Oh!
Not me!
I'm the opposite. I have no need to sit around and highfive with my buds all day!
If I were on that SocMed thingy that has this 
; mine would hardly ever get used.
Posted on 05/24/2016 6:49:46 AM PDT by Salvation
You have just won a lovely vacation for two at a wonderful location of your choice!
Sad as it may be; you are dead on.
We should really inspect our lives through the lens of the Biblical microscope; instead of inspecting the Bible through our personal experiences.
Oh!
Not me!
I'm the opposite. I have no need to sit around and highfive with my buds all day!
If I were on that SocMed thingy that has this ; mine would hardly ever get used.
Elsie:
Thanks for the vacation!, but as I get older, more and more risk averse about travelling.
There is nothing wrong with recognizing the lens through which one reads the scriptures, to not do so one risks the scriptures being read, as you said, through an individuals one experience and perspective. To me, that is very dangerous.
Churches that have Creeds and Confessions have parameters that have been set based on 1,900 years plus of theological Tradition. So when I confess the Nicene Creed, I know I am confessing what was confessed 1,700 years ago and will be confessed thousands of years in the future.
Thus, interpreting scripture is to be done in light of the faith defined and passed down through the centuries. If you think about it, you being a Wesleyan actually provides you with somewhat of a similar framework that say Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have, vs. those groups that rely on the “so called inspiration” of some individual.
Both Mormonism and JW came out movements based on individualism of scripture interpretation. I think you would actually agree with that.
Since that is not what I said, it sounds like you are mind reading.
My tagline.
Actually, sharing a common aspect does not invalidate all you share the same, as it can also be argued that both began under the premise that the founders alone possessed papal-like ensured veracity, excluding themselves from being in error. The question is, what is Scriptural? Can "laity" be correct in discerning what is of God, based on Scriptural substantiation, even if in dissent from the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, or does being the latter, and inheritor of promises of God presence and preservation, require or infer that such office possesses ensured (conditional) infallibility?
And based on Scriptural substantiation, Jesus is the Divine Son of God, light from light, true God from True God...
Your statement implies that the Son was created.
However, John 1:1 tells us:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB
The Son has always existed as has the Father and Holy Spirit.
Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit were created.
Your answer is pretty much a non-answer which actually avoids answering the questions.
If you don't have a sufficient answer you could just say so.
Maybe look in Basic Catholic Tradition 201 and post that so countering scriptures can be posted to show what the Word of God say.
When I first read your post I thought you typed DSMO, CAE relief/swelling reduction in the knees
And EVERYTHING in those 'creeds' are found in the Scriptures.
No 'traditions' need apply.
Only partly: the JWs.
Mormonism is different.
Not content to merely misinterpret and re-invent Scripture; it added it's own.
But since the JW group wasn't getting a good enough grip on it's deceived folks; it had to CHANGE the actual wording of Scripture as well; with the NWT edition; to make it easier to fool those who are 'cautioned' against studying on their own.
Since I said nothing about what you ‘said’ you evidently can’t parse sentences.
mine
That’s just horsin’ around...
We used it on goats with Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis to keep the swelling down when showing them
The heardmaster suggested it and I said goat for it
Some specialize in not answering questions.
Only when you quote one sentence out of context as you did. If you have a better explanation I would love to see it.
Same response to the rest of your clique; if you have a better response I would love to see it.
If you saying the Son was created you are in contradiction of the verse from John 1:1 I posted. That verse is the explanation.
Reread it VERY CARFULLY Thius time I bolded Italicized and underlined the Not as a created being, For you
My original post 116 in it's entirety:
Let's try the classical Christian answer: Given the proviso that you accept that a universal highest power exists according to the Thomist view God is the un-created, first moving necessary being. He lives outside of time and space. So technically the terms before and after having no bearing on the origin of the Son.
Gods first thought was of Himself and that thought was so powerful and perfect that it resulted in the Son. Not as a created being, but rather as a reflection of the Father with all of His divinity. Since the Father already existed the Son's first thought was of Him This first thought was of the perfect love He had for the Father. The Father also immediately had a perfect love for the Son. This love resulted in the third person was the Holy Spirit. I hope this answers your question.
Now you have claimed to be attending a seminary at the graduate level I would love to see your explanation of the origin of the Trinity.
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.