Featured Monogenes

Oh dear! That's what tends to happen when I rely on memory.

Yes, but 'the beginning,' from which God declares the end, is older than ancient.

I rather thought I had. All God's decrees were issued in eternity.. This has to do with the simplicity and unchanging nature of God. "For I am the LORD, I do not change.". And Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today and forever.' If He was the Son of God in Psalm 2, He was the Son of God in eternity.
The great puritan John Owen wrote: '"Today" being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to whom all time is so present as that nothing is properly yesterday nor today, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time as is intimated; but it is expressive of an act eternally present, nor past, nor future.'

In Colossians 1:13-18, we have a variety of things pronounced concerning 'the Son of [the Father's] love': Among these is the fact that the Son is the firstborn over all creation, that He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, and that He is before all things. Also, according to Hebrews 1:2, the Son made the worlds.

But with reference to the subject of the thread, I think we are in agreement.

 

Either way denotes what John was trying to get over to us, that Jesus was and is fully God!

 

Actually, I am agreeing with John, as he stated that from all eternity the Father generated His own Word, who was with Him forever and also was very God as he was!

 

God the Son, the Word, was eternally begotten of/by the father, while His humanity was born as incarnated as Jesus Christ!

 

Are you saying that in his deity, Jesus was and is the eternal Word of God who always existed, but as the man Jesus, in Incarnation, his humanity was begotten at that point in time? So prior to that was God the Word, but only took on being God the Son when becoming Jesus Christ?

 

was he always the Son, or was the Word, who when he became Jesus then assumed becoming the Son?

 

And yet again, that is precisely why the scriptures, as I've mentioned literally about a dozen times now, apply only begotten to Christ's human FLESH, not his human SPIRIT. Our spirits, as Christians, have born of the spirit, but not our flesh.

 

God the Son is eternal, while Jesus was born 2000 years ago!

 

Precisely, as I explained in previous posts.

 

The problem here is that you are confounding God the Word and God the Son beyond all distinction. Are they the same? Yes, absolutely. But there is a distinction - as clearly implied by the different titles.
God the Word only became God the Son when he incarnated.
I mean guys! you've read the gospels, have you not?!

 

The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed was a result of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The creed emphasizes the doctrine of the Trinity in response to the teachings of Arius, a clergyman who denied the divinity of the Son, the second member of the Trinity. This orthodox statement of faith is used by many denominations, including the RCA.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
THAT'S ETERNITY PAST. He said in the beginning was the Word, not the Son.

Joh 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.
THAT'S 2,000 YEARS AGO IN TIME when the Word becomes the Son for it's only AFTER v.14 that John then calls him Son

Joh 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.

 

Right.

As you have already mentioned several times, we should all remind ourselves that no one here is denying the Trinity, or the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, or that he is "very God." We are rather debating about and struggling with words, their meanings, and their implications. (Not saying that words are unimportant.)

As for me, I have nothing invested in eternal generation terminology. It is confusing at best, even to those who hold it. However, I have always and still do view as his holding the place of "Son" in the Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I have no more trouble believing this than that he was a Lamb slain before the event occurred in time on a hill outside Jerusalem.

This thread, started by Van to re-ply his view on monogenes, has, as they say, made some strange bedfellows.

 

Which was a great example of a heretical creed.

You think Mary is "THE Virgin"? And not "a virgin"?

You think water baptism grants forgiveness of sins?

You think amillennialism is true, which Paul describes as blasphemy?

 

There is a reason why John in his writings, when directly addressing God in eternity, always uses Word rather than Son - John 1:1, 1Jn.5:7, etc.

He was the Lamb foreordained as far as foreknowledge goes. Again, retrospection.

Indeed, because philosophical, not scriptural.

Anyway, I do appreciate your good natured responses.

 

I am afraid they may becoming your way soon. Many are being educated to do that. They have come to realize that most Americans cannot defend attacks on manuscripts.

Bowling Green KY and Nashville TN are being equipped to do this. I would venture to guess this will become a national effort.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Fully God...and fully man

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

According to the fathers of the Council of Nicea, the Logos is the Son of God because Of His relationship with the Father - eternally begotten of Him. The Spirit proceeding from Him.

Going against the eternality of the sonship of the preincarnate Logos goes against the Nicean Creed the document of most Trinitarian credal churches, see above.

Personally IMO it doesn't matter as the deity of Christ is not denied by whether one believes the Logos should or shouldn't be called the Son of God.

 

Being eternally begotten would be very God of very God!

 

I was just saying that that's not your typical Muslim. We deal with them here in Montreal.

And ultimately, please note, ultimately, although it's good to study manuscripts and defend them, 95% of Western Christianity does not believe that a perfect Bible exists anywhere - let alone the KJB - thanks to smarter-than-God-stuffed-shirt-scholars who turned seminary students into practical, please note, practical, disbelievers in the inerrancy of any printed Bible today...so as I was saying, ultimately, you CANNOT defend the manuscripts because your whole line of argument ENDS in the position of no perfect Bible anywhere today.
And that's an insanely unBiblical position to hold, and the Muslims rightly deride it.