Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | caribu | 155297 | ||
Mat. 24:36 says the "Son will not know, only the Father"..., so was Christ omniscient? | ||||||
2 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | Jehonadab | 155298 | ||
In answering the question concerning the " sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things" at Matthew 24:3, Jesus gave features that would identify this time period. However, of his "coming", as found at Matthew 24:30, he said that "Concerning that day and hour, noboby knows, neither the angels, nor the Son, but only the Father." Thus, Jesus stated that this event as to when he is to "come" and hence begin the "great tribulation", as found at verses 15-22, was known only by his Father, Jehovah God. To further show that Jesus is not all-knowing, when asked by his disciples after his resurrection: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?", Jesus replied: "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction." In addition, Jesus sometime earlier had told the Jews: " I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things."(John 8:28) Therefore, Jesus shows that he is not omniscient, but rather was taught by and listens to his Father. | ||||||
3 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 155306 | ||
Hi, Jehonadab... What you are suggesting is actually a repudiation of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as stated in the Nicene creed. It also has to do with what theologians call the "hypostatic union." This is the doctrine that the one person Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature: He is fully God and fully man. In the incarnation, the Son of God was born as a man, permanently uniting a with human body (John 1:14) and soul. (Note that Matthew 27:50; "soul" is synonymous with "spirit"). John 1:1-18 is also a very good passage to demonstrate the hypostatic union. "The Word was God" (John 1:1), and "the Word became flesh and dwelt among men" (John 1:14). When the Word became flesh, He did not cease to be God, but added "flesh" to His being. We know from other passages that Jesus' flesh included a soul/spirit (Matthew 27:50; Mark 2:8; Luke 23:46; John 11:33; 13;21; 19:30). Jesus was both man (1 Timothy 2:5) and God (John 1:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). (Please note that the doctrine of the hypostatic union is like the doctrine of the Trinity: it is just a way to fully express all that Scripture reveals about a particular subject.) Therefore, when Jesus expressed a lack of knowledge, He was speaking as a man. Now before you point it out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a special case! Even as a man Jesus knew why God had forsaken Him: because Christ was stained with the guilt of all our sin. He knew that He was an atoning sacrifice for our sin, and this meant God would forsake Him. Thus, it was a rhetorical exclamation expressing grief. It was also a reference to Psalm 22. He cried out the "title" of that psalm, making reference to the fact that He was fulfilling its prophecy. Please note that this forum strongly supports the truths expressed in the Nicene creed. In Him, Doc PS Parts of the above were culled from a paper on this topic by Dr. Joel Beeke. |
||||||
4 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155353 | ||
Hi Doc, well said and with good supporting bible references. I agree completely with the theology you explain here. I would however, like to ask, simply from curiosity, why you chose to use the "Nicene Creed" as the athoritative reference by which to establish Jehonadab's repudiation in your openening statement (rather than the bible). And with that, I would like to ask one more question for clarification. You end your post with the statement: "Please note that this forum strongly supports the truths expressed in the Nicene creed." By "this forum" do you mean the providers and administrators of the forum, or the forum members? Curious Jeff |
||||||
5 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 155356 | ||
Dear Jeff, Good questions! The Nicene Creed’s authority is based on Scripture _alone_. Consequently, I did not mean to imply that it was authoritative in and of itself. However, it is a careful and exhaustive statement affirming specific Biblically truths regarding the nature of God. It forms a basis of agreement in orthodoxy to this day. The forum guidelines state, "Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing to the authority of the Bible, Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ." Frankly, I think there is quite a bit of overlap here! :-) The Nicene Creed was the church’s first definitive response to the Arian heresy that denied the deity of Jesus Christ. It has long been held by the forum that the Nicene Creed is one of the first doctrinal confessions affirming paleo-orthodox Christian beliefs. Indeed, it would not be a stretch to say that if one cannot embrace the truths as expressed in the Nicene Creed, one would, necessarily, not be deemed a Christian (e.g., Russelists, Mormons, etc.). You might further be interested in knowing that the question of the “authority of the Bible” hearkens back to the Reformation call of "Sola Scriptura." We can talk about that sometime if you like. In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155372 | ||
Hi Doc, thanks for clarifying. I didn't suspect differently of you but thought for the sake of other's who might not be aware of what the Nicene Creed is (or your well established position on biblical truth) that the bible should be pointed out as being the only true authority. And, yes, I am familiar with the Creed and it's history as well as that of "Sola Scriptura" but thanks for posting the information for all to see. Question: What are your views on article #9 of the Nicene Creed? |
||||||
7 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 155375 | ||
Dear Jeff, Another good question! :-) Article 9 states an affirmation of the belief "In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I agree entirely with this statement! The word "catholic" means universal. The church is universal and invisible. It is founded on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles. I don't think I could possibly improve on the clarity of the sum of the following explanations: "I believe that the Son of God, [1] out of the whole human race, [2] from the beginning of the world to its end, [3] gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself, [4] by His Spirit and Word, [5] in the unity of the true faith, [6] a church chosen to everlasting life. [7] And I believe that I am [8] and forever shall remain a living member of it. [9] "[1] John 10:11; Act 20:28; Eph 4:11-13; Col 1:18. [2] Gen 26:4; Rev 5:9. [3] Isa 59:21; 1 Cor 11:26. [4] Psalm 129:1-5; Mat 16:18; Joh 10:28-30. [5] Rom 1:16; 10:14-17; Eph 5:26. [6] Act 2:42-47; Eph 4:1-6. [7] Rom 8:29; Eph 1:3-14. [8] 1 John 3:14, 19-21. [9] Psa 23:6; John 10:27-28; 1 Cor 1:4-9; 1 Peter 1:3-5." --Heidelberg Catechism (question 54) "The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all. (Heb 12:23; Col 1:18; Eph 1:10, 22, 23; 5:23, 27, 32)" --1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (chapter 26, paragraph 1) In Him, Doc |
||||||
8 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155402 | ||
Very good response and well explained. Another question if I may. Of course the word "catholic" means by general definition, "universal". Agreed and understood. But what does the word "catholic" mean as defined in today's multi-denominational "church"? Furthermore, in today's "all-inclusive", "any-thing goes" culture that is quickly and firmly establishing, even within the christian church, how is "universal" being defined. My point here is that I have always had a problem with the inclusion of Article #9 in it's current language based on what I think might be the obvious answers to my above questions. I completely agree with your explanation and understanding of Article #9 which I share, though you didn't address the meaning of the 'apostolic' church. Final question; as the Nicene Creed has been changed over time in order to best reflect what the christian church understands and believes as true regarding the biblical teaching of the essentials, might it be time to deal with Article #9? Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
9 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 155441 | ||
Dear Jeff, I should have explained in greater detail. I apologize: In my haste, I'm not always as thorough as I ought. Let me see if I can make amends. You wrote, "But what does the word 'catholic' mean as defined in today's multi-denominational 'church'?" Denominations are a human invention. When we speak of the universal church (i.e., the Body/Bride of Christ) we are talking about something that God has done. Now, that doesn't mean that denominations are bad -- although we Baptists tend to have lots of problems with them -- they serve a purpose in many respects. This has been discussed in the forum before. However, what the Nicene Creed is arguably referring to is the church as a creation of God. Also, remember that entry into the catholic church is not a matter accomplished by man. It is entirely a choice and work of God, by faith alone, through grace alone, by the atonement of Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone. You're right about it needing to be defined for folks today. In fact, if I am not mistaken, every one of the following documents make that definition: the Canons of Dort (Reformed), Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), the Thirty-Nine Articles (Episcopalian), the Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist), and the the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist). (By the way, there is even a mild attempt in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000.) So, I'd argue that definitions are fully available, along with the careful reasoning from Scripture. In my opinion, the problem is that the majority of the congregations that you mention are not taught sound doctrine, in any kind of substantiative fashion. You wrote, "...though you didn't address the meaning of the 'apostolic' church." I just wasn't complete in my explanation. Sorry! :-) What I wrote was that this church is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. The church holds to all apostolic doctrines as taught in the Bible. The "apostolic succession" is not a doctrine taught by Scripture. However, all sound doctrine is based in apostolic teaching as recorded in the Word (Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 4:9; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 2 Peter 3:2; Rev 21:14). The apostles were chosen to teach us all that the Lord had commanded (Matthew 28:20). You wrote, "Final question; as the Nicene Creed has been changed over time in order to best reflect what the Christian church understands and believes as true regarding the biblical teaching of the essentials, might it be time to deal with Article #9?" I tend to agree, but I'm not sure that a new attempt is necessary. On the other hand, a few years back, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics was published in an effort to clearly recapture the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Every generation must recapture these truths (Deut 6:7) that have been taught by faithful men (2 Tim 2:2). Aren't we blessed to still be able to "heart" the teaching of men like John Bunyan, Thomas Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon? We even have in our own day many Scholars who embrace the truths rediscovered in the Reformation. Each generation also has to defend the truth (1 Cor 11:19). The Lord has provided us with regeneration (Titus 3:5-8), His Holy Spirit (John 14:26), the Word (2 Tim 3:16), the instruction of Godly men (Deut 32:7, Eph 4:11-12), and one another (Romans 15:14) in His Body. In Him, Doc |
||||||
10 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 155444 | ||
Hi Doc, I was unaware of any modifications in the Nicene creed. Were these subtle changes over time? Thomas Owen? I don't know that name. Steve |
||||||
11 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 155449 | ||
Hi, Brother Steve! I'm embarrassed! I was thinking "Thomas Watson" and "John Owen." What came out was "Thomas Owen!" Okay... I admit it... I'm getting old! :-) The Council of Nicaea published the creed 1680 years ago this month! The modification took place in 589 AD, at a council held in Spain, with what is called the "filioque clause." What they changed was the statement "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." They added the phrase "and the Son." (The word "filioque" in Latin means "son.") The Eastern Orthodox still don't accept the filioque clause for a variety of reasons. (They also cried foul at it being tampered with at all, since they deny that there have been any true Ecumenical Councils since the fourth century.) Now my take on this theologoumenon -- You knew I'd posit my opinion, didn't you? :-) -- is that it is sound, although the Scriptural proof is a bit tenuous. True, John 14:26 says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but John 16:7 says that the Son will send the Holy Spirit. I think the Eastern arguments also come dangerously close to implying an unnatural distance between the Father and the Son that Scripture certainly doesn't warrant. There are some other reasons, primarily having to do with their arguments placing too much of an emphasis on a mystically acquired knowledge tending to neglect the rational. Dangerous stuff! Now, have I put everyone to sleep? :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
12 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 155453 | ||
Now, Doc, playing the age card is a lame excuse for making a boo-boo. -:) I'm older 'n you, and I don't get names mixed up like that. It wasn't Thomas Owen, it was Owen Wister. Not Thomas Watson but Thomas Ed's Son, and not John Owen but John Bunion. With a little practice, you'll get them right the next time. I read a book on memory training that did wonders for me, although off-hand I can't recall the name of the book or who wrote it. --Hank | ||||||