Born and begotten

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,12:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 10 2010,10:25)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:02)

Calvin on “today I have begotten you” in Psalm 2:7:

Quote

On this account, we ought the more carefully to beware of wickedly refusing the edict which he publishes, Thou art my Son. David, indeed could with propriety be called the son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels. This the apostle (Heb 1:5) wisely and diligently considers when he tells us this language was never used with respect to any of the angels. David, individually considered, was inferior to the angels, but in so far as he represented the person of Christ, he is with very good reason preferred far above them. By the Son of God in this place we are therefore not to understand one son among many, but his only begotten Son, that he alone should have the pre-eminence both in heaven and on earth. When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son.

This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Ac 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken. This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world. Finally, this begetting ought not to be understood of the mutual love which exists between the Father and the Son; it only signifies that He who had been hidden from the beginning in the sacred bosom of the Father, and who afterwards had been obscurely shadowed forth under the law, was known to be the Son of God from the time when he came forth with authentic and evident marks of Sonship, according to what is said in Joh 1:14, “we have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Ro 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and therefore what is here said has a principal allusion to the day of his resurrection. But to whatever particular time the allusion may be, the Holy Spirit here points out the solemn and proper time of his manifestation, just as he does afterwards in these words

TO ALL:

Please note that Calvin agrees with Keith that the Psalm applies to David first and then Christ.

the Roo

Jack

True.

But Kathi will say that Calvin is not a Trinitarian.

So when does Calvin think the Son BEGAN being the Son. Is it like you say, during the incarnation? We know that Calvin doesn't think that He BEGAN being the Son at His coronation.

Calvin and Tertullian disagree on when “Today I have begotten thee” was said to the Son. Did you know that? Isn't the main concern about WHEN the Son became the divine Son?

Kathi

Was Calvin a Trinitarian and if you think not then who are you to make that descision?

August 10, 2010 at 6:18 pm#208335

Participant

Keith,
Then why are you asking me if he is a trinitarian if you don't think I can make that decision? I don't care if he was a trinitarian. It only matters if he has truth to offer.

When does Calvin say that the Son became a divine Son Keith? It wasn't at his coronation was it? Can you admit that or do I have to single out that line within the quote?

August 10, 2010 at 6:38 pm#208340

Participant

Kathi said;

Quote

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Would someone like to fill Kathi in on the fact that Christ was begotten at His resurrection and this was not a “reproduction” of any kind?

While you're at it please fill Kathi in on the fact that when the Rock (Jesus) “begat” (yalad) Israel out of the womb of the bondage of Egypt that no “reproduction” of any kind took place (Deut. 32:18).

the Roo

August 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm#208344

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,13:18)

Keith,
Then why are you asking me if he is a trinitarian if you don't think I can make that decision? I don't care if he was a trinitarian. It only matters if he has truth to offer.

When does Calvin say that the Son became a divine Son Keith? It wasn't at his coronation was it? Can you admit that or do I have to single out that line within the quote?

Kathi

Because the point is that to be a Trinitarian according to the Creeds meant that you believed in “One God” consisting of three persons, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with his origins of which is a matter of missinterpretation on your part.

”FOR HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love Ehp 1:4

Did we exist as his sons as holy and blameless before the foundation of the world?

To the Father we were. He knew us before we were born.

But with the precious blood of Christ, “AS OF A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH AND WITHOUT SPOT: WHO VERILY WAS FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:19, 20

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world“. Rev 13:8

Was Jesus the slain Lamb before the foundation of the world?

To the Father he was.

So to the Father Jesus was the “Only Begotten Son” before the Ages but was manifest as the Son of God who was begotten at his resurrection. Heb 1:5 – Acts 13:33

So it is a true statement to say that Jesus is the “Only begotten Son” of God, begotten, and foreordained before the ages or time and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom 1:4

Kathi,

Do you think that the Trinitarian Forefathers believed that Jesus was the same being as the Father yet somehow he was “literally born” of the Father as a separate being before the ages? If not then how could their meaning of “begotten” be the same as your meaning?

This is what the Creed says…

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

All you have done is try and misrepresent the word begotten, for you do not know that they did not believe as I have stated above and in fact they say “not made, nor created, but begotten”, and we know that the term “begotten” does not always mean “procreation” does it?

Your own church believes in this Trinity and as you can see if you do not believe there is “One God” and not 2 or three gods then according to your churches doctrine you are not saved or a Christian.

August 10, 2010 at 7:21 pm#208345

Participant

Keith,
I do not believe that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.
I don't care what the trinitarian forefathers thought, I am more interested in what the early Christians thought. The early Christians say that the Son was begotten before the ages, one adds without passion ( I assume that meant without sex). I do believe they thought He wasn't always a living person but became a living person before the ages, as far as I can tell.

No one in my church says that I am not a Christian. My church is not like that. They recognize fruit. The Bible says that we shall know them by their fruit.

We know that the term begotten does mean procreation most of the time.

How can the Son actively create the heavens if He didn't exist?

August 10, 2010 at 7:27 pm#208347

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,13:38)

Kathi said;

Quote

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Would someone like to fill Kathi in on the fact that Christ was begotten at His resurrection and this was not a “reproduction” of any kind?

the Roo

You are right roo, the Son was not reproduced at his resurrection. That happened before the ages.

So what does the Israel thing have to do with the Father begetting the Son?

August 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm#208348

Participant

Kathi said:

Quote

When does Calvin say that the Son became a divine Son Keith?

When has Keith or I said that the Son became a divine Son? We believe that He was the divine WORD who became Son.

Christ was appointed to be the firstborn Son of God as His father David:

Quote

20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

21With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

22The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

23And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

24But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27Also I will make (appoint) him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Again, when have Keith and I said that Jesus was divine as Son. We have said that He was divine as the Word

You need to stop undermining your credibility. Everyone knows that Calvin was a trinitarian.

Calvin's commentary on the phrase “the blessed God” in Romans 9:5:

Quote

Paul states that there is one God to whom glory and honor are due. To separate this clause from the rest of the context for the purpose of depriving Christ of the CLEAR WITNESS OF HIS DIVINITY, is an audacious attempt to create darkness where there is full light. The words are quite plain, 'Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, IS GOD BLESSED FOREVER.'

Calvin's new Testament Commentaries: Rommans and Thessalonians p. 196, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company

Calvin said that Christ is divine!

the Roo

August 10, 2010 at 7:36 pm#208349

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:21)

No one in my church says that I am not a Christian. My church is not like that. They recognize fruit. The Bible says that we shall know them by their fruit.

We know that the term begotten does mean procreation most of the time.

How can the Son actively create the heavens if He didn't exist?

Kathi

But you believe in a different Jesus than your own church does, right?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:21)

We know that the term begotten does mean procreation most of the time.

But not all of the time and especially in a way you and Mike have interpreted it to be something entirely different than the scriptures declare.

Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews uses the Word in a sense which has nothing to do with procreation. 1 Cor 4:15 and Phm 1:10

Yours and Mikes defintion of “procreation” in reference to the Father and Jesus doesn't represent the word at all.

Do you recognize fruit when you are plucking from Mikes tree, a person who unlike you doesn't even call Jesus his God and doesn't worship him?

I find it amazing how much you side with him who is practically totally anti everything your church believes.

August 10, 2010 at 7:39 pm#208351

Participant

Roo,
I know Christ is divine and also man. When did the Son become the divine Son? You don't think He was the divine Son before the incarnation? The church father's do and I have shown you over and over. For example:

150 AD Justin Martyr “God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62).

Do you see the word offspring that was truly brought forth from the Father and that was before all the creatures…he was a true firstborn, not by designation but a true firstborn of/over all creatures.

August 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm#208352

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,13:38)

Kathi said;

Quote

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Would someone like to fill Kathi in on the fact that Christ was begotten at His resurrection and this was not a “reproduction” of any kind?

the Roo

You are right roo, the Son was not reproduced at his resurrection. That happened before the ages.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

So what does the Israel thing have to do with the Father begetting the Son?

Because it shows that the Word “Begotten” is used in a diferent way than “procreation” of which you and Mike have failed to acknowledge while claiming that your view is unambiguous.

August 10, 2010 at 8:06 pm#208353

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 10 2010,14:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:21)

No one in my church says that I am not a Christian. My church is not like that. They recognize fruit. The Bible says that we shall know them by their fruit.

We know that the term begotten does mean procreation most of the time.

How can the Son actively create the heavens if He didn't exist?

Kathi

But you believe in a different Jesus than your own church does, right?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:21)

We know that the term begotten does mean procreation most of the time.

But not all of the time and especially in a way you and Mike have interpreted it to be something entirely different than the scriptures declare.

Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews uses the Word in a sense which has nothing to do with procreation. 1 Cor 4:15 and Phm 1:10

Yours and Mikes defintion of “procreation” in reference to the Father and Jesus doesn't represent the word at all.

Do you recognize fruit when you are plucking from Mikes tree, a person who unlike you doesn't even call Jesus his God and doesn't worship him?

I find it amazing how much you side with him who is practically totally anti everything your church believes.

Do you believe everything your church believes? I doubt it so why are you picking on me?

Why are you siding with roo when you see his fruit? Do you choose like mindedness even though bad fruit falls off the tree? Mike is newly searching, only two years now. He is learning and bad fruit will not help him hear. I am more interested in those who love others inspite of their difference of opinions. Like mindedness is great but if it is in company with bad character, the like mindedness becomes not worth much. imo

Truth together with good fruit is the goal. We are all in process and we won't see clearly till heaven.

Mike has only had two years to develop good fruit and I think that he has produced better fruit than some who have been claiming Christ for decades. IMO.

Can you write out what you think is mine and Mike's definition of procreation in reference to the only begotten Son so that I can address that point?

August 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm#208354

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 10 2010,14:42)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,13:38)

Kathi said;

Quote

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Would someone like to fill Kathi in on the fact that Christ was begotten at His resurrection and this was not a “reproduction” of any kind?

the Roo

You are right roo, the Son was not reproduced at his resurrection. That happened before the ages.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

So what does the Israel thing have to do with the Father begetting the Son?

Because it shows that the Word “Begotten” is used in a diferent way than “procreation” of which you and Mike have failed to acknowledge while claiming that your view is unambiguous.

Keith,
You know that I have stated begotten has different meanings so why do you make it sound like I haven't?

August 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm#208359

JustAskin

Participant

Can I interject to say that both WJ and KJ have always professed to Jesus being Divine, to be God [as in Trinity god].

Even to denying that Jesus died on the cross (They say, at least Jack said and WJ concurred, that Jesus was alive in the spirit and went to preach to the dead of Moses' time while his, Jesus, body was in the grave/tomb).

So how do they now say that they only claim he was divine as 'the Word'.

How do they say any of this when their own doctrine claims that Jesus is God?

August 10, 2010 at 8:36 pm#208361

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/ps2-7.html

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Sura 112:3-4

Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting:

My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …
… and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!)
I reject it totally!
Where does the Bible even say so? I have not found one passage where God is connected with a sexual act.

It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.

There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God.

There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible.

There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language.

The verses that do speak about “begotten” are:

Acts 13:33
Hebrews 1:5
Hebrews 5:5
In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament.

What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter:

32
And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33
this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'
34
And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'
35
Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.' …
In Hebrews 1:

1
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4
having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.
5
For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6
And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”
Hebrews 5:

1
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
2
He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.
3
Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people.
4
And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.
5
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”;
6
as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek.”
7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.
8
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
9
and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
10
being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.
All of these passages speak about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It refers to his taking office as king and priest. This took place about 33 years after the birth of Jesus. Clearly, in Biblical usage, the term “begotten” when used for Jesus in those passages is not at all connected with anything sexual but has a metaphorical meaning. The expression “the begotten son” of God is never mentioned in respect to his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit or his birth by the Virgin Mary.

It might well be that the Muslim understanding is correct in regard to the Qur'an, but it is better to carefully read the Bible or ask knowledgable Christians before just assuming that the Bible does speak about the same thing that is condemned in the Qur'an. There is no duty on the part of the Christian to actually believe in the false notions that the Qur'an has about the Christians. The problem in not in the Bible, it is in the Qur'an whose author has not understood the clear meaning of the Biblical language….

Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception.

And this meaning caries over into the New Testament use for Jesus just as well, that the resurrection is the public announcement by God about the true identity and authority of Jesus, Messiah, true king of Israel, representative of God among mankind.

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act. You know this. You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that. If there is no apology, you will be reported! I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

Still waiting Roo, patiently for your apology.

August 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm#208364

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,15:06)

Do you believe everything your church believes? I doubt it so why are you picking on me?

Kathi

You started on the Trinitarian thing and implied that we were being dishonest because according to your understanding of what a Trinitarian was, we were not Trinitarians.

And as far as truth, I stand by what I believe to be true even if it is by an antitrinitarian.

I have not called you dishonest Kathi.

As far as Mike, I don't see how you can say he has shown fruit unless you mean that fruit is the same as truth and because his “truth” lines up with yours then he has shown much truth.

Calling people idiots and jerks is not fruit at all.

August 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm#208383

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,06:42)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,13:38)

Kathi said;

Quote

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Would someone like to fill Kathi in on the fact that Christ was begotten at His resurrection and this was not a “reproduction” of any kind?

the Roo

You are right roo, the Son was not reproduced at his resurrection. That happened before the ages.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,14:27)

So what does the Israel thing have to do with the Father begetting the Son?

Because it shows that the Word “Begotten” is used in a diferent way than “procreation” of which you and Mike have failed to acknowledge while claiming that your view is unambiguous.

Keith,

Kathi's question reveals that she is not interested in the truth. The Israel being begotten (yalad) from the womb of the bondage of Egypt shows that an entity may exist prior to its being begotten. The new testament repeatedly and unambiguously declares that Jesus was begotten AT HIS RESURRECTION.

No procreation took place when Jesus was resurrected. He existed prior to His beng begotten.

Jack

August 10, 2010 at 11:17 pm#208388