Bulldozing churches... this is where its heading

[Daniel Marsh]

The early church fathers were taught by the Apostles themselves.  

If you wish I can give you quotes in context by those whom the Apostles handed down orthodox historical theology thru that supports the Trinity.    You will not find anything of UPCI doctrine before sabulius. 

Here is the Biblical Case for the Trinity  https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/bowman_robert/trinity/trinity.cfm

[Guest theElect777]

I know what the early Church Fathers believed and their version of the Trinity and today's version are not the same!    You are condemning people to hell for not believing just like You do.   Who made you God?

Edited July 12, 2020 by theElect777

[Daniel Marsh]

2 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

You are legalism!

No I hold to historical Christian doctrine.  

legalism relates to morals, not doctrine.   Follow Bowman's outline of the Trinity for the Biblical case thereof:  https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/bowman_robert/trinity/trinity.cfm  

Legalism
The term "legalism" commonly denotes preoccupation with form at the expense of substance. While it is now used metaphorically in all areas of human life, it appears to have had a theological origin in the seventeenth century, when Edward Fisher used it to designate "one who bringeth the Law into the case of Justification" (The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1645). No equivalent term existed in the biblical languages. However, the idea is found in both Testaments.

The Old Testament. In Judaism the entire Old Testament could be called the Law — a usage reflected in the New Testament ( John 10:34 ; 1 Cor 14:21 ; Gal 4:21-22 ). From this perspective the strictly legal parts of the Old Testament stand in a narrative setting whose design is to recount God's dealings with his people so as to give them Torah or instruction in the way of life he desires for them. The narrative setting of the law is essentially an account of God's choosing of Israel to be his people ( Gen 12:1-3 ; Deut 1:1-4:49 ), while the law itself is both a prescriptive statement of the life God expects his people to lead as well as a picture of the kind of life that leads to joy and fulfillment. In short, the law is part of the covenant, and constitutes both God's gracious gift to his people and the vehicle of their grateful response to him ( Exod 19:3-6 ; Deut 7:1-16 ; 26:1-19 ). This explains the positive picture of the law in the Old Testament. It is made equally clear that the law could be abused and subverted. Such subversion (which differs from blank rejection) consists in the observance of its literal dictates while overlooking or evading its underlying intent. The prophets in particular denounce preoccupation with the niceties of sacrificial ritual while inward obedience expressed in justice, compassion, and humility is lacking ( 1 Sam 15:22-23 ; Isa 1:10-20 ; Amos 2:6-8 ; 4:4-5 ; 5:21-24 ; Micah 6:6-8 ). In the postexilic era this danger becomes, if anything, greater. For with the disappearance of the kingdom, the law became the focal point of national life, and conformity to it the mark of belonging to the people of God. The grounding of the law in the covenant grace of God was never wholly forgotten ( Ezra 9:5-7 ), any more than was the sense of authentic piety ( Psalm 119 , passim) or the awareness that mere performance apart from genuine piety was worthless ( Prov 15:8-9 ; 21:3 ). However, it was easy for the law to assume independent significance and its observance to be viewed as the condition of God's grace rather than the response to it. Jeremiah had seen earlier that the corruption of the human heart apart from inward renewal made compliance with the law impossible in any case ( Jer 31:31-34 ). The increased focus on the law during the postexilic era intensified the danger confronted by the earlier prophets: concentration on the latter at the expense of the spirit. This persisted in the Judasim of the first Christian century even though it was recognized that mere conformity to the law was not enough (M. Ber. 2.1), and that repentance was a continual necessity.

The New Testament. No more than Hebrew does the Greek language have a word denoting legalism. Yet it seems clear that criticism of attitudes to the law describable as legalistic constitutes a significant element in New Testament teaching. Three representative areas may be examined.

Legalism and the Teaching of Jesus. The center of Jesus' message was that, in an important measure, the kingdom of God and its power had come in himself ( Matt 12:28 ; Mark 1:14-15 ). This posed a challenge to the most distinctive features of Jewish religion: the identity of the chosen people, the temple, and the life of piety, all of which found their focus in the law. Jesus both affirmed and critiqued the law. While attending the synagogue regularly ( Luke 4:16 ) he did not hesitate to break the purity laws ( Mark 3:13-17 ) or rigid interpretations of Sabbath law ( Mark 3:1-6 ). Refusal to do so he denounced as nullification of God's will in the interests of external conformity ( Mark 7:1-23 ). His interpretation of the law exhibited an incisiveness that pierced to the law's intent beyond its surface meaning ( Matt 5:21-48 ). Still more, he implied that this intent was both revealed and fulfilled in himself, so that legalistic conformity stood exposed and condemned.

Legalism and the Earliest Church. The problem of legalism arose in sharp form when the gospel crossed the boundaries of Judaism and penetrated the Gentile world. The forms were much the same as in Jesus' day: association with sinners, observance of the ceremonial law, and, above all, acceptance of the ritual mark of the people of God circumcision. However, the issue was more acute: Was salvation possible for Gentiles apart from law observance ( Acts 11:3 ; 15:1 )? The Jerusalem Council affirmed that it was ( Acts 15:11 Acts 15:13-14 ) and sought to resolve the practical difficulties arising from this decision ( Acts 15:28-29 ), though with what success is not clear.

Legalism and the Teaching of Paul. While Paul can speak positively of the law ( Romans 7:7 Romans 7:12 Romans 7:14 ), including circumcision ( Rom 3:1-2 ; 4:10-12 ), he also speaks of it negatively. It is powerless to deliver from sin ( Rom 8:3 ; Gal 3:21b-22 ) and was a temporary measure until the coming of Christ ( Gal 3:19 ). Moreover, continued attachment to it is not only fruitless, but dangerous since the law demands total obedience of which none is capable ( Gal 3:10-12 ). Law observance is thus both futile and fatal. As a substitute for or supplement to faith in Christ it ministers to legalism. Acceptance by God is possible only through faith in Christ crucified ( Rom 8:3 ; Gal 2:16 ; 3:13-14 ). This picture of the law as occasioning legalism has been hotly contested. However, there is evidence of a vein of Judaism in which "the works of the law" were seen as a pathway to righteousness (e.g., the Qumran text 4QMMT). There is likewise evidence in the literature of the Second Temple period that sin was defined in terms of the law, and divine intervention in the eschaton was seen as the only cure. While Paul's use of the term "works" exhibits a wide range of meaning from good to bad (see the double use in Eph 2:8-10 ), the significant phrase "the works of the law" often stands in explicit contrast with faith in Christ as the means of salvation ( Romans 3:20-22 Romans 3:28 ; Gal 2:16 ; Galatians 3:2 Galatians 3:5 Galatians 3:10 ). It is noteworthy that in several of these contexts the idea of boasting is also present ( Rom 3:27 ; Gal 2:20a ; 6:13 ). These examples seem best taken to mean legal works, that is, works done to commend the doer to God. As holding out the hope of salvation on the basis of human effort, such works are the antithesis of God's saving grace set forth in Christ crucified. Confidence in him alone, who, by his death fulfilled the law, is the sole means of deliverance from the law's demands, and so of avoiding legalism.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/legalism/

 

 

 

[Guest theElect777]

Are you aware there are 2 definitions for the Hebrew word "Begat?"   One means from offspring from human man/woman.   One means brought forth for a purpose.   Which one does Christ fit?   I ask this because the Church Fathers believe God "Begat" both the Word and Wisdom."

[Guest theElect777]

You know in the Bible every time there is a reference to God it begins with a Capital letter?    How come in Genesis 1:26 the words "us." "our image," and "our likeness" does not begin with a Capital Letter indicating God?

 

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Daniel Marsh]

10 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

But I don't care what Historical Churches claim.   We now have access to proper translations.   And still within those proper translations, we cannot defend why we are Trinity because there is no listing for persons representing One God.   That is an assumption we just Believe!

If you do not not believe what the Apostles taught the Church Fathers then you do not belong to Christ.  You have a false Christ.

1 John 2:23, NASB: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

"This verse offers the other side of verse 22, which referred to those who deny the Father and Son. Specifically, those who reject Jesus are rejecting God, as well. A true believer will accept both God the Father and Jesus the Son. John specifically notes this by confirming that those who accept Christ accept God the Father. The person who confesses or believes in Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9) has the Father. This is because Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) and is the only name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). This is the message they had heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24). Any different message was to be rejected.

Second John 1:7 also confronted this problem of those denying Jesus' status as God incarnate. A person who deceives by changing core teachings about Jesus is considered a false teacher and antichrist. This was true not only in the church to which John wrote 1 John, but in any time or place where this occurs."

 

[Guest theElect777]

Because in the Hebrew Language there is no designated lower/upper case value system.  How we know is the specific word.   

 

lord

Lord

LORD

are all 3 different words and none of them mean the same.

[Guest theElect777]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

If you do not not believe what the Apostles taught the Church Fathers then you do not belong to Christ.  You have a false Christ.

1 John 2:23, NASB: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

"This verse offers the other side of verse 22, which referred to those who deny the Father and Son. Specifically, those who reject Jesus are rejecting God, as well. A true believer will accept both God the Father and Jesus the Son. John specifically notes this by confirming that those who accept Christ accept God the Father. The person who confesses or believes in Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9) has the Father. This is because Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) and is the only name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). This is the message they had heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24). Any different message was to be rejected.

Second John 1:7 also confronted this problem of those denying Jesus' status as God incarnate. A person who deceives by changing core teachings about Jesus is considered a false teacher and antichrist. This was true not only in the church to which John wrote 1 John, but in any time or place where this occurs."

 

 

 

Why do you keep switching which Bibles and Verses to use?   Can you not find your answer from 1 Bible?

Edited July 12, 2020 by theElect777

[Daniel Marsh]

14 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

But I don't care what Historical Churches claim.   We now have access to proper translations.   And still within those proper translations, we cannot defend why we are Trinity because there is no listing for persons representing One God.   That is an assumption we just Believe!

You failed to look into the outline of the trinity link I posted.    Thank you for bringing up "proper translations".    It was the Church Fathers since most people were not able to write on the level of the Scriptures that made all the copies of the New Testament  up until the Printing Press about 1500 years later.   It was also, these historical Christians who made translations for their mission fields back then.   It is Trinitarians who do most of the translations today.  What translations have United Pentecostals produced?  If you do not accept the writings of the Church Fathers and other Historical Christians who protected, copied and translated the New Testament then you have no grounds to even accept the New Testament as the word of God.

 

[Guest theElect777]

Are you claiming because I follow the Holy Spirit inside me and how the Bible is revealed I am a False Teacher/Preacher?

 

Show me anywhere I posted where it is not both found in the Bible, but I have mistranslated it?