"Eternally begotten of the Father"...?

[DHK]

I am indeed making a serious charge here. I suppose for me (and for many other Christians both presently and historically) the issue has to do with divine ontology as defined by the intra-Trinitarian relationships. The Trinity is in part defined by the fact that the Father eternally begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from within the Trinity ( certainly from the Father and, depending whether you're an Eastern or Western Christian, possibly the Son as well, but definitely from the Father). Deny one or both of these basic truths, and you risk destroying that distinction within the Trinity and conflating the Three Persons into one, the logical conclusion of this being that Jesus Christ is merely a mode of expression (whence Modalism) of this one Person.

As to the Scriptures, I never thought I'd say this but SFIC and Linda have done a pretty good job there:applause:

When these terms are not defined in their proper context, they lead to heresy.

No one can be "eternally begotten." That doesn't make sense. In the physical realm it is as if Mary is in continual labor and the birth of Jesus never comes to fruition. So what does it mean in the spiritual realm? Christ was begotten when he came to this earth. We can philosophize about time and eternity, and time being created for man, and God being outside the realm of time. But that does not do us any good. For our purposes we must think in terms of time. Nothing can be defined without thinking in terms of time:
The Millennial Kingdom (yet to come) cannot be discussed without a relationship to time.
The Second Coming (yet to come) cannot be discussed without a relationship to time.
The sacrifice on the cross (ca. 2000 years ago) cannot be discussed without a reltionship to time.
The exodus (ca. 1440 B.C.) cannot be discussed without a relationship to time.

In short, nothing can. Thus it makes no sense to say that Christ was "eternally begotten." It is not a Scriptural statement. Back it up with Scripture, not with creeds.

The Spirit proceeds (or has proceeded) from the Father, if not defined properly leads to heresy. I am sure there is a statement in the Scripture that refers to this. But what is the context? Without the context, you have a statement stating that the Holy Spirit is a created being. He proceeded forth. He came forth. He was created. In fact that is what both of these statements infer from the words "beget" and "proceed" if the context is taken away, and if these Old English words are not defined properly.

All that you are doing is stating a confusing statement written long ago, probably copying and pasting it from a creed which may or may not be accurate in the first place. What happened to sola scriptura?

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, you should know by now my views on sola Scriptura (how long have you been a moderator here?)!

With respect, you mistakenly apply 'eternally begotten' as if it applies to the Mary-Jesus relationship. It does not. Mary was of course His human mother and physically gave birth to Him, but 'eternally begotten' does not refer to this; it refers to the eternal relationship between God the Father and God the Son. The word 'eternal' there is the big clue - this is a relationship that is, as it were, outside of time. As you rightly say,we humans prefer to have events and incidents and indeed our theology rooted in specific points in time, which is all very natural and understandable, but we are here talking about eternal truths and there is a danger in trying to construe these within human-based, time-constrained understandings.

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, you should know by now my views on sola Scriptura (how long have you been a moderator here?)!

With respect, you mistakenly apply 'eternally begotten' as if it applies to the Mary-Jesus relationship. It does not. Mary was of course His human mother and physically gave birth to Him, but 'eternally begotten' does not refer to this; it refers to the eternal relationship between God the Father and God the Son. The word 'eternal' there is the big clue - this is a relationship that is, as it were, outside of time. As you rightly say,we humans prefer to have events and incidents and indeed our theology rooted in specific points in time, which is all very natural and understandable, but we are here talking about eternal truths and there is a danger in trying to construe these within human-based, time-constrained understandings.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you should know by now my views on sola Scriptura (how long have you been a moderator here?)!

That is precisely the problem isn't it?
Instead of relying on what Scripture says, you rely first on the RCC magesterium, and what they have said. And that has not been constant throughout the years. What they have said has been revised and updated, and certainly not according to the Holy Spirit.
I know that you are not RCC, but face it; the Anglican Church is simply a break-away from the RCC. It also has its own creed, and that not a whole lot different in belief from the RCC' belief system. Instead of an appeal to Scripture there is an appeal to Tradition, to the ECF, to writings outside of the inspired Word of God. This is useless in determining what the truth is. Scripture is our only source of truth, for it is Christ Himself that said: "I am the ...truth." All truth concerning him is found in the pages of the Bible.

God, the author of our Scriptures, put things down in the Bible so that we could understand them. To do that He used time. Even in creation he used the concept of 24 hour literal days. There is no reason to believe that he didn't. Throughout the Bible God uses time.

To philosphize outside of time is to put things in the realm of vain philosophy which we are commanded to stay clear from.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[Matt Black]

The real problem is the ahistorical doctrine of sola Scriptura, as has been demonstrated umpteen times here. Kick away the God-given props of Apostolic Tradition (not the sole preserve of the RCC but of the vast majority of mainstream Christians throughout the centuries) and you get heresies like this in the PBs and the JWs springing up two a penny.

 

[DHK]

The real problem is the ahistorical doctrine of sola Scriptura, as has been demonstrated umpteen times here. Kick away the God-given props of Apostolic Tradition (not the sole preserve of the RCC but of the vast majority of mainstream Christians throughout the centuries) and you get heresies like this in the PBs and the JWs springing up two a penny.

Indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to the dead (saints), praying before idols (icons), transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, salvation by works, etc. are all heretical doctrines of the RCC because they have strayed away from sola scriptura. There is little left to say when one considers the above heresies.

 

[Matt Black]

None of which I believe - so frankly it's a rather large straw man - and yet I don't believe in sola Scriptura either. So how do you think that works?

 

[DHK]

None of which I believe - so frankly it's a rather large straw man - and yet I don't believe in sola Scriptura either. So how do you think that works?

I am not the one holding the straw man. You are the one holding on to man-made creeds, catechisms, etc., all of which have spawned many and diverse heresies throughout the centuries. The Word of God has never spawned any heresy--Never! Some of the most well written church fathers have turned out to be some of the most well known heretics as well (Origen). You put your faith in man instead of God: in the writings of man instead of the writings of God. The result is an untold number of heresies whether or not you say you believe in them.
How do we know what you believe? The Anglican Church is a just a step away from the Catholic Church and is moving ever so closely back to it at times go by. As you move with it, if you keep in pace with the Anglican Church you will accept more and more of the RCC doctrines as well. Or are you not a true Anglican?

If you don't go to the Bible for your answers, where do you go? The answer you will give me will end up with a conclusion that will end in heresies just like purgatory and confession of sins to a priest instead of confession of sins to God. These are heretical beliefs that have come about as a direct result of the rejection of sola scriptura. The Bible is our only foundation in matters of faith and doctrine. We need no other authority. We don't need Charles Taze Russel to guide us; neither do we need Origen, or for that fact any of the other ECF.

 

[Matt Black]

Straw men and red herrings all:BangHead: Why should I bother to engage with such fallacies?

 

[DHK]

Straw men and red herrings all:BangHead: Why should I bother to engage with such fallacies?

Here is your quote:

Kick away the God-given props of Apostolic Tradition (not the sole preserve of the RCC but of the vast majority of mainstream Christians throughout the centuries) and you get heresies like this in the PBs and the JWs springing up two a penny.

1. What you say is "God-given" is not God-given, but man-made. You are deluded in thinking that Apostolic Tradition is God-given; it is not. The only thing that is God-given is the inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16). Thus your authority has become man's authority and not God's.
2. What you say is the sole preserve... of the vast majority of mainstream Christians throughout the centuries (Apostolic Tradition) is totally untrue if not a lie.

As you admitted it has been the mainstay of the RCC. But the RCC has been on the outside of Biblical Christianity. The Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church are not much different. They both are liberal, modernistic institutions that no longer (if ever) have preached the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The reformers that tried to reform the RCC from within are the same that protested against the doctrines of the RCC: the Protestants. These same Protestants would have protested against the heresies contained within the Orthodox and Anglican churches as well.
If they could see the mainstream Prostestant churches of today they would protest against them also. Most of them are liberal and do not preach the gospel any more. If you take a look at the history of fundamentalism, it started as a stand against the fundamentals of the faith in the beginning of the 20th century when mainline churches were turning away from the faith and more to a "social gospel." The Protestants of old would have protested against that movement and stood with men like W.B. Riley who protested against such modernism creeping into mainline churches.

There are few churches today that do stand for the truth of God's Word today. The one's that do generally are characterized by sola scriptura. The one's that don't are generally characterized by an adherence to Tradtion, liturgy, catechism, creeds, etc. Check your history and see.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Check your history and see.

Just curious DHK…since you claim not to be “protestant”, but…wink, wink…Non-denominational, why did you celebrate Easter on the 23RD of March? You’d think a, wink…wink…non-denominational church, who was…wink...wink…never apart of the Roman Catholic Church wouldn’t allow the Pope of Rome to peer pressure them into celebrating Easter when the RCC says too…

InXC
-

 

[DHK]

Just curious DHK…since you claim not to be “protestant”, but…wink, wink…Non-denominational, why did you celebrate Easter on the 23RD of March? You’d think a, wink…wink…non-denominational church, who was…wink...wink…never apart of the Roman Catholic Church wouldn’t allow the Pope of Rome to peer pressure them into celebrating Easter when the RCC says too…
InXC-

I am not non-denominational but IFB. I trace my roots far back before the Reformation, never a part of the RCC, and always protesting against its doctrines and heresies. And no I don't celebrate Easter, the origins of which are in the celebration of the heathen god of Astarte.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I am not non-denominational but IFB. I trace my roots far back before the Reformation, never a part of the RCC, and always protesting against its doctrines and heresies. And no I don't celebrate Easter, the origins of which are in the celebration of the heathen god of Astarte.

DHK: I don’t know about your particular IFB sect there in Canada, but I was raised an IFB located in the most fundamental Bible belt sections in the South. I’ve sat through hours and hours of seminars from some of the brightest seminarian minds the IFB seminaries had to offer and time and time again (I still have my notes), I was taught the “we” weren’t “Protestant”, but “Non-Denominational” that only adhered to the “Baptist” Distinctives, hence we retained “Baptist” in our name.

And yes, we celebrated Easter, with all other “Protestant” Churches, including the first “Protestant” Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

And don’t tell us that your Church didn’t celebrate Easter DHK…your church might not had an “easter egg hunt” in that respects of easter, but I know on March 23RD of 2008 your church had a special service marking the Resurrection of Christ, which was btw, Easter. And as a good “Protestant” you did as Rome says…and marked the occasion.

InXC
-

 

[DHK]

DHK: I don’t know about your particular IFB sect there in Canada, but I was raised an IFB located in the most fundamental Bible belt sections in the South. I’ve sat through hours and hours of seminars from some of the brightest seminarian minds the IFB seminaries had to offer and time and time again (I still have my notes), I was taught the “we” weren’t “Protestant”, but “Non-Denominational” that only adhered to the “Baptist” Distinctives, hence we retained “Baptist” in our name.

A church ashamed of the Baptist name isn't really Baptist is it? As you admit, you weren't in a Baptist church at all; but in a non-denominational church. There is a big difference. My guess is that you don't even know what an IFB church, so quit trying to pretend that you do. Your own writings betray you. You don't have a clue what an IFB church is. My guess is that you have never been in one, but have been in either a Bible Church, A Community Church, or just one of those "no-name" brand of non-denominational or inter-denominational churches. But you don't even know what a Baptist Church is, much less what an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is. Your post is quite insulting to any IFB actually, for it only betrays your ignorance in the matter, when you claim to be an authority.

And yes, we celebrated Easter, with all other “Protestant” Churches, including the first “Protestant” Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

Again an indicator of your ignorance on the issue. IFB churches are not Protestants and never were. They were not part of the Protestant movement, and certainly were never associated with the RCC. Your ignorance of the entire movement betrays you.

And don’t tell us that your Church didn’t celebrate Easter DHK…your church might not had an “easter egg hunt” in that respects of easter, but I know on March 23RD of 2008 your church had a special service marking the Resurrection of Christ, which was btw, Easter. And as a good “Protestant” you did as Rome says…and marked the occasion.

1. When have you been here in the "Great White North" to observe what we celebrate and what we don't. Can you give any credible evidence of that which you have not seen. Is it the occult you dabble in? How do you know these things having never seen them? Or do you claim deity? You claim strange things.

2. You don't know what a "church" is. My "church" doesn't belong to a "Church", something that doesn't exist. A "church" (ekklesia) is an assembly of believers that are baptized and gathered together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission and the commands that Christ has given them. That is the only type of church that is defined in the Bible. There is no other.
Hence the meaning of "Independent". We are not part of a denomination or a greater "Church," as you put it. There is no such thing in the Bible.

Our church had no special service on March 23. You don't know what our church did. Quit with the false accusations. We don't celebrate Easter. You don't know that. You need to prove that. Why do you say things that you don't know anything about. We are not part of a denomination. Why not do some study and learn what an IFB church is before spouting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A church ashamed of the Baptist name isn't really Baptist is it? As you admit, you weren't in a Baptist church at all; but in a non-denominational church. There is a big difference.

Uhhhhhh, I said we adhered to the Baptist Distinctives and thus we "retained" the name "Baptist", hence the Church I was raised was Calvary "Baptist" Church and while in Indiana...Faith "Baptist" Church. Both of which are Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches.

But that’s OK DHK, I truly understand your frustrations. It was quite a shock to me too, when I first discovered I was lied to and that I was indeed a “Protestant”, I recognize all the elements of denial in your post. Face it DHK, you’re sect is just another “clone” sect who thinks they’re the true IFB’s and all the others are not.

Boy, I rejoice that God has led me out of the wilderness of that twisted world.

BTW, DHK…just curious again, sorry I'm just full of questions…am I correct that you’re a pastor? If so, where might I ask did you receive your training…what seminary did you attend?

InXC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Here is your quote:

1. What you say is "God-given" is not God-given, but man-made. You are deluded in thinking that Apostolic Tradition is God-given; it is not. The only thing that is God-given is the inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16). Thus your authority has become man's authority and not God's.

Not so. Apostolic Tradition is based on the promise of Jesus Himself that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth. Unlike you, I don't believe Jesus lied when he said this

2. What you say is the sole preserve... of the vast majority of mainstream Christians throughout the centuries (Apostolic Tradition) is totally untrue if not a lie.

And what credentials do you have for this?

As you admitted it has been the mainstay of the RCC.

nd the Orthdox, Anglicans and many Lutherans. Why the unhealthy obsession with the RCC??

But the RCC has been on the outside of Biblical Christianity. The Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church are not much different.

Er..actually both the RCC and the Orthodox have been at the heart of Christianity since New Testament times.

They both are liberal, modernistic institutions that no longer (if ever) have preached the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Church is liberal and modenistic??!!:laugh: I'm not sure they got the memo there...Please tell me what modernistic doctrines the Orthodox hold. Indeed, please tell me what doctrines the Orthodox hold that date after about the 5th century.

The reformers that tried to reform the RCC from within are the same that protested against the doctrines of the RCC: the Protestants.

No, the Magisterial Reformation adhered to the principle of there being a Catholic Church; they just disagreed with the Pope as to where the true Catholic Church could be found; just read Calvin, Luther and the 16th century Anglican Reformers.

These same Protestants would have protested against the heresies contained within the Orthodox and Anglican churches as well.

If you mean liberal heresies, I would agree. But they do not represent historic Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Calvinism.

If they could see the mainstream Prostestant churches of today they would protest against them also.

As do I re the liberal sections within them

Most of them are liberal and do not preach the gospel any more.

A small portion are - re the Anglicans, watch this space at the Lambeth Conference this summer

If you take a look at the history of fundamentalism, it started as a stand against the fundamentals of the faith in the beginning of the 20th century when mainline churches were turning away from the faith and more to a "social gospel."

Surely they stood 'for' the fundamentals. And the social Gospel was not an issue (well, it wasn't for Jesus); it was the higher critics which were the problem

The Protestants of old would have protested against that movement and stood with men like W.B. Riley who protested against such modernism creeping into mainline churches.

Yes. Your point?

There are few churches today that do stand for the truth of God's Word today. The one's that do generally are characterized by sola scriptura.

And they are characterised by their volatility and fissiparity; they anathematise everyone else who fails to agree with every jot and tittle of their man-made interpretation of Scripture. I cannot tell you how much I am utterly unimpressed with sola Scriptura; it's pernicious and degrading fruits are plain for all with eyes to see on this board, I say to my great sorrow.

The one's that don't are generally characterized by an adherence to Tradtion, liturgy, catechism, creeds, etc. Check your history and see.

Yep, that started right with the Apostles, with the guys whom Jesus chose. Guess He made a mistake, didn't He?

 

[Matt Black]

A church ashamed of the Baptist name isn't really Baptist is it? As you admit, you weren't in a Baptist church at all; but in a non-denominational church. There is a big difference. My guess is that you don't even know what an IFB church, so quit trying to pretend that you do. Your own writings betray you. You don't have a clue what an IFB church is. My guess is that you have never been in one, but have been in either a Bible Church, A Community Church, or just one of those "no-name" brand of non-denominational or inter-denominational churches. But you don't even know what a Baptist Church is, much less what an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is. Your post is quite insulting to any IFB actually, for it only betrays your ignorance in the matter, when you claim to be an authority.

Again an indicator of your ignorance on the issue. IFB churches are not Protestants and never were. They were not part of the Protestant movement, and certainly were never associated with the RCC. Your ignorance of the entire movement betrays you.

1. When have you been here in the "Great White North" to observe what we celebrate and what we don't. Can you give any credible evidence of that which you have not seen. Is it the occult you dabble in? How do you know these things having never seen them? Or do you claim deity? You claim strange things.

2. You don't know what a "church" is. My "church" doesn't belong to a "Church", something that doesn't exist. A "church" (ekklesia) is an assembly of believers that are baptized and gathered together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission and the commands that Christ has given them. That is the only type of church that is defined in the Bible. There is no other.
Hence the meaning of "Independent". We are not part of a denomination or a greater "Church," as you put it. There is no such thing in the Bible.

Our church had no special service on March 23. You don't know what our church did. Quit with the false accusations. We don't celebrate Easter. You don't know that. You need to prove that. Why do you say things that you don't know anything about. We are not part of a denomination. Why not do some study and learn what an IFB church is before spouting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about.

Gosh, how much denial of the facts in one post! You really do believe your own propanganda, don't you? Any remaining shreds of credibility you had were completely shot to pieces with that. I don't know whether to :laugh: or :tear:

 

[DHK]

Matt,
In my reply to Agnus I point out things that went on in my church. He lives in Witchita Kansas, according to his profile. I live in norhthern Alberta. Take a good look at a map of North America. Is Agnus an Gnostic or a medium in an occult? Which one? Please explain how he knows intimate details of what went on in my church on March 23. To make such substantial claims is far beyond his reach of knowledge, in fact knowledge only God (or demons) could only know. So if you agree with Agnus please explain how. Do you also have this gift of ESP, this occultish knowledge of knowing exactly what I am doing at any given time? I feel that you are in deep trouble if you say you do. This is what Agnus is claiming. He has never been the thousands of miles here, and certainly wasn't in my church on March 23. Why does he claim to know only what God knows?

I didn't deny any facts. I gave testimony to the facts. I gave testimony to the facts regarding my own church. How do you say I denied facts when I described what went on in my own church? My church does not belong to any other denomination. It was started by a pastor with no connections to any other church. It is independent of all other churches. We are not part of any organizational structure. Hence we are an Independent Baptist Church who adheres to the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[DHK]

Uhhhhhh, I said we adhered to the Baptist Distinctives and thus we "retained" the name "Baptist", hence the Church I was raised was Calvary "Baptist" Church and while in Indiana...Faith "Baptist" Church. Both of which are Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches.

Check the statements of faith. There are many kinds of Baptist churches. And among the IFB churches there is a great deal of latitude. Why? Because they are all independent one of another. They all have their own statement of faith. They are not the same. There is no denominaton here. There is no homogeny here except for a belief in a common set of Baptist distinctives. There is a wide variation within those distinctives, but there is no denomination. I don't believe you learned much as a Baptist.

But that’s OK DHK, I truly understand your frustrations.

I don't have any frustrations. It greatly disappoints me when others go out of their way to deliberately misrepresent the Baptists, especially when they are guests on a Baptist board. You ought to know better.

It was quite a shock to me too, when I first discovered I was lied to and that I was indeed a “Protestant”, I recognize all the elements of denial in your post.

False accusations and personal attacks are needless and against BB rules.

Face it DHK, you’re sect is just another “clone” sect who thinks they’re the true IFB’s and all the others are not.

I don't belong to a sect; I belong to one church. I have no other membership but one church, in one city, in one community, that has a definite address on the corner of a street and avenue. That can hardly be construed as a sect. Your ignorance and false accusations are unwarranted. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't post it.

Boy, I rejoice that God has led me out of the wilderness of that twisted world.

It appears that you don't know what kind of world you were in. Too bad you didn't stay long enough to learn about it.

BTW, DHK…just curious again, sorry I'm just full of questions…am I correct that you’re a pastor?

If you check my profile you will see that I am a missionary. And yes, I am a pastor as well.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It was started by a pastor with no connections to any other church.

But of course, that's the mark of Protestantism, you know, start your own, what's happening now church...so your pastor has no connections to any other Church? Who ordained your pastor? There's no sending church that sent your pastor out, he just woke-up one morning and decided to self ordain himself and start a church. Is it really that simple DHK?

you check my profile you will see that I am a missionary. And yes, I am a pastor as well.

Still DHK, where did you obtain your pastoral qualifications...what seminary did you attend?

InXC
-