RDP

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

I'm still good with men in dresses... strangeness on the outside does not bother me nearly as much as strangeness on the inside... And no amount of 'men's apparel' will make you a decent man rdp... no amount. You really are beyond disgusting... Does it not even register that God is watching you? You make me very glad that I am no longer a part of such a hateful religion.

And yes we do home church with some other farm couples who also live rurally. It has been a great experience... I do still sometimes miss 'big' church until I realize that it is the place where the insecure and hateful lie in wait for the unsuspecting and weak. You are a troll... in every sense of the word, the idea that you are a preacher will probably keep me away from church for at least a decade and I am sure you have that effect a lot.

No, you will "stay away from church for at least a decade" because you are back-slidden in heart & need repentance.

"Every man is drawn away of his own lusts."

Stop playing pin the tail on the donkey & get over your victimization complex.....The problem is Y-O-U, not preachers.

You stop dishing it out & you'll stop receiving it......Simple. Respect is earned.

Your being "good with men is dresses" is patently absurd & makes me soooooo thankful to not be numbered with your kind. I keep waiting for the punch-line (thinking you cannot be serious), but sadly, I honestly think you are too far gone....But hope you find genuine repentance someday & learn to take personal inventory. Does it ever "register that God is watching Y-O-U?"

[Scott Hutchinson]

Everytime I leave here for any length of time a good blow out occurs.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

First, remember, Wallace has a propensity toward a qualitative tag for the anarthrous PN, as is demonstrated all through his grammar.

I personally contacted Dr. D.A. Carson about the supposed "qualitative force" of Jn. 1.1 & he explicitly told me that such a conclusion "is not driven from syntax, but other considerations." He then cited the work of Lane McGaughy, etc. to substantiate the definitive force as it relates to Jn. 1.1....& by extension to our current discussion.

Point is, an anarthrous PN can be definitive contra qualitative.....Again, context will decide which is which. Based upon the surrounding context, I view Christ's statement in Jn. 10.30 as a statement of identity.

And, I agree, I do not think the "unity" force of the neut. sing. "hen" does violence to the oneness position either.

In other words, it is a fallacy to argue, on the basis of the fact that a predicate noun preceding a copulative verb is anarthrous, that it is highly likely to be definite. Statistically this is no more likely than the conclusion it is indefinite. Colwell’s rule never claims otherwise: it begins with the criterion of “definiteness” and then develops its breakdown. As such, it is still valuable, and certainly allows for the interpretation “and the Word was God” in John 1:1, if other contextual indicators suggest it (and they do). Moreover, McGaughy has developed a new rule that makes the conclusion quite certain in this case.27 But Colwell’s rule itself must not be abused.

Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed.) (84). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

What is this rule and where can I find it? What book?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

I'm still good with men in dresses... strangeness on the outside does not bother me nearly as much as strangeness on the inside... And no amount of 'men's apparel' will make you a decent man rdp... no amount. You really are beyond disgusting... Does it not even register that God is watching you? You make me very glad that I am no longer a part of such a hateful religion.

And yes we do home church with some other farm couples who also live rurally. It has been a great experience... I do still sometimes miss 'big' church until I realize that it is the place where the insecure and hateful lie in wait for the unsuspecting and weak. You are a troll... in every sense of the word, the idea that you are a preacher will probably keep me away from church for at least a decade and I am sure you have that effect a lot.

Wow. Just wow.

[Praxeas]

BTW I always did sense a little prejudice when essentially admitting one reason for rejecting theos be definite was the claim it leads to Sabellianism...i other words it sounds like they are saying "well it can't be definite because it leads to Sabellianism".

On the other hand it is true that PNs are used qualitatively

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In other words, it is a fallacy to argue, on the basis of the fact that a predicate noun preceding a copulative verb is anarthrous, that it is highly likely to be definite. Statistically this is no more likely than the conclusion it is indefinite. Colwell’s rule never claims otherwise: it begins with the criterion of “definiteness” and then develops its breakdown. As such, it is still valuable, and certainly allows for the interpretation “and the Word was God” in John 1:1, if other contextual indicators suggest it (and they do). Moreover, McGaughy has developed a new rule that makes the conclusion quite certain in this case.27 But Colwell’s rule itself must not be abused.

Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed.) (84). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

What is this rule and where can I find it? What book?

The following is copied from a word-doc. I have on John 1.1, which lists a few sources (fixing to retire for the night):


GGBB/pp. 268/338; Wallace says: "to call God in Jn. 1:1c definite is Modalism/Sabell.’

[footnote 30 lists numerous grammars which say same thing!].


Then, on the same pg. Wallace says: ‘certainly possible grammatically’!?


So, if the Def. Application applies to Jn. 1:1 = Oneness understanding!

**Let’s see if any other Scholars believe Jn. 1:1c = Definite?


Renowned Gk. Scholar, D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John.:

‘A long string of writers has argued that because ‘God’ [in Jn. 1:1c] has no article, Jn. is not referring to God as specific, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’…This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Gk. for ‘Divine’ [not used- Jn. 1:1]. There are many places in the NT where the predicate noun has no article and yet is specific. It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (i.e., have no article).’

This is the same view that was taken by Leon Morris, Bruce Metzger, etc., etc.


In the Journ. of Biblical Literature, Colwell himself refuted the ‘Qualitative’ Tag


He applies the Definitive Force to Jn. 1:1c, p. 17 & says he purposely omitted Qualitative Noun.


On Pg. 21: ‘The absence of the article does NOT make the Predic. [1:1c] Qualitative when it precedes the verb.’


What all of this means = If Jn. 1:1c = Def./Colwell’s Rule applies = OP position!


There are many Grammars/Scholars [including Colwell] who say it absolutely does!

We know about Harner/Dixon’s work & the supposed Qual. Force of Jn. 1:1.


We also know about McGaughy’s Rule & E.V. Goetchius’ Modif. (which see) that conclusively validates the Def. Force of 1:1c.


Carson’s Rebuttal; JBL; Vol. 124, #4, pg. 712, 2005:

He says the Definite Applic. Jn. 1:1c, as Opposed to the ‘Qualitat.’ force = ‘Univ. Pattern’!


See also here: McGaughy, Lane C. 1972. Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek. SBL Dissertation Series 6. Society of Biblical Literature.


http://books.google.com/books?id=he-...ed=0CDkQ6AEwAw



Point is, the qualitative force of an anarthrous PN is not at all as concrete as Wallace & the Reformed bunch claim.

God Bless.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW I always did sense a little prejudice when essentially admitting one reason for rejecting theos be definite was the claim it leads to Sabellianism...i other words it sounds like they are saying "well it can't be definite because it leads to Sabellianism".

On the other hand it is true that PNs are used qualitatively

Wallace says this very thing in his grammar! Then also says, "though certainly possible grammatically" ????

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

You sir, have no clue. First I do not deny a single scripture that you posted. Do you think I am a universalist? Do you think I don't believe in repentance? Do you think I believe muslims and hindus are saved without Christ? Tear down another strawman. I affirm every scripture you posted, and say amen.

But your scriptures proved nothing to back up your customized soteriology. You quoted from John, but the main point of John's gospel is BELIEVE. Salvation is through belief in Christ, not a 3 step plan. (Or 3 steps plus thousands of standards).

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12 (KJV)

John 3, take the whole passage into context. Jesus' explanation didn't stop in v.5 or v.8.....
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:15-18 (KJV)

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36 (KJV)

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24 (KJV)

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. JJohn 6:29 (KJV)

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40 (KJV)

I could go on, but you have choosen to reject the clear and simple testimony of scripture.

In response to your soteriology comment, I'd respond that first "my gospel" has soteriology. I believe that salvation is available only to those who believe in death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9-10). That salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9), the reality of that faith is expressed in repentance from sin(Luke 13:3, Acts 20:21,
1 Corinthians 15:2-3) submission to water baptism (the truly repentant will want to identify with Jesus Christ)(Romans 6:3-5), and the evidence of their saving faith with will be the works that characterize the life of a Christian (James 2:16-24), namely a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Though I affirm it is neither the water baptism or the works that save. The repentant sinner is justified by His faith, not works or rituals (Romans 3:21-5:2). My soteriology doesn't include tongues though so you call it no soteriology at all.

Ironically your soteriology revolves around speaking tongues, mentioned by Jesus only 1 time in the 4 gospels (Mark 16:17, a dispute passage), and mentioned in only 1 of the 21 epistles in the New Testament, and then primarily in an admoninition, not an exhortation to seek that type of manifestation. Your soteriology is based on assumption, not solid scriptural exegesis. Your soteriology is absent from history prior to the early 1900's. Your soteriology damns the majority of Christian believers who profess Christ throughout the ages. Your soteriology is exactly that....yours, and a small bubble representing far less than 1% of Christianity. I don't believe that oneness Pentecostalism is a cult, actually I have a mostly favorable opinion of OP (except for tolerance for the spiritual arrogance), but certainly there is a cult like mentality that accompanies the view that what you preach is THE ONLY saving gospel, when in fact it is not supported by the Bible or historical Christianity OF ANY STRAIN.

Now, I know you can quote scriptures to support your soteriology, but so do mormons, so do Jehovah's witnesses, so do gay theology advocates. Quoting scripture as proof text is useless when those same scriptures are not taken in context, and are divorced from the whole testimony of scripture on a particular topic.




No one is denying Acts 2:37-38. However, those of you who try to force tongues onto the 3,000 have no scriptural merit. The scripture tells us there were two imperatives that Peter preached 1)REPENT 2)BE BAPTIZED. The scripture tells us that the proper biblical response to Peters preaching was "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41 (KJV)". They were added to the church, but you guys shut up the Kingdom of God against such.

The angels in heaven rejoice over a sinner who repents (Luke 15:10) but under you guys system there is little to rejoice over, for said repentant sinner is still going to burst hell wide open.

God promises to give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13) but "pentecost" is defined by people tarrying, begging, wailing, rocking back and forth, etc. and "ALMOST" receiving the Holy Ghost. For some this almost goes on for months or even years. Some give up and some fake it. And as Borat proved, there is so little discernment in the group that someone can come in completely irreverant and sacreligious and fake the whole thing in a camp meeting and all the preachers and saints will go wild, not even realize they are being made a mockery.

Theres good things about oneness churches and saints, but the rigid extrabiblical soteirology and legalistic standards sour it for me. I've considered going back, but it is attitude like those displayed on this thread that remind me I don't want to go back into an environment where hypocricy is rampant, and unless one lines up, they are devoured and slandered by their "brothers". And as I've said before the preachers are the worst, most venomous source. The lay saints tend to be good people, who are scared into submission by constant fear tactics and a twisted view of pastoral authority.

OK so you are a heretic.
Unless a man is born again of the water and the spirit he will not make it.
Same as Acts 2:38.
You don't follow that and you will split the pit.
I don't care what your pedigree is.

BTW it is not "my" soteriology. It is Bible.
You may think that salvation is based upon the majority. Here's a hint. When you are in the majority you are probably wrong. Ask Noah about that...
As to the "history" of the doctrine it is actually unanimous in the ancient church.
Apparently you are not aware of even the Nicene Creed.

Here it is:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Baptism is FOR the remission of sins. Even the RCC maintained this doctrine and was not until the "Reformation" with men like Calvin that this changed. So don't try "history" it is NOT kind to your brand of sloppy agape.

Even the heretic Tertullian said:
"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

There is also Irenaeus:
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

The second birth, which occurs in baptism, begets sons of God. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.393.

Now to say that:
"The angels in heaven rejoice over a sinner who repents (Luke 15:10) but under you guys system there is little to rejoice over, for said repentant sinner is still going to burst hell wide open."

Is completely ignorant. Repentance infers that you will no longer walk your way but turn to God. Since God commands baptism a "repentant" person will do what God says because that IS repentance in action so your argument is ignorant.

You also say that "forcing tongues" on 3000 has no scriptural merit. That is also ignorant. Perhaps you never read John.
Joh 3:8 "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it comes and where it goes. So is everyone who has been born of the Spirit."

I could go on but that is pointless. They were added to the church because they had repented and were baptized and GOD PROMISED to fill them with the Holy Ghost. Apparently your God lies because mine don't He promised the Holy Ghost to all that are called.

And to top off ignorance you are basing your soteriology on Borat. Now THAT is funny indeed!
As to your last paragraph you sound like a very bitter person...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not sure if Pliny and RDP are black and blue enough yet.

I am neither. But thanks for your concern...

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

So do I Lacey, and I can't say that about but a very few who are here. It is sad that so many have left their convictions behind.

Oh really?