Is our understanding of The Trinity & Godhead, correct?

Again, I am not going to defend my view based upon what you think I believe about this view.

Simply, God is never a tyrrant. All God does is just. To sentence people to Hell is not tyrrany and He does not have to give us any reason for punishing us. Thus, I will not defend God being a tyrrant or not, I will defend the idea that in Adam's fall we sinned all. In other words, that Adam's fall brought a curse of death and hell to every person. Yet, to nuance this as God being a tyrrant is already defining the terms against me.

The issue was the Trinity. Is it a heresy to deny the Trinity? Yes!

Is it a heresy to say that Adam's fall only impacted Adam? Yes! I am not going to make major distinctions between nuanced views on Original Sin by differentiating them between people like Wesley, Augustine, Lewis, Calvin, Edwards, or Luther. If doctrine and heresy is the issue, each of these men were orthodox. Yet, each one of them advanced Original Sin. None of them would view God as a tyrrant for punishing sin. I do not either.

Thus, I cannot defend a view you advance, only ones I advance.

Yet, in order to understand the point you are making, I kept asking you for an illustration of someone who held to orthodoxy but denied original sin. To me, this will help me understand your objection. If you object to my Reformed view of Original Sin, I will merely agree that we can disagree and still be Christians. Yet, if you are advancing a person who clearly denied all original sin, then there is a bigger issue at hand. I think you are only objecting to my Calvinistic view of original sin. Since I am not calling such objection heretical, there is no debate.

 

I was not the one who brought up the subject of Original Sin. I was merely defending the accusation of someone else that my views on that subject are heretical.

So I take it that I can call anyone's interpretation of a verse a 'lie" if I do not agree with that interpretation?

 

How did I personally attack someone. I asked for clarification of whether he holds to modalism and explained that this is a heretical belief. I never personally attacked him nor you on the issue of the Trinity. I simply wanted clarification and outlined that disagreeing with the historic Christian view of the Trinity is a new invention and is heretical. That is not personal attacks, that is the basis of Christianity.

 

While we are on this subject, how about a new thread entitled, "A Shot to the Head for the Supporters of Original Sin (I said it in plain English so others might know the real meaning of 'coupe de grace')

I trust everyone hear knows in reality I would never even consider such a thing, but because Biblicist was allowed to title a thread in like manner concerning those that do not support original sin, I feel it needed to be asked.

 

Post 12 is the first post where the thread goes astray from the trinity and new doctrines are introduced:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1772376&postcount=12

 

I will allow a fair moderator explain it to Ruiz. I have confidence there is such a one on this forum.:thumbs:

 

Must you complain about everything that offends you.

 

Did I violate any rule of this forum in my post? If I did, feel free to correct me.

 

So calling something that is heretical, a "heresy" is a personal attack? This is the historic understanding of the Christian Church. I am merely echoing 2000 years of history.

You may disagree, but you must agree that the church has argued this to be a heresy with near unanimity. My point was to get him to either admit he held to modalism or not. I think he deserved as much levity to explain his viewpoint.

 

HP: If such language is not offensive to any reasonable person, Christian or not, they need a reality check.

Should not believers be held to at least the standard put up by run of the mill Democrats, complaining about a picture of someone in the crosshairs, in an election for Pete's sake.

 

Yes you did.
Read the title of the thread, and then read the OP.
Does the Op or the title have anything to do with original sin or OSAS?
Both doctrines were introduced by you in post 12. That is where this thread got derailed by you. Derailing threads is against the rules. You have failed to keep to the topic, but have derailed this topic to a subject matter more of your liking. That is wrong.

 

Do you affirm or deny the quote from The Westminster Confession of Faith that I provided?

If your answer is "affirm" then I will start a new thread where we can discuss what you said in your latest post.

Thanks!

 

I have said enough on this thread. I move on and await the actions of a fair minded moderator. :thumbs:

 

Perhaps most people don't have:
1. the same definition of the term you do.
2. the same mental image as you do.
3. are not as offended as you are.

Please pray that God would give you tougher skin. It is an asset in living the Christian life.

 

DHK, feel free to delete my post. I apologize to the originator of this thread. I had no intention of derailing this thread as has been clearly done by all at this point. Please forgive me. :godisgood:

 

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

 

I agree with the Westminster, but my statements were in dealing with Original Sin as an Orthodox/Heresy issue, not as a more nuanced reformed view. It was in that view did I challenge you to provide me one person who rejects Original Sin but is still orthodox. That is also why I advanced the idea that Wesley, who disagrees with the WCF, is still orthodox.

I would be glad to defend my view of original sin. However, I do not believe my exact view of original sin is a matter of heresy. This was the point being made and thus I cannot defend an idea of orthodoxy/heresy that I disagree with.

As this is not with the OP, this should be taken to another thread.

 

HP: God bless you! (there is one in every crowd:laugh

If that picture is of you, thank you for your service to our Nation! Salute!!

 

Hi annsni,

Perhaps you would like to comment on what I said earlier in this thread:

The following verse seems to distnguish the Son from the Father so I do not understand how the Son is at the same time the Father:

"The LORD (Yĕhovah) said unto my Lord ('adown), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Ps.110:1).

 

Before this thread is over they may all wished they had stayed on the topic of original sin. :tonofbricks: