Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT

Bible | 2011 | bibletruth

[bibletruth]

Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT...The GodHead...The WORD.

Through God, I am sanctified; I am justified; I have the promise of future glorification; I am a child of God; I am a son of God. My God teaches my soul correct Bible doctrines because the entire Godhead indwells my soul. I am are declared a son of God in Romans 8:14-15.

[Cronos]

Careful, according to Iscool's posts -- the belief in a Trinity are ""Obviously you get your Trinity description from your Catholic magisterium...Apparently you do not search the scriptures to find out for yourself...

Do a bible study on the Trinity then get back to me...

but that isn't quite true for you ladies and gents I suppose, yet you believe in the Trinity, not Modalism, right?

[Forest Keeper]

Grace is not grace if it has to be earned. What's earned for work is wages due.

Amen! God does not give grace in exchange for works. That would negate the essence of what grace is.

Rom. 11:5-6 : 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

[count-your-change]

I think there is an assumption that Paul wrote his letters much later than he actually did and so Peter must have also since he knows of those letters.

Anything to discredit the Bible.

[boatbums]

Not to mention the prohibitions on dancing, drinking and tobacco products :)

Actually, I think the hooch helped. ;o)

[boatbums]

AMEN!!!

[boatbums]

They get it by their own self-interpretation. Thank goodness you don't interepret scripture to think that the Incarnation was done because God wanted the Jews to get jealous.

Wait, you think Iscool made all that up??? First of all, go back and read what he actually said, then read what God had to say about that:

Romans 10:18-20

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Romans 11:10-12

Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Tell us, Cronos, how would YOU interpret these Scriptures?

[Cronos]

Perhaps you can say ok to the analogy of the water, ice etc.

But post 448 by Iscool goes on to say after

God is a Spirit...Look it up in the scriptures...

the post by Iscool goes on to say

Modalism teaches, the Father is God, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Father.

Well guess what...That's what the bible teaches...

so, the Modalist believes that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Father

Also, that since Jesus IS the Father, and God IS a spirit, hence Jesus was/is a Spirit, never a man.

This flat-out denies the Incarnation (the Word was NOT, in the Modalist's belief, made man) and flat-out denies Christ's sacrifice on the cross (a spirit suffers no physical pain, is not scourged or crucified)

[Cronos]

I don't know the details of the rapture philosophy, but does Iscool's post 305 indicate common belief that

cronos: The central theme of the Bible is God's salvation for mankind. That's how it reads right from the Fall to Apocalypse

Iscool: Nope...The theme of the Bible is the Kingdom...The Jewish Kingdom..

In the NT, same thing..

Is this common belief that it is the same thing in the NT? All the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, other Epistles, Apocalypse etc. are all just about the Jewish Kingdom?

thank you CB and paladin in advance for your response

[Cronos]

Also, sticking on to this does Iscool's post 305 indicate common belief that

Iscool: Nope...The theme of the Bible is the Kingdom...The Jewish Kingdom..

In the NT, same thing.Only after the Jews rejected Jesus did he turn to us Gentiles...And that was only to make his chosen people jealous, for a time...

When God is done letting the Jews learn their lesson, he will take us Gentiles out of the way by way of the Rapture and will again turn to his chosen, the Jews...

The theme of the Bible is not salvation for mankind....

Is this common belief that it is the same thing in the NT? All the Gospels, Pauline God used the Incarnation to make the Jews jealous?

I know this would differ from the beliefs of strict fundamentalists or calvinists, correct? But is this dispensationalist belief?

[Cronos]

so, question, do you, bb, then agree with post 305 that

Iscool: Nope...The theme of the Bible is the Kingdom...The Jewish Kingdom..

In the NT, same thing.Only after the Jews rejected Jesus did he turn to us Gentiles...And that was only to make his chosen people jealous, for a time...

When God is done letting the Jews learn their lesson, he will take us Gentiles out of the way by way of the Rapture and will again turn to his chosen, the Jews...

The theme of the Bible is not salvation for mankind....

[Cronos]

And, you of course reject the idea that God exists in three MODES, right?

[Cronos]

Honestly, seeing as those Early Church Fathers had so much time on their hands - what with no TV or internet - it is hardly surprising they had to occupy it with endless theological arguing. ;o)

Hardly -- the TV dumbs down folks

but besides the point -- while we can not as humans truly define the Trinity, it's beyond our comprehension, we can define what it is NOT.

1. Step 1: if one holds that the NT is inerrant, then the rest of the steps apply, otherwise, no

2. if the NT is inerrant then Jesus Christ is either:
   1. God (as He says He is) or
   2. mad
   -- He can't be just a man (prophet or otherwise) because He says and does things only God could do (forgive sins, says "I am who I am", etc.), neither can he be a supernatural being like a super angel or anything

3. Now, God is ONE. Hence if Jesus is God, then there are only so few possibilities:
   1. The Trinitarian view
   2. the Monarchianistic view
   3. The Modalist view
   Others I see as just elements of the latter two.

   The Modalist view (i.e. that Jesus Christ is the Father, the Holy SPirit IS the Father etc. all are just MODES of each other) has too many flaws --

   1. Why did God in Genesis says "Let US make man in OUR image"
   2. Who was Jesus talking to as His Father? Himself? Two modes talking to each other at the same time?
   3. What did Jesus mean when he said that He was going to His Father? He was going to Himself but both are just MODES...
   4. What did Jesus mean that He and the Father would send the Holy SPirit? Would two modes send a third?

   No, this does not make sense.

   Also, the Father being a Spirit if Jesus is just a MODE of this, then He is/was just a spirit too, hence denying the "God became man" or the suffering on the Cross.

No, we can only know what the Trinity is NOT.

The Early Church fathers, if you read through them, only spent a lot of papyrus when someone would propose a new view -- like Sabellius did with Modalism.

When one proposes a view point or even a defined viewpoint, then there was council to discuss this -- and Modalism had too many holes as you see above. To be exact Noetis may have been the originator of the Modalistic argument as Sabellius too seemed to belief that there was a real distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not just a guess.

[count-your-change]

Just to take one of your statements: ‘Only God can forgive sins’

Where do you find this?

[Cronos]

Good catch. Let me first qualify that statement by saying Only God can actually do the forgiving, the wiping clean of sins. If Jesus was not God, he could have said that He could forgive on behalf of God or that He was conveying the forgiveness which comes only from God, but He did not do that -- He forgave sins

now, to your point, Mark 2:1–12 is where we read " 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”" -- granted, those are the Jews who said that, not Jesus who said 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

But, Jesus Christ is not conveying the forgiveness of God, but actually When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Do note -- Jesus is performing the act of forgiving sins, not saying "God has forgiven", but actually forgiving.

[Cronos]

But, you made a very good point. Just to take one of your statements: ‘Only God can forgive sins’
Where do you find this?

And you are right that this is one of the points which I, imho, see as part of the basis for my belief that Jesus Christ was/is God. I see this in context to what Moses did when he struck the rock and water came out -- God asked Moses why he didn't call on the Lord's name while doing it -- by not doing so it may have seemed to the Israelites that Moses had the power to do that, so similarly Jesus if He was not God but an obedient "non-God entity" would have said "Son, in God's name your sins are forgiven" or "God has forgiven your sins" or "On behalf of ...", but He categorically takes the forgiving position on himself.

But, I agree, there is room for doubt if one reads it -- what do are your thoughts about this passage?

[Cronos]

bb: to try and hang the destiny of a person's immortal soul in the balance based upon their total and implicit ascent to a certain person's or peoples' understanding of it.

There is a reason for it -- the most essential doctrine of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is God, not a good main/prophet/super-angel, but God, and part of the ONE God, not a pantheon of gods.

You can see this in the Gospels in the other epistles by the Apostles.

Take +Paul's Epistles. These were written in response to problems in the churches that he had founded. These do not so much list the complete teaching that he probably took to those places but most were written in response to errors that he heard about, to make sure that these churches retained correct doctrine (exception being Romans)

you can see this carried forth in Hebrews where you see a clear statement that Jesus Christ IS God and that there is a big difference between Jesus and created beings

it's like I pointed out above about Modalism -- we can define the errors in a particular point. And this is us reinventing the debates that occured pre-Nicea and Chalcedon.

At the council of Nicaea the statement of the trinity was held, that God was one, that He exists in one nature, in three persons. At Chalcedon, the nature of Christ was concluded, that Christ is truly God and truly man, that He is one person, with two natures

REMEMBER -- these were not new development, this was just a restatement of what orthodoxy had always believed.

A person's immortal soul remains in Balance unless they acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior, right? -- well, if He was just a spirit or a mode, he was not Savior. if He was just a super-angel, He was not God. etc etc. You don't need to have a perfect concept of the TRinity, but the Faith that we always have kept in orthodoxy.

[count-your-change]

In John chapter five Jesus says his Father has kept working (even though it is the Sabbath) until then and Jesus does also. vs. 17

The Jews accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God by calling Him his Father. vs 18

But Jesus explains that he does nothing of his own initiative, that the Son can raise the dead since he has been given the the power of judging.

Thus honoring the Son is honoring Him that sent the Son.

So it is that the dead will Jesus’ hear voice and come out.

Jesus has been GIVEN life in himself by the Father, Jesus has been GIVEN authority to judge.

Jesus says again he can do nothing on his own, he has been sent to do the works he is doing.

Jesus has been given life in himself, the authority to judge, to give life to whom he chooses, to resurrect, to accept glory in God's name.
Matthew 9:6 says Jesus has authority to forgive sins....and yet....Jesus does not act on his own initiative but only as the One who sent him does, Jesus says he does not do his own will but that of the Father.

Jesus can do what he is given authority to do by his Father and that includes forgiving sins.

[Cronos]

Interesting take to say that God gives Jesus the authority to forgive sins. But do you mean that Jesus has the innate ability to forgive as part of this? Because the innate ability can only be Gods, right?

[Cronos]

I mean "the innate ability to forgive can only be God's, right?" namely that even if you say that Jesus was given the authority to forgive, does He forgive in the name of God or AS God, in your opinion?

[count-your-change]

I don’t think we can decide what Jesus could have or should have said under any circumstance, we have what we have.

Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God, Jesus is sent not the sender, in every instance Jesus is the lesser, the Son, to the greater, the Father.

Jesus has authority to forgive sins because he is given it by the Father.
Where Jesus has not been given authority he cannot act as in Matthew 20:23 when Jesus says that choice of who will sit on his left and right hand in his kingdom isn’t his to make

“Do note — Jesus is performing the act of forgiving sins, not saying “God has forgiven”, but actually forgiving.”

Indeed. Jesus is forgiving sins. He has been granted that ability like the judging, granting of life, etc.