One debate which is not a very well known outside of theological circles is the debate regarding the Son ship of Christ. When we say that Jesus is the Son of God; how does that work? The Arians and jehovah'S Witness take this simply that Jesus is the creation of God the Father. They have trouble reconciling this with passages indicating That Jesus is the Lord God and therefore eternal. Yet even among the trinitarians there is a debate over the nature of his Sonship. Is Jesus the Son of God by means of his human nature or his deified nature?
This debate is obviously a little more technical. However it is still important for the minister in developing a proper systematic theology and handling the Challenges of the cults.
The view that I hold is incarnational sonship, that That the man Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. That while I concede that The logos or deity of Christ may be entitled "Son" The deity was not begotten/generated since he is eternal.
The view which I critique "eternal sonship/eternal generation" denies that Jesus was begotten of God at His incarnation but instead the deity of Christ was generated by the Father in eternity past. Also the nature of this eternal generation is mysterious and not to be questioned.
So one phrase used in this debate "eternal Son of God" is not one that is of necessity biblical thought those who hold to eternal generation will used it as their Banner.
1. eternally begotten) a contradiction
Many modern champions of this view like to change the language of the debate by labeling the position eternal son-ship. However, the historical phrase is that Jesus was "eternally begotten" of the Father in eternity past,present and future.
be·get
/bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Dictionary.com
So essentially if the Father beget the Word, then He produced the Logos. Then the second person of the trinity is not eternal.
e·ter·nal
/ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.Dictionary.com
So here is the obvious contradiction. You can not be caused and have no beginning at the same time.
Yet the Logos is eternal.
John 1:1-3
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians1:16-17
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Revelation
1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2. the complete history of eternal begotten doctrine
A. Origen
Origen in defending the deity of Christ came up with this doctrine. The problem with this idea is that it is in inherently subordinate. Not surprisingly Origen was openly a subordinationist. (in other words he held that the Son and the spirit were inferior to the Father)
"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
b. 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
B. eusibius influence on creed
Eusibius was a primitive catholic and he had a great influence upon the nicene creed much of the creed was based upon his churches confession.
Eusibius theology was not entirely sound. He tried to synthesize the the deity of Christ with ariansim and he rejected the book of revelation in the canon.
“In order to analyze these discrepancies, one must first discern something of Eusebius’ national, personal and theological positions. Although we know little of His life, It is fairly certain that Eusebius was born in Caesarea about 263. This was the city which had ordained Origen and which, when he was condemned by synods in Alexandira and-significantly-Rome, sheltered after his excommunication.
“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 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
I think we must take note that Eusebius had already had the doctrine of eternal generation in His creed which was the product of Origen's theology. Eusebius creed was the foundation of the Nicene creed. So the doctrine of eternal generation was implanted in the creed and made government law. Afterall, the Bishops were focused on Arianism.
Therefore much like in American law where a lobbyist may author a Bill and the senators might not actually even read the bill. The Bishops of Nicene passed this doctrine without necessarily any deep thought on the matter.
3.scriptural support for eternal generation
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Here we see evidence that the Son of God is deity. So the Son was begotton of the Father. But that is not really the issue up for debate. The issue of the debate is whether the deity was or is eternally still being begotten.
18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
This is clear evidence that the title Son of God implies the deity of Christ. So therefore according to Eternal sonship advocates christ was begotton in eternity.
However the crux of the Debate is not whether or not the Son of God is deity. That is settled by the fact that there is one christ. The Question is: does this passage say Jesus is eternally begotton. Besides, it was the man claiming that he was the Son of God here. Implying that the man was the Son of God and therefore that Jesus was incarnationally begotten of the father.
5. Explanations for lack of study.
The Nicene Creed was a government enforced document. As a result a minister could be imprisoned, excommunicated and possibly tortured for disagreement with the doctrine of eternal generation. Many of the "Conservative" preachers would emphasize
the mystery of God concerning the contradictions.
The same can be said of Presbyterians under the Westminster confession, though it would not have been persecuted per se.
I don't have the ability to determine why MacArthur would have switched his views, as I don't know His heart. But with as much scholarship as he has put into his views I doubt he completely converted his views. So I think it could be another explanation. It could be acceptance among evangelical elites, intimidation of numbers, fear of a church backlash etc.
However I find it telling in MacArthur's "reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ" Here in this document MacArthur has to successfully refute himself.
One major objection to the eternally begotten doctrine is the fact That the Logos has to Relate to the father as Generated from the Father, yet the Holy Spirit on proceeds from the father and does not relate to the Father as a father at all. MacArthur had held this objection previously. So does he answer this dilemma?
"If Christ's sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as God's Son, do we? Yet isn't He also of the same essence as the Father?
"Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.
"In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply."
So he says it is a mystery! You can not answer irrational-ism with a mystery! How can you claim that Jesus the man can not be the Son of God and that he needs to be subordinate to the Father, when an equal spiritual person doesn't have to at all! If it is a mystery, then it has not been unveiled. If it is revelation it was a mystery; but a mystery no longer. God is not the author of confusion! Perhaps it is a mystery because God did not reveal it! When preachers use such irrational arguments they are not working on the side of God anymore. They are instead comforting the enemy. God is logical. The logos is logical. Yes, they are words which are completely connected.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
God communicates to us rationally. Religious politics is getting old.
6. Scriptural support for the only begotton Son being begotton on the earth
Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, 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.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So the messiah was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is being begotten. Jesus fulfills the prophesy of being Emmanuel "God with us". So then Jesus is the one person and both natures are being spoken of. So then the Logos is having the verb "begotten" refer to the Incarnation.
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.
Nottice How the centurion identifies the man as the son of God. Is he incoorrect. Is the Man not the Son?
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
First why IS he identified as Word if he was eternally begotten Son? Secondly wouldn't "made flesh" be close enough to begotten to say that if Jesus is the only begotten son it was when the deity/Word was made flesh?
I may have this article edited in the future. But I wanted to get people thinking on this topic now.
In Christ,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
There's a lot written here, but one thing you may want to consider is that your argument largely rests (inasmuch as I can tell) on definitions of words based on human relationships (indeed, the definition of "eternal" is problematic, as the [4] entry contradicts [1-3]! In addition, a good many Christian philosophers do not believe time extends infinitely into the past but began at some finite point).
Why can't an intratrinitarian model be accepted which says the Son of God is so by nature? That is, God, as a necessary being, has three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? The argument proffered is that "beget" indicates a causal relationship. I maintain, however, that the causal relationship is what philosophers call "accidental" rather than an "essential" property of "beget." That beget is a concept indicating relationship in a basic sense should be agreed upon; we only ascribe cause because that's what happens when we beget a child--we have caused it.
Besides a defense of the coherence of eternal Sonship or eternally the Son of God or what have you, is the troubling question one has if Sonship is intrinsically linked with Christ's human nature. Who was the cause of the conception? Certainly not the Father, but the Holy Ghost! So the Son is not the Son of the Father, but of the Holy Ghost! Just some thoughts. Keep it up man!
Hello randy! I believe I know you from face book.
"one thing you may want to consider is that your argument largely rests (inasmuch as I can tell) on definitions of words based on human relationships (indeed, the definition of "eternal" is problematic, as the [4] entry contradicts [1-3]!"
Much of religion is an argument over definition. Atheists will "believe" in Jesus. they jesus think he was an average human being.
I don't see a contradiction of the 4 definition of etenal. it is a definition of tthe same word at a different angle.
"In addition, a good many Christian philosophers do not believe time extends infinitely into the past but began at some finite point)."
While I agree that time has a starting point; God however does not. which is the main need for the word "eternal". when God does activity prior to creation he is doing so "transcendently") outside
of space and time. So typically these transcendent activities are referred tp as taking place in "eternity past" before the creation of time.
Why can't an intratrinitarian model be accepted which says the Son of God is so by nature? That is, God, as a necessary being, has three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?
you find an issue here is that this is a very technical debate so every word is inspected.
yes I present "The Son of God is so by nature."
I agree that there are eternally 3 persons in the Godhead.
However the Titles to the trinity you mention are essentialy revealed later in the New Testament.
The father: rarely described in the OT. It is jesus who would make this reference common in connection to the Son of God.
The Son: While there are a couple references in the Old testament less than a handful of OT passages describe the messiah as God.
Holy Ghost: if your reading from the KJV or another old translation. The term Holy Ghost is only refferred to after the resurrection. Other wise He is referred to as the Holy SPirit.
In other words these terms are for our understanding of God after we have matured with advanced revelation.
These are not terms which the God head has to study to relate to themselves these are titles in light of what they would do.
their self title is and always has been jehovah.
"The argument proffered is that "beget" indicates a causal relationship. I maintain, however, that the causal relationship is what philosophers call "accidental" rather than an "essential" property of "beget." That beget is a concept indicating relationship in a basic sense should be agreed upon; we only ascribe cause because that's what happens when we beget a child--we have caused it."
I believe your argument fails and the proof is found in the geneologies.
For instance in Genesis
Genesis 5:6-10 (King James Version)
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
we see a point and time of "beget". not as a relationship but the causing activiy.
"Besides a defense of the coherence of eternal Sonship or eternally the Son of God or what have you, is the troubling question one has if Sonship is intrinsically linked with Christ's human nature. Who was the cause of the conception? Certainly not the Father, but the Holy Ghost! So the Son is not the Son of the Father, but of the Holy Ghost!"
As long as you do not hold to gnosticism. I think your questions strike's at the doctrine of the virgin birth regardless of what side your on.
The father is the 1st cause of everything so he is responsible for the virgin birth.
It is true that in "overshadowing" mary The Holy spirit transported the word to the womb of mary. yet the Holy Spirit is not incarnate and did not have sex with mary.
for deeper thoughts on this issue I would ask that you read my essay "What the Bible teaches on the incarnation." 8/15/09
Hi Matt! "Perpetual" is contradictory to "outside of time." The former is in time and the latter is not, which is a classic case of a contradiction. Just to be clear, anyway. That also comes out in discussing eternity past while mentioning it was before time! But if the past is part of time, then eternity past is not before time. Therefore, one of these must be abandoned. I choose to abandon that time extends infinitely into the past, and that God is atemporal sans creation.
If the Son of God is so by nature, then it is impossible for the Second Person of the Trnity not to be the Son of God. This would mean that Jesus was always the Son of God.
Further, it may be helpful to note that how we come to apprehend truths about God does nothing to show that these truths began to exist, or are in fact false, or were at some time false. That would be to commit the genetic fallacy. An easier analogy is to consider the trinity itself. The Trinity was not revealed until the NT also--however, no one states (as far as I know) that God becomes a Trinity at the point of the New Testament!
You may also want to be careful with saying God is the first cause, and hence is responsible for any event. If that is the case, God is responsible for sin! But causal responsibility for any act brings moral responsibility for the same act. That is, if you directly cause evil, you have done evil. But I can see what you mean with indirect causation. But in any case, I have maintained we only view causation involved in "beget" because that is what we do; none of the passages indicate the philosphical necessity or lack thereof from the word.
"Hi Matt! "Perpetual" is contradictory to "outside of time." The former is in time and the latter is not, which is a classic case of a contradiction. Just to be clear, anyway."
Where did I even use that term?
"That also comes out in discussing eternity past while mentioning it was before time! But if the past is part of time, then eternity past is not before time."
If time is created at a certain a point then there is a certain point when time is not. We may not understand how transcendent reality works, or how powerful is all powerful. But we can easily identify the existents of concepts which we do not fully understand.
"If the Son of God is so by nature,"
WAY TOO HAZY!! you do not identify "Son of God" nor "by nature"
"This would mean that Jesus was always the Son of God."
see, I never argued that Jesus was not the Son of God at anypoint.
I argued that Jesus is really the Son of God. That the logos is only the referred to as Son in light of the incarnation is my position.
The fact that the Godhead is three persons is eternal.
How the Godhead is understood among man is another.
My contention is that God is not revealing these titles for himself. He is revealing this understanding for man. Why else is this terminology not used in the OT?
"If that is the case, God is responsible for sin! But causal responsibility for any act brings moral responsibility for the same act. That is, if you directly cause evil, you have done evil."
Sin is not a thing but in fact a lack there of. The virgin birth is not just thing, but it is a miracle ; directly caused by God.
I would like you to respond to some of the challenges in the article.
For instance:
Why is the logos begotten while the while the Holy Spirit is not?
They are both spiritual persons within the Godhead.
"e·ter·nal
/ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.Dictionary.com"
(2) and (4) are contradictory. Also, it will not do to appeal to mystery to resolve an actual logical contradiction. There is no temporal point at which time was not, and that is all I am saying. The Son of God is Jesus, a nature is that which is essential to a being. The Logos was God from the beginning. If you believe the person of Jesus was the Son of God at every point, and if the Logos is God, and the Logos is Jesus, it follows inescapably that the Logos is the Son at every point. To be clear, Jesus is God in his deified nature. But I don't see a way out of his being the eternal son of God without denying one of the above points (since the logic is airtight formally).
In addition, sinful acts are indeed something, and it is acts to which we are referring. The answer to your final question is that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, but the Father and the Son (and some say just the Son). It is the model of how the three relate. It's a bit like asking the question, if there are more persons than one in the Godhead then why three and not four?!
"There is no temporal point at which time was not, and that is all I am saying."
God is before time. he created time. God was conscious before he created time. God is the ultimate standard. According to God there was point where there was no time in man's understanding of the concept.
"The Son of God is Jesus, a nature is that which is essential to a being. The Logos was God from the beginning. If you believe the person of Jesus was the Son of God at every point, and if the Logos is God, and the Logos is Jesus, it follows inescapably that the Logos is the Son at every point."
Jesus was born around 4 B.C. The modern calender was an attempt to revolve history around his specific birth. Jesus of nazereth had a specific beginning. otherwise he would not have been born and he would not have grown up. While his name was common I don't know anywhere in the old Testament where the messiah is called jesus. He is instead called emmanuel. John goes to great lengths to refer to the logos as opposed to saying jesus in John 1 and 1john 5. Jesus was fully man. To deny that is antichrist (1john4:3) Therefore he has to be a creature.
Jesus is the same person as the logos. The logos is eternal.
While there is one person. There are two separate natures.
Jesus was born. He was born the son of God.
In the sense that the logos is the Same person as Christ he may be called the Son. Yet the logos is fully deity. he was not born, nor was he created. This would imply that the logos is not full in his deity.
I showed the historical proof that the term "eternally begotten" was the invention of Origen who was openly a subordinationist. the denial of the completion of christ deity was the point of the phrase. That jesus was never completely begotten because he still in that stage.
"To be clear, Jesus is God in his deified nature. But I don't see a way out of his being the eternal son of God without denying one of the above points (since the logic is airtight formally)."
"jesus is God in his deified nature" was the point at which you committed the logical fallacy. Jesus is the human nature of God. colossians 2:9
"In addition, sinful acts are indeed something, and it is acts to which we are referring."
No, I am not refferring to acts as much, but the concept. Evil/sin is not a positive substance. it is the falling short of the glory of God. God did not creat evil it simply descended from his good creation.
"The answer to your final question is that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, but the Father and the Son (and some say just the Son). It is the model of how the three relate. It's a bit like asking the question, if there are more persons than one in the Godhead then why three and not four?!"
Now this is the first attempt I have seen to this challenge and I respect you for that. However it fails.While the Holy spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the father. The son proceeds from the father. So procession can not disqualify one from being begotton. The idea that the spirit only proceeds from the Son is quite unbiblical.
joel 2:28, john 15:26
The question remains why does the spirit not enjoy the title "Son". even if it was only christ he would enjoy the title grandson!
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
You see they only beheld the glory of the only begotten of the father because the Word was made flesh. This could not be done with the Spirit.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The logos is distinct from the Holy Spirit in that He is to be incarnate. Because he was literally begotten we may know and have access to the father.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
This revelation was not under moses. It was through the incarnation of Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Randy your own logic is flawed by the fact of the following:
By somehow proving that the word eternal, in its definition is contradictory, you somehow disprove that Christ is the son of God and eternal.
Its not a contradiction to be outside time, and eternal.
If you are outside time, the person observing you would in fact be inside time, thus you would have to apply that timely knowledge, since the person applying the timely knowledge of eternality exists inside time, the one being observed outside time would have to be viewed as Eternal....because simply saying outside time cannot be relatable, since we ourselves are not outside time. A Necessary being would have to exist outside of time in order for time to exist, otherwise there would be no time, no ageing, ect....
The best definition I've heard of the trinity is this:
Love perpetually flowing from one personhood to the other.
I just wanted to say thanks for understanding Jesus was begotten, and not merely a Man. If he were just a man, he would've only been a prophet, and his sacrifice useless. :)
Thanks for the response Jonathon. it is good to see that you have been studying your theology. I am proud to brag about getting to disciple you years ago.
Topher from FaceBook here.
Hi pastor Singleton,
I read your post, but none of the comments. There are many of them! So, sorry if i repeat anything.
I never thought of the belief in the Word's eternal (and pre-eternal) Sonship as something to defend, nor have i though of it as something to attack. This is the first time i came upon this issue /as/ an issue. You can consider me like a case-study. I'm throwing ideas around, curious as to what you'll point out.
Thinking about it a bit more, any event having occurred in eternity past, is the same thing as it never having happened. Maybe i can put it this way, there are an infinite number of moments in created time in which it didn't happen. No matter how far back in time you look, it didn't happen.
IF(!) Eusibians (or whatever they're called) want to say that the expression, "begotten in eternity past" is a slight dumbing down of what they really want to say, being, "begotten outside of all created time." That could pass. Or if not, it is at least less rejectible than "in eternity past."
Perhaps this next part has come up already. I apologize. But what do you make of an O.T. reference to the Son of God if the Word really wasn't the Son yet?
Pro 30:4 KJV,“…who hath established all the ends of the earth?
“what /is/ his name, and what /is/ his son's name, if thou canst tell?”
A very awesome coincidence is that it says immediately after asking, “what /is/ his name, and what /is/ his son's name, if thou canst tell?” “Every word of God…” —Pro 30:5 KJV. What a beautifully Divine coincidence!
But, more on the analytical side, scripture does, back in the O.T, ask a question with the premise that God has a son.
Of course, maybe scripture is merely /predicting/ the Word's Sonship. Maybe its present tense in the O.T. is merely more action-packed. Who knows? Maybe.
This popped in my head while editing: We all must be born again, and Jesus is our example!
(I'm NOT saying that He is always incessantly being begotten. If we could peer out into and beyond Heaven and see God outside of time, He would //appear// to be incessantly begotten //IF// He is begotten "in eternity past" outside of all created time. This is because, time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. Without time, there is no difference between action and state of being, because all is similar to a slow-capture photograph, because time is what keeps things from happening all at once. But this is a side note.)
I am saying: If Christ is our example even in being born-again, then He was born once outside of all time, and then born-again via His human incarnation. In human form, He was our example so much so that He got baptized, even though He had no sin to be symbolically cleansed of. But then again(!) should we extrapolate from that point?
The fact of Jesus being our example as a human being, might fall apart from being proof. If Jesus was begotten again, then His first birth wasn't as a human. I.e.it wasn't as our example.
But then again(!) as our example, it could be stated that His very first deed was that of exemplifying our need to be born again, by Himself taking on human nature. So, the very instant He becomes our example, BAM, He exemplifies our need for being begotten again. 1Pe 1:3 KJV, “…our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again…”
So how do we know-know which to go with? Is it, "Even if He were begotten outside of time, His first birth wasn't as our example." Or ought we to focus on that "right when He became our example, He was born again," (i.e. if He were ever born outside of time, to even begin this chain of thought).
Hey Topher, remember that I don't get alerts on my blog so just let me know about the question next :)
Yeah, when i was trained in calvinism Iwas trained to think of eternity past as if it were an extra dispensation. But eternity has no function of time.
"In the beginning" is really the beginning of time!
Now with the changing of a phrases shifts the whole understanding of christ.
I don't reject the title "eternal Son" because Christ is the same person as the logos. But it would not be my favorite phrase. Because the activity of the Son is based in space and time. In Fact we see the logos first activated as the Father spoke the earth into existence.
The Father would know that the identity of the logos would manifest as the Son Jesus Christ. But the father would not create the Logos. The Logos would proceed from the father. His submission would be freely done. After all the Logos has a free will. The Word was God And God will not be thwarted. The idea of using the word "generation" was made by a Subordination-ist(Origen). I believe this perverts our understanding of Christ and even at time our spirituality. Because the person Jesus becomes less the person of God. My impression is that many users alienate the humanity of Christ because Jesus is part of a subordination of the Deity.
psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." "I will" is a future tense clause. Making this prophetic. The father is then revealing himself unto the young man Jesus Christ at a time in the future
Post a Comment