Saturday, 13 February 2010
Monday, 8 February 2010
Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ
Question: Was Jesus Christ "eternally" the Son of God before the foundation of the world or did He "become" the Son at His incarnation?
Briefly, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ is this:
Quote:
The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God.
Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history—at His incarnation, at His baptism, at His resurrection or at His exaltation. Most who deny eternal Sonship say that He became the Son at His birth (at the incarnation), and that prior to Bethlehem He was not the Son of God. They do not deny His deity or His eternality, but they deny His eternal Sonship. Some teach that the term “Son of God” means “subservient to God, less than God, inferior to God.” They believe that Christ's Sonship is external, extrinsic, and extraneous to the real, true, proper, and essential essence of who Jesus Christ really is. Thus they teach that Sonship was merely a role or a title or a function that Christ assumed at the incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation.
Those who teach this view would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jimmy Swaggart, Finis J. Dake (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible), Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults). Popular Bible teacher John MacArthur, Jr. for many years denied the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, but he has changed his position and now embraces this doctrine.
(from Middletown Bible Church.org)
The Scripture says in Hebrews 13:8:
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)
I think just that one verse pretty much speaks for the eternal Sonship of Christ.
Any thoughts?
Briefly, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ is this:
Quote:
The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God.
Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history—at His incarnation, at His baptism, at His resurrection or at His exaltation. Most who deny eternal Sonship say that He became the Son at His birth (at the incarnation), and that prior to Bethlehem He was not the Son of God. They do not deny His deity or His eternality, but they deny His eternal Sonship. Some teach that the term “Son of God” means “subservient to God, less than God, inferior to God.” They believe that Christ's Sonship is external, extrinsic, and extraneous to the real, true, proper, and essential essence of who Jesus Christ really is. Thus they teach that Sonship was merely a role or a title or a function that Christ assumed at the incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation.
Those who teach this view would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jimmy Swaggart, Finis J. Dake (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible), Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults). Popular Bible teacher John MacArthur, Jr. for many years denied the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, but he has changed his position and now embraces this doctrine.
(from Middletown Bible Church.org)
The Scripture says in Hebrews 13:8:
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)
I think just that one verse pretty much speaks for the eternal Sonship of Christ.
Any thoughts?
Re: The Enemies of Reason
I felt like I could have stood beside Dawkins as he defended science (not evolutionary science). I applauded when I saw Deepak Chopra on the table. But the problem Dawkins has is that he promotes Christianity like it sits in the pile with Spiritualism, Post-modernism, New-Ageism, Illusionists, Psychics, homoeopathy and all superstitious beliefs, and making it look like Christianity is against science.
As if we were afraid of walking under a ladder or a black cat running across your path, this is the type of person Richard Dawkins sees the Christian as; a superstitious, ignorant bafoon. I can see how someone like Dawkins can believe this. There are many so-called Christians who have religion and take it a step further into superstitious beliefs like praying to angels, talking to dead people and worshipping tree knots. There are a lot of coo-coos out there, that's for sure!
I too, am outraged that people are attacking science as the enemy. Real Christians are not angry against science. We promote science. The foundation of modern science came from Bible-believing men. If anything, Christians are attacking the Evolutionary theory, not science. Science can exist without having a presupposition of evolution. The first fathers of science wanted to learn more about the world of their Creator. There is an interest to learn more about it since there is reason to look. An evolutionist's motive is curiosity of how the world came into existence. Dawkins believes that Christians are ignorant of science, like germ theory, and deny evidence of the real world.
Michael Faraday, founder of the induction of electric current, belonged to a group whose position was: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” James Maxwell, who like Faraday, worked with electricity, was also a believer in a personal God. Indeed, the majority of those who founded modern science, from Copernicus to Newton to Maxwell, were functioning on a Christian base. Many of them were personally Christians, but even those who were not, were living within the thought forms brought forth by Christianity, especially the belief that God as the Creator and Lawgiver has implanted laws in his creation which man can discover.
Even Richard Dawkins, leading Neo-Darwinist, claims that the U.S. “is originally a Christian country.”
On the Christian base, one could expect to find out something true about the universe by reason. There were certain other results of the Christian world view. For example, there was the certainty of something “there”--an objective reality--for science to examine. What we seem to observe is not just an extension of the essence of God, as Hindu and Buddhist thinking would have it. The Christian worldview gives us a real world which is there to study objectively. Another result of the Christian base was that the world was worth finding out about, for in doing so one was investigating God’s creation. And people were free to investigate nature, for nature was not seen as full of gods and therefore taboo. All things were created by God and are open for people’s investigation.
The Greeks, the Muslims, and the Chinese eventually lost interest in science. The Chinese had an early and profound knowledge of the world. Joseph Needham explains why this never developed into a full-fledged science: “There was no confidence that the code of Nature’s law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.” But for the scientists who were functioning on a Christian base, there was an incentive to continue searching for the objective truth which they had good reason to know was there. Then, too, with the biblical emphasis on the rightness of work and the dignity of all vocations, it was natural that the things which were learned should flow over into the practical side and not remain a matter of mere intellectual curiosity and that, in other words, technology, in the beneficial sense, should be born. The Christian worldview later came to China, India, Japan and south-east Asia when Britain made colonies in the pacific region.
What was the view of these modern scientists on a Christian base? As Francis Schaeffer would put it, “They held to the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, or, as it may also be expressed, the uniformity of natural causes in a limited time span. God has made a cause-and-effect universe; therefore we can find out something about the causes from the effects. But it is an open universe because God and man are outside of the uniformity of natural causes. In other words, all that exists is not one big cosmic machine which includes everything. Of course, if a person steps in front of a moving auto, the cause-and-effect universe functions upon him; but God and people are not a part of a total cosmic machine. Things go on in a cause-and-effect sequence, but at a point in time the direction may be changed by God or by people. Consequently, there is a place for God, but there is also a proper place for man.
This carries with is something profound--that the machine whether the cosmic machine or the machines which people make, is neither a master nor a threat--because the machine does not include everything. There is something which is “outside” of the cosmic machine, and there is a place for man to be man.”
Even Richard Dawkins, leading Neo-Darwinist, claims that the U.S. “is originally a Christian country.”
On the Christian base, one could expect to find out something true about the universe by reason. There were certain other results of the Christian world view. For example, there was the certainty of something “there”--an objective reality--for science to examine. What we seem to observe is not just an extension of the essence of God, as Hindu and Buddhist thinking would have it. The Christian worldview gives us a real world which is there to study objectively. Another result of the Christian base was that the world was worth finding out about, for in doing so one was investigating God’s creation. And people were free to investigate nature, for nature was not seen as full of gods and therefore taboo. All things were created by God and are open for people’s investigation.
The Greeks, the Muslims, and the Chinese eventually lost interest in science. The Chinese had an early and profound knowledge of the world. Joseph Needham explains why this never developed into a full-fledged science: “There was no confidence that the code of Nature’s law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.” But for the scientists who were functioning on a Christian base, there was an incentive to continue searching for the objective truth which they had good reason to know was there. Then, too, with the biblical emphasis on the rightness of work and the dignity of all vocations, it was natural that the things which were learned should flow over into the practical side and not remain a matter of mere intellectual curiosity and that, in other words, technology, in the beneficial sense, should be born. The Christian worldview later came to China, India, Japan and south-east Asia when Britain made colonies in the pacific region.
What was the view of these modern scientists on a Christian base? As Francis Schaeffer would put it, “They held to the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, or, as it may also be expressed, the uniformity of natural causes in a limited time span. God has made a cause-and-effect universe; therefore we can find out something about the causes from the effects. But it is an open universe because God and man are outside of the uniformity of natural causes. In other words, all that exists is not one big cosmic machine which includes everything. Of course, if a person steps in front of a moving auto, the cause-and-effect universe functions upon him; but God and people are not a part of a total cosmic machine. Things go on in a cause-and-effect sequence, but at a point in time the direction may be changed by God or by people. Consequently, there is a place for God, but there is also a proper place for man.
This carries with is something profound--that the machine whether the cosmic machine or the machines which people make, is neither a master nor a threat--because the machine does not include everything. There is something which is “outside” of the cosmic machine, and there is a place for man to be man.”
Saturday, 6 February 2010
When a Kiss Was Something Special
Remember how it used to feel when a kiss was something special? Do you remember your first kiss? Has it gotten to the point where a kiss means nothing to you? Has it become a joyless prerequisite on the path to intercourse? Then something is deeply wrong. Maybe it's time to think about what it means. And on that last point, maybe a time to repent.
If you kiss someone, but don't love them, then what's the point? If you kiss someone just to get something in return then that is the wrong motivation. A kiss should be special, filled with love, gentleness, and only meant to be shared with the one you love. It is a selfless act of love towards another and the person you love.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it his not arrogant or rude. It idoes not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Friday, 5 February 2010
The Ugly Truth About Humanism
Journalist calls for euthanasia of disabled newborns
03 February, 2010, 15:29
The article titled “Finish it off so it doesn’t suffer,” which calls for the euthanasia of disabled newborn children, has caused public outrage in Russia and has led to fierce debates in the blogging community.
In the article under question, the author says that “the killing of the newborn is in fact the same as an abortion or super-late term abortion” and calls disabled newborns “defective blanks” and “newborn idiots”. He states that depriving disabled infants of life is “true humanism”.
The Union of Russian Journalists has accused the author of the article of breaching professional ethics.
The Union Board’s criticism comes from the fact that, instead of discussing the right for free choice of a disabled newborns’ fate, the author claims the only rational way is to deprive them of life. The board concluded that the article entrenches upon extremism.
The board added that the author of the article should have realized that he is humiliating people who are already bringing up disabled kids.
“The author is not raising a disabled child – that is why his generalized conclusions about the life of disabled people and their families… are just speculations. As a mother of a disabled child, and based on my experience, I state that these speculations have nothing to do with the reality,” said Svetlana Shtarkova, who, along with another disabled child’s mother, Snezhana Mitina, has written a letter to the Union of Russian Journalists’ Board.
According to statistics, there are 545,000 disabled kids in Russia. Only 12.2% of them live in foster homes, 23.6% of these children have various organ diseases and/or metabolic disorders, 23.1% have motor disabilities, and 21.3% have mental disabilities.
03 February, 2010, 15:29
The article titled “Finish it off so it doesn’t suffer,” which calls for the euthanasia of disabled newborn children, has caused public outrage in Russia and has led to fierce debates in the blogging community.
In the article under question, the author says that “the killing of the newborn is in fact the same as an abortion or super-late term abortion” and calls disabled newborns “defective blanks” and “newborn idiots”. He states that depriving disabled infants of life is “true humanism”.
The Union of Russian Journalists has accused the author of the article of breaching professional ethics.
The Union Board’s criticism comes from the fact that, instead of discussing the right for free choice of a disabled newborns’ fate, the author claims the only rational way is to deprive them of life. The board concluded that the article entrenches upon extremism.
The board added that the author of the article should have realized that he is humiliating people who are already bringing up disabled kids.
“The author is not raising a disabled child – that is why his generalized conclusions about the life of disabled people and their families… are just speculations. As a mother of a disabled child, and based on my experience, I state that these speculations have nothing to do with the reality,” said Svetlana Shtarkova, who, along with another disabled child’s mother, Snezhana Mitina, has written a letter to the Union of Russian Journalists’ Board.
According to statistics, there are 545,000 disabled kids in Russia. Only 12.2% of them live in foster homes, 23.6% of these children have various organ diseases and/or metabolic disorders, 23.1% have motor disabilities, and 21.3% have mental disabilities.
Source: rt.com
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Quote of the Month
Many are discouraged by the present and past attainments of Christians. They are constantly stumbled by the consideration that holy men of former and present times have known so little of full gospel salvation. They might just as reasonably let the past and present state of the world shake their confidence in the fact that the world will ever be converted. And indeed, whether they are aware of it or not, I suppose they have as much confidence in the one as in the other. They seem not to be aware of the fact that they are full of unbelief in regard to the world's conversion, while they are sensible that they have no confidence in the attainableness of rest from all their sins in this life; The reason why they are sensible of unbelief in the one case and not in the other is, the one is placed before them as a present duty, in attempting to perform which they experience the chilling influence of unbelief; while the other is a thing which they have never tried to do, and which they do not understand to be their duty to do. Consequently a want of confidence in respect to this, is not the object of the mind's attention. Certainly a state of mind that can be discouraged by the past or present history of the Church, would of course feel the same discouragement, and have the same reason for discouragement, in regard to the world's conversion.
Charles Finney
He's kinda pushy to get people evangelizing ain't he? But he is right....
Some may call him a wolf in sheep's clothing. Some have called him stubborn, arrogant, and a bit devious. But if we think about it, aren't we judging him by 21st social standards? In the 17th century, theological issues were not debated very friendly. In the 18th century the influence of Puritans as the philosophies of many other men, such as John Locke and Montesquieu and leaders of the European enlightenment, formed state legislatures in each of the American colonies. The puritans were a prime example of religious development of America. They had become social outcasts in England, where they had little voice in matters, and so they migrated to America. At the turn of the 19th century America had already seen a huge influence of the Enlightenment leaders' ideas into the church. So you can see how Finney could have been a little bullheaded, but honest. But then again Finney did judge the bible by 19th century American legal standards to the biblical doctrine of atonement... hmm. I understand he doesn't believe in original sin but this issue on evangelism I think is correct.
I don't want to sound like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, so I'm open to comments!
Monday, 1 February 2010
Should Christians Do Yoga?
I was just looking up some sermons and I found one on Yoga and it was saying Yoga means "Union With God"..but which god? Do christians know what they are getting into when they assume the YOGA positions? Although YOGA is advertised as excercise.. it is actually a major part of the Hindu religion, the various positions in Yoga are to give worship to the many Hindu gods. Wow.. that's something for Christians to think about..
Photo source: http://www.itsyouryoga.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)