Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[One Bad Pig]

My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox.

Everyone thinks their view is biblical. The Arians argued from scripture too. Does that make them orthodox?

You do not understand my view.

You're right, your view is incomprehensible to me.

I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ.

The question is, what do you mean by "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.

Correction: you deny what, in your opinion, contradicts the word of God. You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of 'contradicts' which you seem to think sometimes means "does not appear explicitly in."

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

Let's not open that can of worms here. I don't worry about who's saved; I let God handle that.

[37818]

I don't recall Martin saying that. I'll have to look it up and get back to you.

Source: Kingdom of the Cults - Dr Walter Martin

(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!

© Copyright Original Source

Page numbers may vary with edition of the book. So I did not include page number. But it is from chapter 5 on Jehovah's Witnesses.

[37818]

Everyone thinks their view is biblical. The Arians argued from scripture too. Does that make them orthodox?

But not all issues are essential to salvation.

You're right, your view is incomprehensible to me.

The how can you be sure my view is heresy?

The question is, what do you mean by "the eternal Sonship of Christ"?

That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.

Correction: you deny what, in your opinion, contradicts the word of God. You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of 'contradicts' which you seem to think sometimes means "does not appear explicitly in."

It can be so. But that is not always the case.

Let's not open that can of worms here. I don't worry about who's saved; I let God handle that.

Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

[JonathanL]

Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

Could you please clarify? Are you saying that people who say the Son is begotten of the Father believes in the "concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son"?

[Leonhard]

I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation.

Yeah, but none of us believe that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son.

[37818]

Could you please clarify? Are you saying that people who say the Son is begotten of the Father believes in the "concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son"?

Dr Walter Martin. He held that view. Studying this question I personally came to the conclusion Dr Martin is mistaken, and I came to the understanding that eternal Sonship is true. John MacAuthur held that view then change his view to believing in eternal Sonship, thinking now Ps 2:7 "this day" means in eternity past.

[37818]

Phil 2:6 - 8?

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " -- Philippians 2:5-8.

[JonathanL]

Dr Walter Martin. He held that view. Studying this question I personally came to the conclusion Dr Martin is mistaken, and I came to the understanding that eternal Sonship is true. John MacAuthur held that view then change his view to believing in eternal Sonship, thinking now Ps 2:7 "this day" means in eternity past.

Great, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.

[DesertBerean]

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " -- Philippians 2:5-8.

Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?

[One Bad Pig]

But not all issues are essential to salvation.

Agreed.

The how can you be sure my view is heresy?

I can't be. However, when you state

I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures.

implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.

That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.

Ok.

It can be so. But that is not always the case.

Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?

Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

Ok.

[37818]

I can't be. However, when you state implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.

Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?

The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.

[One Bad Pig]

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures.

Which is wrong.

Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed.

Yes.

In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation.

No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.

He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause.

Yes.

Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures.

This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?

Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed.

Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.

That He "was God" never changed.

True.

The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.

No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.

[37818]

Great, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.

The Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.

[37818]

Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?

Is eternal the same nature as temporal? Uncaused is eternal in nature. All causes are temporal. The uncaused cause has two natures. But is One being. (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17, this is the Uncaused Cause.)

[37818]

Which is wrong.

Adding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.

No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.

All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.

This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?

The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.

Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.

I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?

No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.

Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.