A37, I don’t see any of your posts, but I trust you can see this. You can send PMs to me until hell freezes over. I don’t read them. Really. Trust me. I just delete them without opening them. I say this just in case “redeeming the time” is important to you, for any PM you send is a complete waste of your time.
T
Yeah, I obviously keep stating “authority” as the REAL enemy… where??? (Hint: nowhere do I ever state once that “authority” is the REAL enemy. Except in your imagination.)
Ditto.
Nope. And despite what you fail to quote me as saying (including the one place you did quote me), I never did even try to say that someone can run a church without authority.
How you’re getting from my affirmation that the woman in charge of the house church had the authority and responsibility to gauge whether people claiming prophetic authority were valid or not before she let them influence her flock with prophetic authority, to some idea that I must be against not only prophetic authority, and not only the authority of a leader of a church group to protect her (or his) flock from imposters, but even against ‘authority’ at all, is a mystery known only at this point to God. (And maybe to you, though I somewhat doubt that.)
Which obviously you don’t need to remind me, or I wouldn’t have written what I just quoted above.
I have no problem with Lutherans disallowing that whatsoever. (Except in your imagination.)
Ditto. Do they have the authority to bar people who deny the canonicity of RevJohn from teaching in your church? Yep, that, too. Does a Synod which doctrinally rejects universalism have the authority to bar people who affirm universalism from teaching in their churches? Yep, I agree they do.
Does any of my affirmations there fit what you persist in imagining to be true about me? Not in the least. 
Not in the least. Neither do I think that 1 John 4 is talking about mere teachers, though. People claiming prophetic authority are not merely claiming to be teachers. They’re claiming to be passing along teaching from a spirit, which is why the Evangelist puts his rejection in terms of identifying spirits.
(All non-trinitarians here on the board who are claiming to be, yourselves, prophetic authorities receiving revelation from a spirit that trinitarianism is false, and expecting us to receive you as such authorities over us, take a moment to raise your hands please! )
Does that mean I reject a church’s authority to regulate teachers who aren’t insisting they be received by the church as prophetic authorities bringing a revelatory message from a spirit? Not in the least.
Try to stop having a brain aneurism long enough to think, Ran: if I was against church authority to define what will be taught to its congregations, why would I (someone who affirms the canonical status of RevJohn) not only affirm church authority to acknowledge that as canon but also defend church authority to reject it as canon?!–in fact, why would I go out of my way to defend your own personal rejection of its canonicity as a matter of good conscience on your part?!
For that matter, if I was against church authority to define what will be taught to its congregations, why would I voluntarily rescind myself from teaching positions in congregations which are anti-universalist?! Or, why would I rescind myself from joining the RCCs (whose church around here I rather like) on the ground of respecting their requirement that I be in communion with them on various points which in fact I disagree with them about? (Notice: one of those points is that I reject the inherent inerrancy of their own claimed authority; but I nevertheless refuse to hypocritically ‘join’ their church, taking advantage of their leniency on this matter, while opposing their hierarchy’s beliefs and insistent teaching about their own spiritually inspired inerrancy–which seems to be what they mean by ‘infallibility’. Why? Because I respect their right to define and police themselves that way.)
I could hunt up and link to places where I’ve mentioned those last two things before, but maybe they’re peripheral enough you wouldn’t remember them in any case. You ought to have remembered that I defend your right in good conscience (and the Syrian Orthodox church’s, too) to reject the canonicity of RevJohn, though.
Nope; but at the risk of tiresome monotony, I can point to the verse (yet again) that shows what John was more specifically talking about in 1 John 4. John isn’t saying that everyone who denies X beliefs has the spirit of antichrist. He’s saying that someone claiming prophetic authority over other people who (with that putative prophetic authority) denies X beliefs, has the spirit of antichrist.
And as I explicitly said before: does that mean I think teachers aren’t liable to God? Nope; I said before that I think teachers are more liable to God than people who aren’t teachers; but not as liable as people claiming prophetic authority. By “liability” do I mean they’re sinning by being teachers and/or prophetic authorities? As I have repeatedly said before, NO! I only mean they’re held proportionately more responsible by God. And (as I have said) by “they” I mean “me”, too, whenever I’m in teaching mode.
(Which, by the way, as I have explained to you before A37, since you asked again, is why I write essays: I’m giving people as much opportunity as possible to see why I’m teaching this-or-that, or denying this-or-that, and so also as much opportunity as possible to properly reject me where applicable. Also, when your position requires ignoring verse 1 leading into verse 2 and 3, as well as the context of the rest of the epistle, not to say the context of 2 John, then no, your hermeneutic and your exegesis fails.)
Does the special responsibility (and so liability) of teachers make them immune from church authority to decide what teaching they will permit? As I have said before (and as ought to be obvious), no it absolutely does not give teachers such immunity.
This is all entirely consonant with the paragraph I wrote right before asking “Really, what’s the problem here?”–a paragraph you either didn’t bother to read or were incapable of understanding for some reason:
What’s the difference? We’ll all see Him as He is soon enough anyway (we see in a glass darkly anyhow). Can’t you just be happy that folks have some kind of relationship with Christ without being hung up over it?
I seriously doubt that, Aaron. The Holy Spirit has always directed me to worship God alone - not three Gods. The same Spirit who spoke through the prophets - literally spoke through them - and the message has always been that worship is only due God. Likewise, the Spirit has always directed me to worship Christ as only due God. And finally, the Spirit itself testifies that in Him (the Holy Spirit) we have our being - life itself and He is worthy of worship only due God.
When a man has less of life and is ‘functionally dead’ but walking he also has less of the Father and less of the Son as well. But if a man is enlivened by the Life which points him to the Father and to the Son - then the experience is the Trinity - God is a package deal and the essential unified reality in all this. And what is the experience of God like? A love fest between Father and Son and that love radiating in and through the Holy Spirit to EVERYTHING - even the stones would cry out if they could that God is a Trinity of Persons.
So, Aaron, if Christ is NOTGOD is that also true of the Holy Spirit? 'Let US make man in our image…"
Simple logic should compel you to agree that if something is ‘functionally identical’ to God then that something IS God.
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I’ve been confessing that creed all my life - you say it creates a paradigm - but I say it describes it.
Either way, the Trinity expresses itself - about itself - better than any arguments or creeds which are feeble attempts to capture that expression. Pray for wisdom - it will be interesting to see where you’re at on this matter five years from now.
To be fair, I think A37 thinks Christ is hung up on everyone (not only people in authority who have all the advantages and who could be expected to get things right but who are intentionally going the other way) getting a bunch of things technically right before He will save them.
Which makes it kind of ironic when he complains about me being so technically picky all the time in favor of orthodox trinitarian theism and its doctrines. 
(Whereas I, the hyper-doctrinaire, don’t think Christ saves us on the basis of the correctness of our knowledge and profession about Christ. Which I also think is ironical; but I like my irony better. 
)
If by “Arian” one simply meant “Christian unitarian” I wouldn’t object to the label. I agree that there is not an essential difference between my view and that of the Arians when viewed in light of Trinitarian orthodoxy. However, I was just responding to the following from Ran:
My only point in bringing up Arianism was that I don’t believe Christ divested himself of anything he possessed in a pre-existent state in order to “walk amongst us as a man” (which is what I understood Ran to be implying I believed).
Ran,
I worship the Father as God, and I worship his Son as “the one mediator between God and men - the man Jesus Christ,” whom God has set at his right hand to save me from sin and death. I do not worship the Father as one who is less than the Son, and I do not worship the Son as someone who is greater than the Father. Here are two examples of Jesus being worshipped during his earthly ministry - not as “God the Son,” but as “the Son of God” (there is a difference!):
Matthew 14:33 "Then those who were in the boat worshiped him Jesus, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
John 9:38 “Then the man said, ‘Lord Jesus, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.”
Now, there are many examples in Scripture of people bowing down to other human beings in order to honor them and express reverence and respect, which is what the Hebrew and Greek words translated in English Bibles as “worship” denote (see, for example, Gen 19:1; 23:7; 33:3; 42:6; Ex 18:7; 1 Sam 24:8; 2 Sam 14:22; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron 29:20; Matt 18:26; Acts 10:25 ). The Hebrew word shachah and the Greek word proskuneo account for more than 80% of the appearances of the word “worship” in most English versions of the Bible. A study of these words reveals that they simply mean “to bow down.” The Hebrew word shachah is used of bowing or prostrating oneself, often before a superior or before God. In the King James Version, it is translated by a number of different English words, including: “worship” (99 times), “bow” (31 times), “bow down” (18 times), “obeisance” (9 times), and “reverence” (5 times). In the East, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead was an expression of profound reverence. Hence, in the New Testament the word means kneeling or prostration to do homage or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.
1 Chron 29:20 is especially relevant to the topic of worship, for there we are told that the people of Israel “bowed their heads and paid homage (shachah) to the LORD and to the king.” That is, the people worshipped God and his anointed king. If the kings of Israel could be worshipped as God’s representatives (without themselves being ontologically equal to God, or even sinless!), how much more he who is the “King of kings” - God’s only-begotten, sinless son, who has been made Lord over all? Scripture does not, in fact, teach that any and all “worship” must be reserved for God alone. Nor is there is any indication in the above verses that Jesus is being worshipped as God. The questions we should ask ourselves in reading these verses are, “Is Jesus being honored and reverenced as Yahweh, the one God of Israel (i.e., the true and living God)? Or, is he rather being honored and reverenced as the Son of God (i.e., as God’s anointed King - the Messiah)?” It is obviously the latter that is the case. No first-century believer worshipped Jesus as God, simply because no first-century believer understood him to be God (it would take a few more centuries for this idea to fully develop and acquire orthodox status). The honor, reverence and adoration that first-century believers expressed toward Jesus was according to their understanding that he was God’s Anointed One – the promised Savior and King of Israel of whom their inspired scriptures had prophesied. As such, their bowing down to him out of humble reverence and respect, and their rendering to him service as God’s anointed king (Rev 22:3) was completely appropriate, and in no way implies that they thought Jesus was Yahweh.
‘They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.’ Paul said that.
You say Christ was a created thing - from his getgo. That’s the important distinction you miss. If you admit that He was God from God (begotten, not made) then you can also say that He was MADE man without pitching the Trinity - then you might understand that it is the PERSON of Christ that is to be worshiped - both divine and human but indivisible.
From your argument, you’ve attempted to slice Him in half and neither half can stand on it’s own. The fathers discovered the same thing. It HAS to be both. Paul, obviously, did not think that Christ was created, even though he knew Christ was made (created) man. See what they mean?
Jason.
you said: To be fair, I think A37 thinks Christ is hung up on everyone (not only people in authority who have all the advantages and who could be expected to get things right but who are intentionally going the other way) getting a bunch of things technically right before He will save them.
Aaron37: That’s non-sense. Who are the people in authority? I have never said that anyone has to be technically right before Jesus will save them. That is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus has already been judged for the sins of the world. All anyone has to do is believe in Jesus’ finished work on the Cross and receive what God has already provided by grace. Your faith appropriates what God has already done by grace. No one has to get right first…please. Jesus will clean you up after you get born again and saved.
Btw, how many genuine born again children of God do you know that go around blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit by denying the true nature of Jesus being God in the flesh? The answer is none.
Dondi.
you said: What’s the difference? We’ll all see Him as He is soon enough anyway (we see in a glass darkly anyhow). Can’t you just be happy that folks have some kind of relationship with Christ without being hung up over it?
Aaron37: The difference is obvious. The Holy Spirit testifies of the true nature of Jesus. The spirit of the Antichrist denies and distorts the true nature of Jesus. How many genuine born again children of God do you know that go around blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit by denying that Jesus is God in the flesh? The answer is none. That is the difference.
Aaron: My only point in bringing up Arianism was that I don’t believe Christ divested himself of anything he possessed in a pre-existent state in order to “walk amongst us as a man” (which is what I understood Ran to be implying I believed).
Tom: Would you say that Arius’ Christology is then a bit “higher” than your own (given his view that Christ is created before the World and then the world created through him)?
Interesting.
T
Please read my response again, Ran (as well as my post about Joseph and Pharaoh). 
What you quoted above doesn’t apply to me. Paul is talking about people who worship and serve created things RATHER THAN the Creator. That is, they were disregarding the Creator and worshipping created things as if they were God! As for me, I worship and serve the Creator AS the Creator, and I worship and serve his Anointed one AS his Anointed one (not “rather than the Creator”).
Aaron.
Stop blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit by denying the true nature of Jesus being God in the flesh. No one else has the guts to say it…so I will say it. It’s 100% blasphemy!
No, I wouldn’t. 
It doesn’t exalt Jesus to make claims about him that simply aren’t true - just like it doesn’t make God any “greater” to say he can do illogical things (like create a square triangle). If I understood Scripture to teach that Christ pre-existed his birth, I would have no problem at all believing it. But since I don’t see that being taught in the OT (The OT and the Trinity) or in the NT, I reject it as a theological error (though not a serious one!).
Aaron.
Blasphemy is serious error.
Aaron, Please try and understand this. People don’t own an understanding through or because of threats - most simply acquiesce and pretend they own it - a nominal understanding because they feel they ought to believe it. There’s no love in that ‘understanding’ but primarily fear. A good teacher is patient…‘so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.’ 
Well, there’s a verse that’s a double-whammy!
Anyway. The truth is the draw - it’s the lovely truth that’s the magnet, not fear. Bite your lip if you have to - but be patient with people. Like I am 
K? No more threats - unless another nominal christian is your goal - which would indicate that you don’t give a crap about what they actually understand, only what they fear.
Ha ha, RanRan! You echo my thoughts, when before, I have written of how the spirit of the carnal man and his intellect loves to kill, that it might dissect. Sit silent in prayer at the Father’s feet and you might just see the nail prints in the One you sit before.
*“Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him”
1Cor 8:6
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deut.6:4*
Where here, is the man that prays to know God?
John
Perhaps John Calvin wouldn’t have had Michael Servetus burned alive had they simply discussed their theological differences over a warm basket of nachos and cheese (and maybe a couple of cold beers):
auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity2.html
Ran.
I"m not threatening anyone. I’m stating a fact that Aaron is blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit and I’m just asking him to stop. It is what it is, Ran.
If you ask him to stop (or silence him in some other way) then you won’t learn - which means, you won’t sharpen your own skills and argument. He’s not the enemy, he’s just Aaron. Iron sharpens iron. A dull sword comes from not really engaging with the opposition. Witness what that dullard, Calvin, came up with to ‘convince’ people…which what Aaron-in-a-Pickle is referencing.