Puritan pisze:MacArthur naucza, że Jezus jest Synem Bożym i nigdy nie nauczał inaczej, kłamco.
Literowka: Podpisy daje sie w mianowniku czyli powinienes byl napisac:
Puritan pisze:MacArthur naucza, że Jezus jest Synem Bożym i nigdy nie nauczał inaczej, Kłamca.
John F. MacArthur - sam to przyznales na forum:
[A] Uczyl wiele lat ze Jezus "stal sie" Synem Bozym (przez wiekszosc czasu Biblii wg. tego pana Jezus nie byl Synem Bozym)
Dzis ten pan formalnie deklaruje rzecz jeszcze gorsza, ze to nie takie wazne jakie kto ma w tej sprawie stanowisko, co spelnia zasade z 1 Jana 4:3, ze kto nie afirmuje/nie wyznaje - jest ducha jakiego jest.
Pozycja [A] byla jednoznacznie antyChrystusowym stanowiskiem: Któż jest kłamcą, jeżeli nie ten, który przeczy, że Jezus jest Chrystusem? Ten jest antychrystem, kto podaje w wątpliwość Ojca i Syna. 1 Jan. 2:22
Pozycja jaka teraz oficjalnie ten pan przyjal - ma dodatkowa wade - JFM nie przekresla lat z czasow gdy glosil [A] i zalicza je do swojej obecnej sluzby - wiec nie ma mowy o odcieciu sie od tamtego czasu - jest to dalej ta sama sluzba wg. JFM. A Bóg Biblii określa ponad wszelka watpliwosc z kim mamy do czynienia.
Wrzucając w google "MacArthur" "sonship"
Pierwsza ze stron kieruje nas do:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ (Middletown Bible Church)
do artykulu, ktory opisuje standing MacArthura w kwestii:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/so ... onjm11.htmZaczyna sie ona slowami:
"In 1999 John MacArthur changed his position on the Sonship of Christ—professing to abandon his incarnation Sonship view in favor of the eternal Sonship position."
W 1999 JFM zmienil swoja pozycje na temat Synostwa Chrystusa - wyznajac, ze zarzucil swoja teorie Synostwa od wcielenia na rzecz nowej pozycji wiecznego Synostwa.
Zakonczenie artykulu:
CONCLUSION: In The MacArthur Bible Commentary I could find not a clear, unequivocal declaration of Christ’s eternal Sonship. Instead I found several statements which suggest that Christ’s Sonship was a role that He assumed at the incarnation. This mirrors the erroneous “incarnational Sonship” view that MacArthur once held. What does he really believe now?
Wiec Puritan po raz kolejny mijasz sie z prawda - poniewaz sam MacArthur przyznal ze zmienil poglad w 1999 roku z pozycji zaprzeczajacej ze "Chrystus stał się Synem Bożym" na pozycję ze "Chrystus jest Synem Bożym". Moje nawrocenie mialo miejsce w 1990 roku i gdybym wtedy posluchal niewierzacego wtedy MacArthura - zle bym skonczyl bo Bog by nie zamieszkal we mnie a ja nie zamieszkalbym w Bogu.
Kolejny link wiedzie na purytanskie forum:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/macarth ... hip-38564/Wypowiedz jednego z uczestnikow Pilgrim:
10-12-2008, 07:10 PM
Pilgrim's Avatar
Pilgrim Pilgrim is offline.
Puritanboard Doctor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 7,274
Thanks: 1,473
Thanked 891 Times in 621 Posts
Although it was "revised and updated" when it was issued in the NASB a couple of years ago, [b]I was disappointed to see that apparently the notes in the MacArthur Study Bible were not revised to reflect MacArthur's change on the incarnational sonship issue despite him changing his views on the issue about 10 years ago.
Byłem rozczarowany, gdy zauważyłem że komentarz w MacArthur Study Bible nie został poprawiony aby wyrazić MacArthura zmianę na temat Synostwa mimo upływu 10 lat od deklarowanej zmiany.Nastepnym linkiem jest:
REEXAMINING THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST autorstwa samego JFM z data (c) 1997 (wczesniejsza niz 1999):
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0059.htmI z tego tekstu widac - jak płytka jest to zmiana:
In both instances I reemphasized my unqualified and unequivocal commitment to the biblical truth that Jesus is eternally God. The "incarnational sonship" view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy. The heart of my defense of the view consisted of statements that affirmed as clearly as possible my absolute commitment to the evangelical essentials of Christ's deity and eternality.
jednym slowem koles uwaza, ze posiadac nauke antyChrysta to zaden wielki klopot. Ot troche inny poglad.
Jest wielu wartosciowych biblijnych nauczycieli jak William MacDonald, ktorych nauczanie nigdy nie mialo zadnych cieni czy nalotow bledu i warto promowac wartosciowych kaznodzieji jak William MacDonald i jemu podobni wierni Slowu. Po co tracic czas na sianie zametu przez promowanie w chrzescijanstwie czlowieka ktory jak JFM nawet nie byl w stanie uznac ze Jezus JEST Synem Bozym (a nie ze sie stał), a dzis twierdzi ze doktryna ta "nie jest wazna" choc Biblia uzywa jej jako testu na bycie z ducha antyChrysta.
A poniewaz obaj: Puritan z jj tak chetnie odmieniacie przez rozne przypadki pod moim adresem slowo "klamca", przypomne: Któż jest kłamcą, jeżeli nie ten, który przeczy, że Jezus jest Chrystusem? Ten jest antychrystem, kto podaje w wątpliwość Ojca i Syna. 1 Jan. 2:22
Ja nigdy nie poddawalem w watpliwosc ze Jezus jest Chrystusem i nigdy nie poddawalem w watpliwosc Ojca i Syna.
Uzywajac slowa: "klamca" do kogos kto nigdy nie poddawal w watpliwosc ze Jezus jest Chrystusem i kogos kto nigdy nie poddawal w watpliwosc relacji miedzy Ojcem a Synem - naduzywacie tego slowa i jest to bardzo niebezpieczna praktyka ktora nie podoba sie Temu ktory zarezerwowal slowo "klamca" dla osob ktore poddaja w watpliwosc Syna i Ojca (jak wczesny JFM a ktorego dzisiejsza postawa jest jeszcze bardziej grozna niz poprzednia). Posiadam wiele publikacji tego czlowieka, komentarze do Biblii, ksiazki, tasmy, newslettery - i to jest poza wszelka watpliwoscia co ow czlowiek promuje i promowal. JFM nie jest w zadnym sensie lepszy od mormonskich autorytetow - ktore wyszly z protestantyzmu ale nie sa z protestantyzmu.
Jest wielu wartosciowych biblijnych kaznodziejow jak np. [b]Charles Haddon Spurgeon, William MacDonald, ktorych nauczanie nigdy nie mialo zadnych cieni czy nalotow bledu i warto promowac wartosciowych sług Bożych jak Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, William MacDonald, J.C. Ryle, Horatius Bonar, Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine, James Haldane, Walter Marshall, Robert Traill, Thomas Wilcox, William Reid (
http://www.mountzion.org/text/bloodjesus.rtf ) i im podobni wierni Slowu. Po co tracic czas na sianie zametu przez promowanie w chrzescijanstwie czlowieka ktory nawet nie byl w stanie uznac ze Jezus JEST Synem Bozym (a nie ze sie stał), a dzis twierdzi ze doktryna ta "nie jest wazna" choc Biblia uzywa jej jako testu na bycie z ducha antyChrysta.
---
The MacArthur Bible Commentary (2005) and Eternal Sonship
In 1999 John MacArthur changed his position on the Sonship of Christ—professing to abandon his incarnation Sonship view in favor of the eternal Sonship position. One of my concerns at that time was as follows:
I was concerned about the many commentaries and booklets and tapes which set forth the incarnational Sonship position, sometimes in very strong terms: “The Bible nowhere speaks of the eternal Sonship of Christ” (etc.). The incarnational Sonship position is also suggested in MacArthur’s Study Bible notes and in his school’s doctrinal statement. The problem comes when people read these published materials and they may not realize that MacArthur no longer holds to the incarnational Sonship view.
I expressed this concern and on September 3, 1999 I received an e-mail from Phillip R. Johnson, an associate and key member of Dr. John MacArthur’s staff. He assured me that this problem would be corrected. Here are his words:
"John has already asked me to oversee the process of making those changes. I will do so to the best of my ability. John MacArthur’s willingness to recant publicly on an issue with such a high public profile—even when it involves revising and retracting printed and taped material—speaks volumes about his humility and his integrity."
Six years later, in 2005, The MacArthur Bible Commentary was published by Nelson. It is based, for the most part, on the notes found in the Study Bible. I had assumed, based on Johnson’s assurances, that the commentary would clearly set forth the eternal Sonship of Christ. However, for the most part, I found the same troublesome notes which suggest that Christ’s Sonship is not eternal, but involved a role that He assumed at the time of the incarnation.
Before examining some of these notes, it should also be pointed out that in the Preface to The MacArthur Bible Commentary, John MacArthur states the following:
"The core around which the one-volume commentary has been arranged is the original notes of The MacArthur Study Bible published in 1997. Since then, those notes have been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and clarity, with appropriate revisions and corrections."
If MacArthur really changed his position on the eternal Sonship of Christ, and if he really has repudiated the incarnational Sonship view (which involves Christ taking on the role of a Son at the incarnation, a role which He had never previously assumed), then we would expect The MacArthur Bible Commentary to present a strong case for Christ’s eternal Sonship for two reasons: 1) Phillip Johnson assured me that MacArthur’s published works would be revised to reflect his new position on eternal Sonship; 2) MacArthur, in his Preface, stated that the notes in the Commentary had all been checked for accuracy and clarity and revised as needed.
What then do we find? Here are several examples taken from The MacArthur Bible Commentary:
“We teach that, in the Incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Phil. 2:5-8). Page xii, in the chapter entitled “Key Teachings of the Bible.” [This statement is also part of MacArthur’s church and school doctrinal statement]
The above quote suggests that Christ “assumed the place of a Son” at the incarnation, a place which He did not hold prior to the incarnation. It suggests that Sonship was a role that Christ assumed when He became a man. This is in contradiction to MacArthur’s own statement made in a document entitled, Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ (September 1999). At that time he said, “I no longer regard Christ’s Sonship as a role He assumed at His incarnation.” Where does MacArthur really stand? Does he believe that Christ was eternally the Son or does he believe that He assumed the place of a Son at the incarnation?
Another problem with the above quote from his Commentary is that MacArthur equates Sonship with the idea of being a Servant, whereas the Scriptures place these two ideas in sharp contrast (Galatians 4:7, Hebrews 3:5-6, Matthew 21:33-39). MacArthur once taught that Sonship primarily signified submission, obedience and subservience and this faulty view is suggested by the above quote. In Jewish usage the term SON did not generally imply subjection and subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature.
If MacArthur has really changed His position on Sonship, then why wouldn’t he want to change his church and school doctrinal statement to reflect such a change? Instead MacArthur leaves the statement as it was, clearly implying that Christ assumed the place of a Son at the incarnation, implying that He did not have or hold that place prior to Bethlehem.
“God’s Son was born in a point of time. He was always God, but He fulfilled His role as Son in space and time at His incarnation” [see under Hebrews 1:5].
God’s Son eternally existed. His Sonship did not begin at the time of the incarnation. In 1999 MacArthur renounced his “incarnation Sonship view” and professed to believe in eternal Sonship. At that time he said, “I no longer regard Christ’s Sonship as a role He assumed at His incarnation.” Why then did MacArthur state, in his Commentary, that He “fulfilled His role as Son”? MacArthur is contradicting himself. What does he really believe? In his Preface he stated that all of these notes had all been checked for accuracy and clarity and revised as needed. Was a mistake made in this case? Was this an erroneous note that somehow failed to get corrected? Has MacArthur unknowingly allowed the serious error of incarnational Sonship to infect his Commentary?
“While He was eternally the Son in anticipation of His incarnation, it was when He entered the world in incarnation that He was declared to all the world as the Son of God and took on the role of submission to the Father” [ See under Romans 1:4].
MacArthur here suggests that Christ did not actually become the Son until the incarnation. Prior to Bethlehem He was only the Son “in anticipation.” Once again he teaches that Sonship is merely a “role” which Christ assumed and that it involves “submission” to the Father [the Bible teaches that Sonship involves not servitude, but equality with God (see John 5:18), and notice also how Sonship is contrasted with the idea of servitude in Galatians 4:7, Hebrews 3:5-6, Matthew 21:33-39].
CONCLUSION: In The MacArthur Bible Commentary I could find not a clear, unequivocal declaration of Christ’s eternal Sonship. Instead I found several statements which suggest that Christ’s Sonship was a role that He assumed at the incarnation. This mirrors the erroneous “incarnational Sonship” view that MacArthur once held. What does he really believe now?
i tekst samego JFM:
JFM pisze:REEXAMINING THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST
by
John F. MacArthur
1939 - present
Near the end of his life, Augustine of Hippo meticulously reviewed everything he had ever published. He wrote an entire catalogue of his own works, a painstakingly annotated bibliography with hundreds of revisions and amendments to correct flaws he saw in his own earlier material. The book, titled Retractationes, is powerful evidence of Augustine's humility and zeal for truth. Not one of his earlier publications escaped the more mature theologian's scrutiny. And Augustine was as bold in recanting the errors he perceived in his own work as he had been in refuting the heresies of his theological adversaries. Because he reviewed his works in Chronological order, Retractationes is a wonderful memoir of Augustine's relentless, lifelong pursuit of spiritual maturity and theological precision. His forthrightness in addressing his own shortcomings is a good example of why Augustine is esteemed as a rare model of both godliness and scholarship.
I've often wished for the opportunity to review and amend all my own published material, but I doubt I'll ever have the time or the energy to undertake the task. In this day of electronic recordings, my "published" material includes not just the books I have written but also nearly every sermon I have ever preached--about 3,000 of them so far. It's far too much material to be able to critique exhaustively the way I wish I could.
Not that I would make sweeping or wholesale revisions. Throughout my ministry, my theological perspective has remained fundamentally unchanged. The basic doctrinal statement I subscribe to today is the same one I affirmed when I was ordained to the ministry almost 40 years ago. I am not someone whose convictions are easily malleable. I trust I am not a reed shaken in the wind, or the kind of person who is naively tossed about by various winds of doctrine.
But at the same time, I do not want to be resistant to growth and correction, especially when my comprehension of Scripture can be sharpened. If more precise understanding on an important point of doctrine demands a change in my thinking--even if it means amending or correcting already-published material--I want to be willing to make the necessary changes.
I have made many such revisions over the years, often taking measures to delete erroneous or confusing statements from my own tapes, and sometimes even preaching again through portions of Scripture with a better understanding of the text. Whenever I have changed my opinion on any significant doctrinal issue, I have sought to make my change of opinion, and the reasons for it, as clear as possible.
To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of "incarnational sonship." Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation.
My earlier position arose out of my study of Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of the Father's begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: "This day have I begotten thee"; "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son" (emphasis added).
That verse presents some very difficult concepts. "Begetting" normally speaks of a person's origin. Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. I therefore found it difficult to see how an eternal Father-Son relationship could be compatible with perfect equality and eternality among the Persons of the Trinity. "Sonship," I concluded, bespeaks the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at His incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:5-8; John 5:19).
My aim was to defend, not in any way to undermine, Christ's absolute deity and eternality. And I endeavored from the beginning to make that as clear as possible.
Nonetheless, when I first published my views on the subject (in my 1983 commentary on Hebrews), a few outspoken critics accused me of attacking the deity of Christ or questioning His eternality. In 1989 I responded to those charges in a plenary session of the annual convention of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (the denomination that ordained me). Shortly after that session, to explain my views further, I wrote an article titled "The Sonship of Christ" (published in 1991 in booklet form).
In both instances I reemphasized my unqualified and unequivocal commitment to the biblical truth that Jesus is eternally God. The "incarnational sonship" view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy. The heart of my defense of the view consisted of statements that affirmed as clearly as possible my absolute commitment to the evangelical essentials of Christ's deity and eternality.
Still, controversy continued to swirl around my views on "incarnational sonship," prompting me to reexamine and rethink the pertinent biblical texts. Through that study I have gained a new appreciation for the significance and the complexity of this issue. More important, my views on the matter have changed. Here are two major reasons for my change of opinion:
1. I am now convinced that the title "Son of God" when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy "because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
In that culture, a dignitary's adult son was deemed equal in stature and privilege with his father. The same deference demanded by a king was afforded to his adult son. The son was, after all, of the very same essence as his father, heir to all the father's rights and privileges--and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when Jesus was called "Son of God," it was understood categorically by all as a title of deity, making Him equal with God and (more significantly) of the same essence as the Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded the title "Son of God" as high blasphemy.
If Jesus' sonship signifies His deity and utter equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to His incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by "sonship" (and certainly this would include Jesus' divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity He assumed.
2. It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten thee"), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.
Most theologians recognize this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term "eternal generation." I'm not fond of the expression. In Spurgeon's words, it is "a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance." And yet the concept itself, I am now convinced, is biblical. Scripture refers to Christ as "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14; cf. v. 18; 3:16, 18; Heb. 11:17). The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ's utter uniqueness. Literally, it may be rendered "one of a kind"--and yet it also clearly signifies that He is of the very same essence as the Father. This, I believe, is the very heart of what is meant by the expression "only begotten."
To say that Christ is "begotten" is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term "begotten" speaks of the origin of one's offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception--the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that "only begotten" refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2 and John 1:14 clearly seems to be something more than the conception of Christ's humanity in Mary's womb.
And indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of "begetting" than merely the origin of one's offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring "after his kind" (Gen. 1:11-12; 21-25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same essence as the father.
I believe this is the sense Scripture aims to convey when it speaks of the begetting of Christ by the Father. Christ is not a created being (John 1:1-3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God Himself. Therefore, the "begetting" mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with His origin.
But it has everything to do with the fact that He is of the same essence as the Father. Expressions like "eternal generation," "only begotten Son," and others pertaining to the filiation of Christ must all be understood in this sense: Scripture employs them to underscore the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren't intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the Members of the Trinity.
My previous view was that Scripture employed Father-Son terminology anthropomorphically--accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. Now I am inclined to think that the opposite is true: Human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are merely earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in our finiteness, yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.
If Christ's sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as God's Son, do we? Yet isn't He also of the same essence as the Father?
Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.
In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply.
END OF ARTICLE
![:]](http://protestanci.info/images/smilies/splash.gif)
