RE: Sequential Modalism

RE: Sequential Modalism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Here we have it! The claim that the human body of Christ has a mind of it's own, it's own will. It is a claim that CANNOT be true, because it is contrary to the teachings of scripture!!! John 6:38-40 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and elieves in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." I keep wondering when I will get banned. I keep looking for the boot. I guess it would be good for you if I got banned, wouldn't it?[;)] Jesus said I came not to do "my own will" meaning He had a will but it was subject to the Father (See John 5:19, 30; 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:10). This is cause for His impeccability as well. When we get to heaven we will see one throne and Jesus in His glorified body sitting upon that throne. He is the expression of the person of God.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius The position of the UPCI is not modalism. It has some likeness, but it is not sameness. There are those however who have very modalistic teachings and tend to run into Nestorianism. I have run across more than a few Trinitarians who basically believe in tritheism. Are they in accordance with what you call orthodox Trinitarianism? No. Very well. There's you some, and now I have some. In reality Figmentpez we are really back where we started now. What does the Scripture say? So far, all your teachings seem to be perfectly in line with what I know of modalism. Right down to believing that the spirit of the Father was dwelling inside of a meat puppet. The difference between misunderstandings of trintiarian doctrine, and "misunderstandings" of "oneness" is that there is no standard for correctness in "oneness". Since "oneness" is a rejection of truth, and primarily exists simply to say "trinitiarian doctrine is false", there is no standard of truth in "oneness". There is no one definitive version of "oneness", there are thousands of different variations on "oneness" and the devil uses that to his advantage. He takes every chance to have his followers claim that they're being misrepresented because they follow "oneness" version #512, instead of "onenenss" version #392, which differ only superficially. However, there are definitive statements of what trinitarian doctrine teaches, and definitive stances on what is and is not Christian doctrine. Then you must not understand modalism. Modalism teaches a difference in the Incaration. It suggests that God simply acted in different modes in time. I believe that God became a man, not a mode or just a role but an existence. The person of God became a man, not from His nature but from His being (Heb. 1:3 NRSV).

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Here we have it! The claim that the human body of Christ has a mind of it's own, it's own will. It is a claim that CANNOT be true, because it is contrary to the teachings of scripture!!! John 6:38-40 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and elieves in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." I keep wondering when I will get banned. I keep looking for the boot. I guess it would be good for you if I got banned, wouldn't it?[;)] Jesus said I came not to do "my own will" meaning He had a will but it was subject to the Father (See John 5:19, 30; 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:10). This is cause for His impeccability as well. When we get to heaven we will see one throne and Jesus in His glorified body sitting upon that throne. He is the expression of the person of God. And you have completely failed to address my point! This is a perfect example of your willfull ignorance. You ignore any consequences of your doctrine, leading you to believe that flesh and blood does inherit the kingdom!

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Then you must not understand modalism. Modalism teaches a difference in the Incaration. It suggests that God simply acted in different modes in time. I believe that God became a man, not a mode or just a role but an existence. The person of God became a man, not from His nature but from His being (Heb. 1:3 NRSV). And, yet, you still claim there is a distinction between the flesh body and the spirit of the Father indwelling it, so much that those are two seperate witnesses. You don't believe that God became a man, because you believe that the man is separate from the deity.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Then you must not understand modalism. Modalism teaches a difference in the Incaration. It suggests that God simply acted in different modes in time. I believe that God became a man, not a mode or just a role but an existence. The person of God became a man, not from His nature but from His being (Heb. 1:3 NRSV). And, yet, you still claim there is a distinction between the flesh body and the spirit of the Father indwelling it, so much that those are two seperate witnesses. You don't believe that God became a man, because you believe that the man is separate from the deity. No, the union of the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ are eternal and inseparable. Jesus is the expressed image of the person of God (Hebrews 1:3). The Scriptures only indicate one hypostasis in God. Btw, that is Nestorianism not Modalism. This is more misrepresentation and tells me that you are confusing the true doctrine of the Oneness of God. The moment I say the are eternally inseparable that goes against the core teaching of that heresy.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez And, yet, you still claim there is a distinction between the flesh body and the spirit of the Father indwelling it, so much that those are two seperate witnesses. You don't believe that God became a man, because you believe that the man is separate from the deity. No, the union of the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ are eternal and inseparable. Jesus is the expressed image of the person of God (Hebrews 1:3). The Scriptures only indicate one hypostasis in God. Btw, that is Nestorianism not Modalism. This is more misrepresentation and tells me that you are confusing the true doctrine of the Oneness of God. The moment I say the are eternally inseparable that goes against the core teaching of that heresy. Wait, your claim is that the humanity of Jesus Christ is eternal? That's a completely contradictory to your claims that the humanity of Christ was begotten at the time of the incarnation. In fact, you're claiming that Jesus Christ had humanity before creation existed, which is completely contrary to Biblical teaching. Even then, all your claims that the deity and humanity are inseperable are still contrary to the declarations of Scripture that the Son of God is not humanity (not until the Son of God became incarnate, and became the Son of Man as well as the Son of God) and that the Son will raise up believers on the last day. Your doctrine still falls apart in light of John 6.

J_Michael80 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:54:48 PM)
quote: original: figmentPez This is a perfect example of your willfull ignorance. FigmentPez, how old are you? That was not very nice. Especially in light of all your subjective opinions you have been spreading on these threads. I assume that you are a Trinitarian ("God is Three Divine Persons"). Is this how Trinitarians act and behave?

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:58:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: faithfulservant1 quote: original: figmentPez This is a perfect example of your willfull ignorance.[/ That is not a very nice thing to say. Especially in light of all your subjective opinions you have been spreading on these threads. I assume that you are a Trinitarian (God is "Three Divine Persons"). Is this how Trinitarians act and behave? Sometimes the truth is not "nice". I'd much rather have you offended now, and hopefully question why you're offended enough to take a second look at the truth, than go on happy and oblivious until you get to the throne of God for judgment, and find you that you didn't know Jesus Christ because you didn't believe that He is exactly who He claimed to be.

abu_khomar -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 6:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: faithfulservant1 quote: original: figmentPez This is a perfect example of your willfull ignorance.[/ That is not a very nice thing to say. Especially in light of all your subjective opinions you have been spreading on these threads. I assume that you are a Trinitarian (God is "Three Divine Persons"). Is this how Trinitarians act and behave? Sometimes the truth is not "nice". I'd much rather have you offended now, and hopefully question why you're offended enough to take a second look at the truth, than go on happy and oblivious until you get to the throne of God for judgment, and find you that you didn't know Jesus Christ because you didn't believe that He is exactly who He claimed to be. exactly where is it that Christ claims to be a member of the trinity? He said he is the great I Am, which he most absolutely is.

J_Michael80 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 6:16:21 PM)
quote: original: figmentPez And you have completely failed to address my point! This is a perfect example of your willfull ignorance. quote: original: figmentPez Sometimes the truth is not "nice." I'd much rather have you offended now, and hopefully question why you're offended enough to take a second look at the truth. This has to be a violation of TOS.............Moderators ????????

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 6:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez And, yet, you still claim there is a distinction between the flesh body and the spirit of the Father indwelling it, so much that those are two seperate witnesses. You don't believe that God became a man, because you believe that the man is separate from the deity. No, the union of the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ are eternal and inseparable. Jesus is the expressed image of the person of God (Hebrews 1:3). The Scriptures only indicate one hypostasis in God. Btw, that is Nestorianism not Modalism. This is more misrepresentation and tells me that you are confusing the true doctrine of the Oneness of God. The moment I say the are eternally inseparable that goes against the core teaching of that heresy. Wait, your claim is that the humanity of Jesus Christ is eternal? That's a completely contradictory to your claims that the humanity of Christ was begotten at the time of the incarnation. In fact, you're claiming that Jesus Christ had humanity before creation existed, which is completely contrary to Biblical teaching. Even then, all your claims that the deity and humanity are inseperable are still contrary to the declarations of Scripture that the Son of God is not humanity (not until the Son of God became incarnate, and became the Son of Man as well as the Son of God) and that the Son will raise up believers on the last day. Your doctrine still falls apart in light of John 6. Read again what I wrote. The union is eternal and inseparable. When did that union occur? He did so in time, which He has created and transcends. God knows the end from the beginning. This is really the point in a large sense because He had a plan since the beginning of time to reconcile man back to Himself, so that once again they can be in right relationship with Him. God foreknew and now we know.

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/30/2008 2:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 Was Bill Clinton ever with his father? Did he learn from his father and do some of the things he had seen his father do? Did his father ever send him on an errand? John 8 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. John 8:16-18 also shows us that Father and Son exist as separate persons. Jesus said, "...for I am not alone. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Father and Son make two witnesses. No analogy is perfect because your expansion of it actually implies a separateness of the persons, which is not orthodox I believe. If we have three separate infinite persons...then we have a problem with monotheism. The two witnesses is God the Father and the true human existence of God as man--Jesus Christ. He had a will and a mind. The will was subject to the Father. It does not take two persons to communicate, it takes to minds/consciousness. One person equals one mind; one person does not equal two minds/consciousnesses. Only two persons can talk to each other. John 15 26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: Three persons are present in the above verse, not one. John 17 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. This is not Christ's mind speaking to his other mind. Christ was with the Father before Christ became human. There are three Divine Persons who are One Being.

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/30/2008 2:42:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar exactly where is it that Christ claims to be a member of the trinity? He said he is the great I Am, which he most absolutely is. John 15 26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

J_Michael80 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/30/2008 2:45:20 AM)
I think we are getting off the Topic. Maybe we should talk about the OP, "Sequential Modalism." I don't want anyone getting verbally attacked or kicked off Crosswalk.

abu_khomar -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/30/2008 2:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar exactly where is it that Christ claims to be a member of the trinity? He said he is the great I Am, which he most absolutely is. John 15 26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: This is it? What did Christ say a few verses later about the comforter being with them already?

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/30/2008 6:39:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar exactly where is it that Christ claims to be a member of the trinity? He said he is the great I Am, which he most absolutely is. John 15 26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: This is it? What did Christ say a few verses later about the comforter being with them already? Are you talking about this? John16 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/3/2008 2:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar exactly where is it that Christ claims to be a member of the trinity? He said he is the great I Am, which he most absolutely is. Lets look at that passage, as it is from John 8, a chapter we've already been talking about: John 8:24-30 24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." 25So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning? 26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world." 27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. 28So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. 29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him." 30As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. Now, even without getting into trinitarian doctrine, we can prove that what is being taught by the "oneness" proponents on this board is blatantly false, and that they deny that Jesus Christ is "I AM". In reference to this passage: John 8:16-18 16"But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. 17"Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18"I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." "oneness" claims that the two witness are: 1. The one who testifies about himself, the one sent by the Father, who is NOT God, but the humanity of Christ 2. The Father who is God, and that there is no other person of God to testify. That is in direct contradiction to the statements of Jesus Christ! Jesus, the one who was sent by the Father is the one who says "for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." The false teachers on this board, those who promote "oneness", have said that this witness is not "I AM", they have said that he is not God, and have denied what Jesus Christ has claimed about Himself! Furthermore, note that when asked "Who are you?", Jesus doesn't just repeat "I AM" He says "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?" The claims of Jesus Christ about His identity are not just a single sentence, He has made many many declarations that we must believe. One of which is His claim to be the Son of Man, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He." This is one of the reasons that I've been so adamant in asking this question, a question that Christ asked: *Who do you* say that the Son of Man is?** Daniel 7:13-14 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. This is the Son of Man who Jesus Christ claimed to be, and this the Son of Man that "oneness" does not recognize as the LORD Jesus Christ.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/3/2008 2:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Read again what I wrote. The union is eternal and inseparable. When did that union occur? He did so in time, which He has created and transcends. God knows the end from the beginning. This is really the point in a large sense because He had a plan since the beginning of time to reconcile man back to Himself, so that once again they can be in right relationship with Him. God foreknew and now we know. As I've said before in another thread: "The Father / Son relationship within these two persons of the triune God is exactly that, a relationship that exists within God. This is the very nature of God, not something to do with God's relationship to creation. Creation was NOT and then was. God WAS and IS and IS TO COME (Rev 4:8, among other places), the eternal and unchanging God. God exists independent of creation, and is not reliant on it. God's nature is to be who He is, as He says "I AM WHO I AM". If the Father/Son relationship within God were dependent on creation, then that would mean that God changed, and that is impossible. The God who WAS when creation was NOT is just the same now as He was before creation (and, arguably, time is part of creation). The Only Begotten Son of God, God of God, must be begotten of God independent of creation, because saying that the relationship within God relies on creation would mean that God changed." Your argument that the Son of God only came into existence as part of creation means that you believe that God was not a Father until after He made creation. That means that you believe that God changed, and that is heresy.

abu_khomar -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/4/2008 1:03:26 AM)
quote: *Who do you* say that the Son of Man is?** Daniel 7:13-14 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. This is the Son of Man who Jesus Christ claimed to be, and this the Son of Man that "oneness" does not recognize as the LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/8/2008 6:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abu_khomar quote: *Who do you* say that the Son of Man is?** Daniel 7:13-14 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. This is the Son of Man who Jesus Christ claimed to be, and this the Son of Man that "oneness" does not recognize as the LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ Care to expound on that answer? Many who have said "jesus christ" are referring to something that is different than the Jesus Christ that is declared by scripture. Please tell us who is Jesus Christ, specifcially the Jesus Christ you have said is the Son of Man? Who is the Ancient of Days? Does the Son of Man deserve what He receives in this passage? Why or why not? Do you see any parallels between this passage and Revelation chapter 5?

Bluethread -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/15/2008 5:22:51 PM)
Man, the pun is just too tempting. figmentPez: Your dogma is doing a great job attacking this straw man. Unfortunately, no one can get near you because your attack dogma is keeping them away, that is when it is not chasing it's tail. Every time someone says something, there is an ism to label them with. Please, stick to the arguments and give others the right to be wrong. We are extending you the same consideration to you.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/16/2008 4:15:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluethread Please, stick to the arguments and give others the right to be wrong. How can I stick to the arguments given to me, when those arguments are incomplete, and people refuse to answer my questions?

Bluethread -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/16/2008 6:07:24 PM)
Maybe threre is a reason for that.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (5/16/2008 6:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluethread Maybe threre is a reason for that. Yup, they're afraid of facing their own answers, because they know they don't line up with scripture, and will be revealed to be lies when compared with the whole of the Bible.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI