Ok, but is John 1:18 saying the Son will be declared or the Father?
Edit: Please don't take that I'm trying to separate the three, as I believe, just as you, they cannot be. I am do fully believe in the Trinity as inseparable.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
John 1:18
- Thread starter wfdfiremedic
- Start date
Ok, but is John 1:18 saying the Son will be declared or the Father?
Edit: Please don't take that I'm trying to separate the three, as I believe, just as you, they cannot be. I am do fully believe in the Trinity as inseparable.
Harold Garvey
New Member
The Son.:type:Ok, but is John 1:18 saying the Son will be declared or the Father?
Harold Garvey
New Member
Um, Brother, the entire Book of John is about the Deity of Christ.Considering the first 17 verses how do you gather that? I don't see the Holy Spirit ever being referred to there. And that doesn't separate them.
wfdfiremedic
New Member
This is what really struck me from the link I provided in the above post. |I do not have the education to tell you whether it is a sound argument or not.
At the Council of Nice in AD325, the Nicene Creed was developed as a compromise
on the Trinity and the person of Christ that most of the bishops could sign. The council
was called and supervised by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine insisted
on the unity of the Churches, because the Arian controversy had caused a great
division. And division in the official state religion of Rome could not be tollerated by
the Church-state marriage initiated by Constantine. In making Christianity the official
religion of the Roman Empire, Constantine could not permit two separate Christian
denominations. The Nicene Creed affirmed the deity of Christ. But, its wording leaves
the origin of the "Son" a bit ambiguous. It implies that the Son was begotten by the
Father prior to creation. But also condemns those who say that he did not exist before
He was "begotten." The idea appears to have been that the Son, although eternal,
was not distinct from the Father until he was "begotten" at some point prior to creation.
By the time of the Council, the main point of contention between orthodoxy and
Arianism concerned how the Son came to be "begotten" in ancient times - whether
He was of the same "substance" as the Father, or whether He was a "God" distinct from
the Father (that is a sub-deity). The council ruled against Arius. In essence, the Nicene
Creed says that God the Son was begotten before creation, as the offspring of the
Father, but of the same "substance" as the Father.
Even though most of the bishops signed the creed, after the council there was much
chaos regarding what it meant. Also, those sympathetic to some of Arius' ideas held
their own councils, and made various decrees and creeds of their own, with varying
degrees of compromise between Arianism and the Nicene "orthodoxy," but still
maintaining that the Son was a sub-deity not equal to the Father. The Council
convened by the Emperor had acheived unity in name only. Not all of the bishops or
factions of the Church would let go of all elements of Arianism so easily. But what does
this have to do with our study? The Nicene Creed contained the phrase, "only
begotten of His Father," but the competing Arian creed contained the phrase, "only
begotten God." Following is the Nicene Creed, as signed by the majority of the bishops,
and a portion of the competing creed by the Arian influenced faction.
The Nicene Creed Arian Creed
"We believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, the only-begotten of
his Father, of the substance of the
Father, God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the
Father. By whom all things were made,
both which be in heaven and in earth.
Who for us men and for our salvation
came down [from heaven] and was
incarnate and was made man. He
suffered and the third day he rose
again, and ascended into heaven.
And he shall come again to judge both
the quick and the dead. And [we
believe] in the Holy Ghost. And
whosoever shall say that there was a
time when the Son of God was not, or
that before he was begotten he was
not, or that he was made of things that
were not, or that he is of a different
substance or essence [from the Father]
or that he is a creature, or subject to
change or conversion — all that so say,
the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes them."
NOTE ARIAN CREED:
"We believe, conformably to the
evangelical and apostolical tradition,
in One God, the Father Almighty, the
Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the
Universe, from whom are all things. And
in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Onlybegotten
God, by whom are all things,
who was begotten before all ages from
the Father, God from God, whole from
whole, sole from sole, perfect from
perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord,
Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light,
Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd,
Door, both unalterable and
unchangeable; exact Image of the
Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and
Glory of the Father; the first born of
every creature, who was in the
beginning with God, God the Word, as
it is written in the Gospel, and the Word
was God’..." 22
The main difference between the two groups concerns the "substance" of Christ and
whether He was one with the Father, or whether He was a distinct sub-deity. The Arians
saw Him as a sub-deity, and also used the expression, "only begotten God" in their
creed.
At the Council of Nice in AD325, the Nicene Creed was developed as a compromise
on the Trinity and the person of Christ that most of the bishops could sign. The council
was called and supervised by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine insisted
on the unity of the Churches, because the Arian controversy had caused a great
division. And division in the official state religion of Rome could not be tollerated by
the Church-state marriage initiated by Constantine. In making Christianity the official
religion of the Roman Empire, Constantine could not permit two separate Christian
denominations. The Nicene Creed affirmed the deity of Christ. But, its wording leaves
the origin of the "Son" a bit ambiguous. It implies that the Son was begotten by the
Father prior to creation. But also condemns those who say that he did not exist before
He was "begotten." The idea appears to have been that the Son, although eternal,
was not distinct from the Father until he was "begotten" at some point prior to creation.
By the time of the Council, the main point of contention between orthodoxy and
Arianism concerned how the Son came to be "begotten" in ancient times - whether
He was of the same "substance" as the Father, or whether He was a "God" distinct from
the Father (that is a sub-deity). The council ruled against Arius. In essence, the Nicene
Creed says that God the Son was begotten before creation, as the offspring of the
Father, but of the same "substance" as the Father.
Even though most of the bishops signed the creed, after the council there was much
chaos regarding what it meant. Also, those sympathetic to some of Arius' ideas held
their own councils, and made various decrees and creeds of their own, with varying
degrees of compromise between Arianism and the Nicene "orthodoxy," but still
maintaining that the Son was a sub-deity not equal to the Father. The Council
convened by the Emperor had acheived unity in name only. Not all of the bishops or
factions of the Church would let go of all elements of Arianism so easily. But what does
this have to do with our study? The Nicene Creed contained the phrase, "only
begotten of His Father," but the competing Arian creed contained the phrase, "only
begotten God." Following is the Nicene Creed, as signed by the majority of the bishops,
and a portion of the competing creed by the Arian influenced faction.
The Nicene Creed Arian Creed
"We believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, the only-begotten of
his Father, of the substance of the
Father, God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the
Father. By whom all things were made,
both which be in heaven and in earth.
Who for us men and for our salvation
came down [from heaven] and was
incarnate and was made man. He
suffered and the third day he rose
again, and ascended into heaven.
And he shall come again to judge both
the quick and the dead. And [we
believe] in the Holy Ghost. And
whosoever shall say that there was a
time when the Son of God was not, or
that before he was begotten he was
not, or that he was made of things that
were not, or that he is of a different
substance or essence [from the Father]
or that he is a creature, or subject to
change or conversion — all that so say,
the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes them."
NOTE ARIAN CREED:
"We believe, conformably to the
evangelical and apostolical tradition,
in One God, the Father Almighty, the
Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the
Universe, from whom are all things. And
in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Onlybegotten
God, by whom are all things,
who was begotten before all ages from
the Father, God from God, whole from
whole, sole from sole, perfect from
perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord,
Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light,
Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd,
Door, both unalterable and
unchangeable; exact Image of the
Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and
Glory of the Father; the first born of
every creature, who was in the
beginning with God, God the Word, as
it is written in the Gospel, and the Word
was God’..." 22
The main difference between the two groups concerns the "substance" of Christ and
whether He was one with the Father, or whether He was a distinct sub-deity. The Arians
saw Him as a sub-deity, and also used the expression, "only begotten God" in their
creed.
Last edited by a moderator:
wfdfiremedic
New Member
Please note: I am not a KJVO guy trying to stir the pot. However, I am starting to become a Majority text preferred individual.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
You seem to reference John 15:26 (KJV) --... Who declares The Son? C'mon, WHO? We all know Jesus declared the Father, and IF we compare Scripture we'll also find the Holy Ghost declares Jesus when "he shall speak of me". ...
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
But the timing of the Holy Spirit's testimony of the Son is very clear: it is future (it would be after the resurrection & ascension of Christ). It should not be anachronistically applied to John 1:18. John is carefully building the theology of the Deity of Christ; John in the Prologue has not yet introduced the Holy Spirit."He" and "him" are pronouns; the must have antecedents. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned before verse 18 of John's Gospel. Therefore, grammatically "he" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit".
Last edited by a moderator:
Harold Garvey
New Member
Um, Christ is not another God separate from the Holy Spirit.Christ is not the Holy Spirit.
I suppose you'd be one to deny that the Holy Ghost declares the Son?
Harold Garvey
New Member
I find that to be an error. The Holy Ghost was not pre-existent in John 1:18.You seem to reference John 15:26 (KJV) --
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: But the timing of the Holy Spirit's testimony of the Son is very clear: it is future (it would be after the resurrection & ascension of Christ). It should not be anachronistically applied to John 1:18. John is carefully building the theology of the Deity of Christ; John in the Prologue has not yet introduced the Holy Spirit.
"He" and "him" are pronouns; the must have antecedents. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned before verse 18 of John's Gospel. Therefore, grammatically "he" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit".
I also don't find the John prevented the Holy Spirit from anything just because he hadn't been introduced by him.
Um, Christ is not another God separate from the Holy Spirit.
I suppose you'd be one to deny that the Holy Ghost declares the Son?
I never said that, and no I don't deny that the Holy Ghost declares the son.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Harold, you should familiarize yourself with the term 'eisogesis'.... I also don't find the John prevented the Holy Spirit from anything just because he hadn't been introduced by him.
Eisegesis has always been a common problem.Harold, you should familiarize yourself with the term 'eisogesis'.
Harold Garvey
New Member
Then where does your problem understanding John 1:18 precludes chronological order of the existence of the Holy Ghost?I never said that, and no I don't deny that the Holy Ghost declares the son.