Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[Leonhard]

God in the OT is presented as a single Person. All appearances of God in the OT was none other than the Son (John1:18).

There's nothing wrong with referring to God as a single person, in a much as God is an entity. However this God is equivalent The Father. Otherwise The Father and The Son are one not only in substance, but also identity. When you're referring to God the person, you're referring to the full trinity, otherwise you'll end up in contradiction.

The theologian Van Til holds that God is both a person and persons. He is a staunch trinitarian.

I'm certainly no fan of Van Till, who defends contradictions and seems to be pleased about it, but that doesn't fail to make them contradictions and therefore false. And I don't deny that he's a trinitarian, or at least tries to be, the same with you, I am saying that your view doesn't make the kind of sense you want it to make.

It doesn't help to just stomp your foot and yell "Yes God is one Person: The Father. And God is a trinity of Persons: The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost." No matter what kind of logic you use, this would necessarily imply a contradiction.

[JonathanL]

The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning.

Which is not the way it is used in the Nicene creed.

[Leonhard]

The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning. ... So to use "begotten" in the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages," would have the same meaning as "not begotten."

The ordinary term isn't what is being employed here 37818. If you're going to criticize a position, the first thing you want to do is to try to understand the other sides point of view. That's what we've tried to do with you for a while, and its starting to become clearer what you believe about the Trinity and why we believe it to be mistaken.

The Nicene Creed does not use begotten in a way that denotes a beginning, but as something that implies a particular relationship between The Son and The Father.

I mean look at the creed, it even explains what 'only-begotten and begotten' means in it.

"...
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
..."

Saying that the Son is begotten of the Father is a good short hand for saying:

• "The Son is God."
• "The Son has the same glory as the Father."
• "The Son though having been incarnate is still fully God."
• "The Son is of the same substance as the Father."

All of which is absolutely undeniable in any proper understanding of the Trinity.

I think the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages" is better as "the only begotten of the Father before all ages." It was over the use of "begotten" that the writers of that Creed needed to say "begotten and not made." To argue against "not begotten and not made" only proves that the usage is bad..

It has served the Church well for nearly two millennia. If you don't like it, then that's a subjective opinion of personal taste. That's not something I can argue against. You're free to feel that way though.

All I had asked for was Biblical support of that. That usage is extra Biblical.

You've certainly argued other things than merely asking for a part of the Bible with such a reference.

If all this is an argument about what phrase you prefer to describe it with, then you're not attacking a real position. And that wasn't clear at the time earlier in this thread, because you're kinda muddled in your writing and repetitive.

If all you were asking for was whether Christ had ever directly been described as "begotten of the Father" in the Bible, then no that doesn't occur, and that doesn't weaken the Creed or orthodox theology about the Trinity. For that matter the word 'Trinity', or even 'person', does not exist in the Bible. In fact the word person was invented originally to describe what in God was three, if not God Himself. There's no reason to restrain our theological language to what the Bible by historical accident and divine providence happens to contain. Someone of with that kind of pedantic interest might as well start to describe God as "Long of nose." as that's the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase used to show that "God is patient."

Personally I have no qualms, for many theological reasons about who Jesus is as the Son, and theological about the trinity, to say that Jesus is begotten. Unless you're dealing with cranks, who work on their own, believe their own works to be superior to anyone else's, then you'll never encounter a Christian who seriously thinks that the Son, being God, had a beginning.

[Adrift]

The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning. Very simply the statement "begotten of the Father before all ages" is NOT Biblical. This is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures in any way. Had it read, "the only-begotten of the Father before all ages" I would be fine with that, because that concept is taught.

I agree with the others that "begotten" in the Nicene Creed doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

There's an Orthodox message forum discussion on this subject, and one of the mods, the Very Reverend Professor Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg), BA, M.St., D.Phil. (Dean; Patristics and Church History) has a great post on the subject, some of which I quote below:

Source: Prof. Irenei

So we have a phrase in the Creed which twice emphasises that the Son's existence is understood as being characterised by His relation to the Father, which is described as His (a) being begotten by the Father, and (b) being only-begotten of the Father. 'To beget' and 'to give birth' are really quite synonymous in terms of language, so the difference in English translation there is not the real nuance of the Creed. It is focused on the fact of the Son's being uniquely begotten of His Father.

The revised (i.e. Constantinopolitan, final) version of the Creed makes this nuance somewhat clearer by its reordering of the terms: the scriptural μονογενῆ is provided first, maintaining the scriptural confession of the Son as 'only-begotten of the father'; and then using γεννηθέντα to describe what this means: that He was begotten by the Father 'before all ages', not in time or bound by our normal conceptions of human begetting - but uniquely in form and reality, the one unique Son.

© Copyright Original Source

Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent. Eternal in that the Son is God with the Father. "with God." "was God."

The above is a little confusing because you're using the words "eternal" and "temporal" in an unusual way. You seem to be saying that Jesus always had his two natures, which contradicts the orthodox view that Jesus added a second nature at his incarnation. You distinguish these two natures by referring to them as 1. eternal, and 2. temporal.

Now, you do realize that when someone says that Jesus ALWAYS had two natures, that in a sense, both of Jesus' natures are eternal. Right?

But I'm guessing how you're using the words "eternal" and "temporal" is to mean something like: 1. eternal is outside of time, and, as you state, with the Father. and 2. temporal is within time (but, not with the Father?).

I'm assuming a lot of this has to do with your rejection of creatio ex nihilo. Is that correct?

Just so you know, the orthodox view that Jesus added or assumed his second nature at the incarnation does not affect his immutability. Immutability only has to do with his divinity and his divine nature.

It seems to me that your view that Jesus' "temporal" nature always existing (rather than finding its origin at the incarnation) will be problematic if we want to say that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. The orthodox view is that: what you call Jesus' "eternal nature", we call Jesus' "divine nature" (which is truly/fully divine/God). And what you call Jesus' "temporal nature" we call Jesus' truly/fully "human nature". If Jesus' had a pre-human nature called a "temporal nature", then that seems to deny his being truly/fully human. You might be able to get around this by saying that humans also have a pre-human "temporal nature", but that skirts awfully close to the Mormon idea of pre-mortal existence. I don't think you want to go there, though.

[37818]

The writers of the Nicene Creed find it necessary to make the qualification "begotten, not made." I do not disagree with its intended meaning. I disagree with this unique wording as I have already argued.

[Adrift]

The writers of the Nicene Creed find it necessary to make the qualification "begotten, not made." I do not disagree with its intended meaning. I disagree with this unique wording as I have already argued.

If you don't disagree with the Creed's intended meaning, why worry about the wording? Everyone knows what the wording is supposed to mean.

[37818]

If you don't disagree with the Creed's intended meaning, why worry about the wording? Everyone knows what the wording is supposed to mean.

It is still based on an extra Biblical interpretation which lead to Arianism. The Son of God was not begotten to become the eternal Son of God. The Biblical use of the word "begotten" in regards to the Son of God was only to His resurrection. And creeds are statements of faith, and are not a valid standard to supersede the authority of the written word of God.

[One Bad Pig]

What belief?
I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.

You do not have an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, because you misapprehend the meaning of begotten as used and have a flawed understanding of time. The Incarnation does not impact the immutability of the Son's divine nature. You are, of course, free to dispute the meaning of begotten, but in doing so you are rejecting the orthodox position.

[37818]

You do not have an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, because you misapprehend the meaning of begotten as used and have a flawed understanding of time. The Incarnation does not impact the immutability of the Son's divine nature. You are, of course, free to dispute the meaning of begotten, but in doing so you are rejecting the orthodox position.

My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox. You do not understand my view. I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages." I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.

Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?

[Leonhard]

My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox. You do not understand my view. I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages."

Yes you do, you do misapprehend that word in that you keep insisting repetitively that it means that Christ came into existence at some point. That it denies the eternal and unchanging reality of his deity. That's not how the word is meant to be used. No Church Father, or any respected theologian following the Creeds formulation in the Nicene Council to mean that. In fact I'm not even sure you'd find lay Christians actively believing this.

You seem to insist on it for some reason.

Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?

Originally we weren't sure what exactly you were arguing. We now know that you merely the expression that uses 'begotten'. If you had actually denied that The Son was begotten of the Father, in the way its used int he Creed, then you'd have implicitly engaged in a heresy. You'd be believing in Jesus not as he exist. It would make you a material heretic. Since this is not he case you're not a heretic.

I don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?

[Leonhard]

I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.

Want a ladder to help you get down from the high horse.

[Adrift]

I don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?

Sounds like he doesn't believe that Jesus gained a human nature, but that his so-called "temporary nature" changed to a human one at the incarnation. I guess the idea is that it doesn't matter if Jesus' temporal or 'in-time' nature changes, because if the one in-time changes, it doesn't affect his immutability somehow. Its a complicated and unnecessarily extraneous solution to the problem of Jesus' immutability in the face of his incarnation. The orthodox view that Jesus simply assumed a second nature at the incarnation is a lot simpler, and logical, and doesn't at all affect his divine immutability.

[37818]

Yes you do, you do misapprehend that word in that you keep insisting repetitively that it means that Christ came into existence at some point. That it denies the eternal and unchanging reality of his deity. That's not how the word is meant to be used. No Church Father, or any respected theologian following the Creeds formulation in the Nicene Council to mean that. In fact I'm not even sure you'd find lay Christians actively believing this.

You are wrong. The word can have that meaning as testified by the needed qualification in the creed, "begotten, not made." My objection is to this unique usage, a usage of it not found in the holy scripture. And that creeds are not final authority in matters of faith or practice.

You seem to insist on it for some reason.

My view point is baptist, that the holy scripture, not statements [creeds] of faith, is the final authority of faith and practice.

Originally we weren't sure what exactly you were arguing. We now know that you merely the expression that uses 'begotten'. If you had actually denied that The Son was begotten of the Father, in the way its used int he Creed, then you'd have implicitly engaged in a heresy. You'd be believing in Jesus not as he exist. It would make you a material heretic. Since this is not he case you're not a heretic.

No. That creed in is not the word of God. To use it like the word of God is a damnable heresy. No one has gotten eternal life from it.

[JonathanL]

You are wrong. The word can have that meaning as testified by the needed qualification in the creed, "begotten, not made."

That's not a qualification of the word begotten. The creed is saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made.

It is not saying "the Son is begotten, but by begotten we don't mean in a sense that he is created" rather, it is saying something closer to "the Son is begotten, as opposed to being made/created".

[DesertBerean]

Phil 2:6 - 8?