A strict 5-point Calvinist God is not worthy of worship...

[Matt Black]

The way I see it' (TM):-

Augustine and his theological successors Luther, Calvin and Beza: Man is totally corrupt and can do nothing about it, only Jesus Christ through His atoning sacrifice; not only that but Man is pathologically incapable of acknowledging/ receiving the salvific fruits of that sacrifice; God does everything

Pelagius (or at least what Augustine SAID Pelagius said),and semi-Pelagianism: Man is not totally corrupt and is capable of earning salvation through good works; Man does everything.

My own and IMNSVHO (!) correct view: Man is corrupt and can do nothing about it, only Jesus Christ through His atoning sacrifice which is offered for all; Man is capable of receiving that by free choice, those who accept are saved and those who do not are damned

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

(Cross-posted last post with Nick)

Nick, for God to not always have been Triune would mean that He wasn't immutable which we DO know from Scripture is one of His attributes. It's another example of something not being explicit in Scripture but which can be inferred from it, although there are also explicit hints by way of confirmation eg: ref to God in the plural, such as Elohim, and "let Us..."

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Paul33]

Matt,

4. The decree to save some and reprobate others.

I myself would prefer to say the decree to save some and pass over others.

God desires to elect everyone but passes over those who resist the drawing of Christ. Therefore, salvation is a complete gift on God's part to the elect resulting in glory to God. Those who are passed over remain lost to their own blame. They resisted the drawing of Christ.

God foreknows this but it doesn't mean he caused it. He wants to save everyone. Therefore the death of Christ is sufficient to save all. But he passes over those who resist. Therefore man is responsible if he remains lost. Now when God creates the universe in time, he knows all that will come to pass, for what God foreknows is rendered certain in the act of creating.

You are right. The issue is how depraved is fallen man. Is his will so depraved that he must resist the drawing of Christ? Or in your view, is his will so depraved that he can't freely accept? Strict Calvinists say that man must resist, but why is that true? I might be unable to accept, but that doesn't mean I have to resist.

We differ in that I say man is not able to respond, but if he doesn't resist, God will do all of the work of salvation because he desires that none perish. God wants to save and will save those who do not resist even though they aren't able to respond until God gives the gift of faith.

You say, man can respond and accept the gift.

The question is, What does the Bible say about man's ability to respond? Are there any references about faith or repentance being a gift from God?

I will need to think about this more. I like what you said about Agustine, Calvin, Luther, Beza, etc. reacting to Pelagianism. Did they overreact?

If Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching that "salvation by grace through faith" is a gift, then I think my view might be the correct view. But if "salvation" is the gift and grace is the means and faith is the response, then you might be correct.

What does the Bible say about these issues?

 

[Frogman]

Nick's question is valid, there have been Baptists in the past who believed that Christ was brought forth in eternity, begotten as the Son of God.

I don't agree with it, but I also don't understand much of the language used to discuss it.

I believe the Godhead has eternally been a trinity. [Not saying Nick doesn't believe that], just pointing out that some folks I know do believe that Christ was begotten in eternity.

bro. Dallas

 

[Paul33]

Trinity:

Doesn't John 1:1 address part of this issue?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Sounds co-eternal to me.

Also God the Son, the Word was co-eternal. God the Son was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Jesus, the God-man came into existence at conception. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

God the Son laid aside the use of some of his attributes as God and took on the limitations of sinless human nature (Phil. 2).

 

[Frogman]

Agreed.

He took upon himself the body prepared for him.

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:

 

[Paul33]

What I'm saying is that Jesus the God-man did not exist from all eternity. The Son did, but not Jesus. Jesus is the name given to the Word when the Word became flesh.

What God the Son did was forever limit himself by becoming man. Today, he sits at the Father's right hand.

When Philippians talks about the humbling of the Son, he really did humble himself. He took on the nature of humanity and forever limited his omnipresence. God truly gave of himself to save man from his sins.

 

[Frogman]

Yes, I can agree with that, but I don't understand you are saying HE was begotten in eternity. That HE is the Eternal Son of God I would not question no more than I would question HIS being the eternal LAMB of GOD.

But this kind of discussion quickly loses me.

I need much more understanding of many points regarding the Trinity to go much farther.

bro. Dallas

 

[Matt Black]

Orthodox (small 'o') Christianity has always taught the co-eternal nature of the Sonship (and for that matter the Trinity)

Don, I think we are in agreement; I certainly don't mind the use of 'resist'. In fact, if anything, I prefer it

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Frogman]

Yes, but I don't understand this to mean that Jesus was begotten in Eternity. In order for that to be true (imho, that means the way I think), God would have been ONE and would have Brought Forth HIS SON at some point in eternity past. I disagree with that kind of explanation.

I think we each are in agreement here.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Paul33]

Hi Matt,

I just reread your first response.

4. The decree to save some and pass over others on the basis of foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).

There! That's how I would say it! And from your previous post, I think that's what you would say!

 

[Matt Black]

Cheers!

Dallas, 'eternally begotten' means just that - the begetting didn't actually happen as an event on time but was from all eternity. Therefore, God has always been Three in One

This is getting a bit sci-fi now!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Paul33]

Frogman,

I agree with you. What appeared to be a post responding to you was just more clarification on my part before I knew you had posted.

God the Son has always existed. He limited his attibutes as God when he became flesh. Jesus is the name of God the Son in the flesh.

Beyond that it is too complicated for me too!

 

[Frogman]

This is so complicated Brother Don that I always have to slow down my thinking when trying to discuss it with someone.

Sometimes we can be saying the same things in different expressions that we think we are disagreeing.

My belief [just for clarification for myself and others] until shown wrong by someone with evident greater knowledge of scripture, is that Christ was is and always shall be the Son of God.

But that he took flesh in time and that of the body prepared for him according to Heb. 10.5.

Now, whether that means I am in disagreement with His being eternally Begotten [which I understand to mean be brought forth from a source, so if I am wrong about that please tell me] then that is what it means.

I believe He is God. Therefore, He was not brought forth from God, but sent from God. But having a source so that it means he was brought forth or created from a source in eternity I do not believe.

Have I confused you guys

 

[Ray Berrian]

Don,

'This may be an inconsequential point but I would rather say that Jesus' attributes and powers were always present in Himself while on earth, but He, at times, chose to not make them operational or functional.

For example, at His temptation in the wilderness He did not utilize any of His Divinity to help himself through the testing for forty days. If He had exercised His Divinity there would have been no lesson there for us to learn by way of overcoming evil, because we could always have said that He employment His Divine powers while we are only human.

Also, in the garden just before His crucifixion, Jesus told Peter and the others standing by that He could have commanded ' . . . twelve legions of angels' to defend Himself, but then the Scripture needed to be fulfilled namely His death for us by crucifixion. The authority and power was always within Himself, but He had a will to either use His mighty power or to not use it.

When Jesus performed miracles He merely exercised His attributes and miracle power.'

Your

was 'He limited His attributes as God when He became flesh.

 

[Matt Black]

Dallas, as I understand it, you're spot on, and not at all inconsistent with eternally-begottenness

Ray, I think you're describing kenosis, which IS in Scripture


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Paul33]

Ray,

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say that he limited the use of his attributes as God when he became flesh.

However, there is at least one attribute that was forever limited to God the Son when he became flesh and that is his omnipresence.

He can no longer be everywhere. By breaking into our dimensions of time and space, he humbled himself. Today God has exalted him to the Father's right hand.

Does this seem correct to you? He is seated at the Father's right hand where he makes intercession for us.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Matt Black,

Ray, I think you're describing kenosis, which IS in Scripture.

Exactly! In Philippians 2:7 you will see the word, (kenoo) the word meaning to 'empty' oneself. Jesus did not set aside His Deity when He took on a human form, meaning a physical body. He fulfilled His mission to all sinners by His terrible humiliation and death on the Cross.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by npetreley:
The question isn't whether God is triune. The question is whether God was ALWAYS triune. Maybe the answer is "Yes" but I don't know of a verse that says so.

The nature of God does not change; if God is a Trinity today, He was always a Trinity. God the Son is eternal, so He has no beginning. Jesus and God the Son are not different; they are the same Person. Although Jesus as Jesus was not known before His birth by man, He did exist before that and He has existed eternally.

To deny God the Son's eternality and say He had a beginning is heretical. The Trinity has always existed; God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS are co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

 

[Frogman]

Not wishing to be argumentative. But, could someone show me definitive scripture that states God the Son was explicitly not known by OT saints?

I believe these saints did not possess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Bro. Dallas