| Re: |
thank you for you suggested resource for instruction and edification. I listened to it in it's entirety. It actually was exactly what we are talking about in part since the man he quoted early on said somewhat of the same things as myself. It also dealt with the matter of how the mainstream doctrine of the Triunity does not come off well to Jews and evangelism has been part of my concern. However though this sermon had some thought it really did not dig in very far in content in this long sermon he in summation only said that the Triunity is genius so as for content I didn't really receive much.
| 2008/12/13 18:09||Profile|
| Re: |
Clarke believed, as did all Methodists, in the Eternal Personhood of Him who we now know as the Christ.
[img align=left]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e2/Adamclarke.jpg/180px-Adamclarke.jpg[/img]Adam Clarke (1760 or 17621832) was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar. He is chiefly remembered for writing a commentary on the Bible which took him 40 years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological resource for two centuries.
That commentary, published as: "The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present Authorized Version. Including the marginal readings and parallel texts. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Designed as a help to a better understanding of the sacred writings. By Adam Clarke, LL.D. F.S.A. M.R.I.A. With a complete alphabetical index. Royal Octavo Stereotype Edition." [In six volumes of approximately 1,000 pages each] "New York, Published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the conference office, 13 Crosby-Street. J. Collord, Printer. 1831.", may be the most comprehensive commentary on the Bible ever prepared by one man. By himself he produced nearly half as much material as the scores of scholars who collaborated on the twelve-volume The Interpreters Bible.
As a theologian, Clarke reinforced the teachings of Methodist founder John Wesley. He taught that the Bible provides a complete interpretation of God's nature and will. He considered Scripture itself a miracle of God's grace that "takes away the veil of darkness and ignorance."1 With such an understanding, Clarke was first and foremost a Biblical theologian, often uneasy with purely systematic approaches to theology.
Clarke followed Wesley in opposing a Calvinistic scheme of salvation, preferring instead the Wesleyan-Arminian positions regarding predestination, prevenient grace, the offer of justification from God to all persons, entire sanctification, and assurance of salvation.
[b]Perhaps his most controversial position regarded the eternal Sonship of Jesus. Clarke did not believe it Biblically faithful to affirm this doctrine, maintaining that prior to the Incarnation, Jesus was "unoriginated." Otherwise, according to Clarke, he would be subordinate to God and therefore not fully divine. This was important to Clarke because he felt that Jesus' divinity was crucial to understanding the atonement.
Clarke's view was opposed by many Methodists, notably Richard Watson. Watson and his allies argued that Clarke's position jeopardized the integrity of the doctrine of the trinity. Clarke's view was rejected by Methodism in favor of the traditional, orthodox perspective.[/b]
| 2008/12/13 18:23||Profile|
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)|
ChrisJD you said, "But boG, I only qouted the scripture?"
You also said,
"Love does not seek it's own.
The Lord Jesus in the same prayer said"
With your previous statements I can only assume you meant to say that God's love fulfills the nature of love by "not seeking it's own" when God loves His creatures, ie. "I pray for them..." And if this is how the nature of love is fulfilled then you admit God's love is dependant upon creation to love perfectly.
From what I was understanding you were saying God does not love Himself since love does not seek its own. And since to love yourself is to seek your own God must not love Himself.
I am aware of what you are understanding David, which is what disturbs me. As I just posted, try and quote me where I say I don't believe God loves Himself. You will not find it and that is because you are not understanding much of anything I am writing, were we sitting face to face I would have to assume you were either ignoring me or selective of hearing. I explicitly said that it is your view of Modalism (Oneness) wherein God cannot love Himself because He fails to be the fulness of Love testified of in Scripture.
Unsaved people can do good and love. As I stated earlier I don't have full clarity on this matter. However even if man were completely evil and could never do good that would not compromise my understanding of the Triunity since I say that God loves Himself yet it is okay since He has a good nature.
If you do not even have clarity on the testimony of Scripture, which you have now openly denied, that declares without contradiction: there is no righteousness apart from the righteousness of Christ Jesus, there is no good apart from God who alone is Good, and there is no love apart from the Holy Spirit who is the Author of love. If you cannot recognize this about the worldly love of man, which is no love at all, how shall you instruct us of God, who is love? You do greatly deceive yourself. "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Therefore if you do not even understand the earthly things, indeed, how shall you tell us of heavenly things? This greatly affects your ability to speak of the doctrine of love and of the nature of God. From the first post when you presented your "slightly differing view" it became apparent you did not have a right understanding of true love and that lacking view of love has shaped your view of God. And this has been confirmed several times now by your own confession.
Look again at each of the verses you posted concerning "unsaved people" doing good and having love.
"Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man"
"Lydia, who was a worshiper of God."
"a man named Joseph, and he was looking for the kingdom of God."
And as for the man in [b]Luke 7[/b]: "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue." This is not an acceptable testimony because it is given by men and not by God. However, Jesus "marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, 'I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.'"
These are not your run-of-the-mill pagans. These are all God-fearing men and women of faith. Now find a scripture which testifies of an ungodly man loving with a true love. I assure you the only love the people of the world have is a sensual (fleshly) and selfish love.
Have you ever done a study on the different greek words translated as "love" in the Bible? There is only one love which we may speak of as true love, and that is God and the love He gives to His children. There is no other true love besides this because this is the only love that shall continue into eternity; all other "love" is carnal, is born of the flesh, is sin, is unrighteous, and is not to be compared to the love in the Holy Spirit.
From what I was understanding you were saying that we cannot love our children if they are unsaved since they are completely evil if they are not born again. Maybe you mean we can love them to salvation and as our enemies but not just as our children. If this is what you are saying then I disagree because I believe we can love our children just as our children.
I will try to explain this again. Does a father love a malicious child? Indeed he may. Yet, he hates the child all the same because the child's deeds are evil. Divine love and divine hate are not opposites, that is, they are not diametrically opposed. If love and hate were contradictions then God Himself could not love and hate. In fact, God would be incapable of hate if this were true because if hate were the complete opposite of love then hate would be evil, and we know there is no evil in God. Therefore, we may righteously hate our children and every stranger who is not born of the Spirit of God. Not the evil hate, or malicious hate of the world and the devil, but a hate that sympathizes with the weakness of the flesh and compels us to bless our enemies "of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you". And as Paul said elsewhere, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." And that is the affection and determination of godly hate for it is a benevolent hatred and not ill-willed as are sinful love & hate.
As for your quote of [b]Romans[/b], read again:
1.[/b] Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
[b]2.[/b] For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
[b]3.[/b] For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
This zeal is not in accordance with knowledge and this zeal is seeking to establish a self-righteousness. This zeal is therefore unrighteous and as filthy rags before a holy God and neither does it bring the salvation of God. How can they be zealous for a God whom they do not know? How can this zeal be a love for God? Is it not written, "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." And we know that it is impossible for the carnal man to love his brother because such a love is to be obedient to the commandment of Christ. And only those who are born-again have received the gift of faith that is capable of manifesting the true love that is obedient to God therefore "he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
| 2008/12/13 22:57||Profile|
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)|
How about these verses,
33.[/b] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is [b]also written in the second psalm[/b], Thou [u]art (present tense)[/u] my Son, this day have I [u]begotten (perfect tense)[/u] thee.
7.[/b] [u]I will declare (imperfect aspect)[/u] the decree: [u]the LORD hath said (perfect aspect)[/u] unto me, Thou art my Son; this day [u]have I begotten (perfect aspect)[/u] thee.
(taken from wikipedia.org)
Biblical Hebrew had only two aspects (not tenses). [b]The perfect aspect was used for completed actions, and generally implies past time.[/b] The imperfect aspect was used for uncompleted actions, and thus could imply present or future time.
| 2008/12/13 23:23||Profile|
| Re: |
Hi again boG.
"With your previous statements I can only assume you meant to say that God's love fulfills the nature of love by "not seeking it's own" when God loves His creatures, ie. "I pray for them..." And if this is how the nature of love is fulfilled then you admit God's love is dependant upon creation to love perfectly."
I see. No, this was not my intention at all. I was responding to what you had written here:
Brother ChrisJD, what if I recommended you to consider how the Trinity expresses love among themselves -- the perfect representation and fulfillment of loving one another; a perfect parable for how we, as the body of Christ, should be one. Does this answer your exhortation?
[edit: John 17
21. that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.]
And besides this, you had been referring to the passage is Corinthians which says that love does not seek [b]its own[/b].
This is why I suggested looking at what else the Lord Jesus said in the prayer that you made refrence to:
[b][color=330000]And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. [/color][/b]
- John 17:10(KJV)
No, I do not think God is dependant upon man in order to be anything. I think He is what He is because He is God.
Once again, I do not think the passage in Corinthians is intended to invite us into speculating on the nescessity of there being multiple persons in God in order that He be love.
The scripture says that when God could swear by no greater, He swore [b]by Himself[/b](Heb 6:13).
Even though [i]men verily swear by the greater[/i].
We are not God. And the Apostle Paul, writting to [b]men[/b], said that love does not seek it's own.
Wish you well,
Christopher Joel Dandrow
| 2008/12/14 8:48||Profile|
| Re: |
I don't think that I want to continue this conversation as it seems fruitless and in vain. I think the conversation has merely gone off into philosophy, total depravity, and a denial of God centered teaching and so forth which are side issues from what the main topic was.
| 2008/12/14 23:21||Profile|
| Re: |
How about these verses,
Acts 13 33. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art (present tense) my Son, this day have I begotten (perfect tense) thee.
Psalm 2 7. I will declare (imperfect aspect) the decree: the LORD hath said (perfect aspect) unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten (perfect aspect) thee.
(taken from wikipedia.org) Biblical Hebrew had only two aspects (not tenses). The perfect aspect was used for completed actions, and generally implies past time. The imperfect aspect was used for uncompleted actions, and thus could imply present or future time.
So what are you trying to say? Are you saying that the Son was begotten before the incarnation?
I have talked about this before. A good likelihood is that these verse are talking about post resurrection. The context of Psalm 2 in Acts and other verses like the firstbegotten from the dead seem to indicate that psalm 2 is talking about Him being begotten post resurrection. So if you are trying to say that this is before the incarnation there is a good likelihood that they are talking about a post resurrection begetting. However there are other verses and just because He was begotten post resurrection does not mean that He was not also before and prior to this begotten for He was through Mary.
Secondly, if you say that the Son was begotten before the incarnation then you are saying that the Son is not eternal. For to be begotten is to be born. Or if you are even saying that He was a Son before incarnation then you are saying that He was begotten before the incarnation because by definition a father son relation always commands there being a begetting at some point. I however state that the Logos eternally existed and that He took on flesh and the Son was begotten at the time of the incarnation in His humanity and not His Divinity.
| 2008/12/14 23:39||Profile|
West Monroe, LA
| Re: |
Luke 23:34 (NKJV) 34Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do. And they divided His garments and cast lots.
Is it enough yet?
| 2008/12/15 1:43||Profile|
| Re: |
Hello again brother David. Hope you are well.
In your reply to my post on pg 23, where you quote Adam Clarke, I came in agreement with him on that point but at the events of the Post-Millenial-Reign, giving Revelation 21:1-7 for my Scriptural reasoning and of how the Old Testament describes it, of all that transpires at and then after "The Day of the LORD" - when the New Jerusalem descends and there are no more "unsaved" people nor devils to do business with, for the rest of Eternity.
'Then' is when I believe HE will be as HE was in Eden with Adam - but of course, immeasurably more marvelous.
Clarke was not the only believer in "The Incarnational Sonship" belief. They were Trinitarians, that only stood by those Scriptures already given... such as "[u]This day[/u]" have I begotten thee, and those others, with the word "shall" in them, etc., in the past posts.
Regarding His Sonship being Post-Resurrectional -- might we look at the time of Jesus's Baptism in water - Mat 3:17 [i] "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[/i]
And also at the transfiguration - Mat 17:5 [i] "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."[/i]
Although Albert Barnes also taught Incarnational Sonship - he mentions post-resurrectional - but I can't see why with those two verses above.
A few links from here may help some in your research as well.
I especially enjoyed this first commentary.
An excerpt -
"Before His incarnation as Son of God, Jesus was, and still is, the self-existent and eternal God. The apostle John refers to Him as the Logos, or the Word: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1). He was with Elohim and He Himself was Elohim."
And this second excerpt from another article -
"I wish it was in my power to explain the Scripture doctrine in such words, as you may all easily understand. The doctrine of the Trinity is the most necessary article of the Christian religion, and we cannot take one safe step in the way to heaven without being clear in it. And since it is the very foundation of your faith, I therefore intreat your more particular attention, while I am considering it. The Scripture makes no difference between the divine Persons, except what is made by the distinct offices, which they sustain in the covenant of grace. The Persons are each equal in every perfection and attribute; none is before or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. And consequently Christ, who was from eternity co-equal with the Father, did not make Himself inferior, because He covenanted to become a Son, nor did the Holy Spirit, who was from eternity co-equal with the Father and the Son, make Himself inferior, because He covenanted to make the spirits of men holy by His grace and influence. Son and Holy Spirit are names of office, and the names of their offices certainly cannot lesson the dignity of their nature, but should rather exalt them in our eyes, for whose salvation they condescended to sustain these offices. Our blessed Lord was Jehovah, when He covenanted to be made flesh, and to become a Son: and the very nature and terms of the covenant prove, that at the making of it He must have been a Person of the self-existent essence, because He had thereby such offices committed to Him, as none but the true God was able to sustain. The whole economy and government of the world, from the time of its creation to the final dissolution, was put into His hands; and therefore the Scripture expressly assures us, that He created it, that He governs it by His providence, that He redeemed His people by His blood, and that He is to come again at the last day, in all His glory to judge it. And He, who was almighty to create all things, who was all-wise to govern all things, who had infinite merit to redeem His body the church, and who is to be God the Judge of all at the last great day, certainly this almighty, this all-wise, this all-meritorious, and divine Judge, must be self-existent. And being possessed of these offices, He might truly say, I AM; because he could not but have necessary existence in Himself, who was the first cause, and who gave existence to every other being and thing."
I suppose the word "persons" came only from the written "conversations" from Genesis 1 and elsewhere.
Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
Yes, "GOD IS LOVE" and Jesus said, "I and the Father are ONE." and The Logos said - "The LORD our God is One LORD" Deut 6:4.
HIS Prayer: Joh 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: [i]for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. [/i]
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
| 2008/12/15 1:49|