The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

At times, TB, I think I get a glimpse of what you are saying, but this statement throws me.

I see that God is a Spirit. That is His substance. His nature is holy. Thus God is A Holy Spirit. There is none than can approach until His holiness, nor His magnitude and power, thus we establish absolute the definite article "the," and describe God as The Holy Spirit. I see no distinction there. I see FAR MORE distinction when I look at Jesus Christ because of the flesh aspect, but consider that God's Word was manifest or BECAME flesh to be observed by humankind.

There is very little distinction between God and Holy Spirit, the scripture says God is Spirit, not a/the Spirit. Holy Spirit describes the manner and ways that God works in the affairs of men.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by rrford

Indeed there are distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Just not some of the distinctions being allided to be some posters.

If we are saying there are 3 persons, with all that entails, then we leave distinctions behind and enter into trintiarian theology. However, if we say distinctions, and realize there is but one God manifest in different ways then we have a good basic understanding fo the Godhead.

Agreed! Seems oneness doctrine has been so fearful of (3 persons) that have at times neglected the terminology of scripture, that gives us clearer picture of the height, width and depth of God.

Originally Posted by philjones

I am saying that he was the flesh (fleshly manifestation of the one God who is a spirit) of God (some like to call him the son of God) and that flesh died as he yielded up the eternal Holy Spirit that caused him to linger in his desperate condition on the cross. That same God raised up and glorified that flesh as his only person or body and the fullness of the God head dwells in that glorified flesh unto this day! There is no distinction in my God. He is numerically, in Person and in essence ONE!

When I say Jesus I have encompassed the whole of God!

Based on what I have read here and in other sites, I AM more oneness than many so-called Oneness Apostolics!

You appear to be denying that Jesus was fully human (in addition to His being fully God): was it the eternal Holy Spirit that He yielded up or was it His own human spirit (the breath of life like that which God breathed into Adam)? What you're saying sounds a lot like the divine flesh doctrine or that Jesus' humanity was nothing more than a robe that God put on.

[AGAPE]

Okay lets k.i.s.s.

God existed in Spirit form until He decided to become a man. Then God existed as Spirit and as Man, The Incarnation.
Still One God

Originally Posted by Sabellius

Hmmmm...

This is the passage that Bernard feels is the strongest statement linking justification with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11). There are three phrases in 1 Corinthians 6:11, they are given special emphasis in the Greek by the repetition of "but" (KJV). However, to repeat this word three times would be awkard in our English idiom. These three clauses refer to different aspects, rather than successive stages, of what God has done for believers. A translation such as "you were purified, then dedicated, then put right with God"(1) would be wrong. Paul is talking about some happenings in the overall picture of the Holy Spirit working in our lives. This is the Spirit of God doing these things generally, not that the declaration of Justificaton ONLY happens at the Spirit baptism.

Also, the normal understanding of remission of sins is to be connected in Acts 2:38 with repentance and baptism. Are we really ready to say that we are not "washing" until we are baptized by the Holy Spirit? This is the logical conclusion if we say that justification does not occur until we are Holy Spirit baptized.

NOTES:

1. Ellingworth, P., Hatton, H., & Ellingworth, P. (1995). A handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. of: A translator's handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (131). New York: United Bible Societies.

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment of 1 Corinthians 6:11. I think Paul used the specific words he used, in the order that he used them, for a reason. I think Paul really was saying of those who used to be characterized by the sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Such WERE some of you" (emphasis mine) "but you were washed" (as in your sins were washed away by the blood of the Lamb), "but you were sanctified" (as in set apart for God's use, not in the sense of progressive sanctification) and "you were justified" (as in "You're guilty but Jesus bore your punishment for you"). I think Paul put them in this order as an intentional succession. The way people (the Levitical priesthood, for example) and things (the things used in the service of the tabernacle, for example) were set apart for God's use was through washing. It was only after the washing was completed that they were considered sanctified or set apart for God's use. It was then, after the blood of the Lamb had been applied in the washing that those in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 were justified, i.e. declared guilty but allowed to be beneficiaries of Jesus' propitiating work on the cross (His punishment on their behalf).

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chan

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment of 1 Corinthians 6:11. I think Paul used the specific words he used, in the order that he used them, for a reason. I think Paul really was saying of those who used to be characterized by the sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Such WERE some of you" (emphasis mine) "but you were washed" (as in your sins were washed away by the blood of the Lamb), "but you were sanctified" (as in set apart for God's use, not in the sense of progressive sanctification) and "you were justified" (as in "You're guilty but Jesus bore your punishment for you"). I think Paul put them in this order as an intentional succession. The way people (the Levitical priesthood, for example) and things (the things used in the service of the tabernacle, for example) were set apart for God's use was through washing. It was only after the washing was completed that they were considered sanctified or set apart for God's use. It was then, after the blood of the Lamb had been applied in the washing that those in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 were justified, i.e. declared guilty but allowed to be beneficiaries of Jesus' propitiating work on the cross (His punishment on their behalf).

I understand. But, what about this part --

There are three phrases in 1 Corinthians 6:11, they are given special emphasis in the Greek by the repetition of "but" (KJV). However, to repeat this word three times would be awkard in our English idiom. These three clauses refer to different aspects, rather than successive stages, of what God has done for believers.

How do you explain away the repitions? Do you realize the implications?

Originally Posted by Sabellius

I understand. But, what about this part --

There are three phrases in 1 Corinthians 6:11, they are given special emphasis in the Greek by the repetition of "but" (KJV). However, to repeat this word three times would be awkard in our English idiom. These three clauses refer to different aspects, rather than successive stages, of what God has done for believers.

How do you explain away the repitions? Do you realize the implications?

I don't have a problem with the repetitions at all. To me they suggest successive stages in the manner I explained in the previous post. I don't think the order is irrelevant; rather, I think the order is very important.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Not at all. But do not confuse what election really is. Is election individual or corporate as relates to the church?

Careful, wrong answers lead to pre-destination theology.

I would say it is more corporate than anything, brother RR. I could never stand with the once saved always saved crowd.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

You may well be right, Brother.

But in a world where so many are looking to compromise the message anyway, it would be good if prominent voices like Brother Arnold wouldn't say things that give fodder to the compromiser's.

His statements along these lines are easily misunderstood, IMO.

There is a way to address this problem without sounding like you are de-valuing the message of the New Birth.

JA has always liked to shock people in order to make them think. that is well and good. But I wish he wouldn't leave things hanging like that the unstable can twist so easily to convince the fence-sitters.

LOL

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I would not say God died without qualifying it. Even Jesus will admit to dying.

Re 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

But it wasn't as divinity that Jesus died. Divinity, by its very nature, is incapable of death.

To suggest that God died is to suggest an impossibility. If God died, then God ceased to be God (or was never God to begin with). Eternality is an essential component of divinity.

Nestorius correctly communicated the doctrine that Jesus is both fully God and fully man; he rightly said that those things pertaining to Jesus' divinity do not pertain to His humanity and that those things pertaining to Jesus' humanity do not pertain to His divnity.

We must be careful not to confuse, commingle, intermix, etc. Jesus' divinity and His humanity.