- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I thought I would start a new thread on this because sometimes questions get lost in other discussion.
How can something/someone be “Eternally Generated?
Isn't that an oximoron?
Can someone explain this?
Hi sscott,
In short it is the trinitarian bypass for truth.They cannot accept the original divine nature of the Son of God without seeing two or more gods. So by saying the Son never really ever became a son but remained part of God their minds are satisfied and their consciences are assuaged.But they have a new and serious problem. They have denied the Son of God, one of the clearest truths in the bible, and defined themselves as false teachers.
2Peter 2
” 1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
thought I would bump this since no one else replied. I would like to hear an explination from someone who believes the Trinity.
Quote thought I would bump this since no one else replied. I would like to hear an explination from someone who believes the Trinity. Hi Ssott
Where do you find the word eternally generated?
Quote thought I would bump this since no one else replied. I would like to hear an explination from someone who believes the Trinity. Ok looked it up. Looks like a man made view to me.
But I love the way NH throws all trinitarian views in the same basket!!
LOL One day God will come blasting through his understanding and the light will flood his soul!
I agree with WJ. I think it's a man made construct brought about by a misunderstanding of the “begettal” passages. The Logos was not generated at all – He always was (John 1:1, John 8:58).
Hi,
The term was coined by Origen
“Fatherhood and the conception of God in early Greek Christian literature
Anglican Theological Review, Summer 2000 by Widdicombe, Peter
<< Page 1 Continued from page 3. Previous | NextOrigen's argument for his attribution of fatherhood to God turned on two basic assumptions. The first is that the titles given to God in the Bible, among which is that of Father, are to be seen as the authoritative descriptions of the nature of God, authoritative because the Bible had been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was the definitive source of knowledge about God. It contained the teachings, and, indeed, the very presence of the Logos, whom one would encounter when one read the text aright.31 His other basic assumption was that whatever is said correctly about God must be eternally true of him; to suggest otherwise would be to attribute changeability to God,32 something no serious Christian thinker prior to the twentieth century was prepared to do. Thus, inasmuch as the word Father is ascribed to God in the Bible, God must have been Father eternally. Origen's logic, however, took him one step further. He believed that the words father and son were correlatives: the idea is concisely summed up in the statement “If a father, then a son; if a son, then a father.” The existence of the one necessarily entails the existence of the other. From this, Origen concluded-and he was the first Christian author to do so-that the Son had been eternally generated from the Father. But we should note in passing that eternal generation was not unique to the Son. Applying the same logic to God's attribute of almightiness, Origen also claimed that the rational souls had, like the Son,33 existed eternally, a claim that was to land Origen in considerable difficulty with both his contemporaries and later theologians.
Origen is well known, of course, for having subordinated the Son to the Father. He did not think that the Son was coequal with the Father. While the Son participated in the being of the Father, he did not do so fully, but, rather, in a reduced way. It is plain, nevertheless, that Origen saw the Father-San relation as special and as distinct from the Father-creation relation. The Father-Son relation is a dynamic relation, characterized by activity. The Son, he says, remains “always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”4 Applying the words of Proverbs 8:30 to the Son-the verse runs “I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always”-Origen concludes that the Father's life in turn is an eternal rejoicing in the presence of the Son.35 We see here, as Rowan Williams has observed, “the beginnings of a fundamental datum of later trinitarian thought, that the Father-Son relation is simply part of the definition of the word God, and so does not exist for the sake of anything else than itself.”36 And what is more, the Son in his relation to the Father acts as a model of knowledge and love for the Christian as the Christian comes to know God as Father.37 “
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 27 2006,06:53) Quote thought I would bump this since no one else replied. I would like to hear an explination from someone who believes the Trinity. Ok looked it up. Looks like a man made view to me.
But I love the way NH throws all trinitarian views in the same basket!!
LOL One day God will come blasting through his understanding and the light will flood his soul!
Hi W,
Do you not agree with Origen and his trinity design?Hi w,
Is there any trinity “design? you do favour?
Why bother with the ideas of men and see what God has told us about Himself and stick with that?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 28 2006,02:48) I agree with WJ. I think it's a man made construct brought about by a misunderstanding of the “begettal” passages. The Logos was not generated at all – He always was (John 1:1, John 8:58).
The Logos always was and God always was.That adds up to 2 Gods, 2 sources, 2 identities.
Polytheism rises again.
Quote The Logos always was and God always was. That adds up to 2 Gods, 2 sources, 2 identities.
Polytheism rises again.
No that adds up to one. Father Son and Holy Ghost.
You have confessed with your own mouth that Jesus is 'A' God. Thats polythiesm. The Father Son and Holy Ghost is One. The Godhead, Three beings, one God. Because your natural mind cant accept it dosnt make it false.
Scripture evidence proves that Jesus is God. The Father says so. Would the Father say he is not of the Godhead but another? I dont think so.
Quote No that adds up to one. Father Son and Holy Ghost. You have confessed with your own mouth that Jesus is 'A' God. Thats polythiesm. The Father Son and Holy Ghost is One. The Godhead, Three beings, one God. Because your natural mind cant accept it dosnt make it false.
Scripture evidence proves that Jesus is God. The Father says so. Would the Father say he is not of the Godhead but another? I dont think so.
NH
no I didnt, read it again.
Quote No that adds up to one. Father Son and Holy Ghost. You have confessed with your own mouth that Jesus is 'A' God. Thats polythiesm. The Father Son and Holy Ghost is One. The Godhead, Three beings, one God. Because your natural mind cant accept it dosnt make it false.
Scripture evidence proves that Jesus is God. The Father says so. Would the Father say he is not of the Godhead but another? I dont think so.
Hi W,
You have a strange idea of the nature of a son in that he never is a son at all. Rather to you he remains an aspect of the Father Himself that is CALLED a son but never can be free to choose or love or be sent from God.That is actually denying he is a son despite the smokescreen you put up and it denies God is his father IMHO.
topical,
Those who believe in trinity must believe the monogenes son was never a son before birth or the theory falls flat.Hi,
So this concept has been designed by those who devised the trinity theory to try and deal with one of it's worst faults. . The fault is the problem of the son of God. So instead of saying God has a son they say God has always been having a son but that son never has become and never will become a true son because he would no longer be God. It is an eternal begettal.
Nonsense.
Christ is the son of God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
