Mcgyver

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.

(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?

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?

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...

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...

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?

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?

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?

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.

My question would be: What do you understand "biblical restitution" to mean? What scriptures are you referring to as far as restitution?

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...

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...

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.

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!

THIS!!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

I meant to point out also...that Saul suffered a "loss of face" because his own son Johnathan had given his loyalty to David instead of Saul...

what kind? you think david and jonathan were homosexual? you're way off the mark on that one if that is what you meant. 1Samuel 20 30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? ------how to explain??? Hey Silvia...I'll try to place this into context for you... This passage is idiomatic in nature (Hebrew idiom), but has to do with the concept of "loss of face" or "bringing great shame". Example: When I was in the service, I had a good friend named Hideshi, who was Japanese by birth. Hideshi's dad had been a naval aviator with the IJN in World War 2 and had participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hideshi came to the US to study at a University...and while there he fell in love with and married an American woman (against his parent's wishes). Then he applied for US citizenship and joined the US Army. We had a capabilities exercise at Ft Bragg for a Japanese delegation from the JSDF...and Hideshi was tasked to be a translator...Hideshi's father was in the delegation... Hideshi's father would not talk to his son...and when our Sergeant Major (out of curiosity) asked him "why?"....Hideshi's father replied that it was because Hideshi "had brought great shame" on the family. This is exactly the attitude that Saul is exhibiting in berating Johnathan in the passage that was quoted...nothing more...it's just using idiomatic speech. Hope that helps!

Something that I think we need to keep in mind when looking at books such as Jude and Enoch, is that the writers of the Epistles many times use a well known reference in order to make their point. For example, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch (which was not part of the Jewish canon of scripture), but nevertheless was widely known...even as the apocrypha was widely known yet not accepted as inspired. Paul in his Epistles quotes several stoic (Greek) philosophers in his letters to the churches in order to drive home or illustrate a concept or point. Now this doesn't mean that either the Book of Enoch or Stoic philosophers were as a whole inspired...but as the saying goes: "Even a blind hog will root out a truffle now and then." That is to say, that when Jude (as led by the Holy Spirit) references certain passages in Enoch...doesn't mean that the whole book was inspired...just that certain portions were correct. Another good illustration would be the use of logos in John 1 to describe the deity of Christ. The synonymous and universally accepted meaning of logos as the mind/reason/substance of God was assigned that meaning by a Stoic philosopher named Heraclitus around 500 BC. Doesn't mean that Heraclitus was inspired...simply that John in his gospel uses an already accepted Greek concept to show that Christ is God to a people who had no messianic expectation, no Old Testament scripture, etc. So then I think that we tread on dangerous ground when we wish to assert that a whole book is inspired based on just a couple of examples JMO

Excellent post. I now proclaim you to be a fully ordained minister! That will be $50 please.... Oh goody!!! You want that cash, check, or money order? Give me an extra $100 and I'll make you Pope. He he he....The term "Papal Bull" would take on a whole new meaning...

could you maybe expand on this Q? thank you. and also, would you care to comment on these verses in regards to the 20+ named in the list? Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. in what manner have these self-proclaimed apostles been tried? is this a reference to a witnessing of the resurrection of Christ and miraculous signs and wonders? and also: Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. love to you. The scripture is talking about false, evil 'apostles' and cannot be used as a generalization. God bless fair enough Fez, but then, in what manner have they been 'tried' and found to be liars? I'll jump in here if I may.... The word "Apostle" (Lit. One who is sent) carries two meanings in the scripture...One is the "office" of Apostle (which is the normally associated connotation), and one is in the sense of a missionary. In fact the book of Acts is properly titled in Greek: "The Acts of Apostolic Men". The key requirement of the "office" of Apostle was to have been an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. The requirement of apostle in the sense of missionary (one who is sent) hinged on the proclaimation of the gospel. When we consider that by the time Revelation was written (circa AD 95) all the other apostles were dead, then I believe that we can surmise that the false apostles mentioned in Revelation are either those who who were preaching a "different" gospel (most likely), or were self-proclaiming that they had seen the risen Christ and actually had not. In any event, the commendation to the church is that they did not heed these heretics...and of course the condemnation is that they had left their first love...

Excellent post. I now proclaim you to be a fully ordained minister! That will be $50 please.... Oh goody!!! You want that cash, check, or money order?

We have something similar here in the US...the difference being that it is the states themselves rather than the federal government that dictate what they will accept as a legal marriage. Every state (that I know of) requires a marriage license, some require blood tests and/or physicals, some states require a 24 hour "cooling off" period, many offer a deep discount on the cost of a marriage license if a letter/certificate of pre-marital counseling is presented, etc. Here in Florida, the marriage is not considered legal until the marriage license is completed by the person officiating the marriage and returned to/recorded by the clerk of the court. So it really doesn't matter what "denomination" ordains...or if it is a Justice of the Peace or a Notary Public that officiates...the rules are the same for all.

I don't have a problem with certain on-line Bible Colleges, and I take seminary extention courses on-line myself...the credibility of the institution is what IMO needs to be looked at prior to enrolling. There's a definite difference between taking courses from, say, Liberty University or New Orleans Theological Baptist Seminary....and taking courses from "Bubba's Institute of Theology and Welding". As far as on-line ordinations...they (to me) have all the credibility and value of a $1 Confederate bill....wait a minute...I take it back...actually an authentic $1 Confederate bill has some intrinsic value...

The major point, amongst many, I am considering is his claim of apostleship. No other apostle of the chosen addressed him that way. In fact, John in the book of Revelation warns the Ephesian church that Paul built that he was not an apostle! He was chosen to convert Gentiles with their complex philosophies. Paul countered that with his complex theology for the situation he was involved. Context is important here. He gave concessions to them at the beginning. They are not valid for spritually grown believers now! But yet...you have not made a single counter-point to the points that I listed above, which in and of themselves establish the veracity of Paul's ministry. You are correct in that context is important, yet I see that the scriptures that you quote are taken completely out of context! In Revelation, the letter to the church at Ephesus merely states that they have examined certain men who claimed to be apostolos (literally: "one who is sent") and found them false. To try and say that John is telling the Ephesian church that Paul is a false apostle is ludicrous; in that for the decades prior to the writing of Revelation the church at large (to include the original apostles) supported Paul in his ministry! By the time that Revelation was written (circa AD 95), Paul had been with the Lord for 28 years, having been martyred in AD 67. Any accusation by the original Apostles against Paul would have surfaced while Paul was alive...not 28 years later! The church in Ephesus never rejected Paul's teachings...so the "found them false" does not apply to him.

Hmmm...a different gospel? I think not...even Peter testifies that Paul is preaching the same gospel: Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16 emphasis added) We've got to remember that none of these churches lived in a vacuum...they shared with each other, they talked with each other...and word of what was being preached by the Apostle Paul would certainly reach the ears of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem. Had there been a problem with Paul's message, I don't think that there is any doubt that: 1. His preaching would not have been effective. 2. Corrections would have been issued by Peter, John, and the others (who's credibility as Apostles was beyond reproach in the early church). 3. The churches would have been warned that Paul was a false apostle. 4. The Holy Spirit would not have allowed Paul's epistles to be accepted as "holy writ" among the churches. 5. The challeges to his (Paul's) Apostleship would have been substantiated, and he would not have received support from the other Apostles. So...IMO the whole "Paul preached a different gospel" line of reasoning is without basis in fact.