Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

    . . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .

    How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


    Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

    Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    . . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .

    How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


    Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

    Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.
    If memory services, this is one of the differences between Orthodox and Western Christology. I believe this week this difference provoked a debate after ISIS executed some Orthodox Christians and some US Christians questioned with the Orthodox are really Christian or not.

    For the record, I recognize Orthodox Christians has being Christian.
    "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

    "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      . . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .

      How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?
      I would say Hebrews 1:3 gives pretty strong support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son:

      Source: Hebrews 1:3 HCSB

      3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

      © Copyright Original Source



      The footnotes for the HSCB translation of this verse at biblegateway.com gives the following alternatives for the word 'expression' in Heb 1:3;

      Representation, copy or reproduction.

      But in any case, if this verse is interpreted literally, then the Son, by virtue of being the expression, copy or reproduction of the Fathers nature must owe his eternal existence to the father, by logical necessity. If the Son is not begotten of the Father, but exists self-sufficiently, then he cannot be said to be the expression of God's/the Father's nature in any meaningful sense.
      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
        If memory services, this is one of the differences between Orthodox and Western Christology
        No, not really. Lutherans believe that the Son is begotten of the Father aswell, and I'm pretty certain Anglicans do as well. Roman Catholics definitely believe in the eternal generation of the Son. I'm not certain, but I would venture to say that the denial that the Son is begotten by the Father is mainly found in evangelical circles.
        ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.
          The Father is not begotten, as he is the source of godhood in the Trinity, but He communicates this divinity in eternity to both the Son and the Spirit.
          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

          Comment


          • #6
            Also, I would add that if you hold to the teaching that the Son is the Wisdom of the Father (which there is plenty of support for), then the teaching of the eternal generation of the Son follows logically from that.
            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              . . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .

              How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


              Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

              Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.
              Pretty much all Trinitarians I know accept the Christological pronouncements from the first six Ecumenical Councils (of course, it's the seventh one the outcome of which we celebrated today).
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8


                Filioque!

                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Spartacus View Post


                  Filioque!

                  That's what you get when you unilaterally alter something.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I would say Hebrews 1:3 gives pretty strong support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son:

                    Source: Hebrews 1:3 HCSB

                    3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    The footnotes for the HSCB translation of this verse at biblegateway.com gives the following alternatives for the word 'expression' in Heb 1:3;

                    Representation, copy or reproduction.

                    But in any case, if this verse is interpreted literally, then the Son, by virtue of being the expression, copy or reproduction of the Fathers nature must owe his eternal existence to the father, by logical necessity. If the Son is not begotten of the Father, but exists self-sufficiently, then he cannot be said to be the expression of God's/the Father's nature in any meaningful sense.
                    No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.

                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    The Father is not begotten, as he is the source of godhood in the Trinity, but He communicates this divinity in eternity to both the Son and the Spirit.
                    So not being begotten or made being They are the One God.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm sorry 37818, but its really difficult to understand your writing. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying and how it differs from what Adrift told you.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.
                        Did you mean to say: "He is the Only Begotten Son, which means He (The Son) is the expression of God (The Father?) and His (The Son?) very nature as being God (The Trinity?). He was not begotten, or made, in order to be the Son of God."

                        I've added some place where your use of pronouns becomes confusing when discussing God as Trinity.

                        As it is, this is a statement, in fact just a repetition of your original point. I'm with Adrift on this. Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.
                        Last edited by Leonhard; 03-02-2015, 10:27 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.
                          The Son is begotten in eternity, but not created. The expressions "expression of God" and "radiance of God's glory" points to this.

                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          So not being begotten or made being They are the One God.
                          If the Son and the Spírit is the source of Their own godhood it would seem that there are not one God, but three.
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Did you mean to say: "He is the Only Begotten Son, which means He (The Son) is the expression of God (The Father?) and His (The Son?) very nature as being God (The Trinity?). He was not begotten, or made, in order to be the Son of God."

                            I've added some place where your use of pronouns becomes confusing when discussing God as Trinity.

                            As it is, this is a statement, in fact just a repetition of your original point. I'm with Adrift on this. Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.
                            Did Adrift say something on the Trinity in another thread? Because I don't see any of his posts in this thread.
                            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Did Adrift say something on the Trinity in another thread? Because I don't see any of his posts in this thread.
                              I think he meant you.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X