A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| June 12, 2007 Is Christ's Deity Essential? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 09:43 PM (199 Views) | |
| lightninboy | Jul 15 2009, 09:59 PM Post #11 |
|
Comments: 91 Ten Cent said... Ten Cent, "I believe that you have me wrong. I preach not only the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus, I preach MANY other things. I preach His miracles, I preach His words. I try to paint a FULL picture of Christ. I surely am not ashamed of preaching it all. I do." Then why advocate for less? "You have missed my point." No, I didn't miss your point. I understand that you're attempting to pare down the Gospel message to it's bare bones to substantiate your claim that understanding the deity of Christ is of no consequence when it comes to a person's receiving eternal life through faith in Christ. If we garble up the gospel, laying down 4 conditions for eternal life, confusion and ambiguity can set in. The four conditions being: 1) Jesus is God 2) Jesus died substitionally on the cross 3) Jesus rose again 4) Jesus imparts eternal life as a present possession to all who merely believe Him to do so (based upon His promise). Number 4 is sufficient. The position that Jesus (and Hodges) takes frees up the gospel preacher and focuses him to declare what really is the issue: faith in Christ for life. Not belief in doctrine (as important as that is for both the provision of our salvation, and as the basis for our sanctification) I also understand that you have reduced the rightful glory of the God and creator of the universe to secondary doctrine status. I also understand that your talking out of both sides of your mouth. Because what you advocate, you clearly do not practice. You "paint a FULL picture of Christ" when you preach, but you advocate only preaching belief in a Christ that the hearer knows nothing about. Evangelism is pointing men to Christ and faith in Him through His promise. I agree, Evangelism is pointing men to Christ. And when we're pointing them to Christ, we're revealing to them who this Christ is and how that relates to them as human beings. How that, because He is God, He could bare our sin on the cross. Because He is God, He can forgive us of our sins. Because He is God, He can repair our broken relationship with Him. Telling others about Christ with out telling them of Christ's deity is like me telling someone to follow Antonio, he'll show you the way to the Long Beach. Antonio who? Does he really know how to get there? Can I trust him? It would be necessary for that person to know some things about you before he would allow you to lead him to Long Beach. Don't get me wrong, your zeal is to be admired. I have no doubt that you are an authentic Christian. A true follower of Christ. And I have no doubt that you understand the importance of the deity of Christ in your own life and in the lives of other Christians. But knowledge of the deity of Christ is necessary by default for some one to trust in Christ for the promise of eternal life. BTW, Hi Rose. In Christ, Ten Cent 6/18/2007 1:43 PM 92 bobby grow said... We just returned from vacation . . . so let me briefly respond to Steve. Just as I said to Antonio, I'll say it to you, Steve: "you can assert all day that my points are non-sequiter and illogical, but until you show how they are non-sequiter or invalid or unsound then all you're doing is making an assertion. Sense my arguments have been very thin, and in fact enthymeme (i.e. missing major premises or minor premises), and formatted in narrative vs. syllogism . . . I'm not sure how my arguments are circular? And as I said before: That's true, but what is often is forgot or not emphasized in this scheme is that God is trinity, and that the second person was involved in this chosing electing process; i.e. Jesus was the electing chosing God as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit in their immanent nature. How that is disclosed in the economic time/space continuum seems to be what you're talking about--my comments thus far are all informed by the former (i.e. the nature of the second person of the trinity and what the implies about the "kind" of salvation being offered de facto per the ontology of Jesus). this still stands. I made a distinction between metaphysics/ontology and epistemology here; our epistemology, or knowledge of God is shaped by and presupposed by His ontology which is what I have been arguing for all along. I'm not quite sure what to do with this implicit/explicit distinction that you've made, Steve--I think you've created a false dichotomy. Whether something is implicit or explicit does not mitigate or elevate the truth of what is disclosed one way or the other. Clearly the deity of Christ undergirds Paul's gospel (cf. Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Col. 1:14ff; etc, etc.); or rather shapes it--that's what I have been arguing for--very thinly ;). Steve said: You may not "buy" it, but that doesn't make it incorrect, or make your position any stronger. By putting "deity" into the term "Christ" (or "Messiah"), you are adding to the meaning of the word. Ditto on your first clause. I think it creates a false dilemma to speak of Messiah as if Messiah could be who He was/is apart from who He revealed himself to be in the particularization of JEsus of Nazareth. In other words the only way we know who Messiah is, is because He is the "second person of the trinity" viz. God. Furthermore we don't know of a Messiah who was/isn't God--so how can you speak of Messiah as if there isn't an inextricable relationship between his "form" and "function", Steve? 6/18/2007 11:48 PM 93 Lou Martuneac said... To Antonio & All Who Hold to the Hodges Interpretation of the Gospel: Can a lost man be born again while consciously denying the Deity of Jesus Christ if he believes in Jesus for eternal life? LM 8/20/2007 7:47 PM 94 Lou Martuneac said... Good Morning Rose: Bobby: Welcome back to the discussions. I have appreciated a number of comments you have made in previous threads. One of the most succinct and penetrating was your defense of the biblical Jesus. Rose wrote an article titled, Is Christ’s Deity Essential? In the thread Antonio wrote, “The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same. The Mormon's have serious misconceptions and false beliefs about Jesus Christ.” This was your reply, which I appreciated: “What are you talking about, Antonio? I have read those points from you in this thread, and about a yr or two ago . . . it was wrongheaded then and is today. You should go read the ‘Kingdom of the Cults’ by Walter Martin. There are misconceptions about Christ that actually make Him not-Christ. That’s who Jesus was referring to when He said false christs would come, and that's what I Jn is addressing with gnostic notions of Christ--the point, indeed Christians can have misperceptions about Jesus which then occasions the need to ‘correct’ those misperceptions and paint a clear picture about who Jesus really is. Your view compromises the need for correction in these essential areas. I'm sorry, but the LDS Jesus and Christian Jesus are not the same, final.” (Bobby Grow, at 6/15/2007 7:16 PM) Antonio has written that lost men can be saved no matter what misconception they may have about who Jesus is. In an evangelistic setting Antonio believes an open rejection of Christ’s deity is matter that must be “put on the back burner.” This is as extreme a departure from the faith and Gospel I have read anywhere in Bible-believing circles. Antonio not only allows for the lost to hold to serious heresy about Jesus Christ, his comment above seems to indicate that he personally is blurring the lines of distinction between the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible. I am grateful that you pointed the danger and absurdity of such teaching. Lou 1/04/2008 9:56 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Rose's Reasonings · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






2:06 PM Jul 11