Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: 1644 Confession Its implications

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    1644 Confession Its implications

    I am new here. I have been a reformed baptist for some 25 years. However, I have two doctrines that I hold out as being essential. If I have the freedom to share these I fellowship. If not, I shake the dust off my shoes and move on. These doctrines form a unique understanding to the 1644 confession and corrections that followed.

    Clearly these two doctrines were supported by the confession and corrections. The first doctrine is that there is no eternal generation, that Psalm 2:7 has its fulfillment in the resurrection, as we see in Acts 13:32-33 and Heb 5:5.

    The second doctrine is that the law has no power being on stone, so that law preaching is not necessary or in any way helpful in the conviction of the elect. In other words, the gospel alone is the tool God uses to convict the chosen. Acts ch 2 shows that the ones ordained to eternal life were convicted by the gospel that Peter preached, not the law.

    Since the confession and corrections of 1644 held to these doctrines, viewing the Catholic and Protestant errors as being of Satan, I too agree. And the subsequent second London confession of 1689 was indeed a reversion back to darkness and a loss of the gospel.

    My view is that few believed then and fewer believe now. If anyone wishes to comment I would be happy to respond.

    Before we start however, please note that I oppose the selling of the gospel for profit. I oppose tape ministries, salaries for seminary teachers, etc. I view the contention that Paul made to be approved because one does not sell, to be a serious warning. I also view voluntary contributions as the only biblical method allowed for the providing of the ministers other than by them working.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    May I make one clarification. I am new covenant in terms of what law Christians are obliged to keep. However, many folks who are new covenant oriented do not understand the significance of the 1644 confession.

  3. #3
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    From the London Confession of 1644
    XXV. That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners, 1 is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a 2 sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made 3 a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.
    I totally agree with this, but also believe in preaching the Law - not as a preparatory work used to "grind the sinner to pulp" but as part of the Gospel so that God's elect will understand that Christ's fulfillment of the law is necessary for imputed righteousness. As far as I'm concerned though, we don't need to preach "the law" for people to be made aware of their sins. The law of Christ, the sin of unbelief should be enough to convict sinners, and this sin is revealed to the elect in the preaching of the gospel.

    It's my simple opinion that nothing should be held back as we preach to sinners. Election, reprobation, imputed righteousness, justification, law, gospel, resurrection are all pieces of the gospel that the elect need to be brought to understand.

    As to your stance on eternal generation, why don't you explain to our readers exactly what it is about this doctrine that you oppose. Thanks!

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  4. #4
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    BTW, welcome to the forum BGAMALL!
    This is my signature.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Hi Brandon, your view of law preaching should be limited to those already saved. I have no problem with that. But Acts ch 2 and the passage where Jesus said he would send the Spirit to convict the world of sin because they believe not, are passages that put to rest the need for law preaching. Indeed, so many have thought they were saved but are not all because they felt a little guilt about some individual sin! And those who think the law is needed, what do they really know about the gospel in their very own lives?

    That is why this doctrine is crucial and significant.

    Regarding eternal generation, the Augustinians and I include Luther and Calvin attempted to apologize for the subordination of Christ that occurred in Ignatius and other early post apostolic "fathers". So they came up with the doctrine of eternal generation to satisfy their understanding of eternal Sonship while still trying to make Jesus equal to the father. I believe they failed.

    The Sonship has referrence to Acts 13:32-33 and Heb 5:5 which show that the resurrection fulfills Psalms 2:7. So the effort to make the Sonship eternal and Christ a receiver of this eternal generation brings into the question of the equality of Christ and therefore the value of the atonement, much like gnostic errors.

    The 1644 confession and corrections strengthened that Christ was not communicated by the Father and that he was not eternally generated.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Quote Originally Posted by bgamall
    Regarding eternal generation, the Augustinians and I include Luther and Calvin attempted to apologize for the subordination of Christ that occurred in Ignatius and other early post apostolic "fathers". So they came up with the doctrine of eternal generation to satisfy their understanding of eternal Sonship while still trying to make Jesus equal to the father. I believe they failed.

    The Sonship has referrence to Acts 13:32-33 and Heb 5:5 which show that the resurrection fulfills Psalms 2:7. So the effort to make the Sonship eternal and Christ a receiver of this eternal generation brings into the question of the equality of Christ and therefore the value of the atonement, much like gnostic errors.
    Please excuse my ignorance but can you explain what the terms "eternal sonship" and "eternal generation" actually mean?

    Martin

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Several Points

    1. The views of many 'early fathers' were unitarian in their implications, if the language is seriously evaluated. The irony of history is that the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the 4th century were a result of the errors of the 2nd and 3rd century 'fathers.' The seminaries will teach that the persons needing correction at that time were rebellious autocrats who didn't want 'authority.' But that is a gross mis-statement of history at best.

    2. The law/gospel distinction is a valid one and critically important to understanding the Pauline gospel. However, I agree with the 1644 confession that independent law preaching is unbiblical--the Holy Spirit does not use such preaching to convict and convert sinners. Puritanism is full of independent law/hell evangelism. The New Testament knows nothing of such a worthless endeavor. The gospel of John is a wonderful example of preaching to the lost: no law/hell evangelism at all. John gets right to the gospel of grace and truth at the beginning. Judgment is preached only as the alternate destiny to believing the gospel.

    3. On 'eternal generation': men forget that there is no eternal past if time is created. There was a first moment. God (the Trinity, including the Word) transcends that first moment. He also transcends the first existence of any form of space. 'Generation' is a concept limited by the laws of time and space. God transcends all of these, as he is infinite. So many views of eternal generation would make God subject to laws of space and time.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  8. #8
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Quote Originally Posted by bgamall
    Indeed, so many have thought they were saved but are not all because they felt a little guilt about some individual sin!
    Whoah, are you saying if someone feels sorrowful about a particular sin in any way, then they are they are lost?
    This is my signature.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    "Please excuse my ignorance but can you explain what the terms "eternal sonship" and "eternal generation" actually mean?"

    What Bill said sums it up. It is an attempt to make Jesus both eternal and with a beginning. Calvin in the Institutes said that Christ as to his essence is eternal but as to his person has its beginning in God. This destroys the atonement and this is not a doctrine from God.

    Brandon, if a person feels guilt about a particular sin, that was getting close to grace according to the Augustinians. In other words, the Augustinians including the Protestants taught that the law was necessary to make a person ready for the gospel. Spurgeon taught that the law was necessary to get people to repent of evil deeds before the gospel could save them. Of course this is in direct contradiction to the passage in Acts 2 when we see that the gospel convicts the hearers of the murder of Christ. In other words, the gospel convicts of things associated with unbelief. There is NO NEED FOR THE LAW TO DO THIS CONVICTING.

    I view law preaching as being a false gospel as I also view alter call preaching as a false gospel.

    Bill, preaching the law with the gospel if a false gospel also. Paul said he was determined to know nothing but the gospel to the gentiles. There is a reason for why he said that.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    The Bible is not divided up into law and Gospel as some would like to think. The two overlap and are intermingled. The law preached properly is Gospel. This is why the Psalmist said:

    Psalm 19:7
    The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

    The law of God should be the child of God's delight.

    Psalm 119:97 MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

    When 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it was the Old Testament which was primarily in view since the NT cannon had not yet been formed.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    In regards to the eternal Sonship issue, I believe the following article sums it up well. http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=209

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  11. #11
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    bgamall, do you think unbelievers as well as believers are no longer under law or do you think only believers are free from the law. I agree with you that we don't have to use the law to prepare an individual to hear the gospel, but where does the bible say we cannot use the law or we are to keep a part of Scripture from the unregenerate? Are you suggesting that we keep the law a secret and only preach the gospel? Is it a false gospel to hand out bibles to the unregenerate? After all, the bible contains the law. Also, are we also to distinguish between reprobate and elect in our preaching?

    You wrote
    Quote Originally Posted by bgamall
    your view of law preaching should be limited to those already saved. I have no problem with that.
    What if they're giving a false profession, am I then guilty of preaching a false gospel?

    It is my opinion that we should not hold ANYTHING back when preaching to ANYONE especially when asked. We are to proclaim what we know to be truth. Preaching the law without the gospel is holding back the truth and therefore is unbiblical. I wouldn't call it a false gospel because there is no gospel being preached. Preaching the gospel without the law is not a problem but we shouldn't hold back what we know in fear that it will corrupt our gospel message.

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Spring City, Tennessee
    Posts
    29
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Gary, It seems to me that Jesus did use the law whenever someone approached Him trusting in their own obedience to it. i.e. the rich young ruler. When the ryr stated that he had kept the law Jesus, in essence, asked Him to obey the lawgiver, who was standing before him, and the ryr, disobeying the first commandment, left sad. I believe there was hope for him though, when he approached, for the text says that Jesus loved him and all that our Lord loves are saved at His appointed hour.

    Michael
    "God Himself, in His divine person, is the sole moving cause of every good motion and good work in us. He is the only stimulator, inspirer, animator, instigator, influencer, and director of real worship."



    William Huntington S.S.


  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Bgamall,

    So if the fulfilment to Ps 2:7 is limited strictly to Acts 13:33 how do you interpret the use of “begotten” in John 1:14 and 18 where it is used prior to the resurrection?

    There are a couple of articles here which appear to try to defend "eternal generation" whilst trying to deal with the numerous errors in history over this doctrine. Do these address your concerns?:
    A History of the Doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son and Its Significance in Trinitarianism
    The Eternal Generation of the Son - Lee Irons

    Also, please excuse a little more of my ignorance! but why do you say it "destroys the atonement"?

    Finally, I would like to understand why you see this as being essential to fellowship?

    Many thanks,
    Martin

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Ontological vs. Relational Sonship

    I will have to read these articles further, but so far I do not see the question addressed as to whether time is created. For me, that is the critical issue.

    I accept 'eternal' Sonship in all matters where the Trinity is in a relationship to the created order. Functionally, the Godhead consists of the Word subordinate to the Father & the Holy Spirit subordinate to both, in relation to all creatures.

    However, the created order is just that: created. Including time. God's transcendent, infinite, and self existence is another matter entirely. For us to say that the Son is subordinate on that plane is speculating on an issue where revelation tells us nothing. We only know that God is infinite. We have no reason to believe that the 2nd person of the Trinity (in relation to us) is subordinate to the 1st person in the realm of God's self-existence--which is transcendent of all created things (including time).
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  15. #15
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Law/Gospel Distinction

    However one may slice and dice the language of scripture: law and gospel, faith and works, grace and merit are contrasted over and over. Do I really have to quote scripture to this group to prove my point? The law came through Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. But now a righteousness without the law is revealed!
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    "but where does the bible say we cannot use the law or we are to keep a part of Scripture from the unregenerate? Are you suggesting that we keep the law a secret and only preach the gospel?"

    That is what Paul did with the Gentiles.

    The rich young ruler was made an example to the disciples that no one save Jesus could keep the law. The disciples needed to know that no one, even one higher in economic standing then these simple men were, could keep the law. He was after all boasting that he was a keeper of the law. If the law had any power, the rich young ruler would have sold his possessions!

    Remember, Jesus showed this man he could not keep the law, but it was for the benefit of the disciples. Remember, this man was not saved, but rather went away. His law could do nothing for him.

    And remember Jesus words, with man these things are impossible, but with God, ie with the power of gospel, all things are possible.

    Therefore, to preach the law thinking that the gospel does not have enough power is a Satanic doctrine. Paul said the gospel is the power of God to salvation. He did not say the law and the gospel are the power of God to salvation.

    "It is my opinion that we should not hold ANYTHING back when preaching to ANYONE especially when asked"

    Brandan, tell me you aren't saying that the gospel is not powerful enough to convert and that the law is necessary as a backup. Please tell me you are not saying that. Of course you can pass out the bible with the law in it. However, the law will not save or humble, or cause repentance or do anything that the gospel can do. You aren't aware of this truth? I mean, in yourself! If you believe that law brought your repentance you are still in your sins.

    Regarding the Iron's article, he is blinded to the Acts 13:32-33 and Heb 5:5 explanation as though he has a hood over his head when he reads them. Christ was Son at his birth, but most of the scriptures point to the resurrection as the complete fulfillment of sonship. But no scriptures point to an eternal generation. Psalm 2:7 is the first mention of sonship and it has its fulfillment in the resurrection.

    Eternal generation destroys the atonement because it makes a lesser being responsible for our sins. And that cannot be! The gnostic error, making Jesus just a man with the Spirit upon him until death, also destroyed the atonement. Eternal generation is the worship of angels, ie lesser celestial beings than the Father.

    As far as wildboar is concerned, the gospel is hidden in the law. Those called by this power of the gospel heard this truth, and the rest read the law with hoods over their heads, and interpret things much the same way you do.

  17. #17
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Imbalances

    BGAMALL:

    I believe that you are indulging in some significant imbalances in what you are proclaiming. This is not to deny your sincerity. But as a Christian, you have to consider the testimony of the whole Word of God as much as the rest of us.

    Therefore, to preach the law thinking that the gospel does not have enough power is a Satanic doctrine. Paul said the gospel is the power of God to salvation. He did not say the law and the gospel are the power of God to salvation.

    But this is an argument from silence, which is seldom a proper and contextual hermeneutic (I'm not saying there are NEVER any exceptions!). I agreed with you that independent preaching of the law and hell, with the notion of bringing a sinner into conviction as a result, is definitely against scripture. We are not to first preach the law and only later the gospel. But in the same book that Paul said the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, he also spent a lot of time expounding the significance and role of the law. What we have here is a CONTRAST. The righteousness of faith is revealed in contrast to the righteousness of law. The gospel has meaning in contrast to the law-covenant; hence the writers of scripture (even John) talk about the contrast. If we ignore that the law-covenant even existed in our teaching, we are not preaching the whole counsel of God.

    Neither Paul nor John kept the law a 'secret' from the Gentiles. Paul stated that the Law was holy, just, and good in condemning men; John stated that the Law came through Moses. Virtually all of the NT writings mention or talk about the Law. The significance of the whole counsel of God is a part of our testimony; the failure of law-righteousness is to be contrasted with gospel-righteousness in Christ's perfect obedience and atoning death.

    Eternal generation destroys the atonement because it makes a lesser being responsible for our sins. And that cannot be!

    Oh no! We should not put words in the mouth of those who teach eternal generation. I have given my objections to aspects of the doctrine. However, those who teach it still confess Jesus as fully God. It is one thing to challenge the potential logical implications of a doctrine; quite another to state that the doctrine in its very essence destroys the truth.

    The infinite personal God is indeed responsible for our sins (not a 'lesser being')! I have given my reaons for believing this proposition elsewhere. God, being the ultimate cause of everything, takes responsibility for all that happens. If a soul ends up in hell, God will state in the judgment: "I did it; I planned it before the foundation of the world."

    The gnostic error, making Jesus just a man with the Spirit upon him until death, also destroyed the atonement.

    There are many forms of Gnosticism, however, I disagree that this was the first century form opposed by the apostles. All of the early writings we have opposing the Gnostic heresy tell us that it consisted of this scenario: Jesus was a pure-spirit God who did not truly assume human flesh and blood. Therefore it also denied the material resurrection of believers at the end of the age. It taught an 'eschatology of pure spirit'--where a non-material soul worshipped a non-material Jesus in a non-material heaven. Translated: eternal darkness where the mind alone has a 'party' with itself in contemplating what it believes to be an immaterial God who cannot be communicated through the senses!

    The 'eternal generation' proponents do not believe that Jesus was just a man on the earth. We have to accurately state the position of an opponent before criticizing it.

    Eternal generation is the worship of angels, ie lesser celestial beings than the Father.

    A different heresy entirely. Don't equate apples and oranges.

    As far as wildboar is concerned, the gospel is hidden in the law.

    I am also very concerned about what he stated on this subject. In the Psalms, 'law' (the entire OT) and 'word' are often interchangebale. The Word contains both the gospel and the law-covenant. We rejoice and meditate upon the entire Word, however, there are different aspects of truth portrayed in that same Word. We can't level it all as being on the same playing field (i.e., law is gospel or gospel is law).

    Those called by this power of the gospel heard this truth, and the rest read the law with hoods over their heads, and interpret things much the same way you do.

    Be careful! You are making assumptions that cannot be substantiated by the facts. The first of your statements is certainly true, however, Brandan and others here (including myself) truly perceive the purpose of the law without a 'veil' over our heads! Nonetheless, we don't ignore in our teaching the fact that the law is related to God's eternal purposes and needs to be taught in its proper role--as condemning those who lack a perfect righteousness. But this fact is NEVER to be preached independent of Christ as the fulfillment of law and the perfect saviour in his atonement.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    r4mdh:

    So are you suggesting that Jesus did something wrong by preaching the law to this unregenerate person? In regards to issue of eternal generation, you do not seem to have any understanding of what the historic teaching of the church is on this matter. Before you reject and condemn it, you should at least familarize yourself with the arguments for it and what it actually teaches.

    What Bill said sums it up. It is an attempt to make Jesus both eternal and with a beginning.
    This clearly shows your misunderstanding of the Doctrine. The eternal generation of the Son teaches that the Son is generated from all eternity and there never was a time when He was not. In human generation it is necessary for their to be a time when we were not but this is not so in the case of God and the idea that the Son ever was not is explicitly denied by the orthodox creeds.

    BT:

    Functionally, the Godhead consists of the Word subordinate to the Father & the Holy Spirit subordinate to both, in relation to all creatures.
    There can be and there is no subordination within the Godhead. God cannot be subordinate to God. The submission of Jesus to the Father can only be explained in relation to His human nature.


    bgmall:

    Here's an excellent description of eternal generation given by David Engelsma:



    That the persons of the Godhead are individuals in relation is established by their names, Father and Son. These names also identify the persons and distinguish them from each other.

    The Father begets the Son.18 This begetting is an eternal activity of bringing forth another who is different from the Father as the second person but also like the Father as His "express image."19

    Contrary to Calvin, the begetting of the Son is the Father's bringing forth of the Son, not only as regards the Son's person but also as regards the Son's being. In the interests of defending the oneness of God and of guarding against any subordination of the Son, Calvin restricted the Father's begetting of the Son to the generation of the Son's person. The Son, Calvin contended, has His being from Himself. 20

    Calvin's doctrine of the generation of the Son, however, does not do justice to the begetting of the Son that is implied by the names Father and Son and that is expressed by John in the word monogenees. Calvin's doctrine of aseity jeopardizes the essential oneness of the Father and the Son and weakens both the relation and the personal difference between the two.

    The idea of begetting, both biblically and in human experience, is that of bringing forth a being from one's own being. Abraham's begetting of Isaac was not only the production of Isaac's person but also the production of Isaac's entire being. 21 There is in John's description of the Son as the "only begotten" no limitation of that which the Father has begotten to the person of the Son. The Son is begotten of the Father in His entirety, person and being.22

    It is exactly the generation of the being of the Son out of the being of the Father that is the reason why the being of Jesus the Son of God is the being itself of God. The generation of the being of Jesus Christ was of critical importance at Nicea. Jesus Christ was confessed to be of "one substance (essence) with the Father" inasmuch as He is "very God of very God," that is, "out of very God."23 But the Son is out of God by virtue of being "begotten of the Father before all worlds." Nicea understood the begetting of the Son to be a begetting of essence, or substance.24

    In that He begets the Son, it is the personal property of the Father that He is the source of the Son and that He has priority. He is the fatherly source and has fatherly priority.

    In that He is begotten of the Father, it is the personal property of the Son that He is derived and secondary. His are a filial derivation and secondariness. By these properties, the Father and the Son are distinct. They are different persons. Although the Father communicates His being to the Son so that the Son shares this being, the Son possesses it as the being of the one who is begotten. The Father possesses it as the being of the one who begets. The Father possesses the being of Himself. The Son possesses it out of the Father. The Father is the first person in eternal order. The Son is the second person in the eternal order. The Father knows Himself and acts as Father, regarding the other as "My Son." The Son knows Himself and acts as Son, eternally responding, "My Father."

    The full article which was a part of his master's thesis on Trinity and Covenant can be found at: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2000.html#HolyFamily

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Bill, Bill, where do I begin with you? Lets say we have a rocket with no engine and a rocket with an engine sitting side by side. We can make reference to the rocket without the engine, but we know that it has no engine and it has no value in terms of lifting the passengers off the ground. There is nothing wrong with the rocket without the engine and it has a righteous design. However everyone knows that the rocket without the engine is not in use.

    That is how it is with the gospel and the law. If you show the law or not, it makes absolutely no difference. If you use the law to get one to have false guilt that is evil, just as if you tell people that they are not trusting in that rocket without the engine.

    Only the gospel has the power to lift people off the world of sin. Therefore, Wildboar, Jesus did not preach the law to the rich young ruler. Jesus gave the law a chance to establish righteousness, knowing full well that it would not bring obedience! You just don't get it Wildboar.

    As far as eternal generation is concerned, Wildboar: read Calvins lips: Christ as to his essence is eternal and as to his person has its beginning in God.

    "He is the fatherly source and has fatherly priority." Again you just can't allow Jesus to be equal to the father can you? You mistake the resurrection for eternal generation. It is a matter of faith Wildboar. The more you subjugate our Lord Jesus Christ the more you prove you can't see Him.

    "Oh no! We should not put words in the mouth of those who teach eternal generation. I have given my objections to aspects of the doctrine. However, those who teach it still confess Jesus as fully God"

    Sorry Bill, I don't agree with you on that one. Just because you say and they say they confess that Jesus is fully God doesn't make it so. Again, it is a matter of faith. Not debate.

    "The Father begets the Son.18 This begetting is an eternal activity of bringing forth another who is different from the Father as the second person but also like the Father as His "express image"

    Wildboar, you can believe this bunk if you want to but it is not biblical theology. I suppose he uses Psalms 2:7 as his ground. Or maybe no scripture since he didn't quote any.

  20. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: Eternal Generation

    WB:
    God cannot be subordinate to God.

    This is exactly what the doctrine of eternal generation teaches. Christ, in 'eternally' being generated from the Father, derives his essence as God from the Father. If this is not subordination 'within the Godhead,' I do not know what is.

    I do not accept subordination within the self-existence of the Godhead. Only in the functionality (ACTION) of the Godhead in relation to creatures. Christ did not derive his essence as God from the Father, any more than the Father derived his essence as God from the Son. The infinity of God is logically denied if the 'derivation of essesnce' assumption is true. If Christ is dependent on the Father to be God--he is not infinite. So I don't agree with Nicea on this one.

    Christ was certainly submissive to the Father while on Earth. He continuously stated that he came to do not his own will but that of the Father. I don't believe that this is any different from his prior function as the creative Word. The Word creates what the Father designates to be created. But the submission of Christ to the Father (and the submission of the Holy Spirit to both) is the will of all 3 persons of the Trinity equally (in their self-existent purposes).

    The church councils are wrong on the notion of an eternal past (i.e., that time never had a beginning). The first act of the submissive Word of God was to create space and time.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hitler went to Heaven
    By Jack Daw in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-06, 04:23 PM
  2. col 1:13
    By beloved57 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 12:53 PM
  3. R C Sproul Jr. Defrocked?
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-17-06, 08:38 AM
  4. Where does it say Jesus went to Hell to get the Keys to Heaven?
    By Faithnhope in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-05, 02:24 PM
  5. JEROM ZANCHIUS
    By Mickey in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-01-05, 06:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •