Selective Salvation

[ioioouiouiouio]

John Calvin

This is easy to respond to. Jesus, being Incarnate, having human attributes, this is, no doubt, true. However, this is no reference to the pre-Incarnate Logos. Tell me, does God get hungry? Does God literally weep? Does God really get tired? To all three of these questions, the answers are "No." So, while Jesus was hungry, He was not. When He wept, He wept not. I think you get the picture. Consider these truths:

-Man becomes tired.
-Jesus was man.
-Jesus was God.
-God never gets tired.

Out of those three examples, only the second has to do with emotion, the other are physical feelings, so I will only respond to the second one. God may not physically weep, but does one need to weep to be sad? The example of God 'weeping' is simple a poetic way of saying 'God is sad'.

Quote:

How greatly blunt of you to say, as well as arrogant. I am looking at God wrong? How would you know? Perhaps you should read up on history, hm? I am not the first to bring to you the thought of an impassible God.

And how greatly arrogant to say that I am wrong. Come on now, Mr. Calvin, this is a debate and, as such, we do not agree. The main point in my arguement is that you are wrong and, conversely, the main point of your arguement is that I am wrong. Me being the first to flat out state it does not put me in the wrong.

Quote:

By you saying that my example only works for you (let alone, anyone else, since they are human), you pretty much concede this point, especially since you have not addressed the issue. In fact, by saying that God is outside of time (transcendent), you readily confess that God is without change, since, to have change, one needs to have time.

Ok, yes. God cannot change. However, to those of us that are bound temporaly, God appears to change.

Quote:

None, really. However, you might be interpreting Scripture to be saying, "Every single individual," rather than being a bit broad about the word, "everyone." By "everyone," I would mean it to refer to "nation, tongue, and tribe." You see, where you focus on an individual, I focus on something more, a nation, a tribe, a tongue. And there are many nations, tribes, and tongues.

Considering that here is where we get to a point where the difference in opinion comes from how we interpret the Bible, continuing discussion on this little thing is meaningless.  

[Seority]

Cometh The Inquisitor (yay cometh! ^^)

some other dude >_>

By you saying that my example only works for you (let alone, anyone else, since they are human), you pretty much concede this point, especially since you have not addressed the issue. In fact, by saying that God is outside of time (transcendent), you readily confess that God is without change, since, to have change, one needs to have time.

Ok, yes. God cannot change. However, to those of us that are bound temporaly, God appears to change.

Another way to put it is that people learn more about God so his apperance changes in their veiw on him. God never changed, they just changed their outlook on him ^^.

 

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

post the verse that states its "impossible" for god to do a physical action. It is not impossible for god to do anything, he just "choses" not to.

No, I will not do so. Instead, I'll use logic. If something is incorporeal, then it does not have a physical manifestation. God, being incorporeal, means that He has no physical manifestation. If God is incorporeal, this means that God does not have physical eyes, thus, He cannot shed a physical tear. But then I must ask where your proof is of God choosing to not do anything?

SaintChaos

isnt that a contradiction? to what you just said like a couple sentences ago? Its kind of hard to learn something if you know ALL things. You do believe in the trinity right? Father, Son, Holy Ghost...they're physically seperate yet all one in the same. This is what i was talking about earlier. If God is feeling one thing, so is the holy ghost and jesus.

Is it a contradiction for a word to physically manifest itself to man? Are words physical? If not, then why do you think that it is a contradiction for God's Word, the Logos, to become flesh and tabernacle with us? You ask me if I believe in the Trinity. I cannot say that I believe in the Trinity. What a surprise it might be for those who have seen me defend such doctrine in the past. Anyway, I don't like your usage of the word "separate." That implies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being all God, are actually three gods, which would bring up polytheism. You might have been better off saying the word "distinct," "different," and maybe "dispensations." But "separate," nay, that's probably improper, and I do not even commend Tertullian for using that word.

It is interesting that you say that if God is feeling one thing, so is the Holy Spirit and Christ. I don't like your double-speak, because when you say "God," I am not sure who you are referring to in the Godhead. Is it the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? Is it all of the persons of the Trinity, or simply one of the three persons? You see, when Christ died on the cross, would you go far to say that even the Father suffered? According to your logic, whatever God felt, it must mean also that the other two persons felt it as well. This leads to the heresy known as Patripassianism. It comes from the two Latin words, pater and passus, meaning that the "Father suffered." Please, clarify your ambiguity.

Now, you ask me if it is a contradiction that Jesus would know all things, yet He had to learn. This concept is actually Biblical. Christ was both God and man. He is the Logos, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us. Christ knew all things (John 21:17), yet He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

SaintChaos

First off, is God talking about himself? no....he's talking about spirits in general. And again, WE don't know if God has a "physical" form...

Is not Jesus, God Incarnate? So yes, it would be God who said this of Himself. He said, "God is Spirit." He declared that spirits do not have flesh and bone. The former text refers to God. The latter might refer to spirits in general, but with the logic that follows:

-God is Spirit
-Spirits have no flesh or bone
-Therefore, God has no flesh or bone

Or, God has no flesh or bone, for God is Spirit.

SaintChaos

we're talking about God...not about demons or angels.

And we are talking about spirits. God is Spirit, angels are spirits, demons are spirits. They do not have flesh and bone.

John Calvin

I'll leave you to prove such.

SaintChaos

and i have yet to see you disprove him not being able to shed a physical tear.....and i repeat, there is nothing that God can not do. the things that people "consider" impossible for him, is merely a choice he makes in not doing. he CHOOSES not to lie...he CHOOSES not to sin...and so on and so on.

It's not my point to disprove anything about God to you, because I am not the one with the positive claim. Don't try shifting the burden of proof. Now, it is funny that you say that the words that people say are "considered" impossible. So, when the text says something, it really doesn't mean that? And yet again, you have no proof that God chooses not to do this or that.

SaintChaos

compared to us, WE have to be physical to shed a physical tear, but i highly doubt god has to be coporeal to shed a physical tear. he can do whatever he likes.

God can do whatever He likes. He's not subject to anyone, I'm sure. However, you're extending the concept of omnipotence a bit too much. Can God really sin? What is sin? Sin is to miss the mark. If God misses the mark, then you ought to ask the question as to whether or not God is perfect. Is it of God's nature to sin? If not, then how could He possibly sin? And if sin is something He abhors, then why would He be capable of doing it? This means that if God was capable of sinning, God would abhor Himself. Sin is imperfection.

SaintChaos

god..this is no different then the "can god make a boulder so heavy that he cant lift it?" thread. this is again, comparing an almighty being to a physical item.

Except, you know, lying is not a physical item, and neither is sin. Even so, God cannot create a rock so heavy for Him, because God is infinite in power. He is omnipotent. What a paradox. It is impossible, for it is omnipotence.

SaintChaos

he made us out of the dust of the earth, what makes it any harder for him to produce a tear?

I never said that it was difficult for God to create a tear. Besides, if God literally wept, then we'd have constant rain.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Out of those three examples, only the second has to do with emotion, the other are physical feelings, so I will only respond to the second one. God may not physically weep, but does one need to weep to be sad? The example of God 'weeping' is simple a poetic way of saying 'God is sad'.

Read this, please. I made a thread about a month ago on this topic, and I supplied this link for one who was asking questions on it, because she was not sure where to stand in such thought. At least she was honest. But, that link helped her. She was a Catholic. Besides, to say that the example of God weeping is simply poetic. I am glad that you agree with me then, that such passages are anthropopathisms, not literal, as some have thought in a previous thread I made.

Cometh The Inquisitor

And how greatly arrogant to say that I am wrong.

Where did I say that? I simply told you that perhaps you should read up on church history.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Come on now, Mr. Calvin, this is a debate and, as such, we do not agree. The main point in my arguement is that you are wrong and, conversely, the main point of your arguement is that I am wrong. Me being the first to flat out state it does not put me in the wrong.

I never said that it made you wrong, did I? But I was not pleased that you came up with the idea that I was wrong about understanding God. That was displeasing.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Ok, yes. God cannot change. However, to those of us that are bound temporaly, God appears to change.

To appear is not the same as being a reality.  

[Seority]

John Calvin

Cometh The Inquisitor

Ok, yes. God cannot change. However, to those of us that are bound temporaly, God appears to change.

To appear is not the same as being a reality.

Didn't he just say that @_@?
He said God could't change. It's just that our veiw on him changes when we learn more about him. That's what he ment. Did you even read my post which I tried to clear this up? @_@...

 

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Seority

John Calvin

Cometh The Inquisitor

Ok, yes. God cannot change. However, to those of us that are bound temporaly, God appears to change.

To appear is not the same as being a reality.

Didn't he just say that @_@?
He said God could't change. It's just that our veiw on him changes when we learn more about him. That's what he ment. Did you even read my post which I tried to clear this up? @_@...

I know what he said, and I know what you said. I am just wondering if he has conceded the point that God is impassible.  

[Seority]

John Calvin

I know what he said, and I know what you said. I am just wondering if he has conceded the point that God is impassible.

-x> ^^;

See? Wasn't that much eiser to say?

 

[ioioouiouiouio]

John Calvin

Read this, please. I made a thread about a month ago on this topic, and I supplied this link for one who was asking questions on it, because she was not sure where to stand in such thought. At least she was honest. But, that link helped her. She was a Catholic.

So you've proved that God is not subject to passing emotions. Of course God is not subject to those. That would require God to be subject to time, as emotions cannot 'pass' without the passage of time. I know it sounds a little akward, but bear with me. God does not change because change must take place over time. No matter how short that time is, it still exists. Our emotions and feelings can change beause, to us, time holds it's sway. However, God is in all times at once and, so, there is not passage of time for that change of emotion to take place. God simply feels both at once. The key word in that sentance is 'once' because God is 'all at once'. To God we are the past, the present, and the future at the same time.

Quote:

Besides, to say that the example of God weeping is simply poetic. I am glad that you agree with me then, that such passages are anthropopathisms, not literal, as some have thought in a previous thread I made.

God weeping is only poetic (well, I believe it should be read as such, because, if God wanted to make a corpreal being to physically weep, then He can. I just don't believe that He actually did)

Quote:

Where did I say that? I simply told you that perhaps you should read up on church history.

When you disagreed with me you told me I was wrong. You may not have flat out said it, but the fact that you set forth and opinion and I set forth an opinion, and, in this matter, both the aforementioned opinions are incompatible. Obviously, we cannot both be correct, and, so, one must be wrong. I believe that that person is you and you believe that that person is me. There, I just explained to you the basic premise of basically any debate. So, don't jump down my throat when I say you're wrong.

Quote:

To appear is not the same as being a reality.

True, and I realize that I was wrong in saying that God was not impassible. However, I do not concede my point that God cannot have emotions.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

However, God is in all times at once and, so, there is not passage of time for that change of emotion to take place. God simply feels both at once. The key word in that sentance is 'once' because God is 'all at once'. To God we are the past, the present, and the future at the same time.

I have disagreements here with you as well. Of course, there will always be disagreements between you and I. We both know this, considering that there has only been disagreements in the past, such as original sin. Whereas you see that God sees us as being in the past, present, and future simultaneously, I disagree. I won't really get into a discussion on this, since our main focus was on God's impassibility. But, I believe that God, knowing all things already, sees things simultaneously, thus, there is no point in time where God did not know what we were going to do. God knows where we are at, and may be aware of our past (surely He should be, since He is omniscient). Surely David is right when he says that before a word is on his tongue, God already knows what he will say.

Now, you state that God is in "all times at once and, so, there is not passage of time for that change of emotion to take place." I disagree, as I do not believe that omnipresence means that God is in the past, present, and future, viz., if you are implying this. Rather, God is called omnipresent, because wherever we are, God Himself is there. Just as objects are present before us, either by sight or by reach, we are present. To say that God is in the past, present, and future is to not imply that God is omnipresent, but omnitemporal, i.e., in every part of time. This makes God seem spatial. Besides, if God is transcendent, that is, outside of time, He cannot be in every part of time.

I know that there is more I want to say, but I cannot think of what to say at the moment.

Cometh The Inquisitor

True, and I realize that I was wrong in saying that God was not impassible. However, I do not concede my point that God cannot have emotions.

I might say that He has affections, but not passion. Anyway, may I ask why you do not concede your point?  

[Seority]

-x> O_o...

Aren't you guys just saying the same thing?
Cometh> When the bible said that God is past, present and future, it ment that God always was and all ways will be. He was there when we were born. He is here right now, and he'll be here when we breath our last breath. He's not watching us like TeVo. He's not rewinding, pausing nor fast forwarding anything. He knows what will happen in the past and knew what happened in the past before it was there. Thats all.
John> Omnipresent is pretty much what I'm saying to Cometh. We are only in time, not God. Time is the exact same thing as change. God doesn't change, so therefor he is not in time. It's just an always was, always will be thing ^^.

As for this God and emotions stuff, it's hard to say.
God has a 'like and dislike thing', but I think it's more toward an indiviual rather then all together.
For example. Penny and Lexi are christians who went drunk driving and recked their mother's car. At the same time Jacob (also a christian) was helping his mother put away groceries even though he wouldn't get anything in return. (I know they are cheesy, but bare with me.) God knows what Penny and Lexi did and is upset at what they did. God also knows what Jacob did and is happy about that. God didn't get all pissed at Penny and Lexi then just calm down a bit when Jacob helped his mom. He reacted to each person seperatly.
The thing that confuses me is that he'll forgive Penny and Lexi if they ask for it. He won't ignore them for what they did. Sure, they may get punished, but is that out of anger?
No. God is love. He doesn't have mood swings. Gar, I'm confusing myself @_@. Ok... God doesn't have human feelings, he just accepts and doesn't accept things. He's always loving toward us. He doesn't accept acts against him. Hmmm.
Well I guess I'm undecisive on this. It's either God loves us, he can feel sad when we go against him (he'll always forgive us if we ask for it) or is it that he just accepts acts for him and doesn't accept acts that are against him.
He will always love us. Let's see. So, it's either, he gets sad, or he just doesn't accept.
I can't go any deeper then that ^^;.

 

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

No, I will not do so. Instead, I'll use logic. If something is incorporeal, then it does not have a physical manifestation. God, being incorporeal, means that He has no physical manifestation. If God is incorporeal, this means that God does not have physical eyes, thus, He cannot shed a physical tear. But then I must ask where your proof is of God choosing to not do anything?

God is not logical, neither is believing in God. And if someone asks you for proof of something in refuse to show it, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist. But I too am also going on a logical point of view.

God is an almighty being.
God is eternal.
God can do anything except "learn" because he knows all things.
God can do anything except create an object he can not lift...etc anything pertaining to that same idea.

However, everything else is not impossible for God to do. Right? The don't recall verses in the bible saying that God can't do such and such..however i recall verses saying what God CAN do. As to the nitty gritty details....I don't see why its just merely a choice that God makes in not sinning or lieing. Its not out of his power to do so. WE on the other hand can't just choose not to sin all the time or not to lie because it is beyond our mental or physical capacity. However, for God, its as easy as breathing air in assumption. Why should it have to be impossible for him to CHOOSE not to sin or to CHOOSE not to lie? He can if he wanted to, but can't because it would contradict his teachings to us...it would FORSAKE his teachings to us because if he lied or sin...where would that leave us?
From memory, no, I don't know of any verses saying that he can "choose" to not lie or sin, but I don't recall verses that say he CAN'T choose to do specific actions.

If you know of any, i suggest you show them otherwise we're both at a stalemate on this one.

John Calvin

I cannot say that I believe in the Trinity. What a surprise it might be for those who have seen me defend such doctrine in the past.

......wait...you don't believe in the Trinity? Why? The bible speaks of the trinity quite fondly, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What specifically about the Trinity do you not believe?

John Calvin

Anyway, I don't like your usage of the word "separate." That implies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being all God, are actually three gods...

when i say seperate i MEAN seperate...physically...but not mentally. Father Son and Holy Ghost are one being in three seperate forms. I'm not saying they're three God's that act on their own will and or thought. They're all one in the same, think the same, go on the will of the same being "God the Father".

And when I'm speaking of God, I'm speaking of "God the Father". Also, yes, if the trinity is three beings, being one in the same, if one suffers, so do the other two. And your confusing me as well with your word usage of Logos....please clarify what you mean by Logos.

John Calvin

Is not Jesus, God Incarnate? So yes, it would be God who said this of Himself. He said, "God is Spirit." He declared that spirits do not have flesh and bone. The former text refers to God. The latter might refer to spirits in general, but with the logic that follows:

-God is Spirit
-Spirits have no flesh or bone
-Therefore, God has no flesh or bone

Or, God has no flesh or bone, for God is Spirit.

....hm....maybe I'm getting too technical on the issue. I dislike claiming specific things about God, mainly his appearance, because we don't know what he looks like....but I don't see why he would need the use of a physical body.....

John Calvin

It's not my point to disprove anything about God to you, because I am not the one with the positive claim. Don't try shifting the burden of proof. Now, it is funny that you say that the words that people say are "considered" impossible. So, when the text says something, it really doesn't mean that? And yet again, you have no proof that God chooses not to do this or that.

Whether one is making a claim or not, we are ALL under the burden of proof. I asked you for proof earlier and you refused to show it....so yes...the burden of proof is also under you. My "opinion" of what god can and can not choose is already posted above....

John Calvin

God can do whatever He likes. He's not subject to anyone, I'm sure. However, you're extending the concept of omnipotence a bit too much. Can God really sin? What is sin? Sin is to miss the mark. If God misses the mark, then you ought to ask the question as to whether or not God is perfect. Is it of God's nature to sin? If not, then how could He possibly sin? And if sin is something He abhors, then why would He be capable of doing it? This means that if God was capable of sinning, God would abhor Himself. Sin is imperfection.

This is going on speculation though on both our parts. WE don't know the true origin of sin. We just know that we got sin from Adam and Eve. We can sit be logical about it and "lean on our own understanding" but I still don't see why God doesn't have a "choice" on mainly anything. He has more will power than we do, more control, more "mind". Also, we DO have a choice in sin, its just very hard not to...but its still a choice...but also a burden...

you do have a point though, to be under the influence or temptation, even, of sin would mean imperfection...if the theory is correct....but if one can control one's action to the POINT of perfection, even under an influence....then the being would still be perfect if they never do anything that would be considered imperfect.

John Calvin

Except, you know, lying is not a physical item, and neither is sin. Even so, God cannot create a rock so heavy for Him, because God is infinite in power. He is omnipotent. What a paradox. It is impossible, for it is omnipotence.

hm....true

John Calvin

I never said that it was difficult for God to create a tear. Besides, if God literally wept, then we'd have constant rain.

you said, that since god is incoporeal, that he couldn't create a physical tear....now your saying the opposite?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

John Calvin

I have disagreements here with you as well. Of course, there will always be disagreements between you and I. We both know this, considering that there has only been disagreements in the past, such as original sin.

Your calvinist, I'm not. Doesn't take a prophet to where that one was headed. XD

Quote:

Whereas you see that God sees us as being in the past, present, and future simultaneously, I disagree. I won't really get into a discussion on this, since our main focus was on God's impassibility. But, I believe that God, knowing all things already, sees things simultaneously, thus, there is no point in time where God did not know what we were going to do. God knows where we are at, and may be aware of our past (surely He should be, since He is omniscient). Surely David is right when he says that before a word is on his tongue, God already knows what he will say.

Because, to God, we have already said it. You see, God is outside the constraints of time, this much we agree on. So, how can God, being outside of time, anchor Himself to a specific time to work His deeds (i.e. miracles, prophicies, etc.)? The only logical conclusion is that God is in all times at once.

Quote:

Now, you state that God is in "all times at once and, so, there is not passage of time for that change of emotion to take place." I disagree, as I do not believe that omnipresence means that God is in the past, present, and future, viz., if you are implying this. Rather, God is called omnipresent, because wherever we are, God Himself is there. Just as objects are present before us, either by sight or by reach, we are present. To say that God is in the past, present, and future is to not imply that God is omnipresent, but omnitemporal, i.e., in every part of time. This makes God seem spatial. Besides, if God is transcendent, that is, outside of time, He cannot be in every part of time.

As I explained above, I draw not on God's omniprescene (which I usually take to mean in all physical and spiritual places. I had never thought of it as omnitemporal before), but on God being outside of time and, yet being able to manifest Himself in a specific time at once.

Quote:

I know that there is more I want to say, but I cannot think of what to say at the moment.

Heh, I know the feeling.

Quote:

I might say that He has affections, but not passion. Anyway, may I ask why you do not concede your point?

Because the fact that God cannot change does not mean that He has no emotion. Our emotions may be subject to change, true, but that does not mean that what God feels is subject to change.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Seority

Cometh> When the bible said that God is past, present and future, it ment that God always was and all ways will be. He was there when we were born. He is here right now, and he'll be here when we breath our last breath. He's not watching us like TeVo. He's not rewinding, pausing nor fast forwarding anything. He knows what will happen in the past and knew what happened in the past before it was there. Thats all.

I'm not basing it off of God being eternal, but, as I explained to John, outside of time, and, as such, to God we are the past, present, and future. All things happen at once to God.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

God is not logical, neither is believing in God.

God is indeed, logical. For it is written, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." Logos is a Greek word that can be translated as "speech," "word," "discourse," "reason," et cetera. Indeed, God is logical, especially if He is the Creator of logic and law.

SaintChaos

And if someone asks you for proof of something in refuse to show it, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist. But I too am also going on a logical point of view.

Assume all you want. But you cannot forget the fact that I answered your question by means of logic. You use logic yourself, do you not? So, you should not say that I should not use logic.

SaintChaos

God is an almighty being.
God is eternal.
God can do anything except "learn" because he knows all things.
God can do anything except create an object he can not lift...etc anything pertaining to that same idea.

All right, but I do not see how this has proven anything, especially since you have not set it up in a syllogism. Do you think that the syllogism is made for such point? I can say something, and you might agree. With that, I can say something else that is related to what I said previously, and if you agree, you agree with me completely on what I was saying, and thus, you have brought yourself into an agreement with me, even though you might have not thought of doing so.

SaintChaos

However, everything else is not impossible for God to do. Right? The don't recall verses in the bible saying that God can't do such and such..however i recall verses saying what God CAN do. As to the nitty gritty details....I don't see why its just merely a choice that God makes in not sinning or lieing. Its not out of his power to do so. WE on the other hand can't just choose not to sin all the time or not to lie because it is beyond our mental or physical capacity.

No, it is our nature, that we do this or that. We are sinners, therefore, we sin. A magnet connects to metallic objects, because that is its nature. If it did not do such, it would not be a magnet. Holiness is God's nature, and He demands it of His children (Lev. 11:44, 45). God, who is holy, will only do what is holy, for He, by nature, is a holy God. If He sinned, He would not only lack holiness, but He would also be bound by sin, since sin is an oppression. And with that in mind, God would not be immutable as well as omnipotent, since first, He would have changed, and second, something would be greater than Him.

SaintChaos

Why should it have to be impossible for him to CHOOSE not to sin or to CHOOSE not to lie? He can if he wanted to, but can't because it would contradict his teachings to us...it would FORSAKE his teachings to us because if he lied or sin...where would that leave us?
From memory, no, I don't know of any verses saying that he can "choose" to not lie or sin, but I don't recall verses that say he CAN'T choose to do specific actions.

Because, it's not of His nature. If His nature is immutability, then all shall follow through. With this in mind, God is incapable of sinning, since to sin, He would have to change His nature. Hebrews 6:18 shows that it is "impossible" for God to lie. God cannot cause another great deluge, for He promised that He would never do it again. God cannot cease to exist, because He will forever remain the same, as the psalmist writes. And if God did, then everything else would cease to exist, for by the Logos, all things we created through Him (John 1:3). Keep in mind that James writes that God does not tempt anyone, for God cannot be tempted by evil. This is yet, another impossibility. God is not called omnipotent, because He can do this or that, but because nothing happens without His deliberation. If God so wills that a branch fall on a passer-by and kill him, it will occur.

SaintChaos

If you know of any, i suggest you show them otherwise we're both at a stalemate on this one.

I would never be in a stalemate. But now, you must provide to me that God is capable of sinning and lying. If not, then you know who is correct.

SaintChaos

......wait...you don't believe in the Trinity? Why? The bible speaks of the trinity quite fondly, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What specifically about the Trinity do you not believe?

While the Word of God does state that all three "persons" if you will, are God, there is no Scriptural references that state that God is one in substance. I could simply say, as the Modalist, that the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Father. Of course, this would be wrong, since the Bible clearly shows a distinction. However, if you want to know, I'll tell you. First, there is no Father-Son relationship found anywhere in the Old Testament. The only relationship between God and man is God's relationship to Israel, and He calls Himself the Father, and Israel, His "firstborn son." He may also refer to Himself as Father, concerning the Davidic tribe. Another reason is that you ought to ask yourself, Why is God known as Yahweh in the Old Testament, and that He is all by Himself, and yet, in the New Testament, He is not called Yahweh anymore, but is now "Father"? My other problem is that there is no Scriptural reference that the Son has always been the "Son." You believe in an eternal Sonship, while I believe in an Incarnational Sonship. Consider those two thoughts.

SaintChaos

when i say seperate i MEAN seperate...physically...but not mentally. Father Son and Holy Ghost are one being in three seperate forms. I'm not saying they're three God's that act on their own will and or thought. They're all one in the same, think the same, go on the will of the same being "God the Father".

I'm sorry, but where again, is God seen as "physically"? And by "mentally," you make me think of the Mormons, who say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "separate" beings, yet one in purpose.

SaintChaos

And when I'm speaking of God, I'm speaking of "God the Father". Also, yes, if the trinity is three beings, being one in the same, if one suffers, so do the other two. And your confusing me as well with your word usage of Logos....please clarify what you mean by Logos.

Then, not only do you accept an odd view of Mormonism, but also the thought of the Modalistic teaching of Patripassianism, a heresy.

Now, who is the Logos? The Logos is the preexistent, pre-Incarnate Christ. The Logos is the "Word" found in John 1:1.

SaintChaos

....hm....maybe I'm getting too technical on the issue. I dislike claiming specific things about God, mainly his appearance, because we don't know what he looks like....but I don't see why he would need the use of a physical body.....

You don't know why He would need the use of a physical body? Were you not saying that God did have a body?

SaintChaos

Whether one is making a claim or not, we are ALL under the burden of proof. I asked you for proof earlier and you refused to show it....so yes...the burden of proof is also under you. My "opinion" of what god can and can not choose is already posted above....

I proved to you, by logic. The burden of proof is not on me. You now must explain away my logic, or concede that you were incorrect.

SaintChaos

This is going on speculation though on both our parts. WE don't know the true origin of sin. We just know that we got sin from Adam and Eve. We can sit be logical about it and "lean on our own understanding" but I still don't see why God doesn't have a "choice" on mainly anything. He has more will power than we do, more control, more "mind". Also, we DO have a choice in sin, its just very hard not to...but its still a choice...but also a burden...

Was I discussing with you the origins of sin? Sin, in the Greek, is hamartia, which literally means "to miss the mark." For God to "miss the mark" is to show that God is imperfect. No perfect being would miss the mark, but would always be right on the spot. I might have to show to you the relations between God's Law, and sin, and how it is thought of as an archer firing an arrow at the target.

SaintChaos

you do have a point though, to be under the influence or temptation, even, of sin would mean imperfection...if the theory is correct....but if one can control one's action to the POINT of perfection, even under an influence....then the being would still be perfect if they never do anything that would be considered imperfect.

Regard it as a theory, but you contradict yourself. How can one be under control, if one is influenced by something else? If one is influenced by, say for example, alcohol, what control does that person have? The lack of judgment and reflexes is no control at all.

SaintChaos

you said, that since god is incoporeal, that he couldn't create a physical tear....now your saying the opposite?

Did I say that He could not create? Or did I say that He could not shed? God does not have a physical face, that He would shed a tear.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Your calvinist, I'm not. Doesn't take a prophet to where that one was headed. XD

But, I don't need to be a Calvinist to believe in "original sin," as most Christendom believes in that concept already.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Because, to God, we have already said it. You see, God is outside the constraints of time, this much we agree on. So, how can God, being outside of time, anchor Himself to a specific time to work His deeds (i.e. miracles, prophicies, etc.)? The only logical conclusion is that God is in all times at once.

You say that such is the "only" logical conclusion that God is in all times at once. Remember that God's ways and thoughts are greater than ours. I am sure He can and does pinpoint every single atom in the universe, and that no atom moves without His doing. God is sovereign, and He controls all things. I do not believe that God must be in every part of time to know exactly what He must do, and know who to deal with. God is active in His creation, and everything has its "motion and being in Him," as Paul says. Again, to say that God is in the past, present, and future is to make God a spatial being, which is not the case.

Cometh The Inquisitor

As I explained above, I draw not on God's omniprescene (which I usually take to mean in all physical and spiritual places. I had never thought of it as omnitemporal before), but on God being outside of time and, yet being able to manifest Himself in a specific time at once.

I will seriously have to think this over. Still, however, it still teaches that God is spatial, thus, He has a physical being.