- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I like facts too and to research topics that interest me.
Back to the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ…
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2012,20:47) I like facts too and to research topics that interest me. Back to the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ…
you mean back to square one ;but why you do not like to quote scriptures rather than men's view
it seems to me that the men that give their opinion on the scriptures are not doing better than we do ,
look at you for instance ;your views are your own and so try by all means to make them come out of the scriptures ,this practice was already done at the time of the apostles, even to the present day, every master or doctor degree that comes out of the religion universities usually make a thesis on an biblical subject ,on witch they are quoted ,and many are bias due to their framed religion believes , it is not the truth of scriptures that are regarded as to be followed but the truth to the subject within the thesis.
this is how we know that the truth of God is not in you
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2012,20:47) I like facts too and to research topics that interest me. Back to the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ…
you mean back to square one ;but why you do not like to quote scriptures rather than men's view
it seems to me that the men that give their opinion on the scriptures are not doing better than most of us do ,and specially ,those who are religion oriented with their doctrines and scriptures neglect, their rules of thumb his men first and God follows ,they have turned to the opposition and join him,
look at you for instance ;your views are your own and so try by all means to make them come out of the scriptures ,this practice was already done at the time of the apostles, even to the present day, every master or doctor degree that comes out of the religion universities usually make a thesis on an biblical subject ,on witch they are quoted ,and many are bias due to their framed religion believes , it is not the truth of scriptures that are regarded as to be followed but the truth to the subject within the thesis.
this is how we know that the truth of God is not in you
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2012,08:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 09 2012,04:30) Hi Kathi I think that your natural concept of a Mother bringing birth to a son plays way to much in your understanding of the relationship of the Father and Jesus.
To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son in procreation in itself is contrary to the general order of things. Fathers don't give birth to sons. Mothers do. Would you say that the Father was Jesus mother also?
Just saying!
Keith
Hi Keith,
Why limit God to the general order of things. Fathers don't create worlds out of nothing either.I believe that the Father always was a Father, an eternal Father and thus He always had a son within Him, eternally, until He was begotten from Him before the ages. This belief is common in the document among those expressing an eternal Sonship.
For instance:
Quote 6. The errors of Paulus Samosate were condemned by the synod at Antioch, towards the latter end of this century, by whom* a formula or confession of faith was agreed to, in which are these words: “We profess that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before ages, according to the Spirit, and in the last days, born of a virgin, according to the flesh.” The word omoousioV, consubstantial, is used in their creed. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the next, lived Lactantius, (for he lived under Dioclesian, and to the times of Constantine) who asserts,* that God, the maker of all things, begat “a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and irreprehensible, whom he called the Son.” He asks,* “how hath he procreated? The divine works can neither be known nor declared by any; nevertheless the scriptures teach, that the Son of God is the Word of God.” Nothing more is to be observed in this century. I pass on, Have a great day!
The belief I have was common in the early church so how can you say that my views are my own…you trip over your own words, Pierre. The dog picture really suits you and your pack.You ought to study about what the Bible has to say about the dogs. I find it to be prophetic in your case as well as those you cohort with.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,01:04) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2012,08:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 09 2012,04:30) Hi Kathi I think that your natural concept of a Mother bringing birth to a son plays way to much in your understanding of the relationship of the Father and Jesus.
To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son in procreation in itself is contrary to the general order of things. Fathers don't give birth to sons. Mothers do. Would you say that the Father was Jesus mother also?
Just saying!
Keith
Hi Keith,
Why limit God to the general order of things. Fathers don't create worlds out of nothing either.I believe that the Father always was a Father, an eternal Father and thus He always had a son within Him, eternally, until He was begotten from Him before the ages. This belief is common in the document among those expressing an eternal Sonship.
For instance:
Quote 6. The errors of Paulus Samosate were condemned by the synod at Antioch, towards the latter end of this century, by whom* a formula or confession of faith was agreed to, in which are these words: “We profess that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before ages, according to the Spirit, and in the last days, born of a virgin, according to the flesh.” The word omoousioV, consubstantial, is used in their creed. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the next, lived Lactantius, (for he lived under Dioclesian, and to the times of Constantine) who asserts,* that God, the maker of all things, begat “a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and irreprehensible, whom he called the Son.” He asks,* “how hath he procreated? The divine works can neither be known nor declared by any; nevertheless the scriptures teach, that the Son of God is the Word of God.” Nothing more is to be observed in this century. I pass on, Have a great day!
The belief I have was common in the early church so how can you say that my views are my own…you trip over your own words, Pierre. The dog picture really suits you and your pack.You ought to study about what the Bible has to say about the dogs. I find it to be prophetic in your case as well as those you cohort with.
KathiQuote The belief I have was common in the early church so how can you say that my views are my own…you trip over your own words, Pierre. The dog picture really suits you and your pack. You ought to study about what the Bible has to say about the dogs. I find it to be prophetic in your case as well as those you cohort with.
our discussion was not of what others believed but what is written in the scriptures ,
now if you find someone of the past that shares your believe or you his it does not matter a soon you accept his it becomes yours ,we and specially us what we know is the past and repast ,King Solomon already said that all as been said ,so I figure that sins then men repeat him self ,just variance of speech that's all .
now may be you do not understand what he was saying wen he says ;To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son ;
but remember we all are a victim of our own believes and doctrines ,I am not different in that way ; that is why I stick to scriptures .Pierre,
You say that you stick to scriptures but I showed you just the other day that God blinds the eyes of men and you didn't believe it, in fact, you told me that I was making God out to be wicked. I was merely quoting scripture. You stick to your own misunderstanding of scripture.I find the understanding of the early church fathers valuable to show people like yourself that a certain scripture was not understood the way that you or others understand it but it is the way that I understand it. That shows you that I am not alone in my understanding, so therefore, I am not the one giving a verse an understanding that no one holds to. At least you can't use that argument anymore on me when I can show you the early church believed the same thing. The history of the early church shows that Jesus was worshiped, for example…as God.
If you don't want to talk about what early church fathers understood, then why are you on this thread? This thread is about how John Gill categorizes the church father's view of the eternal sonship and proves that the belief in Jesus' eternal sonship was a common belief even from the early church. He also includes other beliefs. Have you found what you believe in this document? Or is what you believe not there?
Here is what is said of Ambrose in the document by Gill linked in the OP. I agree with him also!
10. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, after having said many things in opposition to Arius, Sabellius, Photinus, and Eunomius, observes, that “when you speak of a Father, you also design his Son, for no man is a father to himself; and when you name a son, you confess his father, for no man is a son to himself; therefore neither the son can be without the father, nor the father without the son; therefore always a father and always a son.” He has also these words:* “You ask me, how he can be a son if he has not a prior father? I ask of you also, when or how you think the Son is generated? for to me it is impossible to know the secret of generation; the mind fails, the voice is silent; and not mine only, but that of the angels; it is above angels, above powers, above cherubim, above seraphim, and above all understanding; if the peace of Christ is above all understanding (Phil, 4:7), must not such a generation be above all understanding?” And in another place,* “God the Father begat the Word co-eternal with himself and co-omnipotent, with whom he produced the holy Spirit; hence we believe that the substance of the Son and of the holy Spirit existed before any creature, out of all time; that the Father is the begetter, the Son is begotten, and the holy Spirit the holiness and the Spirit of the begetter and the begotten.”
I wish Ambrose was a member of HN to help me battle the scorners!!
Here is what Gill adds about Jerome:
11. Jerome the presbyter, and a noted writer in this century, speaking of the Arians says,* “Let them understand, that they glory in vain of the testimony in which Wisdom speaks of being created in the beginning of the ways of God, and begotten and established; for if, according to them, he was created, he could not be begotten or born: if begotten or born, how could he be established and created?” And a little after he says, “God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a Father according to substance (or essence,) and the only begotten is not a Son by adoption, but by nature; whatsoever we say of the Father and the Son, this we know is said of the holy Spirit.” Here the creed of Damasus might be taken notice of, in which he says, “God has begot a Son, not by will nor by necessity, but by nature;” and in the explanation of it, it is said, “Not because we say the Son is begotten of the Father by a divine and ineffable generation, do we ascribe any time to him, for neither the Father nor the Son began to be at any time; nor do we any otherwise confess an eternal Father, but we also confess a co-eternal Son.” Also Ruffinus’s exposition of the apostles creed, which stands among Jerome’s works, “when you hear of a Father, understand the Father of a Son, the image of his substance; but how God begat a Son do not discuss, nor curiously intrude into the depth of this secret.*
I give Jerome two thumbs up!!
Here is what the synod at Syrmium wrote and I agree with their formula of faith which I have bolded here:
12. The errors of the Photinians were not only confuted by the several above writers, but Photinus himself was condemned by the synod at Syrmium, of which place he had been bishop; and in the formula of faith agreed on therein, among others, are the following articles,* “We believe in one God the Father almighty, the creator and maker of all things;—and in his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages;—and in the holy Spirit:—and as to those that say, that the Son is of things that are not (or of nothing), or of another substance, and not of God; and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic church reckons them as aliens.—If any one dare to say, that the unbegotten or a part of him was born of Mary, let him be anathema: and if any one say that he is the Son of Mary by prescience, and not begotten of the Father before the world, and was with God by whom all things are made, let him be anathema.—If any one says, that Christ Jesus was not the Son of God before the world was, and ministered to the Father at the creation of all things, but only from the time he was born of Mary was called Son and Christ, and then received the beginning of deity, let him be anathema, as a Samosatenian.”
We have a few Samosatenian's on HN. The articles of faith from this, anathema many of the views right here on HN. I can understand why!
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 15 2012,00:10) Here is what the synod at Syrmium wrote and I agree with their formula of faith which I have bolded here: 12. The errors of the Photinians were not only confuted by the several above writers, but Photinus himself was condemned by the synod at Syrmium, of which place he had been bishop; and in the formula of faith agreed on therein, among others, are the following articles,* “We believe in one God the Father almighty, the creator and maker of all things;—and in his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages;—and in the holy Spirit:—and as to those that say, that the Son is of things that are not (or of nothing), or of another substance, and not of God; and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic church reckons them as aliens.—If any one dare to say, that the unbegotten or a part of him was born of Mary, let him be anathema: and if any one say that he is the Son of Mary by prescience, and not begotten of the Father before the world, and was with God by whom all things are made, let him be anathema.—If any one says, that Christ Jesus was not the Son of God before the world was, and ministered to the Father at the creation of all things, but only from the time he was born of Mary was called Son and Christ, and then received the beginning of deity, let him be anathema, as a Samosatenian.”
We have a few Samosatenian's on HN. The articles of faith from this, anathema many of the views right here on HN. I can understand why!
KathiThis is catholic I do not believe anything from them ,
Read and you believe that??? No wander you have gone ashtray ,
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,11:35) Pierre,
You say that you stick to scriptures but I showed you just the other day that God blinds the eyes of men and you didn't believe it, in fact, you told me that I was making God out to be wicked. I was merely quoting scripture. You stick to your own misunderstanding of scripture.I find the understanding of the early church fathers valuable to show people like yourself that a certain scripture was not understood the way that you or others understand it but it is the way that I understand it. That shows you that I am not alone in my understanding, so therefore, I am not the one giving a verse an understanding that no one holds to. At least you can't use that argument anymore on me when I can show you the early church believed the same thing. The history of the early church shows that Jesus was worshiped, for example…as God.
If you don't want to talk about what early church fathers understood, then why are you on this thread? This thread is about how John Gill categorizes the church father's view of the eternal sonship and proves that the belief in Jesus' eternal sonship was a common belief even from the early church. He also includes other beliefs. Have you found what you believe in this document? Or is what you believe not there?
KIt seems that you have chosen to be blind to the truth of God,
Can not help you
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
