- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Here is where we can discuss the dissertation by John Gill entitled “Dissertation Concerning the Eternal Sonship of Christ, Showing By Whom It Has Been Denied and Opposed, and By Whom Asserted and Defended in All Ages of Christianity.”
Rules of this thread are:
1. In order to post in this thread, you must have read the document at the link by John Gill before you post.2. You must stay on topic which is regarding the document and what it states.
3. Do not attack the members on HN. You may refute opinions but, of course, no personal attacks.
4. All posts that do not abide by the rules may be subject to removal.
Here is the link to the document to discuss:
John Gill's opening paragraph:
The eternal Sonship of Christ, or that he is the Son of God by eternal generation, or that he was the Son of God before he was the son of Mary, even from all eternity, which is denied by the Socinians, and others akin to them, was known by the saints under the Old Testament; by David (Ps. 2:7, 12); by Solomon (Prov. 8:22, 30), by the prophet Micah, chapter 2, verse 2. His Sonship was known by Daniel, from whom it is probable Nebuchadnezzar had it (Dan. 3:25), from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he was born of the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called so on that account. This truth is written as with a sun-beam in the New Testament; but my design in what I am about is, not to give the proof of this doctrine from the sacred scriptures, but to show who first set themselves against it, and who have continued the opposition to it, more or less, to this time; and on the other hand, to show that sound and orthodox Christians, from the earliest times of Christianity to the present, have asserted and defended it.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 06 2012,11:42) John Gill's opening paragraph: The eternal Sonship of Christ, or that he is the Son of God by eternal generation, or that he was the Son of God before he was the son of Mary, even from all eternity, which is denied by the Socinians, and others akin to them, was known by the saints under the Old Testament; by David (Ps. 2:7, 12); by Solomon (Prov. 8:22, 30), by the prophet Micah, chapter 2, verse 2. His Sonship was known by Daniel, from whom it is probable Nebuchadnezzar had it (Dan. 3:25), from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he was born of the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called so on that account. This truth is written as with a sun-beam in the New Testament; but my design in what I am about is, not to give the proof of this doctrine from the sacred scriptures, but to show who first set themselves against it, and who have continued the opposition to it, more or less, to this time; and on the other hand, to show that sound and orthodox Christians, from the earliest times of Christianity to the present, have asserted and defended it.
Hey KathiI think this quote by Clemens of Alexandria fully expresses the nature of the Son that he was always eternally with the Father (without) a beginning! This would be consistent with the nature of the Father!
This is the Son of God, the Savior and Lord whom we speak of, and the divine prophecies show.” A little after he speaks of him as, “begotten without BEGINNING, that is, eternally begotten, and who, before the foundation of the world, was the Father’s counselor, that wisdom in whom the almighty God delighted; for Son is the power of God; who before all things were made, was the most ancient word of the Father.—Every operation of the Lord has a reference to the almighty; and the Son is, as I may say, a certain energy of the Father.” This ancient writer frequently attacks and refutes the Carpocratians, Valentinians, and Gnostics, and other heretics of this and the preceding age. I proceed,….
Blessings
Keith
Hi Keith,
Thanks for reading the document and giving some input! I don't get the phrase 'eternally begotten.' I understand it better as 'begotten during eternity' and before that He was eternally within the Father. I think that I read something on the document that I thought was more inline with what I think. I will have to look again for it.Blessings back to you
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Dec. 07 2012,20:24) Hi Keith,
Thanks for reading the document and giving some input! I don't get the phrase 'eternally begotten.
Hi KathiWell it is the same thing as the Father being the “Eternal Father”.
How could the Father always exist as the “Eternal Father” without beginning unless he always had an “Eternal Son” without beginning?
To say that the “Son” had a beginning as “begotten” at some point in time would mean that the Father was not always the Father to his “begotten Son” for the “begotten Son” had not yet existed.
Blessings!
Keith
Hi Kathi
I think that your natural concept of a Mother bringing birth to a son plays way to much in your understanding of the relationship of the Father and Jesus.
To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son in procreation in itself is contrary to the general order of things. Fathers don't give birth to sons. Mothers do. Would you say that the Father was Jesus mother also?
Just saying!
Keith
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 09 2012,04:25) Keith,
Good to see you, welcome back.Wm
Hi WilliamThanks! I am not really back. Just popping in from time to time!
Blessings!
Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 09 2012,04:30) Hi Kathi I think that your natural concept of a Mother bringing birth to a son plays way to much in your understanding of the relationship of the Father and Jesus.
To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son in procreation in itself is contrary to the general order of things. Fathers don't give birth to sons. Mothers do. Would you say that the Father was Jesus mother also?
Just saying!
Keith
Hi Keith,
Why limit God to the general order of things. Fathers don't create worlds out of nothing either.I believe that the Father always was a Father, an eternal Father and thus He always had a son within Him, eternally, until He was begotten from Him before the ages. This belief is common in the document among those expressing an eternal Sonship.
For instance:
Quote 6. The errors of Paulus Samosate were condemned by the synod at Antioch, towards the latter end of this century, by whom* a formula or confession of faith was agreed to, in which are these words: “We profess that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before ages, according to the Spirit, and in the last days, born of a virgin, according to the flesh.” The word omoousioV, consubstantial, is used in their creed. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the next, lived Lactantius, (for he lived under Dioclesian, and to the times of Constantine) who asserts,* that God, the maker of all things, begat “a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and irreprehensible, whom he called the Son.” He asks,* “how hath he procreated? The divine works can neither be known nor declared by any; nevertheless the scriptures teach, that the Son of God is the Word of God.” Nothing more is to be observed in this century. I pass on, Have a great day!
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2012,19:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 09 2012,04:30) Hi Kathi I think that your natural concept of a Mother bringing birth to a son plays way to much in your understanding of the relationship of the Father and Jesus.
To say that God the Father literally brought birth to a spiritual son in procreation in itself is contrary to the general order of things. Fathers don't give birth to sons. Mothers do. Would you say that the Father was Jesus mother also?
Just saying!
Keith
Hi Keith,
Why limit God to the general order of things. Fathers don't create worlds out of nothing either.I believe that the Father always was a Father, an eternal Father and thus He always had a son within Him, eternally, until He was begotten from Him before the ages. This belief is common in the document among those expressing and eternal Sonship.
For instance:
Quote 6. The errors of Paulus Samosate were condemned by the synod at Antioch, towards the latter end of this century, by whom* a formula or confession of faith was agreed to, in which are these words: “We profess that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before ages, according to the Spirit, and in the last days, born of a virgin, according to the flesh.” The word omoousioV, consubstantial, is used in their creed. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the next, lived Lactantius, (for he lived under Dioclesian, and to the times of Constantine) who asserts,* that God, the maker of all things, begat “a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and irreprehensible, whom he called the Son.” He asks,* “how hath he procreated? The divine works can neither be known nor declared by any; nevertheless the scriptures teach, that the Son of God is the Word of God.” Nothing more is to be observed in this century. I pass on, Have a great day!
Paul Of Samosata, (flourished 3rd century), heretical bishop of Antioch in Syria and proponent of a kind of dynamic monarchian doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ (see Monarchianism). The only indisputably contemporary document concerning him is a letter written by his ecclesiastical opponents, according to which he was a worldly cleric of humble origin who became bishop of Antioch in 260.
Pierre, the synod of Antioch condemned Paul of Samasota. I agree with what the synod agreed upon, not Paul of Samasota. Fyi, just in case you thought otherwise.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2012,23:34) Pierre, the synod of Antioch condemned Paul of Samasota. I agree with what the synod agreed upon, not Paul of Samasota. Fyi, just in case you thought otherwise.
Kmy point was that their only one document what can be honestly be describe and that was written from those who opposed the man,
this to me is not a clear cut to arguing with ,but then you are not looking for truth any way
Pierre, the document mentioned is a contemporary document that has survived. That is not what the synod went by in condemning him. Read more carefully.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2012,23:52) Pierre, the document mentioned is a contemporary document that has survived. That is not what the synod went by in condemning him. Read more carefully.
kWAS NOT THE SYNOD THE OPPOSED PARTY
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2012,02:31) Yes, but they didn't make there decision because of a contemporary surviving document.
Kathibut today we do not any documents that are neutral to the circumstance's that lead to his dismissal
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2012,07:05) Why are you so concerned with Paul of Samasota? Do you think that you were in agreement with him?
kATHINOT AT ALL I DO NOT KNOW THE GUY ,BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS EASY TO KILL PEOPLE ,JUST LIKE THEY KILLED CHRIST ,A FEW FALSE WITNESSES AND WE GO ,
Ok Pierre, you are certainly making an assumption based on ignorance then. Maybe you should research the guy. He is mentioned a lot in the writings of the early church fathers.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2012,09:03) Ok Pierre, you are certainly making an assumption based on ignorance then. Maybe you should research the guy. He is mentioned a lot in the writings of the early church fathers.
kATHISO HIS ORIGEN ,BUT THIS MAN I KNOW A LOT OF ,
AND THEY ALSO SLANDER HIM ,I LIKE TO SEE FACTS AND MANY FROM BOTH SIDE ,YOU WOULD NOT GIVE CREDIT TO A DIVORCED MAN AND BELIEVE ALL HE SAYS ABOUT HIS WIFE OR DO YOU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
