Jump to content

Mcgyver

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Mcgyver last won the day on May 8 2013

Mcgyver had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

80 Neutral

2 Followers

About Mcgyver

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 12/03/1957

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Deep in the Everglades of Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

1,784 profile views
  1. You ask a good question.... For me personally, it's really quite simple. If someone asks for help I will give it, and if they "ask amiss" or use it for something other than what was intended...well, I figure that is between them and the Lord.
  2. I'll give you another one...Welcome to the boards!!!
  3. (Glory of God = the sum total of all His Attributes) multiplied by infinity I do not deny the Hypostatic union. Would you agree that those who saw Jesus, saw the Father? The Glory that Jesus displayed was the Glory of the Godhead, which includes the Father. However we also know that God told Moses you cannot see my Glory less you be consumed. And then again God did show the back of His Glory in the cleft of the rock. But notice what Glory that was as God passed by (Ex. 34:6): 1) Compassionate (Loving) 2) Gracious (Benevolent) 3) Long-suffering (Patient) 4) Good (Loving-kindness) 5) Truth (Just, Holy) 6) Faithful (Covenant trust) 7) Forgiving (Merciful) Now what is missing in those attributes? The BIG ones, you’re right. 1) Eternal 2) Omniscient 3) Omnipotent 4) Omnipresent 5) Self-Sufficient 6) Immutable 7) Sovereign So we have 7 that are communicable and 7 that are non- communicable. Jesus divested Himself of the non-communicable (less we be consumed) and displayed the communicable ones. But also the Glory that Jesus displayed was not His own it was that of the Father, through the Holy Spirit because the Godhead always works in unity. As you quoted, JOHN 1:14 which is great “…and we beheld His Glory, the Glory of the only begotten of the Father,… HEB. 1:3 “God…has in these last days spoken to us through His Son… who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person.” By doing this in this way Jesus becomes our example and expects us to take that Glory to the nations. But you say; God said He would not share His Glory with anyone. I say; We are not anyone, we are the Body of Christ. And so Jesus prayed in JOHN 17:22 “The Glory you have given me, I have given them”. How? The Holy Spirit. He produces that glory in us every day. We are called to exhibit those 7 communicable attributes to a dying world. COL. 1:27 “Christ in you the hope of glory”. Many interpret Col. 1:27 as the hope of glory of heaven or our glorious hope in heaven but the context (verse 26-28) would suggest that **With Christ in us we are the hope of glory to the world.** Thank you for your answer... I would however submit (that since we agree on the Hypostatic Union) that Jesus did not divest Himself of those attributes, else He would not be God...at best He would have been some sort of "lesser god"...and we know that is not the case. So then, I posit that even though He still retained all the attributes of God, that He simply chose not to exercise certain of those attributes in His advent...and I think you will agree that there is a definite difference between divestment of certain attributes, and not excercising (but at the same time retaining) those same attributes. Thoughts?
  4. Very simple. Notice what is says we were chosen to be: We were chosen to be holy and blame.ess before Him in love AND we are predestined to the adoption as sons. This is talking about what God chosen, before the foundation of the world, that Christians should be come. it is not saying that God chose who would become Christians. The word "predestine" means "to set off beforehand" and refers to what God has predestined for believers. The word "adoption" can be kind of confusing if we don’t understand what it meant in the first century. It means, “to set as an adult.” Paul is using, as an illustration, the Roman practice of adopting a son and then not only bequeathing him all of his possessions, but giving him his civil status as a adult citizen; Thus God takes a believing sinner, regenerates him, and by means of this makes him His “born” child. Then He takes this child and places him in a legal position as an adult son. We thus become joint-heirs with Christ, having been raised to a civil status as adult sons, in which we become heirs of God, inheriting jointly with Christ all that He possesses as an heir of God the Father by virtue of His Sonship and work on the Cross. Simply put, before the foundation of the world, God already the plan of salvation figured out. And in that plan, He chose for Christians to be holy and blameless before Him in love and in doing so He predestined (chose beforehand) us to the adoption as sons. Thank you Shiloh, and also thanks to Openly Curious and Lek who also replied... I am inclined to agree that God does not predestinate certain people to be saved or lost...for that would seemingly fly in the face of the scripture that tells us: The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) However, I do have a couple of follow up questions (and I'm not concerned about debating, but rather your thoughts on the matter) The first question is this: Do you think that God in His omniscience knows who will respond or reject the gospel call? The second question is one that I posted in another thread and would like to re-post here for comment concerning "The son of perdition": John 17:11-12 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (NKJV) I submit the following for consideration and comment: 1) One of the twelve was certain to be doomed in order that scripture would be fulfilled. (Ps 41:9, Zech.11:12, et.al) 2) That this plan was put into place from the time that man fell in the garden (Gen 3:15) 3) That God Himself ordained that Messiah would be betrayed and given over to the executioner 4) That the cross was necessary and unavoidable in order to complete His redemptive plan for mankind. (Ps 22, Isaiah 53, et.al) 5) And all this from the "foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-22) So then, it would appear that God predestined one of the twelve to be lost that Messianic scripture would be fulfilled...How is this reconciled (do you think) with the previous assertions?
  5. But yet, for all that...we are still faced with the problem of Jesus' prayer in John 17...and the fact that one whom He called "the son perdition"...one of the twelve... was doomed that scripture would be fulfilled. The only things that I have seen presented here are Inherent Omniscience and Kenosis...both of which IMO fall flat in the face of the whole counsel of God. I understand the point that you are trying to make, but (respectfully) I am afraid that you haven't proven your case scripturally...
  6. Interesting subject... Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6) How do you read this? Just curious...
  7. I've been following along, and there are several issues that I would like you to explain, as I have a problem with them....(I removed the entire quotation in order to save space and enhance readability) First is this statement: Jesus did not know Peter would deny Him before the cock crowed. Jesus divested Himself of His Glory, Godly attributes (which include omniscience), and received all knowledge and power from the Holy Spirit. He did this to become truly show by His example the it is possible to live a holy life with the Spirit as our guide. The Spirit was the one who empowered Jesus to heal, perform miracles, etc. The Spirit also reveal everything Jesus needed to know about the spirit world or what was lurking in the hearts of men or future knowledge. Jesus by submitting to the Father and living in the Spirit became our perfect example, proof that we can do that same today. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Phil.2:5-7) First of all, I can not see that this is supported scripturally...although certainly it is not the first time that I have heard it. If Jesus divested Himself of any attribute of God, then He is not God...This is Kenosis and was a very early heresy addressed by the early church. He did not "become" God, nor become "empowered" for His ministry at His baptism...His baptism was for the express purpose of revealing to Israel that Messiah had come. John 1:30-32 states: This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. That God the Son depended on God the Holy Spirit to please God the Father is ludicrous...because all are of one essence...God. John 1:1-14 settles the issue of whether or not Jesus is God. There is however a definite difference between divesting Himself of the attributes of God, and choosing to rather operate within the limitations of the "human experience". Jesus did not divest Himself of anything...He chose to live as a man...but was also fully God. The Hypostatic Union (That Jesus was both fully God and fully man) is foundational to Christianity Even then we see glimpses of His glory (the transfiguration on the mount), and His omniscience (Matthew 9:3-5: And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? ) Mark puts it this way: Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Mark 2:7-8 Saying that Jesus had to operate by the power of the Holy Spirit means that He was not capable of operating independently of the Holy Spirit which (coming full circle) strikes at the very deity of our Lord. Secondly is this statement: The fact, that you believe that God would create a human being for the sole purpose of betraying Jesus and then send him to an eternal torment in hell with no choice whatsoever, is grievous. It is absolutely mind boggling that a God of infinite goodness and love who desires a relationship with every one of His creature could even think of such a diabolical scheme. John 17:11-12 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (NKJV) I submit the following for consideration: 1) One of the twelve was certain to be doomed in order that scripture would be fulfilled. (Ps 41:9, Zech.11:12, et.al) 2) That this plan was put into place from the time that man fell in the garden (Gen 3:15) 3) That God Himself ordained that Messiah would be betrayed and given over to the executioner 4) That the cross was necessary and unavoidable in order to complete His redemptive plan for mankind. (Ps 22, Isaiah 53, et.al) 5) And all this from the "foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-22) Obviously...one was chosen to be doomed... How, in light of the scriptures and the prophecy do you work around this?
  8. You truly believe that God created Judas to go to hell. Your God is a tyrant. I am grieved you would think God would do such a thing. John 17:11-12 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (NKJV) How do you read this? Personally I see this as a great stumbling block in the Inherent Omniscience point of view, in that: 1) One of the twelve was certain to be doomed in order that scripture would be fulfilled. (Ps 41:9, Zech.11:12, et.al) 2) That this plan was put into place from the time that man fell in the garden (Gen 3:15) 3) That God Himself ordained that Messiah would be betrayed and given over to the executioner 4) That the cross was necessary and unavoidable in order to complete His redemptive plan for mankind. (Ps 22, Isaiah 53, et.al) 5) And all this from the "foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-22) How then is God a tyrant, when "The son of perdition" as Jesus put it was chosen to fulfill God's perfect plan?
  9. Interesting...it's been quite a while since I've seen an Inherent Omniscience vs. Total Omniscience debate...and of course predestination vs. "free will" (for lack of a better term) must come into play. If we really want to "think outside the box", perhaps the interplay between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man is what needs to be discussed?
  10. I've been all around this old world..and people are people wherever you go...and we all need Jesus. As far as the Chinese...the vast majority that I have met are good, honest, hard working people.
  11. My question would be: What do you understand "biblical restitution" to mean? What scriptures are you referring to as far as restitution?
  12. Just a word of (hopefully) encouragement here... Many years ago when I bowed my knee at the foot of the cross (so to speak), I had the same struggle.... At the time I was a Senior NCO with one of the most "elite" units in the US Army...and my lifestyle up to that point had been ***ahem*** shall we say less than Godly? I had a problem believing that God had truly forgiven me of all the nasty stuff I'd done...I didn't "feel" saved (whatever that is)...my brain told me that I had outsinned God's ability to forgive and I wondered if maybe I was an exception to the rule... Then I ran across this scripture: So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (emphasis mine). The bible told me that I had been forgiven and washed clean (1 John 1:8-9), that I had been made into something new and that the old was gone (2 Corinthians 5:17), and that I had become a child of God (John 1:10-13)....and...I also ran across a question that I had to answer: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:25-26 (emphasis mine). Do you believe this?.....I had to make a choice by an act of will...either believe what the bible said to me in spite of what my "common sense" told me...belive that God was big enough to do what He said He was going to do regardless of my "feelings"....or not. Do you believe this? Yes or No...simple as that....I chose "Yes"....and even though over the years I have had my struggles, they have only served to increase my faith. I sure hope that helps you in some way...
  13. That's a very interesting read. Last post before I run off to chuch... I read it, and found it to be quite disingenuous...reasons later...
  14. Just think... All this from a simple question regarding the translation of the word "hagios" as "saint".... I've studied the TR, CT, MT...the NA/UBS editions....and what I have found is that though there are indeed variations and even variants in the variations...there is nothing added or omitted in any of the texts that affects any established Christian doctrine one teensy/tiny little bit. It might be surprising to some to find out that with some of the books (1 John for example) we have Latin, Coptic, and Syriac manuscripts that actually pre-date the earliest Greek manuscripts extant. As the translators said in the preface to the AV 1611: Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
  15. Well, I'd like to chip in with a couple of things if I may... Firstly, in regard to different translations, I think that we must realize (as has been mentioned earlier) that between different bibles we see different translation methods. We have for example the "Formal Equivalence" philosophy which endeavors to keep a word-for-word translation isofar as is possible with the different syntax, grammar, synonymous word meanings etc. Then we have the "Dynamic Equivalence" approach which attempts to provide a thought-for-thought translation. Neither is perfect, and both borrow from the other...and both have to make certain judgment calls. In Koine Greek, there is no punctuation...certain words have several meanings depending on use...and if one translates strictly word for word it would sould like Yoda talking. This is why I think we are blessed to have many translations...and ultimately it is up to the reader to compare and decide which best conveys the gospel message to them. As far as "Holy" and "Saint" In Greek the word for "holy" is αγιος (hagios) and conjugations thereof. At the very basic level (in speaking of men), Trench in his Synonyms of the Greek New Testament writes: "Its fundamental idea is separation, and, so to speak, consecration and devotion to the service of Deity". We see this in 1 Peter 2:9: But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light... So to call the people of God "holy" in this sense is not a doctrinal error. In another sense, αγιος (hagios) is used to denote the very attributes of God...i.e. God alone is "holy"...and in this sense the word hagios encompasses the breadth and depth of what and who God is. (Obviously, in this sense God is not consecrated and separated to the service of Deity...He IS Deity). 1 Peter 1:15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct (αλλα κατα τον καλεσαντα υμας αγιον και αυτοι αγιοι εν παση αναστροφη γενηθητε) This is where the word "saint" comes in...the word "saint" is simply a translation of the word hagios, and I suspect the translators used that word to provide a clear deliniation of the use and context of the word "hagios" to avoid any confusion. Romans 15:25: But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. (νυνι δε πορευομαι εις ιερουσαλημ διακονων τοις αγιοις) So to remove the word "saint" and substitute a perhaps more "modern" word (for lack of something better) once again does not necessarily introduce a doctrinal error...but was felt to better reflect the meaning of the usage in a certain situation by the translators. Hope this helps and doesn't confuse you too much!
×
×
  • Create New...