03 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75We do not have a formulation of the Trinity. A single word was created to represent God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This word was agreed upon and defined by the Christian Church council, and we, who understand what it means, have no objections to it.
So is the Southern Baptist "formulation" of the trinity the same as yours?
03 Sep 12
2 edits
In Augusta, Georgia there is August State University and there is the Medical College of Georgia. The Georgia Board of Regents in Atlanta, Georgia that controls the operation of the State Colleges and Universities want to combine these two schools into one super university. They decided on the name "Georgia Regents University" and there is an uproar of objections from students and the people living in Augusta, Georgia over the name change due to the fact that Augusta was eliminated from the name when the history of Augusta goes back before there was a state of Georgia.
The Board put up three names to vote on, as if the decision was going to be done by Popular vote. But these Georgia Board of Regents members did not consider the history and importance of the name to the citizens of Augusta for after all they lived in Atlanta. Even though "Georgia Regents University" did not get the most votes, it did not matter to the Board and they said the name has been decided upon and they have no plans to change it regardless of the objections. The students and citizens of Augusta, who have objected have been told to get over it and they will get used to the new name.
So I am telling you that a church council has decided on the name Trinity, so get over it already.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo yeah the same church that has been such a role model of representing God and his son with all the love and kindness it has shown to all it's members, has never supported or blessed any wars or been involved in the worlds politics as the Bible cleary says he's followers and congregations would NOT be a part of?
In Augusta, Georgia there is August State University and there is the Medical College of Georgia. The Georgia Board of Regents in Atlanta, Georgia that controls the operation of the State Colleges and Universities want to combine these two schools into one super university. They decided on the name "Georgia Regents University" and there is an uproar of obj ...[text shortened]... m telling you that a church council has decided on the name Trinity, so get over it already.
So is this the church with it's unbiblical teachings that you are referring to that we should listen too on this fomulated manmade up doctrines?
No thanks. If it's good enough for you, then go for it.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75The point should not be whether the name appears in Scripture. For Catholics, there are clearly many names of doctrines which are not found in Scripture: Trinity, Eucharist, Sacrament (or not in the current sense of the word), etc. Try as hard as you might, 'blood transfusions' is not a biblical term either.
So yeah the same church that has been such a role model of representing God and his son with all the love and kindness it has shown to all it's members, has never supported or blessed any wars or been involved in the worlds politics as the Bible cleary says he's followers and congregations would NOT be a part of?
So is this the church with it's unbibli ...[text shortened]... is fomulated manmade up doctrines?
No thanks. If it's good enough for you, then go for it.
The point is whether the idea is present in Scripture. Scripture may not mention a 'Just War Theory', but the reader may conclude from his own examination whether the Scripture approves of war in limited circumstances, or not. A Catholic may simply argue that the name 'Trinity' was only coined much later to express an idea already found in Scripture.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75You can't judge all of Christendom as warmongers !! It would be the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's like the parable of the wheat and the tares. God knows those who are His from every group and denomination don't worry
So yeah the same church that has been such a role model of representing God and his son with all the love and kindness it has shown to all it's members, has never supported or blessed any wars or been involved in the worlds politics as the Bible cleary says he's followers and congregations would NOT be a part of?
So is this the church with it's unbibli ...[text shortened]... is fomulated manmade up doctrines?
No thanks. If it's good enough for you, then go for it.
it's God's job to separate the lambs from the goats not any human.
Manny
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by menace71Yes God has the finale say but he has also given us the bible as a guide to warn us about they MANY that will not follow his laws and commands. Even his son clearly said MOST who call on him will not be accepted and that MANY would fall for false teachings.
You can't judge all of Christendom as warmongers !! It would be the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's like the parable of the wheat and the tares. God knows those who are His from every group and denomination don't worry
it's God's job to separate the lambs from the goats not any human.
Manny
So among other things, the Bible is our guide to learn and to recognize truth from paganism and false religion and "to get out of her".
So we are not the judge of false religion, God is, but he expects us to use the Bible to recognize false teachings and to get away from them.
Do you not agree this is one of the purposes of this gift to us, the Bible?
04 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KBut the word "abstain" is.
The point should not be whether the name appears in Scripture. For Catholics, there are clearly many names of doctrines which are not found in Scripture: Trinity, Eucharist, Sacrament (or not in the current sense of the word), etc. Try as hard as you might, 'blood transfusions' is not a biblical term either.
The point is whether the idea is prese e name 'Trinity' was only coined much later to express an idea already found in Scripture.
ab·stain, æbsten/ Show Spelled[ab-steyn] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to hold oneself back voluntarily, especially from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually followed by from ): to abstain from eating meat.
If your doctor told you to abstain from salt, how would you view that order from him? If your life was at stake just as those who God told to abstain from blood, what would you do about using salt? Would injecting it into one of your veins be the same as eating it? Would the danger still be there? Even if you didn't die from it and the doctor was wrong, is that a wise thing to do?
True many argue that this is different, it saves life's. And it may temporarily do just that. But what have you done to God? How has this shown respect for him and his right to ask this or anything of us? Has this shown that you have faith in him and his wisdom of what blood can do to us? Has this shown faith in his promise of a resurrection? Has it shown any faith at all in anything he says to us?
But this is all I'm going to say about blood. It's been discussed many times and this is not what the thread is about...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75I still can't see the word 'blood transfusion'. Am I to infer that you agree in principle that a doctrine can be true even if its current name is not used in Scripture?
But the word "abstain" is.
ab·stain, æbsten/ Show Spelled[ab-steyn] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to hold oneself back voluntarily, especially from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually followed by from ): to abstain from eating meat.
If your doctor told you to abstain from salt, how would you view that order from ...[text shortened]... ay about blood. It's been discussed many times and this is not what the thread is about...
05 Sep 12
Originally posted by Conrau KCan you see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN from it? Where if your getting picky about this command from YOUR God, do you see any exemptions to that command?
I still can't see the word 'blood transfusion'. Am I to infer that you agree in principle that a doctrine can be true even if its current name is not used in Scripture?
05 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75The J-Dubs are most hypocritical on this blood transfusion issue. You J-Dubs will play the game of taking parts or fractions of whole blood yet will not take whole blood how stupid.
Can you see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN from it? Where if your getting picky about this command from YOUR God, do you see any exemptions to that command?
For starters it's faulty logic.
Transfusion of blood is NOT the same as eating it at all.
It's like saying to an alcoholic not to use alcohol topically to clean a wound because
it will be like they are drinking it. LOL 😉 Just stupid.
This argument is old and the J-Dub wish to put burdens on men that Christ never did at all. it's like the Pharisees and Sadducees of the old testament. Jesus said clean the inside of the cup first because you are full of dead bones!!!!
Manny