SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Adam's sin...our guilt?

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 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Adam;s sin ... our guilt?

Hi Intense,

Quote:
However, there is little doubt in my mind he would have partaken of it in some point in time when better prepared to handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it would require consummate intimacy with the Father or divinity itself for that ability.

:-o

You're forgetting one very important thing... Genesis 2:17 - [u]surely[/u].

There was to be [u]no[/u] 'handle' on the knowledge of good and evil, shared with eternal life. It was a LIE that they would not die for eating from it, and still is.

 2009/5/10 14:48









 Re:


[color=000000] With this I rest my case:[/color]

[color=000000] The word Son in connection with Jesus does not refer to His Deity, but to His humanity. AS GOD, Christ had no beginning, was not begotten, was not the firstborn, was not born, and therefore, was not a Son; but AS MAN HE had a beginning, was begotten, was the first-born of God, was born, and therefore became the Son of God. If one believed son-ship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being. It is plainly stated in Micah 5:2- John 1:1-2; Col. 1:17; Rev. 1:8-18; John 17:5 that He had no beginning AS GOD and that He was as eternal and self-existent as the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, AS MAN it is plainly stated that He had a beginning. Note the following simple statements of Scripture that AS MAN and AS A SON. He did have a beginning, proving son-ship refers to humanity and not to Deity.

(1) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.... she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:18-25). This proves that God had a Son at the same time Mary did, and neither had a Son before this. This Son was "Emmanuel .... God with us," but before the second person of the Godhead came to be with us AS MAN, HE could only exist AS GOD. AS GOD the second person of the God head is never called the Son of God, but when He became man by becoming the Son of both Mary and God, He is called "The Son of God."

The only references to His Son-ship before He became the Son of Mary and God were in prophecies foretelling this event (Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; Prov. 30:4; Ps. 2:7, 12; Heb. 1:5-6). That He was "The Son of God" and appeared in the fiery furnace as such in Dan. 3 is not stated anywhere. It was the heathen king that said "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God," literally, like a Son of God, as in the margin. In this appearance the being was an angel (Dan. 3:28) and not the second person of the Godhead who later became man and the Son of Mary and God. To this heathen king any being like an angel would be called a Son of God, because he believed in many gods and offspring of gods. He knew nothing of the true God, much less that He would someday have a Son born of a woman.


(2) "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall BE CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD" (Luke 1:31 -35). If God or Mary had a Son before this, when was it born? Certainly this was the first time Mary had a son, for she "brought forth her firstborn son: and called his name JESUS" (Matt. 1:25). This was also the first time God had a Son, for Mary's child is also called God's "first-born" in the same sense He was Mary's "first-born" (Matt. 1:25; Ps. 89:27; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:5-7).

If God had a Son before this, then Jesus is the second-born Son and not "firstborn" and "the only begotten Son" of God, as in John 1:18; 3:16-18, 35-36, and in the passages listed above. Or, if Sonship refers to Deity, then He became God's Son twice; once sometime back in eternity and again when God had a Son by Mary. If He was begotten as God's Son sometime in the eternal past and His Son-ship refers to Deity and not to humanity, then who was the mother of this God-Son and when did God have a Son by this other mother? There is no statement in Scripture that Jesus was God's Son from all eternity. If He were, then there still would have to be a time when He became God's Son, and if that took place at a certain time and place, He could not have always been God's Son. Neither would He always have been God, as the Bible declares in Mic. 5:2; John l:1-2; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 1:8).

To solve all these unanswerable questions of speculation, let us believe the simple statements of Scripture that the person we now know as the Son of God and Mary was not always God's Son and Mary's Son, that He was always God and a separate person along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that He became man and the Son of both God and Mary over nineteen hundred years ago for the purpose of redemption, that it was in God's plan that one of the three persons of the Godhead should become man and the Son of the one who became the Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that it did not become a reality until it actually took place in Mary about nineteen hundred years ago.

(3) "Unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.... when eight days were accomplished for circumcising of the child, his name WAS CALLED JESUS, which was so named by the angel BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB" (Luke 2:11-24).

(4) "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). He was the "Word" and "God" and a member of the Godhead from all eternity, but He was not made flesh until God had a Son by Mary.

(5) "God gave his only begotten Son" is taken to prove that God must have had a Son before He gave Him, but this must be understood in connection with other passages. It is certain that the second person of the Godhead had to become a man and the Son of God and Mary before either God or Mary could have a Son; so God giving His Son must refer to the time of the crucifixion when God gave His Son and the Son gave Himself to redeem man "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

This time is stated to be at the crucifixion, for it was then that the sins of the whole world were atoned for and all men were crucified with Him (Rom.6:4-6; 8:32, Gal. 1:4, Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24). The time then when God gave His Son that men should believe in Him to be saved was the time He gave Himself to save all men, and not at the time he was born. At the time He was born He did not save the world and could not have done so. He had to grow to manhood to die for men. We also read of God giving Christ the headship of the Church, and this was even after the crucifixion (Eph. 1:20-22).

The birth of Christ was necessary for God to have a Son to give to die for the world later. The purpose of the birth was that He might have a Son to give as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. God did not give Him to die at the time He was born, but gave Him to die when He was a man and after He had been the Son of God and Mary for over thirty-three years. Because God now has a Son, His giving the Son can be spoken of even at birth in the same sense that He was called "Christ," as explained in Point V, 27, above.

(6) "Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:42; Mic. 5:1-2; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2). The person who was to be God's Son and Christ was to come from God and man; hence, Son-ship refers to humanity, not to Deity. AS GOD He could not have been born or brought into existence, but as man He had to be (Acts 13:23; Rom.1:3; 8:3, 28-32; 9:5; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 1:8-11; Col. 1:15; Heb. 2:14-18; 7:14; 10:5-14; 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:24).

(7) It is stated in both Testaments that there was a certain day that God was to have a Son and a certain day in which He did have a Son. "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.... And again, I WILL BE to him a Father, and HE SHALL BE to me a Son.... And again, when he brines in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14- Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). The words Father and Son have exactly the same meaning when used of God as when used of men. If Son-ship refers to Deity then we would have to conclude that there was a certain day when the second person of the Godhead was born and before this day He was not in existence, but this is contrary to all statements in Scripture about Him. Therefore, we must conclude that Sonship refers to humanity and that before His birthday Jesus was God, but He was not man or God's Son and that as God He had no beginning, but as man He did have a beginning. The prophets foretold how God would become a man by being begotten, but not one ever said that a person would become a God by being begotten (Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Deut. 18:15-19; Ps. 2:7; 22:1-22; 40:7; 80:17; 89:19; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2; 42:1-5; 32:2; 53:1-12; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2-4).

(8) The truth then is this: there were always three distinct and eternal persons unbegotten of each other from all eternity; that only one of these eternal persons of the Deity became a man and the Son of another of these eternal Beings by the power of the third; and that one took the headship part, another took the mediative part, and the third took the part of direct operation in the plan of creation and redemption of all things. It was in the plan of the Trinity to take these respective parts long before the plan began to be worked out.

It was predicted that one of the eternal Beings would become the Father, that one would become the Son, and that the other would take the place of direct operation to bring it about. This is why it was written of a certain day this was done (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). This plan was not carried out until the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, as in Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:31-35. Paul said in Gal. 4:4-5 that God's Son was "made of a woman, made under the law." According to Heb. 10:5-14 God prepared a body for the second person of the Godhead in which He was to become incarnate, and it was this man that was born of a woman and was called "the Son of God." Hence, Son-ship refers to humanity, not to deity. As God the second person of the Trinity had no beginning and was not begotten, but as a man He did have a beginning by being begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit and through the virgin Mary. There is, therefore, no such doctrine in Scripture as the eternal son-ship of Jesus Christ or that He Eras God's Son from all eternity. There is no excuse to teach some theory that is not stated in Scripture, even if it is commonly accepted as orthodox teaching.

There are 15 prophetical statements about God having a Son in the future, born of a woman (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 69:8; 89:27; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1; Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:30-35; 2:26). There are also 15 historical statements in the Bible showing that God did have His first and only begotten Son, born of a woman, and that this took place on a certain day in time and not in eternity past (Matt. 1:18-21; 2:1-6 with Mic. 5:1-2; Luke 2:1-11; John 1:14; Rom.1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4-5; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-18; Acts 13:33; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:5-6, 2:9-18; 5:5; 7:14). On the other hand, there is no Scripture in the Bible showing that God had a Son throughout all eternity- one begotten before all worlds. Nor is there a Scripture indicating that there never was a time when He did not have a Son, and no passage to prove that Christ was the Son of God before He was born of a virgin as God's only begotten Son. We find nothing in the Bible stating that eternal sonship and eternal generation is true of Jesus Christ. We can prove the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as God without claiming that He was in sonship all that time. We know that He was always God; He had no beginning as God; He was never born, begotten, and never had a mother, as God. He never had a Father God as deity in the ages past, and never became God's Son in any sense until, as predicted and fulfilled in the above Scriptures. [/color]

 2009/5/10 15:12









 Re:

Quote:

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Intense,

Quote:
However, there is little doubt in my mind he would have partaken of it in some point in time when better prepared to handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it would require consummate intimacy with the Father or divinity itself for that ability.

:-o

You're forgetting one very important thing... Genesis 2:17 - [u]surely[/u].

There was to be [u]no[/u] 'handle' on the knowledge of good and evil, shared with eternal life. It was a LIE that they would not die for eating from it, and still is.



I didn't forget, overlook or otherwise dismiss anything.

 2009/5/10 15:15









 Re: Adam's sin ... our guilt?

Hello Intense,

Quote:
I didn't forget, overlook or otherwise dismiss anything.

How could Adam [i][b]ever[/i][/b] be prepared enough to 'handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil' and [u]not die[/u]?

Quote:
It was predicted that one of the eternal Beings would become the Father, that one would become the Son...

Does this mean you don't believe God is ONE LORD?

The one thing that struck me about the article, was that insistence on everything being tied up nicely for the natural mind. With God, nothing is impossible.

By the way, did you write the defence of your definition of Son-ship you posted, or is it a quote from someone else? Please declare your source, thanks?

From the first paragraph:
Quote:
If one believed son-ship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being.

This is faulty logic.

The term 'son' (Son) applies just as much to a son of God, as to a son of man, because it is a reference to the [u]nature[/u] of the 'son' being the same as the father.... Like, we get apple seeds from apples.

There is also this sentence from Ephesians 1 which is not quoted: 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: 4 According as[u] he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy[/u] and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.


God bless your evening. I'm logging off now.

 2009/5/10 15:47









 Re:

I signed on but Alive-to-GOD beat me to the question of who authored this anti-eternal-sonship piece. Just curious.
I do agree with it btw. :-)


I believe we're both asking it's author because it speaks so clearly. lol.


All in good fun Brother.
Thanks again.

 2009/5/10 15:55









 Re:

Quote:
How could Adam ever be prepared enough to 'handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil' and not die?



By first having eaten of the Tree of Life that he become as God. . . . I.e., DIVINE.


RE: The paper I submitted. Please argue it on its own merit. Thank you.

 2009/5/10 16:18









 Re:

Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
I signed on but Alive-to-GOD beat me to the question of who authored this anti-eternal-sonship piece. Just curious.
I do agree with it btw. :-)


I believe we're both asking it's author because it speaks so clearly. lol.


All in good fun Brother.
Thanks again.



People don't read. I have found that spelling out everything, folk go all over the map in their thinking and conclusions. To spell it out "clearly" would be to write a book that would not be read. If folk are serious, as I am, they will take the time to research some before "shooting down" what they [think] they disagree with or at the very least, read carefully what is written, how ever unclear they may deem it to be.

 2009/5/10 16:28









 Re:

The Article was as clear as a bell Brother, but you sometimes post with "solve this puzzle" types.

Please do not think that you are the only one who diligently searches "researches" the WORD and give the benefit of the doubt that there 'may' be something in 'how' you're posting that keeps it going for pages before we understand your drift.

On an earlier page, your post read as if you were denying the Deity of Christ.

The Article cleared that up - finally.

 2009/5/10 16:36









 Re:

Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
The Article was as clear as a bell Brother, but you sometimes post with "solve this puzzle" types.

Please do not think that you are the only one who diligently searches "researches" the WORD and give the benefit of the doubt that there 'may' be something in 'how' you're posting that keeps it going for pages before we understand your drift.

On an earlier page, your post read as if you were denying the Deity of Christ.

The Article cleared that up - finally.



Please point out anything I wrote, the article "made more clear".

 2009/5/10 16:53









 Re:

Yes, of course.

This one sentence, without knowing that you did believe in His - The Logos' eternal Deity could be read two ways ---

[i]"Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so?"[/i]

It could be read that HE was 'made Divine'.


And this next sentence I just didn't agree with - that's all.

[i]"And again, why didn't God personally call Him His son before His water-Holy Ghost baptisms."[/i]

HE publically declared HIM to be the Son - but I wouldn't have said that HE hadn't 'called' HIM Son before that day, on other days or ways.


Thanks again!

 2009/5/10 17:08





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy