Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DesertBerean]

Phil 2:6 - 8?

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?