Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -22 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ BIBLICIST ”
Page 1 | Page 5 ·  Found: 167 user comments posted recently.
News Item7/17/09 4:09 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
djc49 wrote:
*Mike* | New York --
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."
I don't follow.

Are you saying that the "begotten" has reference only to his incarnation?

And is the second person of the Trinity called a Son before he was "begotten" in the flesh, or is He referred to as the Son because of his "begotteness"?

If you believe He is eternally begotten, how do you conceive this? As formulated at Nicea?

____________________________________

Hey Jim

Is this the same John MacArthur who was hauled up for heresy on this very issue?

Maybe he was using the NAS to get his views.


News Item7/17/09 11:47 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
My error! The reference in my previous post should have read Psalm 2 verse 7 (not 6).

News Item7/17/09 10:35 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Mike wrote:
Sure. If he is eternally the Son, how do we "fit" the time-related phrases "..this day have I begotten thee" and, "..I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"?
Thanks Mike for clarifying.

I think Hebrews 1.6 (the verse immediately following the one you cited) answers your question viz.:

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

The verse implies that he was already the firstbegotten before he was brought into the world!!

The quotation in verse 5 is from Psalm 2 verse 6. The time signature "this day" is uncertain. But, these words are a declaration of a decree in connection with the Lord's anointed. It may therefore have no connection to any kind of "generation" but may be a reference to a "coregency". The son of a King often being a coregent.
____________________________________

Hidemi

Some matters in the Scriptures are Ocean deep and it pays us to think carefully on them.


News Item7/17/09 9:49 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Mike wrote:
How do we understand this verse in light of divinity?
Hebrews 1:5
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 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?"
I am not sure I understand your question Mike. Care to rephrase?

Survey7/17/09 7:06 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Presbyfacts wrote:
WHY Baptist?
The basis behind founding a denomination upon "baptism" and seeking to identify with and in, this, is to provide a greater human participation, than paedobaptism allows or is perceived to secure.
This is why profession and immersion emerged in recent centuries, in *OPPOSITION* to covenantal infant baptism.
It is as if there was a kind of reactive resistance against the historic church sacrament. Even as we have seen down to changing the term sacrament itself. But reaction does not make for theologically or Biblically correct. It simply implies another method was brought to bear upon the ceremony, and support elicited from theology for it.
Hence the establishing of a new denomination.
Presumably you feel that the founding of a denomination based on one's form of church government is not liable to the same charges!!

Where did "Presbyterian" polity exist before the Reformation?

As for the rest of the rubbish about immersion arriving late on the scene etc. this has been sufficiently debunked in other threads on this site.


News Item7/17/09 5:28 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Hidemi Williges wrote:
My point is that Jesus (His human existence) is begotten considering that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in his human birth. I think that "one and only" is too broad a definition considering that an adopted son could also be a "one and only" son.
I have no aversion to the Fathers or the Councils. Their opinions can be as valid as those of the brethren on these forums, provided they can show clearly from the Bible how they come to the conclusions that they do.

In relation to your quote above, which intimates that your belief is "incarnational sonship", permit me to ask you this: Why is the Holy Ghost not the Father of Christ's manhood?


News Item7/17/09 3:55 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Hidemi Williges wrote:
My point is that Jesus (His human existence) is begotten considering that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in his human birth. I think that "one and only" is too broad a definition considering that an adopted son could also be a "one and only" son.
Ah! Now I see what you are saying.

BUT, theologians when they speak of Christ as "eternally" begotten are not referring to Christ's manhood!! They are referring to his divine personhood!


News Item7/16/09 9:26 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Hidemi Williges wrote:
be⋅get..
Howdy Hidemi

If we are going to consider this linguistically then we need to go back and refer to how the Greek word is used. The definition of the English word is of no help.

BUT let us put aside the linguistic considerations for just one moment and let me ask you a simple question. Is Christ, like the Father, self existent? Is it a necessary property of Divinity to be self existent? If so, how can he be said to be "generated"?

Any thoughts?

And if the idea of "generation" is true of Christ, why not of the Holy Ghost as well? Is it merely because the Holy Ghost is never referred to as "a Son"?

How can you be sure that the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to distinguish essential personal properties in the Godhead and that they do not serve an entirely different purpose?

Why is the Holy Ghost so called? Is He holier than the other 2 members of the Godhead? Or is He Spirit and the others are not? Or is it that He is a "Holy" Spirit, but the others are not?

If you say, that is absurd reasoning, then all I would say that it is analogous to the kind of reasoning that is used to come up with the doctrine of "generation"!

OOS.


News Item7/16/09 7:29 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Falconer wrote:
γενοσ - comes out as offspring, progeny, lineage, .....etc
Therefore "one only" offspring.....
You are only repeating what I wrote. I stated that the choice in translation is:

"Only begotten" Son or

"One only" Son

Theologically speaking we are sons by adoption. Christ is said to be God's "one only" Son, but in Scripture we are never told anything more of how or why. That he is eternally the Son, no one doubts any more than they do that the Father is eternally the Father. But the whole notion that because of the titles of Father and Son we are to conclude that there was some sort of "generation" is surely going beyond the Scriptures, seems to me to be absurd and ought not to be admitted. It would make Christ and the Holy Ghost NOT self existent, but dependent for their existence on the Father who is alone the "unbegotten" according to Nicea!

Those who espouse these notions are quick to add that we must not think of "generation" in a carnal and corporal way. But, are they not guilt of the same in relation to the Titles Father and Son in ever developing such an absurd doctrine?


News Item7/16/09 2:32 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Falconer wrote:
Do you then have similar 'problems' with "0nly begotten" [μονογενη](monogenae) describing Christ?
eg
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his *only begotten* Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3.16
Is this where Nicene may have tried to carry through the terms it used?
I would not like to hazard a guess as to how the council at Nicea came to the conclusions which they did.

All I would say is that [μονογενη](monogenae)can equally be translated "one only" instead of "only begotten".

This does not remove the difficulties of the titles "Son" and "Holy Ghost" in relation to the Father. But at least it does not involve absurdities which are incapable of scriptural proof.


News Item7/16/09 11:43 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Faithful Remnant wrote:
Biblicist, to answer your question about the Godhead, I think the Trinity is a viable "theory" or explanation/point of view but should not be pushed .. No, I am not anti-trinitarian.
Being Baptist I also believe in freedom of conscience and agree with you that the episode with Servetus was reprehensible. However when it comes to defining the Christian faith I believe that the revelation of the Trinity is so clear in the bible that anyone who wants to deny this cannot rightly call themselves Christian.

As to the particular formulation of the doctrine, I have very real difficulties with the Nicene formulation, and in particular to the notions of eternal "generation" and "procession" as regards the second and third persons of the Trinity. I can see no biblical support for either of these, and to my mind the formulation inevitably leads to the idea that these 2 persons of the Godhead owe their existence to the Father. I am aware how Nicea attempted to overcome this with the very subtle distinction between essence and personhood, but these are just further philosophical musings which again find no scriptural support.


News Item7/15/09 7:15 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Faithful Remnant wrote:
Oh well, I speak as a linguist and know what more "complex" languages are able to convey to the reader, but hey, Biblicist, at least we agree on something for a change!
As a fellow linguist, I agree with you.

And BTW, I am sure that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

PS. Still waiting to hear what you believe about the Godhead viz. if you are anti-trinitarian, what exactly do you believe?


News Item7/15/09 4:57 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Faithful Remnant wrote:
And a much more precise English, something that can more readily relay meaning from the original languages.
Maybe that is what Jim is realy asking for; that the English of the Bible should be degraded to such a level that the most indolent may have a version that they can use. Almost the reverse of the approach adopted by previous generations, when a great many not only learned English by using the Bible, but who also learned better English by the same means.

News Item7/15/09 4:25 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
245
comments
Jim Lincoln wrote:
One of the reasons that the KJV translators put the Bible into the "vulgar" tongue.
In case you have not read it Jim, I should tell you that its written in English!!

Maybe you should improve your reading skills, because I would say that a 12 year old whose mother tongue is English should be able to read and understand the majority of it.

Maybe you'd be happy with a modern American slang version, especially if it was based on the corrupt texts preferred by the textual critics?


News Item7/15/09 2:28 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
ZxxZ wrote:
Because having sovereign power over nothing - is not having power over anything. Exit sovereignty.
I give up!! Do you have problems comprehending plain English, or just using it?

No one is denying Sovereignty! What I am challenging is the notion that for God to be Sovereign over something he must exert his own executive power without the use of means. That is the plain and ridiculous notion espoused by you calvinists!


News Item7/15/09 12:07 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Eddy Fying wrote:
Take for example the term "sovereignty" Many in the churches display a lack of understanding here too.
OR
Is it because proper definition of it would upset their pet doctrines on the amazing saving power of sinners?
EG.

Perhaps he has not grasped that the Queen is mortal. Education??
Sovereignty of GOD is actually something quite different from a mortal, Biblicist.

OK smart guy. Why does God use Angels to carry out his will? Why does he use preachers to take the gospel to sinners? Why does he use means at all? Does it lessen his Sovereignty to use means?

Even in the process of salvation he addresses the person's intellect. Through preaching, and the blessings of the Holy Spirit he moves the heart and brings a person under conviction, so that that person comes voluntarily in faith to submit to Christ!

But you must have God executing all this personally because otherwise in your scheme of things God is not glorified, the creature is.

As I said earlier, you have light that enables you to see things which are not there in the Bible. So congratulations. You are a very special person indeed! Happy?


News Item7/15/09 4:08 AM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
39
comments
Alan H wrote:
It is my personal opinion that one of the greatest factors in this decline is "the translation controversy."
I agree Alan, but I would go further and say that alongside the method of translation (and I am by no means diminishing its importance), another crucial element is determining which texts are valid for translation purposes.

The confusion sown in the minds of the godly and the ungodly when certain verses, phrases, and words are included in some versions and not in others is extremely damaging!


News Item7/14/09 8:01 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
39
comments
kenny wrote:
Jim,
That last post is so terribly misguided and full of half-(non) truths that I wouldn't know where to begin! You have to be trying to yank our collective chain.
No wonder that Tony What's-His-Name guy thinks your a closet Jesuit, Jim.
Yep. Jim's on a mission.

News Item7/14/09 7:57 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Mike wrote:
God is indeed sovereign, lad. It just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Mike

Tell me, why is the title of "sovereign" of more significance to the calvinists' than the term God?

Is being a king somehow more important than being God? Or do they imagine that God can be God and not exercise His reign over his creation?

___________________________________

John UK

You live under a monarchy. Does the queen of England control and determine your every thought, motive, movement etc? If not does it make her any less the queen of England?


News Item7/14/09 7:06 PM
Biblicist  Find all comments by Biblicist
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Presbyfacts wrote:
God made the man and the ox - different!
And according to calvinists "sovereignty" means that we are all fated to do exactly as God has determined? We are like toys on a stage that the child can do with as he will? We have no determining volition, no value, no significance etc. God cannot in any sense be said to love sinners, except those fortunates who are elected for reasons known only to God.

You calvinist may talk a great deal about God's glory, but all we can see is you glorying in Calvin and your calvinism and how special you all are, because you are the elect and have light that no other group possesses.

Tough on all the rest of us that have no good news, eh? But then again we cannot do anything to change our status if we happen to be non-elect, nor can we fall in with your understanding of the Bible when you cannot even give a clear scripture exposition in support of your tenets. You are so busy proof texting that we are left wondering whether you ever read the Bible in a connected fashion.

Ho Hum.....

Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9



Sean E. Harris
Husband of One Wife

One-Woman Man
Sunday - PM
Berean Baptist Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS


Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Dr. James M. Phillips
#4 When The Gospel is Preached

Philippians From Greek 2021
Discover The Word With Dr...
Video!Play! | MP4

Dr. James M. Phillips
#4 When The Gospel is Preached

Philippians From Greek 2021
Discover The Word With Dr...

Sponsor:
Community Demographic Report ($175)

Gain val­uable ins­ights to help your Church serve the comm­un­ity God has placed you in.
https://churchanswers.com/s..

Sponsor:
Leading a Post-COVID Church

Free eBook by Thom Rainer - A Past­or's Guide to Min­istry Chall­enges & Opp­ort­un­it­ies
https://churchanswers.com/l..

Sermon:
¿Pero Qué Está Pasando?
Mark S. Wisniewski

SPONSOR | 6,100+

SPONSOR




SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting New!
Listen Line New!
Events | Notices
Transcription
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

TECH TALK
Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.