Posted on 12/27/2016 1:47:04 PM PST by Cecily
Human nature from the mother and divine blood from the father, God Almighty. This is not negotiable.
Of course one could just read the Bible and learn Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. No councils needed.
The Creeds are the oldest expressions of the Christian faith. Teaching against what is confessed in the Creeds is NEVER safe or correct.
I will not be surprised if those who are uncertain about the virgin birth and are wrestling with faith will be present at the Resurrection. But those who teach this falsehood? I think Jesus said something about a millstone...
I love Charles Stanley- listen to him when ever I can. Few weeks ago one of his sermons was “ To whom are you listening to”. He speaks and points it all back to the Bible.
One isn’t saved by studying systematic theology. And a lot of systematic theology - predestination vs Arminians, what exactly is the Divine nature of Christ - has almost nothing to do with being saved. HOW God saves us is far less important that the He is WILLING to save us.
The Virgin Birth? God’s Word reveals it and I believe it. But I would not cease to belong to Jesus if I had not heard about it.
Did the thief on the cross know about the Trinity? Could he have discussed the Athanasian Creed?
Don’t know about that but Michelle Obama has been a guest speaker there a few times. That is telling.
Several friends and clients of mine go there. I don’t understand the attraction. The friends that are politicians I think, though I love them, they are cultural christians.
Yes, a lower-case “c”.
Yet, I don’t have the knowledge of men’s hearts.
Virgin birth is a pretty common theme in mystical myths of the pre-Christian age.
It’s found in a lot of different cultures, over eons.
I am not making the argument that Jesus was or wasn’t. But, in context, it’s a pretty common claim for those in the messianic message business.
Andy’s always been out tbere ...
He became pastor of the Great Mega Church of the Mall
Or we could just use John 3:16.
I could only find one time in 2011 where she spoke there. Still, that’s one time too many.
I can’t figure out why some preachers feel compelled to engage in speculation about the gospel, to look behind the curtain, as it were, when Paul and the other writers of the New Testament never did. They must be trying to fill up time.
Every age recycles heresy from the past. At least he could have come up with something new.
That's exactly true...However, in my experiences the Lord will instill in a born again Christian the spiritual hunger to seek His words, which are found only in the scriptures...
Don't want to believe the bible or really care what it has to say??? Perhaps the God of Creation is hanging around you but not IN you...
Well said.
“Did the thief on the cross know about the Trinity? Could he have discussed the Athanasian Creed?”
First of all, you don’t know what the thief on the cross knew or did not know. So out goes that argument. However, is the Triune God revealed in the Old Testament? Look at Genesis 1:1-3; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 18:1-3; Numbers 6:22-27; Psalm 2; Psalm 22; Psalm 45; Psalm 110; Isaiah 7:10-14; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 40; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Isaiah 61; Jeremiah 23; Jeremiah 33:14-18; Ezekiel 34; Daniel 9:16-19; Daniel 12:1-3; Malachi 3:1-2; Malachi 4:4-6. These are only some of many verses that allude to the fact that God is both singular and plural, that He has a Son and a Spirit, and that the very word God, in Hebrew, is a plural form and yet is always treated grammatically as if it were singular.
Look also at how Jesus Himself used these and other passages in the New Testament. Did He expect those who heard Him to know that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was Triune, and that He was the eternal Son? Yes, He did. That is what the three ecumenical creeds set forth, nothing more and certainly nothing less.
Second, the Athanasian Creed comes along 500 years later. So, of course, the thief did not know of it or its wording. But which statement in it is not backed up by many verses of the Old and New Testament? The Athanasian Creed, like the Apostles and Nicene before it, simply draws from the Scriptures who God is, what He has done, and what He has promised to do.
So, in short, I find your argument specious and lacking in value, just as I find Stanley’s statements lacking and incorrect. What God has spoken cannot be denied without great peril.
“Or we could just use John 3:16.”
Yes, we could, but not to deny the truth of all the others verses of God’s word that expand and complete the revelation to man of who God is. That would be a misuse of Scripture.
As my old friend Tom Baldwin once said on this very questions: He has quite a repertoire.
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.