GES New Assault on "the Christ"

We can insist on whatever we like but it doesn't make us right. I do not dispute the term 'Son of God' involves deity but it is not always equated with deity by those who used it. It is true other were called son or sons of God, that can not be disputed. It meant they were men of God thus implying the divine to them as Gods own and not so much as to say they were God.

Much like when the Angel told Mary that her child will be called the Son of God. Did Mary beleive that Jesus was God in the Flesh about to be born through her. I don't believe scripture speaks to that but that she understood it as the Messianic Title and that He will be a Man of God who belongs TO God.

I'm not arguing FOR the GES, but that the term 'Son of God' has different connotations in accordance with the understanding of those using it.

 

Why not spend as much time trying to reach the lost instead of trying to tear down a brother's method of doing such? Or do you have an agenda?

 

What? Me have an agenda??

I'd suggest all of us have agendae. Some may appear to be more overt than some others. And I'm fairly sure some may surmise that I am not beyond this, either. Usually they happen to be incorrect in their assessment; not that I don't have agendae, but as to what it is, and the Scriptural basis for it.

Ed

 

Thought from my own personal perspective: I did not recognize the deity of Christ for a short while after I was saved. I was ignorant, and didn't know scripture well enough. So I assumed He was man (a special, perfect man, but not God) as long as He was on earth. His deity became obvious and indisputable as I learned scripture. I accepted the truth with joy as I learned it. But I didn't know it at first.

So - does this mean I wasn't really saved until I figured out the truth?

 

And after the divinity of Christ, what other essential of orthodoxy you didn't know and needed to learn?

 

It also says they were gods, but it doesn't imply that God is a man. So why assume that Just because they were called sons of god, that it means that Jesus was not God the Son?

 

Quite probably you weren't saved. For how could you truly understand "that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son"? It is essential to believe that foundational truth in order to be saved and have your sins washed away. That is what the apostles taught and that is the gospel message. So I'm not sure what you believed on back then. But it sure was not the gospel. If it were then that would mean that those cults who say he was only a man are saved also.

 

In my opinion these people have gone from error to apostasy. Plain and simple.

 

Q: Who called Jesus "Lord" even though he didn't know who he was?
A: Paul

I tend to not worry about which exact point in time God flipped me from darkness to light. All I know is that "whereas I was blind, now I see". I know whom I have believed. People have different conversion experiences.

 

Why do you have to believe Jesus is God in order to know and understand He's God's Son? If someone, after reading and understanding His Word, insisted Jesus is not God, I might question that person's salvation. But that's not what is at issue here.

I have to disagree with you in principle, anyway. I don't think salvation is about passing a theology test.

 

Eternal salvation is not hinged on one's theology, doctrine, or practice.

You're right on here.

Eternal salvation is all OF God, none of man.

It is all God's will, work, and grace to man.

If theology had anything to do with anyone's salvation, then none would be saved, because which theology on earth is able to really understand the grace and mercy of God and the wonder of His Son ?

 

And all the people say, "AMEN!"

 

When I was saved, not only was I a sinner, but an ignorant one as well. I didn't know anything about the Bible or theology. I didn't even know what theology was! :laugh:

 

Lou, I applaud your work. :thumbs:

 

So you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved then? It is true that it is not about passing a theology test. I don't remember ever talking about such a thing. But every Christian is under obligation to become a theologian. Which is a different thing altogether. Perhaps if more Christians were theologians then we would not be going over these elemetary things here, that were thrashed out in the very beginning. Salvation is about believing that Jesus the son of God came into the world to save sinners.

It is evident that the apostles believed and preached this, for this is all part and parcel of the gospel. This was one of the contentions of the Jews against the gospel.

To the Jews, to call one's self the son of God was eqivalent to calling one's self God.

But all these are as I have said elementary to the gospel teaching. And to deny that Jesus is both God and man is to deny that he is Lord and saviour. Therefore I said that if someone believed that Jesus was only a good man at time of their conversion, then they did not believe on the Christ who washed them from their sins. Neither did they believe that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I think people today too easily become believers. Take a look at the NT again. Look at this verse here:

Read the whole of that chapter and you'll find some interesting things about some who profess to believe in Jesus, yet when questioned about certain things about him, find that they do not believe after all. Read about some of the great Christians and their conversions and you will see that many of them struggled for years before declaring themselves to be believers.

I don't find much of this searching of heart today. To become a believer is not just a question of declaring your faith in Christ. But when you make that declaration you declare that you believe in his person and his work on the cross and that his blood can make the foulest clean. What person but a man who was God could do such a thing? The Christian gospel has always declared Christ to be none other than the Son of the living God. The God man who gave his life for his people, whose blood will wash away all sin.

 

There is a world of difference between becoming a believer, and receiving the free gift of salvation, and becoming a disciple, as one grows in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Salvation, as the gift of God, is free to you and I, when we believe. It costs us nothing.

Discipleship, on the other hand, may and does well can one everything, including one's very life, pace most of the Apostles, from James, the Great, forward. In fact, early church history and tradition tell us that only John, who was himself exiled to Patmos, escaped a violent martyr's death. Stephen is another Biblical example of the same.

And martyrdom is still happening, even today, and in this country, no less, pace the Columbine massacre with Cassie Burnell and Rachel Joy Scott, both martyred for being Christians, and both at the age of 17.

Ed

 

Yes, but the evidence of receiving the free gift becomes evident in one's declaration of faith and it is there in that declaration that reveals just what it is that we ourselves have believed.