|
|
USER COMMENTS BY BIBLICIST |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 3 · Found: 167 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/24/09 12:49 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Michael Hranek wrote: Sorry to interrupt the discussion. The Bible is absolutely worthless to anyone who only treats it as a religious decoration such as my unsaved family. Please excuse my aburptness I have an urgent prayer request for any one who would prayer with me. I am writting this in haste. My elderly unsaved mother has had a heart attack and my older unsaved brother just called fearful that, "we are loosing her". Please pray for the mercy of God that I or others might be able to witness to my unsaved family and that they might have the conviction of the Holy Spirit to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Need to hurry on my way. With the Love of Jesus Christ, Michael Hranek For those who do thank you so much. The Lord be with you and help you by His Spirit. The Lord have mercy on your dear Mother. I shall be praying dear Bro. |
|
|
7/23/09 7:19 AM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Faithlicist wrote: Does "Faith" read your Bible? God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are from eternity. Parent-child relationship is revealed by God to mortals. NOT the other way round! Perhaps you need to look down - not up? Ha! DJC49 don't you feel even a little ashamed using a different moniker every time you feel like taking a shot at me?! I guess not!Since you can accept notions that by your own admission cannot be demonstrated scripturally, I cannot see that you have any right to brag about having a superior faith. I am going to make this my last post to you, and it is not really for your benefit anyway. It is to benefit anyone else you might be convinced by your "superior" reasoning (cough!!). If the titles Father and Son are to be accepted as indicative of familial relations, what about the Holy Ghost? And if the titles are indicative of personal properties, then why is the Holy Ghost so called? Because He is Holy and the others are not? Because He is a Ghost and the others are not etc.? Finally, if the title "Son" must inevitably lead to the concept of "begottenness", how does the title "Holy Ghost" inevitably lead to "procession"? Since being Scriptural does not concern you that much .. we're done! |
|
|
7/22/09 4:52 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
djc49 wrote: Tell you what *Biblicist*, while you're at it, try PROVING the hypostatic union of Christ from the Bible! You know ... Christ being fully, 100% God and fully, 100% human? Where does the Bible state such a thing in no uncertain terms? It took several Church COUNCILS to piece together, iron out, and define the matter [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon] -- and ALL in the face of dangerous HERSEY! So you do admit that you've given up on the Bible. That's all I needed to hear from you. I think we're done!djc49 wrote: A presumption on MY part?.. YOU are the one who originally brought up the "familial" aspect of the relationship between the Father and Son.. 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] [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/comments_view.asp?keyword=familial]]]SEARCH for "familial" on SA Comments[/URL] And if you can read, which I am beginning to doubt, then you will see that I raised it as a caution against such an understanding!Biblicist wrote: That says to me that we should take care what we make of these titles....what if this is a complete misunderstanding of why those terms are employed? |
|
|
7/21/09 1:56 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Faithful Remnant wrote: To me it means that Jesus is God's one and only son forever, but isn't "one and only" the other interpretation of the origninal language? 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. That says to me that we should take care what we make of these titles.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. But how are we to understand his Sonship? What does it mean He is the Son? How did he become the Son? etc. Nicea takes a thinly disguised carnal and corporeal analogy whereby there is a literal "generation". But what if this is a complete misunderstanding of why those terms are employed? Read for instance Mike | New York's post of 7/17/09 4:53 PM for another view. |
|
|
7/20/09 6:51 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: I always thought that it was 'catholic' rather than 'Catholic' so that no-one misinterpreted it? I notice that no-one seems at all interested in these so-called historic 'Bible' verses that are now available on line to view. GOOD! No John, the references from the early days, before the corruptions of Rome, were to the Church Catholic.Even the Reformers referred to the Holy Catholic Church, all the while combating the Roman Catholic Church. ___________________________________ Hidemi Pleasure! |
|
|
7/20/09 12:14 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
djc49 wrote: It's understandable how ANYONE could have a "problem" with the term "generates" since we humans work within the matrix of time and cause & effect. It's all we know. It's all we can truly comprehend. ... You over-react to anything "Catholic." This is what Charles Hodge understood by the term "generate":"That it was the person not the essence of the Son that was generated. The essence is self-existent and eternal, but the person of the Son is generated (i.e. He becomes a person) by the communication to Him of the divine essence."! Hodge says He becomes a person by generation!! And Hodge had a problem with this!! Perhaps you should start questioning your own understanding of these matters rather than smuggly pontificating on something which you clearly do not understand. This is not about defending the Trinity or rejecting all things Roman Catholic. I am Trinitarian and Catholic (though not Roman)! It is about formulation of doctrines that find no support in the Scriptures! If you think you have the capacity, why don't you start giving us a scriptural exposition to support every single Nicene point concerning the "eternal generation" of the Son! Once you have done that we can move on to "eternal procession"! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|