Trinitarian

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We have to accept the reasoning Baron ... because you can't possibly have a different plausible interpretation ....

Trinitarians are pagans. 'Nuff said.

Ironically it's like the conclusion Mizpeh drew from my posts that if you believe in restoration theology you must be a Mormon.

Dan, I was being very sarcastic.

If all truth is God's truth then perhaps the Mormons have a few things right!

[Antipas]

Dan, just teach and obey the full gospel. Allow God to judge the soul. Including any deeply conservative OP.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan, I was being very sarcastic.

If all truth is God's truth then perhaps the Mormons have a few things right!

As can pagans?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Dan, just teach and obey the full gospel. Allow God to judge the soul. Including any deeply conservative OP.

Antipas ... Jesus is the full gospel.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Baron,

Was Plato a prophet of Yahweh?
Was he a Holy Ghost filled Apostle?
Was he “saved”?

If we can draw from philosopher’s like Plato; why not Buddha? Why not Loa Tzu? Or Amida Buddha? Why not draw from the philosophical teachings of Bahaullah?

I’m sure you can find more “truth” there too. Baron, there is a degree of truth to be embraced from the story of the Three Little Pigs…but I wouldn’t define my faith according to stories of Mother Goose.

The references to pagan philosophers in the NT were part of polemic as a tool in didactic writing. They were not sources of theological conclusions. Plato also held to reincarnation (see Plato’s, Phaedo).

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think because the text can be confusing to young people without proper interpretation. First, many scholars question that the verse was in the original text of the book of John you refer to. Second, the terms used are very complex theological terms. John states that there are three that bear witness in heave: the Father, Word (Logos), and the Holy Ghost…and these three are one. Notice John doesn’t use the term “Son”. He uses the term “Logos”. Why? Because the point made was that the three bearing witness in Heaven are the Father, the Logos (the Father’s thought, plan, expression as found in Christ), and the Holy Ghost are one. These are not three deities or three divine beings, gods, or persons. They are one. John’s point however isn’t about the Godhead. John’s point is found in the following verse:

“And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree one.” I John 5:8

All was in reference to verse 6.

Notice verse 8 indicates that on earth the Spirit, the water of baptism, and the blood of Christ are all in agreement, working toward the salvation of the believer.

Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html

For whence come wars, and fightings, and factions? whence but from the body and the lusts of the body?

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home.

Would you like to address my other comments? Are some observations regarding the condition of mankind universal? Did this observation originate with Plato?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I suggest that you read the Oneness Pioneer Series that illustrates the beliefs of our founders. All listed were restorationists. Lee Stoneking's website has an excellent restorationist outline of history resulting in Apostolic revival. The term "restorationist" essentially means "one who believes in the revival of original Christian belief and practice".

Yes Mormons do call themselves restorationists...but they turn to an entirely spurious source of Scriptures (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham etc.). The Apostolic revival (restoration) is based entirely in the Bible.

I have a feeling Luther could be called a restorationist as well instead of a protestant or a reformer!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?



Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

I have found this to be very interesting ... realized that the story of the adulterous woman may be "added" last summer.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I think to be a restorationist, you have to believe that the gates of hell prevailed for 1800+ years. That seems like a frail teaching to me that it is so easily lost.

What do you have to be to be a reformer? How many years did the gates of hell prevail before Luther?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Question ... could someone in some OP circles be saved if both the baptizer and baptizee were deaf and mute and did not know how to sign ? Would they be obeying Acts 2:38 if the proper name was not invoked during baptism or the believer did not speak in tongues if it was all done in their head?

Doesn't completely fit your question but...My Uncle who is deaf and cannot speak so that it is understandable (though some have been taught to like his wife) when he was baptized he came out of the water speaking in very clear English, praising God. This only lasted for a few moments. Is it possible this was the infilling of the HG and this was speaking in another tongue?