Question for Amils

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by openairboy

"Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is."

I don't agree with your interp of 1 John 3. How can he say, "it has not appeared as yet what we will be." Even if you want to keep this to an ontological statement about man, you have to admit that whatever you are arguing for "has not appeared as yet". It is a revelation (knowledge) that we will receive at the time of his appearing. There is CLEARLY a new knowledge, even if you want to claim that it is due to an ontological change in man, that man has at this point, which has yet to be revealed. We don't know it prior to His appearing, but we know it after His appearing, so there is a knowledge that we receive at this point. That "knowledge" is not now known.

Also, Paul clearly states that we now know in part and then we shall know fully. Yes, this verse is open to different theological and eschatological interpretations, but I hold it to refer to the second Advent, which clearly states that we will know more fully.

So, instead of there being no knowledge received at His coming, the Scriptures teach that there will be a greater knowledge, a revelation, at the revelation of our Lord.

openairboy

I will not argue with you in that we will know things more fully. We will not have the obscurity of sin that we have been carrying in this life at that moment . . . so it follows that things will suddenly be comprehended that couldn't be earlier b/c of the sin in our lives. However, the act of Christ appearing will not be a giving of new revelation about Himself. There is simply no Scripture that I see to support such a view. My point is that when he says "it has not appeared as yet what we will be", he is not referring to knowledge that will be given. He is referring to that state which our physical being will be in . . . He follows that by saying that we know that we will be like Him b/c we will see Him as He is. Well, from this it is inferred that we will see Him as He is in righteousness and holiness, and b/c sin no longer entices our flesh, we will be like Him in righteousness and holiness. It seems that to say we are gaining knowledge that has not been given as problematic. It follows from the scales falling from our eyes that we will see Him as He is, but that revelation is no different from the ones that He has given us now. I am not saying that God will never give us more revelation of Himself than what He has given us in General and Special Revs; that we be going into that which God has not revealed. I am only saying that there is no support to say that this is one of those instances in which Christ is giving us a new revelation. He is simply busting the mirror and making us turn around to see Him directly. We know in part, not b/c of His lack of giving us revelation, but b/c of our failure to see. The entire focus is on maturing, especially in 1 Cor. 13:10-12. He will fully remove our sin and we can see at that time, when we are rejoined to our bodies what He has shown clearly all along. We just fail to see it because of our sin.

I hope that I am communicating myself clearly. I am not doing too well lately. Let me know and rebuttle if I am missing something. I just don't see support for the giving of a new revelation, only a clarifying of it through the removal of our sin.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
Patrick,

I must be cursed to speak nothing but nonsense this week. JK. Well, I will try to drag myself out of it and make myself clearer.

No. We will certainly go on into time everlasting learning more and more about God. It will be an unhindered adventure of the greatest sort. Wow.
What I am saying is that Scripture never tells of a knowledge or revelation given at the appearance of Christ. Rather, what His appearing does is it gives us the ability to see Him as He is. We see Him without the obscuring factor of sin. So, our process of understanding and appreciating will allow our minds to see God's revelation of Himself with clarity as we should.

So is it possible for us to see the body of Christ now? Or perhaps we can only see it partially obscured by our sin? Or how about the time of Christ's return? Wouldn't that consitute new knowledge about Christ that we do not now posess? Just trying to understand your understanding of "revelation" and "knowledge."

How would you understand Romans 8:19?

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[knight4christ8]

Please know that I have two new posts before this one.

Originally posted by Robin

So, Knight....are you really saying that Jesus' face - his real human face --- was not the face of God? Meaning, Jesus is not God? (I have to be mis-reading you?) Are you denying the true humanity of Christ -- exactly representing God? (Obviously, I don't mean the Father is tangible -- for God is Spirit.) Please explain H O W Jesus Christ's face is NOT the face of God? Inquiring minds want to know....

R.

By no means would I be denying the deity of Christ. Scripture uses these terms in the following passages:

1Tiim. 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

1John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

The following two verses give insight into understanding the previous two.

Hebrews 11:27
By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.


We understand that, from the whole of Scripture, Christ is not the very face of God in the physical sense that many would readily assert to. Christ, the infinite and eternally begotten Son of God, took, in addition to His godly attributes, took on a finite body and soul in order to become a finite man. When He came to earth he made known to us His attributes as God, but He could not show Himself to us because He is, by definition, invisible and, as you said intangible. Otherwise, it would be absurd for these passages to say that no man has seen God. We would say . . ."they saw Christ didn't they?". The Scripture is revealing to us that God, in His infinite nature (which is invisible) cannot be seen in this manner, only when he takes on finiteness (Christ's manifestation) and enters time by His acts can we see Him. Man was created to understand things in this manner. We cannot see the invisible God with our physical eyes, we can only see that finite knowledge which He reveals of Himself through action. So yes, we will see God's act when we see Christ's flesh, but we do not see the infinite God himself. We will see Him face to face in what He has made known through His action (i.e. Christ's flesh), but not His face itself. He is in unapproachable light in eternity . . . a finite creature such as us could never go there to see Him. I hope this clears things up.




Another post:
So, to conclude . . . I think it is important to note here that seeing God is seeing Him in His act. This again brings us back to the question, "How are we to know God?" Through creation or through a mystical transference of knowledge from His mind to our mind upon His appearing? I still do not see any justification for saying that there can be the latter. Scripture never speaks of man attaining knowledge about God in this way. When He spoke to Paul he told Him what He was, and He told Him what He had already made known to others through His actions. He may speak to us, but if we are going to gain knowledge about Him, we should use what seems to be His common means to tell us things . . . His Word and His Creation. This is how we are to know God. We were created as a body-soul unity which is to know things in a respective manner to these things. We must work in knowing the creation and fill the earth with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea. Until we know this, there is no reason for God to give us any more to know. He has given us the ability through regeneration and the Spirit which will lead us into all truth. There is no need for Him to give us more when He has given us the ability to know Him in these ways, yet we still don't. But it seems that all other forms of eschatology SEEM to say, "Well, we have sin now and its not very clear, so I am just going to assume that it is not to be known, and then when Christ gets here He will explain it all to me." This cannot be our attitude or we will fall short of what God has called His church to. Paul states his mission as takingall thoughts captive that are held up against the Knowledge of God. The Lord wants us to be to Himself a bride without spot or wrinkle. How are we to be that to Him if we still fail to see what He has clearly shown? Our work is clear, but if we don't realize the power of the Spirit and the responsibility that comes from His presence among us we, will not confront our task . . . and we will continue wandering around in the desert b/c we expect God's deliverance to come in another way. Meanwhile, He has provided us with a Comforter and His power, and orders us to go in and conquer the giants in the land. For this is the manner in which His deliverance willl come.

[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]

 

[knight4christ8]

Please be sure to see my posts above. I don't want them to be in vain. There is alot being thrown at me, but I don't want anything that I throw back to have to be repeated.

Originally posted by puritansailor

So is it possible for us to see the body of Christ now? Or perhaps we can only see it partially obscured by our sin? Or how about the time of Christ's return? Wouldn't that consitute new knowledge about Christ that we do not now posess? Just trying to understand your understanding of "revelation" and "knowledge."

How would you understand Romans 8:19?

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by puritansailor]

I think that my most recent post may have clarified some of these points and answered your questions. If it didn't, let me know.

Revelation is given by God. Knowledge is when we see clearly and understand that revelation given by Him.

Rom. 8:19 to my knowledge is speaking about the day when creation shall be freed from the curse which it suffers b/c of our sin. This day will not come until the "sons of God are revealed", in other words when the gathering of the elect is complete and ordo salutis has been applied to all, and following the removal of moral evil the burden of natural evil on creation is removed.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
Rom. 8:19 to my knowledge is speaking about the day when creation shall be freed from the curse which it suffers b/c of our sin. This day will not come until the "sons of God are revealed", in other words when the gathering of the elect is complete and ordo salutis has been applied to all, and following the removal of moral evil the burden of natural evil on creation is removed.

Would that not be new revelation? To know who the elect are? To see Christ in the body? To see the new heavens and earth? To meet the angels?

 

[knight4christ8]

That is not new revelation about God Himself. I am not sure that we will see the Angels. To see Christ in the body is experiential, not new knowledge. We already know from Scripture that He is in the body.

 

[knight4christ8]

None of this type of event that you explain is evidence that the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea is going to occur at His coming. B/c my question was: "Are we to know God (know His glory as the waters cover the sea) through this appearing, or through the work of dominion that He has given us?".

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
Please know that I have two new posts before this one.

Originally posted by Robin

So, Knight....are you really saying that Jesus' face - his real human face --- was not the face of God? Meaning, Jesus is not God? Please explain H O W Jesus Christ's face is NOT the face of God? Inquiring minds want to know....
R.

By no means would I be denying the deity of Christ. We understand that, from the whole of Scripture, Christ is not the very face of God in the physical sense that many would readily assert to. Christ, the infinite and eternally begotten Son of God, took, in addition to His godly attributes, took on a finite body and soul in order to become a finite man. When He came to earth he made known to us His attributes as God, but He could not show Himself to us because He is, by definition, invisible and, as you said intangible. Otherwise, it would be absurd for these passages to say that no man has seen God. We would say . . ."they saw Christ didn't they?". The Scripture is revealing to us that God, in His infinite nature (which is invisible) cannot be seen in this manner, only when he takes on finiteness (Christ's manifestation) and enters time by His acts can we see Him. Man was created to understand things in this manner. We cannot see the invisible God with our physical eyes, we can only see that finite knowledge which He reveals of Himself through action. So yes, we will see God's act when we see Christ's flesh, but we do not see the infinite God himself. We will see Him face to face in what He has made known through His action (i.e. Christ's flesh), but not His face itself. He is in unapproachable light in eternity . . . a finite creature such as us could never go there to see Him. I hope this clears things up.

It sounds like you're (perhaps inadvertantly) denying Christ's humanity.

What's your take on the hypostatic union? The dual natures of Christ?How does Christ's Divine and Human nature come together?



R.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
None of this type of event that you explain is evidence that the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea is going to occur at His coming. B/c my question was: "Are we to know God (know His glory as the waters cover the sea) through this appearing, or through the work of dominion that He has given us?".

Gregory,

From my perspective, I believe we are talking about two different things. I am not denying what you are saying in the above quote per se, because I am postmill. However, that in no way, shape, or form causes me to shrink back the fact that right now I know in part and when he is revealed I will know fully. You can say it is due solely to the change in man, which is fine, but I believe at that at his coming I will get a greater glimpse of things that are not yet revealed, maybe the third heavens, Jesus in the flesh, etc.

I do believe that the knowledge you are describing will occur through the church via evangelism, discipleship, etc., and is not a reference to his second coming, but that doesn't cause me to reject having a greater understanding at his return.

sdg,
openairboy

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
None of this type of event that you explain is evidence that the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea is going to occur at His coming. B/c my question was: "Are we to know God (know His glory as the waters cover the sea) through this appearing, or through the work of dominion that He has given us?".

Again, I would answer both. God is making him self known to the whole earth already through the expansion of the gospel, but there will be a fuller revelation of Him at the Consummation.

Your standard of "knowledge" and "revelation" seems to me to be quite arbitrary when, as those verses Keith and I have showed, the idea of growing in knowledge and receiving new revelation at the coming of Christ are not opposed to one another. Perhaps you are trying to protect the sufficiency of Scripture to adequately reveal the glory of God, and certainly I would agree that the Scriptures are adequate for the purpose that God has given them to us, but there is much more to be revealed about God and us than we have now, again as the previous verses teach. What we have is sufficient to save us and teach us our duty to God and what to believe concerning Him. But there is still more truth to learn when we dwell with Him in eternity. I would agree with Keith's statment above regarding new knowledge.

So, I guess I'm not sure what it is you are really trying to say. What is your bone of contention (or perceived bone) with amil? At least with those who have interacted with you on this thread?

 

[knight4christ8]

Robin,

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by knight4christ8
Please know that I have two new posts before this one.

Originally posted by Robin

So, Knight....are you really saying that Jesus' face - his real human face --- was not the face of God? Meaning, Jesus is not God? Please explain H O W Jesus Christ's face is NOT the face of God? Inquiring minds want to know....
R.

By no means would I be denying the deity of Christ. We understand that, from the whole of Scripture, Christ is not the very face of God in the physical sense that many would readily assert to. Christ, the infinite and eternally begotten Son of God, took, in addition to His godly attributes, took on a finite body and soul in order to become a finite man. When He came to earth he made known to us His attributes as God, but He could not show Himself to us because He is, by definition, invisible and, as you said intangible. Otherwise, it would be absurd for these passages to say that no man has seen God. We would say . . ."they saw Christ didn't they?". The Scripture is revealing to us that God, in His infinite nature (which is invisible) cannot be seen in this manner, only when he takes on finiteness (Christ's manifestation) and enters time by His acts can we see Him. Man was created to understand things in this manner. We cannot see the invisible God with our physical eyes, we can only see that finite knowledge which He reveals of Himself through action. So yes, we will see God's act when we see Christ's flesh, but we do not see the infinite God himself. We will see Him face to face in what He has made known through His action (i.e. Christ's flesh), but not His face itself. He is in unapproachable light in eternity . . . a finite creature such as us could never go there to see Him. I hope this clears things up.

It sounds like you're (perhaps inadvertantly) denying Christ's humanity.

What's your take on the hypostatic union? The dual natures of Christ?How does Christ's Divine and Human nature come together?



R.

I am not sure how exactly you continue to think I am inadvertantly or directly denying the deity of Christ. I believe that I have been clear and consistent with what Scripture means when it tells us that no one has seen God, nor can anyone see Him. He is invisible. When Christ came to earth He was fully God and fully man The soul and body of man that He took on was finite, not infinite. Surely the Westminster Divines can explain it better than I can.

Chapter VIII
II. "The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof . . ."

Shorter Catechism Q. 22
"Q. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul . . ."

Christ was with God in the beginning, being eternally begotten. Yet, what appeared to us and made Himself known was a man. Christ took on a finite soul and a finite human body, humbly limiting himself. He made the Father known to us through His perfect, though not infinite, knowledge of the Scriptures. What we see in Christ's face is only a view of the act of God. Just as we see God's act in creation (General Revelation), we see His act in the taking on of human flesh and soul (Special Revelation). His finite soul and body can in no way relate to us the infinite incomprehensible God whom we worship any more than GR or the rest of SR can. So, I am saying that when looking upon Christ's, though it be in itself the most glorious face ever, in His human finiteness we cannot say that we are seeing the infinite God whom no man has seen nor can see.



[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]

 

[knight4christ8]

Keith and Patrick,

Give me a little bit to think about what you are saying. I have thoroughly explained myself, and I think that you have both made good points. So, I need to think about what you are saying and be sure that I am not trying to answer back without understanding you. The following is no answer back, jsut maybe a clarification of what I maybe assuming, without stating.

I am saying that when Paul says "Now we know in part, but then we will know in full", He is speaking about what has already been revealed. There is no reference to new revelation in Scripture. Adam knew in full. He knew everything perfectly as God had revealed it. He had no unbelief, all of His beliefs were true of God and general revelation. I think it is important to note that the good for man is the knowledge of God - pre and post-fall. When Christ appears we are not going to have an infinite knowledge of God, but we are going to have perfect belief of God and what He has revealed though. So, I think this is what Paul means by "more fully". To poorly paraphrase Edwards, after the appearing we are going to be obtaining perfect knowledge of God without ceasing in this process. There will be no delays or obscuring devices. We will go on for all time coming closer and closer to an infinite knowledge of God, but Never attaining it. So again, I am disputing the fact that the Scripture references you guys give are speaking of knowing God in any other way than in Creation and Scripture. Perhaps God will do other acts around us after His appearing and we will know Him in this way. But, we will not know Him by simply seeing Him. We only know Him through His act. So, this relates to eschatology by showing us that eternal life is knowing God, and, as I am sure you know, it begins in this life. I do not believe Scripture intends to give us a hope for any new revelation. Thus, we are to know God through His act of Creation and Scripture, and not hope for anything else other than the removal of sin.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Ok. Here's the problem I'm seeing with your idea so far:
1) If, we are to only know God through Scripture and General revelation, then why does Paul rejoice that he would be with the Lord at his death? If he already new Him through scripture and Creation, then what's the big deal? Could it be that because at death we will be able to walk with Christ face to face? Isn't this what is meant by "seeing Him as He is" quoted above? Is this not a new revelation? An new epoch in redemptive history? In fact the final epoch in redemptive history?
2) You seem to also overlook the fact, that while Christ was here, even after the resurrection, Christ limited his glory. We could not see Him as He is. We catch a glimpse in the transfiguration and perhaps another glimpse in some of His interactions after the resurrection and ascension. But he still for the most part appeared in humble fashion among sinners. That will not be the case when He comes in glory. There will be no hiding His glory then.
3) Again, I'll bring up Romans 8 because Paul clearly states something new will be "revealed" in the creation, something which hasn't been revealed yet. The new heaven and earth are not something present now that we can't see because of sin. They still have yet to be revealed, not because of our sin tainted perception, but because God has not made the new heaven and earth yet. Clearly also, the elect, the sons of God, will be "revealed," something which in this life could never be known absolutely by the Church in this age.
4) This also ties in with 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Peter. The seed is planted in corruption and raised in glory. All we have seen thus far is the seed in this life. In the end, we shall see the full growth of what we shall become.

Some more thoughts to consider.