Monogenes

[Martin Marprelate]

1) I think you were referring to Isaiah 46:10,

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

and his words there are:
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

At least in this verse you quote it's "declaring" not "decreeing" and it's "from ancient times" not "eternity".

1Ch 4:21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were, Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea, 1Ch 4:22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things.

We would agree that Saraph did not have the dominion in Moab from "eternity".

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

Also, you haven't dealt with the expression this day. There are no "this day"s in eternity past.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

You say "begotten"....I will just use "μονογενες" since we translate it a different way.

When John uses μονογενες (unique or "only begotten"), it is referring to Jesus after the incarnation. Jesus was not μονογενες until that point. It is putting on flesh that made Him completely "unique" among all beings, even among the God head.

Jesus was still the person and being He is today....but the uniqueness that he achieved in the incarnation was not yet manifest.

The fact that the μονογενες started at the incarnation is why I feel "unique" is better than "only-begotten". In my opinion the latter completely misses John's point...or at minimum clouds it unnecessarily.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

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

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is saying that. What it means is that he is a begotten being.

• If you place the begetting in time and ascribe that begetting to his flesh - then you preserve the deity of Christ.

• If you place that begetting in eternity and thus ascribe it to his spirit - then you deny [practically] the deity of Christ.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

No. you and i are born of the SPIRIT in time, Jesus (Logos) is the only begotten of the FATHER emanating from His inner most being from eternity.

from the bosom of the father - part of His essential being.sharing in the essence of deity.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

from eternity

baptism formula
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular-YHWH) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


AND THE JOHANNINE COMMA WHICH I BELIEVE IS SCRIPTURE

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

You're close, but if you have time, please read up on my posts. only begotten is exactly what it should say and what the Holy Ghost correctly said.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. My position is the Son was not caused in any way to be the Eternal Son. He was always the Son.

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

 

[George Antonios]

Again you and I are born of the SPIRIT, Jesus is begotten of the FATHER. He is unique.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

This sentence is foggy best.
This is an example of how we do not clear convey who Jesus is. You just said Jesus has an origin. You did not specify spiritual, or physical. To a Muslim you just contradicted youself within 1 sentence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

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

 

[George Antonios]

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?

Precisely, as I explained in previous posts.

 

[George Antonios]

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

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?!

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

It is the same person. He just wasn't incarnate then.

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.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

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?

 

[George Antonios]

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.

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.

As for me, I have nothing invested in eternal generation terminology. It is confusing at best, even to those who hold it.

Indeed, because philosophical, not scriptural.

Anyway, I do appreciate your good natured responses.

 

[McCree79]

Any Muslim that begins with Greek textual variants is not your typical Muslim, I guarantee that.

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

 

[McCree79]

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

Fully God...and fully man

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Being eternally begotten would be very God of very God!

 

[George Antonios]

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

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.