Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

There is no hidden knowledge of a minority that supercedes the preserved Apostolic and Patristic truth.
What you seek is a special underground status that is self-exaltation based upon the pursuit of something via anthropological means rather than through the authentic Bride of Christ. Individual versus Institutional. It’s a very sad prideful pursuit.

Perhaps one final comment and question. I have a problem with your stated position. You claim to be Lutheran, but I understand Luther to be the start of the Reformation. To me, the Reformation and to be Protestant is to claim that the so-called established Church is not the true Church. But your main theme is that there must be a prominent established Church. I believe that the “spirit” of the Reformation that Luther started is to re-examine the teachings of the Bible and hold fast to these teachings as they are understood. For example justification by faith.

I will give one further example, although I do not necessarily endorse all of the views of the Anabaptists, both then and now. I am also very sympathetic to the Anabaptist practice of adult baptism, and yet the Anabaptists were persecuted by the established Church and some of the new Protestant Churches on this issue of baptism. So my comment or question is, how do you reconcile the concept of the established Church to the “spirit” of the Reformation revealed through Luther and also for example Tyndale and the ploughboy?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, Perhaps one final comment and question. I have a problem with your stated position. You claim to be Lutheran, but I understand Luther to be the start of the Reformation. To me, the Reformation and to be Protestant is to claim that the so-called established Church is not the true Church. But your main theme is that there must be a prominent established Church. I believe that the “spirit” of the Reformation that Luther started is to re-examine the teachings of the Bible and hold fast to these teachings as they are understood. For example justification by faith.

Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith. It’s the inverse of what you presume (and this is why you have credibility issues; for you don’t comprehend anything historical for what it actually was, just like your misunderstanding of words and their valid translational meanings; which means you actually stand against the Word in favor of subjective perspectives, which you’ve already stated by insisting yours are fixed).

I will give one further example, although I do not necessarily endorse all of the views of the Anabaptists, both then and now. I am also very sympathetic to the Anabaptist practice of adult baptism, and yet the Anabaptists were persecuted by the established Church and some of the new Protestant Churches on this issue of baptism.

Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding). The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.

So my comment or question is, how do you reconcile the concept of the established Church to the “spirit” of the Reformation revealed through Luther and also for example Tyndale and the ploughboy?

Kind regards
Trevor

By the above. Luther never imagined a separate “group” that would be Protestants or Reformed. Lutheranism is the Reformed Catholic Church, according to the articles of Confession (unaltered Augsburg). The Roman Church would not repent, even after their 1054AD Schism to the Eastern Church that is the pillar and ground of truth.

You, in contrast, are attempting to be a Reconstructionist of a specific flavor; insisting that all was lost to error and must now be bridged back to a primitive alleged minority while ignoring all else. It’s a flavor of Gnosticism at its core.

 

[Nang]

Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith.

Correct and to this day Lutherans maintain a worship in the dark shadow of Roman Catholicism.

Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding).

Of course, I beg to differ. Protestants who faithfully adhere to Holy Scripture alone, are
Orthodox Christians.

The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.

Christians know and profess that the means of receiving grace from God comes through the power and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit alone. “Sacramentalism” is superstition.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Correct and to this day Lutherans maintain a worship in the dark shadow of Roman Catholicism.

Of course, I beg to differ. Protestants who faithfully adhere to Holy Scripture alone, are
Orthodox Christians.

Christians know and profess that the means of receiving grace from God comes through the power and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit alone. “Sacramentalism” is superstition.

It’s so good to see you are still on here. I hadn’t seen any of your posts, so I wasn’t sure if you’d finally had enough of TOL and its personalities. I myself took quite a long haitus.

As for Sacramentalism, most Protestants have a caricature understanding of it as Roman (Trentian) Transubstantiation. It’s impossible to avoid the fact that it was indeed Apostolic doctrine for 1500 years; and Zwingli was primarily responsible for the divergence to Symbolism.

 

[Nang]

It’s so good to see you are still on here. I hadn’t seen any of your posts, so I wasn’t sure if you’d finally had enough of TOL and its personalities. I myself took quite a long haitus.

As for Sacramentalism, most Protestants have a caricature understanding of it as Roman (Trentian) Transubstantiation. It’s impossible to avoid the fact that it was indeed Apostolic doctrine for 1500 years; and Zwingli was primarily responsible for the divergence to Symbolism.

I am barely here, but always alert to and interested in reading your posts.

We respect and hold to the Zwinglian view but also confess that the sacrament of communion can be (a means) of grace, as per the Westminster Confession.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am barely here, but always alert to and interested in reading your posts.

I had hoped that you might have happened onto the ECT thread where I explicated a few things against all the Univeralists and Annihilationists. They’re relentless. LOL

We respect and hold to the Zwinglian view but also confess that the sacrament of communion can be (a means) of grace, as per the Westminster Confession.

Interesting. I’ve seen more and more how important the emphasis is upon the various means of God administering His grace. The “under/in/with” delineation of Lutheranism seems to me to be the best means of representing it.

I’ve become convinced that the greatest lack and loss in my life until recently is an ambivalence toward the importance of the Sacraments. They’re an essential aspect of Biblical Monergism in application.

In many ways, I think there’s a lot of talking past each other between Sacramentalists and Sacramentarians/Symbolists. And true Sacramentalism is NOT Transubstantiation. That’s a late innovation of Rome to attempt to erroneously explain the “hows” in an appalling manner.

 

[Nang]

I’ve become convinced that the greatest lack and loss in my life until recently is an ambivalence toward the importance of the Sacraments. They’re an essential aspect of Biblical Monergism in application.

Yes!

All of grace is monergistic, including the blessings received through sacramental observances!

I did catch and appreciate several of your posts emphasizing faith (noun) in contrast to belief (verb). It is such a clear and obvious understanding of the initial saving (monergistic) work of God as later witnessed in His people.

Any and all notions of human synergism in regards to salvation of the soul should be discarded IMO. ��

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Luther was never trying to establish an entity apart from the one true Church. He was advocating for an INTERNAL Reformation by coming against certain beliefs and practices that had become an area of abuse. His was a Catholic Reformation, not an effort to destroy or desparage the one apostolic and catholic faith. It’s the inverse of what you presume (and this is why you have credibility issues; for you don’t comprehend anything historical for what it actually was, just like your misunderstanding of words and their valid translational meanings; which means you actually stand against the Word in favor of subjective perspectives, which you’ve already stated by insisting yours are fixed).

I appreciate that you explain this, but I cannot endorse the teachings of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. I am not sure what the Lutheran Church teaches. Does the Lutheran Church hold expensive masses for the dead to reduce their time in purgatory?

Anabaptists are heterodox, including all Protestants (Lutherans are neither Reformed nor Protestant, contrary to mainstream misunderstanding). The Church has ALWAYS taken the position of Sacramentalism. Sacraments are the means of God administering grace.

I do not know how many Sacraments that you suggest. One of my RCC workmates suggested that he keeps seven. The only things we keep are the weekly memorial of bread and wine in remembrance of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Only those who have believed the gospel and have thus been motivated to be baptised partake of these memorials. One of our favourite passages to support adult, believers’ baptism is the following:
Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:12 also helps to define the gospel, consisting of two parts, the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ.

By the above. Luther never imagined a separate “group” that would be Protestants or Reformed. Lutheranism is the Reformed Catholic Church, according to the articles of Confession (unaltered Augsburg). The Roman Church would not repent, even after their 1054AD Schism to the Eastern Church that is the pillar and ground of truth.

I will let others discuss this with you, but your position seems obscure. My view is that the Lutheran Church will unite with the RCC against Christ.

You, in contrast, are attempting to be a Reconstructionist of a specific flavor; insisting that all was lost to error and must now be bridged back to a primitive alleged minority while ignoring all else. It’s a flavor of Gnosticism at its core.

I am happy to be in my position, but there could have been many faithful communities throughout the time from the Apostles. Daniel 7 speaks about a long period of persecution by the Little Horn of the fourth beast. There must have been believers during this period to have been persecuted. Getting back to the concept of re-examining the Bible and Tyndale, and also relevant to this thread, I like the following translation as it establishes the basis of a true understanding of the Yahweh Name.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geue them? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
Perhaps Tyndale was honest with the text and was willing to ignore the various Church writers who insisted that this should read “I AM”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes!

All of grace is monergistic, including the blessings received through sacramental observances!

I did catch and appreciate several of your posts emphasizing faith (noun) in contrast to belief (verb). It is such a clear and obvious understanding of the initial saving (monergistic) work of God as later witnessed in His people.

Any and all notions of human synergism in regards to salvation of the soul should be discarded IMO. ��

Exactly. ALL Synergism is Monergism. If God doesn’t give faith, there is no believING. It’s the faith that does the believING; man only believes because God gives him the thing that does the actING with resulting actION/S.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Not only do the Scriptures directly state that Jehovah/YHVH God is the Creator, many of those same Scriptures identify Jesus as Jehovah's servant.

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings TrumpTrainCA,

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God.

The word translated God in the OT "Elohim" is also used for Angels Psalm 8:5-6, Judges Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82:6 and for Jesus the Son of God Psalm 45:6-7 and this carries over into the NT John 10:32-36, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8-9. They are called "God" because they represent God the Father, and speak and act on His behalf. The word God, in the English sense of the word is applicable to the One God, Yahweh Psalm 110:1, Psalm 8:1, God the Father 1 Corinthians 8:6, Galatians 1:1-3.

As far as 2020 is concerned our hopes and prayers should be towards God the Father that He will send our Lord Jesus Christ to establish His Kingdom to replace the inadequate and sometimes evil rule of man Daniel 2:44,4:17.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings TrumpTrainCA, The word translated God in the OT "Elohim" is also used for Angels Psalm 8:5-6, Judges Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82:6 and for Jesus the Son of God Psalm 45:6-7 and this carries over into the NT John 10:32-36, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8-9. They are called "God" because they represent God the Father, and speak and act on His behalf. The word God, in the English sense of the word is applicable to the One God, Yahweh Psalm 110:1, Psalm 8:1, God the Father 1 Corinthians 8:6, Galatians 1:1-3.

Playing word games will get you nowhere.

As far as 2020 is concerned our hopes and prayers should be towards God the Father that He will send our Lord Jesus Christ to establish His Kingdom to replace the inadequate and sometimes evil rule of man Daniel 2:44,4:17.

Kind regards
Trevor

Here is a prophecy concerning the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Zec 14:1-4 KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.​

 

[Vail Lifted]

Playing word games will get you nowhere.


Here is a prophecy concerning the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Zec 14:1-4 KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.​

"Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27 And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

The Father has life in Himself and has GRANTED to the son to have life in himself. Therefore, the son can raise from the dead whom he will because it has been granted to him from the Father. The passage also says that the Father has GIVEN the son authority to execute judgment because he is the son of man and not because he was God before he was born.

The Father has also given the son a name above all names (YHWH in the O.T. and Kyrios in the New)

"Wherefore God(The Father) also hath highly exalted him(Jesus), and GIVEN him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord(YHWH in O.T. and Kyrious in the New), to the glory of God the Father.

Even Jesus' name(YHWH, Kyrios) has been GIVEN to him by the one true God, the Father.

 

[Right Divider]

"Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27 And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

The Father has life in Himself and has GRANTED to the son to have life in himself. Therefore, the son can raise from the dead whom he will because it has been granted to him from the Father. The passage also says that the Father has GIVEN the son authority to execute judgment because he is the son of man and not because he was God before he was born.

The Father has also given the son a name above all names (YHWH in the O.T. and Kyrios in the New)

"Wherefore God(The Father) also hath highly exalted him(Jesus), and GIVEN him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord(YHWH in O.T. and Kyrious in the New), to the glory of God the Father.

Even Jesus' name(YHWH, Kyrios) has been GIVEN to him by the one true God, the Father.

You are typical of those that refuse to understand the TWO natures of the LORD Jesus Christ.

I guess that the reference to the LORD placing HIS FEET on the Mount of Olives was beyond your comprehension.

 

[Vail Lifted]

You are typical of those that refuse to understand the TWO natures of the LORD Jesus Christ.

I guess that the reference to the LORD placing HIS FEET on the Mount of Olives was beyond your comprehension.

You fail to recognize that God's name YHWH has been GIVEN to Jesus. The text very clearly states that God has HIGHLY EXALTED His son and GIVEN him THE NAME above all names, YHWH. Jesus NEVER had that Name until it was GIVEN to him!

It is said that GOD, the Father, has MADE JESUS both LORD (YHWH) and Christ (His anointed one). Jesus was neither YHWH nor Christ until he was made such by whom Jesus calls "My God".

Jesus' God is the ONE TRUE GOD and Father of all. The Father has simply transferred His name(YHWH) by giving it to Christ, His son.

When it is said that Jesus is GIVEN the name it also says that he is called that name "to the glory of the Father" who gave the name to him.

 

[Right Divider]

You fail to recognize that God's name YHWH has been GIVEN to Jesus. The text very clearly states that God has HIGHLY EXALTED His son and GIVEN him THE NAME above all names, YHWH. Jesus NEVER had that Name until it was GIVEN to him!

The "name which is above all names" is only that of God.

Jesus is God (John 1:1 & 1:14)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You fail to recognize that God's name YHWH has been GIVEN to Jesus. The text very clearly states that God has HIGHLY EXALTED His son and GIVEN him THE NAME above all names, YHWH. Jesus NEVER had that Name until it was GIVEN to him!

It is said that GOD, the Father, has MADE JESUS both LORD (YHWH) and Christ (His anointed one). Jesus was neither YHWH nor Christ until he was made such by whom Jesus calls "My God".

Jesus' God is the ONE TRUE GOD and Father of all. The Father has simply transferred His name(YHWH) by giving it to Christ, His son.

When it is said that Jesus is GIVEN the name it also says that he is called that name "to the glory of the Father" who gave the name to him.

Boy, oh boy... You surely need a few hundred lessons in linguistics and translation techniques. This is a mess of presuppositional error. You really need to stop.

Onoma (name) is NOT the syllablic construction of letters in words. Onoma is the complete representation of ontology. If the Father gave the Son His name, it means the Son is the full and complete representation of His Divinity in creation.

The words literally mean this, and much more. You think “name” is just the titular label as syllables of human languages in a word. That’s merely the sign for the signified. The signifed is the full divinity of God in Christ.

This is linguistic and grammatical fact; and that’s why the Divinity of Christ is Apostolic and Patristic doctrine that remains to this day.

You are changing scripture in shallow ignorance because you have no idea what words and grammatical structures mean in Hebrew, Greek, OR English; nor do you comprehend the scope of translation and what is required.

Yours is the most extreme kind of novice error possible. And you apply it to Christology!!!!

For your own sake, you need to stop. Take heed to what I’ve just said.



[THIS is why a Socinian/Unitarian Christology is likely the worst heresy of all false Christologies. One may attempt to argue about “how” and “what kind” and any number of other facets about the Divinity of the Lord, but sheer outright denial of His Divinity is the most egregious heresy of all.

For if His ontology as Divinity is in question and challenged, then all other aspects of His economies of action as Savior are in question and challenged. This includes the resurrection and its application to mankind.

This is a SERIOUSLY salvific issue, particularly for those who are not merely confused or in total ignorance and not accountable for much. But for those who contend earnestly for Unitarian Christology and extensively utilize perversions of the inspired text, they will be without excuse.]

 

[oatmeal]

The Father doesn't have a God. Jesus does. When Jesus was born and made of a woman his Father became both his Father and his God.

That is clear enough.

Jesus could not be the son of God unless God was his Father and God is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is derived from, inferior to and subordinate to God his Father

 

[oatmeal]

You fail to recognize that God's name YHWH has been GIVEN to Jesus. The text very clearly states that God has HIGHLY EXALTED His son and GIVEN him THE NAME above all names, YHWH. Jesus NEVER had that Name until it was GIVEN to him!
[/quote}
The "name which is above all names" is only that of God.

Jesus is God (John 1:1 & 1:14)

The scripture is the word of God.

Note carefully the word "word"

However, Jesus Christ is the word of God lived while scripture is the word of God in words.

God is the of course the source of both scripture and Jesus Christ so it is no surprise that both are given some characteristics of God as in truth, life, light, love etc.

We know God through the written word of God as well as the incarnate word of God, Jesus Christ

 

[oatmeal]

Boy, oh boy... You surely need a few hundred lessons in linguistics and translation techniques. This is a mess of presuppositional error. You really need to stop.

Onoma (name) is NOT the syllablic construction of letters in words. Onoma is the complete representation of ontology. If the Father gave the Son His name, it means the Son is the full and complete represention of His Divinity in creation.

The words literally mean this, and much more. You think “name” is just the titular label as syllables of human languages in a word. That’s merely the sign for the signified. The signifed is the full divinity of God in Christ.

This is linguistic and grammatical fact; and that’s why the Divinity of Christ is Apostolic and Patristic doctrine that remains to this day.

You are changing scripture in shallow ignorance because you have no idea what words and grammatical structures mean in Hebrew, Greek, OR English; nor do you comprehend the scope of translation and what is required.

Yours is the most extreme kind of novice error possible. And you apply it to Christology!!!!

For your own sake, you need to stop. Take heed to what I’ve just said.

You should read instead of guess, you should read what it says instead of twist, you should read instead of project your personal beliefs into what scripture plainly states.

Jesus was given a name above all names, note the word "given"

When will trins learn to read?