- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Divegeester,
In the mean time never a sound argument from the Bible that a serious error is being taught in the local churches.
So you don't think the fountain filled with blood in a classic Christian hymn has any biblical basis in Scripture? I read your reasons and I find them weak.
And on the three-oneness of God you've never had much that could stand. Let me tell you why. It is because, I think, of the Unitarians whole approach to the Bible. You don't take it that seriously.
Additional beliefs generally held by Unitarian Universalists are:
...
Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth. This last point, "Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth," is perhaps the most revealing of the character of Unitarian Universalists. Instead of God and his word being the final authority on truth and error, or right and wrong, Unitarian Universalists subject God and his word to their understanding, feeling, and reason. This is exemplified in the following quote obtain from the official Unitarian Universalist website at http://uua.org/. This was found under the heading Unitarian Universalists say:
"I want a religion that respects the differences between people and affirms every person as an individual."
"I want a church that values children, that welcomes them on their own terms—a church they are eager to attend on Sunday morning."
"I want a congregation that cherishes freedom and encourages open dialogue on questions of faith, one in which it is okay to change your mind."
"I want a religious community that affirms spiritual exploration and reason as ways of finding truth."
"I want a church that acts locally and thinks globally on the great issues of our time—world peace; women's rights; racial justice; homelessness; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights; and protection of the environment."
Notice that each of the five statements begins with "I want..." This is not the humble attitude of one indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. It is not the attitude of one who wants to put God first.
It can plainly be seen that this is a religion based on personal hopes and desires and not upon the Bible.
Of course much here sounds compassionate and good. But under the surface is disregard for the authority of the Bible.
I want.
I want.
I want.
Nothing about what God says we need.
https://carm.org/what-unitarianism
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Mar 19
2 edits
@FMF
What do you think?
Questioner.
He taught that the office of the Son of God will end.
What would you say about the adherence of such a concept with the New Testament?
It doesn't matter to you?
If you come back that it doesn't matter to you one way or the other, then you needn't ask me. I mean like ... JUST ... for the sake of asking me.
18 Mar 19
@sonship saidDo you believe divegeester is a "heretic" or not?
@FMF
What do you think?
Questioner.
The office of the Son of God will end.
What would you say about the adherence of such a concept with the New Testament?
It doesn't matter to you?
If you come back that it doesn't matter to you one way or the other, then you needn't ask me. I mean like ... JUST ... for the sake of asking me.
@sonship saidBased on the evidence of the section of their statement of belief in my OP, I’d say the local church is a cult.
@divegeesterYour church has indications of being a cult sonship.
Noted that you don't have the guts to come out and plainly say the local churches are a cult.
No “guts” required.
@sonship said:
So you don't think the fountain filled with blood in a classic Christian hymn has any biblical basis in Scripture? I read your reasons and I find them weak.
There is no “fountain of blood” anywhere in scripture. It’s not even remotely scriptural as a metaphor. The OT describes blood being “sprinkled” on the holy seat and the NT describes our hearts being “sprinkled” with the blood of Christ.
You’re wrong, your reference is wrong.
@sonship said1 Cor 15:25
@FMF He taught that the office of the Son of God will end.
What would you say about the adherence of such a concept with the New Testament?
For he (the son) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
And...
1 Cor 15:24
“Then the end will come, when he (the son) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”
And yet...
Isaiah 9:6-7
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end
I think it’s fair to say that if there are three people in the triune godhead then the son is very subordinate to the father and certainly not co-equal.
But, if there is one entity manifested in multiple ways, different offices (just an suggested adjective), then the fleshly Jesus who “became” a son when the the Almighty “became” his father (today you have become my son) ... evolves authority back to the father, the Almighty. If they are they same core entity there is no incongruence.
The trinity is error and the Local Church have turned that error into a salvation issue and themselves into a cult.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
There is no “fountain of blood” anywhere in scripture. It’s not even remotely scriptural as a metaphor. The OT describes blood being “sprinkled” on the holy seat and the NT describes our hearts being “sprinkled” with the blood of Christ.
You’re wrong, your reference is wrong.
Let's get the facts of the discussion straight.
1.) I referred to a SONG, a famous Christian Hymn with a famous line -
"There is a fountain filled with blood ..."
2.) It is a metaphor which is indeed founded in the Bible.
I would locate the idea behind to metaphor to be
Zechariah 13:1. Without checking the opinions of others, I think that should be the background passage.
"In that day there will be an opened fountain for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, FOR SIN AND FOR IMPURITY." [my emphasis]
3.) I do NOT dispute that there is the SPRINKLING of blood throughout for instance the book of Leviticus.
I don't deny that for a moment.
However the plunging beneath the flood in the SONG, the HYMN of the Christian faith is probably in reference to the idea of a fountain for sin and impurity.
You plunge perhaps, because your sins have become so heavy. But that's my interpretation of the poetry of the famous song.
Now to me it is stupid to argue against the song saying that there is no fountain of blood mentioned in the Bible.
The reference of Zechariah 13:1 the return of Christ being finally RECOGNIZED by the nation of Israel. It is perfectly logical that the prophet Zechariah means that they will avail themselves of the REDEMPTION that is in the death of their returning Messiah - the one whom they pierced on the cross to crucified.
Check the context of 13:1
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplications; and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced, and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son." (Zech. 12:10) [/b]
Now to worship Jesus for opening a fountain of blood for redemption is perfectly biblical even though the words "fountain of blood" is not in the Bible but only "a fountain opened ... for sin and for impurity"
The best reference for such an allusion is John 20:34-37.
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.
Therefore the song says "There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from EMMANUEL's veins."
Emmanuel is God with us.
The song means God incarnate died a redemptive death and opened up a fountain in His wounded side out of which came the redeeming blood.
Christians who have loved Christ and what He has done for us on Calvary have no problem with the poetry of the song.
No apologies need to be made for this adoration.
There is a fountain filled with blood Drawn from Emmanuel's veins
Author: William Cowper (1772)
Tune: [There is a fountain filled with blood]
https://hymnary.org/text/there_is_a_fountain_filled_with_blood_dr
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
This is repetition of debates had with the same poster before.
1 Cor 15:25
For he (the son) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
It doesn't say though He is no longer the Son of God after that "until" time. The throne of the Son is "forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8) .
So whatever subordination of the Son to God cannot mean the Sons seat of authority it temporary or else Hebrews 1:8 is wrong.
But of the Son, Your throne, O God, os forever and ever." (Heb. 1:8a)
The Son of God is also God.
The throne, seat of authority, and administration of the Son (Who is God) is "forever and ever. The "until" of First Corinthians 15:25 doesn't change that.
Dives continues -
And...
1 Cor 15:24
“Then the end will come, when he (the son) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”
The Son "delivers up the kingdom to His God and Father". But the dominion and kingdom of the Son are forever and ever. So it cannot mean He relinquishes an office of the Son of God.
Daniel 7:13,14 says the the Son of Man has an eternal kingdom. The Son of Man is also the Son of God, the Son of the Father.
And to Him [the Son of Man] was given dominion, glory, and a KINGDOM,[my emphasis]
That all the peoples, nations, and languages might serve Him.
His dominion is an ETERNAL DOMINION, which will not pass away; and HIS KINGDOM is one that will not be destroyed."
Dive continues:
And yet...
Isaiah 9:6-7
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end
You QUOTED IT YOURSELF. The Son who is given has a KINGDOM to which there will be no end.
Whatever delivering up the kingdom to His Father means it doesn't mean the Son's kingdom has an END.
There may be an END to the period of the millennial reign.
That is not the END of the office of the Son of God.
That is neither the END of the Son's kingdom which is forever and ever because He is the Son and God.
I think it’s fair to say that if there are three people in the triune godhead then the son is very subordinate to the father and certainly not co-equal.
But we do not have to say "three people". We can simply say "THREE" because it is so mysterious.
I may also borrow from the limited human language and say perhaps "three Persons" but remain true to the truth that there is only ONE GOD.
This is why the local churches say "the unique Triune God" . Nothing else and no one else is like the God - Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
But, if there is one entity manifested in multiple ways, different offices (just an suggested adjective), then the fleshly Jesus who “became” a son when the the Almighty “became” his father (today you have become my son) ... evolves authority back to the father, the Almighty. If they are they same core entity there is no incongruence.
Here you have something out of Divegeester's own mouth. He uses the plural pronoun THEY in reference to the Father and the Son. AND he says "THEY are the same core entity."
So then why does he find fault with Christians who say the same thing in words like "THEY - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are the same God, the ONE God - the three-one God - the Triune God - a trinity" ?
The trinity is error and the Local Church have turned that error into a salvation issue and themselves into a cult.
Nonsense. You yourself just wrote -
If they are they [SIC] same core entity there is no incongruence.
This may explain why whenever I ask Divegeester about the divine "We" of John 14:23 or the divine "Us" of John 17:21 he immediately goes SILENT -- Shhhhhhhh !!
He can't stand to admit that he believes in a three-one God.
A division is search of a doctrine.
It is strange.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Mar 19
2 edits
Based on the evidence of the section of their statement of belief in my OP, I’d say the local church is a cult.
Based on this sentence you must be a secret trinitarian.
If they are they [SIC] same core entity there is no incongruence.
To you "they" refers to the Son and the Father.
Sounds like we might both be in the same "cult" ?
19 Mar 19
@sonship saidYes you've already posted this stuff before; I've shown you how it's wrong and I don't care if you disagree with me.
@divegeester
There is no “fountain of blood” anywhere in scripture. It’s not even remotely scriptural as a metaphor. The OT describes blood being “sprinkled” on the holy seat and the NT describes our hearts being “sprinkled” with the blood of Christ.
You’re wrong, your reference is wrong.
Let's get the facts of the discussion straight.
1.) ...[text shortened]... ain filled with blood] [/quote]
https://hymnary.org/text/there_is_a_fountain_filled_with_blood_dr
19 Mar 19
@sonship saidWe you are the one who keeps bringing it up in this thread, I just thought I'd throw you a bone of it once in a while.
@divegeester
This is repetition of debates had with the same poster before.
@sonship saidIs this all you got...really?
@divegeesterBased on the evidence of the section of their statement of belief in my OP, I’d say the local church is a cult.
Based on this sentence you must be a secret trinitarian.If they are they [SIC] same core entity there is no incongruence.
To you "they" refers to the Son and the Father.
Sounds like we might both be in the same "cult" ?