Ephesians 2:8 salvation is the gift

[civic]

@civic

What I do agree with you on, in this statement, is this: living where we do at the end of the last days of the last times, we have certain advantages over others, by the fact we get to carefully consider many writings of others that have gone on before us, and creeds which I would not say well crafted as you have said, for the Nicene Creed is against God's testimony of His truth concerning His Son.

You said: "Good theology is an invitation to look deeper into the things we believe" ~ civic, it is not good theology if it denies the the truth of Jesus being the I AM THAT I AM of Genesis 1:1. Eternal generation, or eternally begotten does just that!

Btw civic, I still would like for you to address my posit #133, 134 concerning questions and reasons I reject the eternal Sonship position.

I agree, and neither side rejects Jesus as being he Son of God, we disagree as far as knowing when he became the Son of God, for then and only then, do we see if one truly holds to Jesus being just whom the scriptures declares him to be: The God of Genesis 1:1, the Word, which was God in the beginning "without any" qualifications, or modification whatsoever. Even though without any qualifications, we do come to the knowledge of this truth by giving the scriptures their proper sense concerning the two complex natures of Christ.

God's purposes ae eternal, yet that does not make either Jesus, or us eternal even though grace was given to us before the foundation of the world.

You do not need to assume something you cannot proves and certainly cannot explain. But what we both can do, is believe the record God has provided for us concerning the conception and birth of his Son, Jesus of Narareth. It is very simple for me to see and understand, and it should be for you as well. God's record protects Jesus' deity as the I AM THAT I AM. The trinity you are so desperately trying to protect, does not exist. God the Father is a Spirit, period! God the Son is the Godman, fully God, fully man. Now, let me ask you this question, Where does this leave the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost in your theology? I'll wait on your answer before giving you a biblical answer. Pretty sure your side can never give a sound biblical answer to that question, but I'll see.

As far as being a Son of God he had a beginning, yet as far as Jesus' deity, being the God of Genesis 1:1 he had NO BEBINNING he's eternal both ways! Again, address these points that I provided above:





I say no, truth is truth, and if taught the way the word of God teaches us, then Jesus' deity is well protected as being the Mighty God as prophesied by Isaiah to come. Isaiah 9:6.

Coming back to address more of your posit.

We can end this really quickly.

Do you believe the Trinity is 3 Divine Persons ? Yes or no

Name those 3 Persons and remember They are not each other that’s modalism.

 

[Redemption]

God did not "play tricks" with us in hiding the Identity of the Lord.

He did make it a Mystery and as the Mystery it is, HE hid the Name above all names in "plain sight" in the Scriptures.

God loves to prepare mysteries and hidden treasures in His word = only for us who desire more of God

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. - Prov 25:2

Shalom

Very good. Very good indeed.

If the full identity of our Lord was laid out for all to see then I believe scripture verses sus as "We walk by faith and not by sight" and "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" would be superfluous because there would be no reason to
search because it would all be spelled out.

2 Tim 2:15 says.... Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If it is all spelled out for us, what would need to be rightly dividing the word of truth.

I may be misunderstanding the reason you posted as you did, but it is what I perceive you meant.

No, God does not play tricks hiding the identity of the Lord, but I do believe he wants us to want the knowledge that he has
provided in the bible and not just make it easy for us.

He made it easy for Adam and he blew it.

 

[civic]

@civic

What I do agree with you on, in this statement, is this: living where we do at the end of the last days of the last times, we have certain advantages over others, by the fact we get to carefully consider many writings of others that have gone on before us, and creeds which I would not say well crafted as you have said, for the Nicene Creed is against God's testimony of His truth concerning His Son.

You said: "Good theology is an invitation to look deeper into the things we believe" ~ civic, it is not good theology if it denies the the truth of Jesus being the I AM THAT I AM of Genesis 1:1. Eternal generation, or eternally begotten does just that!

Btw civic, I still would like for you to address my posit #133, 134 concerning questions and reasons I reject the eternal Sonship position.

I agree, and neither side rejects Jesus as being he Son of God, we disagree as far as knowing when he became the Son of God, for then and only then, do we see if one truly holds to Jesus being just whom the scriptures declares him to be: The God of Genesis 1:1, the Word, which was God in the beginning "without any" qualifications, or modification whatsoever. Even though without any qualifications, we do come to the knowledge of this truth by giving the scriptures their proper sense concerning the two complex natures of Christ.

God's purposes ae eternal, yet that does not make either Jesus, or us eternal even though grace was given to us before the foundation of the world.

You do not need to assume something you cannot proves and certainly cannot explain. But what we both can do, is believe the record God has provided for us concerning the conception and birth of his Son, Jesus of Narareth. It is very simple for me to see and understand, and it should be for you as well. God's record protects Jesus' deity as the I AM THAT I AM. The trinity you are so desperately trying to protect, does not exist. God the Father is a Spirit, period! God the Son is the Godman, fully God, fully man. Now, let me ask you this question, Where does this leave the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost in your theology? I'll wait on your answer before giving you a biblical answer. Pretty sure your side can never give a sound biblical answer to that question, but I'll see.

As far as being a Son of God he had a beginning, yet as far as Jesus' deity, being the God of Genesis 1:1 he had NO BEBINNING he's eternal both ways! Again, address these points that I provided above:





I say no, truth is truth, and if taught the way the word of God teaches us, then Jesus' deity is well protected as being the Mighty God as prophesied by Isaiah to come. Isaiah 9:6.

Coming back to address more of your posit.

We clearly see the Father in the O.T.

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

And the Son

Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like the son of god

Psalm 2:12
Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended into heaven and descended?Who has gathered the wind in His fists?Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?Who has established all the ends of the earth?What is His name or His son’s name?

 

[Redemption]

@Red Baker, @civic

This discussion from both sides appears to be as much a squabble in semantics as a theological study of the nature of God who is Spirit.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God [Hebrew - eloheem] created the heavens and the earth". One can do a study on the actual meaning and usage of that Hebrew word in Scripture. And there are many of those. Having read some of these in the past but not so much recently, it seems to me that again it becomes a study in semantics. Similarly is the study of the meaning of "begotten" son. The word begotten, from the verb "to beget" in its basic meaning indicates a beginning. It means to cause, to produce, to bring into being, all of which would deny eternal existence which clearly is counter to who and what is intended in a description of the Lord and Savior, the Messiah.

This was the point I was making. The word begotten, from the verb "to beget". And how many times we read so and so begat so and so who begat and so on....

But it is so easy to not just confuse meanings and reasonings when myriads of people redefine what a given word should be.

I just , while looking for something else, read this from Ai....The Father and the Son are both considered co-eternal in Christian theology, meaning they exist together without a beginning or end. The concept of "begotten" does not imply that the Son was created or came after the Father; rather, it signifies a unique relationship within the Trinity that does not affect their eternal coexistence.

Would this also mean, that every time we read a begat, that it is not necessarily a genealogical flow?

Now.. don't jump on me for that... but if they have altered what we always thought begat and begotten from beget means for one, certainly we can alter it for all and wowzers... what a translation that could make with all new commentaries most likely from Ai.

Thus, it seems to me that using the words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really only identifiers, not absolute descriptors of God of the Bible. And it also seems to me to be foolish to try to explain absolutely the meaning of "Triune God" using physical terms with physical meanings, if only because in the absolute sense THREE is not ONE. But nevertheless, there is ONE God, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are indeed established in the scriptures as three different and distinct spiritual beings operating independently if yet in absolute conformity and unity. Here again we run into a semantics problem assigning the word "being" which we can understand only in a physically experiential sense to the spiritual realm.

 

[Jim]

This was the point I was making. The word begotten, from the verb "to beget". And how many times we read so and so begat so and so who begat and so on....

But it is so easy to not just confuse meanings and reasonings when myriads of people redefine what a given word should be.

I just , while looking for something else, read this from Ai....The Father and the Son are both considered co-eternal in Christian theology, meaning they exist together without a beginning or end. The concept of "begotten" does not imply that the Son was created or came after the Father; rather, it signifies a unique relationship within the Trinity that does not affect their eternal coexistence.

Would this also mean, that every time we read a begat, that it is not necessarily a genealogical flow?

Now.. don't jump on me for that... but if they have altered what we always thought begat and begotten from beget means for one, certainly we can alter it for all and wowzers... what a translation that could make with all new commentaries most likely from Ai.

It is my own personal belief that "The Son" is strictly a reference to Jesus being born as a man through the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit and taking on the flesh of human beings. The being of the pre-incarnate Jesus is more acurately reflected in John's opening verse of his gospel with the "Word".

But that is just me.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jim

Similarly is the study of the meaning of "begotten" son. The word begotten, from the verb "to beget" in its basic meaning indicates a beginning. It means to cause, to produce, to bring into being, all of which would deny eternal existence which clearly is counter to who and what is intended in a description of the Lord and Savior, the Messiah.

That's my main argument with those who hold to eternal begotten theory of Jesus Christ.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jim

It is my own personal belief that "The Son" is strictly a reference to Jesus being born as a man through the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit and taking on the flesh of human beings. The being of the pre-incarnate Jesus is more acurately reflected in John's opening verse of his gospel with the "Word".

But that is just me.

 

[Jim]

@Jim

That's my main argument with those who hold to eternal begotten theory of Jesus Christ.

I tend to agree with that. It doesn't take away from the eternal existence of the Messiah.

 

[DavidTree]

It is my own personal belief that "The Son" is strictly a reference to Jesus being born as a man through the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit and taking on the flesh of human beings. The being of the pre-incarnate Jesus is more acurately reflected in John's opening verse of his gospel with the "Word".

But that is just me.

Me too

 

[Redemption]

It is my own personal belief that "The Son" is strictly a reference to Jesus being born as a man through the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit and taking on the flesh of human beings. The being of the pre-incarnate Jesus is more acurately reflected in John's opening verse of his gospel with the "Word".

But that is just me.

No, it is not just you.

This is what I was trying to say to @civic. But in a lengthier post.

It certainly does not take anything away from the Trinity, or Jesus as our Savior, but makes, to me at least, fit more pieces into things and shows an incredible ability for the magnificent Spirit that He is.

The trouble is. Man, in general has not the ability to see beyond what he himself dreams up as being the only possibility, hence the verbal road blocks.

Thanks for posting so concise


the ver

 

[Redemption]

Me too

We are up to 3 of us.

 

[civic]

I just , while looking for something else, read this from Ai....The Father and the Son are both considered co-eternal in Christian theology, meaning they exist together without a beginning or end. The concept of "begotten" does not imply that the Son was created or came after the Father; rather, it signifies a unique relationship within the Trinity that does not affect their eternal coexistence.

This is Trinity 101- the Eternal Co-Equal existence of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit- Always has been always will be. This is the relational/family aspect of the Tri-Unity of the 3 Eternal Persons of the Godhead. The love between the Father, Son,Holy Spirit- God is love. This love being expressed within the Father, Son, Holy Spirit relationship. Its an Eternal One, Unchanging.

 

[civic]

And you will notice how precise Jesus and the Apostles are in the N.T.

It never says Jesus was sent by the Father or the Word was sent by the Father- What is says in more than a dozen places is the Father sent the Son or God ( meaning the Father ) sent the Son into this world, the Son came down from heaven- this verbiage is used to express the Pre existence of the Son prior to the Incarnation. He is the Eternal Son, the Son of God and the Ancient of Days- the Son of man.

hope this helps !!!

 

[DavidTree]

@Redemption @civic

You will notice that i AGREE with both from these scriptural perspectives:

a.) BEFORE the Word became flesh, HE is the Lord of the OT speaking, the One who walked in the Garden with Adam & Eve,
the IAM who spoke to Moses

b.) John 1:14 - And the Word became 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.

c.) There was no incarnate 'Christ' until the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary = Luke ch1

d.) Genesis immediately establishes THREE in chapter 1 which the Foundation of Truth that was revealed to the Apostle John and thus how and what and whom John begins his Gospel in chapter 1.

e.) Genesis lays down the irrefutable Truth of Elohim/Plural beginning in chapter 1 and then giving the allegorical Truth of 'Who' the THREE are in Elohenu Abraham Elohenu Isaac Elohenu Jacob = all in Genesis

f.) TWO Dynamics:
a.) the Eternal Elohim as Word/Spirit
b.) Later = the Eternal Elohim as only begotten Son = Lord Jesus Christ

 

[DavidTree]

@Redemption post 174 has been UPdated

 

[civic]

@Redemption @civic

You will notice that i AGREE with both from these scriptural perspectives:

a.) BEFORE the Word became flesh, HE is the Lord of the OT speaking, the One who walked in the Garden with Adam & Eve,
the IAM who spoke to Moses

b.) John 1:14 - And the Word became 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.

c.) There was no incarnate 'Christ' until the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary = Luke ch1

d.) Genesis immediately establishes THREE in chapter 1 which the Foundation of Truth that was revealed to the Apostle John and thus how and what and whom John begins his Gospel in chapter 1.

e.) Genesis lays down the irrefutable Truth of Elohim/Plural beginning in chapter 1 and then giving the allegorical Truth of 'Who' the THREE are in Elohenu Abraham Elohenu Isaac Elohenu Jacob = all in Genesis

f.) TWO Dynamics:
a.) the Eternal Elohim as Word/Spirit
b.) Later = the Eternal Elohim as only begotten Son = Lord Jesus Christ

But the Word in John 1:1 is the same as the Son who was in heaven and sent by the Father to this earth. The Son is the Word and the Word is the Son before the Incarnation, before creation. The 2nd Person of the Trinity is the Son/ Word who was with God. John 1:1 and John 17:1,5 are the exact same reference before creation showing relationship of the Son/ Word with God/ the Father

 

[civic]

@Redemption @civic

You will notice that i AGREE with both from these scriptural perspectives:

a.) BEFORE the Word became flesh, HE is the Lord of the OT speaking, the One who walked in the Garden with Adam & Eve,
the IAM who spoke to Moses

b.) John 1:14 - And the Word became 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.

c.) There was no incarnate 'Christ' until the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary = Luke ch1

d.) Genesis immediately establishes THREE in chapter 1 which the Foundation of Truth that was revealed to the Apostle John and thus how and what and whom John begins his Gospel in chapter 1.

e.) Genesis lays down the irrefutable Truth of Elohim/Plural beginning in chapter 1 and then giving the allegorical Truth of 'Who' the THREE are in Elohenu Abraham Elohenu Isaac Elohenu Jacob = all in Genesis

f.) TWO Dynamics:
a.) the Eternal Elohim as Word/Spirit
b.) Later = the Eternal Elohim as only begotten Son = Lord Jesus Christ

You could add Son to a above and I’m onboard

 

[DavidTree]

But the Word in John 1:1 is the same as the Son who was in heaven and sent by the Father to this earth. The Son is the Word and the Word is the Son before the Incarnation, before creation. The 2nd Person of the Trinity is the Son/ Word who was with God. John 1:1 and John 17:1,5 are the exact same reference before creation showing relationship of the Son/ Word with God/ the Father

Correct

And thus why Elohim establishes, in Genesis(Beginning), Abraham/FATHER, Isaac/the Promised SON, Jacob/Holy Spirit

Also we have this from Revelation 13:8

This is interpreted two ways:

a.) All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

b.) All the inhabitants of the earth will fall down and worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb who has been slain [as a willing sacrifice].

Some claim Christ was already slain "from the foundation of the world"

We know that Christ was not slain twice = Hebrews ch9

 

[DavidTree]

You could add Son to a above and I’m onboard

be specific = add 'Son' to which specific statement in my post??? - thank you

 

[DavidTree]

@Redemption

Which part of my post was 'funny' ???