 |
| Two friends discussing on their understanding of the Holy Scriptures - justification, God's omniscience, sovereignty, etc |
sing 4/26/10, 9:23 AM
Hi
Abraham, I'm pleased to be your friend on Facebook.
May
our Lord bless us unto mutual instruction and edification
sing
in the far east
Ashley
hey
Sing, My
understanding of Justification by faith is justification in our personal
conscience through faith.
Our Justification in God's conscience is from eternity. I hold to Justification and expiation from eternity on the ground of Christ's faithfulness and propitiation in time. I don't hold to justification before God because of faith, nor do I hold to propitiation because of faith.
I
believe the phrase "justification by faith' is used by many reformed folks
to mean "propitiation and justification before God because of our
faith." I strongly disagree with this view, but I still use the phrase
"justified by faith - Rom 5:1" to refer to justification in the
conscience through faith.
sing 7/9/10,
8:53 AM
Abe,
I think we can agree... I would put it this way...
- Justification Decreed for all elect in eternity,
- Justification Accomplished for all elect at the cross,
- Justification Applied to each elect personally at God's appointed and approved time, and freely by His grace alone, based on the righteousness of Christ alone,
- Justification Experienced by faith by the believing children of God, and
- Justification Consummated at Christ's coming.
Ashley
Hey
Sing, it was not your 1 reply that led me to delete it. It was the additional
replies to me from you and Richard and then I decided to delete all of them.
I'm not offended that you replied. I think you sincerely meant no wrong. Sing,
you did not offend me. However, I don't allow destructive errors to be taught
on my status from aggressive teachers like yourself. I'm not interested in
debating with you because you have a practice of distorting texts in order
maintain your doctrines. I have found that you do this when you teach that
"hell fire" in Matthew 5 and "weeping and gnashing" of
teeth in Luke 13 are not referring to eternal punishment and you teach that it
was a destruction that happened to God's children. You also have a practice of
holding views illogically and when you are shown the logical inconsistency of
your view you call it a straw man.
In short, you come across very unreasonable and so I don't think it is profitable to discuss this with you. If you want to talk to Michael that's fine. Blessings
Ashley
Some
of God's children? Please explain. Have I misunderstood you here? Are you
referring to infants and old?
sing 7/14/10,
10:27 AM
Abraham,
please do learn that, for the Jews, there was indeed hell fire and weeping and
gnashing of teeth, in 70AD. If this fact does not figure in your understanding
of Scriptures, you have failed to appreciate one major issue Jesus was dealing
with the Jews.
I take it that faith cometh by hearing... hearing the gospel preached. Therefore, those of God's children who are not reached with the gospel call, do not experience justification that is CONDITIONED upon their act of believing.
No, I do not refer to infants and the mentally challenged. The gospel ministry was never intended for such. Thanks for inquiring INSTEAD of misrepresenting.
Ashley
That's
what I meant when I said you believe righteous deeds can be done apart from
heaven-born faith. I am referring specifically to the faith that embraces
promises of grace revealed in the gospel. I should word it differently... you
believe that righteous deeds can be done apart from trusting in promises of
grace revealed in the gospel. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood you?
sing
Then
study the life of Cornelius then!
Study
the lives of those god-fearing devout Jews that were converted on the day of
Pentecost... the Ethiopian eunuch...
There is a heaven-born faith that trusts in God... and there is a FAITH that MUST and CAN come ONLY from the hearing of the gospel. A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Ashley
So,
let me ask you... Are there regenerate sheep among the nations who fear God and
work righteousness... and yet they never have even heard the gospel?
sing 7/14/10,
5:25 PM
I
answer in the affirmative - there are God's children among the nations who fear
God and work righteousness.
The
gospel ministry is appointed to convert such - them that God has regenerated
and indwelt by the Spirit of God.
The gospel ministry DOES NOT reach every one of them.
Yet every one of them shall enter eternal glory - see Rom 8:29-30. Eternal salvation excludes any human instrumentality. Gospel ministry is absolutely necessary... BUT only for the purpose it was ordained.
Many insisted that God's sovereignty GUARANTEES that every gospel-convertible child of God shall be converted by the gospel ministry. I don't believe so.
Ashley
Thanks, Sing.
Acts
2: "Jews... devout men" does not mean regenerate or God fearing.
"Devout" in the Greek can mean "religiously pious". They
crucified Jesus... they did not fear God.
Paul spoke of Jews like these, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." -Romans 10 1-3
Acts 8: The Ethiopian Eunuch had the scripture already. He may have been reading the scriptures for years. He was reading the gospel account of Isaiah at the time. It is an assumption to teach that he never yet trusted in the mercy of God until Philip came. Philip expounded on the meaning of Isaiah 53 and baptized the Eunuch.
Acts 10: Cornelius was well known among the Jews and may have even had the scriptures taught to him. You can not fear God or have pleased God apart from the faith that comes by the hearing of the word of God.
Do you have any more examples?
Ashley
Genesis
15 is a familiar one. The account when Abraham believed God does not imply that
he never yet trusted in God's mercy. It is only recorded in scripture at that
time though.
Are there any other examples in the old testament?
Ashley
Hebrews
11 faith is evangelical faith throughout the whole chapter. The chapter begins
by defining this faith as the assurance (see the Greek) of things hoped for.
General faith knows nothing of hope and mercy because only the gospel proclaims
these sure promises of grace. Read through and we find that without this faith
it is impossible to please God. By faith, Abraham moved with fear. This faith
was the assurance of things hoped for... not a general faith in God as his
creator.
sing 7/15/10,
1:47 PM
Abe,
don't fight a straw man. No
one has mentioned a general faith in God as his creator!
There
is faith that is the fruit of regeneration.
And
there is a faith that is the effect of hearing the good news of Jesus Christ.
If
you can't distinguish and differentiate the two, communication breaks down!
You said, "Acts 2: "Jews... devout men" does not mean regenerate or God fearing. "Devout" in the Greek can mean "religiously pious". They crucified Jesus... they did not fear God."
And you are saying that it was the devout Jews who crucified Christ!.. Those Jews who came to Jerusalem were devout God-fearing Jews... and they were CONVERTED.
Ashley
Does
this faith have any degree of hope and assurance in promises of grace? If not,
it can only be faith in God as he is revealed in the law and creation. If it
includes hope and assurance in promises of grace, it must be in direct relation
to gospel revelation.
There's no straw man here. You have 2 options. General or Evangelical Faith. General faith does not include hope in promises of grace.
Ashley
I'm
sorry... it may have only been the men of Israel that Peter was accusing.
In either case... you are adding the words "God-fearing" to the scripture, when it's not there. Much of your reasoning is built upon personal-private interpretation. This is the essence of confusion.
I prefer not to discuss this with you any longer. It's gone were I hoped it wouldn't. Thanks for your time.
sing
2126
eulabhv eulabes yoo-lab-ace'
from
2095 and 2983; TDNT - 2:751,275; adj
KJV
- devout 3; 3
1)
taking hold well
1a) carefully and surely
1b) cautiously
2)
reverencing God, pious, religious.
You may use the word 'devout' TO EXCLUDE the inherent idea of reverence for God. Your personal private PREFERENCE is perfectly alright with me.
sing
You said: "There's
no straw man here. You have 2 options. General or Evangelical Faith. General
faith does not include hope in promises of grace."
======
Abe
friend, DON'T be WILFULLY ignorant!
Abraham
had faith in God that did not experientially justify him PRIOR to Gen 15, and
Abraham had faith that did experientially justify him at Gen 15, and thereafter.
There is a faith in God that is the fruit of the Spirit as a result of regeneration, and there is a faith in Jesus Christ - the EVANGELICAL faith as the result of the euangelion preached, heard, and believed.
A biblical distinction
is the essence of sound theology.
Failure
to distinguish the two breeds confusion and errors.
Ashley
Hey
Sing, though
we disagree on much... I want you to know that I consider you a dear brother in
Christ. May the Lord's Spirit rest upon you. Grace and Peace be with you in
Jesus' name.
sing
Ditto. It
is ok to disagree... disagreement is to be expected because we are all at different stages of our understanding and learning. There are things that you
are ahead... and I want to learn from you.
It
is good to talk and discuss and exchange our present understanding of the
Scriptures. Mine is always subject to change... when I see a real problem with my
current interpretation. I just want to be honest with myself. If there is a real
objection or deficiency or inconsistencies with an interpretation, I will
abandon it for my own sake.
I
have abandoned lots of erroneous ideas... fed to me at the earlier years of my
following Christ. When I begin to study the Scriptures and ask questions, I
learn what the Scriptures say.
You are free to demonstrate the errors of my thoughts... I will take it as a kind favour from a brother.
Ashley
Are
you familiar with brother Leroy Rhodes. He has a lot of excellent old-school
baptist material. http://www.mountzionpbc.org/
Ashley
Hey
Sing, I
deleted you from my friends shortly after our last discussion... I consider some
of the doctrines you are teaching to be dangerous and destructive. I
do not want these doctrines linked into my page through your name:
1.
The denial of the absolute sovereignty of God over all things
2.
The teachings of conditional time salvation
I'm
not interested in any further arguing or discussing these doctrines with you.
Ashley 8/17/10,
5:46 PM
That's
quite ok. Go your way. The world is wide enough for you and me to travel on
different roads. All said with honesty and sincerity.
May
the Lord of heaven bless you richly.
Yes, God is also sovereign in your decision to DE-friend me! It has nothing to do with your choice. It was also God's sovereign will when you befriended me.
1. I believe there are many things that come
under God's providential dealings, and they are conditional upon man's
response.
-
To me, your idea of absolute sovereign DENIES the proper and biblical place for
the human responsibility of God's children!
2.
I do believe that the salvation I am commanded to work out for myself with fear
and trembling is conditioned upon my obedience to God's will and that the
nature of that salvation is DISTINCTLY different from the nature of the salvation
that Christ has secured for me, and that God has applied it to me by His free
and sovereign grace.
Thanks. God bless you richly.
Ashley
I
understand your concerns.
I
hold to rivers of water sovereignty. It is laid out in Prov 21:1. It leaves
room for human responsibility as much as the river flows according to it's own
flow. But, God turns and directs all events for his purpose. However, he does
not push the water of man's will when he sins. He only directs it as He
pleases. Consider David and Bathsheeba. If they never sinned, Solomon would
have never existed and Christ would have never been born through Solomon's line
of genealogy.
Every
event that led to David's son was carefully governed by God to bring it about,
as it is laid out in the scriptures. It was not a result of chance or free will.
It was a turn of events from the LORD.
Consider,
the detail that is involved to ensure the marriage of man and a woman and the
detail that is involved to ensure the birth of their child. One slight
alteration of events can lead to someone's death and their offspring does not
exist. All events are governed by God to bring about the physical birth of all
his children in this world. I'm often reminded of how my wife and I met. We
would have never met if certain thoughts and events never took place and if we
never met are very children would never have existed.
I
actually almost died about 1 month before the wedding. Actually, I should have
died. Who survives a head-on collision into a giant Bus?
I hope that clarifies my understanding. Blessings
[sing: "But, God turns and directs all events for his purpose." So God did ordain that David commit the sin of adultery.
sing
Thanks
for your explanation.
It
was God's absolute sovereignty that turned and directed you into that head-on
collision with the giant bus... and it is also His same sovereignty that kept
you alive and to reproduce! I do understand! We can attribute everything to God...
god, bad, evil... because it is He who directs and turns all events!
I
understand you loud and clear.
same
blessings to you
Ashley
Consider
the crucifixion of Christ, if he was not put to death by the wicked hands of
men, you and I would go to hell as souls that know nothing of His cleansing
blood. The most horrific sin that ever happened was a part of God's plan. It
doesn't get any worse than the sin of crucifying Jesus Christ. Yet, this was
ordained in God's plan. If you deny this, you have to resort to open theism and
teach that God does not know the freewill actions of men, for if you
acknowledge that He does know them... you face the same problems that you have
with absolute sovereignty. For everything that God foreknows shall most surely
come to pass and there is nothing you can do to alter what He foreknows shall
come to pass.
However,
I deny that God looks into the crystal ball of the future and sees things.
Rather, I affirm that He knows all things because He has ordained all things.
Ashley
I
believe your view must practically lead to a form of semi-open theism. Namely,
that God does not foresee the freewill actions of men.
Consider this... if he does foresee them... How can a man be free to do anything other than what God foresees. He can't do anything other than what God foresees unless you deny that God foresees his actions.
[sing: I. that's just circular and illogical reasoning. How are the two - man's free agency and God's foreseeing - even related? ii "He can't do anything other than what God foresees" - that's a form of fatalism, what a man does has been fixed and determined by God! iii. God's foreseeing man's action is NOT because God has foreordained his actions; it is because of His divine attribute of omniscience and foreknowledge.]
sing 8/18/10,
1:02 AM
Abe,
slow down a little, please. One should not speak more than he listens.
God did ordain the death of Christ for the redemption of His people. God knows every act of man... but He DOES NOT turn and direct man to do it. They freely and willingly do what they do.
In
His work of providence, He sovereignly PERMITS things to happen, and He
sovereignly PREVENTS things from happening. He did not foreordain what a man
will and will not do. That's FATALISM. He doesn't need to do that. He is sovereign... and the
free will of man is no threat to a real Sovereign God who is the ruler and
governor over all His creatures.
In His work of eternal redemption, He actively CAUSES things to happen for the elect.
"For
everything that God foreknows shall most surely come to pass and there is
nothing you can do to alter what He foreknows shall come to pass."
I
think you meant "God foreordains".
So,
God foreordained things like you befriending and defriending some people, and
you do it because God has foreordained you to do it. [sarcasm intended!]
Real sovereignty has no fear of all the free will of man! Whatever free will of man can and will do, the Sovereign Lord rules supreme.
You said, "Consider this... if he does foresee them... How can man be free to do anything other than what God foresees. He can't do anything other than what God foresees unless you deny that God foresees his actions."
Either
you use the word 'foresee' wrongly, or your reasoning is illogical.
He foresees because He is Omniscient. He does not need to foreordain in order to know beforehand.
Ashley8/18/10, 1:24 AM
How
can future events possibly be foreknown that have not occurred if they are not
ordained? Much more, how can the freewill actions of man be foreknown if they
are not ordained?
Do explain how God can foresee the actions of man's will? How can the future actions of man's be foreknown? Does God have mystical powers to look ahead into time?
Furthermore, was David's sin with Bathsheeba part of God's plan or not? Was Solomon's birth part of God's sovereign plan or not? If you say no to the first, you must answer no to the second, for one event lead to the other.
If you answer no to such sinful events which bring about human births, then you must affirm that multitudes of children that came through fornication are a complete accident in God's plan... and the elect among them are also a complete accident in God's plan.
Ashley
I
agree with the language of Permit and Prevent when I speak of God's
providence... But, I believe all the actions of man's will are actively
permitted and prevented by God to accomplish His sovereign plan. God doesn't
need to push a man to do sinful actions. That is all we can do, when left to
ourselves... But God is able to prevent the sinful action and permit another
sinful action... thus all sinful actions are determined and foreordained in as
much as they are foreknown. God only can foresee what He Himself ordains to
come to pass in His providence through what He actively permits and prevents.
Every sinful event in history is a turn of events from the LORD as He prevented
anything otherwise and permitted exactly what occurred.
sing 8/18/10, 12:29 PM
Abe, the sovereignty that permits and prevents REMOVES and NEGATES the necessity to
predetermine and foreordain SINFUL and WICKED actions of man. Your view effectively and necessarily makes God the author of sins; "thus all sinful actions are determined and foreordained [by God, of course] in as much as they are foreknown."
The
Sovereign Creator and Lord of heaven DO NOT need to foreordain the wicked and
sinful actions of men.
He did foreordain and cause to come to pass ALL THINGS related to our eternal redemption because if He did not, then it wouldn't come to past, and there would be no redemption for His elect people.
All other things PERTAIN to this temporal life here on earth and they are in the reality of God's providence.
sing
You asked, "Do
explain how God can foresee the actions of man's will? How can the future
actions of man's be foreknown? Does God have mystical powers to look ahead into
time?" =========
He is God. Is that too simple? Now, I see where the difficulty lies - your conception of God... i.e. if He doesn't foreordain man's actions, then He wouldn't be able to foresee what's coming!
Oh, what a pathetic conception of God!
Ashley
God
ceases to be God to so many children who came into existence as a result of
fornication. You must teach that the sin was a mere effect of man's free will
and that it was not the result of God's determinate counsel and foreordination.
Your view makes these poor children a result of man's stumbling free will and
not a result of God's determinate counsel.
I noticed how you did not address my statements about David and Bathsheeba. That is where your view falls apart and makes God into a spectator of history.
Furthermore,
your view falls apart with prayer. Any prayer which needs a turning of specific
actions of men... cannot be answered by God.
You will say... Why pray? Pray because God commands us to and he ordains it in His wisdom to reveal His power.
sing 8/18/10, 5:47 PM
You said, "God
ceases to be God to so many children who came into existence as a result of
fornication. You must teach that the sin was a mere effect of man's free will
and that it was not the result of God's determinate counsel and foreordination.
Your view makes these poor children a result of man's stumbling free will and
not a result of God's determinate counsel."
That's
what you say.
Abe, in communication, learns to speak for yourself. There is no need to be a busy body, putting your words in someone else's mouth. If you cannot do that, please leave me alone! Why don't you learn to speak for yourself?
If
you want to draw a certain conclusion from what I have written, then you are free
to demonstrate that such and such implications are NECESSARY and inherent... If
they are true, then I will acknowledge them, but if they are not true, I will tell
you that your conclusion is perverse.
I
really don't think you reason well!
I
have shown you that your reasoning is based on a pathetic conception of God. If
you disagree, then prove that I am wrong.
So, how do my views fall apart in prayers? Why is any prayer which needs a turning of specific actions of men... cannot be answered by God? Why? On what basis is your silly and puerile statement? What have I written that makes you draw such a conclusion?
Cease, Abe. You are a grief to the soul... spouting silly and baseless things. That's not the way to discuss things.
Ashley
Hey
Sing, Please
forgive me for putting words into your mouth. It was not my desire to offend
you. I stand firm on my convictions and I consider your words of my view being
"pathetic" to be a suitable language for someone wanting to bully
others and not someone wanting to reason from scripture. Have a good day and
goodbye.
sing 8/19/10,
1:00 PM
Your
idea of God is indeed pathetic and
I did give you a reason why I say so...
Your
view of God is that if He DID NOT foreordain an event, He will not be able to
foresee it... as though some event will take Him by surprise!
Isn't
that your idea of God?
The Chinese do not say goodbye to their friends. We say, "meet you again".
You have a good day too!
Ashley 8/19/10,
2:09 PM
I
base my statement upon the reality of things that exist. I don't believe that
things can be known that do not exist. Future events are known of God because
his will to bring them to pass exists. I do not believe things can be known
that do not exist. I don't believe scripture defines God's foreknowledge on
some mysterious power that God can know things that don't even exist. I don't
find that in scripture. If you pity what I say, at best you are expressing your
emotions and they have no value to me in interpreting the scripture. I shall
see you again. Life is a vapor and passing moment. May the Lord grant grace to
His sheep. Blessings
sing 8/19/10,
5:55 PM
"I
base my statement upon the reality of things that exist. I don't believe that
things can be known that do not exist."
This
is EXACTLY and PRECISELY your problem!
When you did not exist, God already knew your name, and have written in the Book of Life! Go figure out! Your idea is more suited to that of a finite man! You are basing your idea on fiction... not reality!
Ashley 8/20/10,
4:21 AM
I
exist because of the will of God. As far back as the will of God existed, I
existed through His counsels, though I did not yet exist physically or
spiritually. I don't believe God can foresee anything that does not exist
through his will... because such things don't exist otherwise and things that
don't exist cannot be foreknown. Your view is based on human mysticism and not
scripture.
Sing,
I'm done going in circles with you. I enjoy some discussions we have... but,
seem too easily offended if I misrepresent you and it comes across as
impatience. I'm done. See you when I see you.
sing 8/20/10,
5:44 PM
Next
time going in squares <grin>. In
discussion, it is necessary to understand the view you don't agree with and then
represent it correctly before you try to dismantle it. How can one dismantle
something he has not understood!
Ashley 8/21/10,
4:07 AM
There
is no need to restudy a view I once held to and now rejected. There is also
times when one has not fully considered and come to the implications of their
own view.
sing 8/21/10,
9:34 AM
I
restudy all the time... especially when a valid objection is raised against a
view.
Ashley 8/21/10,
12:18 PM
Excellent...
There is some doctrines which I'll restudy... But there are others I have
tossed into the dunghill.
I'm willing to listen to your scriptural reasoning and search the scriptures that you present. I haven't heard it though. Blessings
sing 8/21/10,
12:43 PM
It
depends on what doctrines and who has tossed them onto the dunghill.
I have found some pure doctrines that were tossed unto the dunghill by the 'calvinists' and the
reformed people.
So, let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Ashley 8/21/10,
1:58 PM
Calvinism
is not my creed.
I
held my first baby in my arms and kissed him goodbye after he died. I
embrace God's absolute sovereignty as the foundation of all my comfort in my
trials.
sing
Did
I say that it is your creed???????
Calvinists
claim the same thing - absolute sovereignty and double predestination and all
that! Sorry
to hear about the loss of their first baby.
I
would have said, "see you again" instead of 'goodbye'!
Ashley 8/21/10,
3:32 PM
Goodbye in English is a saying of peaceful departure... Though to some it can mean
I'll never see you again... But, I trust that I shall see my Son Isaac again. Blessings
sing 11/22/10, 8:36 AM
Blessed
many times over by your kindness.
Dear
Abe, I am so glad we could be friend again.
I
love you as a dear brother in the Lord.
I
am glad that I am able to read some of your postings now.
Thank
you very much.
sing
in the far east south seas
Ashley 5/4/11,
9:49 AM
Hey
Sing, sorry about the comments being disabled on my wall. My facebook is acting
strange today and I can't figure out why the commenting was disabled for you
and Dennis. I'm also receiving friend requests from people who are already on
my friend list.
sing 5/4/11,
10:06 AM
Brother
Abe, no offense taken. I
noticed some difficulties too.
Ashley 2/26/13,
2:58 AM
Sing, It
is not my intention to reason from Hebrews 7:28 that "who is consecrated
for evermore" means from eternity. My argument is on the phrase "the
word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son" and how this
relates to verse 17 and 26 of Hebrews 7.
The
word of the Oath is "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec." (vs. 17) To whom was the word of the oath made "the
Son" (vs. 28) This High Priest became us. "such an high priest became
us" (vs. 26)
He
did not become High Priest upon becoming us, rather He fulfilled His work as
High Priest in becoming us and making reconciliation for the sins of the
people. Did this High Priest become the Son of God or did the High Priest as
the Son of God become us? As the word of the Oath is to the Son and as High
Priest He became us, it is therefore evident that the Son of God became us.
This is contrary to the notion that The Word became the Son of God. Again verse
26 is at the heart of my argument "such an high priest became us."
This
is not contrary to the necessity for the High Priest to become us. It is
necessary for the High Priest to die for us. As it is absurd to conclude that
He became High Priest when He died for us, so also it is absurd to conclude
that He became High Priest when He became us. His becoming us and dying for us
are necessary to His office as High Priest. But, these do not make Him the High
Priest. The word of the Oath makes the Son the High Priest. This Oath is made
to the Word as the Son of God and such an High Priest became us.
It is evident from scripture that the soul of our Lord was poured out unto death. He died as a man for men, as the Son of Man for the sons of men. His eternal spirit did not perish, but was commended to His Father.
"Thou
shalt make his soul an offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:10)
"He
hath poured out his soul unto death" (Isaiah 53:12)
"Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit." (Like 23:46)
"He
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the
Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)
Faith unto salvation is a belief on the Son. The peace of eternal life is
ministered unto a belief in Christ as the Son. The faith of Abel and the faith
of all the people of God was on the Son. To teach the Son of God is not eternal
is to teach that He came into existence and therefore was created. This is a
denial of His Sonship altogether and no small error.
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:16-18)
sing 2/26/13,
9:37 AM
Thanks, Abraham. You are a good brother.
You
believe in an eternally begotten Son.
I
believe in an INCARNATED Son.
You
believe in the eternally begotten Son who died...
I
believe in the INCARNATED Son.
You
begin with the eternally begotten Son and understand everything else through that
premise.
I read the Scriptures and don't see any trace of the Son until the second Person of the eternal Godhead, the Word was made flesh.
It
is ok... you are convinced of what you believe to be the truth.
I'm
persuaded to believe what is the truth at the present time.
Thanks...
none of us will lose or eternal salvation even if we are both wrong!!!
Thanks.
good Brother!
Ashley 2/27/13,
4:28 AM
Brother
Sing, I receive you as a dear and beloved brother in Christ and it pains me to
distance myself from your ministry, but I consider errors concerning the person
of Christ to be harmful.
I do not (as some) teach that God the Word had a human soul before the incarnation. I do not believe in an eternally "begotten" Son, but an eternal Son. "Son of Man" refers to His incarnation and "Son of God" refers to His equality with the Father. His equality with the Father is His nature from eternity and therefore I hold to eternal Sonship. the Father's begetting of Him refers to His incarnation as the Son of Man with a human soul that was poured out unto death at the Cross.
I begin with the context of scripture and seek to understand from this premise.
In Colossians 1, the same "He" that is "the head of the body" is "before all things" and "all things were created by him." The context refers to Him as Father's "dear Son" (vs. 13) and "the image of the invisible God" (vs.15). I understand "Son of God" to mean "the image of the invisible God" and I do not believe His image as a person of the God head was made to exist in the incarnation, rather He (as the Son) is from eternity. God made the world by His Son "...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
Errors that alter the person of Christ can affect our growth in time and must be considered serious though no error is so great as to disable God's promise to preserve and redeem His own. I appreciate your openness to discuss this subject and welcome your reasoning. But, I don't appreciate misrepresentation and would only ask for your careful consideration. Grace be and Peace be with you.
sing 2/27/13,
7:55 AM
Dear
Brother Abe, you
need to believe what seems right in your understanding, and I will do the same.
If
you wish that the Son is eternally begotten, please do so.
I believe
the Son is the eternal Word made flesh in time.
The
Word is divine; the Son is the Word made flesh, divine, and human. That's the
biblical foundation.
If
you wish to disagree with that biblical premise, you should think thrice...
Thanks for your brotherly concern all the same!
