Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Must One Believe the Doctrine of the Trinity in Order to be Saved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by apostoli View Post

    How is the Son son if he was not begotten? Please explain...
    There is no doubt that the Son of God is. And that He is often called the "only begotten." At issue is the fact that nowhere does the holy scripture suggest that the Son of God became the Son of God at any time. Being that He always was the Son of God. [Eternal Sonship. Isaiah 9:6 so implies.] Since "begotten" refers to a time, He was not begotten in order to become the Son of God. Now the term "begotten" is in fact used referring to God's Son. "Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee," from the second Psalm. He was already the Son prior to being "begotten." And it is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33).
    Last edited by 37818; 04-05-2014, 02:23 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • I will be going back to answer other comments . . .

      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      It is good we finally found agreement on something. However, your KJV quotation of John 3:13 causes some concern. A significant number of translations render "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man". The difference comes down to manuscript evidence, both have major support. However, the first advocates phantasm, a major problem in the early church (ie: Jesus was not God in the flesh, but a mere simulation, not real in any real sense).
      The church at large for over past 1800 years has used the "version" of John which as the longer reading until the 19th century. Over 99% of the manuscripts of John has that reading. ". . . [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." So according to all the modern versions which omit this reading the church at large was wrong for over 1400 years.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        Not just children on that one. Mind you, what people will say under duress and what they believe may not match well.
        Agreed!!!

        What I consider an interesting, if not amusing, personal experience: I was about eight years old when I made my first holy communion. My mum was quite a severe fanatic (apparently she intended to become a nun before she met my father). Anyway, when I had my first holy communion I had a severe physical reaction, which my mother initially interpreted as me being filled with the Holy Spirit (my mother wasn't particularly bright). After a time, and the recurrence of my reactions to accepting the host my mother took me to the priest (well I just might have been Satan possessed and what I was experiencing was Satan's rejection of Christ), and he told her to take me to the doctor. Turned out I had a food allergy to gluten.

        The relevance: Parents are not always right, and might be self deceived. Problem: Parents have a tendency to try to force on children their own convictions. Solution: ???

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          There is no doubt that the Son of God is. And that He is often called the "only begotten." At issue is the fact that nowhere does the holy scripture suggest that the Son of God became the Son of God at any time. Being that He always was the Son of God. [Eternal Sonship. Isaiah 9:6 so implies.] Since "begotten" refers to a time, He was not begotten in order to become the Son of God. Now the term "begotten" is in fact used referring to God's Son. "Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee," from the second Psalm. He was already the Son prior to being "begotten." And it is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33).
          The Arians fed on your line of reasoning and got a lot of mileage out of it (though they were arguing from the extreme opposite side of your extreme proposition). The fact remains (the Trinitarian argument) that if the Son was not begotten he is not true Son. If he is not true Son then he has no natural right to the inheritance (eternal life) that we (the church, as the bride of Christ) are promised we will share in.

          Theology is a complex matter. To argue appropriately you need to look at all the angles...not just focus on some arbitrary personal obsession...

          ps: "Begotten" does not refer to a time but to an event!!!

          pss: If you investigated Jewish custom/tradition you'd find out that there were numerous "rebirths" a person experienced during his lifetime. This is why Nicodemus was so confused by Jesus' words in John 3. Nic had experienced all the rebirths (to be reborn) that were open to him. Not being of the royal line he was precluded from becoming the king of Israel.

          Now a range of heresies popped up in the first century and second century. These all viewed Jesus as just a man especially endowed with the Holy Spirit. So these guys interpretation of "begotten" was in terms of acquisition - thus God acquired the son either at his birth, baptism or resurrection. These three views and the Arian view, and your view would have the son being not a son but an acquisition, an employee/slave...
          Last edited by apostoli; 04-05-2014, 10:21 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by apostoli
            Based on 37818's previous excursions into a range of Heresies, I assume he holds that John 3:13 is telling us that the Son simultaneously resided in heaven and on earth (though seeing he says he admits to the teaching of Chalcedon = that the Son is a singular hypostasis (person) who possesses two physes, that might be an unfair observation of mine).
            In my opinion, it's the Chalcedon people who tend to be most likely to promote the idea that Jesus was "omnipresent" even while on earth. I personally think that concept is stupid.

            And for the record, I agree with 37818 that Jesus was probably not the Son of God until his incarnation. Call me a tritheist if you want. I don't care. Whether it's true or false, the eternal sonship is not found in the Bible.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              In my opinion, it's the Chalcedon people who tend to be most likely to promote the idea that Jesus was "omnipresent" even while on earth. I personally think that concept is stupid.
              I've never come across any one that acknowledges Chalcedon who proposes that the Son was simultaneously in heaven and on earth. In fact, should you do some investigation you would find that Chalcedon's decrees would refute such a proposition as the teaching holds there was a single hypostasis (person) constituted of two physes (natures ie: activity that indicates inherent ousia). A simplistic example: To my parents (who are now dead) I had the nature of a Son, to my children I have the nature of a parent yet despite these different characters I remain me, a singular hypostasis.

              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              And for the record, I agree with 37818 that Jesus was probably not the Son of God until his incarnation. Call me a tritheist if you want. I don't care. Whether it's true or false, the eternal sonship is not found in the Bible.
              ? So who are you siding with? The Arians who held the Logos was a creation. albeit created but unlike all other creation as perfect God? Or someone like a Christadelphian (or like splinter groups) who hold that Jesus was just a man like any other until either his baptism or resurrection? (I know a Christadelphian leader who is very happy to acknowledge that Jesus became God after his resurrection).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                Call me a tritheist if you want. I don't care. Whether it's true or false, the eternal sonship is not found in the Bible.
                What about John 1:1? You're Saying you disagree that "logos" denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ? Or are you just being so overly critical that
                you're asserting Christ was only given the title, "Son of God" when He was born? I'm pretty sure (not really, I'm positive) scripture is clear that the only thing Christ became through physical birth was "Son of Man," but that is because He was subjected to the nature of Man, thus becoming a "was." Remember, He is, John 8:57-58 should help you understand, Abraham rejoiced to see the days of the Son of God, not the days of "something/someone" that was to "be/become", rather the Lord who is, "I Am."

                37818:
                There is no doubt that the Son of God is. And that He is often called the "only begotten." At issue is the fact that nowhere does the holy scripture suggest that the Son of God became the Son of God at any time. Being that He always was the Son of God. [Eternal Sonship. Isaiah 9:6 so implies.] Since "begotten" refers to a time, He was not begotten in order to become the Son of God. Now the term "begotten" is in fact used referring to God's Son. "Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee," from the second Psalm. He was already the Son prior to being "begotten." And it is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33).
                Looking at the second psalm, begotten is the word "yalad" meaning "to bring forth." The text is saying, "this day I have brought you forth." However, look at John 3:16, begotten is "monogenes" meaning "only of its kind." Jesus is the only "of God" being, the only one who has came from the Father. How is that consistent with lack of eternal Lordship? To be "of God" is to have the attributes and eternal aspects, the supreme Lordship only God has. Jesus was not someone who was born of the Spirit and given deistic powers, He was, is, is to come, and has been from the beginning. Keep in mind this is the Lord David noticed (Ps 110:1), and the Lord Isaiah saw in his vision (Isa 6). To create something and worship it as a God... This is Idol worship. God did not create a Man and call us to worship him, this would be Idolatry. Jesus is Lord.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  The church at large for over past 1800 years has used the "version" of John which as the longer reading until the 19th century.
                  Actually, that's not true!!!! The reason Jerome was commissioned to formulate the Vulgate was there were hundreds of versions circulating. His job was collect all the available manuscripts for the time, find a consistent text and remove interpolations by scribes etc. Since that time the very Roman Catholic Vulgate has been the standard (should you do a study on the KJV you'll find it was heavily criticised by Hebrew and Greek scholars at the time and since because the majority of its compilers only understood Latin). In the intervening centuries more manuscripts have become available in Syrian, Greek and Hebrew, both secular and biblical which have given a better understanding of what the early church said and taught.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Over 99% of the manuscripts of John has that reading.
                  Prove it!

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  So according to all the modern versions which omit this reading the church at large was wrong for over 1400 years.
                  Possibly only wrong for about 400 years on a particular branch of the "versions" tree...

                  Comment


                  • Hi alll,

                    I'm being admitted to hospital today, so you may not hear from me for a while. If you never hear from me again, it is because I am dead.

                    I hold to Luther's view that until the second coming, the dead (good or bad), rest in peace, then comes the judgement...I'm faced with my judgement, and am ready for it. Are you?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      Hi alll,

                      I'm being admitted to hospital today, so you may not hear from me for a while. If you never hear from me again, it is because I am dead.

                      I hold to Luther's view that until the second coming, the dead (good or bad), rest in peace, then comes the judgement...I'm faced with my judgement, and am ready for it. Are you?
                      apostoli, my friend, it is my prayer, that by the grace of God,
                      you will be back to read this. That God will use this event for your good.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IamLives
                        Or are you just being so overly critical that
                        you're asserting Christ was only given the title, "Son of God" when He was born?
                        Yes. And I think that solution puts this whole "begotten (but not made) before eternity" business to rest.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          Yes. And I think that solution puts this whole "begotten (but not made) before eternity" business to rest.
                          Proverbs 30:4 says, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" According to Colossians 1:16, 17 and John 1:3 is identified as the Creator. Isaiah cites names given this son, " 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." Now while Isaiah's prophecy here refers to a human birth, apparently agreeing with your apparent view. The title "The everlasting Father" suggests an eternal Sonship in fully representing God the Father.. And even if one argues that the Son as Creator was merely the "Father of eternity" that too, suggests "Eternal Sonship."
                          Last edited by 37818; 04-07-2014, 02:20 PM.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            . . .

                            And for the record, I agree with 37818 that Jesus was probably not the Son of God until his incarnation. Call me a tritheist if you want. I don't care. Whether it's true or false, the eternal sonship is not found in the Bible.
                            Obsidian, you are not agreeing with me. Since I hold that the Son of God was the Son of God, that is the only begotten, prior to the incarnation (John 1:14).

                            ". . . 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." -- John 1:14.
                            "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, . . . " -- 1 John 4:19.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by apostoli
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              In my opinion, it's the Chalcedon people who tend to be most likely to promote the idea that Jesus was "omnipresent" even while on earth. I personally think that concept is stupid.
                              I've never come across any one that acknowledges Chalcedon who proposes that the Son was simultaneously in heaven and on earth. In fact, should you do some investigation you would find that Chalcedon's decrees would refute such a proposition as the teaching holds there was a single hypostasis (person) constituted of two physes (natures ie: activity that indicates inherent ousia). A simplistic example: To my parents (who are now dead) I had the nature of a Son, to my children I have the nature of a parent yet despite these different characters I remain me, a singular hypostasis.
                              There seems to be some confusion here. Jesus is not omnipresent in His humanity, but is and always has been omnipresent in His divinity. The Orthodox Church, which is indeed Chalcedonian, states about Jesus on Holy Saturday, "In the grave with the body, but in Hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were You, O Christ, filling all things, Yourself uncircumscribed."
                              And for the record, I agree with 37818 that Jesus was probably not the Son of God until his incarnation. Call me a tritheist if you want. I don't care. Whether it's true or false, the eternal sonship is not found in the Bible.
                              Good to know I'm not the only one you misinterpret (since 37818 disagrees with you). How would you characterize the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to the Incarnation?
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apostoli
                                Proverbs 30:4 says, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
                                I don't think the Isaiah quotation means anything, except that Jesus would be a father who would last forever. It probably refers to believers, whom Isaiah elsewhere calls his spiritual descendants. But this verse from Proverbs does weaken my view somewhat.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 10-16-2021, 04:01 PM
                                21 responses
                                121 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by nico, 10-08-2021, 11:16 AM
                                26 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Bill the Cat, 09-29-2021, 08:31 AM
                                76 responses
                                511 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-20-2021, 08:19 AM
                                28 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 09-07-2021, 04:03 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post nico
                                by nico
                                 
                                Working...
                                X