|
|
USER COMMENTS BY DJC49 |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 11 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/22/09 1:26 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
AMill wrote: But in all seriousness Dispy; Why do you insist on this extraordinary supernatural interpretation viz "flying Christians" - "UNLESS" you combine it with the equally extraordinary millennial theory of Disp. PreMill?WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED by the Lord in flying everybody concerned, both dead and living, UP IN THE AIR? What's to be achieved?Perhaps what is to be achieved is that the Lord can thereby show to an unbelieving world His ability to "pull off" such a remarkably ostentatious feat (hundreds of millions -- maybe BILLIONS -- of Christians flying up into the clouds) and STILL the "rapture" of the Church REMAINS a SECRET! That's QUITE a feat! Ha! Can you imagine?..... All over the world, Christians are literally flying BODILY up into natural cumulus clouds (to go where?) in the face of millions of eyewitnesses ... and the rapture will remain "secret"!!! To top it off, this worldwide event will be some sort of "mystery" to those left behind who will STILL disbelieve during the so-called 7-year tribulation! Question is: Won't they have old Darby-Scofield-Chafer books that they could reference to tell them exactly what had just occurred? Double Ha! Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib Dizzy Spin Sationalism is hilarious stuff! |
|
|
7/22/09 1:04 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Biblicist wrote: This is exactly what Nicea is trying to address by the notion of "eternal generation". Sure, by making this generation a necessity in the Godhead and an "eternal" process they overcome the philosophical starting point, BUT TRY AND PROVE ANY OF THIS FROM THE BIBLE!! Tell you what *Biblicist*, while you're at it, try PROVING the hypostatic union of Christ from the Bible! You know ... Christ being fully, 100% God and fully, 100% human? Where does the Bible state such a thing in no uncertain terms? It took several Church COUNCILS to piece together, iron out, and define the matter [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon] -- and ALL in the face of dangerous HERSEY!Biblicist wrote: The familial titles may not be pointing to any familial relations at all. THIS IS JUST A PRESUMPTION ON YOUR PART A presumption on MY part? On MY part???You're daft! YOU are the one who originally brought up the "familial" aspect of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity, not me! [see YOUR post of 7/21/09 1:56 PM -- the FIRST time "familial" was mentioned on this thread! -- by Y-O-U] [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/comments_view.asp?keyword=familial]]]SEARCH for "familial" on SA Comments[/URL] |
|
|
7/21/09 4:38 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mr. Dispy wrote: The premillennial pre-tribulational view IS AS OLD AS THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.,else Paul would not have had to refute the claim made by some that the Lord had already returned and the Thessalonians had missed it That's patent nonsense.Paul, if you remember, argued that there would be a Great "falling away" (apostasy) before the 2nd Advent of Christ! Paul did NOT write that the Thessalonians didn't miss some pre-Great 7-Year Tribulation "rapture!" Additionally, Paul's Thessalonican readers of his 1st & 2nd epistle to them did NOT have any Book of "The Revelation" (written decades later by John) to base any notion of a 7-year Great Tribulation upon! And they CERTAINLY didn't abuse Daniel 9:27 in order to fabricate some far off "peace treaty" between Israel & Antichrist and some specious "stoppage of the prophetic clock" (as far as the 70 Weeks was concerned)! You conflate historic pre-millenialism with the bogus pre-Mill/Pre-Trib Dispensationalism of Darby-Scofield-Chafer which IS a totally different animal from what the early Christian Church believed. Afterall, that SAME early Christian Church had to go through the terrible percecutions which STARTED during Caesar Nero's reign and lasted (on and off) clear up to Constantine. |
|
|
7/21/09 3:34 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Biblicist wrote: A) What puzzles me about the titles is that we have 2 members of the Godhead said to be in familial relations, but not the third.B) That the Son is referred to as the Son before his incarnation I have no doubts. So I do not believe that his Sonship commenced in time. C) But how are we to understand his Sonship? What does it mean He is the Son? How did he become the Son? etc. D) Nicea takes a thinly disguised carnal and corporeal analogy whereby there is a literal "generation". E) But what if this is a complete misunderstanding of why those terms are employed? F) Read for instance Mike | New York's post of 7/17/09 4:53 PM for another view. A) That's actually a VERY interesting observation! The profound MYSTERY of the Trinity grows deeper.B) Agreed ... as does Nicea. C) HERE'S where you go astray! He never **BECAME** the Son. He necessarily always WAS. The Divine interpersonal LOVE relationship hinges on it ... something Allah can't claim. D & E) You & Hodge err on the Nicene meaning of "generation"! You make a Nicene strawman to knock down. F) *Mike* defines "only begotten" as the modern Bible versions have it. Fine by me, but *Mike* discounts the (familial?) relational aspect -- which I think is his mistake. |
|
|
7/21/09 1:43 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mr. Dispy wrote: Amill:It's actually pretty simple: 1. The Lord will meet in the air the saints who have died & those still on the earth to take them to heaven. The bema seat judgment occurs. 2. He returns to earth after the time of Jacob's troubles, which lasts 3 1/2 years (1/2 week / 42 months / 1260 days), puts down his enemies, and rules for 1000 years on the earth. 3. Satan is loosed & the final rebellion occurs; the world is destroyed and the Great White Throne judgment of all unbelievers occurs; Satan et al. are cast into hell. 4. The Lord creates a new heaven and new earth; Israel enjoys the Lord on the new earth, and the church enjoys the Lord in heaven And THAT, folks, is the Rube Goldberg ... uh, er ... the Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib Dizzy Spin Sational take on Christ's Second ... uh, er ... Third (or is it rather the 2nd [or 3rd?] PHASE of His Second) Coming?BTW, ... All these eschatological contortions were unknown by the Church before ~1800. It took some "rapturous" vision by some entranced woman to solidify the foundation of Dizzy Spin Sationalism as preached by the (predominantly) American Evangelical church of recent vintage. The Reformers, Baptists, et al of 1500-1800 knew of no such nonsense. Guess they couldn't read Scripture! |
|
|
7/20/09 10:50 AM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Biblicist wrote: Quote from the article referenced by DJC49: "The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, HE GENERATES THE PERSON (not the essence) OF THE SON, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son."So there we have it folk. The person of the son was generated by the Father. He derives his person-hood from the Father!! And where do we find any of the above definition in the Bible? Oh yes, from the titles Father and Son!
We must have no other understanding of the titles Father and Son because Nicea pronounces an anathema on all such! I am scared, aren't you? And DJC49 has no problems with any of this. Wow! I have no problem with what Nicea had to say concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son because, unlike you, *Biblicist*, I do NOT read into this "Generation" the concept of the Son having a beginning point. The Son is co-eternal, NON-created, NON-derivitive, and forever co-existed/exists with and in the Father. |
|
|
7/19/09 3:13 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Biblicist wrote: I would refer you to the following work which seeks to explain the Nicene conception of "eternal generation" from page 315 to 354: [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=RLhZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA237&dq=inauthor:William+inauthor:Shedd&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0]]]Nicene doctrine of Eternal Generation by William Shedd[/URL] Once again, *Biblicist*, I would strongly advise that you READ YOUR OWN HYPERLINKS before you post them up!Sure ... it's easy enough to "Google" all these references then present them here on this forum to make yourself appear to be more knowledgeable than you really are, but you should actually READ them fully -- with understanding -- BEFORE offering them as proof validating your viewpoint. _____ Athanasius and the Council of Nicea got this one issue right (as close as humans with finite minds possibly can come) ... you just don't understand their argument. Perhaps you don't WANT to understand their position! [Some sort of prejudice might be working in the background.] But that's forgivable since we are dealing with a very deep and profound MYSTERY of the Trinitarian Godhead. Words and language are weak tools when trying to communicate these Divine realities. |
|
|
7/18/09 12:16 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Excerpts from MacArthur's article on the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ:"My previous view was that Scripture employed Father-Son terminology anthropomorphically--accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. Now I am inclined to think that the opposite is true: Human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are merely earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in our finiteness, yet illustrating a vital eternal reality." "The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery." "I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's ETERNAL SONSHIP while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply." MacArthur therefore now AGREES with Nicea! |
|
|
7/18/09 11:08 AM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Biblicist wrote: Are you aware that MacArthur recanted, and that the articles you have referenced no longer represent his current views?Here is his re-examination: [URL=http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0059.htm]]] Reexamining the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ [/URL] This is a VERY curious thing! ...*Biblicist* provides a hyperlink (above) to an article by John MacArthur in order to prove his point that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was NOT always in a Father-Son relationship with the 1st Person of the Trinity. *Biblicist* claims that MacArthur recanted his prior view. True enough. HOWEVER, if one actually reads MacArthur's recantation it is clear that he NOW holds that Christ was indeed eternally begotten of the Father and has always been and will forever be in a Father-Son relationship with Him! IOW, the VERY article that *Biblicist* cites to prove his point is 180 degrees opposed to what he, *Biblicist*, proposes! *Biblicist* should actually READ more carefully his "proofs!" _____ This ONE sentence from MacArthur's "recantation" succinctly sums up his present position: "The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity." _____ READ THE ARTICLE, *Biblicist*! Nicea got it right. |
|
|
7/17/09 3:20 PM |
djc49 | | at the library | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: "this day" may be uncertain, but "shall be" presents a little more difficulty.As well as 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." to day cannot easily mean prior to yesterday. Ps2:7, when it says "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" would seem to point to THE FUTURE. *Mike* | New York --Yes, the FUTURE! As indicated in Heb 1:5 (and elsewhere), the future time when the 2nd Person of the Trinity was to become "begotten" of the Father is in reference to the 2nd Person of the Trinity taking on FLESH (being made The Christ) and having become perfected by the resurrection and ascension, He was thereby "begotten." One must remember that the 2nd Person of the Trinity is indeed co-eternal with the Father, but only at a certain point IN TIME did He take on humanity thereby obtaining to the hypostatic union -- fully God, fully Man. So ... in one sense, the Son was/is forever eternally "begotten of the Father," and in another sense, BECAME begotten of the father -- in Space/Time. I.e., the 2nd Person of the Trinity BECAME Jesus Christ the God-man. |
|
|
6/27/09 9:19 AM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
*Mr. Dispy* --I'll come up with a reference to God's people in the OT being "in Him" or "in Christ Jesus" when you come up with a reference in the OT to God being triune -- a Trinity. We know that God never changes, He has ALWAYS been triune, but the OT saints could hardly imagine this being the case. In BOTH cases (OT saints being "In Him" & the triune nature of the Godhead), the reference -- or concept -- must be inferred. We all can agree that all men of every age are saved because of the merits of Jesus Christ (His life, death, & resurrection). By grace through faith men are saved. But HOW are men saved? Has not Christ become the atonement for ALL the elect and paid the penalty of sin by His substitutionary death? Are not all those who have been atoned for somehow united with Christ? United in His death, His Resurrection, and His life? Isn't this unity essential? Can you imagine men being saved, regardless of age or dispensation, other than being somehow united with The Saviour -- being found "in Him?" I can't. Please remember that MUCH was not revealed to the OT saints! They toiled in the shadows and types. But in the fullness of time, Christ came, the Spirit was poured out on all men, more light was shed, and eternal truths were revealed and seen clearly. |
|
|
6/26/09 10:28 AM |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mr. Dispy wrote: 1) And why do you suppose the Holy Spirit used different terminology in the NT as opposed to the OT? Could it be because this was a new testament (i.e., a new covenant) in His blood? 2) Is it possible that He chose to deal with people in a new way - by grace through faith in Christ - a way that He had not ever employed before that time? 1) It might be because the entirety of the OT (with the exception of Daniel which had a tiny bit of Aramaic intermingled) was written in Hebrew -- a very earthy and "concrete" sort of language -- whereas the NT was in Greek -- a language more "conceptual" and appropriate to communicating ideas. Additionally, the "In Him" terminology could not have been appropriately used and applied -- nor would it have made any sense -- to Israel pre-the Incarnation/Resurrection. It would have not been understood AT ALL since the Jews were highly monotheistic (at least in principle) and the Christ had not shown up as yet. However, when the OT referred to God's elect as "sons" and the like, this kind of "language of relationship" spoke of being "In Him" as a son is "in" his father. That's about as close as it gets in the OT to expressing "In Him" 2) And ............ It's ALWAYS been by grace through faith! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|