Sonship of Christ question

IMO, it's just that that is the only way to present it to us since we cannot completely comprehend the Trinity.

I agree with this statement.

Are we asserting that we have the trinity completely figured out?

The Nicene Creed is an important document - but it was written by men. And these men were consciously trying to word things so as not to support in any way the beliefs of Arius.

Christ is God and is the Son. To argue over whether or not the Father prexisted Him or over exactly what begotten means is pointless.

I would also assert that we do not get any extra insight by trying to microanalyze the Greek words (like gennao), which have broad semantic domains. Patristic Greek is not the same as biblical Greek. And the tense/aspect/temporal system of Latin is markedly different form that of Greek anyway, thus muddying the waters for those who would make an opinion based on "gannao".

So in summary I agree with Marcia.

 

I think it quite simple to show that no NT usage of gennao relates to an eternal begetting, and, as only John applies monogenes to the Son, and as John regularly employs the Septuagint, the seven Septuagintal usages of monogenes as a translation of the Hebrew yahid is insightful. None of these indicate derivation, and yahid certainly does not mean a begetting.

Gennao refers to generation of something. Monogenes can mean beloved, firstborn, unique, only - a wide rage of things. Yahid probably derives from "one" Compare Hebrew "ehad", Arabic "wahed", Canaanite "yahadu". It is used most frequently in terms of an only son. Yahid is also rendered as "agapetos". Thus we have several different words with a mish mash of potential meanings.

My assertion is simple: Whatever one's stance is on the "eternally begotten" issue - the case is NOT made (as usual) by the grammar/syntax.

Combining these words we get the picture of Jesus being "Son" of the Father.

Regarding the Nicene creed the wording in both the Greek and Latin (begotten before all the world) suggest an active attempt to imply that the Son is not a created being - thus the eternally begotten concept. I never said the the Nicene fathers were infallible.

 

===


I believe my above quote was a reply to what I understood you to say that an investigation of the meaning of gennao and its connection to the question of the eternal begetting of the Son , and by extension, monogenes as well, as applied to Christ in the NT, would result in a muddying of the waters. I would disagree with that IF that is your position. These are my thoughts:

1) re gennao: One could look at each text where the verb is used of Christ beginning with the very first NT usage Mt 1:16 [ "Mary of whom was born Jesus"] and go through them all and not find even one where the referent appears to be eternal generation!

Nevertheless, the framers of the early creeds glomped on that verb to define eternal Trinal relationships , anathematizing all who doubted their tenet, whereas the NT by using gennao describes temporal relationships.

There is no "mish-mash" of meaning in any of the NT texts , IMO ; the clear referent is His physical birth!

2) Re monogenes, there is more ground for argument. But as the adjective only translates 'yahid' in the LXX, as in the LXX derivation is not the point where monogenes is used, as other writers call Jesus 'agapetos,' (beloved) and never ' monogenes', and as the adjective likely derives from genos (kind) not gennao ( I beget) , it seems convincing evidence to me that in the term is no support for a doctrine of eternal begetting.

I happily admit both that much smarter people than I , as John V. Dahm's EG I assume is, disagree with me and that my Christology ,not my poor Greek , directs me more in my conclusions on these matters.

Nevertheless as these terms are used in Revelation, I feel compelled to do what I can to understand their usage in that Revelation. To do less I cannot.

3) re the motivation of the framers of the creed, IMO a simple, "THE SON IS TRUE GOD OF THE EXACT NATURE OF THE FATHER" would sufficiently repel Arius, who, after all, was content to say that the Son was born of the Father before ALL the worlds in both his personal creed and in letters too!!

[ June 10, 2005, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

UZ,

My assertion is that there is too much range of meaning for those words to assert that the Greek makes your point.

Another point would be that the Nicene creed says Jesus was "begotten not made" (gennethenta ou poiethenta, natum non factum).

The fact that they distinguish between being begotten and being "made" suggests that they were speaking about Jesus' existence and not His birth (which would unarguably be a "begetting").

 

It is evident from any study of the framing of the Nicene Creed, that the words "begotten not made" were used to combat the Arian heresy that "there was a time when to Son was not", and that the Father "begot" the Son in time. This language was borrowed from Origen and Lucian, who were the forerunners of Arianism. It was through the input of Eusebius the historian, that the NC used the language it did. Regretabally, some of the Orthodox party were also led astray by the craftiness of Origen's theology on the Trinity, especailly his doctrine of "Eternal Generation", of the Son's being from the Father. It is interesting that some of the Orthodox, namely Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, who subsituted "ek" for "para" at John 15:26, no doubt for the purpose of showing that the Son did not come from the "presence" of the Father, but "out of" the Father's substance, which this change would mean.

I have found that one of the best theological treatments done on the Two Natures of Jesus Christ, was by Leo the great, in his famous "Tome" to Flaviano, against the heresy of Eutyches, who "dissolved" Jesus by denying His Human nature.

For those of us involved in Textual Criticism, there is a very important variant reading for 1 John 4:3, where, instead of "confess not", it reads, "seperates", or "divides" ("luei", "solvit") Jesus. This reading which I believe to be the original, was known to Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lucifer, Socrates the historian says that it is found in Greek manuscripts, even the heretics, Origen and Priscillian knew of it, as did the Old Latin version, and Vulgate. This reading was used against the Gnostics who made a didtinction the earthly Jesus and heavenly Christ.

 

Either this thread is getting way too scholarly for me or it's the late hour (almost 2 a.m.) or it's both.

I think I was trying to say that Jesus and the HS being subordinate to the Father is one of order and function as a way for man to perceive the Trinity and their relationship with each other and has nothing to do with equality or lack of it. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is equal to the Father. If they are 3 person in one Godhead, they have the same nature and must be equal. You can't have a Trinitarian God with unequal Persons; it would be illogical.

I know the JW arguments; I've talked to them at my door many times and responded to their misuse of verses trying to show Jesus as inferior to God the Father.

I do think the Son is the Son eternally but this is a statement of relationship and function and not inferiority, because that is the only way we can understand it. If there are 3 Persons in the Godhead, how would God present that to man? God #1, God #2, God #3? Then there would be no distinctions between them or it would sound tritheistic. So we have God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS as equal yet distinct by their relationship and function.

I may have just made my original statement more difficult but it's really late.

 

===

I disagree,

The range of a word's meaning in a particular usage is limited by its context.

I think it obvious that the fathers meant a begetting. I think this is evident from the primary sources , the writings which preceded Nicaea , eg Tertullian, which were contemporary to it, eg Athanasius, and which followed it as the Cappadocians. Have you read these?

This certainly is the opinion in secondary sources of many who are qualified by their research to make such judgments as Grillmeier, Torrance, Kelly, Schaff, and Harnack.

 

UZ,

The range of a word's meaning in a particular usage is limited by its context.

That I would agree with.

And that is why I assert that pinpointing the meaning in this case has MORE to do with CONTEXT than the particular word used. Thus doing a "word study" (I hate that concept) of gennao or monogenes is not going to help pinpoint the meaning of the phrase. This comes from context and not verbal lexis, which can have quite a wide potential range.

I think it obvious that the fathers meant a begetting.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Do you mean that the "begotten not made" refers to Jesus human birth or to His very existence?

 

The phrase "begotten not made", was NOT used by the fathers for the Incarnation, but to the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father. This, is in my view, heresy of the highest order, langauge that has more agreement with Arianism, than the Bible

 

===

To His existence as a Trinal Person.

I am saying that I can show that many ante Nicene, Nicene, and post Nicene Fathers taught that the Son's Person or Godhead or subsistence or deity is eternally essentiated by the Father and that this is the Christological context for the Nicene definition and therefore qualifies the meaning of that creed!

Furthermore this view is replicated in both Reformational era theology as Arminius , and in modern as in the Greek Orthodox Church, and even in many Protestants as Berkof and Shedd and Dahms and Williams. That is: the Son is made God by the Father!

And I deeply resent that notion!

 

This all comes from the heretical teachings for Origen called "Eternal Generation", which he taught was that the Father "generates" the Divine essence of the Son, not in time, but eternally. This sounded acceptable to the Orthodox, many of whom adopted it as Biblical. This, as you have shown, is also accepted by many Protestant theologians. I cannot agree more when you say that it is "deeply resentful". I would call it a doctrine of demons.

 

UZ,

OK.

So what is your position on the "begotten not made"?

Do you see this as a reference to Jesus' birth as a human or as a reference to His very existence?

 

===

? Do you mean what do I think the fathers meant?

I think they meant that God the Father essentiate the personhood of God the Son.

As for me I think the Son as God is neither created or begotten.

 

I strongly disagree with your premise. If the Triune God [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] is not self existent then He is not God.

However, I thought the following information which I prepared as part of a study of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation might be useful. Most of it is quoted from John Dagg's Manual of Theology.

The Covenant of Grace

The doctrine of the sovereignty of God in Salvation is clearly expressed in the Covenant of Grace. This Covenant, an eternal covenant, is best understood as a covenant in which the three Divine Persons in the Godhead co-operate in man’s salvation [Psalms 2:8; 40: 6-8; 59:3; Isaiah 49: 3-12; John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20; Titus 1:2] and is summarized as follows:

1. It is God the Father who foreknew and chose a people to be His own before the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:4].

2. It is God the Son who agrees to humble Himself, take upon Himself the form of man, and die on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to salvation so that none are lost [John 17; Philippians 2:6-10].

3. It is God the Holy Spirit who agrees to apply the work of the Son to those chosen by God the Father and who regenerates and effectually calls those whom God the Father has chosen unto salvation [John 6: 37, 44; Ephesians 2:1-10].

We must not think that this Covenant of Grace was preceded by a proposal of terms by one person of the Triune Godhead followed by deliberation prior to acceptance or rejection of the proposal by the other persons of the Triune Godhead. God is One and the nature of the Godhead is such that perfect harmony, in fact, unity of thought must exist within the Triune Godhead.

Holy Scripture is the story of the outworking of the Covenant of Grace in time and history. Though there is one Covenant of Grace [and many subsidiary covenants] there have been two primary administrations of the Covenant, one before the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and one after His death and resurrection. The first administration as recorded in the Old Testament dealt in types and shadows of things to come [Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1]; the second administration, as recorded in the New Testament, presents the spiritual reality of that which was promised. This second administration was instituted by the death of Jesus Christ [Hebrews 7:14-28] and is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of a New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-33, Hebrews 8:6-13]. The elect of God have, since the fall of Adam, received the blessings of the Covenant solely through the Grace of God.

The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677 [Lumpkin, page 259], which was not signed until 1689 and is sometimes referred to by that date, defines the Covenant of Grace as follows:

“The distance between God and the creature is so great that, although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part [Luke 17:7-10; Job 35:7,8] which He hath been pleased to express, by way of Covenant.

Moreover man, having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall [Genesis 2:17; Galatians 3:10; Romans 3:20, 21], it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved [Romans 8:3; Mark 16:15, 16; John 3:16]; and promising to give unto all those that they ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe [Ezekiel 36:26, 27; John 6:44, 45; Psalm 110:3].

This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of woman [Genesis 3:15], and afterwards by further steps until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament [Hebrews 1:1]; and it is founded in that eternal Covenant transaction [2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2] that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this Covenant that all of the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved [Hebrews 11:6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2; Acts 4:12; John 8: 56] did obtain life and a blessed immortality; man being utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.”

J. L. Dagg [a prominent Southern Baptist of the 19th century] in his Manual of Theology [pages 253-257] expands on the above discussion, as follows:

“On a former occasion, it was shown that the Scriptures use the term covenant with great latitude of meaning. The propriety of its use in the present case, cannot well be questioned. We have three divine persons, who are parties in this covenant; and the doctrine of God’s unity cannot exclude the notion of a covenant, without, at the same time, excluding the distinction of persons in the Godhead. We are not to imagine, as included in this covenant transaction, a proposal of terms by one party, and a deliberation, followed with an acceptance or rejection of them, by the other parties. These things occur, in the making of human covenants, because of the imperfection of the parties. In condescension to our weakness, the Scriptures use language taken from the affairs of men. They speak as if a formal proposal had been made, at the creation of man, addressed by one of the parties to the others: Let us make man; but this is in accommodation to our modes of conception. An agreement and co-operation of the divine persons, in the creation of man, is what is taught in this passage. This agreement and co-operation extend to all the works of God; Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will. [Ephesians 1:11] The idea of counsel in all these works, accords with that of consultation. which is presented in the account of man’s creation. In every work of God, the divine persons must either agree or disagree. As they alike possess infinite wisdom, disagreement among them is impossible. The salvation of men is a work of God, in which the divine persons concur. It is performed according to an eternal purpose; and in this purpose, as well as in the work, the divine persons concur; and this concurrence is their eternal covenant. The purpose of the one God, is the covenant of the Trinity.

In the work of salvation, the divine persons co-operate in different offices; and these are so clearly revealed, as to render the personal distinction in the Godhead more manifest, than it is in any other of God's works. Beyond doubt, these official relations are severally held, by the perfect agreement of all; and, speaking after the manner of men, the adjustment of these relations, and the assignment of the several parts in the work are the grand stipulations of the eternal covenant.

That the covenant is eternal, may be argued from the eternity, unchangeableness, and omniscience of the parties, and from the declarations of Scripture which directly or indirectly relate to it: Through the blood of the everlasting covenant [Hebrews 13:20]; His eternal purpose in Christ Jesus [Ephesians 3:11]; In hope of eternal life promised the world began. [Titus 1:2]; Grace given in Christ Jesus before the world began. [2 Timothy 1:9]

Although God's purpose is one, we are obliged, according to our modes of conception, to view it, and speak of it, as consisting of various parts. So, the eternal covenant is one; but it is revealed to us in a manner adapted to our conceptions and to our spiritual benefit. The work of redemption by Christ is presented in the Gospel as the great object of our faith; and the stipulation for the accomplishment of this work, is the prominent point exhibited in the revelation which is made to us respecting the covenant of grace. The agreement between the Father and the Son is conspicuously brought to view, in various parts of the sacred volume: Thine they were, and thou gavest them me. [John 17: 6] Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.[Psalm 2: 8] Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire. Then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O God; [Psalm 40: 6-18] and in Isaiah, Chapter 49, the stipulations between the Father and the Son are presented, almost as if they had been copied from an original record of the transaction.

According to the covenant arrangement, the Son appeared in human nature, in the form of a, servant; and, after obeying unto death, was exalted by the Father to supreme dominion. The Holy Spirit also is revealed as acting in a subordinate office, being sent by the Father and by the Son. The Father alone is not presented as acting in a subordinate office; but appears as sustaining the full authority of the Godhead, sending the Son, giving him a people to be redeemed, prescribing the terms, accepting the service, rewarding and glorifying the Son, and sending the Holy Spirit. In all this the Father appears as the representative of the Godhead, in its authority and majesty. The Son also sustains a representative character. The promise of eternal life was made, before the world began, to the people of God, in him as their representative. The reconciliation between God and men is provided for by the covenant engagement between the Father and the Son; the Father acting as the representative of the Godhead, and the Son as the representative and surety of his people. The Holy Spirit concurs in this arrangement, and takes his part in the work, in harmony with the other persons of the Godhead. His peculiar office is necessary to complete the plan, and to reward the obedience of the Son by the salvation of his redeemed people. The promises of the Father to the Son include the gift of the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, the sending of the Spirit is attributed to the Son; [John 16:7] and sometimes to the Father at the petition of the Son.[John 14:16]

In this order of operation, inferiority of nature is not implied, in the subordination of office to which the Son and the Spirit voluntarily consent. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in each of the divine persons, and renders the fulfillment of the covenant infallibly sure, in all its stipulations. The Holy Spirit, in the execution of his office, dwells in believers; but he brings with him the fulness of the Godhead, so that God is in them, and they are the temple of God, and filled with the fulness of God. The Son or Word, in the execution of his office, becomes the man Jesus Christ; but the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him; so that, in his deepest humiliation he is God manifest in the flesh, God over all, blessed for ever.

The order of operation in this mysterious and wonderful economy, can be learned from divine revelation only. Here we should study it with simple faith, relying on the testimony of God. In the representation of it here exhibited, we may discover that the blessings of grace, proceeding from God, appear to originate in the Father, “of whom are all things,” to be conferred through the Son, “by whom are all things,” and by the Spirit, who is the immediate agent in bestowing them, the last in the order of operation. The approach to God, in acts of devotion, is in the reverse order. The Spirit makes intercession in the saints, moving them, as a spirit of supplication, and assisting their infirmities, when they know not what to pray for. Their prayers are offered through Christ, as the medium of approach; and the Father, as the highest representative of the Godhead, is the ultimate object of the worship. Through him [Christ] we have access by one Spirit to the Father.[Ephesians 2: 18] The Spirit moves us to honor the Son and the Father: and for this purpose takes of the things of Christ and shows them to us, that we may believe in him, and through him approach the Father. In this work he acts for the whole Godhead, and therefore his drawing is ascribed to the Father: No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.[John 6: 44] When we come to Jesus Christ, the whole Godhead meets us again in the person of the Mediator: for God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.[2 Corinthians 5: 19] And when we address the Father, as the ultimate object of our worship, the whole Godhead is there, and receives our adorations. In the covenant of grace, the triune God is so presented to the view of the believer, that he may worship without distraction of thought: with full confidence of acceptance, and with a clear perception that God is to him all and in all. In the retirement of the closet, the devotional man addresses God as present in the secret place, and holds communion with him, as a friend near at hand. When he comes forth into the busy world, he sees God all around him, in the heavens, and in the earth; and holds converse with him in this different manifestation of himself. When he lifts his thoughts to the high and holy place where God’s throne is, and prays, Our Father which art in heaven, his mind is directed to the highest and most glorious manifestation of the Deity. In all this he suffers no distraction of thought. The same omnipresent One is addressed, whether conceived to be in the closet, or in the world, or in the highest heavens. With equal freedom from distraction we may worship the Infinite One, whether we approach him as the Holy Spirit, operating on the heart; or as the Son, the Mediator between God and men; or as the Father, representing the full authority and majesty of the Godhead. We worship God, and God alone, whether our devotions are directed to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit; for the divine essence, undivided and indivisible, belongs to each of the three persons.

To guard against mistake, it should be observed, that the covenant which we have been considering is not identical with the new covenant of which Paul speaks in the epistle to the Hebrews. The latter is made, according to the prophecy which he quotes, with the house of Israel and the house of Judah;[Hebrews 8: 8] whereas the covenant of which we have treated, is not made with man. There is, however, a close connection between them. In the eternal covenant, promises are made to the Son, as the representative of his people: in the new covenant, these promises are made to them personally, and, in part, fulfilled to them. The promises are made to them: I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:[Hebrews 8: 10] and they are, in part, fulfilled I will put my law in their minds, and write it in their hearts.”

 

OR

You think something caused God to exist?