Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] "Dynamic and Engaged"

Expand Messages
  • Bill Ross
    ... said ... that ... ... I don t understand that answer. ... the creation of the Son. Try reading it in context. Wisdom is in the
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 2, 2002
      ><Bill>
      >So God does have a "prior to" and "since" characteristic? He can be
      said
      >to have existed alone "before" and not alone "after?" If so, how is
      that
      >not time?

      <Greg>
      >>In the beginning, God....

      <Bill>
      I don't understand that answer.

      <Greg>
      >>Sorry, but this is a personification of wisdom, not a description of
      the
      creation of the Son. Try reading it in context. Wisdom is in the
      feminine.

      <Bill>
      Are you saying that this passage applies to someone other than Christ? A
      woman? Was the logos a pre-existent male?

      Is this passage fiction?

      >Does the scripture *anywhere* say that Christ was "eternally begotten?"
      >Or are you only concerned about Catholic creeds and such?

      <Greg>
      >>Get out a concordance and look up "begotten" and "only-begotten," and
      you
      tell me.

      <Bill>
      It does not appear so. Why do you find it unfathomable to think that he
      was not eternally begotten?

      Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of
      the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
      David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
      conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. {conceived: Gr. begotten}
      John 1:14 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.
      John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
      which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
      John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
      Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
      everlasting life.
      John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
      believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the
      name of the only begotten Son of God.
      Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that
      he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second
      psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
      Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art
      my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
      Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
      Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
      priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I
      begotten thee.
      1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because
      that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live
      through him.
      1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
      and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
      begotten of him. {is born: Gr. has been born}
      Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and
      the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
      earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own
      blood,

      ><Greg>
      > >>When the context so requires. Do you also believe that God is a
      >celestial chicken? Psalm 17:8.
      >
      ><Bill>
      >Literary devices, obviously.

      <Greg>
      >>By what arbitrary standard do you judge one to be a literary device
      and not another? If Scripture is to be taken literally when it says that
      God moves, learns, changes His mind, etc., then Scripture is also to be
      taken
      literally when it says that He has wings like a mother hen.

      <Bill>
      I don't guess I could hope to agree here. I think we'll need to just
      agree to disagree.

      Shalom,

      Bill Ross
    • Bill Ross
      ... It is not a matter of which God is superior, but which is described in scripture. Scripture shows God acting conditionally, judging the free
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 2, 2002
        <Greg>
        >>"Why... should we follow the processians in rejecting those very attributes of God which make Him different from and superior to the gods of the heathen? Why reduce God to the level of pagan deities by claiming that He cannot know or control the future? If God is no better or greater than man or his manmade gods, why believe or worship Him? Are we really any better off if God is no longer GOD?"

        <Bill>
        It is not a matter of which God is superior, but which is described in scripture. Scripture shows God acting conditionally, judging the free actions of men. This is, in fact, a superior sovereign than one for whom all choice is frozen in immobility. Perhaps this is why he created man in his own image in the first place - gods with whom to interact - a program to have sons like himself:

        James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

        Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

        <Greg>
        >>"Such searching questions as these can be ignored only at the peril of one's immortal soul. Theology is not a game but a matter of life or death. If you want a finite god, then you must choose Baal and serve him. But if you want to serve Jehovah, then you must accept Him as He has revealed Himself in the Bible." page 179.

        <Bill>
        ...which is one who responds to people and learns of them by their actions. I've demonstrated that.

        <Greg>
        >>It is clear that Bill holds "some" theologians in high esteem, just not the orthodox ones. In my opinion, he does not belong on this list.

        "A man that is a heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
        knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
        himself" (Titus 3:10-11).

        <Bill>
        Are you aware that this verse refers to sectarians, not just those who disagree with you?

        Titus 3:10 A man that is an **heretick** after the first and second admonition reject;

        In the context, it was referring specifically to judaizers who were teaching that believers should keep the law:

        8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
        9 ¶ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

        I am not a heretic in the biblical sense, and not a proponent of torah observance.

        Nor a railer.

        I have committed the heinous sin of not agreeing with the popular. So be it.

        Shalom,

        Bill Ross
      • Crown Rights Book Company
        ... Just so everyone knows what Bill considers to be quite faithful to the scriptures, here s a little taste of the eminent theologian, Clark Pinnock: [The]
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 2, 2002
          At 09:03 PM 12/1/02 -0600, you wrote:

          ><Greg>
          > >>Are you familiar with the writings of Clark Pinnock or Richard Rice?
          >
          ><Bill>
          >Clark, yes. Rice, I don't recall. Clark is, IMHO, quite faithful to the
          >scriptures, rather than to the philosophers.

          Just so everyone knows what Bill considers to be "quite faithful to the
          scriptures," here's a little taste of the eminent theologian, Clark Pinnock:

          "[The] idea that God knows and determines all things in advance and never
          has to adjust his planning is one that stands in obvious tension with the
          Bible and yet is deeply fixed in historic Christian thinking. It is due to
          the accommodation made in classic theism to the Hellenistic culture."
          Pinnock, essay: "From Augustine to Arminius," in The Grace of God/The Will
          of Man (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), page 24.

          "...I had to rethink the divine omniscience and reluctantly as whether we
          ought to think of it as an exhaustive foreknowledge of everything that will
          ever happen, as even most Arminians do....
          "...I had to ask myself if it was biblically possible to hold that
          God knows everything that can be known, but that free choices would not be
          something that can be known even by God because they are not yet settled in
          reality. Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by
          God. They are potential -- yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can
          predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it,
          because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom....
          "...God is not altogether sure about the future and what he may
          have to do when it reveals itself...." Pinnock, ibid., pages 25, 26.

          Richard Rice is another "process theologian" who contributed to the Grace
          of God/Will of Man book of which Pinnock was the editor. Rice wrote, "If
          human beings are really free, and their actions are not determined by God,
          how can he know in advance everything they are going to do?" Rice, essay:
          "Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will Theism," in Grace/Will, page 123.

          Robert A. Morey wrote a very good rebuttal of process theology back in 1989
          called The Battle of the Gods. It was published by the now defunct Crowne
          Publications, but copies might be available at http://www.abebooks.com
          Morey closes his book with these words:

          "Why... should we follow the processians in rejecting those very attributes
          of God which make Him different from and superior to the gods of the
          heathen? Why reduce God to the level of pagan deities by claiming that He
          cannot know or control the future? If God is no better or greater than man
          or his manmade gods, why believe or worship Him? Are we really any better
          off if God is no longer GOD?
          "Such searching questions as these can be ignored only at the
          peril of one's immortal soul. Theology is not a game but a matter of life
          or death. If you want a finite god, then you must choose Baal and serve
          him. But if you want to serve Jehovah, then you must accept Him as He has
          revealed Himself in the Bible." page 179.

          It is clear that Bill holds "some" theologians in high esteem, just not the
          orthodox ones. In my opinion, he does not belong on this list.

          "A man that is a heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
          knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
          himself" (Titus 3:10-11).

          Libertas inestimabilis res est,
          Greg Loren Durand

          Crown Rights Book Company
          http://www.crownrights.com

          ------

          Husband of:
          Lisa Regina (wife of 9 years)

          Father of:
          Brianna Marie (8)
          Virginia Ruth (6)
          Georgia Esther (5)
          Robert Lee (3)
          Carolina Rachel (1)

          http://www.crownrights.com/durand.jpg
        • Crown Rights Book Company
          ... I m sorry, but the answer was quite clear. ... Proverbs 8 tells you who is being spoken of (chapter 9, too). Read it from verse 1 rather than skipping down
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 3, 2002
            At 09:08 PM 12/2/02 -0600, you wrote:
            > ><Bill>
            > >So God does have a "prior to" and "since" characteristic? He can be
            >said
            > >to have existed alone "before" and not alone "after?" If so, how is
            >that
            > >not time?
            >
            ><Greg>
            > >>In the beginning, God....
            >
            ><Bill>
            >I don't understand that answer.

            I'm sorry, but the answer was quite clear.

            ><Greg>
            > >>Sorry, but this is a personification of wisdom, not a description of
            >the creation of the Son. Try reading it in context. Wisdom is in the
            >feminine.
            >
            ><Bill>
            >Are you saying that this passage applies to someone other than Christ? A
            >woman? Was the logos a pre-existent male?
            >
            >Is this passage fiction?

            Proverbs 8 tells you who is being spoken of (chapter 9, too). Read it from
            verse 1 rather than skipping down to verse 22. This is a personification of
            wisdom as a female. Personification is one of those literary devices you
            mentioned. No literal person is being spoken of here.

            > >Does the scripture *anywhere* say that Christ was "eternally begotten?"
            > >Or are you only concerned about Catholic creeds and such?
            >
            ><Greg>
            > >>Get out a concordance and look up "begotten" and "only-begotten," and
            >you tell me.
            >
            ><Bill>
            >It does not appear so. Why do you find it unfathomable to think that he
            >was not eternally begotten?

            Unfathomable, because the Son is the second Person of the Godhead,
            eternally co-existent with the Father. See the below verse:

            >John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
            >which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

            I think I was mistaken about you being a Mormon. The more you talk, the
            more you sound like a Jehovah's Witness or some other brand of Russellite.
            You are an Arian, at the very least.

            Let me guess, you also deny the immortality of the soul?

            Libertas inestimabilis res est,
            Greg Loren Durand

            Crown Rights Book Company
            http://www.crownrights.com

            ------

            Husband of:
            Lisa Regina (wife of 9 years)

            Father of:
            Brianna Marie (8)
            Virginia Ruth (6)
            Georgia Esther (5)
            Robert Lee (3)
            Carolina Rachel (1)

            http://www.crownrights.com/durand.jpg
          • Crown Rights Book Company
            ... No, Bill, you have committed the sins of: 1. Denying the infinite, immutable, and transcendent God of the Bible 2. Denying the eternal Deity of the Son 3.
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 3, 2002
              At 09:23 PM 12/2/02 -0600, you wrote:

              >I have committed the heinous sin of not agreeing with the popular. So be it.
              >
              >Shalom,
              >
              >Bill Ross

              No, Bill, you have committed the sins of:

              1. Denying the infinite, immutable, and transcendent God of the Bible
              2. Denying the eternal Deity of the Son
              3. Deliberately subscribing to and participating on a list, the guidelines
              of which you know you don't accept:

              "This is a place to discuss the True Religion as revealed in God's Word,
              and set forth in the Westminster Standards, and as upheld by the best
              Reformers, Puritans, and Covenanters, and by those following them as they
              followed Christ. Topics include all things related to the Reformation
              (Covenanting, Reformed theology, pure Worship, Psalmody, Beer, etc). You do
              not have to be a Covenanter to participate."

              The owner says that one does not have to be a Covenanter to participate,
              but it is obvious that one does have to at least be a Trinitarian in
              theology and Reformed in doctrine. I think it unconscionable that you did
              not openly identify yourself right from the start.

              Further discussion with you would be pointless, since you are only here to
              propagate your own heretical views.

              2 Timothy 3:1-9.

              Libertas inestimabilis res est,
              Greg Loren Durand

              Crown Rights Book Company
              http://www.crownrights.com

              ------

              Husband of:
              Lisa Regina (wife of 9 years)

              Father of:
              Brianna Marie (8)
              Virginia Ruth (6)
              Georgia Esther (5)
              Robert Lee (3)
              Carolina Rachel (1)

              http://www.crownrights.com/durand.jpg
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.