Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[Spartacus]

Filioque!

[One Bad Pig]

. . . 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).

[JonathanL]

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.

[JonathanL]

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.

[JonathanL]

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.

[JonathanL]

. . . 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.

[Thoughtful Monk]

. . . 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.

[37818]

. . . 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.