THE MEANING OF MONOGENES IN JOHN

[John of Japan]

I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

IF you apply the term only to the virgin birth, why?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think the John usages normally refer to the incarnation. 1 John 4:9 is somewhat different, and might be taken to refer to His eternal Sonship. I've never studied that issue out personally, so I would probably be at sea if we discussed it here. I have only taught one class on theology in my career, though I've taken my share of sys. theo. courses.

 

[percho]

Was Mary in any manner necessary to, "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."? Only, unique, what of the Father? To Jesus being the only, unique, Son of God?

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

What does God speak? God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; Heb 1:1,2

Where was, "the Word," that was made flesh, the only of the Father, in the beginning? Does Hebrews 7:9,10 give us a clue? And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

I have asked before, "Did Jesus, the Son of God, the firstborn of the virgin Mary, of the tribe of Juda, in Abraham, pay tithes to Melcheisdec?

Why would this understanding, which is according to the word of God, take away from Jesus being, Emmanuel?

 

[percho]

To me the greatest statement of the word of God, concerning belief.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt 1:24,25

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15

Why was the woman taken from the man? How was she suppose to be, his helper?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

 

[a SATS prof]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

---
John, as you likely know by the Syst Theol courses you've taken, there are four understandings in Evangelical l;iterature (which I've read) as to how/why Christ is Son of God: (1) He became Son by His virginal birth (eg Van Bruggen;Alex Campbell) , (2) He is Son because He is the same kind as the Father (eg Warfield & Erickson, (3)
`

 

[a SATS prof]

3. He is Son because He eternally MUST submit to the Father's will (Grudem), 4. He is Son because He ternally receives His nature or deity or Personhood from the Father(Dahms, Berkof, Wiley, Shedd)

#4 bases its belief partly on monogenes. THAT'S what I meant.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry for citing you thrice. I am just learning to use BB. In fact, if someone will tell me how to check my PMs (if I have some) I'd appreciate that. (1) Other terms are also applied only to persons in the NT. EG, agapetos occurs about 70 times in the NT. But only of people. A writer never says "My agapetos pet" or "My agapetos church." So that monogenes only in the NT is used of people is not evidence of it not only meaning unique or only one.(2) Outside of the Scriptures, monogenes is applied to things other than people. In the Greek classics the gods and heaven are called monogenes. And in the first century, a well known Christian writer/leader calls a bird monogenes.Birds are not born.

The bird in question is the mythical phoenix. I think many of your points are answered here http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html which I linked in my article.

 

[John of Japan]

John, as you likely know by the Syst Theol courses you've taken, there are four understandings in Evangelical literature (which I've read) as to how/why Christ is Son of God: (1) He became Son by His virginal birth (eg Van Bruggen;Alex Campbell) , (2) He is Son because He is the same kind as the Father (eg Warfield & Erickson, 3. He is Son because He eternally MUST submit to the Father's will (Grudem), 4. He is Son because He eternally receives His nature or deity or Personhood from the Father(Dahms, Berkof, Wiley, Shedd)

#4 bases its belief partly on monogenes. THAT'S what I meant.

Thanks much for the quick education. The text for the Christology class I took was Erickson. In retrospect and looking at the four positions you give, that is the one I take (#2; after all, Erickson is a good Baptist ).

However, I can see how the word monogenes might be used to bolster #1. In my thinking, though, monogenes is used by John simply to portray the incarnation, not to refer to Christ's eternal Sonship. Thus, 1 John 4:9 is not saying that Jesus was monogenes before the incarnation, but simply pointing out His preexistence.

 

[a SATS prof]

The bird in question is the mythical phoenix. I think many of your points are answered here http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html which I linked in my article.

===
Thanks looks like good stuff! You wrote these articles, right? "my article."

 

[a SATS prof]

Thanks much for the quick education. The text for the Christology class I took was Erickson. In retrospect and looking at the four positions you give, that is the one I take (#2; after all, Erickson is a good Baptist ).

However, I can see how the word monogenes might be used to bolster #1. In my thinking, though, monogenes is used by John simply to portray the incarnation, not to refer to Christ's eternal Sonship. Thus, 1 John 4:9 is not saying that Jesus was monogenes before the incarnation, but simply pointing out His preexistence.

---

John I agree with #2 also.

When it comes to Christology, the two Baptists Grudem & Erickson much disagree. I concur with Erickson, but disagree with Grudem, that God the Son is not eternally role subordinate. But then I concur with Grudem, but disagree with Erickson,that God the Son incarnate had to give up the use of some attributes of God as omnipresence and omniscience.

 

[John of Japan]

---

John I agree with #2 also.

When it comes to Christology, the two Baptists Grudem & Erickson much disagree. I concur with Erickson, but disagree with Grudem, that God the Son is not eternally role subordinate. But then I concur with Grudem, but disagree with Erickson,that God the Son incarnate had to give up the use of some attributes of God as omnipresence and omniscience.

Then we are in sync.

 

[a SATS prof]

I did not mean to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on this one word monogenes.
---
However, some do hold that the Trinity stands or falls on monogenes meaning only begotten . One such is Rodman Williams in his Renewal Theology.

With like (IMO unreasonable confidence) Grudem insists that unless God the Son in the nothingness before creation flittered around attending to the Father's will (yes, I embellish),the Trinity simply could not be.

As to the Nicene Creed affirming eternal begetting and the tenet being much in the Patristics, I wonder if eternal generation was not made popular at that time as a reaction to doctrine of the Son being God's first creation as asserted by Arius and by Origen's concept of the Logos-- not by a renewed examination of Scripture.

I wax even more bold in my lack of humility: What Biblical proof--, not vigorously contested by experts--supports eternal generation aside from a questionable understanding of monogenes?

God forgive mistakes I may make,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

===
Thanks looks like good stuff! You wrote these articles, right? "my article."

I didn't write that article. I wrote the article I linked in Post #6,
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/only-begotten-unique-or-only-son/ where I link to the one by 'Bible Researcher.'

I hope that's clear(ish).

 

[a SATS prof]

I didn't write that article. I wrote the article I linked in Post #6,
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/only-begotten-unique-or-only-son/ where I link to the one by 'Bible Researcher.'

I hope that's clear(ish).

---
understood now. thanks.