Caeligenus
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
| Table of contents |
Latin
Alternate Spelling
Etymology
Adjective
caeligenus m, caeligena f, caeligenum n
- born in heaven
In article <164.08.06.05.723452000@srcbs.org>, larswilson says...
>
>
>
>Basically, to save mankind, part of the arangement was to have Michael, the
>archangel, take up human form twice.
No. Your "Angel Christology" is soundly disproved even by just John 1:1, if
carefully interpreted.
But you have the 'patience' to write long, rambling, nonsensical posts, but not
to understand John 1:1! For if you read it IN CONTEXT (e.g. John 1:1-1:18), you
will see that it was NOT an angel, not even an archangel, who became flesh, but
the consubstantial Son of God, co-eternal with the Father.
[snip]
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > > But JWs clearly equivocate on what "Jesus as Lord" means. Whereas
> > >you and I should agree: it means Lord GOD.
> >
> > We do agree. But will Jesus condemn someone who holds that "Jesus as
> > Lord" means "Jesus as master"?
>
> How can it be otherwise if the basis for believing is the inspiration
> of the Spirit?
I am willing to bet that you and I differ on one or more points of
doctrine. Does that mean that one (or both) of us are condemned? Where
do you draw the line, and what is your Scriptural warrent for where you
draw it?
The Spirit leads according to His timetable; who are we to judge and,
more importantly, how do we judge where the Spirit is or isn't leading
in a person's life?
> Can the Spirit lie?
No, but then how do you explain differences between different
Christians?
> This brings us to what Reformed theologians have stated concerning true
> faith that it involved "notitia", "assensus," and "fiducia." Notitia
> speaks to our point. Faith requires an object. That object cannot be the
> object of faith unless it is first known. Pisteuein has from the
> beginning required the correct object. To "have no other gods before you"
> requires correct understand of what is true and what is not. After His
> incarnation, "God with us", after the requirement of the Spirit (Rom 8:9),
> it becomes obvious that to have a false view of who Christ actually is is
> to not have the testimony of the Spirit, therefore placing one faith in an
> idolatrous image.
>
As I argued in another thread, every single one of us has a false, and
therefore idolatrous, image of God. The finite simply cannot correctly
comprehend the infinite. Where do you draw the line, and where is your
Scriptural warrant for doing so? How do you escape the charge of
salvation being partly due to man's correct knowledge of
something/someone -- which is gnosticism?
> > In both cases, Jesus is still followed.
>
> Someone has to refer to it. "Lord Lord. . . I never knew you."
I don't disagree. How do you know who those someone are, especially
those who confess Jesus as Lord, but do it in a way differently from us?
>
> > I have to give BB credit; while he is so wrong as to defy description,
> > he is in here slugging away, trying to convince us of the truth as he
> > sees it. He's trying to fish, as our Master commands, even though
> > he's using rancid bait.
> >
> He's fishing in an empty bath tub. Sincerity is never a qualification.
> Rom 10:2.
I agree that sincerity is never a qualification. But if I put on my
"disinterested observer" hat, the main difference I see between BB and
the Trinitarians is the difference in doctrine. Both sides are engaging
in name calling, in the impunging the motives of the other, and some
sloppy reasoning on each side. But both sides are arguing for "true
doctrine" as they see it and both sides are trying to be true, IMO, to
their understanding of Jesus.
How am I to judge which of them are saved and which aren't? They both
confess Jesus, to the best of their abilities, and they both believe in
the resurrection. Is there some other quality in them that makes one
saved and the other not?
> >
> >
> > So Jesus saves based upon correct knowledge, leading to correct
> > confession, of the individual. How is this not gnosticism, leading
> > to salvation by works?
> >
> Because of the calling of the Father and the testimony of the Spirit. For
> someone not to believe in the deity of Christ is a proof that they have
> not been regenerated.
You cannot state as proof that which must be proven.
> Regeneration is required before man can spiritually appraise his position
> before God. It is also required before he can not only see his need of a
> savior, but that his Savior is, indeed, God Himself, "the Just and the
> Justifier."
Were I to put on my "Arian" hat, I wouldn't disagree with this.
>
> > >
> > > >> For the evidence for the Trinity is so overwhelming, and so well
> > > >> nown. That is why our interlocutor has had to resort to so many
> > > >> dishonest debating techniques, such as the 'fasle dilemma' you
> > > >> yourself pointed out.
> > > >
> > > > The older I get, the more I see that it is impossible for some
> > > >people to think logically. There is something in their consitution
> > > >that puts up a wall that argument cannot scale. Are they condemned
> > > >for this accident of heredity/environment/whatever, or might it be
> > > >the case that our Lord has put them in a position where they are
> > > >doing the best they can do?
> > >
> Your whole argumentation is predicated on the autonomous man having
> sufficiency in himself to true spiritual enlightenment.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. My position is that man is not
saved by correct apprehension of doctrine. Therefore, by using reductio
ad absurdum, I'm attempting to show that those who claim that those who
deny the DoT cannot be saved have a tenuous position at best.
> This is definitely not the Biblical teaching. (Rom 3:10ff). Therefore
> "so well known" cannot be forced to mean that it is spiritually appraised
> correctly. There may come an intellectual understanding of the doctrine,
> but there can never be an inspired appreciation and acceptance..
Are you pre-mil, post-mil, a-mil, or preterist? Supralapsarian or
infralapsarian? Free willer, or no free will? Infant baptism or
believer's baptism? Wine, grape juice, or Pepsi for communion?
> >
> > > Well, Bob, some of us noticed this 'wall' many years ago. And
> > > although we recognize that yes, _argument_ cannot scale it, we realize
> > > that what _really_ puts that wall up is the sinful tendency to exalt
> > > one's own interest or opinion. It is the spiritual battle against that
> > > sinful tendency that scales it (not w/o the help of grace).
> >
> > A battle you never have to fight? If you have to fight this battle
> > and yet are redeemed, why is it that they, who fight the same battle,
> > are not redeemed?
> >
> Because they are not hypocrites.
And we aren't? Speck, meet log.
> One cannot be a hypocrite if one is acting according to the principle of
> his nature.
Really? So you never sin? You've never held an incorrect doctrine?
[...]
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
