Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."
Definition: In response to the question over which of the 2 natures of Christ was begotten or generated by the God the Father. Incarnational Sonship holds that The Human nature of Christ, aka Jesus was generated from the Father, and that the Logos/Word of God being God was not generated.
__________
Many have held that the Logos became the Son of God and was not known as the Son until the incarnation.
However, I, Matt Singleton argue for a more tolerant expression of this doctrine. Given other Axioms of theology, such as the Omniscience of God and the Singularity of Christ' person. It is implied that The persons of the trinity would identify individually and corporately their roles as connected with their identities. As such the Logos could understand and be understood as being the figure and called the Son of God in light of the coming generation and translation to humanity.
My view which lies in the camp of Incarnational Sonship if needed I would label "Specific Generation"
However, the point of consequence in this debate is the nature of Generation, the deity of Christ can never be humbled; The humanity of Christ can never be reprobate.
Attacks upon Incarnational Sonship
misinterpreting Arians
Jehovah's Witnesses deny incarnational Sonship!
"13 Jesus was called God's "only begotten Son" because Jehovah created him directly. (John 3:16) as the firstborn of all creation," Jesus was then used by God to create all other things." pg. 39 Knowledge that leads to Everlasting Life 1995 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
As expressed by JW's, Arian theology agrees very closely with Eternal generation, the only difference being that the logos would be created in the span of time, prior to the creation of the physical realm while eternal generation would have the logos being transcendantly created or generated outside of space and tim.
"This is ironic since Arius, the arch enemy of the doctrine of the trinity in the 4th century, claimed Origen as the source of his subordination of the Son in which he declared that "there was when the Son was not" pg. 109-110 The Story of Christian Theology Roger Olson 1999
Challenge: If the members of the trinity are not understood by their offices then how can they be 3 separate persons at all?
Answer: God has a language and thought process higher than ours. The members of the trinity do not have to be named after their offices. The names are important for our understanding of them. But they have the advantage of omniscience They know eachother intimately without needing to acquire information
The ORIGEN-al sin of Catholicism
The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
It has been a well established aspect that Origen, the inventor of the concept of eternal generation developed the idea from neo-platonic philosophy. In many ways a lower form of gnosticism(though Origen did debate the gnostics) that shows a procession from divinity to creation. Here the persons of the trinity are used as a conduit to keep a distance between man and God.
"Even Origen had been uncertain as to whether or not the Spirit had been 'created or uncreated' or a 'son of God or not'" De Principiis preface A history of the Christian Church by Whiliston Walker pg. 115
"We therefore, as the more pious and truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." Origen Allen Menzies, Anti-nicene Fatherspg.328(gathered from Final Authority by William P.Grady) Pg.91
"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110
"The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’ birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Originist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesaria.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
The relationship between Origen and Eusebius was at perfect infuential teaching for propagating his doctrine. Origin died just previous to Eusebius generation.
"Arius Christology was opposed by the theologian Athanasius, who argued persuasively that the deity of the Son is necessitated by soteriology. If Jesus is not fully God, we truly do not truly receive salvation, for in salvation we participate in the divine nature......"
"....The followers of the Alexandrian deacon not only postulated that the Son was the first creature of the Father but that the Holy Spirit was the first creature of the Son. Even though the Council of Nicea rejected Arius Christology, many otherwise orthodox thinkers accepted the pneumatology that followed from it."pg 59 Stanley J. Grenz Theology for the community of God
At this point we can see a development of PanenTheism where other things are deified and God loses his holiness. Origen would be the Father of the Eastern Orthodox church
Apollinarianism)
"Apollinaris' rejection that Christ had a human mind was considered an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was a lesser god.[2]"
McGrath, Alister. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 1.
"Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has proposed a neo-Apollinarian Christology in which the divine Logos completes the human nature of Christ. Craig says his proposal is tentative and he welcomes critique and interaction from other scholars.[3]"
William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. 2003. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. 608.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism#cite_note-3
So in reaction to Arianism we have a Christology that is opposed to the humanity within the mind of Christ. When We look at the sympathy to apollinariansim of William Lane Craig we are seeing a high church a high church protestant who actually invokes a great deal of fidelity to Catholic scholars. Given his universal acceptance by Catholics and evangelicals it seems apparent that heterodoxy is free to flourish in even the most conservative Christian homes.
More so this trend is towards an apollinarian non human view of the person of Christ. Thus the Son of God must be segregated away from humanity, thus we see the apparent influence of eternal generation.
Example of orthodox incarnational christology.
1632 "Mennonite" Dordrecht confession
IV. Of the Coming of Christ into This World, and the Purpose for Which He Came
We believe and confess further, that when the time of the promise, for which all the pious forefathers had so much longed and waited, had come and was fulfilled, this previously promised Messiah, Redeemer, and Saviour, proceeded from God, was sent, and, according to the prediction of the prophets, and the testimony of the evangelists, came into the world, yea, into the flesh, was made manifest, and the Word, Himself became flesh and man; that He was conceived in the virgin Mary, who was espoused to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and that she brought Him forth as her first-born son, at Bethlehem, wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. John 4:25; 16:28; I Tim. 3:16; John 1:14; Matt. 1:23; Luke 2:7.
4We confess and believe also, that this is the same whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, without beginning of days, or end of life; of whom it is testified that He Himself is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last; that He is the same, and no other, who was foreordained, promised, sent, and came into the world; who is God's only, first and own Son; who was before John the Baptist, before Abraham, before the world; yea, who was David's Lord, and the God of the whole world, the first-born of every creature; who was brought into the world, and for whom a body was prepared, which He yielded up as a sacrifice and offering, for a sweet savor unto God, yea, for the consolation, redemption, and salvation of all mankind. John 3:16; Heb. 1:6; Rom. 8:32; John 1:30; Matt. 22:43; Col. 1:15; Heb. 10:5.
But as to how and in what manner this precious body was prepared, and how the Word became flesh, and He Himself man, in regard to this we content ourselves with the statement pertaining to this matter which the worthy evangelists have left us in their accounts, according to which we confess with all the saints, that He is the Son of the living God, in whom alone consist all our hope, consolation, redemption, and salvation, which we neither may nor must seek in any other. Luke 1:31, 32; John 20:31; Matt. 16:16.
We furthermore believe and confess with the Scriptures, that, when He had finished His course, and accomplished the work for which He was sent and came into the world, He was, according to the providence of God, delivered into the hands of the unrighteous; suffered under the judge, Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; and that He sits on the right hand of God the Majesty on high, whence He will come again to judge the quick and the dead. Luke 22:53; 23:1; 24:6, 7, 51.
And that thus the Son of God died, and tasted death and shed His precious blood for all men; and that He thereby bruised the serpent's head, destroyed the works of the devil, annulled the handwriting and obtained forgiveness of sins for all mankind; thus becoming the cause of eternal salvation for all those who, from Adam unto the end of the world, each in his time, believe in, and obey Him. Gen. 3:15; I John 3:8; Col. 2:14; Rom. 5:18."
The original creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd edn. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
When we look at the wording of the 1st creed, it reveals how obvious the doctrine of subordination was in the creed.
Personally as a young Bible college student I was always confused by the wording "God of God, light of light and Life from Life" Of course it was nice and poetic, But creeds were meant to be logically coherent and not simply an exercise of piety. When we see eternal generation in it's original context it may have confessed the divinity of Christ, however it only confesses a subordinate divinity.
For instance if I wanted Cheese of Cheese or pizza of pizza I am not saying that the Cheese of Cheese is the equal amount of Cheese or pizza, but a piece.
John Calvin critical of eternal generation
"If we are to believe these triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground that he is sole God and essentiator of the Son. In this way the divinity of the Son will be something abstracted from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part from the whole." Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1 chapter 13 Section 24 pg 131 trans Henry Beveridge
It is obvious that Calvin would steer clear of any view of subordination and that a literal understanding of eternal generation in his view would be false. Not that he was going to rock the boat on the
Macarthur's original fidelity to Incarnational Sonship
"But the Greek word here is not poieo, 'to make or create ,' but ginomai, 'to become'- the meaning which most Bible translators must make clear. Jesus Christ always existed, but he became better than the angels in His exaltation, implying that at one time He had been made lower than the angels- the truth that Hebrews 2:9 makes clear. but the reference in 1:4 is to his incarnation as God's Son. As the Son He became lower than the angels. But because of His faithfulness, obedience and wonderful work He accomplished as God's Son, He was exalted again above the angels, as He had been before. This time however, He was exalted as the Son. Christ technically did not become God the Son of God until He was incarnated. Christ was not the Son of God in eternity past-He was God as the 2nd person in the Godhead. He became Identified as the Son, and as the Son was exalted above the angels. So he became better than the angels again- though for a while he had been lower." pg. 26 Macarthur New Testament Commentary Hebrews
Now while I find myself in the camp of the young Macarthur and several others espousing Incarnational Sonship. This evidence by the phrase "Jesus was not the Son of God in eternity past".
The point of contention must not be upon of denial of the 2nd person of the trinity as the Son. The contention must be placed upon the root issue proposed by the Catholic Creeds and that is the issue of the LOGOs being "Begotten/generated". 'Deity cannot be generated' is the rightful point of contention. However, since the movement focused upon Hebrews as opposed to Luke 1:34 the conversation was quickly wrestled into a strawman.
John Macarthur recants)
"I am now convinced that the title "Son of God" when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy "because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A235/Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ
Jesus himself refutes John MacArthur!!!
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
For Macarthur to make such an error implies that he was perhaps hasty in his recantation and that implies to me that this was motivated by other factors.
What factors could those be? Well, during this time period, Macarthur was working together with reformers of various denominations like R.C. Sproul to erect a "New Calvinism" movement. The reformers were high church creedalists who were in submission to the doctrine of Eternal Generation. It seems to easy to assume that Macarthur was synchrotizing his theology to the movement.
The Old Testament: A poor place to argue for eternal generation.
"The pre-existence of the Messiah is not found in the Old Testament. Some indeed have interpretted such passages as Micah 2 as references to Pre-existence, but this is doubtful exegesis. The note in the New Oxford Annotated Bible is perhaps correct when it says that the statment that the ruler from Bethlehem will be one 'whose origin is from of old' could mean from the days of David rather than pre-existence from the beginning of time.' The existence of Christ is not even taught in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. ..........."In lampe's view only a low view of Christology of the relation of the man Jesus to God is possible". " Dale Moody The Word of Truth92-393
Now I do not agree with theologian Dale Moody's contention regarding the pre-existence of Christ. However, when there is smoke, there is bound to be fire. If the pre-existence of Christ is difficult a case to be made in the OT then it is only natural that the eternal generation also be foreign to the OT.
The Jewish view of the messiah emphasizes humanity as opposed to Divinity
Scriptural proof
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Here Sonship is applied to the virgin birth of a divine being.
2:15 and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
How could the LOGOS come out of Egypt? that would be the operation of a physical person whom we understand in the incarnation.
Matthew 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
Jesus is personally identified as the Son of God and thus incarnationally God's Son.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."
Jesus was just earlier compared with humans and then given the title Son of God by His Father. This leans to the incarnational sonship.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Jesus is Associated as the Son of God and given historical reality with home and baptism. Also the decending Spirit points to the title in relation to an event.
16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God"
If this were referring to the deity of christ we would be seeing something of a subordination between the logos and the father. But if it id the humanity then we see an exaltation of the humanity while the divinity would be equivalent.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
The alternative disaster
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him."
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
OT
Jewish though consistantly teaches that the Messiah/Son of God is a human
How eternal generation has been making christen-DUMB
1. Alexandria had Jews and Christians who would confuse the faith with pagan philosophy
2. One of which was Origen who taught that Jesus' divine nature was birthed by the Father in eternity past (subordination, eternal generation), he also altered bibles and influenced other Christians to do likewise.
3. When Constantine took over the Roman Empire, he stopped persecuting Christians But spoiled and pampered the bishops. Then he organized a church Council (Nicaea) to make a new law of the land concerning God.
4. Eusebius was a follower of Origen: He studied under the curator of his library. Origen was Ordained in the city of Caesarea. Eusebius convinced Constantine and the bishops to use his church's confession. He tried to get them to downplay the deity of Christ, but they rejected it.
5. Included was this doctrine of eternal generation
"begotten of the Father Light of Light, very God of very God",
later they changed it to
"the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages."
How can God come from God? This is because they were confused about Jesus being the only begotten Son. Was the Son His eternal nature or his human nature?
6. The bible teaches that the man was the Son and the divine Word/Logos became the Man.
Matthew 27:43, mark 5:7, 15:39, Luke 1:31,34, 22:70, John 1:34-35, 10:36, 20:31
John 1:1, 1 John 5:7, john 1:14 1 Timothy 3:16
7.The confusion of eternal generation would distort both east and west.
Roman Catholics think that because the logos is the Son that He is not very personal.
The Eastern Orthodox think that because The logos is the Son, that He is less God than the father.
8. The RCC would add a clause (et filioque) to indicate the relationship of the trinity. They assert divine simplicity to say that the 3 persons are the same but that the 2 submit to the Father and the Spirit submits to the Son.
"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,."
The EOC rejects this and says that both are less powerful than the father.
9. Both East and West Catholics think that since Christ is less persona l(7) So they need to recognize God's mother Mary for his affection.
The EOC can not understand justification because Why would God(father) punish God(son)? So they emphasize sacraments to become godlike.
10. Catholics being defensive of their differences with the EOC would start to exaggerate their teaching about divine simplicity. as a result the persons would fade into the background of the divine godhead. So instead of speaking of the Father or Jesus they simply speak of God.(a)
11. The reformers were catholic priests who were just starting to focus on the scriptures. Luther and Calvin often would differ back to Augustine.
12. The Protestants believed in the Gospel. But they were confused about the church due to their catholic upbringing and indoctrination in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. They are organized as Catholics instead of NT Christians.
13. They think their denominations are the kingdom of God, Their preachers are separate priests, to be teachers, or prophets or apostles.
14. When the reformers give up sacramentalism they replace it with doctrine as a sacrament.
15. The reformers kept the traditions of creedalism even the catholic ones.
16. Over time protestants turned into New Testament Christians through the preaching of scripture. However, in recent years Seminaries have been used, to get Christians more friendly with the Roman Catholic church. Protestants who are more catholic are picked out to the education of pastors to make them think more catholic.
17. The "New Calvinists" are roman friendly and have engaged in many ecumenical meetings. They emphasize catholic friendly New Translations, Lordship salvation, and the hatred of popular evangelistic methods
18. Augustine is well known to have been an ex-platonic and Manichean professional philosopher prior to his conversion. And he was propelled to the bishopric rather early. He repented of his views at first, but then turned back to some of them after his confrontations with Pelagius.
19 Augustine wrote before the majority of the creeds dealing with Christology. Scholars have noticed that his views of salvation work as if Christ's personality was dominated By God to where he was less human. So as Christ was forced to be sinless, salvation would be forced upon the elect. But Jesus is one person! His one person is not just divine but also human.
20. This is the typical personality displayed in Calvinism. Why do the preachers seem to say Christ instead of Jesus? Jesus is his name Christ is only his Title. But reformer after reformer will speak of Christ as if it were his personal name. A culture that wants to emphasize the position and authority; instead of the personality of the Savior.
Questions for Eternal Generationists
1. How could he(Jesus) be "the life" while being dependant upon life from the Father?
2. Why did Christ need to be born of a virgin?
3. Was there a division of the Godhead when Jesus died on the cross?
4. Did the Logos ascend only to the right hand of the Father? (galatians 4:4)
No comments:
Post a Comment