John UK wrote: Thank you sir! I've had a quick read, but I could do with having it in simplified form, as this is really theologically deep, and uncomprehendible to a turnip. Is the issue as to the relationship Father/Son, or is it to do with the full eternal deity of Christ? I suspect the former, in which case the terms are uncomprehendible to us, as we have no direct comparison in our human existence, being, as it is, to do with the unimaginable Godhead, for which there really is no comparison on which we might make a doctrine.
I'll email you, if you let me have your email address.
Michael Hranek wrote: Biblicist Wow! That is an almost unbelieveable quote. Certainly much to consider regarding the Nicean Creed.
They went well beyond the Scriptures in explaining the terms!!
What they were trying to do in terms of defending the doctrine of the Trinity was laudable but they were wrong in this matter!
It is arrogant enough for them to seek to bind the consciences of all true believers in succeeding generations by an Anathema , but to do so on the basis of their understanding of the terms Father/Son which goes beyond the bounds of Scripture is truly mind boggling!!
John UK wrote: Good morning Biblicist I don't suppose I'll be able to make head nor tail of it, but it would be good to have another rendition for the definition, as that one doesn't quite ring true with me. Can't stop now, but I'll be back later.
Good morning John
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is a link to Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology where he deals with the issue of "Eternal Generation". If you look at the para. starting "The Nicene fathers, instead of leaving the matter where the Scriptures leave it...", under point 1 he makes the very point raised by the definition that is from the article that DJC49 so kindly referenced.
djc49 wrote: [URL=http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son]]]The Eternal Generation of the Son[/URL] It's an easy read. Maybe *Biblicist* will find time to ACTUALLY READ it!
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?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Alan-H, after our last KJV only arguments on this forum, I have turned into anything but KJV, it did make look into the matter, and even though the translators of the KJV said even a bad version of the Bible is still the Bible, e.g., the KJV itself.
Ha! Jim, so you really think that having translated the Bible they thought that they had done such a bad job that they had to make reference to bad versions as still being Bibles to cover themselves? You're a real funny man!
djc49 wrote: Once again, *Biblicist*, I would strongly advise that you READ YOUR OWN HYPERLINKS before you post them up! 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 in order to validate your viewpoint. _ Athanasius and the Council of Nicea got this one issue right (as close as humans with finite minds possible can) ... 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. Words and language are weak tools when trying to communicate these Divine realities.
SteveR wrote: The Lord made vessles of honour, and those for destruction. Pursue your faith in fear and trembling.
Why do we have to have such proof texts thrown at us all the time from unthinking people?
Compare with 2 Timothy 2: 20,21 and see for yourself that we have an input into whether we are vessels unto honour or not!! Otherwise those verses are meaningless and the apostle is guilty of speaking nonsense under inspiration.
Moderator Alpha wrote: Comments such as these border on abusive. Be advised that attacking another forum user is cause for post removal. Thank you in advance for your cooporation in keeping these discussions meaningful, civil and topical.
OK Mod A.
I shall ignore future provocations of that nature.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I would say God is hot at infinity! Nice to see some praise for the ESV, apparently a good Calvinist Bible! The old argument between URL=http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L200.pdf]]]Calvinism & Arminianism[/URL] goes on, but there is no doubt the call to Evangelism is Biblical. [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=919081222110]]]The Roman Road[/URL]
Must be real nice Jim to have someone think through all the issues for you so that you can just refer people to their material!
Is Gil aiming to be Pope of Protestantism someday? Provided of course he is not given a KJV bible!
Michael Hranek wrote: Biblicist I'm interested. Do you mind explaining what you posted in a bit more detail? Thanks
Limitation of space on these forums does not make it easy to deal with this fully. So as unpalatable as this may be, 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]
Out of interest what is your church affiliation? ______________________________________
If you knew that MacArthur had changed his views, why did you reference material that reflected his previous views? Do you not think that this a little dishonest without adding some clarification?
djc49 wrote: It's obvious to me that you do NOT understand the nuances of the word "begotten" ..This "deriving subsistence" is of YOUR OWN fabrication -- a self-made stumbling block and gross misconception -- leading you to error and misplaced fault-finding.
O we have a real abrasive smart Alec here!
We have never conversed before, but he comes all guns blazing, being cock sure of his facts (a-hem).
#1. Accuses me of denying that the Father-Son relations are eternal.
#2. Accuses me of using MacArthur's article in support of my own beliefs when I had said nothing of the sort and when he does not even know what I believe.
#3. Based on very little he insists that Nicea got it right
#4. And now to top it all we have 2 further accusation viz. a) that I do not understand the nuances of the term "begotten" and b) "This "deriving subsistence" is of my own fabrication!
Tell me Mr wise guy, have you ever studied this subject matter before? Ever had to refer to what the council of Nicea actually said? If so, do you want to cite quotations from them? Ever studied any of the standard systematics that deal with the controversy?
Get an education first while you are still in your high school library and then, if you are lucky, I might just en
djc49 wrote: This is a VERY curious thing! ... *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
It is clear you do not know what I believe, because I have not denied that the Father-Son relationship is eternal. What I have questioned is the whole notion of "eternal begetting" meaning that Christ's subsistence is derived from the Father. And where did I say anything about MacArthur supporting my view? MacArthur now supports Nicea I do not!!
Perhaps YOU should learn to read with care!!
All I was doing was pointing out to Jim that the articles he had referenced were not MacArthur's current position. Leaving Jim's post unchallenged would be to misrepresent MacArthur.
My pointing this out has nothing whatever to do with what I believe.
And NO Nicea did not get it right. Very far from it!!
John UK wrote: Well I have always been taught that God, in his word, makes promises that he intends to keep. Or is not this a promise for us today? If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV Or does this not apply to churches, as most revivalists and those who preach on revival believe?
1. The verse does not suggest that normal life in Israel was to come to a complete stop until the Lord heard the prayer.
2. The promises that God makes, he will fulfill. But, we dare not dictate to God the timetable. The promise itself says nothing of time!
Often God tests even the repentance of his people by withholding blessings for a season!
Jim Lincoln wrote: [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg1602.htm]]]The Superiority of Christ Superior to Angels--Part 1[/URL] and [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1603.htm]]]Jesus Christ, Superior to Angels--Part 2[/URL] No doubt about it you guys could use a [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=Xl0tHQSteoDQ41Wc2zed2J45r]]]NAS MacArthur Study Bible[/URL].
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]
John UK wrote: #4 Because God has responded before the midweek meeting, no meeting has been lost, and the church can again make progress.
Ah, so you have placed a time table that God has to follow! Now all is clear! Thanks John!
I don't think that generalisations are helpful. Every church is different. One would hope that one's advice would be tailored to each as necessary, as in the book of Revelation.
Where in the addresses to the Revelation churches do you read John's advice? viz. that all church services and activities should come to a halt and the people should concentrate solely on repentant prayer?
John UK wrote: Now here's my opinion: At Bethlehem, the second person was incarnated (begotten by God the Holy Ghost) as the Son of God (and as the Son of man). ...The psalmist, saying, "this day have I begotten thee" is referring to the birth (physical birth) of the pre-existent second person of the trinity (the Great Spirit - one in three) when he took human flesh TO HIMSELF.
The logical conclusion, since Heb 1:5 goes onto state "..I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?", is that Christ was not viewed as the Son until his incarnation. IOW the second person of the Trinity in his divinity is not referred to as Son.
Would you agree with this?
John UK wrote: At Bethlehem, the second person was incarnated (begotten by God the Holy Ghost)
Why is the Holy Ghost not called the Father of Christ?
Mike wrote: Isaac was called Abraham's only begotten son- Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son" But Isaac wasn't the only son Abraham fathered, so only begotten cannot mean literal fleshbirth here. Paul said this- 1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." And this- Philemon 1:10 "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:" Doesn't sound much like literal offspring. Perhaps it means unique, specially chosen, or pre-eminent and has nothing to do with descendancy or relational order.
Excellent post Mike. That is precisely the conclusion that I have come to.
Instead of "begotten", "one only" would point to that uniqueness!