26 Jul 14
Originally posted by sonshipYou come to the wrong conclusions because of the false propaganda you have been indoctrinated with. You are accepting the false teachings of one man over the doctrine of the the universal Church Councils.That is why I say the Only begotten Son of God can not be the One Eternal Father.
But if He is to be called "Eternal Father" as the [b]"Son ... given to us" but He is not that which He is called, then the word of God is lying.
And if you continue along that line of logic then He may be called Mighty God but in fact He cann ...[text shortened]... walk more so than if we were just occupied with keeping neat creedal axioms from being ruffled.[/b]
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsUniversal Church Councils? RJHinds, as far as I read and understood everything you wrote.....Sorry, your case is over!
You come to the wrong conclusions because of the false propaganda you have been indoctrinated with. You are accepting the false teachings of one man over the doctrine of the the universal Church Councils.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOnce again, more baseless accusations of misrepresentation without any objection to Sonship's standing. Just always keep saying indoctrinated, universal church councils.
You come to the wrong conclusions because of the false propaganda you have been indoctrinated with. You are accepting the false teachings of one man over the doctrine of the the universal Church Councils.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jul 14
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIf I included statements from other Bible teachers which agree with Witness Lee on Isaiah 9:6 you completely ignore these expositors.
You come to the wrong conclusions because of the false propaganda you have been indoctrinated with. You are accepting the false teachings of one man over the doctrine of the the universal Church Councils.
IE Pulpit Commentaries on Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6.
The term El, God, had been previously applied to the Messiah only in Psalms 45:6. It denotes in Isaiah always (as Mr. Cheyne observes) "divinity in an absolute sense; it is never used hyperbolically or metaphorically." The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here, again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal? If the term "Father," applied to our Lord, grates on our ears, we must remember that the distinction of Persons in the Godhead had not yet been revealed.[my bolding]
As you can see the writer of the Pulpit Commentaries makes no attempt to dance around the fact that the Son shall be called Everlasting Father [Eternal Father].
Your protests that only you can speak for the orthodox view of the church rings hollow.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by Kevin Lee PoracanWell, perhaps it would do you good to research the doctrines of the early universal Church Councils, so you will be less likely to be deceived by false teachers.
Once again, more baseless accusations of misrepresentation without any objection to Sonship's standing. Just always keep saying indoctrinated, universal church councils.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnother vain talk. Since when I did not know those stuff? I have been with the Catholic defenders for few years. Learning the universal faith. I am not that close mind.
Well, perhaps it would do you good to research the doctrines of the early universal Church Councils, so you will be less likely to be deceived by false teachers.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Kevin Lee PoracanDon't be too concerned about changing his mind.
Once again, more baseless accusations of misrepresentation without any objection to Sonship's standing. Just always keep saying indoctrinated, universal church councils.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHinds"Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son."
Well, perhaps it would do you good to research the doctrines of the early universal Church Councils, so you will be less likely to be deceived by false teachers.
Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor [Pædagogus],” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 215.
29 Jul 14
Originally posted by sonshipWhat do you mean? He clearly says,
If I included statements from other Bible teachers which agree with Witness Lee on [b]Isaiah 9:6 you completely ignore these expositors.
IE Pulpit Commentaries on Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6.
[quote] The term El, God, had been previously applied to the Messiah only in Psalms 45:6. It denotes in Isaiah always (as Mr. Cheyne observes) "divin ...[text shortened]... ].
Your protests that only you can speak for the orthodox view of the church rings hollow.[/b]
we must remember that the distinction of Persons in the Godhead had not yet been revealed.
THE DISTINCTION OF THE PERSONS ARE THE FATHER, THE SON. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE FATHER IS DISTINCT FROM THE SON AND THE SON IS DISTINCT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.
So obvious this reference to the the Son being call "everlasting father or "father of eternity" can not be referring to the Person of the Father in the Godhead, because Jesus is the Person called the Son in the Godhead.
29 Jul 14
Originally posted by Kevin Lee PoracanThe Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son is NOT the same as the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son.
"Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, ...[text shortened]... II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 215.
29 Jul 14
9 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course He is not both Father and the Spirit in the Godhead. We are not objecting your so-called shield of the Trinity. One God in three persons is not we objected to. The only thing that is lack is the coinherence among the three Persons of the Trinity. That is why, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes do not coined the doctrine of coinherence in their writings. Neither do they say that it is unorthodox.
The Son [b]in the Father, and the Father in the Son is NOT the same as the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son.[/b]
Copied from Sonship:
The Son is not Separated from the Father.
The Father is not Separated from the Son.
The Holy Spirit is not Separated from the Son.
The Holy Spirit is not Separated from the Father.
The Father lives in the Son.
The Son lives in the Father.
The Father lives in the Holy Spirit.
The Son lives in the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit lives in the Father and the Son.
What we are to say that He is the Father in the "sense" the two persons coinhere or mutually indwell one another. What is expressed of the Son is the Father based on John 14:9 "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father". It is not a matter of representation but an expression of the Father through the Son because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Col 2:9). Do you get it? We do not mean for an illustration that I am a son and then I'm also a father (not that I mean that God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit). Assuming that there is one person which is Kevin the son and the father. That would be ridiculous! In the same way we are not literally trying to say because Witness Lee said that they are one person. But rather they are one person in Christian "experience" in our spirit as the life-giving Spirit, not to His being or essential and also I refer to you "Insisting on ‘Persons’ as a Test of Orthodoxy" from contendingforthefaith.org. Many of his writings are given emphasis on the God's economy when identifying the Son to the Father and the Spirit, not the essential Trinity.
“Certainly the Father is not identical to the Son and the Son is not identical to the Father, but the Three of the Trinity are never separate from each other. Thus, the Son given to us not only is the Mighty God, but also can be called the Eternal Father, because the Father is in Him and with Him at all times. In His eternal identity God is distinctly three, but in His economic and salvific action He works as one, and the Son given can be called the Father, who works in His works.”
I might partially write concerning the Trinity in this post of mine. I haven't yet touched, concerning the two-foldness of the Divine that coincides the truth concerning Triune God, the incorporation of the Triune God, and the distinction between the essential Trinity and economic Trinity.
29 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWe affirm that the Jesus is the Son of God and even God Himself. Yet we believe that He is the Father not that we mean He is the Person of the Father in the Godhead but He is the Father in way of coinherence. Also we do say that they are one person if you have read "Insisting on ‘Persons’ as a Test of Orthodoxy" I don't have to say any further for now.
The Son [b]in the Father, and the Father in the Son is NOT the same as the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son.[/b]
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Persons-as-test-of-orthodoxy.html
Why not you read the entire book "Brothers hear our defense: The Divine Trinity"
Come back then and make your objections with no twisting and distortion!
29 Jul 14
There is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a), who is triune-the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19), co-existing (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14) and coinhering (John 14:10-11) in three persons, or hypostases, distinct but never separate, from eternity to eternity;