SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

davidt wrote:
[b][color=FF0000]No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man.[/color][/b]




This is not something new, it is just the regurgitation of the heretic denial of the "Eternal Sonship" of Christ.

This is a short read on the subject.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/sonship.htm

If that doesn't work maybe John Gill can beat it out of you.
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Sonship.html

If Gill's lengthier argument is found insufficient, Philpot wrote a book on the subject.
http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Chapter1.html


Old Joe

 2008/12/11 0:28
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

davidt:
Oh my David, the Calvinists are going to get you on this one. "See what happens when you reject the sovereignty of God in salvation," they will say, "you fall into a delusion about the Godhead."

I had some problems at one time with the trinity about 20 years ago but I found out quickly that it didn't pay. I just packed in my worm views and decided I would not give people a reason to invalidate my testimony just because I didn't follow the findings of Constantines councils.

I hold that us trying to put God in a box with a equation is like trying to teach a worm nuclear physics.

>>>No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man.

You are standing with Adam Clarke on this one the well known Wesleyan commentator.

"But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself.

Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Adam Clarke on Act 13:33.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/11 1:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
"But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself.

Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."


I am indebted to you for this quotation. However you must understand that Clarke is not agreeing with the Arian views expressed in this thread.

Clarke is identifying the Voluntary Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity and not suggesting that some aspect of God 'became' a person at the point of the incarnation. Clarke believed, as did all Methodists, in the Eternal Personhood of Him who we now know as the Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/11 4:45Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
Selfish in a righteous sense.

You need to find another word. Sin cannot have a 'righteous sense'.


The word "selfish" is not sinful by definition. In certain contextual usage it can me sinful but essentially it only means to be for self. God desires to glorify Himself therefore God desire for Himself. God is God centered therefore He is self centered and therefore He is selfish in a righteous sense. God is love and therefore to be selfish is to be loving for Him.

 2008/12/11 21:40Profile
boG
Member



Joined: 2008/5/21
Posts: 349
Las Vegas, NV

 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Quote:
You still have not answered the question that I gave you directly nor responded to the verse I quoted directly. This is the 3rd time that I posted them and each time you did not directly answer them.


I directly answered you and the verses 3 times. How you do not have the sense to see that is beyond me.

Quote:
You also did not respond when I asked you about about Your teaching that God loves Himself since earlier you said He didn't.


I never said God did not love Himself. Try and quote me otherwise, I said your doctrine of God cannot love Himself because your model of God is not the Love testified in the Bible.

Quote:
And I also think you are teaching that we are not to love our children if they are not saved in an extreme polarization of interpreting scripture.


And you think incorrectly, which is little wonder considering you have a base and carnal understanding of love. You lack biblical moral distinction.

Tell me David, do you still believe unrepentant & unregenerate sinners can do good and can love without sin?


_________________
Jordan

 2008/12/11 23:38Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

philologos:
I am indebted to you for this quotation. However you must understand that Clarke is not agreeing with the Arian views expressed in this thread.

I know well that Adam Clarke is not Arian but I was unaware that davidt was holding to an Arian belief if that is what you are implying.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/11 23:49Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Joe,

Quote:
This is not something new, it is just the regurgitation of the heretic denial of the "Eternal Sonship" of Christ.


I didn't say it was something new. It is not regurgitated because I received it from scripture not from men. When I first began to understand this I hadn't even been exposed to such teachings.

Also, I read through the first article you posted. 90 percent of it we have already gone over on this thread and I feel I have answered them thoroughly. As for the longer article it seems to be more historical and quoting men. And they book I did not read I would first have to see a table of contents and make sure it was not just a drawn out writing on the same subjects as have already been seen.

 2008/12/11 23:57Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Bob,

Quote:
Oh my David, the Calvinists are going to get you on this one. "See what happens when you reject the sovereignty of God in salvation," they will say, "you fall into a delusion about the Godhead." I had some problems at one time with the trinity about 20 years ago but I found out quickly that it didn't pay. I just packed in my worm views and decided I would not give people a reason to invalidate my testimony just because I didn't follow the findings of Constantines councils. I hold that us trying to put God in a box with a equation is like trying to teach a worm nuclear physics.


I do not deny the sovereignty or God as I have just previously posted on the Calvinism thread. My view has not beem formulated because of a previous philosophic bias, a boxed system, or because I have prejudice against certain men, it was based on the Bible. I also understand that there are many things that can't be intellectually understood about God and His ways. I have been humbled in this manner before like it was said to Job, "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth tell me if you have understanding?".


Quote:
>>>No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man. You are standing with Adam Clarke on this one the well known Wesleyan commentator. "But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."


I had not even thought of this philosophy while coming to my understanding of this doctrine.

 2008/12/12 0:02Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Ron,

Quote:
the Arian views expressed in this thread.


I don't know if you read my previous post in response to your statement that I teach Arianism but I do not teach this. Arian teaches that the Son was created before the incarnation. I however teach that the Son has always existed but as the Logos eternally as God and that He took on the title Son when He was incarnated. I am offended when it is said that I teach this since I disagree with it. Here is what he teaches:
Quote:
Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son. At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus, thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity. In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.



Quote:
some aspect of God 'became' a person at the point of the incarnation.


It does seem in this instance that you understand what I am saying. I don't think that I would call the Logos an aspect I think the Logos is more then that. And when you say person I think I would more so specifically say human.

 2008/12/12 0:09Profile









 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Greetings Brethren.
I'm just finding this and was pulled in by the Title of this thread and have read many pages thus far, hoping to read more when possible.

My thoughts so far, is from Creation, a question comes to mind ...
Who walked and talked in the Garden with Adam ?

How is 'GOD', Who is called The One True GOD, portrayed through-out the entire Old Testament ?

Though I hold also to the Tri-Unity or CO-Equality of The GOD - it is possible for some, that since and after the Incarnation, that we've made a 'different' [b]GOD[/b] then the One from Genesis to Malachi and in fact, do 'fear' we have.


As it was in the beginning with Adam in the Garden - so HE promises that HE will be with us in that same way again - after the Millenial Reign.

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth: in that day, shall there be One LORD, and HIS Name One.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

~ "God all in all" - "as Christ is all" in Col 3:11. ["GOD our Savior"]


By Adam Clarke on 1Co 15:28 -

[i]"When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all:[u] there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the One infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal.[/u]"[/i]


We can notice this lack of "distinction" within these following verses - one cross-reference to Zec 14:9 and other O.T. Prophesies regarding HIS Grand Finale.


Rev 21:1-7 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be 'with them', and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."


It will be our belief that The Creator GOD died on that Cross, that will be the trial of our faith in the last days but also our Strength.
Whenever I look at a cross, I say "Creator GOD" and smile - because HE will Return the Victor and GOD of all of the earth. We'll "see HIM as HE is."

How marvelous - the Same GOD from Genesis to Revelation and possibly one day, we could cover more of the O.T. promises of HIS retaking this earth That Day. Praise The LORD. The descriptions of HIS Nature and HIS reclaiming HIS earth - bless and prove out the Gospel even the more. The "Harmony" of the two testaments - with No contradictions between the two. Glory to GOD !


Thank you for the discussion.

 2008/12/12 2:47





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy