be a savior alongside of God. Non-trinitarians can't have it both ways.
Savior = God (Is. 43:11)
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 18:31:04 GMT -5
Bev wrote: It depends on the particular view of the particular non-trinitarian. The Father sent the Son who is THE Savior of the world. Many non-trinitarians have a problem with this. They redact this to mean, "The Father IS the savior and He sent the Son to be a savior." But it says that Jesus Christ is THE Savior of the world! Non-trinitarianism not always but ususally leads to the denial that Jesus Christ is THE Savior. If a father and a son are walking down the street and the father sees a child slip from his mother's hand and run into the street and says to his son, "Go save that child", the father does not become the savior of that child by the sending of his son. His son who took the hit by the car and died and is THE Savior of the child. The apostle John said that Jesus Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins. This means that Jesus Christ alone took the hit! And Revelation 5 says that the Lamb is worthy of praise and worship for it. The Father did not bear any reproaches. Paul said that Jesus Himself bore all reproaches even those against His Father. Jesus Christ is THE Savior. In Isaiah 43:11 God said, "Besides Me there is no Savior." The implication is clear! Therefore, Jesus cannot be a savior besides God. It is truly amazing how non-trinitarians are such sticklers with expressions like "only God." Yet they allow more latitude with expressions like "only Savior." They allow for Christ to be a savior alongside of God. Non-trinitarians can't have it both ways. Savior = God (Is. 43:11) Roo Roo, we've been through this before regarding THE savior vs. A savior. Jesus is the only savior sent to save us from our sins. In that respect, he certainly is THE savior. Yes, God said in Isaiah 43:11 that there is no Savior besides Him. Yet He sent many saviors (deliverers). But the only savior he sent to deliver His people from sin was Jesus. Matthew 1:21 NASB (21) "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 18:35:21 GMT -5
Since you asked, Bev, I refuse to disfellowship with a non-trinitarian (if that is what you want to be labeled with ) because I believe that even though I do not agree with you concerning the Trinity we still share the truth that Jesus Christ came to earth as a babe, lived a sinless life among men, offered forgiveness of sin to all, and allowed Himself to be crucified as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who come to Him in faith. At least this is what I hope we share in faith. The only thing I question regarding what you wrote, Allyn, is that Jesus "came to earth." I don't believe in his preexistence. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 30, 2010 18:36:37 GMT -5
Since you asked, Bev, I refuse to disfellowship with a non-trinitarian (if that is what you want to be labeled with ) because I believe that even though I do not agree with you concerning the Trinity we still share the truth that Jesus Christ came to earth as a babe, lived a sinless life among men, offered forgiveness of sin to all, and allowed Himself to be crucified as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who come to Him in faith. At least this is what I hope we share in faith. The only thing I question regarding what you wrote, Allyn, is that Jesus "came to earth." I don't believe in his preexistence. Where did He come from then? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 18:43:48 GMT -5
The only thing I question regarding what you wrote, Allyn, is that Jesus "came to earth." I don't believe in his preexistence. Where did He come from then? Mary's womb, by the power of the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 30, 2010 18:48:02 GMT -5
Where did He come from then? Mary's womb, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Of course, but that doesn't explain why you believe He didn't come to earth. Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God in that monogenes means "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind."? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 18:49:14 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
Please note that Bev said "I don't believe...." She did not say that the scripture does not say that Christ was preexistent. Fact is, Paul disagrees with Bev:
How could David call Christ "My Adon" (Lord) and "My Adonay" (God) if he did not know him (Psalm 110:1-5)?
It's not at all about what Bev "believes" or what I believe. It's about "What saith the scriture?"
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 18:56:44 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
Bev,
What about the expression "BESIDES Me there is no savior" do you not understand? The same language is used in chapter 44 which says, "BESIDES Me there is no God." If you cannot allow another god besides God, then you cannot allow another savior besides God. You can't have it both ways!
Your assertion that God sent other saviors is false. Non trinitarians often invoke Moses as "a savior." Yet Moses himself included himself among those who were saved (Numbers 20:16).
Was Jesus included among the saved Bev?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 30, 2010 18:57:15 GMT -5
We also know that Jesus descended before He ascended
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 30, 2010 18:57:37 GMT -5
"...how many will draw their line in the sand for non-trinitarian views?" I don't have a dog(ma) in that hunt. I see and understand both views. I am willing to let the Lord explain it to me when I see Him. Allow me to expand a bit further as to why I see a "Unitarian" point of view: When Christ issued the Great Commission, He didn't tell the disciples to baptize in the name s of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To the best extent of my understanding, the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are one, not just in purpose but in essence. Having said that, I also understand the Trinitarian view, however, I have seen Trinitarians slip into the same heresies that Unitarians (and Muslims, Mormons, and JWs) do: that Jesus Christ is a created being and that's how they address the apparent difference between the father and Son in scripture. I take the view that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three ways in which God has chosen to manifest Himself to man, but all three are still one and the same God. That's the only way I believe you can reconcile the two disparate views (Trinitarian vs. Unitarian) especially in light of John 1:1. That may not be the correct view, but that's what helps get my head around the issue. I'll just have to wait to see who was right in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 19:06:27 GMT -5
We also know that Jesus descended before He ascended Amen Allyn! Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 19:13:58 GMT -5
Bev wrote: Please note that Bev said "I don't believe...." She did not say that the scripture does not say that Christ was preexistent. Fact is, Paul disagrees with Bev: ... 1 Corinthians 10:6 NASB (6) Now these things happened as examples (tupos: figure, type, example) for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. What are "these things" that were types? 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 NASB (1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; (2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) and all ate the same spiritual food; (4) and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. These specific events: (a ) passing through the Red Sea (b ) manna from heaven in the wilderness (c ) water from the rock in the wilderness. Paul uses the incident of passing through the Red Sea as corresponding to Christian baptism into Christ (he doesn’t say that the Israelites were baptised into Christ, but into Moses). The type of the manna in the wilderness is fulfilled in Christ. He specifically said: John 6:49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. Jesus was not literally the manna - the manna was a type of Christ. The account of the rock is related at Numbers 20: 8 "Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle." 9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. The rock provided abundant water. This theme is also taken up by Jesus in his discourse with the woman of Samaria in John 4: 13 Jesus said to her, "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." So both the manna (the spiritual food) and the spiritual rock (the spiritual rock which gave abundant water) were types of Christ.Jesus was not literally the rock that Moses struck. The rock was Christ in the sense that the rock represented Christ. In the same way Jesus said of the bread – “this is my body”. It is not literally true. (Credit to Elpis at CARM for this explanation, which I copied and saved last year.) |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 19:14:08 GMT -5
Jesus said:
Jesus said that He would ascend to where He was BEFORE. David saw His Lord at God's right hand. David called Him "MY Lord." David could not have called Christ "MY Lord" if he had not known Him. David's Lord left His position at God's right hand and became a servant and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2). God exalted Him and He ascended to God's right hand where He was BEFORE.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 19:18:07 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
They ate of the spiritual bread and drank of the spiritual rock. The spiritual was Christ. Geez!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 19:31:00 GMT -5
Bev wrote: Bev, What about the expression "BESIDES Me there is no savior" do you not understand? The same language is used in chapter 44 which says, "BESIDES Me there is no God." If you cannot allow another god besides God, then you cannot allow another savior besides God. You can't have it both ways!Your assertion that God sent other saviors is false. Non trinitarians often invoke Moses as "a savior." Yet Moses himself included himself among those who were saved (Numbers 20:16). Was Jesus included among the saved Bev? Roo Psalms 82:1 KJV (1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Psalms 82:6 KJV (6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. John 10:35-36 NASB (35) "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), (36) do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? Roo wrote: "Your assertion that God sent other saviors is false."
Judges 3:9 NASB (9) When the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for the sons of Israel to deliver them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. Judges 3:15 NASB (15) But when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. 2 Kings 13:5 NASB (5) The LORD gave Israel a deliverer, so that they escaped from under the hand of the Arameans; and the sons of Israel lived in their tents as formerly. Nehemiah 9:27 NASB (27) "Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their oppressors who oppressed them, But when they cried to You in the time of their distress, You heard from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You gave them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their oppressors. Acts 13:23 NASB (23) "From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 30, 2010 19:33:45 GMT -5
A God simple enough for us to understand would be too small and weak to save us. He certainly would not be worth the time spent throughout the ages arguing over.  I'll leave you with this quote from Spurgeon (I believe): "If man created God, why did he make him so holy?" |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 30, 2010 19:54:32 GMT -5
Roo wrote:
Bev replied:
You misapply these scripture Bev. These "deliverers" were types of Christ who was the SUBSTANCE and the TRUE deliverer. Joshua is an example of a "deliverer" who was not the true deliverer.
Moses was also a "deliverer" who was not the TRUE deliverer. He attributed their deliverance to the Messenger
Why is it that you fail to see that Christ is the TRUE Savior?
There was never another TRUE deliverer but Christ. There is no comparison between type and substance. Therefore, your assertion that God sent other deliverers as you define the word "deliverer"[/i] remains false.[/b]
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 20:18:23 GMT -5
... I have seen Trinitarians slip into the same heresies that Unitarians (and Muslims, Mormons, and JWs) do: that Jesus Christ is a created being and that's how they address the apparent difference between the father and Son in scripture. .. Thanks, stormcrow. I appreciate your comments. Can you tell me why you think "Jesus Christ is a created being" is a heresy? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 30, 2010 20:23:39 GMT -5
Hmm. It seems this simple thread about labels has turned into an inquisition. Stormcrow, you don't have to answer my question to you. I don't want to get caught up in the hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 30, 2010 20:37:11 GMT -5
Hmm. It seems this simple thread about labels has turned into an inquisition. Stormcrow, you don't have to answer my question to you. I don't want to get caught up in the hunt. Personally I have been just responding so far. But I can see your point. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 30, 2010 21:13:51 GMT -5
"Can you tell me why you think "Jesus Christ is a created being" is a heresy?" If Jesus is a created being, He suffers under the same Adamic curse that all creation does. Consequently, He would require a redeemer as well. If He requires a redeemer, then He cannot redeem us. The sacrificial atonement had to be a spotless lamb, free of defect. Were Christ created, He would be as tainted by the stain of sin as anyone of us, and His sacrificial death could not atone for us. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (which is what the phrase "God incarnate"means). If He is created, He cannot be God. And if He is not God, He cannot save us, as there is only one name under heaven by which men must be saved. As someone else cited Isaiah, God alone is savior. Therefore either Christ is also God (something to which He alluded to many times in scripture), or He is not. If He is not, His death, no matter how well intentioned, was in vain. Oh, and as to why I believe it's a heresy? Because it nullifies the atonement, which is the single-most important truth of the entire Bible. That's my $.02. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 0:04:57 GMT -5
"Can you tell me why you think "Jesus Christ is a created being" is a heresy?" If Jesus is a created being, He suffers under the same Adamic curse that all creation does. Consequently, He would require a redeemer as well. If He requires a redeemer, then He cannot redeem us. The sacrificial atonement had to be a spotless lamb, free of defect. Were Christ created, He would be as tainted by the stain of sin as anyone of us, and His sacrificial death could not atone for us. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (which is what the phrase "God incarnate"means). If He is created, He cannot be God. And if He is not God, He cannot save us, as there is only one name under heaven by which men must be saved. As someone else cited Isaiah, God alone is savior. Therefore either Christ is also God (something to which He alluded to many times in scripture), or He is not. If He is not, His death, no matter how well intentioned, was in vain. Oh, and as to why I believe it's a heresy? Because it nullifies the atonement, which is the single-most important truth of the entire Bible. That's my $.02. Thanks, stormcrow. Nothing new there. Normal reformed response. That's not to assume that you are "Reformed," just that what you provided was typical of the type of response I usually get from those who are. |
|
