Featured Eternally Begotten of the Father....or not.

Jesus in His deity was always begotten of the Father!

 

14 And that Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) full of grace and truth.

 

Am I to understand you deny John 1:3 in regards to John 1:14?

No disagreement with this, that I can see.

 

"'eternal' begotten" is at best a fallacy known as a special pleading.
"To day" is a fixed point in time. Psalms 2:7. Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

 

I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
It's a technicality, isn't it?

Please, if you would, tell me what you see here:

"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." ( Psalms 2:7 )

" 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." ( John 1:14 )

" No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]." ( John 1:18 )

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ( John 3:16 )

" He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." ( John 3:18 )

" By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son]," ( Hebrews 11:17 )

" In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." ( 1 John 4:9 )

 

This is the reference where the term "begpttem" is used of God's Son.
"Thou [art] my Son" is the declaration that the one being addressed as already His Son.
"This day" denotes an event in time.
And by the words of the Apostle, it is a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Acts of the Apostles 13:33.
Claims that this refers to the Son is eternally begotten of the Father is a blatant false teaching.

Greek γεγεννηκα
English "begotten"

There are a number of issues here.
First the word translated "begotten" taken by itself, from its prefix, is the same word translated "made" in "made flesh." The word is actually one Greek word translated "only begotten." It is a different word than "begotten." The RSV and some other liberal translations translate the word "only begotten" as "only" because of the prefix of the word. The word having the meaning of being "uniquely" God's Son.

Greek εγενετο
English "was made"
Greek μονογενη
English "only" or "only begotten"

Again the word is not "begotten" but "only begotten" having the meaning of "uniquely" the Son.

Again the word "only begotten" that is the "unique" Son.

Again the "unique" Son.

The same word, Abraham's "only" [son of the promise]. Abraham had two sons.

Again "only begotten" is a different word than "begotten." Only in English follows the Latin is the word for the Greek "uniquely made" with the sense of the word meaning a "unique child", rendered as "only 'begotten'" The English RSV renders the word as "only."


Greek μονογενη
Latin "unigenitum."
English "only begotten" or "only"

 

All of the above I agree with, except this statement.
Incidentally, that's why I love and use the AV.

Now, please tell me why you object to the term so much.
Instead of being angry that it's a false teaching ( and leaving the details of why it is a false teaching unspecified, or did I miss that? ) would you kindly tell us why you find the term so offensive?

Are you suggesting that my use of the term means that Jesus was eternally God and eternally man from before the foundation of the world?

Because I'm not, and I wasn't aware of this before posting to this thread.

 

The term "begotten" actually denotes having a beginning. The Son of God with His Father have no beginning. The term "begotten" denotes being caused. Both the Son of God and His Father are uncaused being both the one and the same uncaused God.

 

The doctrine of Eternal Sonship is unbiblical

1. He is equal with the Father in his divinity (John 5:18) God is spirit (John 4:24) God is eternal (Hebrews 9:14) meaning existence without beginning or end (Exodus 3:15 I AM BECAUSE I AM). John 8:58 tells us that was Jesus in the burning bush btw.

2. Hebrews 1:5 clearly state two facts that come into being at some point in history: "I WILL BE a father to him and he SHALL BE a son to me." Up to that point in time / eternity neither were true.

This begs the mention of the confusion in the (sound / true / biblical) Trinity doctrine stemming from being the victims of our own nomenclature. God the Father is the Father of Jesus (John 1:14 / Hebrews 10:5 / Hebrews 1:5). God the Word (John 1:1-3) is the father of Adam (Luke 3:38) and of all creation for that matter (Isaiah 44:24 / Colossians 1:13-16). The Holy Spirit is the father of scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The different acts of the persons of the Godhead or different offices each holds buttresses the biblical doctrine of the triune nature of God.

Isaiah 9:6 (AV)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

...need not trip up our defense of the Trinity doctrine. Jesus is the father of eternity (which is more in keeping with the original Hebrew).

Colossians 1:13–16 (AV)
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For 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:

But he is not his own Father (the creator of his physical body) again Hebrews 1:5 Hebrews 5:10.

And we can only become children of his Father by adoption (Romans 8:15) when we believe in his Son Jesus Christ.

That sonship / fatherhood between the first and second persons of the trinity was not eternal but began at a certain point when the body of Jesus was created and God the Word (the second person of the Trinity) became a man.

John 1:1–2 (AV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:14 (AV)
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.

 

The "world" denotes mankind. The Son of God was not man until the incarnation (John 1:14).
Jesus is the man. The Son of God became the man Jesus at His human birth. He was always the Son of God with the Father. Has no beginning as the Son of God. But has a beginning as the man Jesus. So our Lord Jesus Christ is both the man and God in the flesh being the Son of God before the foundation of the world (mankind). John 3:16; 1 John 2:15-17; John 17

 

OK.
That's what I was looking for, and thank you very much.

I agree.
From now on, I won't be using the term, "eternally begotten of the Father" to describe the Son of God ( who became a man who would bear my sins on the cross ) as being foreknown and determined from before the foundation of the world...which He was ( 1 Peter 1:20 ).

He is the eternal Son of the living God...who also was made in the likeness of men ( Philippians 2:6-11 ) to become the Saviour.
I now see that your understanding of the term, means that Christ was begotten or created in eternity past....which He wasn't.
He existed with the Father in unity.



May God bless you.

 

The term "eternal Son" is not found in the Bible. Neither is the term "Trinity." Both are names of a Biblical explanations. Eternal generation as it has been called is the heresy which Dr, Walter Martin argued against.

I am not going to sort this out at this time for you. But Dr Walter Martin in his book the "Kingdom of the Cults" argues against that the concept of the "eternal Son" is not Biblical.

I believe the concept of the "eternal Son" is Biblical just as the Trinity is Biblical. But I agree that the concept of eternal generation of the Son is not Biblical.

 

I would argue that the only references those who hold to an Eternal Son could use are predictive prophetic passages like Psalm 2 to support their beliefs. This kind of prophecy was necessary to prepare the people for who the Son of God would be not who (or what he was from all eternity).

I cut my theological teeth on the teaching of the late great Dr. Walter Ralston Martin btw.

 

Psalms 2:7 teaches that the Son was the Son before that "day" He was "begotten" which is a prophecy of Him being incarnate and being resurrected from the dead. Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

Look at the argument the writer of Hebrews makes regarding Melchisedec being like the Son of God. Hebrews 7:3. Note: not the Son being the Son of man but the Son of God. Sounds eternal to me.

 

Again, we are victimized by the imperfection of human language (which is why legal documents are so tediously long and still not airtight). Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is the Son of man. Jesus is the Christ. The writer of Hebrews could have used any one of these referring to Jesus who is eternal in origin. Would he have been eternal Messiah for example? Or eternal Son of man?

 

I know many/most discount 1 John 5:7 as bring "spurious".

I don't.

However using the passage as a model of a partial definition of the Trinity as was done by the Latin Fathers in the Trinitarian Debate.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Greek: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
Latin Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt

Our biggest problem is the confounding of the name/title of the Logos - The Second Person of the Trinity and His human title The Son of God even down to The ECF (and said confounding entering into their debates - Latin) causing no small portion of confusion.

Jesus Christ IS the Logos made flesh in the Womb of Mary.

If the Father (First Person of the Trinity) is eternal and the Logos (Second Person of the Trinity) is eternal then blending other verses with the model:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It was decided that the relationship of the Father and the Son was one of begotteness - meaning that the relationship of the Father and the Logos was/is/will always be an eternal one with the Logos emanating from the innermost being of the Father from eternity while no more or no less of deity than the Father.

So these Trinitarian debates on the BB are nothing new and therefore - yes it is an argument of a product of both Scripture and Church Tradition (The Early Church Fathers). Athanasius being the Trinitarian giant of the early church

 

Sometimes, but not always.
Examples:


" The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." ( John 12:19 ) <------ If it means "mankind" here, then all of mankind went after Him.

" For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 if by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?" ( Romans 11:13-15 ) <------ If it means "mankind" here, then Israel, for the most part, has been cast away in favor of the reconciling of the "world". To me, it means Gentiles out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 )...the "world" outside of the nation of Israel.

" To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." ( 2 Corinthians 5:19 ) <------- If "world" here means "mankind", then God was in Christ, reconciling all of mankind to Himself, and not imputing their trespasses unto them...their sins are not held against them; All of mankind is forgiven of their sins, then.

I agree.

The world here, at least to me, may not indicate "mankind", but the actual earth itself.
I do, however, see your point, in that it could be "mankind".


Other than that, I agree.

 

Denying the eternal Son . . . you guys better tread lightly.

If Jesus is not the eternal Son, then there is also no eternal Father. And what is to be said of the Holy Ghost?

1 John 2:22-23

 

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I'll state it in black and white:

Jesus is the eternal Son of the living God, and it can be substantiated from many passages ( John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 17:5, 1 John 1:1-3, Revelation 19:13 ).