Is God The Father Fons Deitatis?

[37818]

Full grown or conceived of woman Like 1:31,32?


Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

You are not making any sense. John 1:14. Luke 1:35. Luke 2:11. John 1:10. Galatians 4:4. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Aaron]

The Son was always the Son. The notion of being eternally begotten is irrational and not Biblical.

The Son is the only begotten of the Father. (That has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. Mary was the mother of the child that was born, but not of the Son that was given.)

That is what is revealed in Scripture. You have to abandon your carnal reasoning. All power and authority is of the Father, and is given to the Son.

That's His own testimony. I didn't say it. He did.

[Edit: To be begotten of a man, means one has a beginning. God is not a man. The only begotten Son has no beginning.]

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Son is the only begotten of the Father

any Scriptures for this?

 

[percho]

You are not making any sense. John 1:14. Luke 1:35. Luke 2:11. John 1:10. Galatians 4:4. Etc. Etc. Etc.

How did God θεοῦ

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:1 YLT Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead --

What does the word, " made," there even mean?

Is the Word made flesh some concept of a God person all knowing or of the very heart and intent of God, conceived of and brought forth by the virgin Mary, anointed with the Spirit of God, led by God the Father from birth.

Did the Word come from the right hand of God?

I think what I quoted to Van should have been here also.

 

[Aaron]

any Scriptures for this?

Really?

John 1:14-18, 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. ... 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 3:16-18, 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. ... 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 4:9, 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.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Really?

John 1:14-18, 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. ... 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 3:16-18, 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. ... 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 4:9, 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.

John is writing AFTER Jesus Christ's First Coming, when He is known as the Son!

 

[37818]

What does the word, " made," there even mean?

The same word used in John 1:14 and in John 1:4. Like English word 'made' it has a range of usage. Now the Son of God, the Word being God always was and is.

 

[Aaron]

John is writing AFTER Jesus Christ's First Coming, when He is known as the Son!

Well, here is where your carnal reasoning is mucking everything up.

How was the Second Person of the Trinity known by the Other Two, "prior" to the Advent? ('Prior' is in quotes, because in eternity, there is no past, present and future.)

 

[Van]

Can you quote ONE verse in the entire Old Testament that speaks of the Father and Son relationship?

Good Grief, can you quote from scripture what is not in scripture! I am tired of these efforts to sidetrack actual discussion of the topic. I said scripture, not the OT! Stop with your blatant efforts at derailment.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Good Grief, can you quote from scripture what is not in scripture! I am tired of these efforts to sidetrack actual discussion of the topic. I said scripture, not the OT! Stop with your blatant efforts at derailment.

You have yet again failed

 

[SavedByGrace]

Well, here is where your carnal reasoning is mucking everything up.

How was the Second Person of the Trinity known by the Other Two, "prior" to the Advent? ('Prior' is in quotes, because in eternity, there is no past, present and future.)

In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is known mainly as "Malakh Yahweh", in the LXX "ὁ ἄγγελος Κυρίου", which is usually translated as "The Angel of the Lord", which literally means, "One Who is sent by the Lord". Jesus is also known as "Yahweh", and "Elohim", in the OT.

When John begins His Gospel, which speaks of the eternal past, he does not write, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was God". He says "ο λογος", which answers the Jewish use of "Memra" in their Targum translations of the OT, Who is Himself Yahweh.

The Apostle John writes, "θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι", "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), and not, "ο υιος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι".

In Luke 1:35, when the angel tells Mary of the Coming Birth of Jesus Christ, it says

"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", where the verb "κληθήσεται", is in the FUTURE tense, not that He is already "the Son"

etc

 

[Van]

You have yet again failed

Petty off topic posts are the stock and trade of false teachers.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Petty off topic posts are the stock and trade of false teachers.

respond to #31

 

[Van]

respond to #31

Here again is my statement:

In the beginning was God in Three Eternal Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was never a time when God the Father Existed but God the Son did not exist. That claim, if made is unbiblical and wrong.​

 

[George Antonios]

Is God The Father Fons Deitatis?

This phrase refers to God the Father as the “origin and cause” of the Son’s Being within the Godhead, as God. It represents the “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ”, of the Nicene Creed of AD 325. Literally it reads, “God out of God”, which makes the Father as the “source” from Who the “essential character” of the Son is derived. The Father alone is seen as “unoriginated”, and the Son as “originated” from the Father.

In His book, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, Dr T Herbert Bindley, deals with the language used in the formation of the Nicene Creed, on the phrase, “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, these words, as we have seen, were taken from the Creed of Caesarea. The preposition (ἐκ) denotes origin and derivation from the Father as Fons Deitatis. The absolute possession of life from another is the essential character of Sonship; John v.26; comp. viii.42, xvi.28” (page 30)

The Creed of Caesarea was drawn up by the Church historian, Eusebius, who was infulenced by the heretic, Origen (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p. 168). Amongst the heresies of Origen, he taught that God the Father “eternally generated” the substance of the Son. Eusebius himself was pro Arius, another heretic, and also infulenced by the theology of Origen, as we can see in another phrase in his “Creed”, “πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον (begotten out of God the Father before all ages)”. “γεγεννημένον”, is from “γεννάω”, which is also used for “generation”. “The eternal generation of the Son from the will of the Father was, with Origen, the communication of a divine but secondary substance” (Schaff's History of the Church). This heresy was also taken up by some of the Orthodox Church fathers, “Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, made earnest of the Origenistic doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (which was afterwards taught by Athanasius and the Nicene creed, but in a deeper sense, as denoting the generation of a person of the same substance from the substance of the Father, and not of a person of different substance from the will of the Father), and deduced from it the homo-ousia or consubstantiality of the Son with the Father” (Schaff). The Nicene Creed adopted some of the heretical language of the Creed of Caesarea. “γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος. Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ” (begotten out of the Father, only-begotten, that is, out of the substance of the Father, God out of God)” etc.
[...]

This byzantine riddle, so to speak, simply disappears when we believe the declaration of the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the incarnational Son of God, not the eternal Son of God. He is the eternal Word of God, never the eternal Son of God. He became the Son of God when he was born of Mary...by definition. Servetus was right and Calvin was wrong.

 

[George Antonios]

P.S. not everyone who disagrees with us is a false teacher or a wolf. Those accusations are thrown around way too lightly.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This byzantine riddle, so to speak, simply disappears when we believe the declaration of the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the incarnational Son of God, not the eternal Son of God. He is the eternal Word of God, never the eternal Son of God. He became the Son of God when he was born of Mary...by definition. Servetus was right and Calvin was wrong.

Servetus denied the Trinity, Calvin believed in the Trinity.

How can Calvin be wrong and Servetus right?

 

[George Antonios]

Servetus denied the Trinity, Calvin believed in the Trinity.

How can Calvin be wrong and Servetus right?

"Servetus denied the Trinity" is a convoluted claim that would need clarification.

But, anyway, I said nothing about the Trinity. I said he was right about the incarnational Sonship of Christ.

 

[SavedByGrace]

"Servetus denied the Trinity" is a convoluted claim that would need clarification.

But, anyway, I said nothing about the Trinity. I said he was right about the incarnational Sonship of Christ.

there is no doubt that Servertus was a anti Trinitarian heretic, Michael Servetus Burned for Heresy

why should you use an example of a heretic to show that Calvin is wrong of the Sonship of Jesus?

 

[George Antonios]

there is no doubt that Servertus was a anti Trinitarian heretic, Michael Servetus Burned for Heresy
why should you use an example of a heretic to show that Calvin is wrong of the Sonship of Jesus?

You are conflating issues. I am satisfied that my very specific point has been made.
We can discuss the separate matter of Servetus' view of the Trinity (about which there is indeed doubt) in a dedicated thread.
All the best.