The multifaceted nature of the doctrine of justification

 

#justification

Justification is multifaceted

The multifaceted nature of the doctrine of justification is plainly and simply stated in the Scriptures:

Rom 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

This speaks of the LEGAL justification freely by the life and death of Christ; the righteousness of Christ was legally IMPUTED to all represented by Christ. It is by the faith of Christ, i.e. His faithfulness in His work of redemption for His people. See Gal 2:16.

Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

This speaks of the VITAL justification freely by God's grace; the righteousness of Christ is vitally APPLIED to each elect personally. What was only legal is now personal. It is applied FREELY because human faith is an impossibility before this. See Titus 3:7.

Romans 4:3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

This speaks of the EXPERIENTIAL justification through faith in Jesus Christ; the blessedness of the justification by God's free grace is EXPERIENCED through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Abraham's faith was counted to him, not the righteousness of Christ was counted to him; there is an unbridgeable gulf between the two.

These THREE distinct aspects of justification need to be rightly divided to avoid confusion and contradiction.

Blessed is the man who knows these distinct facets of the biblical doctrine of justification. It saves him from the blasphemous lie of his justification before God by his faith!!!

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Amen.

-------

A man retorted, "If justification is accomplished, then it is accomplished", thus dismissing the Scriptures' testimony that there are distinct facets in the doctrine of justification.

----------

I responded:

Amen.
May I add,
"If justification is purposed, then it is purposed but not accomplished."

"If justification is accomplished, then it is accomplished but not applied."

"If justification is applied, then it is applied but not experienced."

The justification purposed, accomplished, and applied can only be experienced through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose righteousness is the basis and ground of a man's free grace justification.

The justification purposed in eternity for all the elect was only accomplished for them at the cross. Based on that accomplishment on the cross, justification is applied, whether prospectively (pre-cross) or retrospective (post-cross); justification is applied to each elect at God's appointed and approved time; that justification which has been freely applied to each elect personally is experienced through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose righteousness is the sole basis and ground of justification.

Let me give a simple illustration.

If the house is purposed, then the house is purposed but not built.

If the house is built, then the house is built but not yet occupied by its legal beneficiaries; the house is built but its benefits have not been applied to those for whom the house was built. The intended beneficiaries must be personally brought to enjoy the house built for them. Having been brought into the house, they experience the blessings of the house.

The Scriptures tell us the distinction between:
- the justification purposed and decreed,
- the justification secured/accomplished by Christ's blood,
- the justification freely applied by God's grace, and
- the justification experienced by faith in Christ.

I'm only repeating what I believe the Bible teaches.

If I believe wrongly, be kind to show it to me. Thanks.

John Gill - a Giant loathes by Dwarves

#JohnGill
#Hyper_Calvinism

"Hyper-calvinism," so loathed by the new-school Calvinists, is the only true "Calvinism", true and faithful to the original."

That is most certainly true.

For example, John Gill, in his day, was representative of the 'Calvinism' of his era. His exposition of the biblical doctrine of grace was highly respected and esteemed by all his contemporary 'Calvinists' from different denominations.

Gillism was the ONLY Calvinism of his day; Fullerism that arose later and peddled as Calvinism is a perversion.

Dr. Robert L. Reymond, in his 'A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith' (Thomas Nelson, 1998) describes John Gill (1697-1771), the author of 'The Cause of God and Truth' (1735-38) in these words:
"A Baptist puritan pastor, writes a THOROUGH (emphasis mine) defence of Calvinistic theology." (Selected General Theological Bibliography, page 1137)

A theological giant who wrote a thorough defence of Calvinistic theology in his days is loathed and slandered as a hyper-Calvinist by dwarves of latter days.

This is how strange things can be. 
=====

Niko J. Andrews
@Sing. I don't know if I'm "hyper" or not; for I possess a great amount of peace. LOL But truthfully though, I’ve had more than my fair share of “run-in’s” with the Fuller crowd… 🙂

Sing 
"Gillism' is the only biblical calvinism there was, and is, and shall be.

When 'fullerism' (the new and popular form of calvinism promoted by the new school theologians) first came on the scene it was soundly condemned by the calvinists of his time as heresy.

But time has changed - Fullerism is the new Calvinism of this generation. They have left the BIBLICAL teachings of the old-school theologians. So, they slander them as hyper - showing themselves FALLING SHORT of their forefathers (they claim so, even though they are really bastards!)

They departed from the original 100 miles, then they realised their errors, and they moved back 20 miles, and they sincerely thought they had returned to where their fathers were!

How time has changed. It is very easy to SLIDE away from the original. Human nature, basically Arminian to the core, is strongly inclined towards FULLERISM.

It requires great effort to resist that tendency to drift away from the ORIGINAL.

Sing 
As a general rule, it is HARD (not impossible) to go beyond the truth revealed to us in the Scriptures, but it is VERY EASY to fall short of the standard.

Why? Man's heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

In doctrines, very many prefer those that are 'wide' and 'broad' - they are more suited to man's nature!

Matthew 7:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
(Please note, the passage DOES NOT say 'eternal life'... NOR DOES it say 'eternal hell'! This is not a passage about eternal salvation - how to be saved by God! It is a passage about discipleship - how to live as God's children.

Niko J. Andrews
@Sing…Matthew 7: 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

You said: “(Please note, the passage DOES NOT say 'eternal life'... NOR DOES it say 'eternal hell'! This is not a passage about eternal salvation - how to be saved by God! It is a passage about discipleship - how to live as God's children.”

My reply: although I agree with your basis about not going beyond Scripture as a rule; it is the second part to which I differ. This passage in Mathew 7 does indeed not say anything ‘specific’ about eternal salvation or hell, but the implication is clearly present in this verse. How so? Well, the Greek word being used here is Apoleia, which means destroying, utter destruction of vessels, or the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell. The same Greek word is used elsewhere for instance…

“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (Rom. 9:22)

And…

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2 Thes. 2:3)

And…

“But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.” (1 Tim. 6:9)

Then, there are several other verses which also carry the same intent being: destruction, perdition and even eternal fire or damnation along with them.

While I do agree and believe the point of your comment is accurate about ‘the straight and narrow road’ of discipleship, the need and requirement; this particular text, I do not believe, makes the case perhaps as well as some other verse might. Should you want some verses which more clearly illustrate your point, let me know and I will try to find a few that bring out the full intent of your admirable position. 😉

Sing 
Nicholas @ My reply: although I agree with your basis about not going beyond Scripture as a rule, it is the second part to which I differ. This passage in Mathew 7 does indeed not say anything ‘specific’ about eternal salvation or hell, but the implication is clearly present in this verse. How so? Well, the Greek word being used here is Apoleia, which means destroying, utter destruction of vessels, or the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell. The same Greek word is used elsewhere, for instance…

===========

That 'the same Greek word is used elsewhere' means nothing more than that THE SAME SOUNDING WORDS are used elsewhere. It does not necessarily mean those same SOUNDING words have the same SENSE!

Mt 7 passage speaks of the life and destruction that is CONDITIONED upon man's activities. Unless you want to DENY eternal salvation wholly and solely and completely by the FREE grace of God, you can consistently choose to interpret the passage as teaching eternal salvation and damnation.

Rom 9 passage speaks of the God's sovereign act of election.

So, the same sounding words are used in very different CONTEXT!

Three sound rules of interpretation:

1st: CONTEXT, 2nd: CONTEXT, and 3rd: CONTEXT!

Beware of SOUND-BYTE-ism!

Kate Richardson
I would be content to be called a (real) Christian. All the Gill's and Pelagian's, and Henry's, and Fuller's mean zip-zero to me.

Niko J. Andrews
Sing F Lau. I get it. Now you're a Greek Scholar? Sing, establish yourself, preferably in the Truth rather than your own wisdom! I gave you only three verses as an example; you refuted only one. There are about fifteen more which support what I stated. But the simple fact is that a word, even in the Greek language, with sometimes several connotations, still has a meaning! That’s why we study, write, speak, and don’t just grunt! Go ahead; build a premise which supports discipleship, of which I would agree. I’m just asking you to do so with actual text which sustains it properly, that’s all.

Sing 
@Nicholas, If you interpret Mt. 7:13,14 to mean Eternal life, then doesn't that also mean that unless one walks the narrow way they are doomed to hell? You claim you believe in salvation by Grace, but then you skirt around it by saying salvation is by and through works.

As Bro. Sing put it so plain: these verses are for the Lord's sheep, NOT a way to obtain Eternal life.

Sing 
Nicholas, I am no Greek scholar at all. But I am a student of God's word in KJT. I surely hope you are not saying that one needs be a Greek scholar before he can learn and know the word of truth.

You gave me 3 verses, and I at least entertained one of them! Why do I need to entertain another one when they are automatically disposed off because the principle involved is the same? I am puzzled.

Perhaps you can tell us what you want to make the other two verses to say... then I will comment on them.

Sing 
"I would be content to be called a (real) Christian. All the Gill's and Pelagian's, and Henry's, and Fuller's mean zip-zero to me."
========

That NO DOUBT sounds sweet and pious!

But not very helpful, though!

Niko J. Andrews
@ Sing. Perhaps there really is an English barrier here?

Sing F Lau
@Nicholas - Chinese my first language, Malay my second, English my third... that's the best I can do! So, please be very patient with me. I am just proficient enough to communicate decently.

If anything comes across as unclear, I will do my best to clear it up.

Niko J. Andrews
Jerry Chapin, you said; If you interpret Mt. 7:13, 14 to mean Eternal life, then doesn't that also mean that unless one walks the narrow way, they are doomed to hell? You claim you believe in salvation by Grace, but then you skirt around it by saying salvation is by and through works. As Bro. Sing put it so plain: these verses are for the Lord's sheep, NOT a way to obtain Eternal life.

I did NOT say eternal life, friend. Read what I said; I only stated what the actual Greek word was referring to; perish can mean TEMPORAL or ETERNAL DESTRUCTION. Secondly, your inference is quite incomplete, is it not? For Jesus states that “few” find it, which some point out refers to the ‘elect’ of God anyway. Lastly, if this verse is pertaining to the sheep, which I am not denying, please give me your complete exegesis of the passage without going off on me, which is what you did quite arrogantly, I might add…

Again, the word is: Apoleia; which means destroying, utter destruction of vessels, or the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell. Now, however you wish to interpret the passage is entirely up to you. The text, again as a reminder, is; “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.” (Mat. 7:13)

Niko J. Andrews
@Sing. Good enough for me. First of all, I do not think we actually disagree, but instead are not communicating effectively. As you know, I adhere to the doctrine of grace, but do not see this text as a disciple training verse.

I rather view it as a testimony to the fact that only very few; the elect of God, will enter eternal life since the road is extremely narrow (Thlibo; Greek: constricted). The road which is quite large (Euruchoros; Greek: spacious) will lead many to destruction since they are not chosen and neither were they loved by God from before the foundation of the world. I hope this helps…

Sing F Lau
@Nicholas. Ok let talk a bit over Mt 7:13-14.

Concerning the 'few' and the 'many' - don't they belong to the same category, from the same common pool? Do I make sense?

Anyway I have written a bit on the passage here: "Which gate, and which way, for you?" here -
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2009/10/which-gate-and-which-way-for-you.html

I will consider any reasonable objection...

Jerry Chapin
Bro. Sing, I completely agree with your interpretation of these verses. To make them say anything else, and apply them to an Eternal sense rather than a timely condition, IMHO, it contradicts other Scripture, i.e;

"After this I beheld, and Lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes. and palms in their hands. And cried with a loud voice, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." Rev. 7:9,10

Jerry Chapin
To make this into an Eternal proposition makes Heaven almost unpopulated...what do you do with the multitudes which no man could number?? I simply don't see how this can be anything other than a destruction of the life of an Elect who enters into the Broad Way and misses the joy and happiness to be found walking the Narrow Way.

Niko J. Andrews
@Sing. Thanks for the link. Btw, the word translated "strive" just means to enter, period. Eiserchomai, Greek (verb), more accurately should be; to go out or come in: to enter, or to arise, come into existence, begin to be.

While after reading your blog, I can partly agree with your premise, I still find the conclusion evasive and extraneous to a degree. I don’t know; maybe I’m dense here, but open to hear more. Perhaps you have other passages which may support your end result? Thanks.

Sing 
Nicholas@ "Btw, the word translated "strive" just means to enter, period. Eiserchomai, Greek (verb), more accurately should be: to go out or come in: to enter, or to arise, come into existence, begin to be."

=======

'Strive' - to my common-sense English just means 'to labour fervently' or 'to endeavour with strenuous zeal' in order to achieve something.

I take it that ONLY those whom God has given eternal life are able to strive to enter the strait gate and walk the narrow way. If we cannot agree with this simple premise, then we are not on the same page.

Do you enter the gate to come into existence? I always thought one must exist first before he can enter the strait gate and walk the narrow way...

ONE MUST HAVE ETERNAL LIFE FIRST BEFORE HE CAN WALK IN THE WAY OF LIFE? Maybe I am just simple and naive - actually, that's all I am.

Just what do you think, I am evasive and extraneous? Please elaborate. I will do my best to relieve you of that discomfort.

Keep on talking. For in this way we are all driven closer to the Scriptures.

Niko J. Andrews
@Sing. You said, " ' Strive '- to my common-sense English just means 'to labour fervently' or 'to endeavour with strenuous zeal' in order to achieve something."

I am not saying that the English word does not mean such. What I am telling you is that the word translated "strive" in the KJV is incorrect. The passage is not in Mathew, but in Luke 13:24. Here the word means to contend, to take very seriously. (Agonizomai, Gr.)

You say; "I take it that ONLY those whom God has given eternal life are able to strive to enter the strait gate and walk the narrow way. If we cannot agree with this simple premise, then we are not on the same page." I concur exactly. Amen.

You say; "ONE MUST HAVE ETERNAL LIFE FIRST BEFORE HE CAN WALK IN THE WAY OF LIFE? Maybe I am just simple and naive - actually, that's all I am." Again, I concur exactly. Amen.

So where is the dilemma? Probably it’s in how you state your case and sentiments. I realize that you are not a master of the English language; quite frankly neither am I. But I may be able to assist you somewhat in explaining yourself a little more clearly. If that interests you, let me know? May God grant your heart’s desire according to His grace and appointed time... 🙂

Sing 
Nicholas, go right on. Render your assistance so that I may explain myself a a little more clearly. That would be of great help.

Sing 
Nicholas @ "I am not saying that the English word does not mean such. What I am telling you ...is that the word translated "strive" in the KJV is incorrect. The passage is not in Mathew, but in Luke 13:24. Here the word means to contend, to take very seriously. (Agonizomai, Gr.) "

=============

Why is 'strive' incorrect? The word 'strive' is a very active word, and implies great effort, exertion and labour.

Perhaps you think to transliterate the word as 'to agonize' would be more suitable.

Niko J. Andrews
Love you brother! You've got a lot to share and add I can see, but appear to just become a little more straight forward. People have short attention spans and "sheep" are not that bright, either. LOL 😉

Niko J. Andrews
Agonize is the logical root, but it does not bring out the whole meaning. To earnestly contend, take seriously, to strain, to consider all worth the cost. This may be better adapted for your purpose, and the Greek implies this, as well. Does that help?

Niko J. Andrews
Btw, what can be the point of the word; destruction do you suppose? (Apoleia, Gr.)

Sing 
To this Chinese lad in the south seas,
"To earnestly contend, take seriously, to strain, to consider all worth the cost..." is another nice way of saying

"'to labour fervently' or 'to endeavor with strenuous zeal' in order to achieve something."

However, to me 'to content' presupposes the presence of enemies. You don't have to content when you don't have enemies.

'To strive' presupposes difficulties, within and without, that need to be overcome in order to make progress.

Do I make sense?

Sing 
So, is Mt 7:13-14 speaking of eternal salvation?

Niko J. Andrews
YES! Good.

Niko J. Andrews
So, is Mt 7:13-14 speaking of eternal salvation?
Nope

Sing 

Glad you see the light 

The Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Immanent Trinity:
God, Word, and Spirit.

The Three Persons of the Godhead are completely equal in every sense;
There is no subordination of any kind or sense.
In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son.
Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son.
TOO MANY are ignorant of or reject this simple bible truth.

Economic Trinity:

Father, Son, and Spirit;
the Son and Spirit are subordinated to the Father; 
the Spirit is subordinated to the Father and Son.
This subordination is in the context of the
outworking of redemption of the elect;
this subordination was mutually agreed
by the three Persons of the Godhead
in the covenant of redemption
before the foundation of the world.

--------

August 21, 2016

This is how very many Christians make John 1:1,14 to read because of their erroneous view of the sonship of Jesus, i.e. the eternal sonship of Jesus.

"In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.... And the Son was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Jesus,  the Son of God,  is ETERNALLY begotten, they insist. 

I say, Jesus, the Son of God, is DIVINELY begotten when the Word was made flesh.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The Word is the one-natured Divine Being,
The Son is the dual-natured Divine-Human Being.
The Son is the eternal divine Word made flesh. 
Aren't these so simple and obvious?

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

----------

John Burkett
So your saying Jesus didn't become unique until he was born of Mary

Sing F Lau
The possessive pronoun "your" is NOT the same as you're, the contraction of "you are."

DIVINELY begotten is not the same as ETERNALLY begotten.
There was NO NO NO NO NO NO Jesus before he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Thus your question betrays some misunderstanding somewhere.

The truth is quite simple; Jesus WAS UNIQUE from the moment of His conception by the power from on high. He did not become unique. He is the only begotten of God from the instant He was begotten.

I take it that your question presupposes that He was NON-unique prior to His becoming unique! Am I right, just asking?

Ante Zivkovic
Monogenes does not mean "unique" in general sense, but only in procreational sense. It can only mean "only begotten". Jesus became only begotten son in his conception/birth. Prior to that, he was not begotten.

More and more people are using Monogenes to mean unique generally. It is what one must do to avoid the doctrine that Word was begotten.

Sing F Lau
Starting with the fiction of eternally begotten, they have to invent other errors to explain that basic error. Redefining "monogenes" is one such attempt.

https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/01/begotten-then-later-manifestedsent-at.html

Things New and Old: Begotten, then later Manifested/Sent at baptism

Another of the same attempt, read here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/12/jesus-eternal-or-begotten.html
Things New and Old: Jesus: Eternal but also Begotten, i.e. eternally begotten! Really?

Sing F Lau
The uniqueness lies ENTIRELY in Jesus being the ONLY-BEGOTTEN of the Father; there is no one else like Him.

Ante Zivkovic
I think people should cease to use that word. So misleading. When you have an only child, you do not call him unique. You call him your only child. With us humans it is understood that that child was begotten. But with Jesus emphasis should be made on His begetting, because Word became flesh. Thus Jesus is both "only "and "begotten". There is no other rendering than the only begotten. These discussion are mostly with Kjb deniers.

Sing F Lau
Yes, cease! But the PBs are all Kjb-only.

Ante Zivkovic
Then PB's have problem with "begotten" in KJV.

Sing F Lau
Some DO have, on that point, because it doesn't suit their fable of eternal sonship.

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
Ha?

Sing F Lau
Look at the links above on "jesus-eternal-or-begotten."

John Burkett
Sing, if only begotten means only born, then what does one do with 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 ,

Isaac was the only begotten because he was the child of promise, born supernaturally, thus making him unique to his 7 brothers.

1. The Word had two titles which described who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were not the son before his incarnation Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word lest he be angry"

2 the personalities that compose the triune Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV

[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

3. If only begotten means only born what does that say of us? We are born children of God and is we are considered the sons of God he cannot be the only-born.

[sing: Jesus is the only begotten Son because He was "born in a supernatural way," just as Isaac was.]

Ante Zivkovic
Isaac was the only begotten because he was an only heir. Isaac had no co-heirs. In that sense, Isaac had no brother. We are co-heirs with Christ, being his real brothers, through adoption. Christ is the only begotten Son because he was the only one fathered by the Highest. Isaac, likewise ba Abraham. 2. Luke 1:35 teaches that that which shall be born shall be called Son of God.

John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, you just proved my point that only begotten doesn't mean only born but rather unique. Issac was the only heir because he was the unique son but not the only son.

Luke 1:35 shall be "called" the son of God. By who? The answer by men not God. God already considered him a son but the world of men that he was born into would come to know him as the son of God.

Ante Zivkovic
Again, you mislead by translating monogenes as generic "unique". That is violation of the menaning of the word. The truth is, that it means only-born. Issac is still monogenes. He would only stop being only born, if he had a brother, by Sara, who would in fact be co-heir. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, "he would only stop being only born, if he had a brother, by Sara" wrong! In a natural sense, he was not only born; he had seven brothers. You gave Rom 9:7; what about Rom 9:10-13? Jacob and Esau both were born to the same people but only one was special, and it is in his seed that the promise came. The only reason Isaac is termed only- begotten is because he was special or unique in comparison to his brothers not because he was only-born.

Ante Zivkovic
Your definition makes Jesus not the only born son of God, which I reject. Other sons of God are either adopted or made (like angels). No other son of God was generated by God except Jesus. And no other son of Abraham was counted as an heir, or even a real son. Esau and Jacob could never be monogenes, because the word cannot be used to mean unique. Gal 4:30 "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

Ante Zivkovic
In your definition, even Jacob is monogenes. Which is just a pure violation of the scope of uniqueness monogenes overs. And the scope is within generation, an only child. Applying a generic "unique" meaning to the term just violates it. Perfect rendering is only begotten.

Sing F Lau
John @ 3. If only begotten means only born, what does that say of us? We are born children of God, and if we are considered the sons of God, he cannot be the only-born.
=========

Can you name me another similarly begotten like Jesus?

Can you tell me in ONE way in which you are born of God is similar to Jesus being the begotten of God.
Thanks.

Sing F Lau
John @ 1. The Word had two titles which described who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were not the son before his incarnation, Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word lest he be angry"

==========================

When the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was begotten!!!

Your prejudice has blinded you to this SIMPLE PLAIN truth.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The only begotten of the Father is the only begotten Son of God. There was NO begotten Son UNTIL the Word was made flesh. Isn't that plain and simple?

Such plain and straightforward truth, but VERY INCONVENIENT to the "eternal sonship" fable!

"Kiss the Son" is spoken of in the context of God resurrecting the crucified Son. See Acts 13:33. It is a prophetic Messianic Psalm.

Sing F Lau
John @ 2: The personalities that compose the triune Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV

[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

=====================

Are you saying that the designation "the everlasting Father" in Isa 9:6 refers to God the Father? If you are, then you are quite mistaken.

The Father didn't give His Son when He caused him to be born the son of man. That is at best a false and erroneous statement.

When God MADE the Word flesh, He caused His Son to be begotten. The Father gave His Son when Jesus was manifested and entered His public ministry, at which point God thundered to Israel, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

PJ Walters
The subtle resurgence of Arianism...

Sing F Lau
Please describe briefly what is Arinianism. Thanks.
Don't throw terms around. It doesn't help. Deal with the precise issue at hand.

PJ Walters
That God had no Son until Jesus came.

Sing F Lau
Is that Arianism? Go read a bit further.

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
It's sound Arianism doctrine sir,
INC in the Phl.

Sing F Lau
Arianism denies the DIVINITY of Christ, does it not?
Do I? Go read and use the finest PB comb at your disposal and see if you can find one shred of evidence.

Be careful of throwing labels around. The last I read, it is still a TRANSGRESSION of the law of God to bear FALSE witness.

Read my initial post and tell me the error if there is any.

Beware of SOUND BYTE.

Ante Zivkovic
Dear PJ. Our position is stronger, as it gives the Word and the Spirit co-equality within the Godhead. So neither do they proceed from the Father, but are co-eternal; neither is there hierarchy within the Godhead. Our doctrine is also stronger concerning the manhood of Jesus, whose flesh, soul and spirit did not exist prior to his begetting when the Word was made flesh. So we have Jesus who is 100% God, and 100% man.

Sing F Lau
Co-eternality and eternally begotten are mutually exclusive concepts except for some nonsensical twisting. Co-eternality also excludes the idea of anyone in the Godhead proceeding from anyone.

PJ Walters
Nay, but I allege that God GAVE his only begotten Son.

Sing F Lau
Your begotten Son is eternally begotten.
The Scriptures plainly state that the Son was begotten WHEN the Word was made flesh.

Read John 1:14.

PJ Walters
As Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son (remember, he had Ishmael, too!), so the Word is the only begotten of the Father. What meaneth this? That he is his Father's special Son.

Sing F Lau
"... so the Word is the only begotten of the Father"?

A plain Scriptures is now TWISTED to fit your eternally begotten fable!!!

It is getting worse!

PJ Walters
Ah, there is the denunciation!

Sing F Lau
Denunciation? If so, it is against a newfangled idea. I sure hope you are ALONE among the PBs who believe that the eternal Word is the begotten of the Father, forget about the "only" for the moment.

Good night.

Ante Zivkovic
Pj Walters, Gal 4:30, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Was Isaac the only begotten of Abraham? Yes! You see, only Isaac was the heir, or true legitimate son. Only he was a real son. For if Isaac is not only begotten of Abraham, neither is Jesus. Furthermore, " only begotten" does not mean "Unique" in English. "Unique" is just a modern pseudo-Greek translation of the word Monogenes. And a wrong translation. The correct translation is only begotten. Which means only born son. Which Jesus is. Not only is he the ONLY Son of God, but He is also the only BORN Son of God. (The fact that he is born or begotten ousts christophanies in OT, along with Heb 1:2) Monogenes is not applicable outside begotten offspring. "unique" argument weakens or even destroys KJV-only position.

PJ Walters
Sing, I am not alone in this position amongst PBs.

Ante, in Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's only begotten son. Monogenes is used in that text, as it is elsewhere, because it means single of its kind, or only! He was his darling son, and Ishmael was not.

Sing F Lau
A newfangled idea: the Word is the Son and the Son is the Word.

You have just obliterated the most momentous event in the history of redemption - the Word was made flesh, and the Son of God was begotten.

Sing F Lau
Can I take it that it is the UNIVERSAL opinion of the PBs that "... the Word is the only begotten of the Father"?

Sing F Lau
The begetting of the Son - which happened when God made the Word flesh - precedes the giving of the Son.

PJ Walters
Nay, God SENT his Son into the world.

Sing F Lau
God SENT His Son into the world when He thundered from heaven, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

The Son must be begotten first, the Word made flesh, and at the appointed time SENT into the world. Plain reading from the Scriptures.

Marty-Sandy Smith
Just as we may suppose that "Son" necessarily implies "begotten", we may also suppose that "Word" implies "expressed". One term seems no more co-equal or co-eternal than the other.

John Burkett
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit the three personality have existed co-eternal and co-equal immutable for all eternity. Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever.

According to the record of church history one of the very first heresies in the church was the belief that the Son was not eternally the son. The disciple of Peter was a huge defender of the Christ being the Son before his incarnation.

Sing F Lau
The Word made flesh is how the eternal Word was specifically expressed. When the eternal Word was made flesh by God is the moment the Son was begotten.

I fear only a prejudiced mind could miss that simple and obvious truth from John 1:1,14.

[Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.
Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.

(In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.)

Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father,  the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.]

Sing F Lau
Hey John, move beyond soundbyte! Does the statement "Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever" teach you something. Move beyond soundbyte. YESTERDAY is not the same as eternal, is it?

Mark Thomas
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace along with the three Hebrew children?

Joshua Winslett
The word "begotten", or more specifically the phrase "only begotten" does not necessarily hold the connotation of a procreation or birth in time.

The OED's third definition reads, "3rd. Theol. Applied to the relationship of the Father to the Son in the Trinity ME."

Notice that it's Middle English, theological definition does not denote the idea of procreation or generation, but instead one of relationship.

Also consider this quote from Zodhiates' Complete Word Study New Testament, "John alone uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Genos, from which genes in monogenes is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and geno comes from ginomai (1096), become, as in John 1:14, "and the word became [egeneto] flesh." This is in distinction from gennao (1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennao is gennema (1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique." End Quote.

It is also noteworthy that John actually used two different Greek words when describing to us how Christ was the only begotten (John 1:14,18 etc. - monogenes) and how we are begotten of God (1 John 5:1,18 - gennao). One shows a special kind and the other denotes being born, or procreated.

Joshua Winslett
The truth of eternal Sonship can be seen in how the NT often uses language that states that God sent his son into the world, and gave his son. You cannot send or give a son that does not already exist. I would challenge anyone to find a passage that says that God made a son. (Isaiah 9:6, John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-10, Galatians 4:4-6, etc.). Isaiah 9:6 not only states that a son was given (not made) but it says that one name for God is everlasting Father. How can you have an everlasting Father without an everlasting Son. The Son is also said to have made all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2). Furthermore, how can something be manifest that did not already previously exist (1 John 3:8)?

Also consider Hebrews 7:3, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." In comparing Melchisedec to Jesus and showing how this high priest was "made like unto the Son of God", the writer of Hebrews uses this parallel, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Please take note of this parallel. The fact that Melchisedec was without father, mother, natural decent, beginning or end of days proved that he was like unto the Son of God.

John Burkett
Excellent brother Joshua Winslett

Sing F Lau
Hebrews was written after the Word has been made flesh. The author was pointing out the superiority of the priestly office of Christ compared to that of the Levitical.

The author wasn't proving that Melchisedec was like unto the son of God, but that the priesthood of Christ, being the Word made flesh - the Son of God - is superior to and transcends that of the Levitical order, i.e. of the order of Melchisedec.

Sing F Lau
Joshua, is the eternal Word the same as the Son?
It is strange no one dares touch those inconvenient statements in John 1:1,14!

John declared that the Word was made flesh. Please tell what happened when the Word was made flesh? Was that a little bump in the redemptive history, or was it a momentous watershed event in fulfilment of all that has been prophesied and foreshadowed?

Sing F Lau
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace along with the three Hebrew children?
------------

Here is the answer to your good question: Dan 3:28,
28Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve b worship any god, except their own God.

His angel... that's the identity of the son of god stated in v25.

Marty-Sandy Smith
I can only find one angel that has ever gone into affliction with God's children:

[Isaiah 63:8-9] For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

What is the name of this angel?

Joshua Winslett
Sometimes the word angel does not speak of a grouping of celestial beings but rather a messenger that can at times be referring to God himself. Consider Exodus 3:2, Genesis 22:15- 16. Many more verses could be cited.

Sing F Lau
The Word was made flesh.... was MADE FLESH by God once, and remains so forever. Just ONCE... ONE TIME only.

The eternal Word is not an angel. The Word was God.

John Burkett
Excellent point brother josh. We find in Malachi 3:1 KJV
[1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

The term "messenger of the covenant" in the Hebrew is angel of the covenant. Everywhere else in the Old Testament the word for messenger is translated angel

John Burkett
It is also to be noted that all through the Old Testament the "Angel of the Lord" takes to himself the identity of deity.

Ante Zivkovic
Has Christ taken on the nature of angels in OT? In which body did he appear then? Answer: he didn't appear. Angels did. Looking like humans, representing God.

Sing F Lau
You are stating the obvious.
Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever.
Once the Word was made flesh, He remains in that Divine/human state FOREVER.

The sundry times when angels took on human nature it was temporary, for specific, temporary tasks.

The Divine Word WAS MADE FLESH, only once and FOREVER.

Now "Jesus Christ the same YESTERDAY and to day, and for ever" should make sense to some people.

Sing F Lau
If you need to depend on all those obscure passages to prove your eternal sonship, I will leave the matter here. … See more

Mark Thomas
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sing F Lau
If that warrants you the liberty to derive doctrines contrary to plain and clear Scriptures like John 1:1,14, you are free to do so.

Mark Thomas
I firmly believe that all Scripture is free from any contradiction when rightly divided. When I find folks who are willing to cling to contradiction and cease to answer sincere questions or simply ignore instruction provided, I begin to wonder if they prefer their fables to truth.

Sing F Lau
I wonder too!

Ante Zivkovic
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. .... My wife was sent to that elementary school by her parents.... Was Abraham Abraham when he went out of Ur, or was he Abram at that time? Was my wife my wife when she was going to elementary school? That settles "sent" argument.

Sing F Lau
I thought that it is just everyday common sense, but common sense does not mean anything to minds already prejudiced.

They just reject such an obvious thing, even though they speak in the same common-sense manner.

I have a great acrylic painting by Alice at home when she was 14. I often tell people that the drawing was done by my wife when she was only 14. Everyone has common sense enough NOT to conclude that Alice was my wife at 14!

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
INC in the Phil.?

Roy Armada Fidelis
So, using the word divinely begotten, and setting aside the term Eternal Son, What was Christ first existence?

Joey Candelaria
Christ is the Word.

But the question is, If God the Father became only a Father because of creation, who is He prior to creation? What is the distinction of the Triune God before creation?

Sing F Lau
Joey, know the distinction between Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity.
May the Lord grant you understanding

Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.

Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.

In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.

Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father,  the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.

Joey Candelaria
If Jesus is the Word, and Holy Ghost is the Spirit/Holy Ghost before creation, who is the Father among the Triune God?

Joey Candelaria
*[[1Jn 5:7]] KJV* For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I don't know if this verse is applicable prior to the creation.

Roy Armada Fidelis
So you don't believe in the eternal sonship of Christ?

Sing F Lau
You do, I don't.
I believe in the begotten Sonship when the eternal Word was divinely MADE flesh... the eternal Word is not the Son; the eternal Word who took upon Himself flesh and blood is the Son.

Marty-Sandy Smith
There are at least 3 scriptural aspects of sonship:
- (1) A son is one who is begotten of, or born of, his father, e.g. I Peter 1:3,
- (2) A son is one who receives or acknowledges his father, e.g. John 1:12-13, and
- (3) A son is one who emulates or obeys his father, e.g. Philippians 2:14-16.

It is thus possible, within the scope of scripture, to embrace the doctrine of "the eternal Son of God" without advocating the doctrine of "the eternally begotten Son of God". For prior to his incarnation, God the Son both received and obeyed God the Father, acting in accordance with the Father's will even when he came to be born of a virgin.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
the Lord shall have them in derision. Psalms 2:4

#The_LORD_Reigneth
#The_floods_Rage

On Sunday I was meeting with a small group of believers in KL. The service was led by a young man who read and exhorted us from 93rd Psalm. I was blessed and comforted by the glorious truth set forth: the LORD is sovereign and reigns firmly upon His everlasting throne despite the fierce raging of the ungodly.

Psalm 93

1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
3 The floods have lifted up, O LORD, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves.
4 The LORD on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea.
5 Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever.

The LORD reigns and is firmly established on His everlasting throne even though the world rages fiercely like the mighty waters of the raging floods. It was rightly pointed out and demonstrated that the "floods... the noise of many waters... the mighty waves of the sea" refers to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:20
But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

(who is restless and raging, whose waters cast up filth.)

Psalm 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

(raging like a fierce flood.)

Psalm 18:4
The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid.

(the flood of the ungodly)

Psalm 69:1-2
Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.

Jude 1:13
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Read again what the psalmist declares in light of these raging floods:

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved...Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting...The LORD on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea. Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever."

Ps 2:4
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.