Featured Monogenes

Oh I just meant to avoid any possible accusation of misrepresenting the position had I said that the "Son" since some people who hold the position of eternal sonship have the Son constantly being begotten out in eternity past. Maybe my clarification was needless. I'm sorry.

 

I have not. Who is that?

 

You have not answered whether you deny all the appearences of God in the OT are the [preincarnate] Son per John 1:18.

 

The word does not mean begotten and it definitely does not mean only begotten. It means only, unique, one-of-a-kind, special, etc. Not begotten.

 

I did, but I will happily oblige in clearer terms: I don't deny them. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, the Creator of all things, and my God whom I worship as Almighty, was the one who was appearing in those Old Testament theophanies. He just wan't the Son of God yet back then. He was the - as you said, "PRE-inCARNATE" - Word of God, who has no beginning and no end, being eternal. But the Word of God only became the Son of God when he became a man, which event is related in the gospels. Jesus Christ, as now the Son of God, was the only man whose FLESH was born of the Holy Ghost - hence the only begotten Son of God.

 

Was the Lord Jesus Christ the Lord Jesus Christ of eternity? Yes

Was the Lord Jesus Christ equal with the Father yet, setting aside such glory, humbled Himself to be birth by a human mother? Yes

I honestly do not understand how there are those who would seemingly set aside the words “unique” AND the completely unnatural (“begotten”) by assuming one holds dominance over the other.

The Lord Jesus Christ was uniquely begotten (natural born) as no other created being, and uniquely unioned God/man.

This was totally non-confusing to the Greeks and Romans cultures.

Might I suggest that rather than folks attempting to place the trinity into human concepts, they merely set aside all schemes, understanding that the trinity and work of the trinity is not to be discovered, for such is an attempt to bring the mind of God as humanly understandable, and cling to that great promise made in Scriptures.

There will be a time when, unshackled by human constraint, we are found “like Him” with all the understanding of “knowing as we are currently known” (by Him).

12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.​

 

Simply denying reality does not effect the denial.

"monogenes" is "mono" (single/only) "genes" (generated/begotten).

People may deny the undeniable sense because they have a hard time with the doctrine and it's just easier to correct the Holy Ghost who said "begotten". I'm pretty sure the Holy Ghost knows what "monogenes" means. All the "scholars" who correct the Holy Spirit of God can simply shut up.

 

Christian Theology, by Millard J. Erickson, a conservative SBC theologian. I'm pretty sure most Baptist seminaries use this nowadays in their sys. theo. classes.

 

I'd like to check it out.

 

I don't find 'only Son' or 'one and only Son' acceptable translations for monogenes for the simple reason that they are not true. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:26).
The difference between us and the Lord Jesus, of course is that, unlike Him, we are sons by adoption (Romans 8:15 etc.). So the translation 'unique Son' is not without merit. But the reason that He is unique is that He is the only begotten Son (John 1:14, 18).
'We believe in .......one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made' [Nicene Creed]
'The Son is eternally begotten of the Father' [Baptist 1689 Confession]

The argument is made that because Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 use the word monogenes for an only child, it cannot mean 'only begotten.' But in each of those verses, that is precisely what it means. Also, adoption was much more widespread in ancient times than it is today. If a man had no sons, or only one, he would often adopt a nephew or other male child to ensure the succession of his line. The most famous examples are the emperors Augustus and Tiberius. Augustus, when he was a youngster named Octavian, was adopted by Julius Caesar, and Tiberius was adopted by Augustus. So Jairus, for example, might well have adopted a son, but his daughter was his only begotten child.

 

I did not expect you would accept one verse, since you already have a conclusion in the matter (which is neither unexpected or complained of, since most of us do). But here are three more to consider.

• Proverbs 30:4 ...who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?
• Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
• Hebrews 7:3,21,28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

The third is in the New Testament, but refers to an oath of God to the Son recorded in Psalm 110:4, which makes the Son a continual priest.

A retrospective identification is legitimate when it is the same person -- as when the New Testament consistently calls Abram/Abraham only Abraham, even in references before his name was changed (e.g. Acts 7:2). If Abram were not Abraham, it would be a “retrospective” error. If the pre-incarnate Christ were not the Son of God, it would be an error.

At the least, begotten in this verse also applies to the resurrection (Acts 13:33; Revelation 1:5).

 

Out of interest in the subject, I did some research on how "only begotten" was/is used in Baptist Statements of Faith. Rather than gum up the works here with a long post, I posted it on my blog and link to it. Ultimately all this proves is what different Baptists said. It is interesting, nevertheless.

“Begotten” in Baptist Confessions

 

The decree(s) of God were all issued in eternity. He declares 'The end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done' (Isaiah 47:10).

 

Thank you. Are you familiar with Dr Walter Martin's view? It is either the same or similar to yours. It is taught in his work, "The Kingdom of the Cults." One of his chief argruments is that he word of God nowhere teaches the Son is the "eternal Son." And that the Son of God became the Son in His incarnation.

I believe the Word was always the Son of God. Did not become the Son of God. Proverbs 30:4, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" He was the Son when He created all things, ". . what is His Son's name?" John 3:13, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." I understand He did not become the Son of man until His incarantion. Isaiah 9:6, ". . . his name shall be called . . . The everlasting Father, . . ." Or Eternal Father. From the interpretation God was always the Father, there was always the Son. By interpretation, the Eternal Son. Like the term Trinity. And from my perspective, John 1:18, all apearences of God was "the unique Son." Makes it explicit to me He was always the Son.

Now if you would like to focus on one point of interpretation where we disagree. We can make sure we at the very least underded each others view as to why we have an opposing interpretation on said point. If you would like to.

 

This needs to be looked at. First the one "begotten" was already the Son prior. "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." And that day refers to the day of His bodily resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 13:33. So it refers to the one who was already God's Son and the incarnate Son. It is explicite the passage cannot be used to claim God's Son is eternaly begotten nonsense. So the Paul wrote, Romans 1:4, ". . . And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ."

 

No. "genēs" is from "ginomai."

 

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that baseless claim. I literally have nothing to say.
I am in disagreement with others on this thread but at least I can have a reasonable conversation with them because they don't cast such utterly baseless accusations.

 

It is the same person. He just wasn't incarnate then.

We were literally told that that was a prophecy in v.1: Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Nebuchadnezzar specified that his comment was about the form since the pre-incarnate Word there appeared in a human form - hence Son. The N.T. parallel is: Acts14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

The oath of God to the Word of God is that he would be High Priest as a Son - which, according to Hebrews 2 only works if the Priest is a man:
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

So again, the oath is made in relation to the then-future incarnation of the Word of God as the Son of God.

I find it odd that this is hard or controversial given that we have no less than 4 gospels telling us when the Son of God was begotten on earth, about 2,000 years ago, in Israel, under Rome; not in eternity past.

Revelation 1:5 does relate to the resurrection, but note it's not only begotten there. Christ is the first begotten from the dead but that's not the same as only begotten because others rose from the dead never to die again after Christ (Mt.27). But only begotten relates to the fact that he the only man whose FLESH was born of God. Not even Christians can claim that.

Acts 13:33 only seems to relate to the resurrection if read quickly, but it does not:
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that 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. Act 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

The clause as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee is not a reference to the resurrection but is added by Paul on-the-fly to identify Jesus as God’s Son, which identity would explain his premature resurrection since Christ’s resurrection is presented in scripture as proof of his virgin birth and deity: Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Had he been born of sinful man he could not have risen as Peter had already made the connection: Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Act 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Note how Peter is like Paul [or rather, Paul like Peter] quoting Psalm 16 to prove the deity of Christ and connecting it to the resurrection.
Furthermore, the proof that the clause as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee is not a reference to the resurrection is the fact that Paul goes on immediately to say in v.34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead thereby clearly implying that Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee was not a reference to the resurrection and that the resurrection is a different topic which he now addresses.

The Word of God was not begotten in eternity past, otherwise the Word of God would have a beginning, and you thus deny -practically speaking- the deity of the Word of God.

The gospels explained everything my friend - Jesus Christ is the only man whose FLESH was begotten of the Holy Ghost - hence the only begotten Son of God.

 

1) I think you were referring to Isaiah 46:10, and his words there are:
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

At least in this verse you quote it's "declaring" not "decreeing" and it's "from ancient times" not "eternity".

1Ch 4:21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were, Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea, 1Ch 4:22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things.

We would agree that Saraph did not have the dominion in Moab from "eternity".

The point of Isaiah 46:10 is that God prophesies what will happen long before it happens.

Also, you haven't dealt with the expression this day. There are no "this day"s in eternity past.