PDA

View Full Version : Commentary Thread: lee_merrill & 37818 - nature of Only Begotten Son



37818
10-08-2017, 10:24 AM
Berkhof argued, "This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past,." But goes on to argue, "but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son." Now the full deity of the Son with God the Father and the immutablity which accompanies the deity of the Son is not dependant upon that argument. But is true independantly of it.Certainly immutability and the deity of the Son are not being argued for. But Berkhov speaks here of the deduction from Scripture of the eternal generation of the Son.

You simply quoted Berkhoy and gave a conclusion he made - not his argument, not his deduction from any cited Scripture. So please explain the deduction he made.

Remember that term "begotten" in its ordinary use refers to a beginning. The concept of eternal generation refers to an "origin" without a "beginning." Which is a non sequitur on the face of it. God has no origin. What has an origin is not God.

rogue06
10-08-2017, 09:32 PM
You simply quoted Berkhoy and gave a conclusion he made - not his argument, not his deduction from any cited Scripture. So please explain the deduction he made.

Remember that term "begotten" in its ordinary use refers to a beginning. The concept of eternal generation refers to an "origin" without a "beginning." Which is a non sequitur on the face of it. God has no origin. What has an origin is not God.
You might want to PM him so that he knows this thread and your question exists.

37818
10-09-2017, 06:27 AM
You might want to PM him so that he knows this thread and your question exists.

Done.

One Bad Pig
10-09-2017, 12:15 PM
:hrm: The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.

Sparko
10-09-2017, 12:46 PM
:hrm: The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.yeah that's what I was thinking.

This is supposed to be for people to comment on the debate, not to continue the debate.

37818
10-09-2017, 01:55 PM
:hrm: The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.


yeah that's what I was thinking.

This is supposed to be for people to comment on the debate, not to continue the debate.

Well make your comments already. No body did, so I had a question and a comment.

Anyway, if you do not want me to continue discussing it. That is fine with me.

rogue06
10-09-2017, 02:22 PM
:hrm: The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.
IIRC I've seen debate participants do that in commentary threads before. The only difference is that this thread was started by one of the participants.

lee_merrill
10-09-2017, 04:22 PM
Berkhof argued, "This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past,." But goes on to argue, "but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son." Now the full deity of the Son with God the Father and the immutablity which accompanies the deity of the Son is not dependant upon that argument. But is true independantly of it.
You simply quoted Berkhoy and gave a conclusion he made - not his argument, not his deduction from any cited Scripture. So please explain the deduction he made.
Yes, that was my intent, to explain the deduction he made, from Scripture.


Remember that term "begotten" in its ordinary use refers to a beginning.
Yes, so "today I have begotten you" cannot refer to a beginning of Jesus' life.


The concept of eternal generation refers to an "origin" without a "beginning." Which is a non sequitur on the face of it. God has no origin. What has an origin is not God.
Unless "origin" refers to "source", then the Father can be the source of the Son, the origin in that sense.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-10-2017, 06:17 AM
Yes, that was my intent, to explain the deduction he made, from Scripture.What was the scripture that Berkhof was making his deduction from? And please explain that deduction step by step.



Remember that term "begotten" in its ordinary use refers to a beginning.
Yes, so "today I have begotten you" cannot refer to a beginning of Jesus' life.I never thought that it did. And upon study, according to the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul said that it refers to Jesus' bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33 and context). And in Jesus' resurrection He was "the beginning" (Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:22-23, 29; Revelation 1:5).



Unless "origin" refers to "source", then the Father can be the source of the Son, the origin in that sense.Also God has no source being the source of all things (John 1:3 note).



Blessings,
LeeYou are a good brother. Thank you.

lee_merrill
10-10-2017, 05:30 PM
What was the scripture that Berkhof was making his deduction from? And please explain that deduction step by step.
Yes, that was what the first part of my opening statement was:

I hope we both conclude that God is eternal (Rom. 16:26, Deut. 33:27), that God does not change (Ps. 102:26-27 / Heb. 1:11-12, Mal. 3:6, James 1:17), and that the Son is divine (John 20:28, 1 John 5:20).

So then if the Son is divine, he is eternal and he does not change. Now the Son is begotten of the Father (Ps. 2:7), so then the Son is begotten of God from all eternity.


Also God has no source being the source of all things (John 1:3 note).
Yet God the Son has his source in the Father, begotten of the Father, is what we see in Scripture.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-11-2017, 06:34 AM
Yes, that was what the first part of my opening statement was:

I hope we both conclude that God is eternal (Rom. 16:26, Deut. 33:27), that God does not change (Ps. 102:26-27 / Heb. 1:11-12, Mal. 3:6, James 1:17), and that the Son is divine (John 20:28, 1 John 5:20).

So then if the Son is divine, he is eternal and he does not change. Now the Son is begotten of the Father (Ps. 2:7), so then the Son is begotten of God from all eternity.


Yet God the Son has his source in the Father, begotten of the Father, is what we see in Scripture.

Blessings,
Lee

Well a number of things here. Berkhof's quote preceded the references which you provided in your opening argument. And you still are not indicating what Berkhof's Scripture reference(s) where for his deduction. Nor the steps of that deduction. :shrug:


“Its eternity [of the generation of the Son] follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son.” (Louis Berkhof)

I hope we both conclude that God is eternal (Rom. 16:26, Deut. 33:27), that God does not change (Ps. 102:26-27 / Heb. 1:11-12, Mal. 3:6, James 1:17), and that the Son is divine (John 20:28, 1 John 5:20).

Do you not understand that I do not deny the eternal Son and that I am only contending that the concept of eternal generation is both not according to God's word and unnecessary? The concept of "begotten of the Father before all ages" gave rise to the heresy of Arius. And the creed had to add the words "not made" to counter his heresy. Without those words "not made" the words "begotten of the Father before all ages" makes the Son of God a created being. :shrug:

lee_merrill
10-11-2017, 01:10 PM
Well a number of things here. Berkhof's quote preceded the references which you provided in your opening argument. And you still are not indicating what Berkhof's Scripture reference(s) where for his deduction. Nor the steps of that deduction. :shrug:
I don't know what exact verses Berkhof would have given, I included a sample here. Then I noted the steps of Berkof's deduction, as far as I understand it:

So then if the Son is divine, he is eternal and he does not change. Now the Son is begotten of the Father (Ps. 2:7), so then the Son is begotten of God from all eternity.


Without those words "not made" the words "begotten of the Father before all ages" makes the Son of God a created being. :shrug:
So we both agree that the Son of God is not a created being.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-11-2017, 09:14 PM
I don't know what exact verses Berkhof would have given, I included a sample here. Then I noted the steps of Berkof's deduction, as far as I understand it:

So then if the Son is divine, he is eternal and he does not change. Now the Son is begotten of the Father (Ps. 2:7), so then the Son is begotten of God from all eternity.Ok, can you set your understanding and my understanding of Psalm 2:7 side by side and explain how and why they differ? (1 Corinthians 1:10.)

Littlejoe
10-12-2017, 09:08 AM
Moved to correct forum, please continue

lee_merrill
10-13-2017, 04:25 PM
Ok, can you set your understanding and my understanding of Psalm 2:7 side by side and explain how and why they differ? (1 Corinthians 1:10.)
I'm not sure I can speak for you, but an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-14-2017, 06:26 AM
I'm not sure I can speak for you, but an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship.

Blessings,
Lee

Ok, maybe you do not understand. We, I thought, agreed that Psalm 2:7 did not refer to the Son of God's birth to be "made" flesh (John 1:14). Now I understand the reference to refer to the Son of God, ". . . the LORD hath said unto Me, Thou [art] My Son; . . ." And referred to as already being the [incarnate] Son of God. Now according to the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul, the being "begotten" refers to Christ's bodily resurrection, ". . . that He hath raised up Jesus again; . . . ," Acts 13:33 and context.

So how do you understand it differently?

lee_merrill
10-15-2017, 10:20 AM
We, I thought, agreed that Psalm 2:7 did not refer to the Son of God's birth to be "made" flesh (John 1:14). Now I understand the reference to refer to the Son of God, ". . . the LORD hath said unto Me, Thou [art] My Son; . . ." And referred to as already being the [incarnate] Son of God. Now according to the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul, the being "begotten" refers to Christ's bodily resurrection, ". . . that He hath raised up Jesus again; . . . ," Acts 13:33 and context.
Yes, I agree with all of this, and would add that "begotten" shows that the Son is begotten of the Father as part of his nature, an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-15-2017, 04:11 PM
Yes, I agree with all of this, and would add that "begotten" shows that the Son is begotten of the Father as part of his nature, an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship.

Blessings,
Lee

He already had a divine nature prior to His incarnation. And the incarnation took place prior to God saying to Him, "Thou [art] My Son." So what do you then mean by, "that 'begotten' shows that the Son is begotten of the Father as part of his nature?" And what do you mean by, "an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship," when the resurrection was supernatural?

lee_merrill
10-16-2017, 06:35 PM
He already had a divine nature prior to His incarnation. And the incarnation took place prior to God saying to Him, "Thou [art] My Son." So what do you then mean by, "that 'begotten' shows that the Son is begotten of the Father as part of his nature?"
Since God doesn't change, if the Son is begotten, then he has always been begotten.


And what do you mean by, "an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship," when the resurrection was supernatural?
By earthly I meant "on earth", in the earthly realm a supernatural event occurred. And this event of begetting would (because God doesn't change) speak of begetting as part of Jesus' nature, as the Father-Son relationship implies.

Blessings,
Lee

Adrift
10-17-2017, 05:55 AM
Blessings,
Lee

Totally off topic, but did you know that if you want your signature to show up in every one of your posts automatically, you can put it in your signature box by editing it on your profile page? That way you don't have to hand type it every post.

37818
10-17-2017, 06:15 AM
He already had a divine nature prior to His incarnation. And the incarnation took place prior to God saying to Him, "Thou [art] My Son." So what do you then mean by, "that 'begotten' shows that the Son is begotten of the Father as part of his nature?"Since God doesn't change, if the Son is begotten, then he has always been begotten.The Son of God, the "Word," was "begotten" when He was "made" flesh (John 1:14, Luke 1:35). And being the incarnate Son of God, after He physically died, He was "begotten" in His bodily resurrection (per Psalm 2:7). Where do you get the "Word," being the Son of God, who was always "God" being "begotten?" (John 1:1-3.)



And what do you mean by, "an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship," when the resurrection was supernatural?
By earthly I meant "on earth", in the earthly realm a supernatural event occurred. And this event of begetting would (because God doesn't change) speak of begetting as part of Jesus' nature, as the Father-Son relationship implies.

Blessings,
LeeThat is the assertion I have been asking you to explain. Repeating it does not explain it. Nor give the step by step deduction from Holy Scripture.

Do you not understand that I affirm that the eternal Son is equal with the Father as God, not being begotten in being God with the Father?

One Bad Pig
10-17-2017, 07:24 AM
Totally off topic, but did you know that if you want your signature to show up in every one of your posts automatically, you can put it in your signature box by editing it on your profile page? That way you don't have to hand type it every post.

Lee has a signature already, so I suppose it just feels natural for him to sign off manually. :shrug:

Adrift
10-17-2017, 08:10 AM
Lee has a signature already, so I suppose it just feels natural for him to sign off manually. :shrug:

Hmm. True. But...we already know who he is cause his name is right there in big bold letters above his profile picture. I've noticed this about some folks (typically older ones) who feel the need to sign off each post with their name, and it's always been a head scratcher for me. Makes more sense that, if you MUST have it, it should be in your signature line.

One Bad Pig
10-17-2017, 10:12 AM
Hmm. True. But...we already know who he is cause his name is right there in big bold letters above his profile picture. I've noticed this about some folks (typically older ones) who feel the need to sign off each post with their name, and it's always been a head scratcher for me. Makes more sense that, if you MUST have it, it should be in your signature line.
I view it as a courtesy thing. It might not matter to the recipient, but it just feels right to personally sign off on every communication, even though it's no longer necessary. People writing letters did it as a matter of course.

Adrift
10-17-2017, 10:17 AM
I view it as a courtesy thing. It might not matter to the recipient, but it just feels right to personally sign off on every communication, even though it's no longer necessary. People writing letters did it as a matter of course.

I guess so. Seems like a waste of time to me, but oh well.

lee_merrill
10-18-2017, 02:09 PM
Totally off topic, but did you know that if you want your signature to show up in every one of your posts automatically, you can put it in your signature box by editing it on your profile page? That way you don't have to hand type it every post.
Yes, thanks, that is a helpful feature, though I do like to type blessings to everybody.

Blessings!
Lee

lee_merrill
10-18-2017, 03:20 PM
The Son of God, the "Word," was "begotten" when He was "made" flesh (John 1:14, Luke 1:35). And being the incarnate Son of God, after He physically died, He was "begotten" in His bodily resurrection (per Psalm 2:7). Where do you get the "Word," being the Son of God, who was always "God" being "begotten?" (John 1:1-3.)
His earthly begetting speaks of a begetting by the Father in the Father-Son relationship.



By earthly I meant "on earth", in the earthly realm a supernatural event occurred. And this event of begetting would (because God doesn't change) speak of begetting as part of Jesus' nature, as the Father-Son relationship implies.
That is the assertion I have been asking you to explain. Repeating it does not explain it. Nor give the step by step deduction from Holy Scripture.

Do you not understand that I affirm that the eternal Son is equal with the Father as God, not being begotten in being God with the Father?
Well, fathers beget sons, that is the nature of a father-son relationship. God the Father begot Jesus (Ps. 2:7), so that aspect of the relationship is apparent there. Since God does not change, the aspect of being begotten would need to be unchanging too, and this would be true if Jesus is begotten from all eternity.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-18-2017, 06:49 PM
Well, fathers beget sons, that is the nature of a father-son relationship. God the Father begot Jesus (Ps. 2:7), so that aspect of the relationship is apparent there.In the incarnation after His death (Acts 13:33 and context)


Since God does not change, the aspect of being begotten would need to be unchanging too, . . .There is one big problem here - God is not begotten in any way.


. . . and this would be true if Jesus is begotten from all eternity.Jesus is His human nature not His divine nature. Jesus was begotten twice, once to become human (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). And again to be declared the Son of God in His incarnation in resurrection to become the immortal man (Psalm 2:7; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 13:8). Two distinct events in time. :shrug:

Now how does that answer my question?

lee_merrill
10-19-2017, 04:55 PM
There is one big problem here - God is not begotten in any way.
Maybe this is the heart of our disagreement, Jesus was begotten, and Jesus is God.


Jesus is His human nature not His divine nature.
Actually, Jesus is both his human nature and his divine nature.


Two distinct events in time.
And events in time can point to a timeless aspect of Jesus' nature.

Blessings,
Lee

37818
10-23-2017, 12:21 PM
Maybe this is the heart of our disagreement, Jesus was begotten, and Jesus is God. No, Jesus is His name as the man (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21; 1 Timothy 2:5).



Actually, Jesus is both his human nature and his divine nature.No, the Son of God has two natures and Jesus is His human name as the man in His human nature.



And events in time can point to a timeless aspect of Jesus' nature. As now that man, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8

In that before His incarnation He "was God" and that did not change in any way through the incarnation (John 1:1, 3, 14). But how He was "with God" was a change when He was "made" flesh (John 1:2, 14).

lee_merrill
11-01-2017, 04:16 PM
Alrighty, I think we'll leave it at that, and agree to disagree.

Blessings,
Lee