Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
No gymnastics required at all, if you read it as this reference lays it out.
Again, I don't object to your reading, but I don't think another reading necessarily equates to "God Damned Heresy".
FRiend, I know nothing about Freemason secrets.
What I do know is that many Founders, including George Washington were Freemasons, and that while Washington had frequent praise for "Providence", he wrote little or nothing about Jesus Christ.
Washington's religious views seem to me typical of his time: Enlightenment Age, deistically or theistically influenced Christianity.
American Freemasons, then and now, were far from "anti-Christian", but they often had ideas which on this thread, at least, made them "God Damned Heretics".
That's why I'm here defending them.
Do you not yet "get" that?
That's your opinion and I respect it.
I'm here to request that you treat other opinions -- such as those of Founders and today's "restorationists" Christians -- with forbearance and respect, here on Free Republic.
They don't deserve to be called "God Damned Heretics".
FRiend irish: You are hugely mistaken -- on God's creating the Universe ex nihilo, I believe it and have never denied it.
As for your non-biblical term "Word Almighty" I would take it to mean something different than you do.
I don't believe that difference requires you to label such beliefs as "Damnable Heresy".
Since our Founders and millions of "restorationists" Christians shared similar beliefs, I'm asking you to treat them with forbearance and respect, in Free Republic News/Activism.
BJK response: "God Damned Heretic" is a pretty strong opinion, one reminding us that Jesus was called a God Damned Blasphemer before being murdered, and that countless other Christians were called "God Damned Heretics" before they too were murdered (i.e., burned at the stake) in the name of orthodox Christianity.
boatbums: "You apparently believe that doctrine doesn't or shouldn't matter to a Christian and you would be absolutely WRONG to think that."
FRiend, I am here to request that religious views similar to those of our Founders and today's "restorationists" Christians should be treated with forbearance and respect on Free Republic, especially in News/Activism.
boatbums: "All you have to do is look at how God dealt with it to know that it IS highly critical to following God in a correct way and according to how HE wants us to.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't respect others and to treat others as we would want to be treated, but when someone promotes ideas that fly in the face of the truth, they SHOULD be corrected."
"Treat others as we would want to be treated?" -- now there's a novel idea.
Wherever did it come from? </sarc>
As for "Corrected", sure.
"Debated", sure.
Labeled as a "God Damned Heretic", no, not on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
boatbums quoting 2 John 1:9: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God;"
And yet, in no post on this thread or any other have I denied even a word of what the New Testament clearly says about Jesus.
boatbums: "Nobody says you should be murdered - THAT is being hysterical."
Sorry, FRiend boatbums, but the "hysteria" is all on your team, and you should be helping to bring these lunatics under control.
A reckless charge of "God Damned Heresy" is at least the religious equivalent of a racist's "N-word".
It is even more offensive (since we are told that some lovers call each other the "N-word"), it's as historically murderous (compare the number of former slaves murdered in this country to heretics worldwide), and with the obvious intention to bring down God's everlasting rebuke of those who take a different view of certain biblical texts.
I am here to request that such people be treated with forbearance and respect, especially in Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
FRiend, Gary, you have it backwards.
I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.
I'm not here hoping to prove anything to you.
I'm here to request that people who hold views similar to our Founding Fathers, and "restorationists" Christians today, be treated with forbearance and respect on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
GarySpFc: "Evidence is objective and proof subjective.
We have presented considerable evidence that Jesus is God, and even used His own words in the process."
But in fact, you've presented no evidence and quoted no words to support your case.
The evidence and words you do present support mine.
I, of course, am totally satisfied with your understandings -- they work for you, and they are not a problem for me.
I don't reject you, I don't condemn you, I don't call you "God Damned Heretics", I know you are sincere and well intentioned in your Christian beliefs.
I am only here to request the same forbearance and respect for those who -- as many Founders and "restorationists" -- believe(d) differently.
GarySpFc: "You are willing to accept Him as only a man, and that goes to the heart of the problem.
When your Jesus speaks he voices an opinion…nothing more.
He is simply a philosopher, with empty words."
FRiend, I've said no such things, you are only imagining them.
What I actually believe is what I think the New Testament clearly presents: the divinity of Christ (Son of God) and the Unity of God.
Yes, I "get" that from some theological perspective or other, this might be a problem for some people.
That's why I don't ask you to accept my beliefs.
But I am here to ask that you treat such understandings with forbearance and respect, especially on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
This would make them, in Kevmo's words, "God Damned Heretics", and that is why I am here to defend them.
With which part do you disagree?
Secondly, I disagree with almost everything you have written. That the Founding Fathers were in the main deeply committed Christians, and not Deists or theistic rationalists I have no doubt, after having spent many years studying their lives and collecting their quotes. That said, it is your views which we find to be anti-Christian, and the Funding Fathers are not on trial here.
"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson
"Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee." George Washington's prayer at Valley Forge
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington in his Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.". Alexander Hamilton
After Mr. Hamilton was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr, he called for the Episcopal minister, Dr. John Mason, and requested to partake in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Mason declined to do so because his church had a principle "never to administer the Lord's Supper privately to any person under any circumstances." However, Dr. Mason also took the opportunity to explain to Mr. Hamilton that the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation and proceeded to explain the plan of salvation in clear detail. Mr. Hamilton assured Dr. Mason that he had not requested the Lord's Supper as a means of obtaining heaven, and he gave the following testimony of his salvation:
"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." Alexander Hamilton
As to Whom Jesus IS and the title of Son of Man, when Jesus used that term applying to Himself, He was telling His listeners, The Jews of that day, that He is The I Am, for the Old Testament is clear to those who were familiar with it that the term Son of Man applied ONLY to the Christ, the Son of The Living God Whose name is I Am. Jesus told Philip that He is One with The Father (John Chapter fourteen), and the Old Testament (the Bible of the Jews then) is emphatic in proclaiming that God is One. So to be One with the Father is the same as Jesus saying I Am, that I Am.
If I believed you were hung up on comprehending Whom Jesus Is, then I would offer the following little essay which I have offered here at FreeRepublic on occasion of such conundrum:
The following will be 'a way' to understand the notion of the trinitarian nature of the Deity, not a strictly Biblical explanation, but one which is applicable to the teaching of the Bible. Here goes:
God The Father Almighty is greater than His creation, thus greater than dimension time and dimension space, thus we may think of The Father Almighty as beyond time and space but not prevented from touching and indeed penetrating His creation.
The universe of space and time is likened to a bubble: what is inside the bubble is in time and space. But the nature of what is inside the bubble is only partially understood in modern Physics.
The Bible relates scenes which defy the simplistic notions we use for assumptive science. We'll get to that 'assumptive' notion shortly, but let us make the statement that God The Father Almighty is as comfortable outside the bubble as He is inside the bubble.
Modern Physics has discovered that the balance of forces and tensions sustaining the universe necessary for human life to arise within the universe is extremely delicate, on the order of a mathematical improbability, represented as a 'one in less than' fraction so tiny that a one over a one followed by more than one-hundred zeros defines the probability that the whole thing remains in balance! Such a delicate balancing act is but one of the continuing 'works' of the Holy Spirit of God. It is by the Spirit of God, The Word, that the universe came into existence and it is said in the Bible that by His Spirit the whole is maintained.
But the Bible also states that The Word was with God in the beginning and was God. In John's gospel we find that Jesus is The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. So, inside the bubble Created by The Father Almighty, sustained by God The Holy Spirit, is the Word, God made flesh Who dwelt among us. The Creator does not stop being greater than His creation bubble, nor does His Spirit cease to sustain it all in balance, when Jesus comes in the flesh to dwell among us.
Here's an address to 'assumptive science limitations': Now, when one reads the Tanakh/Old Testament, one finds scenes like the fifth chapter of Daniel where a being is in one spacetime 'where/when' reaching into another 'where/when' to write on the palace party central wall of king Belshazzar. Just the forearm/hand is seen in the where/when of Belshazzar and the party folks, the rest of the being remains in 'another' where/when.
God The Father Almighty created this 'other' where/when, His Holy Spirit maintains its balance and separateness from our where/when, and Jesus has moved in and out of this other where/when: as shown when He resurrected from the tomb without rolling away the stone, just passing out of the tomb where/when, into 'another' where/when; then back into our where/when as He spoke to the women come to the sepulchre; and when He appeared in a locked and shuttered room with the disciples present; or appeared suddenly with the disciples walking on a road and broke bread with them then left our where/when to go to the 'other' where/when.
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'.
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
You might find it exhilarating that it is only the current generation of humankind who can even begin to fathom the total dimensionality of God as greater than yet relating to His creation, and thus sense the ways, from a Physics standpoint, that I Am is involved with His creation.
The founders, some of them at least, were beginning to see a glimpse, but only with the deeper Physics clarity Scientists have discovered in our epoch can we see the interconnectedness being revealed. And there is so much more to come, which The Bible points to in so many places, prophetic places.
When Jesus told the Jews then that He is Son of Man, He was claiming to be One with The Father Almighty, so in John fourteen when Philip said 'show us The Father and that will sufficie for our clarity', Jesus explained that all they could see of the Father was where He, The Father Almighty, was IN THEIR SPACETIME REALM, as Jesus, God With Them.
Firstly, I do not own Free Republic. I am a guest lat the invitation of Jim Robinson, and do not make policy.
Secondly, you ask that we treat your false views of Christ with forbearance ad resect. I treated you with respect, while carefully examining your views. I came to the conclusion you are indeed a gnostic, and rejecting the deity of Christ. I would not be kindly disposed to someone calling my mother a slut. Likewise, I am not kindly disposed to those with anti-Christ views.
When the SHTF, is the important question going to be “Who reads their Bible just right?’, or “Who’s got my back?”
Groucho once said that he’d not be a member of any club that would accept him!
I feel the same way about a thread with over 666 replies already.
In Colossians 2:9, theotēs (θεοτης) is used. Here Trench says, “Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotēs (θεοτης) to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.” Here the word “divinity” will not do, only the word “deity.” It is well in these days of apostasy, to speak of the deity of the Lord Jesus, not using the word “divinity” when we are referring to the fact that He is Very God. Modernism believes in His divinity, but in a way different from the scriptural conception of the term. Modernism has the pantheistic conception of the deity permeating all things and every man. Thus divinity, it says, is resident in every human being. It was resident in Christ as in all men. The difference between the divinity of Christ and that of all other men, it says, is one of degree, not of kind. Paul never speaks of the divinity of Christ, only of His deity. Our Lord has divine attributes since He is deity, but that is quite another matter from the Modernistic conception.
Translation. Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.
(2:9) Commenting on the contents of this verse, Lightfool says; “The apostle justifies the foregoing charge that the doctrine was not according to Christ: ‘In Christ dwells the whole plērōma (πληρωμα) (fulness, plenitude), the entire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as dispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the fountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it in communion with inferior creatures.’ ”
“Dwelleth” is katoikei (κατοικει). Oikeō (Ὀικεω) means “to be at home.” Kata (Κατα), prefixed, means “down,” thus showing permanence. The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: “Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.”
I am glad you are starting to see what I am talking about. Only praise like that can be for the King of Kings and Lord or Lords YHWH.
You can keep the “GDH” conversations to whomever you are referring to, but don’t use that in every post to me.
On your NIV version of Revelation 1:8, it strengthens the point of Jesus truly God and truly man.
Religious affiliations of our Founders
I also posted at least once, as did another poster, that the Enlightenment movement did not effect the American Colonies as much as it did Protestant and Catholic Europe. This was due to the First American Great Awakening which started in 1730 and lasted in full vigor into the next decade. Most historians credit the Great Awakening to fueling the American Revolution. So our American ideological origins strongly come from the Great Awakening.
Then our American history tells us the Second Great Awakening beginning when our nation was in infancy. Most scholars put the beginning of the Second Great Awakening starting in 1790, just after the ratification of our Constitution. The Second Great Awakening some attribute as a response to skepticism, deists and 'rational' Christianity. The First Great Awakening clearly shows the validity of the link I posted and the church affiliations of the Founders. The Second Great Awakening clearly shows the full rejection of the Elightenment movement as our young nation entered the 19th century.
The contention that George Washington did not write much about Jesus Christ is a weak pillar to lean on. We do have as historical record the prayer book GW used quite often. If you thumb through the morning and evening prayers, Jesus Christ is there, clearly. Each prayer is very orthodox, Biblically, where we pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. Exactly how Jesus taught us how to pray in the Gospels. Again here is an example of prayer from GW's prayer book; nothing deist or Unitarian about this prayer:
O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly, that my jjrgyers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho’ I have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a curse than a blessing from thee. But, O God, who art rich in mercy and plenteous in redemption, mark not, I beseech thee, what I have done amiss; remember that I am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences & ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life. Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless, O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou hast appointed to rule over us in church & state, continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Sorry pinged the wrong “stonehouse” in the last post. Ping for you.
The real question on this whole thread is whether people who see things as I do should be condemned as “God Damned Heretics”?
***And the answer to that is, yes. Jesus properly condemns false teachers like you as ‘vipers’ and ‘sons of satan’.
“their Christianity was influenced more-or-less
***Now the heretic is backtracking. About what one would expect from a God damned heretic.
I don’t believe such differences should be cause for you to charge them with being “anti-Christ” or “God Damned Heretics”.
***Yes, it would appear that you would expect us to be soft and fluffy when dealing with what Jesus calls a ‘viper’ and ‘son of satan’. The God of the universe clad in human flesh doesn’t hold Himself up to that standard, so there’s no reason we should.
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.