attn MG: John 3:16

You made a pretty strong claim, you said, "You are ignoring the very plain and straight forward reading of not just one scripture such as John 3:16 but other scriptures such as Romans 10:9-13 or Acts 16:30-31.

My response to you is that YOU ARE LYING. I believe John 3:16, Romans 10: 9:13 and Acts 16:30-31. I want to take one of these and prove your charge that I am ignoring this scripture in my theology is a blatant lie.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I believe that 1) God loved the world 2) He gave His begotten Son (his own flesh), 3) that whosever believeth on Him SHOULD NOT PERISH.

I believe that whosoever believeth on Him SHOULD NOT PERISH. That having belief is central and essential to salvation. Further, I do not believe that ommission here reflects non necessity. that it doesn't mention repentance, faith, prayer, confession etc. does not mean those things are unessential.

SO, WHAT DID I IGNORE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR VERSE? I love, believe and honor John 3:16 and believe it is completely compatible with 1) monotheism and 2) the need for all to be born again of water and Spirit.

How am I ignoring this verse...tell me!

rooster,

please don't call people liars. He is not lying, in his opinion the straight forward reading of this scripture would suggest a distinction between son and father. If I were to make a comment about my daughter you would assume we were two seperate identities. The "straight forward" reading of the above verse would follow as such.

Now using hermenuetics, you have to look at all things in context of the whole, therefore your interpretation of what that says, has to take into consideration the other passages, that you believe state that God is one, and only one. Therefore your interpretation of the said verse is true, hermenuetically speaking, from your understanding of doctrine. It is not however the "straight forward" reading of scripture.

Now please don't hear me arguing against your point of view. I don't believe what you do, however, you have good grounds for your belief and defend them well. This person however was not lying, but giving their opinion, and one that is shared by many. You might as well call him a liar for stating the bible teaches the trinity. He is not lying, he is using his own understandings of scripture, based on the teachings of his church, and his own individual study. These issues are obviously not as clear as either side makes it sound, for we have been debating them for thousands of years.

Neither of you is lying, you just have differing views, and are defending them emotionally.

the rev

Rev,
The reason I called MG a liar was distinct from our theological debate concerning the trinity. Actually, we were discussing repentance, confession and baptism (and to a certain degree belief, faith etc.) in the context of the new birth. The thread in particular is Mark 16:16 that was originally a discussion with Josh and myself.

MG accused me of something very specific. He said that I was ignoring John 3:16 (Romans 10 and Acts 16) relative to my belief's about the necessity of baptism. I went to great lengths previously in our threads to explain why I believed John 3:16 completely, honored it and believed it was consistent with Mark 16:16 and not antagonistic.

When he said I was ignoring it, that was patently false. He either said that because he is not reading what I write but skimming and then commenting or, because he is purposely clouding our debate with false accusations. I am extremely sensitive to people being consistent when they debate. He's accused me of being an elitist, heretical unsaved, confused cultist. Fine. That actually doesn't bother me. I can argue that. But when he says I am ignoring a scripture. That's offensive. I love and honor scripture above my life. Every verse. I believe it all to be true and all God's word. I know you are trying to keep a civil forum. I appreciate that. I think you are very sensitive and articulate in the way you respond to people. I wish I could be. However, I stand by what I said. I think he purposely accused me of ignoring a verse that I cherish and honor knowing I wasn't ignoring it.

mg: You can NEVER prove scripturally that the Oneness theology is scriptural because you read and interpret the scriptures totally differ from me (and others). You don't believe in plain text reading.

Please comment on the plain text reading of the following:

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I (Jesus) will be his God, and he shall be my SON.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a SON is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

You want me to go on and on with the plain, and explicit reading of the bible? The bottom line is that YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE GOD W/OUT USING TERMS NOT EVEN FOUND IN THE BIBLE. YOU HAVE ADMITTED AS SUCH. DEFINE THE TRINITY BUT USE ONLY BIBLICAL WORDS AND VERSES.

I haven't been reading your debates, I am really quite bored with them. The two of you refuse to accept the obvious, it isn't exactly clear or spelled out, and we are just trying to make sense of what we have. You treat each other like crap, in the name of the Lord. It saddens me greatly.

the rev

Rev, I understand and frankly, you make a great point. I guess my point was that I wasn't calling MG a liar because he didn't accept my theology or even because he called me names. It was his claim that I was ignoring scripture. I took that one personal.

However, I am sensitive to your comment about how I treat him. I don't think that is a very good witness do you? I struggle with that because I try to be very honest in what I write and in what I'm feeling. I also don't like when people have the perception that we are welcome mats and we are to rollover in providing an answer as to "what our hope in Christ is".

However, again, you articulate your positions in a generally positive way (as does puzzled, prof, Pastor Sherm and others). I will try better. I'm not perfect, and I struggle with my own personal failings. thanks for your comments.

and my point was that he didn't say you were ignoring scripture, he said you were ignoring the plain straight forward reading of scripture. And you could make the same claim regarding Isaiah. And you wouldn't be lying, and neither was he.

I understand these things mean a lot to you, and you may even believe I am going to hell for not having your theology, but if you are honest you will see that like Paul said, "now we see through a glass, darkly, but then we'll see face to face" I can't imagine God has as much problem with us not completely agreeing on the exact nature of His mysterious essence, as we seem to.

the rev

Rev, point taken. I still disagree vehemently with him as I totally accept the plain reading of John 3:16. However, the bigger point is taken.

Also, bro, I can't put anyone in hell and I don't even like to think about that. I love you, MG, and everyone on this forum. Judgement is reserved by a loving and merciful God. I believe and am compelled to preach what I have felt and received. I apologize if I would ever take away from someones experience with Jesus. What I preach is what I received and what I believe God has shown me. However, I will never and do not have the authority to put everyone in hell. I hope and pray we are all there. Thanks again for your postive comments.

"I will never and do not have the authority to put everyone in hell. I hope and pray we are all there. "

Ahhhhhhhh!!!! Rooster's the debil!!!!

;-)

yeah, why do you hope we are all in hell? >:0

the rev

Ouch! Freudian slip;-) man. I'm not even going to edit that! I'm a dunce. This proves once and for all, I truly am a heretic in a cult!

Sorry Rev et al.

Just for correction (smiling), "I hope NONE of us are there!" man.

me too bro

the rev

First off let me thank Rev truly from the bottom of my heart for defending me, I mean in regards to my intentions.

Rooster,

Rev captured what I meant when I said you're ignoring John 3:16 as well as other verses which carry the same point as John 3:16.

"he didn't say you were ignoring scripture, he said you were ignoring the plain straight forward reading of scripture."

I may not have articulated what I meant very well but that is in essence what I meant.

But aside from that, when I made this statement:

"You can NEVER prove scripturally that the Oneness theology is scriptural because you read and interpret the scriptures totally differ from me (and others). You don't believe in plain text reading."

I sort of made it in haste. The point I was trying to get across was that you could never prove to me that the Oneness theology is scriptural. And I gave the reason why in that very paragraph. And to expound on that reason, I feel you read and interpret the bible differently than I. I personally feel you take some scripture verses at face value and others you don't. Example would be all the verse you post. Why do you take them at face value and make note of their clear meaning but than won't give verses such as Daniel 7:9-14 or Rev 5:1-14 and others the same benefit? I feel the only time that "clear" and "explicted" as well as "straight forward" reading of any scripture text
is important to you is when you find a verse in which the "straight forward" meaning can support you're theology.

Any other verses in which the meaning is clear from the straight forward reading is ALWAYS called "figurative" or the like. And some how must go through this "process" of harmonization which causes them to lose the very meaning that is convey from a "straight forward" reading.

A prime example of this would be the many times the Bible states that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Now if one were to read the verse as stated in the biblical text the meaning would be clear: Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. That is the meaning one would get from the text if one were to read it as stated.

As I am reading over this post I realize that I am still not doing a good job of making my point. I'll try it this way. Rooster, I feel you ignore the "plain" reading of many of the verses in the Bible. I think you focus on the clear meaning of some verses from the plain reading but won't apply it to other verses.

I could say more but I think that will do it for now.

mg: Rev captured what I meant when I said you're ignoring John 3:16 as well as other verses which carry the same point as John 3:16.

"he didn't say you were ignoring scripture, he said you were ignoring the plain straight forward reading of scripture."

I may not have articulated what I meant very well but that is in essence what I meant.

me: you did not say that and further, I take John 3:16 at it's straight forward meaning. I explained to you what it says literally. You actually did not interpret it literally but explained it as saying, "you are saved at that moment of belief". You also never addressed the reason that ommission means non necessity. You yourself believe in repentance and confession and NEITHER ARE CITED in John 3:16. So, it's not some piece of INSURANCE that someone quotes and puts in their back pocket.

Further, Daniel and Revelation reveal 1 God. Not 2, not 3. The language is very symbolic and figurative. However, the bible is completely consistent and not antagonistic nor do some verses become INVISIBLE because there are other verses that seem to support your theology. You do not take verses "literal" that are over and over in the bible. You do not take the word 1 to mean 1. You do not think baptism doth save us, even though it says that...literally. You do not think the Son is begotten according to the flesh...yet it says that. Please.



what do you mean begotten of the flesh? I believe Jesus was born of a woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was a man in the flesh. Who doesn't believe that?

the rev

Hi Rev, mg had proposed an eternal God the Son who sits at the right hand of the Father. I proposed one God who was Spirit, who came in flesh. That flesh (which was authentic humanity) was "the Son" by virtue of the fact that the flesh was "made" or "begotten" the same way all men are. The man was created by God. The flesh was "son" to the Spirit. So I did not propose an eternal God the Son (a 2nd "person" in a Trinity) but I proposed a temporal office (the Sonship) fufilled by the eternal God who was revealed in flesh (1Tim 3:16). God took on flesh. I do not propose that the deity of Christ was in any manner begotten, created, birthed, was made as deity is eternal but only that which was authentic humanity.

don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Word was with God, and the Word was God, even in the begining.

the rev

I appreciate your honesty. Here is that "literalness" discrepancy. You view "word" as conceptually, another being "next to" God the father, correct?

I view 'word' literally. A man's word is not another being.

Rev,

I'm telling you Rooster is trying to suck you into a 6 month long debate. He is going to DRAG his last point on and on and on and on and on until you literally get sick of it. Just a friendly warning.

Rooster,

You last point is same point we discussed before. Now that you recognize there is a difference in understanding and belief of a particular scripture why don't you let sleeping dogs sleep!

Mg, why don't you not read if you are not interested. What do you mean I'm trying to drag Rev into a 6 month debate? Did you unwillingly participate in a defense of your polytheistic beliefs? Rev is a big boy. Thanks for looking out for him. I'm sure if he's interested in batting this around he will. If not he won't.