"Eternally begotten of the Father"...?

[Bro. James]

Jesus is God, Jehovah, not Allah, not a god, not just a good guy. That makes Him eternal--without beginning or ending. Why is this so difficult? God chose His elect before the world too; the names are already written in the Book. Probably won't find that in the latest Catechism. It is a plain teaching of scripture, nonetheless.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Jesus is God, Jehovah, not Allah, not a god, not just a good guy. That makes Him eternal--without beginning or ending. Why is this so difficult? God chose His elect before the world too; the names are already written in the Book. Probably won't find that in the latest Catechism. It is a plain teaching of scripture, nonetheless.

Selah,

Bro. James

I think you are still missing Matt's point.

The point is not whether Jesus is Divine or not...He clearly is. The point is that there are some who would argue that Christ was/is only properly "the Son" at His Incarnation. It's those who hold this opinion that Matt was debating against.

 

[DHK]

I think you are still missing Matt's point.

The point is not whether Jesus is Divine or not...He clearly is. The point is that there are some who would argue that Christ was/is only properly "the Son" at His Incarnation. It's those who hold this opinion that Matt was debating against.

Some may call me a heretic for it, but that is what I believe. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. I don't believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. "The Son" is simply a matter of rank, a time and period when the Word submitted himself to the Father as Son. He wasn't eternally the Son. He was eternally the Word as John 1:1 teaches. He is the only begotten son of God. He took on humanity, and therefore took on the rank of a son. Before that time he was the eternal Word. But the second person of the trinity was, is, and always will be God no matter what title we give him.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

At last, someone gives a straight answer to my question (alebit an answer with which I disagree)! I take it then that you agree with both C A Coates and James Taylor Senior in the article to which I linked? What then of the numerous references in the OT to the 'Son (of God)'?

 

[Bro. James]

Now I have it--we are trying to understand the mechanism of divine overshadowing of a virgin, at 50,000 diameters. This is not just a divine quark in the DNA. Jesus has no genepool.

We spend too much time on Mars Hill. The answer is at Calvary. "Behold, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world."

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was told about her FIRSTBORN SON--before she was with child by The Spirit, The Holy. Yet some claim she is still a virgin. Let us work on that one--analytically. Could this be the first record of a Caesarian Section? The Jews still argue His pedigree.

We do err not knowing the Scripture and the power of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Sorry to be so convoluted--my coumadin and prozac are contraindicating. Matthew, methinks we are on the same side on this question, moot as it may seem.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

My thoughts on this is that often times the incarnation is thought of backwards, meaning we take the ‘before’ of the eternal Son and then speak of the ‘after’ of His incarnate existence. Before He was non-incarnate, after He was; before He was Son, but not Jesus (His human name), after He was Jesus-the Son and Man.

If one takes this backwards approach, one is forced with the need to constantly relate the ‘after’ to the ‘before’. Is it Jesus, who talks with Adam? Is it Jesus, met by the Apostles, who speaks to the prophets? But if 'Jesus' is the name of the human incarnation (the 'after') of the Son, wouldn’t one rather say it is the 'pre-incarnate Son' who does these things? And how does the pre-incarnate Son relate to the post-incarnate Jesus?

Isn’t Christ often referred to as 'the lamb slain before the foundation of the world’? Surely the slain lamb, the sacrificed lamb, is the incarnate Son at the cross; how can the 'after' of the incarnation be slain as the 'before' of the incarnation - i.e. before the creation of the cosmos itself?

In the Orthodox Church we teach that the two natures are inseparable and without confusion belonging to the one and same Christ, who acts…no before and after. We don’t categorize the acts of Christ into two sections either…those of His humanity and those of His Divinity, b/c they are the acts of one cohesive sane person, that person being Jesus of Nazareth who was born of Mary the Theotokos.

I asked my spiritual father his thoughts and to paraphrase, he spoke of Christ as the union of the eternal divine Logos with His humanity, and that we can dissect the two natures, as is the case in Daniel 7:13. Many of the early Church Fathers interpreted this vision as the Son of God ascending to God the Father. But later Fathers interpreted this vision of the Ancient of Days as the eternal Son who is Jesus Christ, and the figure described as the "likeness of the Son of Man" as the Humanity of that same Christ. Daniel saw one person in two forms. Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days who is eternal and divine and the same Christ in the likeness of the Son of Man who was human and born in time. St Maximus the Confessor said something to the effect that Christ is both young and ancient. Young for he came as a babe whose body is incorruptible, and after His death and resurrection, remaining in the pinnacle of manhood unchangingly, but as God he is older than all things.

I apologize in advance if I’m not able to reply to any comments…with my current work load and the weekend Church services starting tonight with the Cannon of Lazarus and Lazarus Saturday, then Palm Sunday and then start of Holy Week in preparation for Pascha on the 27th, my schedule will be Church in the morning, work, and then Church until late evening.

InXC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Now I have it--we are trying to understand the mechanism of divine overshadowing of a virgin, at 50,000 diameters. This is not just a divine quark in the DNA. Jesus has no genepool.

We spend too much time on Mars Hill. The answer is at Calvary. "Behold, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world."

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was told about her FIRSTBORN SON--before she was with child by The Spirit, The Holy. Yet some claim she is still a virgin. Let us work on that one--analytically. Could this be the first record of a Caesarian Section? The Jews still argue His pedigree.

We do err not knowing the Scripture and the power of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Sorry to be so convoluted--my coumadin and prozac are contraindicating. Matthew, methinks we are on the same side on this question, moot as it may seem.

That makes a nice change!

[ETA - Agnus, I'm in full agreement with you; I find it odd and indeed a little sad that heresies which were sorted out over 1500 years ago should now in these Modern/post-Modern times rear their ugly little heads again...]

 

[DHK]

At last, someone gives a straight answer to my question (alebit an answer with which I disagree)! I take it then that you agree with both C A Coates and James Taylor Senior in the article to which I linked? What then of the numerous references in the OT to the 'Son (of God)'?

I am not sure what they believe, but I am sure what I believe.
The Bible plainly says:

John 1:14 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.
--There was no incarnation before the virgin birth. Christ did not exist in heaven in a body before that time, and thus did not take the title of a Son before that time. The Son is a title which he assumed at the time of his birth. Remember that Christ has many titles: Look at them at many of them just contained in one verse:

Isaiah 9:6 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.

But from the before the foundation of the earth, He was always known as the Word.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--The Word is the second person of the trinity. He always has been. He only became the Son when he entered into this world. That is when he submitted himself, voluntarily to the Father. Before that time they were co-equal in ever sense of the word. On earth there was a voluntary submission, hence the Father/Son relationship. "I do always the will of my Father."
"This is my beloved son; hear ye him."

But now the relationship has changed once again.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus, still in his body, sits at the right hand of the throne of God, again fully co-equal with the Father, and yet still in the body.

What did Stephen see:
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

An interesting verse. He saw God's glory--for no man can see God and live. But He could see Jesus, for Jesus was still in the flesh. Before the cross (unless it was a theophany or Christophany) no man could look upon God and live. But in NT times God chose to reveal himself through the second person of the trinity: the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, and John testifies that we beheld his glory, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

 

[Matt Black]

I am not sure what they believe,

Don't worry, that makes two of us!

but I am sure what I believe.
The Bible plainly says:

John 1:14 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.
--There was no incarnation before the virgin birth.

Correct.

Christ did not exist in heaven in a body before that time, and thus did not take the title of a Son before that time.

I'm not sure on what basis that follows?

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure on what basis that follows?

God sent "his only begotten son."
The word "begotten" in no doubt used in the sense of "unique" here rather than physical begetting. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Does it not make sense that the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word) would only take on the name (the Son) when he voluntarily became the Son? He is eternally the Word. But the "Son" came when Christ was born. Before that time, was it theologically correct to call him the Son, or would it be more proper to call him the Word, as he had not yet existed as the Son.

Let's use another example.
Christ is the Prince of Peace, at least we refer to him as such. But is he the Prince of Peace now. No. He will not be the Prince of Peace until the Millnennial Kingdom comes and peace is ushered in, and he will reign as King. Then their will be peace over all the earth. The curse of sin will be removed. Now the prince of darkness rules; then the prince of peace shall rule. Though we speak of him now in those terms, the rightful attainment of that title will not come until the MK has begun.

 

[TCGreek]

God sent "his only begotten son."
The word "begotten" in no doubt used in the sense of "unique" here rather than physical begetting. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Does it not make sense that the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word) would only take on the name (the Son) when he voluntarily became the Son? He is eternally the Word. But the "Son" came when Christ was born. Before that time, was it theologically correct to call him the Son, or would it be more proper to call him the Word, as he had not yet existed as the Son.

Let's use another example.
Christ is the Prince of Peace, at least we refer to him as such. But is he the Prince of Peace now. No. He will not be the Prince of Peace until the Millnennial Kingdom comes and peace is ushered in, and he will reign as King. Then their will be peace over all the earth. The curse of sin will be removed. Now the prince of darkness rules; then the prince of peace shall rule. Though we speak of him now in those terms, the rightful attainment of that title will not come until the MK has begun.

Good stuff. :thumbs:

 

[Matt Black]

But these are titles (Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counsellor etc); they do not denote either nature or relationship but rather function. 'Son' is different: it sheds light on the immutable (since God does not change) relationship(s) within the Triune Godhead; to destroy the notion of eternal Sonship is to 'collapse' the Trinity by destroying the notion of that Trinitarian relationship.

I think you would agree with Mr Coates more than you would let on. I have read his work further and he goes on to deny the eternal Fatherhood of...er...the Father prior to the Incarnation, which I suppose is the logical corollary of denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus prior to the Incarnation. He argues that since God only revealed Himself as Father at the Incarnation, before then He could not have been the Father. This is to put the cart before the horse and to confuse revelation with nature again; Coates seems to think that whatever Man comprehends of God is what God is; thus Man makes God in his own image and attempts to reverse the order of Gen 1:27. This is not just heresy but rank idolatry.

 

[Daniel1654]

I have heard of this before.
What they are saying is, (i think) is Jesus was always God, equal with God the father and God the Holy Spirit.
He didn't become the Son of God until he was born in the flesh through the conception of the woman.
I have also heard that this was always Christs choice to go this route and to put off His God-ship, (for the lack of a better word) and humbled himself to become human, ie. the Son of God.
When in this state he was not exactly equal with the Father in the sense of Him being in the flesh and being subject to the same temptations and physical limitations that we are.
I don't believe that they deny Jesus is God after the Ascension when he returns back to His rightful place in the Trinity.
It seems to be a more in depth study of the life of Christ in the flesh.

 

[Matt Black]

So what's your view of it?

 

[Daniel1654]

So what's your view of it?

Who are you referring to?

 

[Matt Black]

The eternal Sonship of Christ; was He the Son before the Incarnation? And, yes, I was asking you for your opinion

 

[Daniel1654]

If Jesus is eternal God with the Father (which I believe) than I don't believe he is an offspring of God, because an offspring is not the Original.
I believe the manner in which he came was more for our benefit in the sense we could understand it.
Son is more of a title than a position in the God head. Which by no means lessens Jesus' authority or power.
In Revelations Jesus says "I am Alpha and Omega". This is exactly what God says in the old Testament, but not as Son of God, But God in general.
When Jesus was born in the flesh is when I believe he took on the title of Son.
In Job where it says "the sons of God go before God and Satan is with them.
Sons refer to angels which are a creation of God. Jesus is by no means a creation, but a Creator.

 

[DHK]

But these are titles (Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counsellor etc); they do not denote either nature or relationship but rather function. 'Son' is different: it sheds light on the immutable (since God does not change) relationship(s) within the Triune Godhead; to destroy the notion of eternal Sonship is to 'collapse' the Trinity by destroying the notion of that Trinitarian relationship.

Son is a title also. The absence of it in no way destroys the trinity. Why would you think that?

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.

The second person of the trinity is rightly called "The Word."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I think you would agree with Mr Coates more than you would let on. I have read his work further and he goes on to deny the eternal Fatherhood of...er...the Father prior to the Incarnation, which I suppose is the logical corollary of denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus prior to the Incarnation.

God the Father (Jehovah) as he was known to the nation of Israel, was a Father to Israel, and they were his children. He constantly referred to them as children.

He argues that since God only revealed Himself as Father at the Incarnation, before then He could not have been the Father. This is to put the cart before the horse and to confuse revelation with nature again; Coates seems to think that whatever Man comprehends of God is what God is; thus Man makes God in his own image and attempts to reverse the order of Gen 1:27. This is not just heresy but rank idolatry.

It sounds like he puts more faith in human reasoning than in the revelation of God's truth.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If the Word's being is grounded in that of the FATHER (ie is "from" the Father), then He can appropriately be called the "SON" even before His Incarnation. In other words, if the Father can legitimately be referred to as "Father" from eternity before the Incarnation, the Word of the Father can likewise legitimately be referred to as the "Son" from eternity.

Now if someone wants to deny that the Word eternally derives His being from the Father, I'd like to see how this can be "defended" without collapsing into modalism or tritheism.

 

[TCGreek]

Son is a title also. The absence of it in no way destroys the trinity. Why would you think that?

And I think the Messiah would be the same.

Messiah then becomes functional in the same way Son is.