Understanding Scripture

[Thistle]

So basically "God" our creator is saying we cannot be?

I may have started this conversation in the deep end. So perhaps I should go back and take it a little more slowly. God decided to create a universe with a large variety of creatures. But one creature in particular was going to have moral agency such that he could love God after the same basic manner that God loves him. God doesn't need anything. So God didn't need to create the universe. And creating the universe God didn't need to put creatures in it. And having decided to put creatures in it God didn't need to put a creature who can love him back. But if there is going to be a creature that can love him back it has to be able to exercise volition the same way God exercises volition. This creature must have free will with which to voluntarily love God. So God created this universe filled with creatures, but only one creature needs to be aware of God and that creature is the one who could love him back.

Now I need to back up and talk about God. Most people are pretty familiar with the quantitative attributes of God like immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. There's also qualitative attributes of God and the two big ones that most people are familiar with and these are his biggest qualitative attributes from what we can glean from the Bible, love and holiness. I'm gonna focus on holiness. When we speak of holiness as a qualitative attribute of God it means moral holiness. There is a kind of holiness that is a quantitative attribute of God and that is called ontological holiness. Ontological holiness means that God is set apart in his much as he is not contained within the universe he transcends the universe. This is what we mean when we say God is transcendent. That's not what we're primarily concerned about here. Gods qualitative holiness is moral holiness. When we say that God is morally holy what we literally mean is that there are certain things that God will never do. Likewise there are certain things that God will always do. And in the same fashion there are certain things that God might choose to do in accord with his volition. If you could comprehend all of that Godly behavior you would have a perfect description of God's moral holiness.

Now I can return to the subject of God's moral agents man. Man at a certain level of maturity comes to recognize that he is a moral agent and when he recognizes that he is created by God and that God is as the Bible says "holy, holy, holy," the man is on notice that he is not to violate the holiness of God because God is his creator. Because God is our Creator we have an absolute obligation not to violate his holiness.

Why is that, you may ask. Remember above when I mentioned that God is immutable. That is to say God does not change. If God is "holy, holy, holy" that means that he is holy to a superlative perfection which is absolutely complete. I also said above that God is omniscient, which means that when he decided to put in his universe a moral agent (man) he knew that man would choose to violate his Holiness.

How could God possibly do that if he is "holy, holy, holy?" God could only create man (who would violate his Holiness) if at the same time he schedules judgment day on which to balance the scales of justice condemning man for his violation of God's holiness.

By creating man (who would violate his holiness) and scheduling judgment day (to balance the scales of justice) at the same time, God's holiness is not destroyed on the fulcrum of his mutability. God cannot be less than God even for a moment, so we know that God had to schedule judgment day the moment he decided to create a man who he knew would sin.

Now you might be objecting "but wait a minute, didn't you say above that God is love? How could God possibly be love if he is going to create man who will violate his Holiness only to be thrown into the fires of hell for all of eternity?"

You're absolutely correct, God could not create man only to be thrown into the fires of hell for all of eternity! To do so God would destroy his love on the fulcrum of his immutability, and God cannot be less than God even for a moment. So in order for God create man (who would be judged for violating his holiness on judgment day), God must also schedule the cross (so that the punishment for man's violation could be covered by God's on propitiation for sin).

So because God has created man, and scheduled a judgment day, and scheduled the cross, all at the same time, he has not destroyed his holiness, or his love, on the fulcrum of his immutability, proving that he is God, and is never not God, even for a moment.

This may be more explanation than you had in mind, but we can now answer your question above. We can "be" as you say, because God scheduled the cross and we can rely on what he said in John 3:16 and 17.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." - John 3:16-17 RSV​

That seems more like Satan to me .....

I hope my comments above clarified…

Theology get's kind of weird.

God is infinite and no one else that we know is, therefore it can be a little bit of a challenge to get our mind around the universe from his perspective. There are limits to which we can achieve this, but I hope what I said above is sufficient to understand the points that I made.

 

[guest1]

I may have started this conversation in the deep end. So perhaps I should go back and take it a little more slowly. God decided to create a universe with a large variety of creatures. But one creature in particular was going to have moral agency such that he could love God after the same basic manner that God loves him. God doesn't need anything. So God didn't need to create the universe. And creating the universe God didn't need to put creatures in it. And having decided to put creatures in it God didn't need to put a creature who can love him back. But if there is going to be a creature that can love him back it has to be able to exercise volition the same way God exercises volition. This creature must have free will with which to voluntarily love God. So God created this universe filled with creatures, but only one creature needs to be aware of God and that creature is the one who could love him back.

Now I need to back up and talk about God. Most people are pretty familiar with the quantitative attributes of God like immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. There's also qualitative attributes of God and the two big ones that most people are familiar with and these are his biggest qualitative attributes from what we can glean from the Bible, love and holiness. I'm gonna focus on holiness. When we speak of holiness as a qualitative attribute of God it means moral holiness. There is a kind of holiness that is a quantitative attribute of God and that is called ontological holiness. Ontological holiness means that God is set apart in his much as he is not contained within the universe he transcends the universe. This is what we mean when we say God is transcendent. That's not what we're primarily concerned about here. Gods qualitative holiness is moral holiness. When we say that God is morally holy what we literally mean is that there are certain things that God will never do. Likewise there are certain things that God will always do. And in the same fashion there are certain things that God might choose to do in accord with his volition. If you could comprehend all of that Godly behavior you would have a perfect description of God's moral holiness.

Now I can return to the subject of God's moral agents man. Man at a certain level of maturity comes to recognize that he is a moral agent and when he recognizes that he is created by God and that God is as the Bible says "holy, holy, holy," the man is on notice that he is not to violate the holiness of God because God is his creator. Because God is our Creator we have an absolute obligation not to violate his holiness.

Why is that, you may ask. Remember above when I mentioned that God is immutable. That is to say God does not change. If God is "holy, holy, holy" that means that he is holy to a superlative perfection which is absolutely complete. I also said above that God is omniscient, which means that when he decided to put in his universe a moral agent (man) he knew that man would choose to violate his Holiness.

How could God possibly do that if he is "holy, holy, holy?" God could only create man (who would violate his Holiness) if at the same time he schedules judgment day on which to balance the scales of justice condemning man for his violation of God's holiness.

By creating man (who would violate his holiness) and scheduling judgment day (to balance the scales of justice) at the same time, God's holiness is not destroyed on the fulcrum of his mutability. God cannot be less than God even for a moment, so we know that God had to schedule judgment day the moment he decided to create a man who he knew would sin.

Now you might be objecting "but wait a minute, didn't you say above that God is love? How could God possibly be love if he is going to create man who will violate his Holiness only to be thrown into the fires of hell for all of eternity?"

You're absolutely correct, God could not create man only to be thrown into the fires of hell for all of eternity! To do so God would destroy his love on the fulcrum of his immutability, and God cannot be less than God even for a moment. So in order for God create man (who would be judged for violating his holiness on judgment day), God must also schedule the cross (so that the punishment for man's violation could be covered by God's on propitiation for sin).

So because God has created man, and scheduled a judgment day, and scheduled the cross, all at the same time, he has not destroyed his holiness, or his love, on the fulcrum of his immutability, proving that he is God, and is never not God, even for a moment.

This may be more explanation than you had in mind, but we can now answer your question above. We can "be" as you say, because God scheduled the cross and we can rely on what he said in John 3:16 and 17.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." - John 3:16-17 RSV​

I hope my comments above clarified…

God is infinite and no one else that we know is, therefore it can be a little bit of a challenge to get our mind around the universe from his perspective. There are limits to which we can achieve this, but I hope what I said above is sufficient to understand the points that I made.

Take a look on this page. I’ve been working on this for a while . It’s my most recent update . It’s still a work in progress and I will truth this into a blog soon . Your thoughts in that thread are appreciated.

Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

False dichotomy fallacy . If you think it through you would see it . Such comments are worthless and self-serving. It ASSUMES the poster is correct, and then it ASSUMES that his opponent is either stupid or dishonest if he doesn't "see it". The poster is AFRAID to provide the actual...

forums.carm.org

 

[Thistle]

Take a look on this page. I’ve been working on this for a while . It’s my most recent update . It’s still a work in progress and I will truth this into a blog soon . Your thoughts in that thread are appreciated.

Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

False dichotomy fallacy . If you think it through you would see it . Such comments are worthless and self-serving. It ASSUMES the poster is correct, and then it ASSUMES that his opponent is either stupid or dishonest if he doesn't "see it". The poster is AFRAID to provide the actual...

forums.carm.org

Yeah, I largely agree with much of what you said in your post. The way I think of God's secondary (qualitative) attributes as you call them, is that they could almost be categorized under moral holiness or love is kind of super categories.

Whether God is timeless in the Augustinian sense of that notion I've come to doubt. Obviously God is not bound to universal time. And time is not a force that imposes a limit on God. So have I left an alternative? The question becomes is God the sort of being who experiences the passage of moments? If the answer to that question is yes, then what we're simply saying is that this attribute of experiencing the passage of moments is simply an attribute like any of his other attributes and are there by descriptive not prescriptive.

You might be asking, if time began with the creation of the universe, how could God have this attribute of experiencing the passing of moments, before there were any moments to pass. This is where we have to draw a distinction. If experiencing the passage of moments is an attribute of God, then God represents his own timeline. That is to say, that this timeline is what we might call "God-time," which is simply an attribute of God, in the same way love is an attribute of God. It exists completely independent of universal time, which began at the moment of creation. So there is always been God-time but universal time began with creation.

You might be asking, this seems awfully complicated why not just stick with Augustinian timelessness. I think there's a major theological problem that's created by Augustinian timelessness. If God exists in an ever present NOW where past present and future all exist simultaneously that means the dynamic nature of God's movement in history calcifies into a marble statue. In this circumstance God only appears to be moving because our timeline is wrapped around him like a giant coil and as we experience the passing of moments we are seeing a different part of God from a new perspective on our timeline coil. But if this is true God is as lifeless as any statue in any pagan temple, and for me that is just an unacceptable solution.

For that reason I have concluded that God is temporally related to time, under the God-time attribute theory that I outlined above. The foregoing is not my own original insight I borrowed it from Jack Cottrell. I would send you a link but I'm sorry but I can't find it.

 

[guest1]

Yeah, I largely agree with much of what you said in your post. The way I think of God's secondary (qualitative) attributes as you call them, is that they could almost be categorized under moral holiness or love is kind of super categories.

Whether God is timeless in the Augustinian sense of that notion I've come to doubt. Obviously God is not bound to universal time. And time is not a force that imposes a limit on God. So have I left an alternative? The question becomes is God the sort of being who experiences the passage of moments? If the answer to that question is yes, then what we're simply saying is that this attribute of experiencing the passage of moments is simply an attribute like any of his other attributes and are there by descriptive not prescriptive.

You might be asking, if time began with the creation of the universe, how could God have this attribute of experiencing the passing of moments, before there were any moments to pass. This is where we have to draw a distinction. If experiencing the passage of moments is an attribute of God, then God represents his own timeline. That is to say, that this timeline is what we might call "God-time," which is simply an attribute of God, in the same way love is an attribute of God. It exists completely independent of universal time, which began at the moment of creation. So there is always been God-time but universal time began with creation.

You might be asking, this seems awfully complicated why not just stick with Augustinian timelessness. I think there's a major theological problem that's created by Augustinian timelessness. If God exists in an ever present NOW where past present and future all exist simultaneously that means the dynamic nature of God's movement in history calcifies into a marble statue. In this circumstance God only appears to be moving because our timeline is wrapped around him like a giant coil and as we experience the passing of moments we are seeing a different part of God from a new perspective on our timeline coil. But if this is true God is as lifeless as any statue in any pagan temple, and for me that is just an unacceptable solution.

For that reason I have concluded that God is temporally related to time, under the God-time attribute theory that I outlined above. The foregoing is not my own original insight I borrowed it from Jack Cottrell. I would send you a link but I'm sorry but I can't find it.

Thanks lots to ponder and I like your thought process .

 

[Thistle]

Thanks lots to ponder and I like your thought process .

A number of years ago I read Jack Cottrell's systematic theology entitled "The Faith Once for All." Like all systematic theologies it dealt with the biblical material in a topical order, and of course is very useful, but as I would read Jack would refer to an earlier work that he did, which was a theology of God in three volumes each of which was easily as long as the systematic theology, because as it turns out God is the biggest subject imaginable.

I finally became intrigued and ordered those three volumes and spent the next several years studying through them very slowly and meticulously. I would stop and look up all the references as I went and so on I wanted to make sure that I was actually grasping what he was trying to put across.

I was astonished after having been a Christian for many decades, thinking I really understood my faith, the extent to which I didn't know about God. Working through that material really became kind of a Copernican revolution in my own faith.

You might find the material in the theology of God of Jack's interesting. I can just tell you it had a major impact on my ability to apply reason to many of these questions as I tried to make the most straightforward sense of the various passages that were involved. I was also surprised the extent to which many of the most complex and impenetrable questions about man and the universe are actually resolved by studying God. All the things that puzzle us the most in this universe turn out to be remarkably illuminated when we look at God himself.

The first volume is called "What the Bible Says About God the Creator" followed by "What the Bible Says About God the Ruler" and finally "What the Bible Says About God the Redeemer." It's something on the order of 1500 pages total.

 

[guest1]

A number of years ago I read Jack Cottrell's systematic theology entitled "The Faith Once for All." Like all systematic theologies it dealt with the biblical material in a topical order, and of course is very useful, but as I would read Jack would refer to an earlier work that he did, which was a theology of God in three volumes each of which was easily as long as the systematic theology, because as it turns out God is the biggest subject imaginable.

I finally became intrigued and ordered those three volumes and spent the next several years studying through them very slowly and meticulously. I would stop and look up all the references as I went and so on I wanted to make sure that I was actually grasping what he was trying to put across.

I was astonished after having been a Christian for many decades, thinking I really understood my faith, the extent to which I didn't know about God. Working through that material really became kind of a Copernican revolution in my own faith.

You might find the material in the theology of God of Jack's interesting. I can just tell you it had a major impact on my ability to apply reason to many of these questions as I tried to make the most straightforward sense of the various passages that were involved. I was also surprised the extent to which many of the most complex and impenetrable questions about man and the universe are actually resolved by studying God. All the things that puzzle us the most in this universe turn out to be remarkably illuminated when we look at God himself.

The first volume is called "What the Bible Says About God the Creator" followed by "What the Bible Says About God the Ruler" and finally "What the Bible Says About God the Redeemer." It's something on the order of 1500 pages total.

Thanks I just ordered the Creator and Redeemer volumes.

 

[Gary Mac]

Until one sees God, God manifest Himself in you and His revelation of, all this guess work such as a trinity where God is this and God is that dissipates and the reality of Him face to face as He did in Jesus and manifested Himself the same in others we read of opens up ALL of who He is for we become like Him. Even Adam came to Gods realization and became like Him as His original intent is. And when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him 1John 3 No different from when Jesus saw Him in Matt 3:16. You never will know God at all until He is revealed in you as He was in these who God manifested Himself in.

The trinity doctrine is designed to keep your focus on a creed instead of having from Him what Jesus and these others had from Him.

You can read how He did come to all of these but because of these man made doctrines such as a trinity the same as came to these by Spirit does not apply to you. All that you know about a god is what someone else has told you opinions about Him from ignorance for not having received from God that what Jesus received from Him and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus was perfected in Him as well.

 

[Thistle]

Thanks I just ordered the Creator and Redeemer volumes.

The observation about God's relationship to time does not make it into these three volumes. Those were written in the early 1980s. Much later Jack was asked to speak at a symposium and was assigned the topic of God's relationship to time and in that connection under took a very serious study of the subject to prepare for that presentation. Jack is still alive but he's dying of a terminal case of cancer. If you ask him where that writing can be had, I'm sure he will tell you it's in one of his anthologies, and could identify which one. You can reach him on his Facebook page.

 

[FeW_ArE_ChOseN]

Until one sees God, God manifest Himself in you and His revelation of, all this guess work such as a trinity where God is this and God is that dissipates and the reality of Him face to face as He did in Jesus and manifested Himself the same in others we read of opens up ALL of who He is for we become like Him. Even Adam came to Gods realization and became like Him as His original intent is. And when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him 1John 3 No different from when Jesus saw Him in Matt 3:16. You never will know God at all until He is revealed in you as He was in these who God manifested Himself in.

The trinity doctrine is designed to keep your focus on a creed instead of having from Him what Jesus and these others had from Him.

You can read how He did come to all of these but because of these man made doctrines such as a trinity the same as came to these by Spirit does not apply to you. All that you know about a god is what someone else has told you opinions about Him from ignorance for not having received from God that what Jesus received from Him and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus was perfected in Him as well.

those who see darkly, cannot tell others about the light. this is just a general statement though. more detail/explanation might be: those who have not sought/or found light and truth enough to overcome falsehoods in their thinking, cannot teach above milky/or incomplete unknowns. not that things cannot be known to us - even from the beginning of believing in Christ and in God, but, with too much thinking that - we - know, ceasing - to - learn and to grow in mind and heart and in spirit - as a child... learning too much from books (not from Spirit/reality/life/and experience) enough, so many things can it seems be overlooked by many or never realized enough. the Scriptures tell us to seek first the kingdom of God... and let few of us be teachers. for if too soon we begin to 'teach' others - what we don't actually know - we lie to ourselves and to others about what is/might be truth... dimming down the light for ourselves by doing unto others what we would not want done to ourselves - taught things that aren't right or true enough. guesses and theories, dogmas and doctrines of people - formulated over the years from Scriptures they do not understand completely or well enough - by seeking first the kingdom of God - so that in time - all things needed for a better/or more complete understanding is found by them and/or is given to them.

 

[Thistle]

@Chalcedon you have plenty to keep you busy for a good while in the two volumes you have on order. But in that second volume "What the Bible says about God the Ruler" Jack deals with providence, special providence, free will, miracles, sovereignty, the will of God, predestination, prayer, the problem of evil, and our response to God's providence. It's a very insightful study too.

I was very interested to see Jack treating the issue of prayer as one of the ways that God rules the universe. God decided that one of the ways that he's going to rule the universe is listening to our petitions in prayer making us collaborators in his sovereign reign. That was a mind blowing revelation for me.

 

[Thistle]

Until one sees God, God manifest Himself in you and His revelation of, all this guess work such as a trinity where God is this and God is that dissipates and the reality of Him face to face as He did in Jesus and manifested Himself the same in others we read of opens up ALL of who He is for we become like Him. Even Adam came to Gods realization and became like Him as His original intent is. And when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him 1John 3 No different from when Jesus saw Him in Matt 3:16. You never will know God at all until He is revealed in you as He was in these who God manifested Himself in.

The trinity doctrine is designed to keep your focus on a creed instead of having from Him what Jesus and these others had from Him.

You can read how He did come to all of these but because of these man made doctrines such as a trinity the same as came to these by Spirit does not apply to you. All that you know about a god is what someone else has told you opinions about Him from ignorance for not having received from God that what Jesus received from Him and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus was perfected in Him as well.

If you're as confident as you sound that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, can I recommend that you do in part what @Chalcedon has just done, namely by one of these volumes I just mentioned "What the Bible says about God the Redeemer." On page 117 to page 174 Jack Cottrell gives a full throated defense of the Trinity and all of the biblical data which proves it to be true. If you are correct you should have no difficulty pointing out the flaws in his argument.

 

[guest1]

@Chalcedon you have plenty to keep you busy for a good while in the two volumes you have on order. But in that second volume "What the Bible says about God the Ruler" Jack deals with providence, special providence, free will, miracles, sovereignty, the will of God, predestination, prayer, the problem of evil, and our response to God's providence. It's a very insightful study too.

I was very interested to see Jack treating the issue of prayer as one of the ways that God rules the universe. God decided that one of the ways that he's going to rule the universe is listening to our petitions in prayer making us collaborators in his sovereign reign. That was a mind blowing revelation for me.

That sounds very intriguing. I have been a calvinist for over 40 years and the past 2 have been reexamining those beliefs in light of the nature of God as Triune which is why I now reject the Penal aspect of wrath from Father to Son in PSA. I'm also reconsidering and modifying my beliefs with the doctrines of grace. So the prayer aspect above grabs my attention because as a former calvinst I would of instantly rejected it because of my calvinist biblical view but now I'm open. Its very freeing to not be bound by a systematic such as calvinism because if frees me to see things differently, approach scripture with an open mind and not a system and I can learn new things because I'm no longer seeing it through the lens of calvinism. It has been very freeing to say the least but I'm getting hammered by several calvinist on the calvinist forum because I'm no longer " one of them" and I'm treated differently now, no longer their best buddy lol. But I can handle it and know calvinism better than the ones who are attacking me anyways which is quite comical.

 

[guest1]

If you're as confident as you sound that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, can I recommend that you do in part what @Chalcedon has just done, namely by one of these volumes I just mentioned "What the Bible says about God the Redeemer." On page 117 to page 174 Jack Cottrell gives a full throated defense of the Trinity and all of the biblical data which proves it to be true. If you are correct you should have no difficulty pointing out the flaws in his argument.

No I'm a whole hearted trinitarian through and through.

oh I see now that was addressed to gary correct ?

 

[Thistle]

That sounds very intriguing. I have been a calvinist for over 40 years and the past 2 have been reexamining those beliefs in light of the nature of God as Triune which is why I now reject the Penal aspect of wrath from Father to Son in PSA. I'm also reconsidering and modifying my beliefs with the doctrines of grace. So the prayer aspect above grabs my attention because as a former calvinst I would of instantly rejected it because of my calvinist biblical view but now I'm open. Its very freeing to not be bound by a systematic such as calvinism because if frees me to see things differently, approach scripture with an open mind and not a system and I can learn new things because I'm no longer seeing it through the lens of calvinism. It has been very freeing to say the least but I'm getting hammered by several calvinist on the calvinist forum because I'm no longer " one of them" and I'm treated differently now, no longer their best buddy lol. But I can handle it and know calvinism better than the ones who are attacking me anyways which is quite comical.

I think then you're going to especially appreciate Jack's writing style. He is an arminian but he received his PhD from Princeton which is a Calvinist school. So he is very respectful of Calvinism, but of course he doesn't subscribe to it, and is very forthright about the problems that he sees with it.

 

[guest1]

I think then you're going to especially appreciate Jack's writing style. He is an arminian but he received his PhD from Princeton which is a Calvinist school. So he is very respectful of Calvinism, but of course he doesn't subscribe to it, and is very forthright about the problems that he sees with it.

Thanks I even like him more now

 

[Thistle]

No I'm a whole hearted trinitarian through and through.

oh I see now that was addressed to gary correct ?

Yes I was addressing Gary's post. I just wanted to alert you since I mentioned you in it in the post.

 

[FeW_ArE_ChOseN]

Until one sees God, God manifest Himself in you and His revelation of, all this guess work such as a trinity where God is this and God is that dissipates and the reality of Him face to face as He did in Jesus and manifested Himself the same in others we read of opens up ALL of who He is for we become like Him. Even Adam came to Gods realization and became like Him as His original intent is. And when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him 1John 3 No different from when Jesus saw Him in Matt 3:16. You never will know God at all until He is revealed in you as He was in these who God manifested Himself in.

The trinity doctrine is designed to keep your focus on a creed instead of having from Him what Jesus and these others had from Him.

You can read how He did come to all of these but because of these man made doctrines such as a trinity the same as came to these by Spirit does not apply to you. All that you know about a god is what someone else has told you opinions about Him from ignorance for not having received from God that what Jesus received from Him and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus was perfected in Him as well.

all these doctrines can distract. from real seeking of God and His kingdom. one can begin... to notice each - day when ... one gets off course... from Spirit.

this is just one thing one can begin to notice, and/or to learn. doctrines are of thought, not of being, of becoming, overcoming, and following - Christ.

 

[Gary Mac]

those who see darkly, cannot tell others about the light. this is just a general statement though. more detail/explanation might be: those who have not sought/or found light and truth enough to overcome falsehoods in their thinking, cannot teach above milky/or incomplete unknowns. not that things cannot be known to us - even from the beginning of believing in Christ and in God, but, with too much thinking that - we - know, ceasing - to - learn and to grow in mind and heart and in spirit - as a child... learning too much from books (not from Spirit/reality/life/and experience) enough, so many things can it seems be overlooked by many or never realized enough. the Scriptures tell us to seek first the kingdom of God... and let few of us be teachers. for if too soon we begin to 'teach' others - what we don't actually know - we lie to ourselves and to others about what is/might be truth... dimming down the light for ourselves by doing unto others what we would not want done to ourselves - taught things that aren't right or true enough. guesses and theories, dogmas and doctrines of people - formulated over the years from Scriptures they do not understand completely or well enough - by seeking first the kingdom of God - so that in time - all things needed for a better/or more complete understanding is found by them and/or is given to them.

Most dont seek the kingdom of God first, they seek the doctrine of man that sounds best for their beliefs about a god.

These do not seek the kingdom of God that doesnt come with observation, they seek the one that does come with observation made by mans own will. Luke 17:20-21, the kingdom of God doesnt come with observation, it is within you. This is the One these avoid in favor of one they can observe as material.

 

[Gary Mac]

If you're as confident as you sound that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, can I recommend that you do in part what @Chalcedon has just done, namely by one of these volumes I just mentioned "What the Bible says about God the Redeemer." On page 117 to page 174 Jack Cottrell gives a full throated defense of the Trinity and all of the biblical data which proves it to be true. If you are correct you should have no difficulty pointing out the flaws in his argument.

You act as if God is not able to communicate with me one on one and that I should listen to opinions of man instead.

Jack is not my way, God is my way. And Jesus told you as well that in that day ye shall ask me noting but go to the Father for yourself and He will give it you. If you need Jack instead of God that only He can give His information then I understand why you would recommend someone named Jack to teach you instead of nGod Himself that seems to be out of reach that He is not able to teach you His ways.

Confident? Not in Jack nor any other man for sure. God is able all I have to do is receive the gift of Himself in me.

 

[Gary Mac]

No I'm a whole hearted trinitarian through and through.

oh I see now that was addressed to gary correct ?

Im filled with Gods anointing, Christ in me, through and through, the same anointing Jesus walked in. Christ in us.

Christ = Gods anointing and either you are of Christ anointed of God as Jesus was, Moses was. Abraham was, 120 was, or you are not. Even Adam became Gods anointed to become like Him to know this difference, Gen 3:22. Christ, Gods anointing, was not new with Jesus -- Christ was here from Adam onward. He was the first to be of Christ, anointed of God to become like Him as God demands of us all if we are to be of Christ, His anointed.

Christ is not a man, Christ is the disposition of man who is anointed of God. All who has from God that what Jesus had from Him are of Christ.