Fundamental View of the Bible

[Van]

The assertion that monogenes can be translated only begotten is based on a mistranslation. The word is compound and literally reads one (mono) kind (genes). Note that a very similar word means beget, hence the mistranslation.The point is people want to stick with the traditional translation, rather than the translation accepted by modern scholarship. Here is a modern view from the NET footnote:

Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

The way you determine the meaning is to look at how the word is used and when you do, the idea is a one of a kind child. Hank, your last sentence teaches false doctrine, the eternal relationship of Father and Son was not begotten, it had no beginning.

There is no value of a "traditional text" in a "scripture alone" doctrine.

Yes the saying is Rome was not built in a day, but what we are talking about is the slow destruction of God's message if it is preserved in "dead" words that either have no meaning or an alternate meaning to the audience of today.

 

[Van]

I love it, Don, when you tell me what I can do, and what I cannot do, as if you were Lord of the manner. You have yet to post anything on topic.
And your denial that you are attempting to derail the thread is without merit, you already admitted your effort is to "debunk" the thread.

 

[Van]

First, pay attention to what they preach/teach, and compare it to scripture. If something doesn't match up, ask and discuss.

The above advice seems sound. Lets see, lets look at our statements of faith, and compare it to scripture.

Now when I advocate such a program, some say I am wrong. However the bolded quote is from Don in this forum. Integrety matters.

 

[HankD]

The way you determine the meaning is to look at how the word is used and when you do, the idea is a one of a kind child. Hank, your last sentence teaches false doctrine, the eternal relationship of Father and Son was not begotten, it had no beginning.

There is no value of a "traditional text" in a "scripture alone" doctrine.

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of "Tradition". It took over 200 years to develop.

There is no singular verse which teaches the trinitarian formula except
1 John 5:7 which is regarded as tradition and not authentic scripture.

Although I personally accept 1 John 5:7 as apostolic FWIW to you.

Secondly, you are mistaken about my "false doctrine" please read the word "eternal" in my post used as an adjective which describes the relationship between the Father and the Son. Eternal has no beginning or end.

The relationship of begotteness has existed from eternity past between the Father and the Son. It always has been and always will be.

Similarly there is a relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit, it is called an eternal processional relationship as opposed to the eternal begotteness of the Father and the Son.

But Yes, you are correct, in that these are "Traditional" or Orthodox" dogma.

Both of these relationships do not have to do with subjugation in time or rank of the Son or the Holy Spirit to the Father but an eternal relationship between equals within the one Godhead.

Granted these are the Orthodox or "Traditional" formula as opposed to the Arian dogma which is held by the Jehovah Witnesses.

Tradition if supported by scripture is not necessarily wrong.

HankD

 

[HankD]

The assertion that monogenes can be translated only begotten is based on a mistranslation.
The word is compound and literally reads one (mono) kind (genes). Note that a very similar word means beget, hence the mistranslation.The point is people want to stick with the traditional translation, rather than the translation accepted by modern scholarship. Here is a modern view from the NET footnote:

Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

Please go back and read my post. Yes, Jesus is unique as the "only begotten" as He is eternal (and we are not), that is what I said Van.
Did you even read my post Van?

I accept the explanation from the modern view which you have presented but I don't find it a necessary translation or the "traditional" translation as misleading.

HankD

 

[Don]

First, pay attention to what they preach/teach, and compare it to scripture. If something doesn't match up, ask and discuss.

The above advice seems sound. Lets see, lets look at our statements of faith, and compare it to scripture.

Now when I advocate such a program, some say I am wrong. However the bolded quote is from Don in this forum. Integrety matters.

Integrity does matter, Van. Integrity is also identifying that the response you copied was to someone asking how to go about choosing an IFB church.

Does your topic apply to IFBs? Yes. Does your topic relate only to IFBs? Because all I've seen over the last 7 pages are your assertions regarding translations, and nothing specifically identifying an IFB church or group.

 

[Van]

Hi HankD, I provided several examples, one of which is holding on to the traditional translation of John 3:16 because that is how older folks memorized it. Another is one of my favorites where folks want to stone a woman because she was caught sinning. However, that too may be commentary.

Lets consider another idea, the doctrine of the trinity took over 200 years to develop? How do we know what was in the minds of the Apostles when they wrote the New Testament. Now it may have taken many years for the correct understanding to be replaced with a tradition that misses the mark, and then for Bible students to "rediscover" the truth and point out the error of the traditional view. Recall that Jesus taught that the traditions of the Pharisees had made the word of God to no effect. Thus corruption over time through the speculation of men. Therefore we should make sure we understand our doctrines and that they are supported in scripture rather than by the speculation of men.

Translating monogenes as only begotten, translates genes as beget, but the word meaning beget is actually gennao (1 John 5:1). So monogenes was translates as monogennao, and therefore is a mistranslation. But folks still stick with it because of tradition rather than scripture alone.

Yes, Hank I did read your post, but perhaps I misunderstood your position. You said, "Well, I don't know that a "mistranslation" comes under the umbrella of "tradition". I do know a little Greek and "only begotten" is acceptable for a translation of mongenes." I did not address that a traditional view, based on a mistranslation is contrary to the doctrine of scripture alone. And we sure disagree that only begotten is an acceptable translation of monogenes, because genes means "kind" not "begat."

 

[Van]

Hi Don, apparently your face saving position is that topics applicable to all Baptist doctrines, including the doctrines of IFB churches cannot be discussed on this forum because they apply to churches that are not IFB.


This seems contrary to the idea of posting and discussing in a safe environment the doctrines we hold as fundamental. I think scripture alone is important for the purpose of restraining views that spring from our ever helpful speculation rather than God's revelation. Lets discuss our scripture alone doctrine vice traditional views, which is what you said we should do, i.e. study what we teach and ask questions.

Teachers who refuse to discuss their beliefs are not teachers of fundamental Baptist doctrine.

 

[HankD]

Yes, Hank I did read your post, but perhaps I misunderstood your position. You said, "Well, I don't know that a "mistranslation" comes under the umbrella of "tradition". I do know a little Greek and "only begotten" is acceptable for a translation of mongenes." I did not address that a traditional view, based on a mistranslation is contrary to the doctrine of scripture alone. And we sure disagree that only begotten is an acceptable translation of monogenes, because genes means "kind" not "begat."

OK, but that is debatable - not that we disagree but the meaning of mono-genes (especially the second syllable) among scholars.

Historically the Orthodox (or "Traditional") view made a schism with Arianism (taught that Christ was not God come in the flesh) back in the first century after Christ Incarnation and death and was not resolved as a complete schism until the Orthodox ("traditional") view of the incarnation was reflected by the official orthodox decree of the the trinitarian formula promulgated by the bishops of the First Council of Nicea (AD325).

Like it or not we as Baptists share the same "Traditional" view as those bishops in AD325 as opposed to the Arian view (today's JW's) of Christ's deity.

"one-of-a-kind" is an acceptable Arian choice for "only-begotten" as it does not (in their view) necessitate His deity.

Arianism teaches Christ as being of angelic order and does not necessitate the meaing of genes as one coming forth out of the essence of the Father both eternal and truly God as does the Traditional "only begotten".

So, "one-of-kind" (the Arian preference) may be technically true semantically but so also is "only begotten" (The Traditional preference).

The problem is that you (IMO) have inadvertantly supported the "Arian" view by semantic association as opposed to the "Traditional" view though it seems that you are trinitarian.

Again, Tradition is not necessarily a bad thing especially if it historically has been used against heresies such as Arianism.

Also True (on your side of the debate) is that Baptists "traditionally" only accept the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as a true church council while both the Latin/Orthodox Churches and most of protestantism accepts the first seven councils as valid.

But to repeat - all Baptists that I know of accept the "traditional" trinitarian formula of the Nicean Council.

God is three eternal persons in one divine essence.

The Son eternally begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son (the Filioque as opposed to the Greek Church which says from the Father only).

Statements of "tradition" not singularly found in Scripture apart from 1 John 5:7 and implied somewhat in Matthew 28:19.

HankD

 

[Don]

Hi Don, apparently your face saving position is that topics applicable to all Baptist doctrines, including the doctrines of IFB churches cannot be discussed on this forum because they apply to churches that are not IFB.


This seems contrary to the idea of posting and discussing in a safe environment the doctrines we hold as fundamental. I think scripture alone is important for the purpose of restraining views that spring from our ever helpful speculation rather than God's revelation. Lets discuss our scripture alone doctrine vice traditional views, which is what you said we should do, i.e. study what we teach and ask questions.

Teachers who refuse to discuss their beliefs are not teachers of fundamental Baptist doctrine.

Let me ask something: In any of my posts, have I been derogatory or derisive, or otherwise bad-mannered to you? Or have I simply questioned your location of this topic because it doesn't appear to actually be associated with this particular forum topic? And yet, you respond to me with terms like "face saving"? If you feel that I've been derogatory to you, then I'll apologize.

For two pages now, the discussion can't get past whether "only begotten" means "only begotten" or one of a kind. That's not a fundamental baptist issue; it's a translation issue. You can be as derogatory towards me all you want, but your own posts only verify my original and only concern about this discussion.

So move it to the translations section, and/or theology and study, where more Baptist Board members tend to discuss these types of issues, and maximize the number of participants providing scholarly input on the subject.

That's all I've been saying.

 

[Van]

Yes, all you do is post posts calculateed to debunk the thread. You have added nothing to the discussion, seeming to want to avoid discussion of fundamental doctrine such as scripture alone vice tradition.

 

[Van]

Hi HankD, since the basis of your argument is two wrongs make a right, it carries no weight. Putting forth an argument against false doctrine using a mistranslation does not put down the argument. It just muddies the waters. You have not shown support for the "Son eternally begotten of the Father" as having any merit whatsoever. Now the Word was with God and the Word was God, now that covers the issue quite nicely, from John 1:1-3.

 

[HankD]

Hi HankD, since the basis of your argument is two wrongs make a right, it carries no weight. Putting forth an argument against false doctrine using a mistranslation does not put down the argument. It just muddies the waters. You have not shown support for the "Son eternally begotten of the Father" as having any merit whatsoever. Now the Word was with God and the Word was God, now that covers the issue quite nicely, from John 1:1-3.

Van are you Trinitarian, if so what is your definition of the Trinity?
Just curious.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Don]

Yes, all you do is post posts calculateed to debunk the thread. You have added nothing to the discussion, seeming to want to avoid discussion of fundamental doctrine such as scripture alone vice tradition.

There you go again; did you mean "fundamental doctrine," or did you mean "fundamental baptist doctrine"?

I believe you meant "fundamental doctrine"; in which case, you've once again proven my point that this topic is in the wrong section.

Move it to Translations, or Theology & Study; I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.

 

[Van]

HankD, I thought the topic was scripture alone versus tradition. Now when I tread on your tradition, you question my belief in the trinity. One God in three persons encapsulates the trinity doctrine, as taught in John 1:1-3. Father, Son (or Word) and Holy Spirit, our eternal trinity.

 

[HankD]

HankD, I thought the topic was scripture alone versus tradition. Now when I tread on your tradition, you question my belief in the trinity. One God in three persons encapsulates the trinity doctrine, as taught in John 1:1-3. Father, Son (or Word) and Holy Spirit, our eternal trinity.

Yes I did question your belief in the Trinity but not to pass judgment.
You also do the same and question the beliefs of others but after all this is a debate forum.

Obviously you are trinitarian, at least we agree on that premise.
But even the phrase itself "Trinity" is one of tradition.

It is not found in the Scripture therefore it is a doctrine of tradition based upon the meaning of words.

My point is that it is that the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is only found in the tradition (yours as well as mine) that led to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The same leaders who developed this doctrine also defined the relationship between the persons of the Trinity in opposition to the Arian belief who held to your view (Christ was a unique being) although you are not Arian as you confess His deity.

The reason they (Arians) say Christ was a unique being as opposed to being of the same essence of the Father is that the Scripture would have said mono-huios (only-son) instead on mono-genes (only-begotten).

The word mono-genes (focusing on the genes syllable) means that only Christ comes forth in a unique manner out of the essence of the Father among His sons, it does not reflect upon His (Arian) supposed subjugation to the Father since they (Father and Son) are in reality equal in their eternal being and person not related to time but eternally.

This traditional doctrine of the Trinity (as opposed to Arianism) is based upon:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.​

In this passage Christ is seen both as the begotten one (in the bosom of the Father) and as Son with one definite article uniting both words (monogenes and hious).

This is the traditional view, yours is also a "traditional" view but from a different tradition, the Arian tradition even though you are trinitarian.

Apparently this is a new development which redefines monogenes (or in your view correctly defines the word) employed by many of the modern translations.

Indeed you are correct that I chose the traditional view but yours is no better IMO because both hold to different traditions that have to do with the meaning of terms which have different nuances in meaning.

Christ's eternal being
In the beginning was (hain) the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

"was" - hain
It must be an eternal relationship because the imperfect tense indicates continous existance in past time which can only be eternal as you have indicated in John 1: 1-3. No matter from what beginning He was there in continuing existence.

Personally I have no real quarrel with you as you hold that the eternal existence of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity.

And the word became flesh...

Again, just out of curiosity do you hold to the eternal Sonship of Christ?
That is also a traditional view.

I ask because some trintarians do not, they believe Christ was the LOGOS
from eternity but the selfsame person (the Logos) became the human Son of God (by title and function) when begotten in the womb of Mary.

Also I don't ask in order to criticize your belief in some sort of judgment but out of a sincere desire to know what you and others believe.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong (well yes I do but I can do it).

Not that I am admitting that I am wrong in this case.

After all, to repeat, the trinitarian doctrine is a doctrine born out of tradition as to the meaning of words since the word itself is not found in Scripture.

Below is an example of an explanation of the traditional view of monogenes related to the Scripture (and it is a critical writing as is yours) if those who hold to the traditional view are interested.

Again this is to illustrate the differences of views both claiming scripture and not a personal judgment from me but to illustrate a point in the debate.

This phrase translates a single Greek word and explicitly points to the eternal generation of the Son in the Trinity.
The truth is, those who do not acknowledge this meaning of the word μονογενής in the Johannine writings are themselves dogmatically motivated. Their preferred translation—“only”—is an undertranslation which hides from view a Scriptural datum that supports the Christology of the ancient Creed but which happens to be unpopular with modern theologians.

Found in the piblic domain at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html

HankD

 

[Van]

Hi Don, "there you go again" pushing a policy of your own invention. We know you said the purpose of your questions were to "debunk" the thread, but now you say you would be happy to discuss the topic if only I bow to your sovereignty. The question is, were you being disingenuous then, or now? If the answer if both, there you go again.

 

[Van]

Hi HankD, I completely disagree with your position of scripture as understood by men of the past having value over scripture as correctly understood. The Trinity was not born out of the invention of men, it is found in our inspired scripture.

Paul addresses using lies to defend truth and says that dog will not hunt.

Lets address the relationship of the three persons. Did the Father create the Son? No! Is the second person of the Trinity eternal and equally God Almighty? Yes!!!!

You referenced John 1:18, yet used the mistranslation version. Jesus is the one of a kind Son of God. Adam was a son of God, but not like Jesus. Born again believers are sons of God but not like Jesus, He is one of a kind.

Next, you again claimed two wrongs make a right, i.e. it is ok for you to hold to tradition because you claim in other areas I hold to tradition. But if I hold to the inventions of men, rather than accurately handing the word of God, then those of my views that fit that claim are bogus too. Two wrongs do not make a right and the ends do not justify the means.

Do I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the trinity. I do not want to be too tricky here, but Hebrews certainly used Son to describe the second person of the trinity in His eternal state. So if "sonship" means "godship" or in other words all three persons are eternal and fully God, then yes. But the Word (logos) and the Son are one and the same thing, i.e. the Word did not become the son when He became flesh.

And lastly the charge of being dogmatically motivated is repeated in the quote. Two wrongs do not make a right!!!!!

I am motivated to stick to the doctrine of scripture alone, and when scripture differs from my understanding I like to think I would change in a New York minute.

In summary, monogenes should be translated "one of a kind." All valid doctrines can be supported from scripture alone and none are the inventions of men. Neither can a valid doctrine be supported with arguments based on mistaken understandings of scripture, that just muddies the waters.

 

[Van]

When used in reference to a son, it cannot mean “one of a kind,” because the parent is also of the same kind.

This appears to be a traditionalist argument in favor of "only begotten." It is from the same article HankD linked in his post.

Here we see that the argument is based on defining "kind" as members of a group, therefore no one member could be one of "that" kind. Logical and sound. However, if the kind had only one member, then it would be "one of a kind." So in a sense, the Word is not one of a kind but one of three persons of God. However, God, all three persons, is one of a kind. And there is only one of each person of the Trinity, so in that light then the Word/God the Son is one of a kind.

So the actual idea is that Jesus is a son of God, just as Adam was and just as born again believers are, but no son of God is like God the Son, He is one of a kind.

 

[HankD]

This appears to be a traditionalist argument in favor of "only begotten." It is from the same article HankD linked in his post.

Here we see that the argument is based on defining "kind" as members of a group, therefore no one member could be one of "that" kind. Logical and sound. However, if the kind had only one member, then it would be "one of a kind." So in a sense, the Word is not one of a kind but one of three persons of God. However, God, all three persons, is one of a kind. And there is only one of each person of the Trinity, so in that light then the Word/God the Son is one of a kind.

So the actual idea is that Jesus is a son of God, just as Adam was and just as born again believers are, but no son of God is like God the Son, He is one of a kind.

Van, we are mostly in agreement differing only concerning a nuance of the word monogenes and I like the way you put that in your last sentence.

I will bow out now as whatever points of the debate could be made have been made.

Now folks will have a little better of a contemporary understanding concerning what it means to "count the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin". These kind of debates continuing on in Christendom. It is important to some of us though.

Yes, you were correct from the beginning concerning tradition however it is still my belief that tradition is not necessaily wrong where scripture is the final appeal though differently interpreted by the opposing viewers.

Thanks
HankD