Dr Peter Masters

Yes, I read him. Nicaea used 'homo-ousios' against the Arians who taught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and 'God from God' against the Sabellians to assert that the Son was from the Father by generation.

The very word 'Son' speaks of derivation. As does the word 'Logos.' To teach that the Son is self-existing creates two self-existing divine beings, and their relationship must then needs be one of assumed relationship only. Hence I believe that Reymond denies that Christ is the Son of God, not in title (though even then 'God the Son' would better represent Reymond, than 'Son of God') but in actual meaning. In the apostolic form of words, the Father was 'God' and the Son was 'Lord.'

I agree that I have a strict view of it, but I believe it is the true view. The church of at least the first four centuries, whether Greek, Latin, Assyrian, Celtic or otherwise, would have affirmed it too, and considered anyone deviating as a heretic. The scriptures often say that believing that Jesus is the Son of God determines whether one has eternal life. I believe this is more than just acknowledging a title - but acknowledging a reality. Jesus himself said that the Father has life in himself, and has GIVEN it to the Son to have life in himself. The Father alone is unbegotten, from no-one, and that is why the consistent testimony of Scripture is that he is 'the God,' the 'ho theos,' whereas Jesus is the Son of the 'ho theos,' the one who is fully divine and the perfect image of God's person.

http://www.geocities.com/radical_christianity/wisdom.doc

 

You know, Rich, I haven't. To be honest, I forgot I downloaded it. I have to remember that this week.

Dean, I will have to process what you are saying there. To me, that is way too fine a distinction. To negate the self-existence of Christ is to deny his deity it seems to me, since one of the attributes of God is self-existence. The "Son of God" is a functional title, not an ontological one, it seems to me. I would have to recall my studies on this. It has been a while since it crossed my mind. In SCripture, Christ is God, not just "Lord," and not just the "Son of God." I think you are pushing too far on that one.

 

I guess it comes down to this - is he Deity because of who he is, or because he is the Son of God? Does he have life and existence of himself, or from the Father. I do believe that 'Son' is ontological - he is the Son of the Father, before all worlds, in actual reality, and not in an assumed relationship. He is the Son of God's love. He is the Word - the one who eternally comes forth from God and reveals him as the exact representation of his person. Did you read my article - I don't necesarily expect you to accept what it says, but it may challenge you in a good way.
Dean