Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[JonathanL]

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.

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

All causes are temporal.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

[JonathanL]

Also, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, several things would seem to follow. One, it becomes inexplicable how it is that the Son and the Father share the same essence, since if the Son is the source of His own essence (instead of the Father communicating this essence to Him eternally and timelessly) it would seem to follow that there are two sources of divinity (three if you also deny the procession of the Holy Spirit) which would seem to give us not three persons in one being, but three persons in three beings.

Two, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, it is not clear to me how the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship can be affirmed. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (That is, the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father) explains how the Son can be equal with the Father, because the Son shares in the Fathers being and divinity, but it also explains why He is the Son, rather than being the Father, on account of Him being begotten, rather than begetting.

[37818]

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

[JonathanL]

Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.

Then you do not understand what the Nicene creed means when it affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.

That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

And your understanding of causation is confused. A cause and effect relationship in no way or form necessitates change. For example, me being created in the image of God is the cause of me being a rational being and having free will, and this cause and effect relationship is not one that is characterised by change.

[37818]

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

[JonathanL]

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.

The Son of God is not a begotten God if by begotten we mean that the Son has a beginning. But that is not what we mean.

The teaching that the Son is begotten by the Father means that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father. Do you deny that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father, or do you hold that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Son Himself?

A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

You are confused because you think that being caused necessary implies change, which it does not. There is nothing to understand, because your identification of timeless causation with never being caused at all is confused. A more proper way to explain it would be that a timeless causation is an example of causation where the cause and effect exists simultaneously with no temporal change between the cause and effect.

[One Bad Pig]

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

It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.

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

This doesn't even come close to addressing my point.

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

Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?

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?

You keep saying that, but you never argue from this position when you discuss the two natures of the Son.

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

What are you trying to do, give me so much work that I'll give up and go away? I refuted YOUR assertion from context.

[One Bad Pig]

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT.

Then what is the Father?

[37818]

Then what is the Father?

Yehwah.

[37818]

The Son of God is not a begotten God if by begotten we mean that the Son has a beginning. But that is not what we mean.

OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.

The teaching that the Son is begotten by the Father means that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father. Do you deny that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father, or do you hold that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Son Himself?

The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.

You are confused because you think that being caused necessary implies change, which it does not. There is nothing to understand, because your identification of timeless causation with never being caused at all is confused. A more proper way to explain it would be that a timeless causation is an example of causation where the cause and effect exists simultaneously with no temporal change between the cause and effect.

We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

[37818]

It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.

My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.

This doesn't even come close to addressing my point.

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.

How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?

No, I did not I did not dodge your,

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

My answer being that the Son was also other than God. My meaning being, no, the Father does not have two natures. That the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3.

[Adrift]

My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.



How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

The whole point of the orthodox view (that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation) is that his divine nature DID NOT CHANGE. In other words, by taking on a second nature, a fully human nature, the divine nature was left untouched. Jesus' divine nature retained its immutable characteristic.

Your unique view that Jesus had a beginningless in-time nature running alongside his beginningless outside-time nature runs into all sorts of issues:

First of all, your view that Jesus had some sort of "temporal" nature, pre-incarnation, that CHANGED into a human nature is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It makes the simple doctrine of Jesus assuming a second nature far more complicated than it needs to be. Moreso than the official orthodox doctrine of the church, it seems that your view points to a Jesus who is mutable. By attempting to safeguard against what you fear about the orthodox doctrine, you're actually making things worse.

Second of all, this view of a pre-incarnate second nature robs Jesus of his humanity. The whole point in saying that Jesus assumed his human nature at the incarnation is that he was like us in every way. How can Jesus be like us if in fact he had a pre-existing "temporary" nature that changed into a human nature?

[JonathanL]

OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?

We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallell lines.

And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills" (NASB rendering). Given that the NT writers themselves identify the Son with God's Wisdom (Luk 11:49 and 1 Cor 1:24) making the connection between Proverbs 8:22-31 and Jesus is completely warranted. And since Wisdom is said to have been brought forth(begotten), it follows that one can use such a term to signify the relationship that the Son has with the Father in eternity.

[37818]

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?

Yes.

Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallel lines.

Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.

And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled, . . ." <snip>

No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

[JonathanL]

Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.

If something has already been defined as timeless/eternal it is impossible for it to be understood in terms of created, or "made".

Yes.

Is he also the source of the Son's being/essence?

Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.
No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

I disagree. Jesus himself refers to himself as Wisdom in Luk 11:49, and Paul calls Jesus God's Wisdom in 1 Cor 1:24. I would rather side with Jesus Himself, and Paul on this issue.

Source: Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 792-801). Kindle Edition.

We can again endorse the church fathers' identification of the Son of God with divine Wisdom because the writers of the New Testament do the same thing. Contemporary critical scholars generally agree that the New Testament writers make this identification. For example, John depicts the preexistent Logos, or Son, in terms of the Jewish understanding of personified divine Wisdom. Like Wisdom he is from the beginning (Jn 1:1; cf. Prov 8:22-23; Sir 24:9; Wis 6:22); the agent of creation (Jn 1:2; cf. Prov 8:27-30; Sir 1:4; 24:9; 43:26); descended from heaven to dwell among people (Jn 3:17; cf. Prov 8:31; Sir 24:8; Bar 3:3; Wis 9:10); to reflect the glory of God (Jn 1:14; 2:11; cf. Wis 7:25); to be the light that comes into the world (Jn 8:12; cf. Wis 7:26); and to be born of God (Jn18:37;40 cf. Prov 8:25).41 Paul also identifies the Son with divine Wisdom.42 In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, Paul explicitly calls Christ "the Wisdom of God," and in Colossians 1:15-20 he designates Christ as "the image of God," "the firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15 TNIV), the agent of creation (Col 1:16), "the beginning" (Col 1:18) and the "fullness of God" (Col 1:19), all attributes or activities predicated of divine Wisdom. In Hebrews 1:1-3, the author of the epistle similarly speaks of the Son in terms of divine Wisdom to develop a christological argument reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX).43 Here the Son is again depicted as the agent of creation (Heb 1:2) and the "reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:3; cf. Wis 7:26).

© Copyright Original Source

So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.