50 Reasons Why We Are Living In The End Times: Part 1

***It says all things were created BY Him. If God is not the Creator, then you might have a point.***

Again, notice the terminology:
John 1:
1
1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

Jesus was in the beginning WITH God. This does not indicate divinity. All things came to be THROUGH Him. This does not indicate divinity. Life came to be THROUGH Him. This does not indicate divinity.

The problem is that if you read the NT in a certain fashion, then the divinity of Jesus can be dismissed. Most of the verses that describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus indicate some sort of subordination. Which, of course, as the Church has taken great pains to point out, is heresy.

Paul goes slightly beyond that in 1 Colossians:
15
6 He is the image 7 of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16
For in him 8 were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.

Notice the terminology here, too. All things were created in Him. Not by Him. All things were created through Him and for Him and not by Him.

Again, let me remind you that I believe firmly in the divinity of Jesus; in spite of these passages and because of the Church’s Catechism. Let me also ask you: if Scripture is specifically wrong or ambiguous here, can it also be wrong or ambiguous in other places and therefore it requires the Church to interpret Scripture, and not an individual man?

BY him. At least, per the ESV.

“16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”

“In him were created (en autwi ektisth).
Paul now gives the reason (oti, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (16). It is the constative aorist passive indicative ektisth (from ktizw, old verb, to found, to create (Romans 1:25). This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2 and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy. The whole of creative activity is summed up in Christ including the angels in heaven and everything on earth. God wrought through “the Son of his love.” All earthly dignities are included.

Have been created (ektistai).
Perfect passive indicative of ktizw, “stand created,” “remain created.” The permanence of the universe rests, then, on Christ far more than on gravity. It is a Christo-centric universe. “

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=016

Per Barnes: “Verse 16. For by him were all things created. This is one of the reasons why he is called “the image of God,” and the “firstborn.” He makes God known to us by his creative power, and by the same power in creation shows that he is exalted over all things as the Son of God. The phrase which is here used by the apostle is universal. He does not declare that he created all things in the spiritual kingdom of God, or that he arranged the events of the gospel dispensation, as Socinians suppose, (see Crellius;) but that everything was created by him. A similar form of expression occurs in John 1:3. See Barnes “John 1:3”. There could not possibly be a more explicit declaration, that the universe was created by Christ, than this. As if the simple declaration in the most comprehensive terms were not enough, the apostle goes into a specification of things existing in heaven and earth, and so varies the statement, as if to prevent the possibility of mistake.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=016

You write, “Again, let me remind you that I believe firmly in the divinity of Jesus; in spite of these passages and because of the Church’s Catechism.”

It didn’t need the Catholic Church’s Catechism for Jesus Christ to be understood as being God. It isn’t something to believe IN SPITE of these passages, for they are painfully clear.

No one in the early church doubted Jesus was/is God. To deny that is to deny Christianity entirely. There was a lot of philosophical debate, trying to understand things God has not revealed, such as the inner workings and meanings of the Trinity.

Scripture wasn’t written as a systematic theology text. It reveals what we need to know for salvation & living rightly before God. This it does, quite sufficiently and clearly.

By bricks and mortar, I thought that you were referring to the Church. The Church defines Christianity. Therefore it is entirely coincindent.

Thankfully, no matter how stridently the claim is made, The Roman Catholic Church does not define Christianity any longer - nor was it ever entirely coincident, by any means.

[roamer_1:] It is the Spirit who sanctions.***

That is not an answer.

It is the only answer. Every doctrine of man falls woefully short of the truth - including Roman Catholicism.

[roamer_1:] The Spirit moves upon the Oneness churches. They see the gifts of the Spirit in their churches regularly. That means more to me than any doctrinal error does.***

Not to me. That is the point. This is a claim of innate knowledge, which is Gnostic. And not Christian, given the definitions of the heresy of Gnosticism.

It is not gnostic. Very little of it has to do with "hidden knowledge". I am speaking of the value of the gifts of the Holy Spirit as evidence.

To the degree that prophets and prophesying are present, and a part of that process, I would accept that the real possibility for gnosticism exists - but for the most part, that is not what I am pointing to.

[roamer_1:] Agreed. But then one must determine the identity of the Church.***

Already done. Scripture, and the Apostolic and Apostolic Father writings are clear.

Hardly clear. At least not in the way the Roman Catholics declare.

The Spirit declares Himself to those who love the Lord. Where the gifts are found, there too, is the Church.

[roamer_1:] Sure. and I will show you Scripture that shows that the Spiritual gifts show the Presence in the Church (IOW prove the Church). Anyone can hang up a sign and throw up some pews...***

And many do. One must go to Scripture, which points to the Apostles, then the Apostolic Fathers for correct identification.

I have heard this argument all day long. It has never been a convincing argument, and it is not convincing now.

You claimed that you have been personally sanctioned by the Holy Spirit. What is the manner of that sanction? How can you show it?

According to Scripture, all Christians receive personal sanction by the Holy Spirit, each according to their faith.

My own is not a spectacular calling. I have experienced visions and dreams since a young age, and some foreknowledge (which is of little use). That is the only supernatural gifting I have been given. But I love to be in the Spirit.

My focus, having witnessed the power of God, has been in finding it expressed upon the earth and in the church (as promised), in the beauty and intricacy with which the Prophecy has been intertwined within and throughout the Word, and how the Prophecy has continued to progress through the ages (as promised). In other words, proof.

So, in the course of my life, I have sought where the Spirit has led, and I have been satisfied to be a witness for the Lord. Not a perfect one, by any means... In fact, among the least of them all. Hopefully, He will see fit to give me more.

Sorry, I'm late to the table again...was on another thread.

Re:I would suggest looking at the terminology. All things were made for and through Him. This does not identify Him as God. All this does is identify Him as powerful.

Please note that I believe that Jesus is Divine and the second Person of the Trinity; it is just that Paul does not specifically identify Him as God.

I beg to differ, Paul most certainly referred to Jesus as God. Several times when he even was first starting out in the ministry. He says:

Act 14:15

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:,

Also:

Act 17:24

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

I read from just these two verses that Paul says the true God created all things. If it is agreed that Jesus created ALL things, then Jesus must be God.

It's a curious thing that you claim there is no evidence of the Trinity in the scriptures and your religion 'developed' the doctrine 400 years after the fact...

Developed from what??? A premonition??? A dream??? A fortune cookie???

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Notice the terminology here, too. All things were created in Him. Not by Him. All things were created through Him and for Him and not by Him.

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

You obviously don't get your information from the Bible...

Or have been influenced by them. Yet modalism is frequent enough in the Christian mainstream. http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/monarch.html says that:

From the quoted bit:

Sabellius’ view saw the existence of the Son as confined to his earthly work. Consequently he cannot continue to be ‘an advocate with the Father’ (1 John 2:1) or be said to ‘live forever to make intercession’ (Heb. 7:25).

From what I can make out, and from what I know, that is not the case in any major Protestant branch, nor is it the case with the Oneness Pentecostals.

While I admit their view is modalist, it is my impression that they believe the modal feature to still exist after the resurrection and ascension. As a further admission, this issue is further confused by their declaration that the natural "condition" of Jehovah is not God the Father, but Jesus Christ. This is very odd to my sensibilities. But either way, they do believe the act of intercession is very much active and eternal.

But as I said before, this is much ado about something that is a serious mystery. The trinitarian view is by no means settled, that is to say, provable, and is equally as complex and fraught with inconsistency.

I would be far more critical of the Oneness movement for their elitism (only Oneness are elect), and their non-biblical approach to salvation - namely that one must believe, repent, be baptized in water, and baptized in the Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, in order to be saved. These must create impossible hurdles for some new believers, IMHO.

So i don't intend to defend their doctrine - I find it as poorly formed as you do. Still, they see the power of the Spirit within their churches - real manifestations of the gifts. So in spite of their doctrines (not because of them), the Body of Christ is there, in individuals, and individual churches.

Browsing through the various denominational websites, the Trinity is rarely defined apart from the Creeds or the occasional Catholic definition (usually used without reference to Catholicism :) ).

That does not necessarily create the jump from trinitarian to modalist.

This is quite comparable to my being called an Arminian by one of the Calvinists hereon because of my reservations concerning Calvin's views on predestination. Between Calvinists, this is a fatal slur - bordering upon a curse.

Now, while I am a pretty poor Calvinist, the slur assumes an either/or mindset, which is not in evidence.

Everywhere I have ever gone, the Trinity is taught, and accepted, though not particularly emphasized. The emphasis in Protestantism tends to be Christ and the Bible, especially so when one ventures outward from the Lutheran/Reformed core.

Perhaps that strong focus is odd to the Catholic mind, which (and I mean no offense in this at all), seems to require more mechanisms and see things as requiring a much greater scope than Protestants do.

[MarkBsnr:] ***Christianity is a belief set, not knowledge. Therefore there is no PROOF. There is the definition of Christianity set by the Church. If you deviate from that, it is by definition, non Christian.

[roamer_1:] What a pompous, ill-conceived idea.***

Pompous? No. Ill conceived? It is part of the responsibility of the Church and is extensively documented going right back to the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers.

I don't really have the desire to get into the 1200 years of paganism, genocide, political intrigues, and etcetera which are the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church. You already know my position on it, and I will not be moved from it. To suggest that such as that kept the true faith is easy to reject.

Come! Let's go together and learn how to worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth! His yoke is light, and He is the fullness of healing and forgiveness.

It matters not a whit about the cutlery. :) The authority is placed upon the Consensus Patrum, which, through the Ecumenical Councils beginning in the second century, validated its doctrinal developments and growing understanding of God and the Faith.

See above.

We don’t all agree on anything. Simon Magus and the Gnostics; and the Judaizers were the first major threats against the Church. The Creeds were developed for the people to have a formula that they could recite in short form that was a summary of the Faith. [...]

That was before the Scriptures were made widely available. The Book settles all this nonsense if we quit trying to pump ourselves up with doctrine that isn't there.

It is not nonsense. The Catechism is clear.

No, it is not.

That is a tall order. How does one go about that understanding without the possibility of satan and not the Holy Spirit being the leader if one has a loose grasp of Christian faith?

Yet believers in the Bible believed, were baptized, and received the Spirit almost immediately - no grasp of the Christian faith *at all*, except for those words spoken by the apostles and their disciples...

Is it your position that the promise made by Christ is insufficient? Or that believers should forgo that promise on the basis that men must be in the place of the Spirit until it is guaranteed that the Spirit can handle the job?

And is it your purpose to imply that Pentecostals/Charismatics, particularly, have a loose grip on faith? Because would have to say that I have seen their faith confirmed time after time, and it is likewise, confirmed in me.

Can the experience be forged by the devil? Oh, no doubt! It is forged every day with drugs and with "meditation" techniques, and all sorts of things. I would be remiss to suggest that *every* church is protected, and that *no* believer is misled.

But even so, churches and individuals are misled by false doctrines and false leaders too - None are immune, and nothing can be relied upon, especially in the world of men. That is why the Bible is so important as a primary anchor. Something, somewhere must be used as the sole standard.

Believe me, I looked for a very, very long time for guidance from the Church. There is *none* outside of Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

I don’t want to jump too deep into a discussion of the Trinity, but...

Some facts are taught in Scripture: Jesus is God. God the Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are one, yet the Scripture describes them with personal pronouns.

One doesn’t go very far from that before one leaves revelation from God and enters speculation from men. The Church Councils from 300 on sometimes dealt with genuine issues, but often speculated - and banned - things that had nothing to do with believing in Jesus or living a life pleasing to God. The date to celebrate Easter isn’t exactly a core belief in Christianity, but the Bishop of Rome was more interested in rejecting people for that than evangelizing the lost!

I don’t think God is all that worried about majority votes by Bishops who cared more for their power than for preaching the Good News. If God required a detailed knowledge of the Trinity for salvation, HE would have provided it. In detail. If He could provide Levitical priests detailed descriptions of what to wear & do, He could also have provided “The Apostle Peter & Paul’s Book of Systematic Theology”.

He didn’t, and we ought to show humility and not go beyond what He has revealed about Himself. We are not qualified to do that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.