Author Topic: The Deception of the Teaching of the Trinity (Read 4463 times)

RB · « **Reply #35 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56 »

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 06:21:44

John 1The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].

You have copied and pasted an error. Whoever said these words are just following someone's error that they themselves have followed, like you are now following.

In the beginning was GOD...period. The Word, in the beginning, was NOT Jesus. God was NOT Jesus, but Jesus WAS God in his DIVINE nature. There were NOT two Gods in the beginning, but ONE. The Word in the beginning which was God was made flesh in the person of God's only begotten Son. The Word in the beginning joined Himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God and lived in this world per~

Quote

1st Timothy 3:16~"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature, and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end. Jesus AS the Son of God had a beginning around two thousand years ago, up until THAT TIME God did NOT have a Son. This can be proven by many infallible proofs. Do you need them? Question for you to answer, and it is easy~Who was conceived in Mary's womb? Emmanuel or Jesus, the Son of God? Certainly not Emmanuel, but Jesus, Emmanuel's Son! We are NOT RCC who believe that Mary gave birth to God! Jesus was indeed a complex person, BOTH man, and FULLY man, and God, fully God in his divine nature. It is a great mystery, yet we MUST speak and teach as the scriptures teach us, NOT what creeds teach, especially creeds done by RCC/EOC.

If you believe in the eternal generation doctrine then please explain that to me, for the term is self-contradictory. It about like me saying that I'm a tall short man or, I'm a fat skinny man. One cannot use those terms in the same sentence and make any sense with what you are saying. But worst than that, eternal generation implies that Jesus had a beginning in his divine nature...pray tell me, what does the word generation mean to you? I'll help you out...one of its meaning is: the production of something. Later...

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #35 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56 »

cgaviria · « **Reply #36 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:43:22 »

Quote from: RB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 06:21:44
John 1The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].
You have copied and pasted an error. Whoever said these words are just following someone's error that they themselves have followed, like you are now following.

In the beginning was GOD...period. The Word, in the beginning, was NOT Jesus. God was NOT Jesus, but Jesus WAS God in his DIVINE nature. There were NOT two Gods in the beginning, but ONE. The Word in the beginning which was God was made flesh in the person of God's only begotten Son. The Word in the beginning joined Himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God and lived in this world per~
Quote
1st Timothy 3:16~"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature, and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end. Jesus AS the Son of God had a beginning around two thousand years ago, up until THAT TIME God did NOT have a Son. This can be proven by many infallible proofs. Do you need them? Question for you to answer, and it is easy~Who was conceived in Mary's womb? Emmanuel or Jesus, the Son of God? Certainly not Emmanuel, but Jesus, Emmanuel's Son! We are NOT RCC who believe that Mary gave birth to God! Jesus was indeed a complex person, BOTH man, and FULLY man, and God, fully God in his divine nature. It is a great mystery, yet we MUST speak and teach as the scriptures teach us, NOT what creeds teach, especially creeds done by RCC/EOC.

If you believe in the eternal generation doctrine then please explain that to me, for the term is self-contradictory. It about like me saying that I'm a tall short man or, I'm a fat skinny man. One cannot use those terms in the same sentence and make any sense with what you are saying. But worst than that, eternal generation implies that Jesus had a beginning in his divine nature...pray tell me, what does the word generation mean to you? I'll help you out...one of its meaning is: the production of something. Later...

There is much confusion in your speech. "Emmanuel's son"? Seriously? The son himself is him who is called Immanuel,

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us"). (Matthew 1:23 [NIV])

But regardless of this one thing I noticed in your response, Jesus Christ did exist in the beginning, hence,

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5 [NIV])

And just as God is able to transfer the soul of someone dead into a newly resurrected body, so did God transfer the soul of Jesus Christ from his previous form in heaven, into a conceived baby that formed in the womb. Nothing is too difficult for God to do, and the scriptures imply that this is what happened, and you either have belief that this was so, or you do not.

4WD · « **Reply #37 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:52:31 »

Quote from: cgaviria on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:43:22

Quote from: RB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56
Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 06:21:44
John 1The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].
You have copied and pasted an error. Whoever said these words are just following someone's error that they themselves have followed, like you are now following.

In the beginning was GOD...period. The Word, in the beginning, was NOT Jesus. God was NOT Jesus, but Jesus WAS God in his DIVINE nature. There were NOT two Gods in the beginning, but ONE. The Word in the beginning which was God was made flesh in the person of God's only begotten Son. The Word in the beginning joined Himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God and lived in this world per~
Quote
1st Timothy 3:16~"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature, and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end. Jesus AS the Son of God had a beginning around two thousand years ago, up until THAT TIME God did NOT have a Son. This can be proven by many infallible proofs. Do you need them? Question for you to answer, and it is easy~Who was conceived in Mary's womb? Emmanuel or Jesus, the Son of God? Certainly not Emmanuel, but Jesus, Emmanuel's Son! We are NOT RCC who believe that Mary gave birth to God! Jesus was indeed a complex person, BOTH man, and FULLY man, and God, fully God in his divine nature. It is a great mystery, yet we MUST speak and teach as the scriptures teach us, NOT what creeds teach, especially creeds done by RCC/EOC.

If you believe in the eternal generation doctrine then please explain that to me, for the term is self-contradictory. It about like me saying that I'm a tall short man or, I'm a fat skinny man. One cannot use those terms in the same sentence and make any sense with what you are saying. But worst than that, eternal generation implies that Jesus had a beginning in his divine nature...pray tell me, what does the word generation mean to you? I'll help you out...one of its meaning is: the production of something. Later...

There is much confusion in your speech. Jesus Christ did exist in the beginning, hence,

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5 [NIV])

And just as God is able to transfer the soul of someone dead into a newly resurrected body, so did God transfer the soul of Jesus Christ from his previous form in heaven, into a conceived baby that formed in the womb. Nothing is too difficult for God to do, and the scriptures imply that this is what happened, and you either have belief that this was so, or you do not.

Your quoting John 17:5 is a direct rebuttal of your position. What do you think "the glory I had with you before the word began" means except that He did exist in the beginning? Was His name Jesus? No. Was He the Christ, the Savior? Yes ! !

cgaviria · « **Reply #38 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:59:16 »

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:52:31

Quote from: cgaviria on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:43:22
Quote from: RB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56
Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 06:21:44
John 1The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].
You have copied and pasted an error. Whoever said these words are just following someone's error that they themselves have followed, like you are now following.

In the beginning was GOD...period. The Word, in the beginning, was NOT Jesus. God was NOT Jesus, but Jesus WAS God in his DIVINE nature. There were NOT two Gods in the beginning, but ONE. The Word in the beginning which was God was made flesh in the person of God's only begotten Son. The Word in the beginning joined Himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God and lived in this world per~
Quote
1st Timothy 3:16~"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature, and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end. Jesus AS the Son of God had a beginning around two thousand years ago, up until THAT TIME God did NOT have a Son. This can be proven by many infallible proofs. Do you need them? Question for you to answer, and it is easy~Who was conceived in Mary's womb? Emmanuel or Jesus, the Son of God? Certainly not Emmanuel, but Jesus, Emmanuel's Son! We are NOT RCC who believe that Mary gave birth to God! Jesus was indeed a complex person, BOTH man, and FULLY man, and God, fully God in his divine nature. It is a great mystery, yet we MUST speak and teach as the scriptures teach us, NOT what creeds teach, especially creeds done by RCC/EOC.

If you believe in the eternal generation doctrine then please explain that to me, for the term is self-contradictory. It about like me saying that I'm a tall short man or, I'm a fat skinny man. One cannot use those terms in the same sentence and make any sense with what you are saying. But worst than that, eternal generation implies that Jesus had a beginning in his divine nature...pray tell me, what does the word generation mean to you? I'll help you out...one of its meaning is: the production of something. Later...

There is much confusion in your speech. Jesus Christ did exist in the beginning, hence,

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5 [NIV])

And just as God is able to transfer the soul of someone dead into a newly resurrected body, so did God transfer the soul of Jesus Christ from his previous form in heaven, into a conceived baby that formed in the womb. Nothing is too difficult for God to do, and the scriptures imply that this is what happened, and you either have belief that this was so, or you do not.

Your quoting John 17:5 is a direct rebuttal of your position. What do you think "the glory I had with you before the word began" means except that He did exist in the beginning? Was His name Jesus? No. Was He the Christ, the Savior? Yes ! !

How is it a rebuttal of what I have been saying? Did you not read the study I wrote or did you just skim through it and made assumptions?

4WD · « **Reply #39 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 10:15:18 »

Quote from: cgaviria on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 08:59:16

How is it a rebuttal of what I have been saying? Did you not read the study I wrote or did you just skim through it and made assumptions?

Sorry, I misread you.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #39 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 10:15:18 »

chosenone · « **Reply #40 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 11:54:39 »

Quote from: RB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 07:41:56

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 06:21:44
John 1The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].
You have copied and pasted an error. Whoever said these words are just following someone's error that they themselves have followed, like you are now following.

In the beginning was GOD...period. The Word, in the beginning, was NOT Jesus. God was NOT Jesus, but Jesus WAS God in his DIVINE nature. There were NOT two Gods in the beginning, but ONE. The Word in the beginning which was God was made flesh in the person of God's only begotten Son. The Word in the beginning joined Himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God and lived in this world per~
Quote
1st Timothy 3:16~"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature, and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end. Jesus AS the Son of God had a beginning around two thousand years ago, up until THAT TIME God did NOT have a Son. This can be proven by many infallible proofs. Do you need them? Question for you to answer, and it is easy~Who was conceived in Mary's womb? Emmanuel or Jesus, the Son of God? Certainly not Emmanuel, but Jesus, Emmanuel's Son! We are NOT RCC who believe that Mary gave birth to God! Jesus was indeed a complex person, BOTH man, and FULLY man, and God, fully God in his divine nature. It is a great mystery, yet we MUST speak and teach as the scriptures teach us, NOT what creeds teach, especially creeds done by RCC/EOC.

If you believe in the eternal generation doctrine then please explain that to me, for the term is self-contradictory. It about like me saying that I'm a tall short man or, I'm a fat skinny man. One cannot use those terms in the same sentence and make any sense with what you are saying. But worst than that, eternal generation implies that Jesus had a beginning in his divine nature...pray tell me, what does the word generation mean to you? I'll help you out...one of its meaning is: the production of something. Later...

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. Jesus didnt just come into being 2000 years ago. The world was made through Him.

RB · « **Reply #41 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 16:00:43 »

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 11:54:39

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. Jesus didnt just come into being 2000 years ago. The world was made through Him.

It is very pitiful that you would make such statement and at the same time believe you understand the scriptures concerning the Godhead. You cannot even follow a post properly, much less defend what you believe. Two things and I'm sure we are finished since you are not capable of entering a debate with me on this subject, for I have given this doctrine of the Sonship of Jesus Christ many years of studying and I know it well and If I did not believe I could defend my understanding, then I would not be attempting to do so. Did you not hear me in reply # 35? where I clearly said these words:

Quote

God and Jesus are ONE in their Divine nature and in THAT nature Jesus created the worlds AS GOD that was in the beginning, or from eternity with no beginning and shall have no end.

Your eyes and ears have not been open to the truth on this subject, you need to consider much more, then speak, for you cannot even hear me on simple statements such as this one.

Quote

Jesus didnt just come into being 2000 years ago

Then you prove to me with scriptures WHEN HE DID! The burden of proof is on you. I believe the record that God has given to us from Luke 1:26-38, other than this record we have NO RECORD as to when Jesus was conceived and when God begot a Son. The problem with you and others is this: You cannot reconcile the truth that Jesus is God, yet also the Son of God in one complex nature. Jesus was NOT in the beginning AS the Son of God, but as the EVERLASTING FATHER of all things! Selah! I love to debate this subject with anyone you can bring to this forum. Would you like for me to give several points as to why your position of the eternal sonship cannot be scriptural? cgaviria said:

Quote

There is much confusion in your speech. "Emmanuel's son"? Seriously? The son himself is him who is called Immanuel,

The confusion is with your understanding. Jesus is Emmanuel in his divine nature NOT in his human nature! Jesus is God, but God WAS NOT Jesus!

Quote

But regardless of this one thing I noticed in your response, Jesus Christ did exist in the beginning, hence,

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5 [NIV])

Again, you are NOT dividing the scriptures properly. Jesus in his divine nature is ONE with God, thereby equal with him. Yet in his human nature, God is greater than him. Really, not too deep, just carefully dividing the scriptures.

Quote

And just as God is able to transfer the soul of someone dead into a newly resurrected body, so did God transfer the soul of Jesus Christ from his previous form in heaven, into a conceived baby that formed in the womb. Nothing is too difficult for God to do, and the scriptures imply that this is what happened, and you either have belief that this was so, or you do not.

You are speaking something that was conceived in your vain heart, not what the scriptures teach. Jesus in his divine nature was the I AM THAT I AM! Period. He did not have any form, but was the eternal God that is a Spirit, eternal both ways. Later.....

fish153 · « **Reply #42 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 17:31:35 »

"And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed". (john 17:5)

If Jesus had said "God" or "Lord God of Israel" it would make a difference. But Jesus says "And now, FATHER, glorify me
in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed".

The fact that Jesus uses the word "Father" infers a father/son relationship before the world began. I know you don't agree Red, and that's
OK. I do believe that there has been a FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT for all of eternity. And WE are patterned after Him, and made in
HIS image.

RB · « **Reply #43 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 18:04:12 »

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 17:31:35

The fact that Jesus uses the word "Father" infers a father/son relationship before the world began. I know you don't agree Red, and that'sOK. I do believe that there has been a FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT for all of eternity.
"

From all eternity we were known of God according to his eternal purposes, yet that within itself does not make us eternal. Jesus called God his Father, by the fact that he was conceived by God in the womb of Mary. It means nothing more than that. To mean something more than that you MUST have scriptures to support what you believe, or it means nothing more than your personal belief, which is without failure false.

Quote

I know you don't agree Red, and that'sOK.

Brother, it's not what I believe, but what does God's word teach us. The Incarnate Sonship is the ONLY position that protects the deity of Jesus Christ~every other positions ends up denying it without failure.

TonkaTim · « **Reply #44 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 18:35:50 »

I agree with that Red is saying. I think Moses made it clear in his prophecy of the death, resurrection , & accession;
"39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever."

I believe Jesus is referencing this prophecy in John 10.

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.

Jesus is God. They are one & the same.

or John 14

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

I believe Paul is in agreement when he wrote:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
Which is an explanation of:
"3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;"

Which is in complete agreement with Peter:
"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"

Which Paul confirms in "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

The Bible confirms Jesus godhood in so many ways throughout the Bible as well as there is only one God.

But as Red points out & Paul defines as "the man Jesus Christ" has a beginning. His birth as a man, making him the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus' sonship is not eternal,
But the purpose of his sonship is.

fish153 · « **Reply #45 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 19:02:08 »

Red----

I do believe there are scriptures to support the eternal sonship of Christ. I don't want to post a novel---here is a link that explains what I believe to be true:

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

I believe the Bible does teach this----and it is fine to disagree. And I don't believe this position denies the Deity of Christ by any means.

AVZ · « **Reply #46 on:** Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 19:30:13 »

Quote from: RB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 18:04:12

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 17:31:35
The fact that Jesus uses the word "Father" infers a father/son relationship before the world began. I know you don't agree Red, and that'sOK. I do believe that there has been a FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT for all of eternity.
"

From all eternity we were known of God according to his eternal purposes, yet that within itself does not make us eternal. Jesus called God his Father, by the fact that he was conceived by God in the womb of Mary. It means nothing more than that. To mean something more than that you MUST have scriptures to support what you believe, or it means nothing more than your personal belief, which is without failure false.
Quote
I know you don't agree Red, and that'sOK.
Brother, it's not what I believe, but what does God's word teach us. The Incarnate Sonship is the ONLY position that protects the deity of Jesus Christ~every other positions ends up denying it without failure.

Hi Red,

I am a bit lost, but I want to understand your position correctly without getting lost in technicalities.
This is what I understand you are saying:

PRIOR to the incarnation, the Trinity existed as one God yet three individual persons.
Now we don't know exactly how the individual persons were named, but for ease of the discussion lets say they were:
1. God the God
2. God the other God
3. God the Holy Spirit

AFTER the incarnation, when "God the other God" took on human form, He was identified as "God the Son".
And the first entity that was called "God the God" now is identified as "God the Father".
So now we have
1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit

My question is, if we push the issue on what exactly "God the other God" was called prior to the incarnation, are we not simply stumbling over a technicality? If the sacrifice of Jesus was determined from before creation, would it not be logically to assume that it was already decided in eternity past who would be the person in the Trinity who would take this task upon Him?

RB · « **Reply #47 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 04:57:24 »

Quote from: TonkaTim on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 18:35:50

Jesus' sonship is not eternal, But the purpose of his sonship is.

Brother well said and this is correct. I must answer my other two good brother, and good they are, which is why I'm careful not to offend a brother who has not considered this doctrine carefully, or even if he has and still does not see it, then my job is to be careful NOT to offend, lest my knowledge causes another brother to stumble, which would be a sin. As much as I love and respect Calvin he was wrong on this doctrine, which made him not as merciful to Michael Servetus that maybe he could have been.....I DO NOT know that since I was NOT there and all we have is history which is not absolute truth but is alway bias to a certain degree.

The two men were the most exact opposites in spirit, doctrine, and aim. One was a reformer, a champion of orthodoxy, and one who sought to build up the church of Christ. The other was considered by Catholic and Protestant alike an archheretic who sought to destroy key doctrines on which the church took its stand. At twenty-seven the first had written one of the most influential systems of theology the Christian faith had ever seen. When he was barely twenty the other wrote a work to denounce a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Both were brilliant and leaned men born in 1509. One was burned at the stake for heresy in the town where the other was pastor. The two men? John Calvin and Michael Servetus.

Michael Servetus was born in Spain in 1509. He had a brilliant mind, was trained by the Dominicans, and went to the University of Saragossa. There he began studying the Bible, whose authority he accepted; but his interpretations brought him into conflict with the orthodox church. In 1531 Servetus published a work called the Errors of the Trinity, in which he said those who believed in the Trinity were really Tritheists (believers in three gods) or atheists. He said the gods of the Trinitarians were a 3-headed monster and a deception of the devil. Both Protestants and Catholics found the work blasphemous, and the emperor banned it.

Servetus proceded to France where he took the name Michel de Villeneuve. He studied mathematics, geography, astrology, and medicine. Gaining fame as a physician, he came close to discovering the pulmonary circulation of the blood, and published a frequently studied book on the use of syrups in medicine. In spite of his success, Michael made enemies through his insolent and contentious tone.

In 1540 Michael opened a correspondence with John Calvin of Geneva, asking the reformer what it meant for Jesus to be the Son of God and how a man was to be born again. He criticized Calvin's replies and stated that those who believed in the Trinity believed in the spirit of the dragon, the priests and the false prophets who make war on the lamb.

In 1553 Michael anonymously published The Restitution of Christianity which he saw as an attempt to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. In that work he boldly--or rashly--continued to deny the Trinity despite the danger it brought him. Denying the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ were still capital offenses as they had been throughout the middle ages. Michael said Jesus was the Son of the eternal God but not the eternal Son of God. Contrary to the reformers, he also taught that both faith and works were necessary for salvation. He sent Calvin a portion of the work. MS had his errors along with truth. I DO NOT know all of his beliefs on the Trinity but seems he had errors with truth, while Calvin stayed with RCC on this doctrine.

Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne discovered the name of the Restitution's author because Calvin collaborated in denouncing him to the Inquisition, and they arrested Michael for heresy. He escaped, however, and fled toward Naples by way of Calvin's Geneva. Vienne's authorities burned him in effigy. He entered a church where Calvin was preaching, was recognized, and arrested on charges of blasphemy and heresy, although he was not a citizen and was just passing through town. Was it legal for them to arrest him? He did go where Calvin was, so, he wanted to confront Calvin on this doctrine of the trinity.

Nonetheless, Michael was tried for heresy, this time by a Protestant city council. He continued in an attitude of superior knowledge and called John Calvin "Simon Magus" an "impostor," and more. Servetus shocked the Genevans with his pantheistic or gnostic claim that everything emanated from God, even the devil. Like the Anabaptists, he declared infant baptism a great error. Geneva unfairly refused him legal council although he was a stranger to its law system, saying he could lie well enough without a lawyer to assist him.

The Geneva Council voted to condemn Servetus for heresy and called for his execution. The Swiss churches of Berne, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen encouraged this move. Although Calvin insisted with the rest that Servetus must die, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning, but the Council rejected the suggestion. It was quarreling with Calvin at that time over the city government. Calvin and reformer William Farel spent hours with Servetus trying to turn him back from his lapses from commonly accepted Christian doctrine, but Servetus stood fast to his principles.

On this day, October 27, 1553, Geneva burned Michael Servetus at the stake for blasphemy and heresy. In the flames, Michael called repeatedly on Jesus, the Son of God for mercy. This is history's view, take it with a grain of salt.

Personally, I believe it is a sad botch on Christianity/flesh where it proves that our faith is mixed with errors and sins.

TonkaTim · « **Reply #48 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 06:17:23 »

Red, that is a very interesting historical read.

I do agree with your last point "it is a sad botch on Christianity/flesh where it proves that our faith is mixed with errors and sins"

But to make a point about eternal purpose, this is the English text to the Nicene Creed.

I have zero problems with this creed. Not even the last section. God is eternal & always is. The man Jesus Christ is God eternal. Who is also as the Apostle John explains is "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" which to me illustrates Christ in his eternal purpose. Was Jesus literally slain from the foundation of the world? We all know that answer is no. But in God's eternal purpose for the salvation of His children, he was. Which I believe should also add light & understanding in Paul's description "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" Was the man Jesus Christ literally born a creature before any other? No, he was born of woman around 2020 years ago. But in God's eternal purpose for the salvation of His children, he was. At no time did the purpose of Christ not exist.

I believe Jesus makes this known in His conversation with Martha;
" 25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11

Pay close attention to the bolded - "though he were dead" in the past, "whosoever liveth" in the present, "should come into the world." expectation of the eternal purpose.

The promise of Christ was given to man from the beginning. It is first revealed to man in God's promise to Eve. All who believe in the Christ from the beginning are in Christ & bound for glory.

RB · « **Reply #49 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:13:21 »

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 19:02:08

Red----

I do believe there are scriptures to support the eternal sonship of Christ. I don't want to post a novel---here is a link that explains what I believe to be true:

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

I believe the Bible does teach this----and it is fine to disagree. And I don't believe this position denies the Deity of Christ by any means.

Brother, I know your beliefs well because I was taught the eternal Sonship when I first came to Christ and I ONCE held to that very doctrine~ but was converted over after about ten years when I was introduced to it and carefully pondered both views and the danger each. I DID NOT convert quickly but over a period of about 18 months of studying the subject. Give me some time later today or tomorrow to ponder each with you and compare the problems and danger of the doctrine of eternal sonship doctrine. RB

AVZ · « **Reply #50 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:31:30 »

Quote from: RB on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:13:21

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 19:02:08
Red----

I do believe there are scriptures to support the eternal sonship of Christ. I don't want to post a novel---here is a link that explains what I believe to be true:

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

I believe the Bible does teach this----and it is fine to disagree. And I don't believe this position denies the Deity of Christ by any means.

Brother, I know your beliefs well because I was taught the eternal Sonship when I first came to Christ and I ONCE held to that very doctrine~ but was converted over after about ten years when I was introduced to it and carefully pondered both views and the danger each. I DID NOT convert quickly but over a period of about 18 months of studying the subject. Give me some time later today or tomorrow to ponder each with you and compare the problems and danger of the doctrine of eternal sonship doctrine. RB

What exactly is the danger of the doctrine of eternal sonship?

4WD · « **Reply #51 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:36:31 »

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 19:02:08

Red----

I do believe there are scriptures to support the eternal sonship of Christ. I don't want to post a novel---here is a link that explains what I believe to be true:

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

I believe the Bible does teach this----and it is fine to disagree. And I don't believe this position denies the Deity of Christ by any means.

It implies that the pre-incarnate Lord and Savior was begotten of God and that inherently indicates against the deity of Jesus. The article attempts to deny that but it does so illogically. Begotten implies a source, a beginning and an order of existence. That is incompatible with eternally existent.

MeMyself · « **Reply #52 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 09:21:34 »

Quote from: fish153 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 - 17:31:35

"And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed". (john 17:5)

If Jesus had said "God" or "Lord God of Israel" it would make a difference. But Jesus says "And now, FATHER, glorify me
in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed".

The fact that Jesus uses the word "Father" infers a father/son relationship before the world began. I know you don't agree Red, and that's
OK. I do believe that there has been a FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT for all of eternity. And WE are patterned after Him, and made in
HIS image.

Amen, Fish! And, I also appreciate your respectful responses in the face of disagreeing.

RB · « **Reply #53 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 10:20:43 »

Quote from: AVZ on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:31:30

What exactly is the danger of the doctrine of eternal sonship?

It plays into the hands of those who rejects the deity of Jesus Christ~you end up with a begotten god, LESS than the Godhead and it destroys the eternality of Jesus Christ being the I AM THAT I AM....the true Jehovah God. Give me time today or tomorrow to prove my point. Understanding this truth is NOT essential to one's free gift of eternal life, AS LONG as one does not purposely reject the deity of Jesus Christ and preach and teach against it. A Christian's life is one of growing in the knowledge of the truth, just like children grown in knowledge of earthly truths. There are practical benefits to gain for sure of learning truths, but no more than that, and no less.

RB · « **Reply #54 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 10:25:31 »

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 07:36:31

It implies that the pre-incarnate Lord and Savior was begotten of God and that inherently indicates against the deity of Jesus. The article attempts to deny that but it does so illogically. Begotten implies a source, a beginning and an order of existence. That is incompatible with eternally existent.

Absoluetly! and well said.

RB · « **Reply #55 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 10:55:07 »

Question #1~"Can true Divinity be derived or propagated?" The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures. What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind.

The answer to that questions is NO! So how can one believe in eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? A Sonship relationship that was before the biblical testimony of Luke 1:311-35. I must stand upon God's own testimony of the conception of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man.

Question #2 "Can there be true Divinity where any of these attributes are wanting in question #1"? Surely not.

And ask~"How can eternal generation of the Son of God be accepted as biblical truth, and for those still holding such doctrine still contend that Jesus Christ is self-existence and independent"? We shall prove that this is an impossibility and a contradiction of terms used in the eternal Sonship defense.

Those that hold to the incarnate Sonship and reject the eternal Sonship are the only ones that can explain and make sense that Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father of all things~the I AM THAT I AM. We contend that Jesus Christ the Son of God possessed real Divinity that was underived in any sense. There is no possible medium. Either it is so, or not so. We Know that Jesus Christ was God manifested in flesh before Jews and Gentiles and that he preached unto both, and both rejected him, and devils trembled before, for they knew him.

If we speak of Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God, then we must be able to comprehensibly define our terms used, or confess that we are using terms that teach doctrines against the Son of God, of which the eternal Sonship position does, for no man living can comprehensibly define the eternal Sonship position, without making Jesus a begotten god. It can not be done.

The sum of this point is this: Those that use terms, such as eternal Sonship, eternal generation, in relation to God or Christ, ought at least be able and willing to tell their own meaning in use of those terms, or not use them. Fair enough? I know so

Question #3 "What part of Jesus Christ was derived from God?"

Surely not his Divine Nature! if One God can be derived, why not many? Many Mighty Gods and Everlasting Fathers, (there not many, but ONE, revealed to us as three, according to their work in the affairs of creation, and the salvation of the elect seed of Jesus Christ) many first Causes, and last End of all things! The Eternal Spirit of God is not capable of diminution or divisibility, that is an impossibility. This would be going against what his word teaches us, that we should have no other gods before Him.

Pagans believed in a power of propagation of their gods, we as Bible Christians do not. The bible demands belief in nothing of this kind, relative to our heavenly Father.

Question #4~ "Is it so, that there are many representations in the scriptures that teach that the Godhead in some mysterious sense are three, yet essentially ONE?"

It is very much so. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen" 2 Corinthians 13:14

The holy scriptures teaches us that in some mysterious scriptural sense, the Godhead are three, yet we know that there are titles, found in the scriptures of the name of God, that can be applied to each one of them individually, interchangeable, and equally. This is very important to remember. In innumerable scriptures, God, and Christ, are spoken of as two persons, yet are presented in an essential unity as one; so that each may affirm, that there is no other God beside Himself. This is important as well to remember.

There are not two, or three distinct Gods~together, they are ONE God!

The Divine nature of Christ, does all that God does equally~he is not absent; nor is he another God, but and the same God! And Yet, there is a personal and real distinction between God the Eternal Spirit, and Jesus his Son. The deity of Jesus Christ is not and cannot be excluded from any transactions done by God before the creation of the world, and during the OT times before the birth of Jesus, and throughout eternity. They are essential ONE and CANNOT be separated into two or three.

When we read that the Son created the worlds, then we understand that that is speaking of his Divine Nature ONLY, of being the I am THAT I AM. This is not really too deep, just following God's own witness to us concerning these things and giving the scriptures their proper senses.

When reading such scriptures as 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Corinthians 10:4-5; Romans 8:9; and 1 Peter 3:18-19; and others, then we understand that Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man (which is used twice as many times as the Son of God in the bible) was a complex person, both God and man, and the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ is none other than the One and True God that is from everlasting to everlasting, and these two in the word of God are essentially and scripturally by God's own testimony ONE.

Question #5~"Can the Most High thus address a derived, dependent being, as God, without establishing idolatry?"

Absolutely not! Yet the Most High God did address his Son as God.

Hebrews 1:8 Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne O God, is forever and ever."

So, Jesus is the Son, yet is God that shall reign forever and ever. This will come to pass the scriptures that is written: "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God>" Matthew 5:8 and many more~Rev. 21:3,22,23; Rev. 22:3,4,9,16,19-20.

Question #6~ "Did Paul, or any other apostles, or prophets, ever lead us to believe that Jesus and God, were not essentially one." Never! But, what they teach us plainly was that Jesus was indeed God blessed for ever. Paul said these words: Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

Again, Paul said: concerning Christ~"........ the great God and Saviour." Titus 2:13 Also, See Peter~2 Peter 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2 And again, 1 John 5:20; Isaiah 9:6~one of the most powerful scriptures. Jeremiah 23:6, just to mention a few.

Question #7~"Can a derived and dependent person be Almighty?"

Most certainly not! Yet, Jesus was the mighty God promised by the prophets as we read from Isaiah 9:6. Jesus called himself the Almighty, listen to his own words: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, which is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:1:8

If Jesus was the beginning of all things, and he was, then he was not the eternal Son, because, the word son, by definition proves a beginning (more on this later)~if he is Almighty, and he is, then no one is greater than he is, none. He alone will be worship in that world to come, for he will reign as King for ever more, world without end.

Question #8~From the great work, which was assigned to Jesus Christ, light is cast upon this important subject at hand. So we ask the conscience of every person taught in the sentiments of the gospel~Was not an infinite atonement necessary and demanded, according to the word of God, to take away our sins?" Again, "was not the righteousness of a perfect man, whose righteousness was equal to God, necessary to avail for sinful and lost man; in order to redeem him from sin and condemnation and to give the redeem person an entitlement to eternal life? Only Jesus Christ, who was both the Son of God, and as well, the Son of Man, could have been that perfect atonement for our sins. It was by one man that sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men, because all sinned in their father Adam. Jesus Christ was that perfect man, for he was the Son of God, begotten by him in the womb of a virgin named Mary.

We have the record of his birth recorded for us in the holy scriptures. The only record /witness, that we have of God's Son coming into being the Son of God, there is not another, but the one recorded in Luke 1. Any other witness is a lie and only vain speculations of man not receiving the witness of the Spirit of God, but are guilty of following what others teach concerning the Sonship of God's holy child.

Question #9~"Did Jesus Christ have a beginning?~Or, in order for us to help those who reading this to better follow God's word/witness to us, concerning His Son, we could ask also ask this question, with the one at the beginning of this sentence: Did Jesus have a beginning?"

The scriptures very carefully divides and protect the identity of Jesus Christ; and so should we. The questions above demand for us to stay within the bounds of the scriptures, as we should always do, to find our answers; for the answers to our questions are: yes and no.

Most should know that the name of Christ, speaks to his deity, and proves that he was indeed the Son of the Living God; were as, Jesus, is his earthly name, and speaks and proves his humanity. There was, and can be, only one Jesus Christ; for God had only one begotten Son, begotten by the power of the Highest in a womb of a virgin woman of Adam's race, named Mary.

Jesus Christ had no beginning! The scriptures are very plain concerning this truth.

1 John 1:1

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

This scripture is lost among people's favorites, yet this scripture is powerful to the regenerate mind and lover of the word of God.

The God that created all things that has always been from the beginning, or from eternity, made himself visible, to human beings in the person of His Son, whom he had begotten, by his Spirit in the womb of Mary. The Infinite, Glorious Spirit, purpose and planned every perfect detail of his holy event~"God was manifested in the flesh"~ seen of angels, (for the first time!) and preached unto sinners, and allowed men like John to lay his head on his chest, and allowed sinners to even spit in his face! I cannot even begin to express, nor do I have the ability, to express in words, how great our God is, and the length he went to redeem his chosen race!

John said it so plain: "that which was from the beginning." There is no room for debate; Jesus Christ was the Word of Life, that had no beginning! The eternal Sonship doctrine by definition goes against this scriptures before us. By definition, we shall prove later, that eternal and son cannot be used together, for son, by definition, means a beginning, or words cease to have any meaning, and anyone can use words to teach anything!

1 John 2:13

"I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning...."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD."

In 1 John 1:1~John called Jesus Christ, the Word of life. Paul said by him all things consist, for he created all things, for he alone is the Word of Life. Paul said again, "Who is the image of the invisible God-" Colossians 1:15

Jesus Christ is not the second person of the Trinity~HE IS GOD! period! He was not conceived in the beginning~he was God FROM THE BEGINNING that created all things!

John 1:13

"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."

God was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. The Word was not begotten by the power of the Highest, Jesus, the Son of God was begotten. The Word that was from the beginning, joined himself to the tabernacle (fleshly body of Jesus) and lived among men. The Eternal Spirit of God never cease to be who he is~A SPIRIT that inhabiteth eternity, who rules over all of his creation! Read Isaiah 57:15 and John 4:24!!

Jesus had a beginning, and it is clearly revealed to us in the NT from Luke 1. We know his mother and who his suppose father~Joseph. We know where he lived and where he died. Jesus was fully man and fully God, and two natures never interfere with his work of redemption but worked in perfect harmony to accomplish God's eternal purpose which he purposed in himself. Eph. 1:9

Read through he NT, especially John 's writings, and notice Jesus Christ and God separately, interchangeably according to what part of God's redemption work he was speaking on. Of course, this was the case with all NT writers.

Later.....

RB · « **Reply #56 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 11:44:16 »

I would like to consider a few reasons why I know that the eternal Sonship position is a serious error.

Reason #1~The Eternal Sonship is a dogma that is discredited logically by self-contradiction. To contend that Jesus was eternally begotten is a manifest contradiction of term. We ask: can an object begin and not begun? No. The saying within itself is most absurd. Why do not people consider this an understand it? Acts 28:25-27 is the answer.

Quote

Please consider carefully: This a is a very important point to consider. Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in reference to time~Son supposes time, generation, and father; time is also antecedent to such generation~therefore, the conjunction of the two terms: Son and eternity~is absolutely impossible as they imply different and opposite ideal. Words must have a meaning, or else, how can we communicate with each other on a level where we can understand each other? I understand eternity and I also understand the word son, and so do my readers, and we should know how to use each word properly, without confusing the meaning of either.

Reason #2~If Jesus Christ is as many teach the eternal Son of God, or if he was eternally begotten/generated, according to his Divine nature, then he IS NOT the Eternal God that inhabiteth eternity.

Quote

Please consider carefully: The reason why is this: "son" implies a father; and father in reference to a son, precedency in time, if not in nature as well. Father and son imply the ideal of generation~generation implies a time, in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

We know that Jesus Christ was both God that inhabiteth eternity and the Son of God that had a beginning when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost!

The eternal Sonship position is against the witness of God himself concerning his Son.

Quote

Please consider carefully: The incarnate Sonship protects the Deity of the Son of God and confesses that he is both the I am that I am, and the Son of God and the Son of man.

Jesus became the Son of God the same time he became the Son of man. We have the word of God to support that witness that we just gave. Yet, man's witness goes against God's testimony concerning his Son. As for me and my house, we will believe God own testimony over man.

Reason #3~If Christ is the Son of God as to his Divine Nature, then the Father is of "necessity prior to Christ"~and consequently superior to him!

As I said early on, or at least I believe I did, false doctrine blinds peoples minds and robs them of the ability to think and reason within the holy scriptures, using God's word alone for their guide into all truth. Our Lord once asked a question:

"What think ye of Christ? whose Son is he? They said unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, how then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool? if David call him Lord, how then is he his son? Matthew 22:42-45

False religion blinds men's eyes and hearts, and they know it not, nor can they know it, because they do not have faith to totally trust the scriptures alone for every answer that may ever be presented to them, specially concerning Jesus Christ, who Son is he, and when did he become God's Son? These are very important questions, (and there are others) that needs to be answer according to the word of God, not by the Nicene Creed, nor by any so-called church fathers. What does the scriptures say, should be all that we are concerned with, do you not agree?

The scriptures were given to give us a witness from heaven concerning TRUTH, and we should search them alone and reason within them alone to come to the knowledge of the truth; if we do that, then we will see that Jesus was much more than just David's son; he was his Lord and God~yet by God's infinite wisdom, He ever remained the LORD Jehovah The Eternal Spirit that lives in eternity, who created all things, and rules with the greatest of ease over his creation~for the LORD said, unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I MAKE thine enemies thy footstool~and he will have no problem doing such that.. Every believer expect to be at his right hand in that day when these things shall come to pass, just as he has promised to his Son.

Quote

Please consider carefully: Again, if the Divine Nature of Jesus was begotten by the Father, then it must be in time, and if so, then there was a time in which his Divine Nature did not exist, and a period when it begun to exist. This destroy the eternality of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ and robs him at once of his eternal Godhead!

Unless we stay within the record which God himself has given to us to believe, then, we will end up being guilty of robbing Christ of his deity, of being the Everlasting Father of All things~according to Isaiah 9:6

Jesus is not the everlasting Son, but the everlasting Father of all things. A big difference, would you not say? Selah.

The holy scriptures of truth, wisely and carefully, protect the Deity of Jesus Christ, and so must we.

Now, let us consider my last point and then I will close with a few remarks.

To be continue...God permitting. RB

AVZ · « **Reply #57 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 11:56:55 »

Quote from: RB on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 11:44:16

Reason #1~The Eternal Sonship is a dogma that is discredited logically by self-contradiction.

For this same reason do I not have a problem with Eternal Sonship.
The Trinity itself is a contradiction. One could easily pick up the contradiction of the existence of the Holy Spirit for example.
If God the Father is a spirit...then how can He have a Spirit? Do spirits have spirits?
If the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit...does that mean that God as the first person in the Trinity and Jesus as the second person, don't have a spirit by themselves?

What I am saying is that I believe any argumentation with regards to the Trinity by logic is futile. We are not able to grasp the concept anyway.
So if there was an Eternal Sonship, then so be it...and if there was not, then so be it.

fish153 · « **Reply #58 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 13:34:38 »

Red, 4WD---

You are misunderstanding. Please read this creed once again:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, ETERNALLY begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.."

This is not inferring a starting point, beginning, or propogation. It is stating that the Son for all eternity has been the Son of God. He is ETERNALLY begotten. He has ALWAYS been the SON. There was no STARTING point. What you are having a very hard time understanding or contemplating is the concept that there has ALWAYS BEEN A FATHER. SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. How can I explain this better?

God has ALWAYS been in three persons: FATHER SON AND SPIRIT. When God created man He stated He would make us in HIS IMAGE. HIS IMAGE is FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. How can that image be duplicated in US? The closest would be FATHER, MOTHER, CHILD. And that is because WE NEED TO BE PROPOGATED. But we were created after HIS IMAGE. You are trying to infer that "son" infers propogation because you are using Human understanding to explain God. This cannot be done. You are using human understanding of the word "son" and applying it to God---whereas we need to see that the origin of "SON" is eternal, and has always been.

I will not argue this point further as it really is a waste of energy. We as Christians believe in the Trinity. Whether the Son has forever been the Son we will find out one day in Heaven. I happen to believe that that is the truth----but we will all know for sure one day.

RB · « **Reply #59 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 14:21:48 »

Quote from: fish153 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 13:34:38

Red, 4WD---You are misunderstanding. Please read this creed once again:

I'm not misunderstanding the creed, I understand it very clearly~and I will address this in morning, the Lord willing. BESIDES and among all else, creeds/confessions are written by man and for man~ the very best (which the Nicene creed is totally RCC/EOC confession) are mixed with errors, and we are called to preach and teach the scriptures not to defend confessions by men.

Quote

We as Christians believe in the Trinity.

That is a very prideful statement, and is insinuating that those who believe in the incarnate Sonship are not Christians! Shame on you. But, I'm not offended, trust me, because I KNOW that I see and understand this most blessed truth and I can defend myself against the Jehovah Witnesses and other false teachers much better than the eternal Sonship believers can and my brother, that's a fact! Why do you not take my points and prove them unscriptural? I know why and so do you inwardly. But God sees our hearts and knows our private thoughts, yea, even before we were ever born, he knew every thought from the beginning to end of every person that would ever live! Later...too many meetings left in this short day, and I'm getting too old to keep up so I must run.

fish153 · « **Reply #60 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 15:08:14 »

Red said---

>>>That is a very prideful statement, and is insinuating that those who believe in the incarnate Sonship are not Christians!<<<

Well you misunderstood again I see. I said "WE" as Christians believe in the Trinity, meaning YOU and I, and all other born-again
believers. We ALL believe in the Trinity. The link I put up (if you had a chance to read it) was very careful to point this out----that there are some who do
not hold to the Eternal Sonship doctrine---but it gives us no reason to doubt they are sincere, true believers.

So I was in no way saying that those who do not hold to Eternal Sonship are not Christians---I would never make a statement like that. Again, as I said, I think you mis-
understood what I was saying. I also think you misunderstand the Eternal Sonship doctrine by using human wisdom and understanding to try to explain eternal things.
But as I said, we will all know one day.

God bless you!

AVZ · « **Reply #61 on:** Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 21:59:06 »

Quote from: RB on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 14:21:48

Quote from: fish153 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 13:34:38
Red, 4WD---You are misunderstanding. Please read this creed once again:
I'm not misunderstanding the creed, I understand it very clearly~and I will address this in morning, the Lord willing. BESIDES and among all else, creeds/confessions are written by man and for man~ the very best (which the Nicene creed is totally RCC/EOC confession) are mixed with errors, and we are called to preach and teach the scriptures not to defend confessions by men.

No I don't think there is a difference in understanding, just a difference in application.

I do not take the Eternal Sonship as something that is physical. It expresses a relationship.
Similarly in scripture there are expressions like "sons of God" and "children of God". None of these I take literal.

So the term Eternal Sonship to me means that the Trinity is a relationship from eternity past in which the tasks of each person in the Trinity was defined. From eternity past one person was the Father, one person was the Son and one person was the Holy Spirit.
These terms identify the spiritual relationship between the three members of the Trinity, and to some extend also describe a hierarchical structure.
Not hierarchy in power, but hierarchy in responsibilities.

Later on in history the Son also took on a physical father-son relationship by becoming human in addition to being God.

However...this Eternal Sonship should not be used as a jumping board to claim all kinds of special properties for Mary.
So if that's you fear, that the Nicene Creed has the potential to become that jumping board, then I agree with you.
But by itself I do not hold Eternal Sonship illogical or impossible.

RB · « **Reply #62 on:** Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 03:43:26 »

Quote from: fish153 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 - 15:08:14

Well you misunderstood again I see. I said "WE" as Christians believe in the Trinity, meaning YOU and I, and all other born-again believers. We ALL believe in the Trinity.

Charity demands that we believeth all things and think no evil of others intentions. So you said that your words were not directed at the incarnate Sonship group, then I accept that and apologize to you. Nevertheless, it was not that clear what you meant, and since we disagree on the Eternal Sonship position, I took that to mean that all Sonship believers were the only Christians, which I DO ACCEPT as my brothers and sisters, yet knowing that they are wrong, and I provided strong enough arguments to prove it, which arguments were not disproved.

John F. MacArthur there very close where you live in California once held to the Incarnate Sonship but found it unpopular and ditched it so that he could be accepted among his peers! I'm not about popularity, when it comes to the word of God and its true doctrines. Truth has never been popular and never will be whatever truth one holds to. If the masses accept it, then most likely it is watered down so that they can and will accept it.

Quote

I also think you misunderstand the Eternal Sonship doctrine by using human wisdom and understanding to try to explain eternal things.

No, my friend, I used the scriptures and what have you even provided? Not one scripture, you are welcome to do so, so that I can address you reasoning as to WHY you believe in the eternal Sonship doctrine. Our Lord expect us to use scriptures and sound logic WITHIN scriptural bounds! When he asked his disciple who he was, he was laboring to make them THINK as to WHY they believe when others DID NOT and were very confused as to WHO Jesus was. We all use sound logic every day when studying the scriptures and I could give many examples to prove my point.

Quote

Matthew 22:41-46~"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

In two of my post above I've done nothing more than what Christ did here, to prove who he was, if they were able to use sound logic WITHIN the scriptures.

He and the apostles (read Paul's epistles) also used QUESTIONS in debating/teaching with others which are the most effective way of proving a person arguments in any form of debate/teaching or presenting one's case for truth. Read Galatians and debating tactics and see. I learned this many years ago. I learned this from two sources, the scriptures first and foremost and from men who ran for the office of presidency back over hundred years ago from a book or source I once read. And I have found that it works well.

Quote

God bless you!

Thank you and I pray the same for you in all sincerity and for all of God's little ones.

RB · « **Reply #63 on:** Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 05:51:08 »

Quote

2nd John 7 and 9~"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and antichrist. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

Should we call all men, who different with us on our understanding of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, deceivers and antichrist? We are not out to offend men, just to offend, and appear before others, as standing bold upon the scriptures; neither are we out to please men, just to be their friend. We all should strive to please God, first and foremost, and allow our course that God has chosen for us, to run its course.

Most likely we cannot answer this question that I just ask, to please all of the righteous, who truly believe that Jesus has come in the flesh.

If we take verse nine in an absolute sense, without giving scriptures sense, then no one living would have God living within them, no one! The reason why is this: we all have grown in the knowledge of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, or, at least, we should have~(see 2nd Peter 3:18) We all have grown in certain knowledge about Jesus Christ, that we did not know or even heard when we first started out, and some of us, (myself included) was taught the eternal Sonship position, until I search it for myself.

Proud men are so quick to pass judgment upon any who may teach a doctrine different from what they have been taught, regardless, if they have searched the matter out for themselves or not. Most will not even consider a doctrine, if it is different from what their pastor teaches, regardless what the scriptures teach otherwise. These people have more fear of men than of God, and God cannot be pleased with them.

My understanding of how I should approach anyone who may different with me on the Sonship doctrine will be determined by the teachings of the apostle, and my understanding of their instructions and teachings.

So here is what I believe, and how I should answer the question above. I trust that I base my understanding and convictions from God's word alone, and not from any other source.

1. I reject as heresy those who teach that Jesus Christ in not the One and true God of the holy scriptures as antichrist. All Jehovah Witnesses are heretics and deceivers, thereby are antichrist. I refuse to bid them God's speed. They speak against the testimony of God recorded for us the scriptures. They have their own New World translation to support their lies that gives them confidence in their false professing. They do not believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son, and is Jehovah God in his Divine Nature. They are antichrist and deceivers. They do not believe that Jesus Christ came by water, and BLOOD! The blood, not of Adam's race, but OF GOD! They deny that Jesus Christ was conceived by God himself, apart from any earthly means aided by man. We have God's record of that conception announcement and birth in Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:30-35; Luke 2:5-21... This is the only record that any child of God should believe.

They believe that Jesus is a begotten god. Look at their New World translation of John 1:1. Every child of God knows that Jesus Christ was Jehovah God, manifest in the flesh according to 1st Timothy 3:16, and other scriptures. They reject God's own testimony concerning his Son. They are void of the Spirit of God.

I will add this. I had a young man who worked in my business, who was of the Jehovah Witnesses faith; and was one of the very best workers that I had, in every way you could think of. So, personally, I have no bones to pick with individuals, only with their false, and antichrist teachings. I told this young man, that I would never bid him God's speed and expect the same from him, and he understood, of course, he would never do that as well. They believe that Jesus was a good man, and a good prophet, but not Jehovah. He no longer works for me, but we are friends, as much as we can be.

2. All true Mormons are likewise deceivers and antichrist, and enemies of the God of heaven. You can Google and learn for yourself concerning this sect that was started by a self-exalted prophet, who was an adulterer and a dreamer of dreams and a liar. They believe that God and Jesus were married! You can read what they believe, but would not waste very much time following these demon posses people.

3. Now closer to home~Do I believe that those who hold to the eternal generation of the Son of God are deceivers and antichrist? NO!

There are many of God's children that believe the record that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is equal to God in every sense of the word, as far as their Divine nature goes, yet believe in the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, they are in error concerning when Jesus became the Son of God, but that within itself does not make them antichrist, or a deceiver, that are used by the devil to make Christ less than who he is because most of them would make almost the very same confession as Peter did. I believe we should be very careful not to offend one of God's little ones, who may have never considered the issue at hand, or who has, yet are not able to fully understand the controversy. There are godly people on both side of the issue (Eternal Sonship vs Incarnate Sonship) and we must be careful not to pass quick judgment, or speak evil of them. But, we should indeed labor to be faithful to Christ alone and to labor to instruct those that oppose themselves. The words of Red are ended~Job 31:40

fish153 · « **Reply #64 on:** Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 13:05:08 »

Red----

Thank you for your post. As I said, we as Christians believe in the Trinity, and the Deity of Jesus Christ. I just wanted to clarify that I do not believe in Eternal Sonship to please men, or because a Pastor or teacher taught me that doctrine.

As I stated, I believe John 17:5 shows an eternal relationship between Father and Son. I believe Jesus is the incarnated God the Son. I do not believe the Son of God had a beginning, and has always existed as the Son.

We will know clearly one day. No one is unsaved by holding to either doctrine. God bless you my brother.

4WD · « **Reply #65 on:** Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 13:18:06 »

fish,

What does it mean that pre-incarnate Jesus was the Son of God?

fish153 · « **Reply #66 on:** Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 19:55:22 »

I already explained that. God the Son was incarnated into a human body as John 1:14 explains.

4WD · « **Reply #67 on:** Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 05:36:45 »

When Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus as a human being, then the Word became flesh and became the Son of God. I do not believe that God is ever referred to as the Father before that. Father is a "name" given to the first person of the Trinity following the human birth of Jesus. Son is the "name" given the second person, Jesus, of the Trinity.

This may be nit picking, but sometimes that is necessary to keep things straight and true. It is along the same lines that Jesus was the son of David, yet He was David's Lord. He was always David's Lord, but He became David's son only upon His birth as a human being.

RB · « **Reply #68 on:** Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 05:54:31 »

Quote from: fish153 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 - 19:55:22

I already explained that. God the Son was incarnated into a human body as John 1:14 explains.

Amen, now allow me to ask you this question:

Quote

Before Jesus was the Son of God would you also agree that he was the "Everlasting Father" according to Isaiah 9:6 which said: "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."

(Note: not the Everlasting Son, but Father!) If so, then you have been converted more perfectly as Apollos of old and as we ALL have over time.

fish153 · « **Reply #69 on:** Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 15:03:19 »

Read that verse again (Isaiah 9:6). It says He SHALL be called the Everlasting Father. It doesn't say He was called that BEFORE He came to earth. He SHALL also be called The Prince of Peace.

So I really don't see anything there Red.

4WD--- I understand what you are saying and respect you for it. I will just say that Abraham and Isaac also lead me to believe that the Son of God has been the Son from eternity. When God says "You have not witheld your son, your Only son from me..." I believe this foreshadows God sacrificing His Son (God the Son) and not witholding Him from us.

But as I said before, we will all find out one day, and it is no discussion that should drive us away from loving one another as brothers in Christ.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: The Deception of the Teaching of the Trinity (Read 4463 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

AVZ

AVZ

AVZ

AVZ