A Question Concerning John 1: 18

Romans 8:32 refers to "His only son."

 

Theologically, (in my understanding) is that monogenes is not a "process" even an eternal process, but the a description of the relationship between the Father and the Son that the Son shares the eternal essence and substance (essentia) of the Father.

In the language of the day it described the relationship of the sun and the sunbeams emitting from it.

HankD

 

Thank you.

What about the pre-incarnate Scripture references to "the Son"?

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.

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

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?

Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the Eternal Word become flesh is identical in person to Jesus Christ?


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Hank,

The references in Psalm 2 and Proverbs 30 are prophetical SUBSEQUENT to incarnation.

Nebuchanezzar is not speaking of Jesus Christ, but HIS TERM for an angel! Verse 25 compared with 28.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 

Doctor Bill,

The questions posed are only to get my opinion about something that NOBODY can explain except the Lord. They deal with UNBELIEF, your opinion, preferences of scholars due to their EDUCATION, an "unbiblical" view of learning the scriptures and what they are, along with MOTIVES as to why people do what they do.

I couldn't begin to EXPLAIN all those things. They will ALL come out at the judgment.

I STAND and GO by this rule. I have the Holy Scriptures IN MY HANDS at this moment, for God Almighty through the Holy Spirit has given me them. (ALL OF THEM contained in one book.)

As I posted before in the "other" thread, the revelation of God and manifestation of his WORDS are SEVEN-FOLD, which EACH ONE can be found in the BOOK, which states the process. (Inspiration, Publication, Preservation, Purification, Translation, Identification, and Illumination)

They are in ENGLISH for me and granny.

Now, I'll give a few answers to your questions, but the "disputers" of this world will never make any difference to the BELIEF of the Holy Scriptures.

(1) Process of eternal begetting is a false theological mindgame, SIMILAR to the "unbiblical" terminology of Calvinism. There are no scriptures which state it. (Yes, I know they "reason" it.) When speaking of Christ Jesus, begotten deals with birth, death- resurrection, and EXALTATION. (Psalm 2, John 1, Acts 13, Heb.1, Rev.1)

(2) Heresy is that that which the Jews thought Paul taught. (Acts 24) IT WAS TRUE HERESY, which should be believed! Heresies are ANY TEACHINGS which contradict Pauline theology. (1 Cor.11, 2 Tim.2, Rom.16)

(3) It's their education. It's BLINDED them to the simplicity of the Book. (Proverbs 8) Don't get me wrong. I appreciate scholarship and respect in a degree (small though). I ADHERE and "see" what the Book says about THOSE WHO THINK they are wise. It gives me MY PERSPECTIVE. Paul was a Pharisee, while Peter, James, and John were COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN. They believed the SIMPLE TRUTH of John the Baptist. Paul HAD TO HAVE a revelation of Christ DUE TO HIS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. He was blind.

That's right. We "all" got our OWN WAY, don't we? I will face God at the judgment GOING BY WHAT I READ and BELIEVED in a Book, which testifies of ITSELF.

(4) I don't believe they erred in translation.

(5) Their thoughts are SUPERFLUOUS conjectures. They'll have to stand for what they teach.

Now brother, I know that will not suffice you. You and I are on TWO DISTINCT AND OPPOSITE plains. I have read "the scholars", along with the commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, Greek grammar books, Nestle's Greek text, etc., but I pay attention to the BOOK. You can spot them when they cross it.

Now, I have to get ready for tomorrow, for it's my busy day.

Good day.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 

Doctor Bill,

You're welcome. Thank you brother, and I pray that your day will be truly blessed as well.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 

Thare are other terms/words taken from the Scriptures of the original languages which further define the relationship of the Father and the Son such as Hupostasis.

A multitude of discussions such as these have gone in many languages for these 2000 years.

IMO, there is only one "deadly" heresy concerning the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to deny the deity/humanity (one or both) of Jesus Christ.

Bro UZThD: Monogenes "birthing" to me, seems incorrect (but possible - Hebrews 11:17).
I prefer to think of monogenes Related to the Father-Son relationship as an eternal relationship rather than an eternal "process".

Bro Carl: I affirm the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ (slain from the foundation of the world).

As you yourself have indicated, you are not the one to whom I must answer, though I value most of what you have had to say here at the BB.

Concerning the "angel" of the LORD, I see an abundance of Scripture where the Angel of the LORD identifies Himself as God:

Judges 2:1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

Psalm 2 prophetic. Yes.
Proverbs 30. No.

Also one cannot discount scholarship, education, fame, fortune, etc completely:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Not "many" is different than not "any".

Of which, Paul identified himself by his own admission as well as others:

2 Peter 3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And the reason.

1 Corinthians 9
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.


HankD

 

Agreed. It could possibly refer (and I think it does) to a shared essence (I and my Father are one) without necessitating derivation.

John 17
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

HankD

 

Then there is the disputed 1 John 5:7.

HankD

 

"One argument by John V. dahms (Journal of NT Studies) is that because "monogenes" is used in Heb/ and thrice in Lk for children, that, therefore, it refers to a birthing. IMO, the adjective is emphasising the uniqueness of the individual...after all, we all are born!"

Begotten, isn't begotten rather more to the fathering side than the birthing? And if it is, we ain't all begotten that way don't think.

 

When I hear the phrase "only begotten" I don't think it is speaking to the "virgin" doctrine However, it makes a distinction in my mind between those of us who are also called "sons of God" and THE son of God. We are adopted, not begotten, He was begotten, not adopted. Further inferences about His nature are not provided in John 3:16 but are found elsewhere. For example . . .

I happen to also believe that Christ has always from eternity been the second person of the Trinity but that depends on more than John 3:16 to show it to be so.

 

I believe that would be a statement that all here would agree with "second person of the Trinity".

The point of disagreement is the "sonship" of Jesus Christ. Is/was He the "Son of God" from all eternity or did that relationship start at His human birth? Some feel that being a "Son" even from eternity, detracts from His deity. Some honestly feel that His sonship is only spoken of in prophetic terms in the OT.

An argument can be made from isolating John 1:1 that His sonship is not addressed but His title as the Word (LOGOS) is used. This of course is the argument from silence in a given context not comparing all Scripture.

God is both timeless and eternal, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of man (His sonship is necessary for our redemption) was slain from the foundation of the world before He was born of woman thereby necessitating that sonship. The Scripture teaches that in the coming existance that "time should be no longer" and we will enter the eternal state.

To me (from the Scripture) He is and always has been the Son of God, equal with the Father from eternity (though He willingly lowered Himself for a "little while" in time).

HankD