AMill wrote:
But in all seriousness Dispy; Why do you insist on this extraordinary supernatural interpretation viz "flying Christians" - "UNLESS" you combine it with the equally extraordinary millennial theory of Disp. PreMill?

WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED by the Lord in flying everybody concerned, both dead and living, UP IN THE AIR?

Perhaps what is to be achieved is that the Lord can thereby show to an unbelieving world His ability to "pull off" such a remarkably ostentatious feat (hundreds of millions -- maybe BILLIONS -- of Christians flying up into the clouds) and STILL the "rapture" of the Church REMAINS a SECRET!

That's QUITE a feat!
Ha!

Can you imagine?.....
All over the world, Christians are literally flying BODILY up into natural cumulus clouds (to go where?) in the face of millions of eyewitnesses ... and the rapture will remain "secret"!!!

To top it off, this worldwide event will be some sort of "mystery" to those left behind who will STILL disbelieve during the so-called 7-year tribulation! Question is: Won't they have old Darby-Scofield-Chafer books that they could reference to tell them exactly what had just occurred?

Double Ha!

Biblicist wrote:
This is exactly what Nicea is trying to address by the notion of "eternal generation". Sure, by making this generation a necessity in the Godhead and an "eternal" process they overcome the philosophical starting point, BUT TRY AND PROVE ANY OF THIS FROM THE BIBLE!!

Biblicist wrote:
The familial titles may not be pointing to any familial relations at all. THIS IS JUST A PRESUMPTION ON YOUR PART

You're daft!

YOU are the one who originally brought up the "familial" aspect of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity, not me! [see YOUR post of 7/21/09 1:56 PM -- the FIRST time "familial" was mentioned on this thread! -- by Y-O-U]

Mr. Dispy wrote:
The premillennial pre-tribulational view IS AS OLD AS THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.,

else Paul would not have had to refute the claim made by some that the Lord had already returned and the Thessalonians had missed it

Paul, if you remember, argued that there would be a Great "falling away" (apostasy) before the 2nd Advent of Christ! Paul did NOT write that the Thessalonians didn't miss some pre-Great 7-Year Tribulation "rapture!"

Additionally, Paul's Thessalonican readers of his 1st & 2nd epistle to them did NOT have any Book of "The Revelation" (written decades later by John) to base any notion of a 7-year Great Tribulation upon! And they CERTAINLY didn't abuse Daniel 9:27 in order to fabricate some far off "peace treaty" between Israel & Antichrist and some specious "stoppage of the prophetic clock" (as far as the 70 Weeks was concerned)!

Biblicist wrote:
A) What puzzles me about the titles is that we have 2 members of the Godhead said to be in familial relations, but not the third.

B) That the Son is referred to as the Son before his incarnation I have no doubts. So I do not believe that his Sonship commenced in time.

C) But how are we to understand his Sonship? What does it mean He is the Son? How did he become the Son? etc.

D) Nicea takes a thinly disguised carnal and corporeal analogy whereby there is a literal "generation".

E) But what if this is a complete misunderstanding of why those terms are employed?

F) Read for instance Mike | New York's post of 7/17/09 4:53 PM for another view.

B) Agreed ... as does Nicea.

C) HERE'S where you go astray! He never **BECAME** the Son. He necessarily always WAS. The Divine interpersonal LOVE relationship hinges on it ... something Allah can't claim.

D & E) You & Hodge err on the Nicene meaning of "generation"! You make a Nicene strawman to knock down.

Biblicist wrote:
BUT note carefully, I have said nothing about abandoning reason!! What I have complained of is the elevation of reason above Scripture!

So what is the Church suppose to do when HERESY comes calling (like Arianism)? Throw up it's hands? and say: "Gee, that's TOO deep a subject for us to consider ... and we aren't allowed to refute, define and/or clarify orthodox theology against your arguments since Scripture doesn't specifically and FULLY address your heresy ..... so ..... all we can say is: 'we don't know; we're not sure' and you Arians can win the doctrinal war by default."

Sorry, *Biblicist*, but Nicea HAD TO address Arianism HEAD ON and come up with rational arguments against a deadly heresy. YOU think Nicea went too far based on YOUR understanding of the word "generate." I happen to have no problem with it since the whole concept of begottenness has NO beginning point or any sense whatsoever of having a First Cause (the Father) CREATING an effect (the Son).

Mr. Dispy wrote:
Amill:

It's actually pretty simple:
1. The Lord will meet in the air the saints who have died & those still on the earth to take them to heaven. The bema seat judgment occurs.

2. He returns to earth after the time of Jacob's troubles, which lasts 3 1/2 years (1/2 week / 42 months / 1260 days), puts down his enemies, and rules for 1000 years on the earth.

3. Satan is loosed & the final rebellion occurs; the world is destroyed and the Great White Throne judgment of all unbelievers occurs; Satan et al. are cast into hell.

4. The Lord creates a new heaven and new earth; Israel enjoys the Lord on the new earth, and the church enjoys the Lord in heaven

Biblicist wrote:
I leave that sort of thing TO THE LIKES OF Nicea and Nicene Christians like you who like to elevate reason above the Scriptures!

Mr. Dispy wrote:
We know the world will not be destroyed by nuclear war; it will be destroyed by Jesus at the Final Judgment

(Or is it His 4th Coming? -- the "3rd phase" of His Second Coming? It gets confusing. Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib Dispensationalism has so sliced and diced and recompartmentalized so much of eschatology that it makes ones head spin ... but it makes for MUCH more exciting charts, diagrams, and endtime cartoons, whereas, amill eschatology is so BORING: when He comes again, the ballgame is OVER! Period.
No charts.
No diagrams.
No fancy cartoons.

Biblicist wrote:
A) This is what Charles Hodge understood by the term "generate"
[snip]
Hodge says He BECOMES a person by generation! And Hodge had a problem with this!

B) This is not about defending the Trinity or rejecting all things Roman Catholic. It is about formulation of doctrines that find no support in the Scriptures!

B) You surely must be quite aware that ALL of the Doctrines of Christianity are essentially and necessarily: 1] Biblically based and then 2] Have been further clarified by way of broader explanation of Church Councils in order to COMBAT HERSEY.
2 examples: the Trinity and the Nature of Christ (the hypostatic union).

Mr. Dispy wrote:
He's a covenanter. That's why he's also a politician - he thinks Jesus needs help getting things straightened out so he can return to rule.

Biblicist wrote:
I understand about the not beginning bit, because the "generation" is an eternal process. BUT to say that Christ's person is not derived from the Father when the definition clearly states that the Father GENERATES the person of the Son by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead!!

However, Nicea was clear that the Son was NON-contingent and NON-derivative. Nicea attempted to do something near impossible: define and make understandable -- in human terms -- something incomprehensible to the finite human understanding, i.e., The Trinity. Nicea did this IN THE FACE OF the Arian controversy/heresy which almost destroyed the Church! And the Nicean "anathema" was NOT against all those who didn't "toe the line" and join in lock-step with THEIR definition of the Eternal Generation of the Son, but their anathema was specifically against those who held to the Arian heresy. IOW, the Council NEVER determined that one MUST FULLY understand the Trinity, but accept it! Why?
It's Biblical.

Biblicist wrote:
Quote from the article referenced by DJC49:
"The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, HE GENERATES THE PERSON (not the essence) OF THE SON, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son."

So there we have it folk. The person of the son was generated by the Father. He derives his person-hood from the Father!!

And where do we find any of the above definition in the Bible? Oh yes, from the titles Father and Son!

We must have no other understanding of the titles Father and Son because Nicea pronounces an anathema on all such! I am scared, aren't you?

And DJC49 has no problems with any of this. Wow!

Biblicist wrote:

It's an easy read.

Biblicist wrote:
I would refer you to the following work which seeks to explain the Nicene conception of "eternal generation" from page 315 to 354:
[URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=RLhZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA237&dq=inauthor:William+inauthor:Shedd&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0]]]Nicene doctrine of Eternal Generation by William Shedd[/URL]

Sure ... it's easy enough to "Google" all these references then present them here on this forum to make yourself appear to be more knowledgeable than you really are, but you should actually READ them fully -- with understanding -- BEFORE offering them as proof validating your viewpoint.
_____

Athanasius and the Council of Nicea got this one issue right (as close as humans with finite minds possibly can come) ... you just don't understand their argument. Perhaps you don't WANT to understand their position! [Some sort of prejudice might be working in the background.]

But that's forgivable since we are dealing with a very deep and profound MYSTERY of the Trinitarian Godhead.

Biblicist wrote:
What I have questioned is the whole notion of "eternal begetting" meaning that Christ's subsistence is derived from the Father

Another excerpt from MacArthur:

"The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ's utter uniqueness. Literally, it may be rendered "one of a kind"--AND YET it also clearly signifies that He is of the VERY SAME ESSENCE as the Father. This, I believe, is the very heart of what is meant by the expression "only begotten."

"My previous view was that Scripture employed Father-Son terminology anthropomorphically--accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. Now I am inclined to think that the opposite is true: Human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are merely earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in our finiteness, yet illustrating a vital eternal reality."

"The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery."

"I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's ETERNAL SONSHIP while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply."

Biblicist wrote:
Are you aware that MacArthur recanted, and that the articles you have referenced no longer represent his current views?

Here is his re-examination:

[URL=http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0059.htm]]] Reexamining the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ [/URL]

*Biblicist* provides a hyperlink (above) to an article by John MacArthur in order to prove his point that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was NOT always in a Father-Son relationship with the 1st Person of the Trinity. *Biblicist* claims that MacArthur recanted his prior view. True enough. HOWEVER, if one actually reads MacArthur's recantation it is clear that he NOW holds that Christ was indeed eternally begotten of the Father and has always been and will forever be in a Father-Son relationship with Him!

IOW, the VERY article that *Biblicist* cites to prove his point is 180 degrees opposed to what he, *Biblicist*, proposes!

*Biblicist* should actually READ more carefully his "proofs!"

_____

This ONE sentence from MacArthur's "recantation" succinctly sums up his present position:

"The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity."

_____

READ THE ARTICLE, *Biblicist*!

Mike wrote:
"this day" may be uncertain, but "shall be" presents a little more difficulty.

As well as Hebrews 5:5
"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."

to day cannot easily mean prior to yesterday. Ps2:7, when it says "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" would seem to point to THE FUTURE.

Yes, the FUTURE!

As indicated in Heb 1:5 (and elsewhere), the future time when the 2nd Person of the Trinity was to become "begotten" of the Father is in reference to the 2nd Person of the Trinity taking on FLESH (being made The Christ) and having become perfected by the resurrection and ascension, He was thereby "begotten."

One must remember that the 2nd Person of the Trinity is indeed co-eternal with the Father, but only at a certain point IN TIME did He take on humanity thereby obtaining to the hypostatic union -- fully God, fully Man.

I'll come up with a reference to God's people in the OT being "in Him" or "in Christ Jesus" when you come up with a reference in the OT to God being triune -- a Trinity.

We know that God never changes, He has ALWAYS been triune, but the OT saints could hardly imagine this being the case.

In BOTH cases (OT saints being "In Him" & the triune nature of the Godhead), the reference -- or concept -- must be inferred.

We all can agree that all men of every age are saved because of the merits of Jesus Christ (His life, death, & resurrection). By grace through faith men are saved. But HOW are men saved? Has not Christ become the atonement for ALL the elect and paid the penalty of sin by His substitutionary death? Are not all those who have been atoned for somehow united with Christ? United in His death, His Resurrection, and His life? Isn't this unity essential? Can you imagine men being saved, regardless of age or dispensation, other than being somehow united with The Saviour -- being found "in Him?"

I can't.

Mr. Dispy wrote:
1) And why do you suppose the Holy Spirit used different terminology in the NT as opposed to the OT? Could it be because this was a new testament (i.e., a new covenant) in His blood?

2) Is it possible that He chose to deal with people in a new way - by grace through faith in Christ - a way that He had not ever employed before that time?

Additionally, the "In Him" terminology could not have been appropriately used and applied -- nor would it have made any sense -- to Israel pre-the Incarnation/Resurrection. It would have not been understood AT ALL since the Jews were highly monotheistic (at least in principle) and the Christ had not shown up as yet. However, when the OT referred to God's elect as "sons" and the like, this kind of "language of relationship" spoke of being "In Him" as a son is "in" his father. That's about as close as it gets in the OT to expressing "In Him"