- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thanks JA for your opinion on 'eternally begotten.' Please spare this topic of personal condescending remarks, there is no need for that. Thanks JA.
I am looking for non-members of HN's opinions on this especially for now, hopefully from the early church father's or scholarly writings including sources. I know you don't like to research but it would be great if some 'scholarly' writings could be quoted here that agrees with you on this.
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,23:09) Kathi,
As for WJ…you must have realised by now that he seeks his own agenda and will refute even the most obvious of truths and will also play games when he is caught out.
He could not remain a trinitarian unless he used such tactics.
JAEveryone here has an agenda. What you just said can be said of you!
It just so happens that WJ is the “Only Begotten Trinitarian” on this sight.
Anyway my computer has a virus and I have to redo it, I may not be posting for a couple days, at least not much from another computer.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2010,02:03) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,23:09) Kathi,
As for WJ…you must have realised by now that he seeks his own agenda and will refute even the most obvious of truths and will also play games when he is caught out.
He could not remain a trinitarian unless he used such tactics.
JAEveryone here has an agenda. What you just said can be said of you!
It just so happens that WJ is the “Only Begotten Trinitarian” on this sight.
Anyway my computer has a virus and I have to redo it, I may not be posting for a couple days, at least not much from another computer.
WJ
WJ Are you going to answer my question to you honestly? I have often wondered if those who are Ministers, know that the trinity is Wong, yet stay as a Minister because that is all they really know to do? ……Peace IreneHi Irene,
I'm trying to keep this on topic here. Maybe you can have this discussion with WJ in the trinity thread. Thanks!Quote (Baker @ Oct. 11 2010,10:48) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2010,02:03) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,23:09) Kathi,
As for WJ…you must have realised by now that he seeks his own agenda and will refute even the most obvious of truths and will also play games when he is caught out.
He could not remain a trinitarian unless he used such tactics.
JAEveryone here has an agenda. What you just said can be said of you!
It just so happens that WJ is the “Only Begotten Trinitarian” on this sight.
Anyway my computer has a virus and I have to redo it, I may not be posting for a couple days, at least not much from another computer.
WJ
WJ Are you going to answer my question to you honestly? I have often wondered if those who are Ministers, know that the trinity is Wong, yet stay as a Minister because that is all they really know to do? ……Peace Irene
IreneFirst off your post doesn't even have a question.
Secondly Kathi is right in wanting to keep it on topic.
Thirdly, why would I spend four years and over 10,000 posts on something I do not believe?
WJ
John MacArthur has reversed his opinion on eternal Sonship:
Quote Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ Code: A235
Is it true that John MacArthur has reversed his position on the eternal Sonship of Christ?Yes.
Here's a statement from John about his views on that issue.Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ
John MacArthur
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 conce
pt 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.
He has some good points and some that I do not agree with. It is interesting to read and get his thoughts on the subject.
I thought this was good info:
“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.“
Berkhof on the Eternal Generation of the Son
Quote
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 93-94.The eternal generation of the Son. The personal property of the Son is that He is eternally begotten of the Father (briefly called “filiation”), and shares with the father in the spiration of the Spirit. The doctrine of the generation of the Son is suggested by the Biblical representation of the first and second persons of the Trinity as standing in the relation of Father and Son to each other. Not only do the names “Father” and “Son” suggest the generation of the latter by the former, but the Son is also repeatedly called “the only-begotten,” John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb. 11:17; 1 John 4:9. Several particulars deserve emphasis in connection with the generation of the Son: (1) It is a necessary act of God. Origen, one of the very first to speak of the generation of the Son, regarded it as an act dependent on the Father's will and therefore free. Others at various times expressed the same opinion. But it was clearly seen by Athanasius and others that a generation dependent on the optional will of the Father would make the existence of the Son contingent and thus rob Him of His deity. Then the Son would not be equal to and homoousios [of the same essence] with the Father, for the Father exists necessarily, and cannot be conceived of as non-existent. The generation of the Son must be regarded as a necessary and perfectly natural act of God. This does not mean that it is not related to the Father's will in any sense of the word. It is an act of the Father's necessary will, which merely means that His concomitant will takes perfect delight in it. (2) It is an eternal act of the Father. This naturally follows from the preceding. If the generation of the Son is a necessary act of the Father, so that it is impossible to conceive of Him as not generating, it naturally shares in the eternity of the Father. This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past, but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son. In addition to this it can be inferred from all those passages of Scripture which teach either the pre-existence of the Son or His equality with the Father, Mic. 5:2; John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 5:17, 18, 30, 36; Acts 13:33; John 17:5; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3. The statement of Ps. 2:7, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” is generally quoted to prove the generation of the Son, but, according to some, with rather doubtful propriety, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. They surmise that these words refer to the raising up of Jesus as Messianic King, and to the recognition of Him as Son of God in an official sense, and should probably be linked with the promise found in II Sam. 7:14, just as they are in Heb. 1:5. (3) It is a generation of the personal subsistence rather than of the divine essence of the Son. Some have spoken as if the Father generated the essence of the Son, but this is equivalent to saying that He generated His own essence, for the essence of both the Father and the Son is exactly the same. It is better to say that the Father generates the personal subsistence of the Son, but thereby also communicates to Him the divine essence in its entirety. But in doing this we should guard against the idea that the Father first generated a second person, and then communicated the divine essence to this person, for that would lead to the conclusion that the Son was not generated out of the divine essence, but created out of nothing. In the work of generation there was a communication of essence; it was one indivisible act. And in virtue of this communication the Son also has life in Himself. This is in agreement with the statement of Jesus, “For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself,” John 5:26. (4) It is a generation that must be conceived of as spiritual and divine. In opposition to the Arians, who insisted that the generation of the Son necessarily implied separation or division in the divine Being, the Church Fathers stressed the fact that this generation must not be conceived in a physical and creaturely way, but should be regarded as spiritual and divine, excluding all idea of division or change. It brings distinctio and distributio, but no diversitas and divisio in the divine Being. (Bavinck) The most striking analogy of it is found in man's thinking and speaking, and the Bible itself seems to point to this, when it speaks of the Son as the Logos. (5) The following definition may be given of the generation of the Son: It is that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like HIs own, and puts this second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change.
From http://www.catholic.com:
Quote The Eternal Sonship of Christ Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Their abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.
This teaching destroys the internal relationships within the Trinity, because if the Son was not eternally begotten by the Father then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. It also destroys the Fatherhood of the first person, since without a Son there is no Father. Thus the fundamental familial relations among the persons of the Godhead are destroyed and replaced by mere social relationships, a bare existence of three persons in the Godhead. Prior to the incarnation, there is no longer the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply Number One, Number Two, and Number Three—the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation.
The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.
The same truth is taught under a different analogy in John 1:1,14 where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly,
a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.Of special interest among the following passages are those in which the early Christians wrote of God as Father prior to the incarnation. Such passages imply the role of the second person as Son before the incarnation, since as we have noted, without a Son there is no Father.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.aspAs posted a couple of posts before, John MacArthur has changed his position on eternal Sonship.
I don't know who wrote this but it is topical:
Quote The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ 01.01.2009 · Posted in doctrinal issues, doctrine, theology
The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ
The eternal sonship of Jesus is a very important doctrine. It is also a doctrine that cannot be fully comprehended by mortal man. On the other hand, mortals must at least accept this doctrine as being true. Remembering that God is spirit and is not bound by time, space, and material/bodily constraints, will help us to more readily accept this truth. Being the Son of God means that Jesus is God. The Son has the nature of the Father. This means that the Son is eternal. Though He was begotten and not made, the Son is eternal. While these things are hard to be understood, let us attempt to attain a rudimentary knowledge of them.
The Son Eternally Begotten of The Father
Before Jesus was ever begotten in the womb of the virgin Mary He was the Son of God. The Sonship of Jesus is not a physical sonship, but a spiritual one. As Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Jesus, he told us, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” ( Isaiah 9:6) KJV This passage tells us that Jesus was the Son before He became a man; He was given as the Son. Not only so, but He is one with His Father, which tells us that the Son of God is God. We again read, “ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” ( John 3:16,17) KJV The Son was given and sent thus testifying to the fact that Jesus was the Son before He became a man.
There has never been a time when God in all of His glorious perfection did not have a complete comprehension of who He is. Never has there been a time in which God did not have a full understanding of all His nature and His deeds. In the midst of this perception that God has of Himself is to be found the fact that God delights in Himself; He is the happy God (1Tim 1:11). This idea, love, delight, and contemplation of His own perfections is so complete that it stands forth as another person. This person is the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God. This is a begetting in a spiritual sense because the One begotten is truly the eternal offspring of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten, because there has never been a time that God has not had this perfect delight in, and understanding of, who He is. This means that the Son is eternal. It also means that the Son is indeed divine in all facets of His nature. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:1-8 ) KJV This passage speaks volumes about this wonderful truth. It tells us that the Son is of the same character as the Father, He is the Son who is begotten of God, is due worship, and is God.
The Father’s Witness to The Son
The Father bore witness to the Sonship of Jesus at least three times while He was on earth. The first was at His baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16,17) KJV The second time was when He spoke to Peter, James, and John in the Mount of Transfiguration: “ While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Matthew 17:5) KJV Finally, the Father testified of the Sonship of Jesus when He raised Christ from the dead. Paul said that He was “ declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:4) KJV This is, I believe, a faithful representation of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, our Creator and Redeemer.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2010,07:31) Quote (Baker @ Oct. 11 2010,10:48) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2010,02:03) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,23:09) Kathi,
As for WJ…you must have realised by now that he seeks his own agenda and will refute even the most obvious of truths and will also play games when he is caught out.
He could not remain a trinitarian unless he used such tactics.
JAEveryone here has an agenda. What you just said can be said of you!
It just so happens that WJ is the “Only Begotten Trinitarian” on this sight.
Anyway my computer has a virus and I have to redo it, I may not be posting for a couple days, at least not much from another computer.
WJ
WJ Are you going to answer my question to you honestly? I have often wondered if those who are Ministers, know that the trinity is Wong, yet stay as a Minister because that is all they really know to do? ……Peace Irene
IreneFirst off your post doesn't even have a question.
Secondly Kathi is right in wanting to keep it on topic.
Thirdly, why would I spend four years and over 10,000 posts on something I do not believe?
WJ
WJ Funny, that is not a question? well I thought so….kathi, I am not the only one who has gone of topic before. It seems that you have a grudge against me IMO. Is it that important to you what the Catholics believe etc. I thought it funny that JA believes the same thing then what I said in my first post here. And I believe that is the right definition of eternally begotten…. forever….No Irene, I have no grudge against you. Don't read into my desire to stay on topic anything other than I want to stay on topic.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 12 2010,10:10) 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.
Hi Kathi,I know this thread is not for “debating” the writings, but wow! The above is from John MacArthur and I can't help but smile at how fast his mental “wheels” must have been spinning to keep Jesus from having a beginning.
He says:Within the realm of creation, the term “begotten” speaks of the origin of one's offspring.
So far, so good.The begetting of a son denotes his conception–the point at which he comes into being.
Yes…..go on.Some thus assume that “only begotten” refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary.
What about “before the ages”?
But do please continue. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father.
Ooh, he answered his own dilemma, so now we know it DIDN'T refer to his becoming flesh. We're back on track again.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.
I couldn't agree more.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.
Yes…….yes, I think he's almost got it figured out!I believe this is the sense Scripture aims to convey when it speaks of the begetting of Christ by the Father.
He's so close to the truth I can taste it!
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.
WHAT?!? And he was SO close……..what just happened here? Isn't that hillarious how he KNOWS what the words imply and he KNOWS how those words are used by humans, but he just simply cannot allow himself to acknowledge that simple truth? All that thinking and pondering, and it never ONCE crossed his mind that the ONLY true God brought forth a Son unto Himself to share His love and life with? This is the same ONLY true God who completely understood how we as humans would understand “begotten” and “Father/Son” when He used those words for His relationship with Jesus.
Anyway, sorry for the interuption. I just got to see the masterful trinitarian mind at work. I got to see the step by step understandings he had to COMPLETELY IGNORE to end up with “He had no beginning”……..and it was funny for me.
Like an old Mexican friend of mine use to say while rolling his eyes, “Too much crazy, man!”
Oh, and I can't resist this one either. WJ has over 10,000 posts here? Based on the length of his average post, that's like 58,000 “real people” posts! Surely you know I jest, Keith.
peace and love,
mikeThanks Mike for that one-sided dialogue with John MacArthur
I understand your thinking on that. Here's a link to a view which opposes 'eternally begotten' and favors 'incarnationally begotten:' http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/pdf/sonship-of-christ.pdf
I am finding all these views interesting.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 12 2010,22:17) Thanks Mike for that one-sided dialogue with John MacArthur I understand your thinking on that. Here's a link to a view which opposes 'eternally begotten' and favors 'incarnationally begotten:' http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/pdf/sonship-of-christ.pdf
I am finding all these views interesting.
KathiYes this is interesting. Thanks for the links. I have listened to so much Arian critisizim over the “Johannine Comma” that I had written it off, but now I am seeing that it is a valid verse in the Bible based on the quotes of many earlier Fathers and that it is more likely that the Arians scratched it from the MSS.
WJ
Hi Keith,
Ah, the 'comma' strikes again…you can debate that all you want to here:
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 09 2010,23:26) keith,
When I say the Son had a beginning before creation, I equate that with He was generated before creation. Just like what it says here:Quote Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).
I think that you disagree with this confession, don't you?
Bump for Keith…Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 09 2010,23:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 09 2010,23:12) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 09 2010,22:53) I know Keith, but your view isn't supported as to your translation of monogenes with the early church fathers and the writers of the creeds.
KathiAnd just how is that? Because the word “Monogenes” is not in the creeds. The word “Gennao” is.
So please show me how I am not in agreement!
WJ
Keith,you said:
Quote And just how is that? Because the word “Monogenes” is not in the creeds. The word “Gennao” is. Both of the words are in this creed…monogenes and gennao as far as I can tell. Look at the Greek:
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm
Look for : τον μονογενη I believe that is 'the only begotten' or monogenes
and
γεννηθέν which would be gennao if I am not mistaken
γεννηθέν τα προ πάντων των αιώνων
I do think that would be translated as begotten before the ages and not eternally begotten unless 'begotten' is written in the imperfect tense.I would like to know if that “γεννηθέν” is written in the imperfect tense. The imperfect tense would indicate a continuous action. Do you know, Keith? I'll have to try to figure that out…get out the Greek textbook and do some digging
Quote Received Text of the Greek Church Greek text from the Acts of the First Council of Constantinople and in The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.
Πιστεύομεν εις ένα Θεον Πατερα παντοκράτορα, ποιητην ουρανου και γης, ορατων τε πάντων και αορατων.Και εις ένα κύριον Ιησουν Χριστον, τον υιον του θεοθ τον μονογενη, τον ει του πατρος γεννηθέν τα προ πάντων των αιώνων, φως εκ φωτος, θεον αληθινον εκ θεου αληθινου, γεννηθέντα, ου ποιηθέντα, ομοουσιον τωι πατρί· δι' ου τα παντα εγένετο· τον δι' ημας τους αιθρώποους και δια την ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθοντα εκ των ουρανων και σαρκωθέντα εκ πνεύματος αγίου και Μαρίας της παρθένου και ενανθρωπήσαντα, σταυρωθέντα τε υπερ ημων επι Ποντίου Πιλάτου, και παθοντα και ταφέντα, και ανασταντα τηι τρίτηι ημέπαι κατα τας γραφάς, και ανελθόντα εις τους ουρανούς, και καθεζόμενον εκ δεξιων του πατρός, και πάλιν ερχόμενον μετα δόξης κριναι ζωντας και νεκρούς· ου της βασιλείας ουκ έσται τέλος.
Και εις το Πνευμα το Άγιον, το κύριον, (και) το ζωοποιόν, το εκ του πατρος εκπορευόμενον, το συν πατρι και υιωι συν προσκυνούμενον και συνδοξαζόμενον, το λαλησαν δια των προφητων· εις μίαν, αγίαν, καθολικην και αποστολικην εκκ
λησίαω· ομολογουμεν εν βάπτισμα εις άφεσιν αμαρτιων· προσδοκωμεν ανάστασιν νεκρων, και ζωην του μελλοντος αιώωος. Αμήν.Now do you see how you are not in agreement? The word monogenes is in the creed and is translated as 'only begotten.'
Another bump for Keith…:) See how much catching up you have to do when your computer has a virus.Quote (Baker @ Oct. 10 2010,08:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,05:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 09 2010,11:21) From the Institute for Creation Research, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. had this to say about 'eternally begotten:' Quote Eternally Begotten
He is not just the only begotten Son of the Father, for He is also the eternally begotten Son of the Father. He is eternally “in His bosom,” yet always “going forth” to “declare” the Father–once as the creating Word, occasionally in pre-incarnate theophanies, also through the Holy Spirit conveying God's written Word (which had been “eternally settled in heaven” [Psalm 119:89]) down to man through divinely chosen prophets, then ultimately appearing as the incarnate Word to live forever as the God/man.
The doctrine of “eternal generation” was what the older theologians called this great truth. He did not become the only Son by His virgin birth. He was the only begotten Son from eternity, “set up from everlasting” (Proverbs 8:23).
KathiFor the life of me, I do not understand why you pick sources and imply their quotes mean that Jesus had a beginning before the ages?
This is a quote from the same page of your source…
But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God–in fact, the only begotten Son of God. “HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, for He was there in the beginning(John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” His human body was, indeed, “brought forth” from “she which travaileth” (Micah 5:3). “BUT LONG BEFORE THAT, HE HAD BEEN EVERLASTINGLY GOING FORTH FROM “THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER.” As noted in John 1:18, He was still “in the bosom of the Father,” even while He was on Earth manifesting the Father. Source
Why do you think that Trinitarians agree with you that Jesus “begetting” means he had a beginning through procreation?
The doctrines of “Arius” believing Jesus had a begining before time was settled by the church centuries ago.
WJ
WJ What you are quoting is from Humans, I for one do not depend or even read such nonsense…… The Bible clearly tells us that God s above all in
Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him.
And
Deu 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD
And
1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.And by Jesus own words in
Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
All these Scriptures are taken from the Blue Letter Bible on the Internet.
This is of the subject, but I find it out of respect for my Heavenly Father in Heaven that I put these Scriptures up……
Jesus did have beginning, how could He even call Jehovah God Father. He came forth from His Father, just like we all did too. Only He was not created out of the dust of the earth like we did……
Sorry Kathi….
What I do not like about that article is also The Word of God is to them just a spoken Word and not Jesus…… They do not go by Scripture otherwise they would know better, that Jesus did have a beginning…..Peace Irene
It is somewhat ironic to see 1 Jiohn 5:7 against all these Scriptures that say that God is the only Almighty God and above all…..IreneHi Irene,
Here ya go, you and Keith can put your comments on 1 John 5:7 on this threadoops, I forgot the link so I edited this in
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
