Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
27.09.2016, 09:13:18
Charles Page I’ve others say he be came the Son of God at his baptism
22.09.2016, 12:11:24
Ricky Grimsley So to clarify. You guys believe that jesus was the son of God before creation?
22.09.2016, 14:17:40
Eva Benevento That happens when you rewrite the Bible.
22.09.2016, 14:32:19
Jack Contrell David Lavoie Terry Wiles TRINITY is a must #Pentecost101
22.09.2016, 19:42:23
Ricky Grimsley I believe that the word existed and in all the theophanies of the OT. I just dont see that he was a son then. He was the visible Jehovah.
23.09.2016, 07:02:12
Jack Contrell True Orthodoxy lies in the affirmation that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally inseparably together. God is eternally Father, eternally Son, and eternally Holy Spirit. “The Father beget His son without days or hours; and when He beget Him, His Father was not separated from Him.” Beyond time, God is the eternal One. That One is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No one of the three Persons is prior to the other two in time. “The One was not before the Other”, says the Anaphora, “and the Second was not before the Third.” But “we proclaim that the Father lived with His Son, and that the Son lived with His Father before creation, and before the heavens and the earth were made.” In the one co-eternal and co-equal Trinity, the Father is the eternal source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is born of, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from, the Father. While affirming that the Son and the Holy Spirit derive each of them His respective being eternally from the Father, it is insisted that “the Father did not beget the Son to help Him in His work before the world was created and the existence of the Holy Spirit is not to contribute wisdom and work.” ~Orthodox Tewahedo
23.09.2016, 07:07:04
Ricky Grimsley So on what “day” was jesus begotten and how can something that has no beginning have a “source”.
23.09.2016, 08:07:35
Ricky Grimsley I think “orthodoxy” is way more complicated than what the bible says about the Godhead.
23.09.2016, 08:09:47
Jack Contrell Proclamation was formulated by the holy fathers of the Nicene Council in the following way: . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light. True God of True God. Begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father. Through whom all things were made . . .
23.09.2016, 08:31:00
Ricky Grimsley How many bodies does the Godhead have?
23.09.2016, 09:13:42
Jack Contrell Irrelevant to the early church and church fathers. Their stand was “one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light. True God of True God. Begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father. Through whom all things were made .” HOW were all things made through the Son if the Son is not Son from and through all eternity?
23.09.2016, 09:29:21
Charles Page God head had a body before creation?
23.09.2016, 10:46:01
Ricky Grimsley If the God head didnt have a body before creation does that mean it was three spirits? There is too much mumbo jumbo here. Essences and all that.
23.09.2016, 11:05:46
Jack Contrell Oh no no Ricky Grimsley The Bible does not say just the Word – Paul specifically calls on the SON Col. ch 1:13 ff => His beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. as 1st born obviously was the SON before the creation and then 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. – as being the Son before all things He could not assume Sonship at the incarnation – He was the Son from and for all eternity
23.09.2016, 11:40:47
Ricky Grimsley Him being the firstborn or all creation cant mean sonship otherwise you are saying he had a beginning. Firstborn of all creation has to either mean the resurrection or is talking about preeminence or something. Because he wasnt the first physically born. Unless you want to take the route that the whole role of man was for God to incarnate himself cleanse the universe of lucifer’s sin and so the first thought of creation was The incarnation?
23.09.2016, 12:16:07
Jack Contrell vs13 – His beloved Son – obviously it does mean Sonship
23.09.2016, 12:18:26
Ricky Grimsley No one is saying he never was the son or isnt the son now.
23.09.2016, 12:19:53
Ricky Grimsley Sorry to interject any thought processes and stuff but how can a son not have a beginning. By definition a son come from a father or creator.
23.09.2016, 12:21:28
Terry Wiles There was a point in time when the Word became flesh and lived among us. But he was in the beginning with God (whenever the beginning was). He (personal pronouns) is God.
23.09.2016, 12:22:54
Jack Contrell Paul’s saying that if the Son is not eternally Son then the sacrifice of the Son cannot be for all eternity…
23.09.2016, 13:10:35
Ricky Grimsley Where is Paul saying that
23.09.2016, 13:17:26
Terry Wiles I would suggest some foundational theology text such as Theisen or Strongs. Strongs complete wired is a free download and is free of reality rights.
23.09.2016, 13:25:57
Charles Page Berkhof
23.09.2016, 13:27:45
Terry Wiles I posted link to Strongs on the main Pentecostal theology page
23.09.2016, 13:30:41
Jack Contrell The position we take on the Trinity will also answer several questions of a practical nature. Whom are we to worship-Father only, Son, Holy Spirit, or the Triune God? To whom are we to pray? Is the work of each to be considered in isolation from the work of the others, or may we think of the atoning death of Jesus as somehow the work of the Father as well? Should the Son be thought of as the Father’s equal in essence, or should he be relegated to a somewhat lesser status? +1 Christian Theology by Erickson [read online] http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF%20Books/00031%20Erickson%20Christian%20Theology%20Part%201.pdf
23.09.2016, 15:36:07
David Lavoie God created Adam first, Then Eve. Whose Pattern is He in maternal necessity?…
23.09.2016, 19:10:06
David Lavoie Jesus in John 8 “before Abraham was, I Am.”. And again the jews took up stones to stone Him.
23.09.2016, 19:21:15
Jack Contrell Ricky is not saying Christ was not at all before Abraham – he claims Christ was not the Son before He was born from Mary. Tertullian viewed three manifestations of the one God. Although they are numerically distinct, so that they can be counted, they are nonetheless manifestations of a single indivisible power. There is a distinction (distinctio) or distribution (dispositio), not a division or separation (sepmtio). As illustrations of the unity within the Godhead, Tertullian points to the unity between a root and its shoot, a source and its river, the sun and its light. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one identical substance; this substance has been extended into three manifestations, but not divided
23.09.2016, 22:12:13
David Lavoie Right. The Word is the Person The Father communicates Himself through, thay part of God which man can handle and touch. That part of God Who relates His Person to us. The communication of God in His entirity through God in the Person of His Son. If
24.09.2016, 00:11:03
David Lavoie Interesting. It would seem from John 17 and Jesus preistly prayer that he enjoyed the same relationship to his Father in heaven before the world was. Before. Their may be a bit of him in those theophinies my take is that according to Eph. 1 the Father always intended on incorporating us into union with his beloved son. Now Jesus never says God gave him a new position of sonship that he never before held but the whole of Old testament and new testament prophecy points to us being engrafted in a restored humanity which is fully made complete in Christ by relation to the Father in His unchanging love for His son. Seems to be 🙂
24.09.2016, 00:28:30
Jack Contrell Tony Conger This is the discussion on Sonship started by Ricky Grimsley a.k.a. KJV proper #sonne
26.09.2016, 14:20:29
Tony Conger Lol looks like it was stayed by Troy Day. You guys are always picking on poor Ricky Grimsley
26.09.2016, 14:36:51
Jack Contrell Just discussing proper sonship, sonne 🙂 ole Ricky is all right by me – a true Dake believer not like Charles Page who sold his Dake
26.09.2016, 14:37:45
Jack Contrell Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, p. 57, note d Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, He had no beginning; was not begotten or He would have had a beginning as God; and was not God’s Son. But as a man, He had a beginning, was begotten, and was God’s Son – now that I dont believe one little bit. Makes sense logically but it is hardly any Bible in it and it creates context for complete denial of the Trinity – Now let us reason… http://www.letusreason.org/Pent74.htm
26.09.2016, 14:44:18
Charles Page This was read in the opening of our service yesterday. “He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.” The Holy Spirit had provided the sperm for the birth and the Father had served as SBA (skilled birth attendant) He was a mid-wife. He assisted her. As women were attended in Israel by midwives God saw to her deliverance. His hands reached between her knees and handled the infant giving encouragement to Mary. He washed and wrapped the infant and handed the child to the breast of the waiting mother. I don’t know how you could read this as eternal Son without stretching the doctrine of incarnation to illogical limits. It is incarnational Sonship.
26.09.2016, 15:09:31
David Lewayne Porter Yawn, Dake was a man and fallible. His interpretation is not equal to the Word of God, and is subject to question and examination.
26.09.2016, 15:38:30
Jack Contrell There’s really just couple of things when you come to think about it. His interpretation of last days prophecies is simply impeccable!
26.09.2016, 15:39:16
David Lewayne Porter Yawn
26.09.2016, 15:39:45
Ricky Grimsley His interpretation of prophecy is just a fallible as everyone else’s. Maybe i need to read it again but it seems he missed Islam rising.
26.09.2016, 16:01:39
Jack Contrell Maybe you do 🙂 It will be great to post for discussion…
26.09.2016, 16:02:15
Ricky Grimsley Whats the point of discussion again ….in a settled future? Lol
26.09.2016, 16:09:58
Jack Contrell Ricky Grimsley Let us note Date teaches adoption-ism only as part of incarnation but does not deny eternal sonship of the Christ after the resurrection. It is there that true adoptionism has a major problem – in the claim that apart from the flesh Christ cannot be given birth and therefore cannot be Son eternally – before the incarnation and after the resurrection. It is the second part that Eastern Orthodoxy as Henry Volk may confirm bids it to be heresy. And when said and done Eastern Orthodoxy accepts “one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father” I kind of like the “eternally begotten” part and will have it no other way
26.09.2016, 20:06:01
Ricky Grimsley Well It seems to me that jesus is eternally the son now because he lives forever in the resurrected body of his incarnation. I dont see he could be the son in the eternal past because (this day i have begotten thee) whatever meaning you put on it there was “a day” or a beginning of his sonship.
26.09.2016, 20:09:49
Jack Contrell Again in that verse read properly “you are my son” is before “this day i have begotten thee” but even this is not strong enough evidence because E. Orthodoxy claims eternally begotten 🙂 Henry Volk
26.09.2016, 20:11:54
Tony Conger Why does the son ship have to be eternal? Perhaps the trinity exists and we have simply mislabeled it in our attempt to quantify it. Obviously there was both a day he was begotten and he will become subject again to the father. 1 cor. 15. Obviously who Jesus is has always been and will always be unchanging so they only aspect capable of change would be his office e.i. sonship
26.09.2016, 20:54:19
Henry Volk We have to make a distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity. But beyond this, we have to noticed the four evangelists have different Christilogies. Mark has an adoptionist Christology.
26.09.2016, 20:56:31
Charles Page theories
26.09.2016, 20:57:11
Jack Contrell According to Rahner, ‘the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity’. This thesis, some claim, can be construed in ways that imply modalism. This paper explores the validity of this claim by examining what Rahner himself meant to assert concerning the Trinity in comparison, on the one hand, with what the Church has traditionally considered ‘orthodox’, and the error of ‘modalism’ on the other
26.09.2016, 20:57:54
David Lavoie God who at various times and in diverse manners spoke in timrs past to the fathers through the prophets has in the last days spoken unto us in the person of son, by whom also he made the worlds. Heb. 1:1,2. He made the worlds by the one titled his son. Later in heb. Melchesidic having neither beginning of days or end of life but made like unto thr Son of God.
27.09.2016, 00:05:55
David Lavoie Heb. 7:3 He is without father or mother or geneology, having neither Beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Not to dissparage the faith of Mr. Grimsley.
27.09.2016, 00:13:27
Tony Conger So what is your understanding of being begotten or becoming subject to the father at the end time
27.09.2016, 00:59:12
David Lavoie I’ve been reading in this post about how we have to do infer whether or not Christ was the Son before He became incarnated and I see from these Scriptures it is a relationship He held that predates creation. .. And that He is without beginning of that relationship but is eternally God the Son. Anyhow,.. thats my belief based on the overwhelming bulk of scripture and these direct verses responding to the allegations that such did not exist.
27.09.2016, 01:10:04
Ricky Grimsley Feel free to list some past eternal sonship scriptures.
27.09.2016, 08:36:14
David Lewayne Porter I believe the answer that’s being sought is to be found more in looking at the word “begotten” as possibly referred to in John 3:16 than trying to disect the actual Sonship.
27.09.2016, 08:37:21
Jack Contrell Ricky Grimsley Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me Thou art my Son; [BEFORE] this day have I begotten thee.
27.09.2016, 08:38:43
Jack Contrell Ricky Grimsley Hebrews 5:5 But God said to him, “You are my Son; [BEFORE] to day I have become your Father
27.09.2016, 08:39:55
Jack Contrell Ricky Grimsley Acts 13:33 As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; [BEFORE] today I have become your father.’
27.09.2016, 08:40:42
Jack Contrell Heb. 1:8 God the Father says to the Son ‘your throne O’ God is forever and ever”. and in vs.10 the Father still speaking to the Son “and you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the heavens are the work of your hands…” Who are we going to believe the Oneness reasoning or Gods clear proclamation?
27.09.2016, 08:43:02
Charles Page My life is for ever and ever. I am with beginning but no ending.
27.09.2016, 08:47:51
Jack Contrell Tony Conger Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“this day have I begotten thee”), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.
27.09.2016, 08:55:27
Charles Page this is the day the Lord hath made. We know that is not true.
27.09.2016, 08:59:51
Tony Conger Sounds to me like reading with a predetermined outcome.
27.09.2016, 09:01:02
David Lewayne Porter I think you need to clarify 1) Son of God 2) Son of man Christ was both and functioned under both titles. As far as if Jesus was God’s son in eternity past who was his mother. … satan came to God in the book of Job as a son of God (due to the creation and God being the father to all that was created). I don’t see satan having a mother, or the other created beings – sons of God. Let’s not forget John 1 and the way He describes creation, God, the Word, the way all things were made, the way He became flesh and dwelt among us,,, etc. In addition, we are sons by adoption – salvation. Mary is never called our mother. As a matter of fact Jesus said his mother was (and brethren were) Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. He is the only (begotten) son by “begetting”. If the son was not the son until the incarnation when was the Spirit the 3rd person of the God-Head? He was around in the Old Testament as well as the New.
22.09.2016, 14:04:00
Charles Page the end is without ending so what does “alpha and omega” mean
27.09.2016, 09:15:40
Ricky Grimsley The same thing as Isaiah 46:10 KJVS [10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
27.09.2016, 09:39:04
Ricky Grimsley Jacob prophesied that the sceptre would not depart from Judah but in the meantime was saul from benjamin because israel rejected God’s kingship before he found a man after his own heart.
27.09.2016, 09:41:10
Jack Contrell OK Tony Conger Ricky Grimsley if you put so much into the word begotten then WHO was the father of Jesus from the moment of his conception to His actual physical birth?
27.09.2016, 09:54:59
Ricky Grimsley Matthew 1:18 KJVS [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
27.09.2016, 10:07:11
Jack Contrell So the Father was His Father before He was born? 🙂
27.09.2016, 10:12:05
Ricky Grimsley They were both already Fathers to the sons of god.
27.09.2016, 10:19:39
Jack Contrell “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2) Ricky Grimsley The design in the stress on the word `Son’ in verse 2 is not to convey the idea that God has spoken to us in One Who became His Son, but that He has done so in One Whose relationship to Him as Son stands in antecedent existence both to creation and to His incarnation…The passage is itself a testimony to the pre-existent Sonship of Christ; for not only has God spoken to us in Him Who is His Son, but by Him…He `made the worlds’ (the ages). The plain implication is that He by Whom God made the worlds stood in relationship to Him in this respect as His Son.
27.09.2016, 10:19:55
Ricky Grimsley I dont see your reasoning here. We can see that Paul is referring to the time period of the incarnation. Hebrews 1:4 KJVS [4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Unless you believe Jesus was “made” somewhere in eternal past?
27.09.2016, 15:06:04
Jack Contrell “the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world…He loved us, and sent His Son…As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you…when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son” (1 John 4:14; 4:10; John 20:21; Galatians 4:4) There are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation.
27.09.2016, 15:22:20
David Lewayne Porter I still hold to the opinion that it simply refers to incarnation as it relates to taking on a physical body Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: As relates to the OP….. Made KJV 1096 ginomai ghin’-om-ahee a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):–arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought. Noticed (used with great latitude)….. ASV Hebrews 1:4 having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. Darby Hebrews 1:4 taking a place by so much better than the angels, as he inherits a name more excellent than they. ESVS Hebrews 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. NETfree Hebrews 1:4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs. Tyndall Hebrews 1:4 and is more excellent then the angels in as moche as he hath by inheritaunce obteyned an excellenter name then have they. YLT Hebrews 1:4 having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.
27.09.2016, 15:31:42
Jack Contrell The doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ cannot be set aside or minimized for the following reasons: (1) it is a doctrine plainly taught in the Word of God; (2) the teaching that denies the eternal Sonship of Christ robs the body of Christ, the true church, of a vital and precious belief essential to a proper understanding and appreciation of His Person and work; (3) the truth of the gospel message and its presentation are affected because if we are not proclaiming Christ as the eternal Son of God, then we are preaching a Savior other than the Person who has been revealed in the Scriptures; (4) failure to understand the Persons of the Godhead as revealed by His Word limits one’s practical relationship to His triune Being; (5) the denial of eternal Sonship deprives us of the enjoyment of one of the most beautiful glories of the Lord Jesus Christ.
27.09.2016, 15:32:20
Ricky Grimsley Denying past eternal sonship does none of things you describe. Thats just inflammatory language designed to get people to agree or be silent without any scriptural proof. You keep asserting these things but the scriptures references keep getting left out.
27.09.2016, 15:43:09
Jack Contrell Ricky Grimsley In what way do you feel that eternal sonship of Christ is not Biblical? Plenty of Scriptures were quoted above with proper interpretation and exegesis to prove eternal sonship of Christ. It is one of the essential doctrines in Christian Orthodoxy and its denial has been considered heresy through church history by virtually all church fathers. It supports the Trinity and is supported by the Orthodox doctrine of Trinity – one Son eternally begotten not created. Your answer to all this have been simply “No, no. It is not like this or it is not so” Perhaps a little bit more elaboration on why do you feel this way would help?
27.09.2016, 16:11:06
Tony Conger How does that scripture lends any support to eternal sonship
27.09.2016, 16:13:22
Jack Contrell And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance ( homoousion)with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. ~Nicene Creed. AD 325
27.09.2016, 16:14:00
Tony Conger I’m not even confident that the sonship is not eternal but I have to say almost every argument so far other than heb. 7,3 is either ideological or require a desire to see it in the text. Most of the scriptures used so far simply mention that Christ was the son of God, not that the position of sonship is eternal
27.09.2016, 16:23:24
Jack Contrell And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. ~Constantinopolitan Creed AD 381
27.09.2016, 16:26:17
Tony Conger Do you believe in the eucharist also?
27.09.2016, 16:28:43
Jack Contrell One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us ~Chalcedonian Creed
27.09.2016, 16:30:27
Ricky Grimsley Prepare yourself you know it’s a must Gotta have a friend in Jesus So you know that when you die He’s gonna recommend you To the spirit in the sky Gonna recommend you To the spirit in the sky That’s where you’re gonna go when you die When you die and they lay you to rest You’re gonna go to the place that’s the best Read more: Norman Greenbaum – Spirit In The Sky Lyrics
MetroLyrics
27.09.2016, 17:00:29
Ricky Grimsley Whatever you believe about Hebrews 7 it says that melchizedek was a man. Jesus was made a priest after the order of melchizedek meaning they arent the same person b
27.09.2016, 17:04:43
Tony Conger https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/first-3-parent-dna-baby-born-rare-disease/&ved=0ahUKEwi-hcXxubDPAhVP0GMKHSCkCPwQiJQBCBswAA&usg=AFQjCNGZls4ZmjJUo-z30AEy6cbPcWA3BA This is probably more important imho
27.09.2016, 17:09:15
Ricky Grimsley Well no doubt. We are in the “days of noah”.
27.09.2016, 17:11:37
Tony Conger No doubt. If that doesn’t anger God I don’t know what would
27.09.2016, 17:16:54
Jack Contrell For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. ~Athanasian Creed
27.09.2016, 17:19:59
Tony Conger Why do you keep posting creeds? They prove nothing and you dont accept other doctrines decreed in there anyway
27.09.2016, 17:24:07
David Lavoie God sending His own Son in the likeness of Human flesh Rom. 8:3
27.09.2016, 17:33:59
Jack Contrell Tony Conger The creeds show us the historic development of thought and doctrine in the Christian church i.e. why we historically believe what we believe and why do we interpret the Bible the way we do. You know they read the Bible too before forming the creeds right? And had much better and recent revelation of the words of Christ than we do today. Thus we conclude “The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. ~Athanasian Creed” and the rest is simply heresy… (according to the early church councils)
27.09.2016, 17:45:18
Tony Conger Yes bit if that’s true why do you reject the eucharist?
27.09.2016, 18:06:14
Charles Page
27.09.2016, 18:06:59
Morry Deed Isaiah 9:6.This sums it up for me ?. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
27.09.2016, 20:56:44
Ricky Grimsley Sons like he became the son at his birth to me.
27.09.2016, 21:03:25
David Lewayne Porter Flesh, son of man, son after the flesh. Does not mean He was born – as the son of God (for the first time, at that point in history).
27.09.2016, 21:16:36
Ricky Grimsley I dont see how Son refers to anything before the incarnation. Otherwise Jesus had a beginning. Acts 13 seems to relate being begotten to the resurrection.
27.09.2016, 22:30:53
David Lewayne Porter (Son had a beginning), only in a twisted interpretation. I think the issue is that you maybe grouping verses strickly on wording. No Jesus did not have a beginning (He was revealed in the flesh as the Son – only begotten Son) for the purpose of our Salvation as we beheld His Glory 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. The Word, ever existing Word, God Word was made flesh – became flesh (not just simply made or became). It is also put to us as taking on a form instead of simply becoming, Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
27.09.2016, 23:07:41
Ricky Grimsley I dont believe jesus had a beginning. I just think people try to make things to complicated. We cant just throw away the definition of “son” because we are applying it to God.
27.09.2016, 23:19:21
Charles Page Word was made flesh Jesus was born in time
27.09.2016, 23:25:09
Tony Conger The question is not whether Jesus is eternal or not, but rather whether his status as son is eternal or simply refers to his incarnation
27.09.2016, 23:30:49
Henry Volk Remember that he has two natures subsumed under the unity of his person. He became man in time, but he was always the eternal Logos.
27.09.2016, 23:39:38
Henry Volk http://www.theopedia.com/communicatio-idiomatum
27.09.2016, 23:40:10
Morry Deed SDA early theology of eg white alluded to adoptionism specifically related to Micheal the ArchAngel .
28.09.2016, 02:11:29
Jack Contrell Exactly per last comment as “related to Micheal” etc Tony Conger we can go ahead and elaborate on why ETERNAL SONSHIP is so important in our tradition today and needs to be reclaimed from the Bible based creeds and catechisms but I will have to go into the whole NEW theory about Christ being YHWH of the Old Testament as on of the 70 (or 72) sons of El Elyon (the Ancient of Days). http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/yahweh-was-one-of-the-sons-of-el-elyon-according-to-what-do-think-about-contemporary-and-christian-rap-and-pentecostal-theology/
28.09.2016, 07:33:53
Jack Contrell Let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa prevail. —Athanasius, Letters, lxi to Maximus, A.D. 371.
28.09.2016, 08:54:58
Ricky Grimsley How about we let the bible prevail
28.09.2016, 08:55:31
David Lewayne Porter But can and will we let it prevail?
28.09.2016, 09:01:17
Jack Contrell not for the ones open for open revelations and open theisms who have recently and suddenly gained open knowledge about the “open” role of the Son in the Trinity
28.09.2016, 09:02:33
David Lewayne Porter Seems like these are coming into play… 1 Timothy 4:6-7 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. And we over look… 2 Peter 1:19-20 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Yup God Himself said that He would send strong delusion.
28.09.2016, 10:10:17
Tony Conger So the idea of incarnate sonship is strong delusion? It amazes me how vitriolic and demeaning people on this christian supposedly Holy Ghost filled site can get when anyone even suggests something that is not a traditionally held pentecostal belief. The early church split almost immediately over the different ideas on the nature of christ. The idea that anyone has all understanding of the God of the universe is Ludacris and questioning whether the sonship is eternal or a temporary office doesn’t make anyone less covered by the blood. Novation wrote that Good darkens himself just so we can know him as light. Some people on this page need to examine how ripe the fruit of the spirit is in their lives
28.09.2016, 10:27:12
Henry Volk Without correct doctrine we have nothing. We cannot know God according to his essence, but we do and must know him according to his self-revelation. If we do not understand this self-revelation correctly, then we are heretics.
28.09.2016, 10:31:15
Tony Conger So you have all the answers and understand all mysteries? If you don’t and you preach then you’re a heretic. How can anyone look at Good and see anything other than our own ignorance and failures.
28.09.2016, 10:46:06
Henry Volk Once again the distinction: We cannot know God according to his essence, but only according to his self-revelation.
28.09.2016, 10:52:54
Tony Conger And where did he say that sonship was an eternal office?
28.09.2016, 10:59:38
David Lewayne Porter Tony I make a good point at God. We have to realize our enability to understand all about Him and thus be content in the parts we can explain in a pretty little picture at this point in time, as humans.
28.09.2016, 11:05:44
Tony Conger David Lewayne Porter I agree completely. I get upset when people disqualify others from grace because of those differing views. I’m wiser than I used to be but hopefully not as wise as I will be. If God requires perfection then we are all doomed
28.09.2016, 11:09:35
Ricky Grimsley Discussions like these are what solidifies my belief in open-theism. Whenever we come to anything that cant logically be possible some one says “well the creeds say this” or “orthodoxy says this” and you need to just have faith that things that contradict each other actually make sense because we are talking about God and normal rules rules dont apply.” Look, God’s name isnt father or son or spirit. God wasnt always a father. He became a father when he created sons. That doesnt change his essence or his nature. It only changes relationship to the things around him. God has always been but we can go back to when there was only God and nothing else.
28.09.2016, 12:57:03
Terry Wiles Even in the Old Testament there is a reference to God as Father. Ricky Grimsley consistently has a very low opinion of written Scripture and the Teachings of the Apostles while at the same time leans toward subject realms such as modern day prophecies.
28.09.2016, 13:14:41
Ricky Grimsley Obviously God was the Father by the time the scriptures. He was the Father of creation. Saying that doesnt prove that he was a father before there was anything else which is what i was saying. I have the most high view of scriptures you can have. That doesnt mean i subscribe to every thing you believe.
28.09.2016, 14:11:21
Terry Wiles You have previously indicated that written Scripture holds a lesser authority to modern revelations and/or prophecies. You have said “God’s name isn’t father or son or spirit.” The scriptures reveal otherwise.
28.09.2016, 14:15:45
Tony Conger What in the world are you talking about? That’s a lie. I don’t believe that and have never indicated that
28.09.2016, 14:18:35
Tony Conger And God’s name is Father? That’s just silly
28.09.2016, 14:20:08
Terry Wiles One of the persons in the Godhead is the Father. Both the Old and New testaments affirm this. Jesus even said pray that way. The apostles taught it. The Church has continually affirmed it. For you to say “That’s just silly” is to have a lesser view of Scripture.
28.09.2016, 14:44:02
Henry Volk https://books.google.com/books?id=3yaUcNINeK4C&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=god+in+his+essence+vs+revelation&source=bl&ots=3UYnwFqrC2&sig=PVpZJSgEw-0De3LXYtv3gg_uKpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQv_Kb17LPAhXG7yYKHfEOC4kQ6AEIJjAF
Varnel Watson
No Ricky Grimsley David Lewayne Porter He could have never been just the Logos of God, because John 18:32 says that the Logos of Jesus had to be fulfilled. Not the logos of the logos, but the logos of Jesus the eternal Son of God…
David Lewayne Porter
Troy Day
LoL.
I believe in Eternal Sonship.
So what is your point?
Louise Cummings
He has always been Gods Son. The Bible The Only Begotton. son.
Varnel Watson
David Lewayne Porter Very well. Read the scripture verse. It is self explanatory
David Lewayne Porter
Lol, does not mention your “sonship” so I guess your point got lost in the communication.
Eternally the Son,
The only begotten Son by incarnation.
Blessings
Varnel Watson
No need to point sonship especially since I explained the use of logos in the original Greek of the verse. Which part of the greek do you not understand? Will be happy to explain
David Lewayne Porter
I don’t understand why you are directing this at me,
unless you are just bored.
I believe in Eternal Sonship.
And I am beginning to wonder if you can explain (it) to me.
I fully understand the word and use of the word logos.
I got your meaning in the first post.
It just seems like your bored and are trying to distract from the other discussion.
Varnel Watson
You had question about the scripture I cited and I would like to clarify if you are not understanding my interpretation as presented by your last questions toward that verse
David Lewayne Porter
No Troy
I had no question.
You tagged me in your first comment under your OP.
I am still not understanding why you did.
I have always believed in His eternal Sonship as shown in His title of Son of God.
The Sonship that started at the incarnation through Him being the Only Begotten Son is shown in His title Son of man.
So,
Did I miss something?
Ricky Grimsley
I believe in eternal sonship but not eternal past sonship.
Charlie Robin
So what about all these verses saying that the Son was before the logos 🙂
Varnel Watson
Randal W Deese Just when you lost all hope here comes a great scholarly discussion on the eternal sonship of Christ which we all as Pentecostals believe. Your take on it?
Randal W Deese
All Pentecostals hold this “Catholic” doctrine as true except the Oneness folk.
Varnel Watson
All Pentecostals hold the “Catholic” doctrine is of the AntiChrist. So did all Protestants since Luther onward
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Context, Context, context..
Now answer like someone who reads the specific thread… Lol
SMH
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Now the irony of your statement where you say that Pentecostals say that all Catholic doctrines are of the antichrist is the fact that you hold many of them. We orthodox don’t hold to those Catholic doctrines that you got from the Roman church… That you don’t even know… Because you don’t know historical theology very well
Varnel Watson
So here’s the deal Randal What you are saying about Pentecostals is simply not true. Further, the Trinity and especially the Eternal Sonship are not western Catholic teachings as you depict them ie they do not originate in Rome. Sure under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity. However, it is the Eastern fathers who substantiate the doctrinal statement under Constantine ie “the Son proceeds from his Father” St. Athanasius had argued in exactly the same way… anyway pls read THE CHURCH FATHERS ON THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST before you comment next will ya? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-church-fathers-on-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ/
Randal W Deese
The eternal Sonship Doctrine is a universal Catholic doctrine… So, get a customers have taken the universal Catholic doctrine as their own
Randal W Deese
The Roman catholic Doctrines that are held by Pentecostals is the doctrine of original sin and Penal substitutionary atonement… Which although was defined clearly by Calvin, it began with Rome
Now, the Protestant Bible that you use, it actually began with Martin Luther… Which some people call the protestant pope
Ricky Grimsley
I don’t hold to eternal sonship. I’m still waiting for proof. “This day have I begotten thee”. It ain’t rocket science. Yes the word , the image of the invisible God was in the beginning. He was with God and is God……but was he a son…..I don’t see it.
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley
Let’s look at Scripture.
Psalm 2:7, “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
Proverbs 30:4, ” Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!”
John 17:5, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Colossians 1:13-17, “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Hebrews 1:2, “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”
Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
Ricky Grimsley
I don’t see how any of that proves he was a son in eternal past. Sure David was able to prophesy about the relationship but still “this day” means what? Did Jesus have a human body and two natures at creation…..no so him being the same yesterday today and forever doesn’t mean what you think it does. Was his name Jesus always? It appears that Jesus says he was Jehovah right?
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley If you read the passages objective… Not with a pre digested theology, they are very clear
Ricky Grimsley
I read the Old Testament as prophecy. Do you believe that Jesus was already crucified when he said “they pierce my hands and feet” or “lamb slain from the foundation”.
Ricky Grimsley
The seed of the woman…..it’s a future thing.
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley let’s get to the core of the problem…If Sonship is not eternal, then God is not a Father. He is only a creator.
If you make the Son the Father, then the Father is a liar and deceiver, because He Pretended to be two persons talking to each other.
The reason you can’t see this clearly is because you assume that God deceived us with pretending to be a father and son at the same time….
If one except the purity of God not to deceive, one must except the eternity of the Son
Ricky Grimsley
How could Jesus be a son in the past but not created?
Ricky Grimsley
If we have three persons but only a father and son….what is the spirit’s relationship. I can’t even write a speculation because it sounds blasphemous
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley The point is… God is not a liar nor is he deceptive. Next, you’ll try to convince me that the father wasn’t the father tell Jesus was born. The whole idea is absurd
Ricky Grimsley
Well “the father” had other sons. Of course technically Jesus created them though right?
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley You really need to think deeper… Let me ask you this question. Has the father always been the father from eternity?
Ricky Grimsley
I guess that depends on the nature of reality. I believe that logically there was a time before creation when there was only God. So in the space between only God and God deciding to create I could see no reasonable application to title of father. And again if there was at that time Father and son what was the spirit’s relationship.
Randal W Deese
Ricky Grimsley I don’t think you’ve thought this out very much… But you just created yourself a real serious theological problem… Now you’re teaching that God changes
Ricky Grimsley
God’s character doesn’t change but some things have changed. Certainly you don’t believe that God was a man or had two natures in eternity past?
Ricky Grimsley
Another thing I would ask is what does it matter other than I don’t past eternal sonship is biblically defensible.
Varnel Watson
Randal W Deese As a good lutheran you already probably know that none of these are purely catholic as both Luther and Calvin clearly explained
You may believe that Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine but Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. Origen and Aquinas also wrote of the doctrine separately.
Penal substitutionary atonement is also not purely augistinian or even catholic. Many have even argued that Augustine rejected penal substitutionary atonement Recently, at least since the eighteenth-century liberalism gained a place in Protestantism, the penal-substitution view of Christ’s atonement has come under attack. The claim that the doctrine was unknown in the ancient church has emerged along with the idea that such a teaching was invented by the Reformers.
Without discussing penal substitution thoroughly, the following church fathers and writings expressed their support for
Penal substitutionary atonement :
Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Oecumenius.
Randal W Deese
Although there is much miss information that you have presented. You Musta got it from some western theologian. Nonetheless, at least you truly engaged for once. I’m proud of you
Randal W Deese
In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”
In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
Randal W Deese
Augustine had his own view of original sin that was not the view of the entire rest of the church world… He presented a novel Doctrine
Randal W Deese
The heretical doctrine of penal substitution was completely absent from the Church for over 1,000 years, and was only introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. This false teaching of penal substitution was ultimately developed as seen in the West today, by 16th-century Reformers, but is a doctrine that has never been accepted by the Historical Church, and not completely accepted by Roman Catholics – though introducing the heresy
Varnel Watson
As a good lutheran you should know the truth
It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin. Important theological concepts about penal substitution depend on the doctrine of the Trinity
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Novel doctrines is what has caused all the controversy in denominationalism… The church used to be one until rebellion stuck… Beginning with the Roman Catholics
Varnel Watson
Novel? The following church fathers and writings expressed their support for Penal substitutionary atonement :
Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Oecumenius.
Randal W Deese
Troy Day I’m sorry… Your information is incorrect… Prove that each one of those taught what you say… This should be very interesting
Randal W Deese
Even the originator of the doctrine never taught such nonsense
Varnel Watson
Well – it is actually your turn to prove your false argument of silence, that it was not present. Anytime when someone says that are doctrine was never existed before is a false statement. There is always someone to show the doctrine was there –
Randal W Deese
Troy Day It’s a novel doctrine… burden of proof is this with you.
Varnel Watson
says you without absolutely any proof 🙂
“He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” – Isaiah 53.
Varnel Watson
So Randal back to OP from your brief deviation on penal substitution, should it be understood from your claim THAT
Jesus was not eternal Son of the Father
and with that Eternal sacrifice for our sins?
What exactly is your point here in this discussion?
Randal W Deese
I’ve made my point. Orthodox theology embraces Eternal Sonship
Varnel Watson
Randal Would you say denying the Eternal Sonship of Christ is heresy?
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Absolutely
Varnel Watson
How can you then deny the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ which based namely on the eternal Sonship of Christ who is also the eternal sacrifice according to Hebrews ?
Varnel Watson
hast changed neither from the start of times nor since the last time Ricky Grimsley posted in this group GOD remains the same
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day hey will someone explain how Jesus didn’t change if didn’t have a human body for the 4000 years after creation?
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley you could go with some relational theology on such an odd claim BUT you aint got NO BIBLE to back it
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day this day have I begotten ther
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley means not what you say it does
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day Paul explains in acts that it refers to Jesus resurrected Acts 13:33 KJVS
[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.
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley you are mixing Jesus risen in BODY and Jesus incarnation into a BODY – 2 different events
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected with a glorified human body but before the incarnation….. what did he have?
Ricky Grimsley
Also what does “this day have I begotten three” means if he was already begotten from the beginning
Doyle Rogers
God is immutable He does not change………………………………. Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: …………………
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Heb 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
Ricky Grimsley
that’s not an argument. You people just can’t be honest. Did god gave a human body at the beginning? If no then something changed.
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley you people? GOD is a SPIRIT You are WRONG
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day God is also a man
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley naah that would make him created which he is not – you are all over with your frontology
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day no Jesus is a man and he is also god
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley Jesus TOOK the nature of a man Hence we have the incarnation There is a MAJOR difference between the taking or becoming as John calls it in the prologue and the BEing – becoming vs being is the theme of the Johannine epilogue Jn 1 1-19 its a GREAT read
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day 1 Timothy 2:5 KJVS
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Ricky Grimsley
Just like obviously God can’t actually do all things. For example….he can’t lie.
Varnel Watson
but he can send a lieing spirit?
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day yes he can
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley you just contradicted yourself again
Ricky Grimsley
Troy Day how?
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley exactly
Varnel Watson
how us your sonship stance Isara Mo Joe Absher
Joe Absher
No man stands taller than when he’s on his knees …praying
Varnel Watson
how is this related to the topic at hand?
Joe Absher
You tagged me and said show us your best stance . seemed a little vain to me . but I tried to respond in a way that might help
“no man stands taller than when he’s on his knees …praying ”
God bless have a nice day .
Varnel Watson
we know Ricky Grimsley must believe this all day
Varnel Watson
is a TRUE Biblical Trinity doctrine Ricky Grimsley
Mike Partyka
On the adjacent subject of theophanies…. do you believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ ?
Varnel Watson
many DO Mike Partyka and some more DONT
Anonymous
I uphold this this Kyle Williams Duane L Burgess but Ricky Grimsley do NOT
Anonymous
DEFENDING MY LORD AND SAVIOR…
Dakota Lee
Skip Pauley – you should invite Dakota Lee to the group to dispute Philip Williams SO if you believe you can lose your salvation… how many times have lost your salvation and got it back? Do you believe God has a big eraser in heaven and every time you lose your salvation he erases your name? Do you believe that Jesus dying on the cross wasn’t enough if you can lose your salvation? There is NO where in the Bible that one can lose your salvation. But I as a SAVED believer of Christ will not let someone preach/teach you can lose your salvation.
Skip Pauley
Dakota Lee ..there is no limit to the number of times one can fall away from the grace of God and be redeemed through repentance made available to all through the shedding of the blood at Calvary. Jesus said we should forgive 70X7, meaning there is no end to forgiveness. I know from experience, that all you hardheaded, hard-hearted people that have created an alliance with the devil through OSAS, who refuse to believe the truth in scripture taught by and through the Holy Spirit, will suffer loss when you die, known by the earthly fruit that you bear…SO-SO-SAD…PRAYERS…
Anonymous
It doesn’t make any sense but what difference does it make
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley I wish you finally drop some verses here so I can demolish your fake theology