Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

37818: Unbegotten vs Begotten

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 37818: Unbegotten vs Begotten

    Hello 37818,

    Here is another bit of a response to your post #222 on the "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" thread...

    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Originally posted by apostoli
    The Nicene & Nicene-Constantinopole creed/s demand we swear that "I believe in one God, the Father..."

    The Father as the only true God is the starting point in the understanding of the teaching of the Trinity. In reciting the Nicene creed Catholics declare that we also 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".
    I do not dissagree that "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, not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." I do disagree with what I omitted [the bit in red] and noted [the bit underlined]. Since true God is not begotten. If you want to deal with that, please do. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son. Since He was not begotten to become the Son. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.
    I'll assume you reject the Nicene and A.Paul's admission that "[We] believe in one God = the Father...". Imu of your posts, you hold that the one God consists of the Father, Son & Spirit. Imu of your posts, you alternate between the teachings of Sabellianism and Tritheism, and you constantly put yourself in opposition to the Trinitarianism of Nicea taught by Catholics, the Orthodox, the Reformed churches and most Protestant churches. See below...

    I'll respond to your "ideas" and your self contradictions one at a time...

    1. Since true God is not begotten

    Have a read of what you wrote: first you advocate that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages" and then you contradict yourself demanding he was "not begotten...The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.". Make up your mind! Which is it?

    2. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son.

    I've covered this silliness in previous posts. No one has ever advocated that the Son was begotten to become Son! So that stupidity of yours is buried. As I stated in previous posts: to be a son or daughter is an inescapable consequence of being begotten.

    By your insistence that the Son was "not begotten" you are either denying his real existence (a Sabellian position) or making him a son by adoption (a Tritheist idea if he was unbegotten; an Arian idea if he was the only direct creation of God the Father).

    You really do need to think on the consequences of your opinions. Where do they lead? Is that really what "I" mean? That way you'll avoid the "Oops factor"...

    3. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.

    Scripture instructs us otherwise (eg: 1 John 4:8; 1:1-3; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16 etc), as anybody that reads scripture can readily discern (then again Jesus citing Isaiah says that there are people who have eyes [that can see] and ears (that can hear] but are blind and deaf to what is in front of them (cp. Mt 13:14-15; Isa 6:10; 32:3 cp. Jer 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2)).

    As I think on your constant intransigence, I am reminded of how dim witted the disciples could be even though they had Jesus right in front of them. So, I realise I must attempt to be as patient with you as Jesus was of them...

    Mark 8:15-21 "Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up? They said to Him, Twelve. Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said, Seven. So He said to them, How is it you do not understand?"

    4. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius

    The idea that to be "unbegotten" is integral to God's "ousia" was the Arian starting point! I assume you aren't aware of it, but from your arguments over the years, it is evident to me, that you have more in common with the philosophies of Arius et al than you have with Trinitarianism. I hope that observation hasn't upset your sensibilities too much, but have a read of my favourite extreme Arian and you'll see what I mean - Eunomius' first apology.

    The Cappadocian fathers (Basil & the Gregories) were orthodoxy's chief defenders in Eunomius' time. I'll verbal their argument into modern parlance: Eunomius argued that to be "unbegotten" is essential to the essence (ousia) of the idea "God". Basil argued: an individual's begottenness (or lack thereof) is a private attribute of the person (hypostasis), thus it has no effect on the essence (ousia) of the species to which the individual belongs (whether the species be the idea "Human" or the idea "God").

    I came across an article recently that highlighted the fact that Basil's observation was critical to protecting the Church against "Tritheism" and emphasised the distinction between the persons (hypostases) of the Father and the Son thus protecting the teachings of Trinitarianism..

    _________________

    Your commentary over the years tends to be slanted towards Tritheism, especially when you reject the Churches 100% scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages. If you choose to reject scripture's testimony that the Son was the only begotten of the Father, before the ages and before he was sent to us to be the Saviour of the world, before his incarnation or baptism or resurrection (1 John 4:8; 1:1-3; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16), then please, either cease to pretend you allow scripture to guide your opinion, or start using scripture instead of your personal opinion to demonstrate your theories (ie: support your theories by pointing to whatever scripture you think supports them).

    In an earlier post of yours I thought we had finally made some headway. I understood you as saying that as long as the words "begotten", "born" & "offspring" had no connection with temporal functions you could accept the terms as used in the Nicene creed/s and in theology. Did I misunderstand you?
    Last edited by apostoli; 07-23-2015, 01:27 AM.

  • #2
    Have a read of what you wrote: first you advocate that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages" and then you contradict yourself demanding he was "not begotten...The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.". Make up your mind! Which is it?
    Your contradiction, not my contradiction, is why you are mistaken.

    You refuse to understand. Either the Son of God is God with the Father, or he is not. God is not begotten. Either there is only One God or you have two. God and a begotten God. Being begotten and not being begotten is two different natures.

    Of all our human parents, only Adam and Eve were not begotten, but they were made. The Son of God was never begotten nor made. Yet He is the Son even as His God the Father is Father. The Father did not need to Father the Son in order for Him to be the Father.

    Your commentary over the years tends to be slanted towards Tritheism, especially when you reject the Churches 100% scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages.
    Two things here: My view is not in any way close to the error of trithism. And there is no holy scripture upon which the false doctrine of a begotten God is based, except error. Quote the scripture! When I asked for it I'm falsely accused.
    Last edited by 37818; 07-26-2015, 03:38 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      You refuse to understand.
      You are such an amusement you should join a circus.

      There is not a single Trinitarian Christian who holds that the Son of God is unbegotten! Why do they reject such an opinion? Two reasons: the first is what scripture states & indicates. Can you guess the second?

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Either the Son of God is God with the Father, or he is not.
      Sure he is. That is why we call him the Son of God and that is why we have the Trinitarian teaching on the homoousios (consubstantiality) - see Hebrews 1:3.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      God is not begotten.
      Well! Concerning the Father, Trinitarians would agree with you. Trinitarian teaching holds that only the Father is autotheos (God of himself).

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Either there is only One God or you have two.
      You have three! Thats Tritheism, three unbegotten Gods each of whom are autotheos.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      You have two Gods an unbegotten God and a begotten God. Being begotten and not being begotten is two different natures.
      Nope! Two distinct hypostases (persons) definitely. In anycase, do you mean natures (physes) or essense (ousia)? Trinitarian Christians hold that the Father, Son and Spirit have identical ousia. Trinitarians hold that the Son and Spirit are homoousios with the Father - the Father being the source and cause of their ousia. Hebrews 1:3 is very emphatic on the Son being homoousios with the Father, the Son having the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Of all our human parents, only Adam and Eve were not begotten, but they were made.
      Indeed! God moulded Adam's body from pre-existing matter "(the dust of the ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7). Eve was cloned from Adam's rib (Gen 2:21-22). As you might observe neither Adam nor Eve were "made" ex-nihilo (out of nothing).

      The word translated "formed" in Gen 2:7 in the original Hebrew ("yatsar") has the connotation of a potter at work. The word translated "made" at Genesis 2:22 in the original Hebrew (banah) has the connotation of a builder at work.

      According to the book of Genesis, Adam was "formed" and Eve was "made". Does the difference in their respective origination and sequence of existence effect their humanity (their ousia)?

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The Son of God was never begotten.
      Where in scripture does it say or indicate such. Please cite the exact scripture/s.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The Son of God was [not] made.
      Scripture definitely indicates he wasn't "made", Hebrews 1:3 points in that direction as does the fact that John 1:3, Col 1:16 etc tells us he (as the Logos) created all things made. He definitely didn't create himself! Scripture also tells us that the Father sent to the world his only begotten Son, and the scriptures indicate that this Son as Son pre-existed all of creation, his birth to Mary, his baptism and his resurrection.

      NB: Some groups who reject Trinitarian teaching reject the teaching that the Son was begotten before Mary conceived and so reject the teaching that the Son as Son had pre-existence. They insist that the Son only became Son at either his birth to Mary, his baptism or his resurrection. I've mentioned this as I suspect you are a member of one of these groups, or have recently come out of one of these groups.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Yet He is the Son even as His God the Father is Father. The Father did not need to Father the Son in order for Him to be the Father.
      If they are both unbegotten why aren't they called Brothers?

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Two things here: My view is not in any way close to the error of trithism.
      If you hold the Father, Son & Spirit are three distinct concrete realities (hypostases=persons) and each is unbegotten then you have met the definition of a Tritheist.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      And there is no holy scripture upon which the false doctrine of a begotten God is based, except error. Quote the scripture!
      I and others have repetitively but you ignore the many proof texts we have provided you - so don't pretend we can't show you the scriptures that support Trinitarian teching!!!

      If mu understanding of the scriptures is in error then I am in good company because my understanding agrees with the understanding of all Trinitarian Christians (RCC,EOC/ROC/OOC, Anglican,Lutheran,Reformed, the independent protestant churches etc etc.

      Unfortunately, there isn't a single scripture nor Trinitarian Christian that offers your opinion any support.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      When I asked for it I'm falsely accused.
      Over the years numerous people here at TheologyWeb have shown you the proof text and even explained them to you (including me) but you choose to ignore the plain truth of scripture (especially Hebrews 1:3), and instead block your ears and cover your eyes to the obvious.

      Your mindless posts is why people accuse you of sprouting Tritheism or Modalism. You appear to have no idea what you believe because your posts alternate between these two heresies. One thing we definitely know, you reject Trinitarian teaching!!!
      Last edited by apostoli; 07-27-2015, 01:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        There is not a single Trinitarian Christian who holds that the Son of God is unbegotten! Why do they reject such an opinion? Two reasons: the first is what scripture states & indicates. Can you guess the second?
        Not to answer the question: First take notice, no holy scripture teaches the only-begotten Son of God has an origin being begotten. Second take notice, Christians who accept the concept of the only-begotten Son being born of the Father before time also do not believe that means the Son of God has a beginning.

        Effectively "begotten of the Father before time" = "not begotten."

        Sure he is. That is why we call him the Son of God and that is why we have the Trinitarian teaching on the homoousios (consubstantiality) - see Hebrews 1:3.
        And there should be no doubt about this. I believe this!

        Well! Concerning the Father, Trinitarians would agree with you. Trinitarian teaching holds that only the Father is autotheos (God of himself).
        Only Yahweh is autotheos. And the Son and the Holy Spirit are also Yahweh.

        You have three! Thats Tritheism, three unbegotten Gods each of whom are autotheos.
        No. I make no such profession. I believe in three Persons who are the One God. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one Yahweh, who is the One God. It has been said that the Trintitarians who say, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" promote tritheism. http://www.compellingtruth.org/trinity-tritheism.html

        Nope! Two distinct hypostases (persons) definitely. In anycase, do you mean natures (physes) or essence (ousia)?
        You tell me. Being begotten versus being not begotten. This difference is best described by what word, what word characterizes this difference of being caused versus being uncaused?


        Trinitarian Christians hold that the Father, Son and Spirit have identical ousia.
        I agree.
        Trinitarians hold that the Son and Spirit are homoousios with the Father
        I agree.

        - the Father being the source and cause of their ousia.
        I agree that the Father is the source. I disagree that their common ousia is caused. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the uncaused Yahweh.
        Hebrews 1:3 is very emphatic on the Son being homoousios with the Father, the Son having the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis.
        This is true. And I have never denied this.

        Indeed! God moulded Adam's body from pre-existing matter "(the dust of the ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7). Eve was cloned from Adam's rib (Gen 2:21-22). As you might observe neither Adam nor Eve were "made" ex-nihilo (out of nothing).

        The word translated "formed" in Gen 2:7 in the original Hebrew ("yatsar") has the connotation of a potter at work. The word translated "made" at Genesis 2:22 in the original Hebrew (banah) has the connotation of a builder at work.

        According to the book of Genesis, Adam was "formed" and Eve was "made". Does the difference in their respective origination and sequence of existence effect their humanity (their ousia)?
        No. By reason they are all created beings. They are all caused beings.

        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        The Son of God was never begotten.
        Where in scripture does it say or indicate such. Please cite the exact scripture/s.
        First you misquote me:
        The Son of God was never begotten nor made.
        Secondly, the holy scripture does teach the Son of God was begotten in regard to His bodily resurrection.
        ". . . he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. " -- Acts 13:33. Note: He was already the Son before being "begotten."
        I believe in the eternal Sonship of the only begotten Son of God. And that He is the cause of all things (John 1:3).

        Scripture definitely indicates he wasn't "made", Hebrews 1:3 points in that direction as does the fact that John 1:3, Col 1:16 etc tells us he (as the Logos) created all things made. He definitely didn't create himself! Scripture also tells us that the Father sent to the world his only begotten Son, and the scriptures indicate that this Son as Son pre-existed all of creation, his birth to Mary, his baptism and his resurrection.
        True. And not at issue here.

        NB: Some groups who reject Trinitarian teaching reject the teaching that the Son was begotten before Mary conceived and so reject the teaching that the Son as Son had pre-existence. They insist that the Son only became Son at either his birth to Mary, his baptism or his resurrection. I've mentioned this as I suspect you are a member of one of these groups, or have recently come out of one of these groups.
        Fundamentlist baptist. The Scofield Reference Bible [1917 edition] was my first study Bible. I was lead to Christ in 1962 through the ministry of Faith Baptist Church of Canoga Park, California.


        If they are both unbegotten why aren't they called Brothers?
        Because they are eternally Father and Son, they being Yahweh (John 1:18; John 14:6). The Son of God always being man's sole access to God.
        If you hold the Father, Son & Spirit are three distinct concrete realities (hypostases=persons) and each is unbegotten then you have met the definition of a Tritheist.
        No. They are the one Yahwah. Three Persons who are the One God. God is not begotten and not made. What is caused is not God. So if we are to argue the Son is begotten not made, we must mean begotten (not caused) and not made. So begotten of the Father before time = not begotten. It has to mean the same thing else you have the error of Arius.

        I and others have repetitively but you ignore the many proof texts we have provided you -
        There was no such proof texts provided.
        . . . so don't pretend we can't show you the scriptures that support Trinitarian teaching!!!
        I have never denied the Trinity explanation of the Godhead.

        If mu understanding of the scriptures is in error then I am in good company because my understanding agrees with the understanding of all Trinitarian Christians (RCC,EOC/ROC/OOC, Anglican,Lutheran,Reformed, the independent protestant churches etc etc.
        OK.

        Unfortunately, there isn't a single scripture nor Trinitarian Christian that offers your opinion any support.
        That is your view. My view is base on John 1:1,2,3, 10, 14, 18; 1 John 4:9 etc. I believe in the eternal Sonship of the only-begotten Son of God. I believe, as I have explained, and you reject, that Yahweh is the only God, and that the three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One God.
        Over the years numerous people here at TheologyWeb have shown you the proof text and even explained them to you (including me) but you choose to ignore the plain truth of scripture (especially Hebrews 1:3), and instead block your ears and cover your eyes to the obvious.
        Proof texts of what? What I never denied.
        Your mindless posts is why people accuse you of sprouting Tritheism or Modalism. You appear to have no idea what you believe because your posts alternate between these two heresies. One thing we definitely know, you reject Trinitarian teaching!!!
        You are accusing me of Tritheism or Modalism. Who else? I never made any such professions. I have only professed believing the Trinitarian explanation of the Godhead is the only correct Biblical one.
        Last edited by 37818; 07-27-2015, 11:01 PM.
        . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          You are accusing me of Tritheism or Modalism.
          I didn't accuse you, I was quite emphatic "Your mindless posts is why people accuse you of sprouting Tritheism or Modalism. You appear to have no idea what you believe because your posts alternate between these two heresies. One thing we definitely know, you reject Trinitarian teaching!!!"

          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Who else?
          There are a couple of heresies that arose after Nicea, but they were very short lived.

          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          I never made any such professions.
          Read through your posts.

          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          I have only professed believing the Trinitarian explanation of the Godhead is the only correct Biblical one.
          The Trinitarian explanation confessed by all Trinitarian Christians is that the Father alone is autotheos (God of himself), the Father is the source and cause of the Son, the Son was begotten/born before the ages (ie: in eternity) and the Son is homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father. Your post/s indicate you reject these core and non-negotiable Trinitarian propositions.

          ps:

          In Exodus 3:2,8,13-15; the spokesman of YHWH (the Word of God), told Moses that he was the God of the forefathers of Moses and the Israelites. When Moses asked for his name, he replied Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, and told Moses “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘EHEH [YHWH] has sent me to you.’

          At Phl 2:9-10 we read "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth..."

          At Matthew 28:19 "Go thereforefn and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

          So what name do you believe we should baptise people? YHWH? or Jesus/Yeshua?

          pss:

          Deja vu: My first study bible was also Schofield's Reference Bible, albeit the 1967 edition (though about 40 years ago I did pick up a second hand copy of the 1918 edition). I still use them but they are falling apart. I understood they were out of print, but the other day I accidently came across an advertisement for a new reprint - too pricey for my limited means...

          Comment

          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
          Working...
          X