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

  • And now . . . "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Hebrews 13:8.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . 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 KJV

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

    Comment


    • 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.
      Source: ichthys.com - Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D.

      . . . that only since the incarnation is Jesus "begotten" in any sense; He was the unique Son of God in eternity before creation, but there was no "begetting" before the first advent. The Nicene Creed, by projecting back half of an adjective in a linguistically inappropriate way has thrown unnecessary confusion into many people's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. English versions which honor it with flawed translations of monogenes merely make things worse. Yet another reason why we go to and with scripture and not the tradition that follows it.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Source: Is God the Father Causally Prior to the Son? -- reasonablefaith.org Dr. William Lane Craig


      Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Fatherís will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

      For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from Godís relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Fatherís will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of Godís loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.

      © Copyright Original Source


      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . 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 KJV

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Source: ichthys.com - Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D.

        . . . that only since the incarnation is Jesus "begotten" in any sense; He was the unique Son of God in eternity before creation, but there was no "begetting" before the first advent. The Nicene Creed, by projecting back half of an adjective in a linguistically inappropriate way has thrown unnecessary confusion into many people's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. English versions which honor it with flawed translations of monogenes merely make things worse. Yet another reason why we go to and with scripture and not the tradition that follows it.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Source: Is God the Father Causally Prior to the Son? -- reasonablefaith.org Dr. William Lane Craig


        Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

        For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Dr. Luginbill is operating outside his field of expertise. Dr. Craig at least admits that the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Dropping it, however, would create more problems that it would solve, as it almost indubitably necessitate also dropping "of one essence" and the Trinity would essentially be indistinguishable from tritheism. Dr. Craig also inexplicably ignores the Nicene distinction "of one essence" which was crucially added to the creed to distinguish the Son from creation. Lastly, he ignores that the procession of the Spirit IS explicitly stated in Scripture (John 15:26) - which by his interpretation, "introduces subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself". I generally respect Dr. Craig, but he's wrong on this.
        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. Ė 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


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          . . . . Dr. Craig at least admits that the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Dropping it, however, would create more problems that it would solve, as it almost indubitably necessitate also dropping "of one essence" and the Trinity would essentially be indistinguishable from tritheism. Dr. Craig also inexplicably ignores the Nicene distinction "of one essence" which was crucially added to the creed to distinguish the Son from creation. Lastly, he ignores that the procession of the Spirit IS explicitly stated in Scripture (John 15:26) - which by his interpretation, "introduces subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself". I generally respect Dr. Craig, but he's wrong on this.
          Dr. Craig also believes "Only Begotten" refers primarily to Christ's incarnation:
          Source:

          5. . . . I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. . . .

          © Copyright Original Source

          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . 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 KJV

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Leonhard;167393 to 37818
            ...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.
            Imu, the RCC and the rest of Christianity that adheres to the Nicene faith has never taught that the Son "proceeds from the Father"!!!

            The idea of procession is exclusively said of the Holy Spirit (have a read up on the filioque controversies between the east and the west. nb: a few decades ago, during the reconciliation talks, the RCC argued that the east misunderstood the meaning of the Latin expression "procedit" which the east took to mean origin (as in first principle) and appealed to John 15:26. The RCC argued that "procedit" can also refer to an "intermediary origin" and pointed out that John 15:26 and John 16:7 both refer to the Son sending the parakletos (the Holy Spirit). The east counters that John 15:26 states emphatically that the procession of the parakletos is exclusive to the Father. The RCC didn't (doesn't) disagree and so declared (declares) emphatically (in total agreement with the east) that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but is sent to us by the Son. The RCC went on to emphatically agree that the Father is exclusively the source and cause of the Spirit, just as the Father is exclusively the source and cause of the Son - albeit the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and is received by us via the Son, while the Son was begotten/born of the Father before the ages and was sent to us by the Father).

            A while ago the RCC threw out the ambiguous and watered down statement of faith that arose after Vatican II when the church adopted a policy of vernacularising church teaching and the mass (a dismal failure that led to all sorts of silly ideas amongst both the ignorant lay and clergy). The church has now reverted to an earlier statement of faith that conforms to the Greek of the Nicene Creed (well, excluding the retention of the filioque) and the Latin of the early Roman church. Thus all Catholics are to confess "...I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages...For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man."
            http://www.cam.org.au/Catholic-Faith...e-nicene-creed

            Imo, if one declares themselves Catholic, it is always a good idea to relate what the Church actually teaches and not rely on personally held propositions...
            Last edited by apostoli; 07-02-2015, 07:16 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 to OneBadPig
              So you are not interested in helping me change my mind.

              The fact is the Person who is only-begotten of the God the Father changed from not being human before the incarnation to being human in the incarnation. That shows a changeable nature in becoming human. Of course we agree that His divine nature did not change.
              In the thread "True Orthodxy" I made a response to you on another matter. That response referred to several Greek terms which have relevance to your comments regarding changability.
              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post214380

              The terms I referred to were:

              * "prosopon/prosopa" = "the actors mask/s" (Latin: personae, English: person). This is the outward form of a thing (eg: the progression of infant to child, to youth, to adult). That which is seen by others. Such is 100% changeable.

              * "hypostasis" = "the concrete reality of a thing". Basically "the self identification". This is an individual's consistency, albeit it can attract "accidents" (not injury. imu things that are transitional) and has potentialities (things as yet not realised eg: becoming husband/wife, father/mother etc).

              As an aside: I think it was Aristotle that suggested that a king that became a slave was never a king, and a slave that became a king was always a king. Thus, in the first instance the kingship was accidental while in the later the kingship was in potentiality.

              * "ousia/physis" = "the absolute reality of a thing". Imu, once defined this is always invariable/unchangeable. Imu, a hypostasis can retain multiple ousia, directly or in potentiality. Thus the reality of the Son in his hypostasis, after the incarnation, was to retain the ousia of the divine while accumulating to himself the ousia of humanity (imu, a potentiality before the incarnation). cp. Col 2:9 where A.Paul says of the Son "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the state of being God bodily." ("the state of being God" Gr: theotēs rendered in the KJV as "Godhead").

              You asked OBP "What essential cardinal truth of orthodoxy is denied by holding the Son of God always had two natures, the divine nature and a changeable nature?" Well, it is a contradiction in terms. Ousia/Physis is never changeable, it/they are always consistent. (nb: "physis" is regularly rendered "nature" in English, whilst "ousia" is usually rendered "essence")
              Last edited by apostoli; 07-02-2015, 10:00 AM.

              Comment


              • Apostoli,

                There is a problem of terminology. And an a problem of conveying of truth using the proper words.
                The fact is the only-begotten Son of God did not become the only-begotten, He always was the only-begotten. The incarnation was a change from only being in the form of God to not on!y being in the form of God.

                All temporal acts of the eternal God was on account of the only-begotten. Creation, walking in the garden, etc. A nature, if it be, allowing for this, and so the incarnation. The only-begotten remaining always being eternal God, now also being an eternal Man.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . 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 KJV

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Apostoli,

                  There is a problem of terminology. And an a problem of conveying of truth using the proper words.
                  Understanding the teaching of the early fathers, imo, has several advantages: it gives us a common language to communicate ideas and it clarifies the teaching of scripture and the orthodox churches (eg: at Heb 1:3 the Greek word "hypostasis" is used. In the text the Son is described as having the imprint of his Father's "hypostasis" - such leads us to understand what is meant by Nicea's teaching of the "homoousios" (English: consubstantial). For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios and I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the imprint of my father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  The fact is the only-begotten Son of God did not become the only-begotten, He always was the only-begotten.
                  One cannot "become" the only-begotten of anything. One either is or isn't! To be "only-begotten" there must be no natural siblings ever. Hence, we are taught that the Son was "born" of God, whereas the Parakletos (the Spirit) proceeds from the Father alone (cp. John 15:26).

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  He always was the only-begotten.
                  The begettal of the Son by the Father is said to have occurred before all ages, before time existed, before the creation of all things created (I'm sure you agree that scripture attributes the creation of all things created to the Son).

                  It is taught that the Son was caused by the Father within eternity, and by definition there is no beginning or end to eternity. So logically, even though the Son has cause (the Father being his source and cause), there is no timeline, no beginning, no end - so in loose language it is permissible to say "He always was" to contradict y the Arians and like who taught "there was when he was not" (nb John 1:1a highlights that the Son is before time = "In the beginning was the Logos". The Greek word "en" rendered in English "was" is indefinite but it is the best that can be done without resorting to a phrase. The actual meaning of "en" is "existed and continues to exist").

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  The incarnation was a change from only being in the form of God to not on!y being in the form of God.
                  I presume you are appealing to Phil 2:6-7. You need to get an understanding of "morphe" (usually translated "form". Some of the early fathers equated it with "eikon" (image). Thus we may have a pointer to Heb 1:3 (see above). Some modern commentators don't accept such an illusion (a pun on morphe in case you weren't aware. nb: morpheus was the god of dreams/illusion).

                  Working from memory: morphe indicates not simply the shape or image of a thing. Imu, the idea is that when the thing is experienced it causes us to contemplate the character of the thing. For instance: a statue of the King reminds us of his power and justice (or injustice). In Philippians, apart from reading that the Son being in the morphe of God. we also read of the Son adopting the morphe of a slave. In the last case we are drawn to contemplate the Son's servitude.

                  In anycase a change in morphe doesn't indicate any injury to the Son's personal hypostasis. The only impact was regarding peoples perception of him. Basically a change in prosopon (see previous post).

                  It is especially worth noting that A.Paul firmly stated that "... in [the Son] dwells all the fullness of the state of being God [gr: theotēs] bodily". (Col 2:9) So it is obvious Phil 2:6-7 doesn't mean what you appear to want it to mean. Col 2:9 suggests the Son retained the morphe of God when he was incarnated (albeit people didn't perceive it).

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  All temporal acts of the eternal God was on account of the only-begotten.
                  Imu, regarding the temporal world, the Father's activity was through and for the Son. Assuming I understand your words as you mean them, I'm happy to agree with your statement.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Creation, walking in the garden, etc. A nature, if it be, allowing for this, and so the incarnation. The only-begotten remaining always being eternal God, now also being an eternal Man.
                  Scripture tells us that the Son experienced a transfiguration before he ascended to heaven.
                  Last edited by apostoli; 07-04-2015, 10:04 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Oops! I made a major typo in the first part of my post #203... It should have read:

                    For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios as I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      Oops! I made a major typo in the first part of my post #203... It should have read:

                      For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios as I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).
                      I do not see this truth to be at issue. What I do see to be at issue is where, in my understanding of the word of God, an interpretation goes against the word of God. This concept "...born of the Father before all ages..." is an extra Biblical interpretation which gave rise to the error of Arius. And is at issue with me. See post #1 of this derail.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . 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 KJV

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        I do not see this truth to be at issue. What I do see to be at issue is where, in my understanding of the word of God, an interpretation goes against the word of God. This concept "...born of the Father before all ages..." is an extra Biblical interpretation which gave rise to the error of Arius. And is at issue with me. See post #1 of this derail.
                        Actually the Arians had no problem with saying the Son was "born of the Father before the ages". The Arians generally and Arius particularly were very big on declaring the Son as not a part of creation and openly declared him God from God. There is documentary evidence should you care to seek it out. Eunomius, the most extreme Arian, in his writings reasoned that God begets (gives birth) even to the rain drops. Eunomius had a particular adversion to using the terms Father and Son when discussing Christ. Arius' concern was depicting the Father and Son as having or feeding from the same material substance. Search out Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia where he outlines some of the opinions he rejects. One that comes to mind is the silly analogy of a lamp with two wicks in the one pool of oil. In the Platonic thought of the time, God and the forms (substance) existed prior to creation. This is what Arius et al rightfully ranted against.

                        The idea that the Son was born of God before the ages is a biblical necessity. John 1:1a as I've previously shown proves the Son (as the Logos) existed before creation began, and for him to have been begotten, as scripture regularly attests, it is necessary for it to be said that he was born of God (especially if he is truely the only begotten Son and moreso, if the Son possesses the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis as scripture tells us - see Heb 1:3).

                        Where I assume you are befuddled is the word "born". I imagine you conceive such in the experience of mammals. Remember, mammals are flash and blood, whilst (according to scripture) God is Spirit (=does not have materiality).

                        Drawing on the witness of Rom 1:20 "...the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...": Using this scripture as a guide, we find organisms that don't reproduce from either sexual or asexual activity. Scientifically, there are two possible processes. I favour "Mitosis" where in replication no diminution of the parent occurs and the offspring is an exact copy of the parent.

                        When you free yourself from the blinkers you (or someone else) seems to have imposed on you, and open your eyes to scripture, you'll find that Nicean teaching is heavily supported by scripture...moreso than the Arian opinions that relied on philosophical opinion to the detriment of scripture (nb: Most modern day Arian types (eg:JWs) resort to distorting scripture to find support for their opposition to the teaching of Nicea. I'm speaking from experience having, via my ex-wife, wasted years among them absorbing and discussing their viewpoint. I never resisted their ideas but I did rely on scripture as the final arbitrator and I came to the conclusion they are aberrant ).
                        Last edited by apostoli; 07-05-2015, 01:23 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                          The idea that the Son was born of God before the ages is a biblical necessity. John 1:1a as I've previously shown proves the Son (as the Logos) existed before creation began, and for him to have been begotten, as scripture regularly attests, it is necessary for it to be said that he was born of God (especially if he is truely the only begotten Son and moreso, if the Son possesses the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis as scripture tells us - see Heb 1:3).
                          You might explain how you see it as a Biblical necessity.

                          Honestly, I do not see the Son who is the Logos being begotten in scripture before creation. In His incarnate, being born human, and in the resurrection, yes, He was begotten. But He was always the Son from eternity even as He was always God [i.e. Known as the Second Person of the Trinity].
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . 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 KJV

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            You might explain how you see it as a Biblical necessity.
                            I trust you have no complaints with scripture. To be "begotten" is to be "born". The Greek uses a compound word "monogenes" which is rendered "only begotten" - monos=only, alone, without companion. "genes" has the root ginomai=to become, ie: to come into existence.

                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Honestly, I do not see the Son who is the Logos being begotten in scripture before creation.
                            Well I'm sure we agree that as Son, the only-begotten Son (as the Logos) existed before all things made that were made (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16 etc).

                            Now have a read of 1 John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". As noted above the phrase "only begotten" renders the compound Greek word "mongenes". "Genes" has the root "ginomai" which means "to come into existence". From A.John's witnesses, we determine that the Son, at the will of his Father, came into existence before anything was created, and that in time "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him".

                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            In His incarnate, being born human, and in the resurrection, yes, He was begotten. But He was always the Son from eternity even as He was always God [i.e. Known as the Second Person of the Trinity].
                            Different Greek word, not "monogenes"/"ginomai" but "gennaō". The later has a range of meanings. For instance notice the two meanings given the word in Matthew's genealogy which says "...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:16).

                            Then we have Heb 1:3 wherein the Son is described as having the exact imprint (Gr. charaktēr) of his Father's person (hypostasis). For such to be true, the Son would need to be the natural offspring of his Father.

                            Of course you could argue that the Son is 100% independent of God the Father and merely plays a role in some heavenly amusement. If so, then you must hold that he is son in name only. If so, you must hold that he is a son by adoption, and reject the scriptural witness that he really is the only begotten Son of God.

                            In an earlier post of yours I distinct picked up that you leaned to the heresy of the "Triad" (three gods who have independent existence acting in unison).

                            The Trinity doctrine which you seem to want to confess teaches us that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son and the Parakletos (the Helper/Comforter=the Holy Spirit). That is: the Son & Spirit have dependency on the Father. This is obvious in the scriptural witness that defines the teaching of the "Economic Trinity", in this the Son does whatever his Father tells him etc . Scripture is veiled to us when we wish to contemplate the "Immanent Trinity" (The inner life of the Father, Son & Spirit).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                              I trust you have no complaints with scripture. To be "begotten" is to be "born". The Greek uses a compound word "monogenes" which is rendered "only begotten" - monos=only, alone, without companion. "genes" has the root ginomai=to become, ie: to come into existence.
                              I believe the only-begotten Son was not begotten in any temporal sense to be the Son of God.
                              Well I'm sure we agree that as Son, the only-begotten Son (as the Logos) existed before all things made that were made (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16 etc).

                              Now have a read of 1 John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". As noted above the phrase "only begotten" renders the compound Greek word "mongenes". "Genes" has the root "ginomai" which means "to come into existence". From A.John's witnesses, we determine that the Son, at the will of his Father, came into existence before anything was created, and that in time "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him".
                              It was 1 John 4:9 along with other holy scriptures which settled the question of the eternal Sonship of God's Son to the Father.

                              Different Greek word, not "monogenes"/"ginomai" but "gennaō". The later has a range of meanings. For instance notice the two meanings given the word in Matthew's genealogy which says "...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:16).
                              Yes, and He was the only begotten Son from eternity before He became Mary's Son.
                              Then we have Heb 1:3 wherein the Son is described as having the exact imprint (Gr. charaktēr) of his Father's person (hypostasis). For such to be true, the Son would need to be the natural offspring of his Father.
                              Well, genuine relationship with the Father, without any temporal sense of being an offspring.

                              Of course you could argue that the Son is 100% independent of God the Father and merely plays a role in some heavenly amusement. If so, then you must hold that he is son in name only.
                              That cannot work since the Father and the Son are the one YHWH. Though they are different personages.
                              If so, you must hold that he is a son by adoption, and reject the scriptural witness that he really is the only begotten Son of God.
                              Two things here, The Son is the only begotten Son of God the Father from eternity. Second, there was an adoption after the incarnation, the bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:23, 29; Colossians 1:18). This adoption is not to be confused with the adoption heresy. Since the Son was always the only begotten Son (Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4; 1 John 4:9).
                              In an earlier post of yours I distinct picked up that you leaned to the heresy of the "Triad" (three gods who have independent existence acting in unison).
                              I think you did not understand what I wrote. Please if you would, could you please cite my quote that you understood in this way?

                              The Trinity doctrine which you seem to want to confess teaches us that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son and the Parakletos (the Helper/Comforter=the Holy Spirit). That is: the Son & Spirit have dependency on the Father. This is obvious in the scriptural witness that defines the teaching of the "Economic Trinity", in this the Son does whatever his Father tells him etc . Scripture is veiled to us when we wish to contemplate the "Immanent Trinity" (The inner life of the Father, Son & Spirit).
                              The "ontological trinity" there is no subordination, they are YHWH. Co-eternal, co-equal being God. In the "Economic Trinity" there is subornation of Persons and roles they have as the Persons they are. Now I believe this "Economic Trinity" also always existed too.
                              Last edited by 37818; 07-08-2015, 09:39 PM.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . 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 KJV

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                I believe the only-begotten Son was not begotten in any temporal sense to be the Son of God.
                                Doesn't everybody? Even the Arians believed such!

                                What I've noticed in your writings is that you have a 100% temporal (fleshy) mindset, thus you reject the teachings of Christian Orthodoxy that the Son was born/caused in eternity (a non temporal origination within timelessness (eternity, which has no beginnings or end). Such has been a constant since the time the apostles wrote the scriptures attributed to them, and which the Church has always defended (albeit to end disputes amongst the impious philosophers within the Church, a more "technical" teaching has been meticulously articulated since at least 325/381CE).

                                Note Arius says in his letter to his friend Eunomius of Nicomedia...

                                "...we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent..."
                                http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/publ..._nicomedia.htm

                                Have a read of Arius' letter to his opponent Alexander, bishop of Alexandria...
                                "...who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten..."
                                http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/publ...alexandria.htm

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Yes, and He was the only begotten Son from eternity before He became Mary's Son.
                                "from eternity" is more-or-less an idea that the Arians held to suggest that the Son was created as perfect God (but was not as the things that were created by the Son).

                                Christian Orthodoxy has it the Son was originated "within eternity" (nb: in eternity there is no beginnings or ends).

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Well, genuine relationship with the Father, without any temporal sense of being an offspring.
                                But offspring none-the-less. Else he is son by adoption, and not the only-begotten Son of the Father as scripture demands.

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                That cannot work since the Father and the Son are the one YHWH. Though they are different personages.
                                As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth.

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Two things here, The Son is the only begotten Son of God the Father from eternity.
                                Not "from eternity" but "in eternity". You are making the same misake that the Arians did, in limiting the Son to a timeframe.

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Second, there was an adoption after the incarnation, the bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:23, 29; Colossians 1:18). This adoption is not to be confused with the adoption heresy. Since the Son was always the only begotten Son (Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4; 1 John 4:9).
                                No adoption what-so-ever. What we have is an appointment. In Colossians 1:18 the Son is appointed as firstborn from the dead (others had been raised from the dead before Jesus). Have a think on Abraham's appointment of Isaac as his firstborn, even though Ishmael was the first son Abraham had produced. To be made "firstborn" was to have the right to the family fortune...

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                I think you did not understand what I wrote. Please if you would, could you please cite my quote that you understood in this way?
                                You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.

                                Trinitarianism (what Orthodox Christians teach, is three hypostases (persons) who are united by common ousia/physis. It is via the physis that each is experienced as God, and via the ousia/physis that they are held to be the one God.

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The "ontological trinity" there is no subordination
                                True. Though being Son, the Son would be required to defer to his Father's will (eg: Jesus says that he didn't volunteer for his mission but the Father sent him).

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                ...they are YHWH.
                                Well each has the same name, just as I carry the name of my father. Nothing special about that...

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Co-eternal, co-equal being God. In the "Economic Trinity" there is subornation of Persons and roles they have as the Persons they are. Now I believe this "Economic Trinity" also always existed too.
                                If so then you contradict yourself. Christian Orthodoxy simply holds that in possession (ousia) there is no subordination of the persons of the Trinity (of most importance, each has identical operation (physis) and each retains identical ousia).
                                Last edited by apostoli; 07-10-2015, 02:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Dave L, 01-08-2022, 01:43 PM
                                18 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Dave L, 01-07-2022, 09:03 AM
                                114 responses
                                596 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Dave L, 01-07-2022, 06:13 AM
                                31 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Dave L, 01-04-2022, 09:35 AM
                                80 responses
                                271 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X