KJV Only movement?

So God is guilty of asking a logically fallacious question???

I don't think so.

 

How do you deal with this passages?

Colossians 1:13-17 (NASB)
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Also we see God walking in the garden:

Genesis 3:8-11 (NASB)
8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

Also:

John 8:56-58 (NASB)
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

He is the Great I Am! The same I Am that spoke to Moses.

Explain this to me.


Also you confuse the titles of God. The Word is a title of God the Son. God the Son is the Word of God but this does not mean that He is not the Eternal Son.

 

Do you deny that Jesus has never changed?

Explain this passage to me:

Hebrews 13:8 (NASB)
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

and you might want to consider this:

Hebrews 13:9 (NASB)
9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.

Your view on the Sonship is wrong.

 

Proverbs 30:4 (NASB)
4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!

Why do you dent this passage?

 

Jesus, at His Incarnation, became, of His own free will, "subordinate to the Father". Hence we read in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I". But, we also read where He says: "I and the Father, one We Are" (John 10:30), where Jesus is spaeking of "essential" unity. Also, in John 17:5

"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was"

Here Jesus is speaking in His subordinate state, as asks that His "glory" that He has always had with the Father, be restored. Since Jesus Christ IS Almighty God, He could never have ceased to be that, even when He walked on earth, He did so as 100% God and 100% Man. He is no less than the Father ot the Holy Spirit.

Both, the "Eternal Sonship" and "Eternal Generation", clearly teach "subordinationism", where Jesus is not "equal" to the Father.

This is also seen in the famous Nicene Creed, where you can see its Arianism in such phrases as "God from God", "Light from Light". Where in both cases the reference is to the Father, and the Son is said to have "derived" His being "out of" the Father.

 

So God is guilty of asking a logically fallacious question???

I don't think so. </font>[/QUOTE]God DID NOT ask the question.

 

I am back on the board tomorrow UK time

 

Arianism in the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed was written to combat Arianism.

 

Please check out your facts before posting The Nicene Creed was drawn up from a Creed presented as a compromise by the historian, Eusebius, who was NOT orthodox in his Christology. If you can read up on the history of the NC, you will see exactly what I mean

 

Again, where is this co-equal quality of the Trinity found in scripture in a way that denies the Eternal Sonship?

 

So God is guilty of asking a logically fallacious question???

I don't think so. </font>[/QUOTE]God DID NOT ask the question. </font>[/QUOTE]He inspired the words. Who is the son in the question? What is his name, if thou canst tell?

Many NT verses talk of the Father sending the Son, not sending someone who became his son after he arrived.

 

Ichthus:a. because it is unbiblical

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isn't a PRINCE a king's son, especially when the king is living?


b. because it makes Jesus inferior, not in status, but Person to the Father.

Jesus said umpteen times He came not to do His own will, but THAT OF HIS FATHER'S!

I believe that all Three Persons in the Godhead are: co-equal, co-eternal, and co-essential.

God The Father sent Jesus. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.

 

First and foremost. before you guys get carried away into thinking that my "theology" is "heretical", don't. I am not alone in rejecting the "Eternal Sonship" of Jesus Christ. Among those who did so, were, Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes, the Pastor's/Commentators; and Walter Martin, the Christian Apologist. All three were solid, orthodox Christians.

Second, I myself believe in the full Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This means, that He, like the Father and Holy Spirit, is Almighty God. That He is eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient. Therefore Jesus is One Member of the Holy Trinity, Who are coequal, coeternal, and coessential.

Thirdly, I also believe in the preexistence of the Lord Jesus, "before the beginning" of Genesis 1:1. That He was very active in the Old Testament, and was manily known as "Mal'ak Yhwh" ("Angel of the Lord" - eg. Genesis chapter 16, 22; Exodus 3, etc), which is always in the Hebrew in the singular, masculine. A study on this subject will show that this "Messenger of YHWH", is Himself also "Yhwh", and is none other than Jesus Christ in His preincarnate form. In Genesis 19:24, we have two seperate Persons Who have the Title "YHWH"

Fourthly, Scripture clearly says, that "He shall be called the Son Of God" (see Luke 1:35; Hebrews 1:5), where the Greek distinctly uses the future tense. Why would this be the case, if Jesus were already the "Son of God"? Its exactly like the Name "Jesus", we are told in Matthew 1:21, "you shall (future tense) His Name Jesus". He was NOT Jesus before this, though what the Name means, "Saviour", is something that He always was.

Fifthly, the term "Son" carries with it the meaning of "subordination". This is true of Jesus when He became man at the Incarnation, and was a temporary thing. See Hebrews 2:9, where we are told that Jesus, "for a little while was made lower than the angels". And Jesus Himself said, that, "the Servant is not greater than His Lord, neither He that is sent, greater than He that sent Hin" (John 13:16). Jesus came as a "Servant", and in this role He was "lower" than the Father, Who during Jesus' time on earth, was greater than Him (John 14:28)

Sixthly, Just because Jesus was "sent", it has been assumed by some, that He was always "inferior" as a "Person" to the Father. This is incorrect. Jesus' Mission was something that was fully, and mutually agreed by the Holy Trinity. Its like having three men who own a business, and are "equal partners". Just because they agree that one of them should take on the "role" of being a "salesman", does not mean that He is still not "equal" to the others, though he might need to "report" to the other two. As the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity are equally God, how can either one be any "less" than the other? "God" cannot be anything but "God". He cannot "reduce" Himself. Likewise, Jesus Christ, the God-Man, with two Natures, the Divine and the Human, 100% God and 100% Man, could not "cease" from being God while on earth, but "cloaked" His Deity, so that His appearance was that of a man, though He was always more than this, being Himself the Creator God.

Seventh, It has been said, that the New Testament has examples, where it is said, that "God sent His Son" (eg. Galatians 4:4), and therefore must have been "His Son" prior to His being sent. Not necessarily. At the time of writing, Jesus was known as "the Son of God", so to say that "God sent His Son", is true, because Jesus is the Son, and was sent by the Father. It is exactly like in John 1:6, where we read of John the Baptist, "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John". Are you then saying that John the Baptist existed before this time, to have been sent by God?. No. I see no evidence from these passages that suggest that Jesus was "Son of God" before His Incarnation.

Eightly, The Old Testament passages, like Isaiah 9:6, are, as well known, prophesy about the Birth of the Messiah, and cannot be said to "prove" that Jesus was "a child" before His Incarnation. With regards the question asken in Proverbs 30:4, about "God's Son". As I have said, that does not either "prove" that God did have a Son. Its an assumption here. Many questions were asked, and remarks made by Job's friends, for which the Lord was angery with them. The Book of Ecclesiastes is full of questions, some we know not to be correct. While they are equally "inspired", does not mean that they are factual. Like that in Ecc.3:21, "who knows the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" What do you make of this?

 

You know it does not matter what man said about Jesus and His Eternal Sonship. You can post ten thousands works of man that denies the Eternal Sonship but all your works of man are blown away by one verse Proverbs 30:4! You can slip and slide around all day but you are 100% wrong and your view makes Jesus Christ a liar. Sorry but scripture proves you and those like you wrong.

Colossians 2:8 (NASB)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ

The bottom lie is you are strangling on the milk of the word. You confuse the tittles of God and try to twist those titles to make Christ only the Word before the incarnation when clearly the scriptures as a whole destroy this lie.

How does Jesus being the Son hurt anything? By the way what was the Father the Father of if He has no Son prior to the creation of all that is? Is not God eternal and Jesus said that I never change? Roby made a good point that you should address.

You should bow before the authority of the scriptures and repent of this false teaching. You have been proven wrong and it’s up to you to either rebel against the scriptures or accept what the bible says about Jesus.

Clearly before the incarnation God had a Son.

Jesus said in Hebrews 13:8 that He does not change. Did Jesus lie to us? Yes or No? If No then why did He say that He does not change?

Did God lie to us in Proverbs 30:4? Clearly He said that He has a Son.

Who was walking in the garden of Eden?


I’m not writing this to be mean but to be blunt. So don’t take my words as an attack on you but rather an attack on a false belief about the Trinity.

To deny the Eternal Sonship is the deny the Trinity thus making God out to be a liar. God can not lie and He does not mislead us. If God said in the OT that He had a Son then He had a Son regardless of what the minds of man might say about our Lord.

As for me I will accept the teaching of the Bible and continue to stand up for the Eternal Father, Eternal Son, and Eternal Holy Spirit.

Your brother in the Lord,

 

DavidJ, you argue like a foolish person. You assume that you know the truth, when in fact your response here shows your ignorance on this doctrine. I suggest that you go away and study it for a few days, and then return. You don't understand my position on Christology, nor the Trinity. You come out with complete nonsense that to deny the Eternal Sonship, is to deny the Trinity. This is hogwash! I most certainly believe in the Holy Trinity, three Persons, coequal, coeternal and coessential, as taught in Scripture. You try to build a whole doctrine on ONE verse in the OT, which you do not understand. Nor do you understand basic grammar. I have asked this, and will ask again. If the "Sonship" is eternal, then WHY did Luke say in 1:35, "He SHALL BE CALLED (Greek FUTURE TENSE) the Son of God"? Do you not understand this? Likewise in Hebrews 1:5, where again the FUTURE TENSE is used, with points to the Incarnation. believe what you will, as I have been studying this subject in deapth for over 20 years, and know that it is 100% correct.