| Re: |
//I can't talk with the irrational or false accusers anymore.//
Then what is the point of being a Christian? Our chief purpose on earth is to defend Jesus' honor by bludgeoning heretics. We serve a god who will torment people in eternity for having incorrect theological opinions, therefore it is our Christian duty to hurl imprecations of blasphemy, apostasy and damnation at people whose theology is imperfect.
Was the Incarnation a hypostatic union or an extracalvincom hypostasis? Choose carefully! Your eternal destiny depends on how you answer this question!
And since God has bequeathed religious dogmatists with superhuman intelligence, we alone can know whether the sonship of Jesus, sub specie aeternitatis, is a priori or post priori.
Amazing how our eternal salvation can hinge on a single enclitic!
So tell me, J-i-G, do you say "a" or do you say "post"?
Answer me, and I will tell you whether or not you are going to heaven!
| 2012/1/14 11:55||Profile|
| Re: |
I think, I am going to exit, stage left, if you don't mind.
It could have been a good conversation but you and Old_Joe obviously have some history that I really don't want any part of.
Peace to all,
| 2012/1/14 12:32||Profile|
| Re: |
PrimaDogma (love that one :). Thank you for the smile. We almost had an another unhappy ending of another thread.
I went searching after I posted the link to that thread on the previous page and looky what I just found in my search, following that last post of mine - someone that expresses himself better than I, regarding what I've pondered for all of these years.
Though I did express my full beliefs on the thread I linked to on the previous page - I believe it was 16 pages long and may be difficult to wade through it all.
Trinitarian - yes.
Jesus/The WORD of GOD is the Great "I AM" - yes.
This is the link that I just found in my search ...
I'm sure you won't/don't have any problems reading English, as I have with Latin.
Bless you and await your verdict on my eternal destination.
| 2012/1/14 13:31|
| Re: Christ the eternal Son|
J I G,
I read you link to Bernard Reeves article on the Incarnational Sonship of Christ - twice, but cannot agree with his arguements; he is denying the eternal Father and Son. What does that make him?
His main point, talking of human sonship, is
"Clearly, anyone who has always been a son, a male offspring, must have had a beginning, so could not have had existence without beginning or end, so could not be eternal, nor self-existent, nor God!"
He does not see that Christ's Sonship is His character, the person He is. And He always had and will have this character, Just as the Father always was and will be the Father.
It is true that human sons have to be born (except Adam) and so have a beginning. But God the Son Had no beginning, but was in the bosom of His Father before the foundation of the world.
John's gospel is written specifically to show this.
"If there was a Divine Father-Son relationship prior to the Incarnation, why is the Old Testament not as full of references to it as the New?"
This is why Jesus came,and the New Testament written; to show us the true Love nature and character of God. It could not be revealed in the OT, as sin had not been dealt with and there was no way to approach and to know God. Until:
"the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of an only begotten with the Father,) full of grace and truth. " John 1:14
This is Christ's glory, and did not begin at the incarnation, but the Word,made flesh, came to reveal this eternal truth.
The same chapter of John, verse 18
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. "
He came to show us, who had never seen God, who He is and what He is: a Son in the bosom of His Father, and we who believe, one with Him by the Holy Spirit.
Not only does this teaching deny the Father and the Son, it also necessarily takes away our own eternal life as sons, predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world. Jesus' prayer in John 17 reveals the truth of this.
| 2012/1/14 17:58||Profile|
| Re: |
Oh my. It's a good thing that John MacArthur recanted under pressure - as he stood to lose his salvation. Is that correct?
| 2012/1/14 19:22|
| Re: |
//Not only does this teaching deny the Father and the Son, it also necessarily takes away our own eternal life as sons, predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world. Jesus' prayer in John 17 reveals the truth of this.//
Therefore anyone who agrees with Reeves is an antichrist and is going to fry in hell.
Also, anyone who disagrees with Reeves is an antichrist and is going to fry in hell. Ask Reeves.
I am going to heaven because I have no opinion about Reeves.
| 2012/1/14 19:22||Profile|
| Re: |
from the historical part of that link -
"..Martyred Ignatius (35-107), Bishop of Antioch, wrote of Christ: In His pre-existent being ingenerate
His divine Sonship dates from the incarnation.
Ignatius is toast as well.
| 2012/1/14 19:29|
North Central Florida
| Re: |
The biggest problem I find with your 'understanding' is that you are trying to understand with a human brain. You are trying to intellectualise things that are meant to be taken on faith.
Also, you are trying to pin God to a timeline. Can't you see the futility in that?
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God .
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
We are only seeing a tiny bit of the way things work in Heaven. You expect to be able to know details about things that are above your pay grade.
The early Christians that started out as Gentiles did not have the knowledge available (Old Testament, New Testament and all the studies ever done), they only had Paul testifying to them PLUS the Holy Spirit confirming what they were hearing. They had not the same problems 'understanding' that you do. How do you explain that? My opinion is they relied on Jesus to show them what they needed to know through their practice of the Faith they received upon hearing and believing.
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.
The bottom line is you are allowing your focus to be taken off of Jesus. No matter what the reason, proving your point is not worth even a glance at anything other than Him.
Hope you can hear what I am saying,
P.S. An example just came to me:
My Husband spend years trying to teach me to play the bass guitar. We had the worse fights ever during these lessons. At the time we were too close to the problem to understand what was happening but upon reflection I see this - I expected him to 'show me' what I needed to 'learn.' Some knowledge can not be given or transmitted through written words - it must be learned. Learning is often a painful process when it requires changing 'your way of thinking.' This is why you are getting so angry with Old Joe.
| 2012/1/14 20:17||Profile|
| Re: |
No Sis, I was only upset with Joe for what he claimed about all the other brothers here, being too quick to judge many [or most] of us on our salvation.
Whether I ponder Scriptures has nothing to do with why this thread is here. The second to the last page of the "women teaching" thread is why this thread is here.
The LORD Bless you!!
| 2012/1/14 20:35|
| Re: |
PrimaDogma, where are you? I have a question.
I couldn't find where Reeves said anything about being an antiChrist if you don't believe him. Could you show me where.
I did see the part about "hearing well done" and "rewards" but not of losing salvation.
| 2012/1/14 22:29|