Another look at the Col 2:9
CD Users,
Let me begin by saying, all anti-Trinitarians, it's evidence, they don't believe in inspiration of the Bible and that it is God's book to man. This is why we have all the back and forth. They have issues with the power of God and His prerogatives. They are trying to re-define the nature, power and the character of God. In their view, Christ can't be more than their little pea brains can envision. Christian cannot and should not succumb to their construct of The Eternal One. Christians and the Christian Community should not tolerate blatant blasphemy of ancient, warmed-over heresies, in twenty-first Century clothing, within their ranks. They need to be called out. That is:
- Docetism -- Denied Christ had real physical nature, asserted that He was a mere phantom, flitting across the stage of the world—a transient apparition.
- Gnosticism -- Denied that a divine Person could become incarnate, or unite Himself with a human body.
- Docetic Gnostics -- Maintained that a divine element descended upon Christ at His baptism and departed before the crucifixion, stating the Deity did not suffer on the cross.
On the other hand, there are those who don't know better, may espoused incorrectly, the truth about God or the Trinity, while in their Christian journey. Wrong is wrong, just the same. Such as:
- Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism) ...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherents believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.
- Tritheism ...Tritheism confessses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three independent divine beings; three separate gods who share the 'same substance'. This is a common mistake because of misunderstanding of the use of the term 'persons' in defining the Trinity.
- Arianism ...taught that the preexistent Christ was the first and greatest of God’s creatures but denied his fully divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the development of Christology during the fourth century and was addressed definitely in the Nicene Creed.
- Docetism ...taught that Jesus Christ as a purely divine being who only had the “appearance” of being human. Regarding his suffering, some versions taught that Jesus’ divinity abandoned or left him upon the cross while other claimed that he only appeared to suffer (much like he only appeared to be human).
- Ebionitism...taught that while Jesus was endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him from other humans but nonetheless regarded Him as a purely human figure.
- Macedonianism...that that the Holy Spirit is a created being.
- Adoptionism ...taught that Jesus was born totally human and only later was “adopted” – either at his baptism or at his resurrection – by God in a special (i.e. divine) way.
- Partialism ...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together.
There is a different between "ignorance " and the arrogance. the Bible makes clear that "the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30). When we know better we do better, in words, deeds, declaration, and proclamation.
We don't need to debate the Word (Bible). We need to read, believe, accept and proclaim it. God needs witnesses not lawyers or debaters. This doesn't rule out the opportunity to give a reason for the hope that's within -- what one experienced in Christ through the Word (Bible).
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. From the view of a believer who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, what does this phrase means? CM
SOURCE:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html
Comments
-
Let me begin by saying, all anti-Trinitarians, it's evidence, they don't believe in inspiration of the Bible and that it is God's book to man.
You should STOP right there immediately ... making such blatantly false accusations.
I am certainly ant-Trinitarian, I do certainly believe in the inspiration of the Bible and I do believe that it is God's revelation to man. I have testified to this on this forum consistently with no exception.
You are bearing false witness and making false accusations against others ... a deed which the Bible does condemn as an evil deed. You have disqualified yourself from being a person with whom to have an exchange concerning Biblical matters.
-
I have to agree with Wolfgang, he definitely has affirmed the inspiration of the Bible repeatedly.
-
CM, how do you intend to deal with the false accusations made in your previous post?
-
I don't recall agreeing to the premise of your question. CM
-
I don't recall agreeing to the premise of your question.
@C_M_ , what does this comment have to do with my earlier post asking concerning your false accusations made in your earlier post?
Instead of trying to fancifully avoid answering rather plain and simple questions concerning your doings, just answer plainly and simply .... admit or deny. Be a man and take responsibility for what you write here ... instead of giving the impression of kids' games
-
What does this mean:
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
This still needs to be answered in this thread or directed to a link of the answer. CM
-
What does this mean:
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
This still needs to be answered in this thread or directed to a link of the answer. CM
It means what it says ? and the statement in itself shows that he (Jesus) himself IS NOT Deity / God, but rather filled with the fullness of God. Jesus expressed the same truth in his words that the Father (God) was in Him.
-
CM said:
all anti-Trinitarians, it's evidence, they don't believe in [the] inspiration of the Bible and that it is God's book to man.
Wolfgang said:
"I am certainly ant-Trinitarian, I do certainly believe in the inspiration of the Bible and I do believe that it is God's revelation to man. I have testified to this on this forum consistently with no exception.
You are bearing false witness and making false accusations against others ... "
Wolfgang further said:
CM, how do you intend to deal with the false accusations made in your previous post?
CM said:
I don't recall agreeing to the premise of your question.
CM says:
I don't agree with Wolfgang's premise because of the conflicting views of inspiration. I am reminded of Benjamin Jowett's century-old statement:
"The word inspiration has received more numerous gradations and distinctions of meaning than perhaps any other in the whole of theology. There is an inspiration of superintendence and inspiration of suggestion; an inspiration that would have been consistent with the Apostle or Evangelist falling into error, [and] an inspiration which would have prevented him from erring; verbal organic inspiration by which the inspired person is the passive utterer of Divine word, and an inspiration which acts through the character of the sacred writer; there is an inspiration which absolutely communicates the fact to be revealed or statement to be made, and an inspiration which does not supersede the ordinary knowledge of human event; there is an inspiration which demands infallibility in matters of doctrine, but allows for mistakes in fact. Lastly, there is a view of inspiration which recognizes only its supernatural and prophetic character, and a view of inspiration which regards the apostles and evangelists as equally inspired in their writings and their lives, and in both receiving the guidance of the Spirit of truth in a manner not different in kind but only in degree from ordinary Christians"
In light of the quote above, do you believe in "the full inspiration, trustworthiness, and dependability of the entire Bible as the Word of God"? CM
Source:
- Benjamin Jowett, "On the Interpretation of Scripture," in Essays and Review, n. ed. [London: John W. Parker and Son, 1860], p. 345).
-
@C Mc In light of the quote above, do you believe in "the full inspiration, trustworthiness, and dependability of the entire Bible as the Word of God"? CM
The quote above only provides that author's ideas about the matter ...
I certainly believe in the full inspiration, trustworthiness, and dependability of the entire Bible as the Word of God.
And I would qualify this by stating that I consider only the originally given scriptures as the inspired Word of God. Thus copies made and translations made were not God-inspired in the same way as what the writers originally wrote, and they only provide Word of God to the degree that they are correctly represent what was originally inspired.
-
@Wolfgang said,
I consider only the originally given scriptures as the inspired Word of God.
What is this? The original copy was called the "autograph"; today no autographs of the Holy Scriptures are known. Are you saying you only believe the autographs?
Your position seems to be reflective of J. Hampton Keathley III, he wrote:
“Inspiration must be carefully defined because of the varied uses of this term and the wrong ideas about inspiration being promoted today, ideas that are inconsistent with what the Bible itself teaches regarding inspiration. Inspiration may be defined as ‘God’s superintendence of the human authors of Scripture so that using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.’ If we break this definition down into its various parts, we note several elements, each of which is vital to understanding what the Bible teaches about inspiration.
(1) The word ‘superintendence’ refers to the guiding relationships God had with the human authors of Scripture in the various material of the Bible. His superintendence varied in degree, but it was always included so that the Spirit of God guaranteed the accuracy of what was written.
(2) The word ‘composed’ shows that the writers were not simply stenographers who wrote what God dictated to them. They were actively involved using their own personalities, backgrounds, and God’s working in their lives, but again, what was composed had the superintendence of God over the material written.
(3) ‘Without error’ expresses what the Bible itself claims to be true regarding its record; it is God’s word and that word is truth (John 17:17; Ps. 119:160).
(4) Though our translations of the Bible are tremendously accurate, being [is] based on thousands of manuscript witnesses, inspiration can only be ascribed to the original autographs, not to manuscript copies or the translations based on those copies.”
His last point seems to be the wheelhouse where you abide. Now, this makes you a law unto yourself?
Wolfgang, have you forgotten that Tertius, Paul’s secretary, wrote down Paul’s dictation (Rom. 16.22). Paul intended that copies be made. These are not to be trusted? Are you a King James (KJV) Only-believer in the Bible?
"...copies made and translations made were not God-inspired"
What, no translations? Even those based on the best Greek and Hebrew texts? CM
SOURCE:
- Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Written Word; pages 15-16; Biblical Studies Press 1997
-
Wolfgang, have you forgotten that Tertius, Paul’s secretary, wrote down Paul’s dictation (Rom. 16.22). Paul intended that copies be made. These are not to be trusted? Are you a King James (KJV) Only-believer in the Bible?
No ...
What, no translations? Even those based on the best Greek and Hebrew texts?
I repeat what I already wrote ... some of which you seem to not have read or understood:
And I would qualify this by stating that I consider only the originally given scriptures as the inspired Word of God. Thus copies made and translations made were not God-inspired in the same way as what the writers originally wrote, and they only provide Word of God to the degree that they are correctly represent what was originally inspired.
-
Bible Translations can be trusted. CM
-
Bible Translations can be trusted. C
trusted ...
- in what regard?
- to what degree?
- what if two o
rmore translations disagree on a passage?
what would be the basis for your idea?
-
- Most generally accepted Bible translations can be trusted to present the authentic message of God as recorded in the original autographs.
- To a high degree of accuracy.
- Disagreement on any passage critical to theology is rare and not problematic.
-
Are Bible translations as God-inspired as what the writers of the original wrote? Or phrasing it differently, are the translators of our Bible translations as God-inspired as the prophets, apostles and other writers of the original writings were inspired by God?
Subsequently then, should equal trust be given in their translations as one would give in what was originally inspired by God?
-
Are Bible translations as God-inspired as what the writers of the original wrote? Or phrasing it differently, are the translators of our Bible translations as God-inspired as the prophets, apostles and other writers of the original writings were inspired by God?
Not the same way.
Subsequently then, should equal trust be given in their translations as one would give in what was originally inspired by God?
Yes, so long as we understand these are translations and not autographs.
Translation issues are less concerning that distortion and interpretation problems.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
