THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

New American Standard Version. It seems to be the most literal of the easily readable translations.

I see a town,middle eastern in appearance,semi rural theres a marketplace theres a man and a group being led by Governor StrangeReno through it clearly this man is not impressed it shows, but he follows,heres the source of commotion a ring of people,who's there why its the important religious leader and lawyers Sheep1,Sheep2 and Peg the Prophet upstanding righteous,pious people,ah a test Sheep wishes to test this man with the law,there in the circle is a woman,an adultess,punishable by death,very tricky stuff if the man says 'yes' or 'no' stone her, he by human thinking loses each way,he passes judgement

'Let he without sin cast the first stone',now the Chief Pharisee there obviously doesn't want to admit sin,he furtively glances around,none drop their rock,this man walks up to him looks at the ringleader,no looks through the ringleader drops to one knee and starts writing in the sand,lets have a look what he's writing,oh dear thats er naughty,sorry filthy,sick,perverted disgusting,the man looks up this time straight in his eyes,quick,quicker than a snake the message is communicated 'you filthy creature with filthy habits and a sick mind how would you like this shame to be made public',the look is backed by force, power,something inside the ringleader moves quickly a part of him he never knew existed and it is terrified, for the first time in his life true fear strikes him,the rock is dropped , the others drop theirs the mob moves off.The man uses his foot and erases the writing then tells the woman 'go sin no more'-not a word spoken but quite a lesson imparted-thats the skill I mentioned.Its called lesson in abstraction.

Obliged for the correction on Spurgeon's terminology!! I am relieved if Spurgeon was no great fan of sporting events ... sometimes I think I'm about the only one.

Nope. Me too. Don't understand the games. Don't understand the interest. Who was it who said "Any damfool can see one horse can run faster than another!" Great quote.

"Who you gonna pick for the SuperBowl??" Calvin. Arminius and Wesley keep going onto the playing field without even wearing their pads. And their playbook reveals a strategy that defeats them over and over again, even though their fans still cheer them on as they lose game after game. Their problem is that they never did understand the rules of the game as written by the Great Umpire.

Thanks for the Athanasius material.

To Uriel-for one thing 'creeds' mean nothing, the issue what does the Bible teach. Second, Christ was not 'begotten' in eternity, He was begotten in time(Psa.2:7,Heb.10:5)

Begotten means to 'give birth' thus, he could not be 'begotten' in eternity and be equal with the Father.

Thus, the NAS reading in Jn.1:18 -a 'begotten' God!

What started this discussion was the idea that the Father and the Son could have two different wills, the Son wanting all to be saved(1Tim.2:4) while the Father having decided who would be the elect.

Regarding the equality of the Son, it is in Phil.2:6, that is why the NAS changed it!

Heb.1:3 says what? It says nothing about eternity

You guys have eternity on the brain.

The Trinty is either three persons, co-equal and co-eternal having one essence (the Nicence Creed) or it is not!

When you mentioned FdC were you referring to me? Because I do not have anything on my search from you?

Feel free to challange all you want. Your positions are pure heresy!

To George W.Bush, this is not as complex as you want to make it. 'Begetting' means that to give birth. If you have the Father 'begetting' the Son sometime in eternity you have a 'lesser' god being created.

You understand this from your defense of the Father being 'preeminent' over the Son IN ETERNITY!(hence two wills)

By the way, the NAS has the begetting of a 'god' in Jn.1:18 but the correct reading in 1Jn.4:9.

Since the Calvinists have placed all their eggs on the all encompassing 'eternal decree', they are make these statements, to defend their TULIP at all costs!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

'Begetting' means that to give birth. Do you even have a Bible?

It is not women who beget anyone in the Bible. Only men. The word "beget" is used to identify the paternity and lineage of individuals.

Admit it or don't bother me with any further replies. Normally, I don't take this attitude but no one on these threads argues over such petty but easily provable items. This is a matter of fact, universally known among Bible students. It is not some theological speculation like the true nature of the Trinity. There is no point in disputing with those who are so weak in Bible knowledge. Frankly, despite our other disagreements, I'm shocked anyone with even the faintest acquaintance with the Bible would say this merely to forward their argument.

You are discussing the very Word of God. You need to be more sober when it comes to Bible facts.

Merriam-Webster: 1) to procreate as the father : SIRE

bump

To GeorgeW.Bush-PLEASE! To beget-(1) to procreate as the father'(sire)

(2)to produce as an effect

Now, are you that obtuse or just dishonest!

You know very well what I meant, and my not putting it exactly right(the father does the 'begetting') does nothing to diminish the point!

Did God the Father 'beget' the Son in eternity?

If He did, you have a greater God and a 'lesser' God(which is how the JW's read it).

Are there two 'wills' in the Trinity?

If you want to discuss these issues-fine, if not, and you are going to close your mind to everything but the god of TULIP go to it!

Clearly you are more like Uriel, spudgin, doc, and Jerry M. then you realize. It must be the same Bible rejecting spirit!

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

We really don't have anything to discuss if you are going to twist the word "beget".

Even so, come Lord Jesus. And please bring fortheDeclaraction a Bible dictionary so he (or she) won't be confused by the use of the word "beget" in its Biblical and theological context.

To GeorgeW.Bush-PLEASE! To beget-(1) to procreate as the father'(sire) (2)to produce as an effect Now, are you that obtuse or just dishonest! Even if I were to adopt your second definition, it would still have Christ "produced as an effect" of the Father. I don't see how this actually alters the basic discussion.

If Christ is truly co-equal with the Father, then His absolute co-equality is a little less than "eternally begotten" or "produced as an effect". In either case, He proceeds from the Father. The Father is His source. Otherwise, the words "Son" and "Father" are stripped of any meaning whatsoever.

My explanations of the Trinity do not suffer the same handicaps. That's why I hold to them but do not consider them to be the basis of my own faith.

Your theological position has not improved in the slightest. You've merely demonstrated that the word "beget" is a mystery to you.

I'll challenge you to find a single instance of a woman "begetting" a child in the scripture. Find one or admit that "beget" means "to sire".

I sincerely hope that all our discussions of the Lord Jesus will glorify Him and the wonderful Scriptures. I am not Calvinist, but do enjoy Luther very much. Predestination is a mystery I don't believe I will understand in this life, and as with the Trinity, I am content to proceed on faith and limited knowledge.

I believe the greatest thing a Christian can do is radiate the light of John's Gospel, and practice Paul's witnessing guidelines of First Corinthians 9:19-23.

May God bless you all richly.

A new issue for me..what does the creed mean when it says" Eternally begotten of the Father"..is that referring to jesus physical birth? "God from God"

To George W.Bush-are you really that stupid! I said in my last post that I had used 'beget' to create. I had expressed it incorrectly by stating 'gave birth' INSTEAD OF SIRED

You are attempting to' strain at a gnat' while you swallow a camel'(Matt.23:24) The POINT is if you have God 'begetting' the 'Son' in eternity you have a lesser God, whether or not you want to call it a 'cause' or a 'siring' since the Father now is AS YOUR SYSTEM MAKES HIM, PREEMINENT OVER THE SON!

It was you guys who brought up this idea so that you could avoid the clear wording in 1Tim.2:4 and stating that there were TWO wills now existant in the Trinity which existed IN ETERNTIY!

Stop playing sematic word games and deal with the issue.

The JW's use Jn.1:18 as translated in the corrupt NAS to defend their two god system.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire.

When called on that with 'why' or you guys can do is shrug your shoulders and say 'it is a great mystery' 'Allah' I mean God be praised!

Regarding your comment on words having meaning, yes, they do. Sometimes I may phrase something incorrectly, but at least I know that 'all' means 'everyone'(Rom.3:22 AND 1Tim.2:4,1Tim.4:10,2Pet.3:9) and 'whosoever' means 'anyone'(Jn.3:16,Rom.10:13) not just the pre-selected 'elect'.

Even, so come Lord Jesus

To George W.Bush-are you really that stupid! I said in my last post that I had used 'beget' to create. I had expressed it incorrectly by stating 'gave birth' INSTEAD OF SIRED

You are attempting to' strain at a gnat' while you swallow a camel'(Matt.23:24) The POINT is if you have God 'begetting' the 'Son' in eternity you have a lesser God, whether or not you want to call it a 'cause' or a 'siring' since the Father now is AS YOUR SYSTEM MAKES HIM, PREEMINENT OVER THE SON!

It was you guys who brought up this idea so that you could avoid the clear wording in 1Tim.2:4 and stating that there were TWO wills now existant in the Trinity which existed IN ETERNTIY!

Stop playing sematic word games and deal with the issue.

The JW's use Jn.1:18 as translated in the corrupt NAS to defend their two god system.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire.

When called on that with 'why' all you guys can do is shrug your shoulders and say 'it is a great mystery' 'Allah' I mean God be praised!

Regarding your comment on words having meaning, yes, they do. Sometimes I may phrase something incorrectly, but at least I know that 'all' means 'everyone'(Rom.3:22 AND 1Tim.2:4,1Tim.4:10,2Pet.3:9) and 'whosoever' means 'anyone'(Jn.3:16,Rom.10:13) not just the pre-selected 'elect'.

Even, so come Lord Jesus

To RnMomof7-the problem comes with using the word 'Eternal'when referring the 'begetting' since it does occur IN time (Psa.2:7,Heb.10:5)

If you have it occuring in some point in Eternity you have a second 'created' lesser god, which is the Arianian heresy.

One of Calvin's 'hang ups' wias the ridiculous piece of philosophical speculation which stated: All the decrees of God are eternal.'Being unable to understand eternity (Isa 57:15) or 'eternal'(where it dealt with what God 'decreed'), all Calvinists applied this dictum to Psalm 2 and got the ridiculous, dogmatic statement on some 'day' (see the text) before Genesis 1, God begat another God...

This 'proof text' (Psa.2.7) was twisted to suit the philosophers fancy: the word DAY was translated as 'eternity' (or 'eternal') and the verse was taken slap out of its context, which dealt with the first coming and the second coming of Christ. There is no reference to anything before Genesis 1 found anywhere in the Psalm

Calvin, the first real Protestant pope, was always fascinated by 'decrees' because he fancied that he was a Christian dictator ruling a 'Christian City'(Geneva, Switzerland) He never checked out the word one time in any Bible at which he ever looked...

But you see, Calvin had this problem: how could he justify his 'Decree of Reprobation' unless he swore on a stack of Plato and Augustine that the 'non-elect' were damned BEFORE Genesis 1, along with the election of the 'elect'.Simple: he pretended since both of these 'decrees' took place in Eph.1:4-which says nothing about any Decree of Reprobation-all of God's 'decrees took place before the 'foundation of the world'(Gen.1:1)

....Is this true? Of course not. It is only true if you are a lazy, stupid intelellectual in need of a course on remedial reading.

None of God's 'decrees' are fixed or eternal or permanent if CONDITIONS accompany them...You see, often what God 'decrees' can be altered by a man's WILL. (tell that to a Calvinist and watch him blow his lid!)

On second thought, don't tell him that. Take him to the Holy Bible (AV1611) where the poor, Biblical illiterate can stumble over the Scripture (1Pet.2:8)and break his fool neck (Matt.21:44)

Never mind Calvin and 'Calvininism'They got a few things straight, but not a great deal when to came to salvation and the new birth. Their 'fixed' 'eternal decrees' are about as 'eternal' as the Third Reich. Even the Decree of Salvation is conditional: look at Jn.1:12-13,5:24,3:36,5:40,and 6:29)

You cannot be one of God's 'elect' unless you receive His 'ELECT; you will find that one Isa.42:1-4

Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come unto me!'

(Peter Ruckman, Bible Believers Bulletin,Vo.3.p.457-58,)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

To George W.Bush-

From the OBD

Beget:To procreate'To Generate,USUALLY Said OF THE FATHER, BUT SOMETIMES OF BOTH PARENTS (p.121)

Now, since God had no 'female' to mate with, it is totally acceptable, when discussing the ETERNAL BEGETTING' to use either 'sired' or 'gave birth to'

I am totally willing to use the usage found in the Bible relating to the male (sired) which does nothing to remove you from your dilemna.

However, if you want to pretend I have committed some 'heresy' (as did Woody and Spudgin did before you-modus operendi of the Calvinists when they can't defend their heresies, attack the other person as a heretic (e.g.Servetus), go right ahead. But you might need to go running to Uriel to for some more ammo.And Uriel has not addressed anthing to me, lest he pretends that I did not reply!

You guys are a bunch of liars-period

Even so, come Lord Jesus (and bring George W. Bush a brain and the heart to learn)

You are attempting to' strain at a gnat' while you swallow a camel'(Matt.23:24) The POINT is if you have God 'begetting' the 'Son' in eternity you have a lesser God, whether or not you want to call it a 'cause' or a 'siring' since the Father now is AS YOUR SYSTEM MAKES HIM, PREEMINENT OVER THE SON! Actually, it is pretty clear to me that it is you who strains at a gnat and has an understanding of the Trinity which is somewhat problematic.

You are also blaming all the other Calvinists for my own private opinions and information I have unearthed. I really don't know whether they share my belief or to what extent. I guarantee you that they will hold some theological distinctives that differ from me on this matter.

However, I have at no point questioned your faith or salvation in this matter. It is you who is pointing fingers and making insinuation, not me.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire. In fact, it is you Arminians who make common cause with Rome. This has always been the case and can be abundantly demonstrated. Not that any position taken by Rome is inherently and completely wrong. Just that it mostly is and that it is wrong on key issues of the Christian faith. To many of their followers, it is certain to be fatal heresy and to lead them to a false Christ. One is almost tempted to say that the heresy of Rome is so deep as to preclude anyone coming to a saving faith in Christ but we are not given such certainty in this life. However much I hate to admit it, I have to recognize that there are key elements of my theology and my understanding of scripture that came from (dissident) elements of the chruch of Rome. For you and I particularly, we have to recall that Erasmus never did totaly break with Rome but he did produce the Textus Receptus. It is a little disturbing to think about and requires some explanation, does it not?