heartwashed3

However, what you say is contradicted by Romans 1:3...He is made (not uncreated) according to the flesh.

I certainly do believe that Jesus is pre-existent...however, how that can be is going to have to be a mystery to you as I believe that I may have already overstepped my bounds in saying more on the subject than I really should.

From my perspective my statement is not in disagreement with any of that. But I said that I would not go into depth about my beliefs on the Trinity at this website because they are too easily misunderstood as being in denial of the Trinity (they are not; but because they are misconstrued as such, I refrain from speaking further on the subject lest I be decried as a heretic and banned from the website over the same misunderstanding that has led moderators to ban me from other websites. I prefer to stay and discuss other doctrinal issues that matter to me. It is sufficient that I have stated my belief and therefore it is my aim to simply let my light shine from here on in; and thus to make my doctrine concerning the Triunity of the Godhead attractive in the case that you may encounter it on my facebook page or other message boards.

It is my estimation that the creeds state somewhere in them that the Son is entirely uncreated...if you look through the statements in the creeds I believe you will find that in them.

Did Jesus even "come to be"? Is He not eternally pre-existent?

I believe that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation according to Luke 1:35 (not eternally begotten); and that therefore He was not 1/3 of God, or otherwise a 2nd God, in His pre-incarnate form. For there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4) who is God (John 4:24). Yes, according to His Deity Jesus is uncreated; but the creeds do not specify that He was created in His humanity and therefore I believe that they do contradict Romans 1:3 in that they seem to teach that He was entirely uncreated. The Bible says clearly (Romans 1:3) that He was made according to the flesh.

Here are three other verses that I think define the subject well. Mat 5:6 (kjv), Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Eph 1:18 (NLT),I pray that your hearts will be flooded with light so that you can understand the confident hope he has given to those he called—his holy people who are his rich and glorious inheritance.[fn] Mat 5:8 (kjv), Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

I think that it is the devil's work that he has had it decried as heresy what is clearly a part of the gospel message in Matthew 1:21.

I will only quote here what it says in 1 John 1:7... 1Jo 1:7, But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. And however you interpret 1 John 1:8, it cannot be in contradiction to the verse before it. I would say very simply that the blood of Jesus is the deciding factor of whether you have been cleansed from all sin, or not.

Okay. If it's allowed, maybe we will discuss the topic elsewhere.

I think that the creeds are good except that in certain instances they contradict scripture itself (such as Luke 1:35; which says that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation; and Romans 1:3; which says that He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh). They could have made their statements more clearly so as not to seem to contradict these scriptures.

Very clearly, one side has been argued by those who want to keep a sinful lifestyle and the other side by those who champion holiness.

I think that the doctrine of entire sanctification is opposed because of its implications. People don't like it because of the fact that it is convicting. But Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and convict people, not only of sin and judgment; but of righteousness.

I believe that scripture clearly teaches entire sanctification (in such passages as 1 John 3:9, Hebrews 10:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 1 John 3:6, 1 John 2:17; Jude 1:24, 2 Peter 1:10, 1 John 2:10; which is not an exhaustive list). I would say that Romans 8:12 (NLT) clinches it for me. It says that we are not obligated to obey the flesh. Therefore the doctrine of the inevitability of sin is the true heresy.

I know that I have run out of forums to post on (Worthy is the last available forum that I have been allowed access to); and I don't think it is because of a bad attitude on my part. It is because my doctrine is offensive to some people (see Galatians 5:11). For example, I have contended with those who have the tendency to preach grace as a license for immorality and in one particular instance, in such a battle, a single moderator took the side of the person who was doing so and I was banned for preaching the truth. In other instances I have been banned for emphasizing the Oneness of the Lord in my preaching of the Trinity. I don't think that I denied the Trinity but that was the accusation. I believe that the people that I was contending with were actually Tritheists at heart and were hiding behind the label of Trinitarian in order to more effectively combat the concept that God is three-in-one...I have chosen against re-hashing the Trinity doctrine here for fear of a repeat of what happened there....my being banned because of the false accusation that I deny the Trinity. In some other cases, I have championed the doctrine of entire sanctification and have been banned for doing so. And once, I was even banned for taking the position that women ought to have a covering on their head in church in situations where they pray or prophesy. That was a popular but liberal website where that happened.

Ok.

I feel that I kept myself blameless in all my responses; and that it was mainly @S33k3r who was doing all of the fighting and making all of the posts that deserved to be scrutinized. If I was not in fact blameless, then I want to know somehow what it is that I posted that was so sinful and what it was about that or those posts that deserved scrutiny. Did I preach unsound doctrine in any way? or, did I respond to anyone apart from the kindness of the Lord; even when dealing with those who were coming against me with the opposite of that?

Will the thread be entirely gone from the internet if there are more than 4 reports?

The more who are accepted, the greater the probability that someone might have slipped through the cracks as an unbeliever. It appears to me that my thread on Matthew 7:21-23 and Romans 4:15 has been deleted; unless it is taken off online for that it is currently in review. Do you have any news on this?

Personally, I think that having that many (fifty) moderators means that the probability is higher that one or more of them will be unbelievers who will sit in judgment over sound doctrine and rejecting it because they don't like it; thus they may punish godly ministers more readily than those who are in violation.

Condolences. So sorry to hear about his passing.

I think that we can get the intended meaning by reading what it says in English.

(NLT)1Co 12:29 Are we all apostles? Are we all prophets? Are we all teachers? Do we all have the power to do miracles? 1Co 12:30 Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not!

1Ti 4:13 (NLT) Until I get there, focus on reading the Scriptures to the church, encouraging the believers, and teaching them.

Col 2:11 (NLT) When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.