Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[One Bad Pig]

The Greek for only-begotten does not mean in Greek to be "begotton." It can and often is used of persons who were, but it, the Greek word translated sometimes as "only-begotten" does not contain the Greek which means "begotten."

Yes, but when used in the context of "son" the meanings are synonymous - which is why, e.g., the KJV so translates it.

[37818]

Yes, but when used in the context of "son" the meanings are synonymous - which is why, e.g., the KJV so translates it.

Are you a KJV-Onlyist? I use the KJV as my primary Word of God translation. It has always been my understanding only-begotten regarding the Son of God did not mean He was begotten to be eternally the Son of God. As God, the Son of God is the LORD God even as His Father is the LORD God. They are the one same God co-equal co-eternal. There was never in eternity before all ages any begetting of the Son of God by God His Father. They are two of the three Persons who are that One LORD God (Isaiah 43:10-11).

[Bisto]

...There was never in eternity before all ages any begetting of the Son of God by God His Father. They are two of the three Persons who are that One LORD God (Isaiah 43:10-11).

Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?

[One Bad Pig]

Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been not begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?

Paul (the guy you're responding to) has a rather idiosyncratic view of the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to the Incarnation, which is (in large part) why he has the "non-traditional Christian" tag.

[One Bad Pig]

Are you a KJV-Onlyist?

No. On the other hand, I am not anti-KJV either. It is (usually) a valid translation.

I use the KJV as my primary Word of God translation.

That's why, in particular, I mentioned it.

[Bisto]

Paul (the guy you're responding to) has a rather idiosyncratic view of the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to the Incarnation, which is (in large part) why he has the "non-traditional Christian" tag.

That's what I've read, but I'd like to know where exactly the difference he holds is. From the posts I'm seeing here (though I didn't read the whole thread), I thought he might have an issue with something that isn't the usual deal ("talking past each other", I think this is called).

[37818]

Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?

That's what I've read, but I'd like to know where exactly the difference he holds is. From the posts I'm seeing here (though I didn't read the whole thread), I thought he might have an issue with something that isn't the usual deal ("talking past each other", I think this is called).

The terminology of "begotten of the Father before all ages" is problematic. I agree that the Son of God is "only-begotten of the Father before all ages." He did not become the only-begotten Son. He always was the only begotten Son.

The Greek translated "begotten" is never used in regard to the Son of God's preexistence. The Greek translated "only-begotten" means literally to "uniquely exist." The translation of that Greek into Latin as "only-begotten" caused the problem. And then that false notion that the Son of God was [eternally] begotten in some way gave rise to Ariius' notion that the "only-begotten" was created. So the Nicene Creed created to counter Arius' error need to add "begotten not made" since the phrase "begotten of the Father before all ages" was what is understood Arius believed.

What is wrong is making it an essential dogma of the Only Begotten as being "begotten of the Father before all ages." When effectively as understood is no different than saying the Only-Begotten was NOT begotten not made.

That use of the term of begotten to refer to the Only-Begotten's preexistence is not according to the Word of God. It is that simple.

[Bisto]

The terminology of "begotten of the Father before all ages" is problematic. I agree that the Son of God is "only-begotten of the Father before all ages." He did not become the only-begotten Son. He always was the only begotten Son.

The Greek translated "begotten" is never used in regard to the Son of God's preexistence. The Greek translated "only-begotten" means literally to "uniquely exist." The translation of that Greek into Latin as "only-begotten" caused the problem. And then that false notion that the Son of God was [eternally] begotten in some way gave rise to Ariius' notion that the "only-begotten" was created. So the Nicene Creed created to counter Arius' error need to add "begotten not made" since the phrase "begotten of the Father before all ages" was what is understood Arius believed.

What is wrong is making it an essential dogma of the Only Begotten as being "begotten of the Father before all ages." When effectively as understood is no different than saying the Only-Begotten was NOT begotten not made.

That use of the term of begotten to refer to the Only-Begotten's preexistence is not according to the Word of God. It is that simple.

When reading "begotten of the Father before the ages", does Orthodoxy understand there was a previous "time"(?) when the Son was not begotten yet, as you seem to imply it does?

To my understanding, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

I mean, if the Son is God's Word, Wisdom, etc. then it isn't contrived to imagine, at least by analogy, that his begetting is in a way similar to how I beget my own speech and thought by speaking and thinking, i.e. by being myself. For as long as I have been and until I am no more (til I sleep), my speech is thus begotten from me. The Father has always been, so it follows the One who is His radiance and wisdom "flows forth" from Him from eternity to eternity. If "begotten" attempts to describe that, why is it wrong?

[37818]

When reading "begotten of the Father before the ages", does Orthodoxy understand there was a previous "time"(?) when the Son was not begotten yet, as you seem to imply it does?

No. There was no time "before" all ages. The ages being the beginning of time and eternity. The only-begotten Son was always the only-begotten Son. At issue is the concept of being "eternally" begotten in some way. The term "begotten" has the baggage of having a beginning. The concept of "eternally" begotten has no beginning. As far as I am concerned that is no different than saying not begotten - meaning no beginning.

To my understanding, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

If you mean no "time" before to be a before. I agree.

I mean, if the Son is God's Word, Wisdom, etc.

You can believe and understand it that way if you want. The Son of God is the Word, yes. He the Son of God is the LORD God even as the Father is the LORD God. ". . . The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22. The LORD being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And that "me" being the spirit of wisdom in the Proverb. Wherein ". . . Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.

then it isn't contrived to imagine, at least by analogy, that his begetting is in a way similar to how I beget my own speech and thought by speaking and thinking, i.e. by being myself. For as long as I have been and until I am no more (til I sleep), my speech is thus begotten from me. The Father has always been, so it follows the One who is His radiance and wisdom "flows forth" from Him from eternity to eternity. If "begotten" attempts to describe that, why is it wrong?

That is fine. But you will not find that usage of "begotten" in the Word of God. But it was that usage which lead to the error of Arius to claim the Word was a creation. Which is of course a false view.

[Bisto]

No. There was no time "before" all ages. The ages being the beginning of time and eternity. The only-begotten Son was always the only-begotten Son. At issue is the concept of being "eternally" begotten in some way. The term "begotten" has the baggage of having a beginning. The concept of "eternally" begotten has no beginning. As far as I am concerned that is no different than saying not begotten - meaning no beginning.


If you mean no "time" before to be a before. I agree.

You can believe and understand it that way if you want. The Son of God is the Word, yes. He the Son of God is the LORD God even as the Father is the LORD God. ". . . The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22. The LORD being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And that "me" being the spirit of wisdom in the Proverb. Wherein ". . . Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.

That is fine. But you will not find that usage of "begotten" in the Word of God. But it was that usage which lead to the error of Arius to claim the Word was a creation. Which is of course a false view.

So the issue is whether "the Son had a beginning"? To my understanding it is correct to say the Father is the "beginning" of Christ as in being His source (that is the meaning of "God is the head of Christ" in 1 Cor. 11:3, right?), but that doesn't mean to say there was a point, chronological or otherwise, when the Son did not exist. Rather, we should be thinking in ontological terms, shouldn't we? As in, ontologically, the Son finds his beginning in the Father (always had, always does, always will)?

By the way, I haven't really looked it up, but I would think the "begotten before everything" bit might come from Prov. 8:24-25.

[37818]

So the issue is whether "the Son had a beginning"?

Dr Walter Martin held the view that the second person of the Godhead has no beginning. But as the Son has a beginning.

Source: Kingdom of the Cults" from Chapter 5, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . by Dr Walter Martin

By insisting upon the unambiguous title of the pre-existent Christ, orthodox Christianity can successfully
undercut the emphasis Jehovah’s Witnesses place upon "monogenes," showing in contrast that "only
begotten" is a term best exemplified by His incarnational example; and further, that Jesus Christ is not
called by Scripture the "eternal Son," the error of ambiguity first arising from Origen under the title
"eternal generation," but rather He is the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), Creator of the Universe (2
Peter 3:5), Sustainer of all things (2 Peter 3:7), First Begotten from the dead (Acts 13:33), and our "Great
High Priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God … who can be touched with the
feelings of our infirmities and who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews
4:15). Let us fix these things in our minds, then:

(a) the doctrine of "eternal generation" or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman
Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in ad. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to
misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the
realms of Christology.

(b) Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar
applied to Him in His incarnation.

(c) The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father," and has meaning only by analogy to
the fathers and sons we see in the created world. The term "Father," incidentally, never carries the
descriptive adjective "eternal" in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal 61 ("The
eternal Spirit"—Hebrews 9:14), emphasising the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional,
as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal
generation" misunderstandings of the theory as it is accepted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, if by eternal Sonship is meant that the
second person of the Trinity is both created and eternal in the same way and the same manner. This would
be a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word "Son" in such a sense predicates
time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless—the Word
was in the beginning, not the Son!

The Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is now and for all eternity Son of God and Son of Man;
therefore, in this sense there is no contradiction in calling him the eternal Son. But to be biblical in the
true sense of the term we must be willing to admit that He was known prior to His incarnation as the
eternal Word, and knowledge of this fact cuts across the very basic groundwork and foundation of the
Arian system of theology espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses. For if "only begotten" means "unique" or
"only one of its kind," there cannot be any ground for rendering it "only generated" as Jehovah’s Witnesses often attempt to do in a vain attempt to rob Christ of His deity.

© Copyright Original Source

To my understanding it is correct to say the Father is the "beginning" of Christ as in being His source (that is the meaning of "God is the head of Christ" in 1 Cor. 11:3, right?), but that doesn't mean to say there was a point, chronological or otherwise, when the Son did not exist. Rather, we should be thinking in ontological terms, shouldn't we? As in, ontologically, the Son finds his beginning in the Father (always had, always does, always will)?

That the Son proceeds from the Father is not at issue. That the Son of God always was the Son is at issue.

By the way, I haven't really looked it up, but I would think the "begotten before everything" bit might come from Prov. 8:24-25.

Yeah. I do not agree, since it is my understanding the passage refers to the [in the Hebrew the female] spirit of wisdom, not the LORD God whom the Son of God also is (Proverbs 8:22; John 8:24).

[One Bad Pig]

Dr Walter Martin held the view that the second person of the Godhead has no beginning. But as the Son has a beginning.

Source: Kingdom of the Cults" from Chapter 5, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . by Dr Walter Martin

By insisting upon the unambiguous title of the pre-existent Christ, orthodox Christianity can successfully
undercut the emphasis Jehovah’s Witnesses place upon "monogenes," showing in contrast that "only
begotten" is a term best exemplified by His incarnational example; and further, that Jesus Christ is not
called by Scripture the "eternal Son," the error of ambiguity first arising from Origen under the title
"eternal generation," but rather He is the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), Creator of the Universe (2
Peter 3:5), Sustainer of all things (2 Peter 3:7), First Begotten from the dead (Acts 13:33), and our "Great
High Priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God … who can be touched with the
feelings of our infirmities and who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews
4:15). Let us fix these things in our minds, then:

(a) the doctrine of "eternal generation" or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman
Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in ad. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to
misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the
realms of Christology.

(b) Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar
applied to Him in His incarnation.

(c) The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father," and has meaning only by analogy to
the fathers and sons we see in the created world. The term "Father," incidentally, never carries the
descriptive adjective "eternal" in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal 61 ("The
eternal Spirit"—Hebrews 9:14), emphasising the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional,
as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal
generation" misunderstandings of the theory as it is accepted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, if by eternal Sonship is meant that the
second person of the Trinity is both created and eternal in the same way and the same manner. This would
be a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word "Son" in such a sense predicates
time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless—the Word
was in the beginning, not the Son!

The Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is now and for all eternity Son of God and Son of Man;
therefore, in this sense there is no contradiction in calling him the eternal Son. But to be biblical in the
true sense of the term we must be willing to admit that He was known prior to His incarnation as the
eternal Word, and knowledge of this fact cuts across the very basic groundwork and foundation of the
Arian system of theology espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses. For if "only begotten" means "unique" or
"only one of its kind," there cannot be any ground for rendering it "only generated" as Jehovah’s Witnesses often attempt to do in a vain attempt to rob Christ of His deity.

© Copyright Original Source

That the Son proceeds from the Father is not at issue. That the Son of God always was the Son is at issue.

Yeah. I do not agree, since it is my understanding the passage refers to the [in the Hebrew the female] spirit of wisdom, not the LORD God whom the Son of God also is (Proverbs 8:22; John 8:24).

In my version of Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults, the chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses is Chapter 4, not 5, and is 89 pages long, to boot. Please give a more accurate, and pinpoint, citation. Thanks. I have no interest in reading nearly 100 pages in order to verify it.

[37818]

In my version of Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults, the chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses is Chapter 4, not 5, and is 89 pages long, to boot. Please give a more accurate, and pinpoint, citation. Thanks. I have no interest in reading nearly 100 pages in order to verify it.

I have 3 editions 1965, 1997 and a current edition [not handy so I used the PDF]. The CD that came with the 1997 edition was busted. I found this copy of it here.

The page in this PDF edition was 325.

I came to disagree on Dr Martin's view regarding "eternal Sonship" by reason of John 1:14 and 1 John 4:9 the implication being that the Only-Begotten preexisted as such. (Also Isaiah 9:6 in conjunction with John 1:18 and John 14:6, 9. The Son not being the Father but fully representing Him.)

[Bisto]

But isn't the love relationship between the Father and the Son best described as such filial relationship? I think the Word, Wisdom, etc. are used more to describe God's relationship with the created order, while Jesus used the filial language firstly to describe his relationship with the Father and secondarily to share that quality of relationship with God's covenant people.

Like someone said in the thread on the importance of the Trinity doctrine to understand and know God, I think this has to do with the fact that God is love -- and he was love before creating anything, and this eternal love has always been the love between Father and Son. Otherwise, wouldn't that be a fundamental change in God's nature, if he didn't love as a Father "before the ages"?


By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?

[Bisto]

But isn't the love relationship between the Father and the Son best described as such filial relationship? I think the Word, Wisdom, etc. are used more to describe God's relationship with the created order, while Jesus used the filial language firstly to describe his relationship with the Father and secondarily to share that quality of relationship with God's covenant people.

Like someone said in the thread on the importance of the Trinity doctrine to understand and know God, I think this has to do with the fact that God is love -- and he was love before creating anything, and this eternal love has always been the love between Father and Son. Otherwise, wouldn't that be a fundamental change in God's nature, if he didn't love as a Father "before the ages"?

Edit: here's the quote.

Well if God is not triune, then love is a created thing & not a characteristic of God. In eternity past the Father, Son, Holy Spirit always loved each other. Love is a characteristic of God, like everything else that is good.

This must be the case if God is love, because God does not change.
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8

And again, if God is not triune. He existed in a state where he did not love & changed when he created things.

By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?