Does The Son of God CONTINUE To Be Begotten of God?

[o2bwise]

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

I wrote this in another discussion board. For your consumption:

Official Trinity Doctrine - Begotten

According to what I have read, the following is what it means for the Son of God to be "begotten" of God.

The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.


The terms we use are much less important than the MEANING we attribute to the terms. To confess a belief in a term is meaningless if one does not confess to the official meaning attributed to the term.

To confess a belief in the Trinity, IN TRUTH, one must confess that where it refers to the BEGOTTEN aspect, the Son of God is still being begotten of the Father. It is a never-ending process.

If one is an OFFSPRING of another, the offspring "comes to be" as a result of the FINISHING of the process one can call "begotten." In other words, one can say that so and so begat so and so. In a sense, one does not think of "so and so" as BEING until so and so was begotten.

Thus, to confess the Sonship of Christ, IN MEANING, I believe, requires confessing that Christ was begotten of God and that the Sonship is a result of the TERMINATION of that process of God begetting.

But, the Trinity denies this for Christ continues to be begotten. It is a never-ending phenomenon.

Thus, for me, homage to the Trinity is tantamount to denial that the Son of God IS the SON of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Solly]

I believe the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son refers not to an ongoing process, but to a process that dates from eternity rather than in time, defined so as to counter the idea of Christ as subordinate through a later creation, as with the Arians, Socinians, etc.

Belated Welcome to TWEb o2.

[o2bwise]

Hi Solly,

Thanks for your welcome!

My belief is that the Sonship (Son of God) of Christ is tied to His having been begotten (only begotten Son of God) and thus was an event such that:

1. Before it happened, perhaps before time existed, there was no Son.

2. After it happened and because it happened, there is a Son of God.

3. It needed to happen in order for there to be the Son of God.

4. In a sense, it needed to be completed in order for there to be the Son of God.

For our highly finite minds, I confess to looking at it as God gave birth to a Son.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Jacob]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95179#post95179)
Solly:

I believe the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son refers not to an ongoing process, but to a process that dates from eternity rather than in time, defined so as to counter the idea of Christ as subordinate through a later creation, as with the Arians, Socinians, etc.

Belated Welcome to TWEb o2.

Agreed, with a reservation... Instead of looking at it as a "process" (which demands "timing"), consider it a logical rather than sequential construct. It probably happened "before" time, so it has no basis in time. It describes the relationship, apart from time.

Jacob

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** thumbs up to Jacob regarding conceiving the procession of the Son in a logical rather than chronological/sequential template. now, to o2--

1. Before it happened, perhaps before time existed, there was no Son.

**7** to speak of a before time seems to me to be incoherent. if we are to think of God as existing timelessly, then this cannot simply imply thinking of a moment on an everlasting timeline as "the beginning" of time. in that case, time would be nothing more than the prolongation of what was already there.
since the nature of the Son's being begotten hasn't been discussed by you on a level that addresses this point, i don't see how your first point can stand. in other words, the evidence hasn't been given evaluation enough to warrant even a tentative conclusion.

2. After it happened and because it happened, there is a Son of God.

**8** if your "after" is understood in a logical rather than chronological sense, then i have no problem with your second point.
it is clearly not nonsensical for one thing to be "from" another for more than one moment--the analogy you mentioned above regarding the sun and light proves that, at the very least, the notion of a termporal eternal generation is by no means incoherent. and also, it may be worth pursuing whether or not the begetting of the Son necessarily "must" occur (according to your tentative chronological template) within, rather than outside of, time.
if we are to use words in a less than (or more than) literal manner when talking about God, we should consider in what sense do the words we use speak meaningfully about God? when the Psalmist writes that he is under the "shadow of the wings" of God, this (i hope you will agree) is not intended literally; what, then, is it saying? what is it to be under the shadow of the wings of God?
and likewise with the words "beget" and "Father". what manner of begetting would be most appropriate to our thoughts of a purely spiritual being? and so on.

3. It needed to happen in order for there to be the Son of God.

**8** granted. at the same time, there needed to be a Son in order for God to be Father.

4. In a sense, it needed to be completed in order for there to be the Son of God.

**7** i'm not sure what this might mean? a human is a real person both after and while they are being begotten. and furthermore, while being spatially separate from our parents does emphasize the distinctness between us and them, this does not nullify the fact that at every moment of our existence we receive being and life mediately from God ("he upholds all things by his word of power", etc.) hence though we are materially distinct, the fact of perpetual generation in a very real sense remains--the parents are merely the conduits through which God gives us life, our birth from them is no more than one moment--the first--out of an eternity of such.
if it is true that everything that exists exists by the power of God (the Father) himself, then it follows that if the Son is not God (the Father), and the Son exists in an immediate relationship to the Father (i.e., he isn't brought into being through the agency of something else, as we are with our parents), therefore the Son must subsist in relation to God (the Father) in an identical manner at every moment of his being. and furthermore, it follows that if the Father can at one moment bring forth the Son, there is no reason why he can't bring forth the Son at every moment at which he exists, and thus at every moment at which the Father exists, the Son would exist also. ("always" and such words, in the above, can be taken either in a chronolgical or logical sense. i personally believe God to be "outside of time", and thus take words such as "then" or "next" or "always" in an analogical manner).

For our highly finite minds, I confess to looking at it as God gave birth to a Son.

**8** but i wonder whether or not this is being too anthropomorphic--the very validity of the concept you seem to suggest depends on the categories of time and space (at time1 the Father only exists; at time2 the Son is begotten outward from the person of the Father; at time3 the Son exists, just to the left of [or, how would you put it?] the Father).
and out of curiousity--i imagine that Col. 1:15ff is quite an important verse for you. would you be interested in looking at a different interpretation of it?
peace!

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 07:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95400#post95400)
Jacob:



Agreed, with a reservation... Instead of looking at it as a "process" (which demands "timing"), consider it a logical rather than sequential construct. It probably happened "before" time, so it has no basis in time. It describes the relationship, apart from time.

Jacob

Your right Jacob, wrong choice of word on my part; he always was the Son. Eternal Generation defines the relationship he stands in to the Father - not the process by which he became the Son, just as procession defiens the relationship the Holy Spirit stands in to the Father and the Son (unless you're Eastern Orthodox).

[o2bwise]

Hi Solly,

Eternal Generation defines the relationship he stands in to the Father

I believe SON defines the relationship He stands in to the Father. And this requires that Christ was begotten and that being begotten is not some continuous process.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi phantaz,

Man, I think you guys complicate things more than is necessary.

The things of God, even the INVISIBLE things of the Godhead can be understood by the things that are made.

Why not just look at how this creation operates? Every offspring is younger than its parents. Every offspring is LIKE its parents via inheritance.

God is God.

The Son of God is the Son of God via birth. And if our finite minds can't quite wrap themselves around how "birth" isn't exactly precise or accurate because "God is Spirit," I am sure He will cut us some slack.

God gave birth to a Son. The Son is divine by virtue of being the Son of God.

Very simple.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Solly]

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96012#post96012)
o2bwise:

Hi Solly,
I believe SON defines the relationship He stands in to the Father. And this requires that Christ was begotten and that being begotten is not some continuous process.
God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Yes, it does, but Eternal Generation of the Son defines the relationship he stands in, in distinction from creationist and subordinationist doctrines. It is a clarifying of the issue; there are those who say he became Son in his incarnation, or baptism for instance, or even post resurrection. There are those who see "Son" as metaphorical of his mystical experience of God, or his anointing with the Holy Spirit, or his righteous life. Where error abounds, the Church will more carefully define what it believes.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** hey Solly, i dig ya picture! from the cover of Quasten's _Patrology_, aye? if so, bravo!
say hey o2--

Man, I think you guys complicate things more than is necessary.

**7** that's what analysis is--the freeing of thought from the bewitchment of language. your complaint of "complexity" has no force at all with me; it seems rather an attempt to give yourself a greenlight so as to carry on with your presuppositions without having them checked.
you didn't at all engage my points. if you continue to believe as you do, don't pretend as though no one was there to answer your objections.

The things of God, even the INVISIBLE things of the Godhead can be understood by the things that are made.

**8** rather, "what can be known" through created things is knowable.

Why not just look at how this creation operates? Every offspring is younger than its parents. Every offspring is LIKE its parents via inheritance.

**7** and every offspring is one day greater than its parents, and every parent is substantially lessened by bringing forth its offspring. are you going to carry these over into your understanding of the procession of the Son of God as well? what of the Son being "in" the Father and the Father "in" the Son? in what way does that correspond to a human being who, after being begotten, will never again be "in" the parent?

God is God.

**8** and unless it is also true either that "God is a human being" or that "God exists within time at a particular place within the universe", your argument has no force whatever.

The Son of God is the Son of God via birth. And if our finite minds can't quite wrap themselves around how "birth" isn't exactly precise or accurate because "God is Spirit," I am sure He will cut us some slack.

**8** he may well.
but this doesn't imply that we should ignore what hints he has given us, such as "radiance of the Father's glory" and "image of the invisible God" and "refulgence of eternal light".
these suggest the "sun and sunshine" analogy as opposed to the "born at 12:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 1,000,987 b.c." model you opt for.

God gave birth to a Son. The Son is divine by virtue of being the Son of God.

**7** agreed.

Very simple.

**8** if that's your stance, you probably haven't thought enough about it.
if you don't go back through and engage the points i made in my initial post, i won't talk with you anymore.
peace.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96654#post96654)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** hey Solly, i dig ya picture! from the cover of Quasten's _Patrology_, aye? if so, bravo!


/ot Phantaz, I didn't know the origin, thanks for that. Found it on a website.

[mickiel]

05-13-2003 @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95174#post95174)
o2bwise:

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

I wrote this in another discussion board. For your consumption:

Official Trinity Doctrine - Begotten

According to what I have read, the following is what it means for the Son of God to be "begotten" of God.

The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.


The terms we use are much less important than the MEANING we attribute to the terms. To confess a belief in a term is meaningless if one does not confess to the official meaning attributed to the term.

To confess a belief in the Trinity, IN TRUTH, one must confess that where it refers to the BEGOTTEN aspect, the Son of God is still being begotten of the Father. It is a never-ending process.

If one is an OFFSPRING of another, the offspring "comes to be" as a result of the FINISHING of the process one can call "begotten." In other words, one can say that so and so begat so and so. In a sense, one does not think of "so and so" as BEING until so and so was begotten.

Thus, to confess the Sonship of Christ, IN MEANING, I believe, requires confessing that Christ was begotten of God and that the Sonship is a result of the TERMINATION of that process of God begetting.

But, the Trinity denies this for Christ continues to be begotten. It is a never-ending phenomenon.

Thus, for me, homage to the Trinity is tantamount to denial that the Son of God IS the SON of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)


This is a bunch of spagetthi if i have ever seen any. twisted motion going nowhere but ingested into stomach acid. Often resulting in futher sickness.

[o2bwise]

Hi phantasz,

you didn't at all engage my points. if you continue to believe as you do, don't pretend as though no one was there to answer your objections.

Job stress. Expected to travel 80% of my time. Very high learning curve.

I suppose I shouldn't have replied at all.

I'll tell ya what. Make it easy on me. List THREE points, labeled #1, #2, and #3. Succinctly summarize what the point is and elaborate following such summarization.

Eventually, I'll respond.


"As though no one was there to answer..."

When the Trinitarian doctrine was first officially declared, those who did not believe in it were labelled heretics and could suffer penalty of DEATH. (I'll find the quote.) It is papal through and through. It's rise is synonymous with papalism and persecution of professed Christian against professed Christian. I doubt I will ever "see" that the foundation of the papal church, the Trinity, is essential truth.

A historicist application of the 1260 day prophecy (of persecution) sees a fit between 538AD and 1798AD. When the little horn uprooted three horns and emerged as a religious power within Rome. Hmmmm, what theology emerged with this power?


I have mentioned this before. I have gone through entire books of the NT and listed all texts that refer to ho theos. Counted the times ho theos is Father only, counted the times ho theos is Father only and the text refers to Christ as some other than ho theos. Counted the times the Holy Spirit was not mentioned at all.

The main problem I see, is that we likely disagree at a fundamental level just how truth is extracted from the word. I personally believe in a preponderance of evidence study. Bring all the texts to the fore. Some may not be understood, but just look at the weight of evidence.

It's not even close. For example, numerous times, God is declared to be the God of our Lord Jesus Christs. Hundreds of times, ho theos is specified as the Father ONLY.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

From:
http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_More/100%20and%20More%20Mysteries%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm


When the Trinity was developed after Nicaea and the doctrine of eternal generation was added, a revolutionary new teaching regarding the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God was formally incorporated into the Christian faith. The doctrine of eternal generation was but a subtle variation of the Gnostic Platonian philosophy of emanationism which taught that Christ and the Father as well as a pleroma of other beings had a co-eternal existence. On the other hand, eternal generation taught that the Son of God was being eternally generated from the Father by an unceasing process in the same way a ray of the sun’s light is being constantly emitted from the sun–its source–to which it is inseparably and permanently attached. This meant that the Son had an eternal manifestation alongside the Father, however, not as a Being, (another sun Mal.4:2) but as a projection, a ray of light emanating from the Father (sun). Since the Son has always extended from the Father and it is His role to reveal the Father, and if this was, in the first instance, through the act of creation, then it would logically follow that created beings were also co-eternal with the Father and the Son. This is, in effect, what Origen was saying in a somewhat different way.

This was contrary to the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists:
that the Son of God pre-existed from all eternity immanently within His Father’s bosom as His thought and was begotten or extrapolated as the Word in eternal times to reveal the Father through creation.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** SOLLY!! and you use the Jesus Prayer as your signature line! if you was a girl i'd be kissin' ya! :cheers:
say hey o2--

I'll tell ya what. Make it easy on me. List THREE points, labeled #1, #2, and #3. Succinctly summarize what the point is and elaborate following such summarization.

**7** eh? just (eventually) interact with what i've already posted, point-by-point -- i'm also busy, and i don't see any real reason to restate something that is already clear enough.

When the Trinitarian doctrine was first officially declared, those who did not believe in it were labelled heretics and could suffer penalty of DEATH.

**8** so? if a maniac says "the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, and anyone who disagrees will be handed over to the state for punishment", how does the unjustness of the latter assertion in any way disqualify the possibility of the former being nonetheless true?
and besides, during the Nicene period, the anti-Trinitarians also had their days of favor with the emperors. Ossius--a 90 year old bishop--was put to the whip for believing in the real divinity of the Son; pope Liberius was exiled for several years; Athanasius was given the boot half a dozen times, once by (the "wretched"!) Constantine himself.
if the period from 320 to 381 proves anything at all, it proves unambiguously that politics could not and did not shape the theology of the Church.

It is papal through and through. It's rise is synonymous with papalism and persecution of professed Christian against professed Christian.

**7** what?!? the Pope wasn't even present at the Council of Nicea--the bishop who had the most power at it was probably Osius of Cordova, and it is doubtful that he was one of the Pope's legates. there wasn't even one Roman representative at the Council of Constantinople (which gave the definitive statement regarding the Trinity, and issued the form of the Nicene Creed which is still adhered to today). there wasn't a major theological figure from Rome during the entire controversy. while it is true that Rome was the most doctrinally consistent place during the whole period, it would be absolutely false to claim that Christendom "became Trinitarian" because Rome was Trinitarian.

I doubt I will ever "see" that the foundation of the papal church, the Trinity, is essential truth.

**8** well, since i am a Roman Catholic, the above comment--even ignoring its complete absence of substance--has no force at all against me. both Irenaeus and Origen also make the Father, Son, and Spirit the point of departure for their theology as well.
therefore, so much the better for the papists--they believe as they are baptized.

A historicist application of the 1260 day prophecy (of persecution) sees a fit between 538AD and 1798AD. When the little horn uprooted three horns and emerged as a religious power within Rome. Hmmmm, what theology emerged with this power?

**8** ? and on the side, it is interesting that none of the Apostles used the 69 weeks of Daniel as "proof" that Jesus was the awaited one; even moreso that we have no evidence of some independent whipster "going by the Scripture and the Scripture only" arriving at that conclusion after analyzing the text for himself.
i grant no authority whatever to conspiracy theorists who see incrypted in the Bible everything that they want to. if the Trinity is false, let it be shown by reason, exegesis, and the testimony of history.

I have gone through entire books of the NT and listed all texts that refer to ho theos. Counted the times ho theos is Father only, counted the times ho theos is Father only and the text refers to Christ as some other than ho theos. Counted the times the Holy Spirit was not mentioned at all.

**7** a Jehovah's Witness named Brian Holt did the exact same thing with the entire New Testament, and then wrote a 400 page book on it. for my review of his book, and critique of this approach, go to
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html
your objection misses the point and has no force against the doctrine of the Trinity.

The main problem I see, is that we likely disagree at a fundamental level just how truth is extracted from the word. I personally believe in a preponderance of evidence study. Bring all the texts to the fore. Some may not be understood, but just look at the weight of evidence.

**8** i deal with that in the above link as well.
my approach is as follows--read the Bible within its historio-theological context, and interpret within the Tradition of the Church in order to stay within bounds.

From:
http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and...e%20Trinity.htm

**7** ...etc. there are other articles on the Trinity at Tekton as well, by JP Holding, Dee Dee Warren, and myself, that dismantle your link.

When the Trinity was developed after Nicaea and the doctrine of eternal generation was added, a revolutionary new teaching regarding the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God was formally incorporated into the Christian faith.

**8** the notion of the eternal generation wasn't "added" "after Nicea". it is explicitly present from Origen onwards, and implicit whereever you find anyone speaking of the Son as the logos of God.

The doctrine of eternal generation was but a subtle variation of the Gnostic Platonian philosophy of emanationism

**7** to the extent to which the above is true, then so much the better for the Gnostics and Platonists.
but the doctrine is actually to find its origin in Scripture; specifically, the equating of Christ's Sonship with his being the Word, and the identity of the Word with the Wisdom of God. more specifically, with interpreting Heb. 1:3 in light of Wis. 7:25f.

Since the Son has always extended from the Father and it is His role to reveal the Father, and if this was, in the first instance, through the act of creation, then it would logically follow that created beings were also co-eternal with the Father and the Son. This is, in effect, what Origen was saying in a somewhat different way.

**8** Origen did not teach the above. he recognized a distinction between everlastingness (forwards and backwards) and eternality, and placed the Trinity only in the the latter category, while placing creation in the former as a hypothesis rather than as a dogma.

This was contrary to the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists:
that the Son of God pre-existed from all eternity immanently within His Father’s bosom as His thought and was begotten or extrapolated as the Word in eternal times to reveal the Father through creation.

**8** if the Son exists within the Father in a manner analogous to the way in which though exists in the mind of God (and God was, for the Apologists especially, pure mind), how is it that a doctrine of eternal procession is not clearly implied?
peace.

[AVmetro]

and besides, during the Nicene period, the anti-Trinitarians also had their days of favor with the emperors. Ossius--a 90 year old bishop--was put to the whip for believing in the real divinity of the Son; pope Liberius was exiled for several years; Athanasius was given the boot half a dozen times, once by (the "wretched"!) Constantine himself.
if the period from 320 to 381 proves anything at all, it proves unambiguously that politics could not and did not shape the theology of the Church.

Now you're going to have to recommend another book to me. :smile:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey coolman--

Now you're going to have to recommend another book to me.

**8** got seventy spare bucks? R P C Hanson's _The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God_. nyuk nyuk nyuk.
seriously though, how's that other one workin' out for ya? good i hope.
peace.

[Uriyah]

Interesting question you bring up, believe it or not, I had a dream with two demons mention this to me in a dream, it was just a short part of our conversation we had. Anyway, in part of the conversation they said "Jesus is eternally begotten." I replied "How can one be eternally begotten? You need to find another way to word it, for it makes no sense." As I said to those demons, I say to you "How can one be eternally begotten"?

[AVmetro]

:hrm:

[Uriyah]

What? Did I say something odd?

[AVmetro]

Well, "begetting" is an act. It is an act that can be *continued* even in our temporal reality. Therefore, if the act does not have a beginning and continues for eternity, we would have "eternal begetting".

I'm not absolutely certain I agree with the doctrine. It's certainly not necessary to Trinitarian belief. That is, if you refuted it, you wouldn't refute the doctrine of the Trinity as it's simply a related, argued aspect OF the Trinitarian God. Personally, given the better understanding we have today of 'monogenhs', I don't see much support for the doctrine.
monogenhV monogenes; gen. monogenous, masc. -fem., neut. monogenon, from monos (3441), only, and genos (1085), stock.
Unique, one of a kind, one and only. The only one of the family (Luke 7:12 referring to the only son of his mother; 8:42, the daughter of Jairus; Luke 9:38, the demoniac boy). John alone uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the realationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Genos, from which genes in monogenes is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and geno comes from ginomai (1096), become, as in John 1:14, "And the Word became [egeneto] flesh." This in in distinction from gennao (1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennao is gennema (1080), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique. There are two schools of thought regarding the meaning of this term. The first view, which began with Origen, teaches that Christ's unique Sonship and His generation by the Father are eternal being predicated of Him in respect to His participation in the Godhead. Although monogenes was traditionally cited in proof of this explanation, modern proponents, recognizing the mistaken identification of genes as a derivative of gennao instead of genos, understand the word to be descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. This would serve to distinguish the Sonship of Christ to God from that spoken of other being, e.g. Adam (Luke 3:28), angels (Job1:6), or believers (John 1:12). The last view teaches that Chris's uniwque Sonship and generation by the Father are predicated of Him in respect to the incarnation. The proponents of this interpretation unequivocally affirm the triune nature of the Godhead and Christ's diety teaching that it is the word logos (3056), Word, which designates His personage within the Godhead. Christ's Sonship expresses an economical relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5). Thus the appellation referes to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the preincarnate Word. Therefore, monogenes can be held as syn. with the God-Man. Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God.
He is never called teknon Theou (teknon [5043], child; Theou [2316], of God) as the believers are (John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1,2,10; 5:2). In John 5:18, Jesus called His very own (idion [2398]) Father. To Jesus, God was not a Father as He is to us. See John 20:17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Him and believers. The term monogenes also occurs in Heb. 11:17.

[The Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates p.996]

God bless--AV

[AVmetro]

Actually, to be more specific, it's more like a "procession from" God the Father. I believe there is actually quite a bit of support on that in intertestamental lit. Search for JPHolding's article on 'Jesus: God's Wisdom' at his website.

-AV

[Paul]

Well there's two processions within the Trinity. One procession is the procession of the Son (from the Father). The other is the procession of the Holy Spirit. These two processions have to be different in some way because otherwise there would be no distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit and so we wouldn't have a Trinity. The procession of the Holy Spirit is often called "spiration" whereas the procession of the Son is called "begetting." But tacking two different names on each doesn't make them different! ... there has to be a more substantive account of the difference.

[o2bwise]

If being begotten is linked to being a son, being that son happens in a full sort of a way after the event of being begotten is terminated.

Kind of like when I was born from my mother's womb. When birth was completed, mom and dad "had" a son.

Begotten Completed => Son

Thus, once again, the Trinitarian model denies the Sonship of the Son of God IN MEANING. Sure, it is ASSERTED, but it doesn't MEAN it. Christ is a Son, all the while He is still being begotten. Thus the linkage between being a Son as a result of being begotten is destroyed.

If Trinity meant it, the begotten event would terminate and the result would be a "Son."

Just like with sons and daughters in this world. (Romans 1.)

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Hey, 02,

I think the word "Son" denotes the type of relationship Christ has with His Father. I can adopt a son and he be my "son" w/o having "begotten" him. Not to imply that Christ was "adopted" :)

But I think from JPH's perpective, if the 'begetting' is "eternal" then I don't think anything is destroyed.

I also don't believe that 'son/daughtership' begins upon birth (was that your point?). A pregnant woman (I almost said "man or woman"!) is pregnant with her son/daughter. The child is still the child (son/daughter) of the parent while in the womb.

Lastly, if I haven't mentioned it before, I'm not entirely bought on 'eternal begetting' especially since doing a quick word study on 'monogenhs'.

God bless you--AV

o2bwise:

If being begotten is linked to being a son, being that son happens in a full sort of a way after the event of being begotten is terminated.

Kind of like when I was born from my mother's womb. When birth was completed, mom and dad "had" a son.

Begotten Completed => Son

Thus, once again, the Trinitarian model denies the Sonship of the Son of God IN MEANING. Sure, it is ASSERTED, but it doesn't MEAN it. Christ is a Son, all the while He is still being begotten. Thus the linkage between being a Son as a result of being begotten is destroyed.

If Trinity meant it, the begotten event would terminate and the result would be a "Son."

Just like with sons and daughters in this world. (Romans 1.)

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi AV,

I think the following is substantive enough to support the truth that Christ was begotten and the result was the Son of God. I emphasized some of the particularly "begotten" text with bold font.

Ron, interested in what you make of this as well.

From:
http://www.smyrna.org/

Tract titled: The Truth About God


Paul wrote concerning Christ that He “is the image 1504 [likeness*] of the invisible God, the firstborn 4416 [see note below] of every creature.” (Colossians 1:15)

Note: The Greek word prwtotokoV that was translated firstborn, means this: “or it may be; born before all creation.” (Wigram’s Greek Lexicon) “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” *

Micah prophesied, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth 4163 [origin&] have been from of old, from everlasting [the days of eternity (Green’s Literal Translation)].” (Micah 5:2) “Whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2, Revised Standard Version)

This verse is talking about the Son of God, whose origin (beginning) was long before the beginning of this world; and time as we know it. We know that this verse is talking about the Son of God, because it is quoted in reference to Him. “And when he [Herod] had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:4-6)

The Scriptures again affirm the wonderful truth that Christ is in reality the Son of God; brought forth from the Father. In the first verse of Proverbs 8 it says that wisdom is speaking. Who is wisdom? Verse 8 tells us that He has a mouth, and speaks. Paul wrote, “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:24) “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30) Christ is Wisdom, and is speaking in Proverbs chapter 8.

“When there were no depths, I was brought forth 2342; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth 2342.” (Proverbs 8:24, 25) Also, let us look at this verse in The 1965 Bible in Basic English: “When there was no deep I was given birth, when there were no fountains flowing with water. Before the mountains were put in their places, before the hills was my birth.”

The Hebrew verb which was translated brought forth is used, in this verse, in the Pulal form: the definition for the Pulal form is the only definition that can apply here. This definition is as follows: “to be made to writhe, be made to bear, to be brought forth.” & This verb in this form is only used three places in the Bible, and here are the other two places where it is used.

“Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made 2342 [Hebrew: Pulal form] before the hills?” (Job 15:7) “Behold, I was shapen 2342 [Hebrew: Pulal form] in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5) As you can plainly see, the term brought forth in Proverbs 8:24, 25 can mean nothing other than being begotten, or born. If Proverbs 8:24, 25 were talking merely about an intellectual wisdom, then you must say that at some point God acquired wisdom, and that before that time He did not have wisdom. These verses cannot be talking about that, but rather the origin of the Son of God.

Let us continue on with the rest of the verses in Proverbs chapter eight, and learn more about the characteristics of Wisdom.

“While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there [Remember John 1:1, the Word was with God in the beginning when He made the heavens]: when He set a compass upon the face of the depth: When He established the clouds above: when He strengthened the fountains of the deep: When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment: when He appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:26-36)

The terms Father and Son, by definition, indicate the existence of one before the other. This was the understanding of the Israelites. In the book of Proverbs we read: “Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is His name, and what is His son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4)

The New Testament over and over affirms the fact that Christ was brought forth from His Father before the world was. “John [who was six months older than Jesus] bare witness of Him [Jesus], and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred 1096 [to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being*] before me: for He was before me.” (John 1:15) “This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred 1096 before me: for He was before me.” (John 1:30)

Jesus said, “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out 1831 from God. I came forth 1831 [to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of*] from the Father, and am come 2064 [to come from one place to another*] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:27, 28) Jesus was born of the Father before the world was, then; much later, He came into the world.

Jesus said unto the Pharisees, “If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth 1831 and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent me.” (John 8:42)

Jesus prayed to His Father, “Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out 1831 from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” (John 17:7, 8)

The disciples prayed that God would perform miracles “by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” (Acts 4:30) Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. He was not merely called the Son of God since He was born in Bethlehem.

Jesus said to His disciples, “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater 3187 [elder*] than I.” (John 14:28) The Greek word meizwn that was translated greater in this verse, is translated elder in Romans 9:12. “It was said unto her, The elder 3187 shall serve the younger.” (Romans 9:12) Here is the definition of the Greek word meizwn that was translated elder: “larger (literally or figuratively, specifically in age).” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary) Here we have plain evidence that the Father is older than His Son. It does not take a wise man to figure out something that is so plain a child can understand it. Ask your child, “Who is older, you or me?” I am sure he will give you the right answer.

[o2bwise]

I'm kind of surprised no one replied to my last post. Does it not support the idea that God begat a literal (in contrast to created) Son?

God Bless,

Tony

[AVmetro]

Hi, Tony,

Sorry I didn't reply. For some reason, I haven't been receiving email notifications on these threads _or_ I've been absent mindedly deleting them (quite possible). I haven't been thoroughly checking the board lately either.

You cited from the article:


Paul wrote concerning Christ that He “is the image 1504 [likeness*] of the invisible God, the firstborn 4416 [see note below] of every creature.” (Colossians 1:15)

Some feel this denotes Deity in some manner. Others feel it carries the meaning of what it did in the case of Adam as well as all of mankind (Gen1:26-27). I hold to the former. Either way, I don't see the view of "literal birth" necessitated.


Note: The Greek word prwtotokoV that was translated firstborn, means this: “or it may be; born before all creation.” (Wigram’s Greek Lexicon) “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” *

Louw Nida (LN) gives the meanings a firstborn (10.43), b existing before (13.79), or c superior (87.47) [Vol II]. LN, Vol I - 10.43 The figurative meaning of prwtotokoV pashV ktisewV 'firstborn of all creation' (Col 1.15) may be interpreted as 'existing before all creation' (see 13.79) or 'existing superior to all creation' (see 87.47).

You may also want to search forananswer.org for Dr. Robert Keay's article on the OT use of "firstborn" and how this relates to Christ in Col 1:15. From that article, I gleaned the following:The firstborn son in Israel represented the nation’s calling to be God’s firstborn son. As such he represented the nation’s redemptive purpose and hope. The nation was called into existence to serve God by bringing salvation to the world. Ultimately this calling and hope centered in a coming Messiah who would realize the promise of salvation. The title “firstborn” had definite Messianic overtones for the Israelites. Redemption would be accomplished through God’s “firstborn” son Israel (Ex. 4:22), who is represented by the King, God’s “firstborn” son (Ps. 89:27), whose son would redeem the nation and rule forever on David’s throne (2 Sam. 7:12-16). It is no surprise, then, that later Rabbis spoke of the Messiah as “firstborn.” Rabbi Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Ex. 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a firstborn (Ps. 89:27)” [Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4]. And since God is ultimately the savior of the world, Rabbi Bechai said that “God is the firstborn of the world” [Pent. fol. 124:4].


This verse is talking about the Son of God, whose origin (beginning) was long before the beginning of this world; and time as we know it. We know that this verse is talking about the Son of God, because it is quoted in reference to Him. “And when he [Herod] had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:4-6)

I've seen this verse cited in support of the eternality of Christ in support of Trinitarianism. Being it's a Hebrew issue, it's beyond my scope. Perhaps GrayPilgrim would be willing comment?

The same applies to Prov 8 where JPHolding would say it supports Trinitarianism and where the Hebrew is beyond my scope other than that the word 'qanah' more carries the meaning of "to get."

Prov 30:4 I would agree is a ref. to the Son and is alluded to in John 3. I don't agree there is anything to indicate a 'literal birth' of this Son, however.

In regards to John 1:15, I believe they are simply wrong in their interpretation. The word ginomai refers to emprosqen immediately following it to speak of preeminence. Birth wouldn't make sense in the context of this verse.

Re: John 16:27, note the word para to which the "out of" refers.
According to the Analytical Lexicion of the Greek New Testament, edited by Timothy Friberg et al, the word, para, means:prepostion with a root meaning beside; I. with the genitive; (1) spatially, coming from the closeness of a person from (beside) (JN 6.46), from (the presence of) (JN 15.26)....

Re: John 8:42;17:7, 8. Commenting on Jn8:42, A.T. Robertson in his 'Word Pictures of the New Testament', states:For I came forth from God (ego¯ gar ek tou theou exe¯lthon). Second aorist active indicative of exerchomai, definite historical event (the Incarnation). See Joh_4:30 for exe¯lthon ek. In Joh_13:3; Joh_16:30 Jesus is said to have come from (apo) God. The distinction is not to be pressed. Note the definite consciousness of pre-existence with God as in Joh_17:5.[Bold mine for emphasis.]


The disciples prayed that God would perform miracles “by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” (Acts 4:30) Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. He was not merely called the Son of God since He was born in Bethlehem.

I don't disagree that the Christ was the 'Son of God' prior to His incarnation. However, I don't believe 'Son' necessarily entails "birth" anymore than you believe "birth" entails a heavenly 'mother' to accomplish this procreation.


Jesus said to His disciples, “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater 3187 [elder*] than I.” (John 14:28) The Greek word meizwn that was translated greater in this verse, is translated elder in Romans 9:12. “It was said unto her, The elder 3187 shall serve the younger.” (Romans 9:12) Here is the definition of the Greek word meizwn that was translated elder: “larger (literally or figuratively, specifically in age).” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary) Here we have plain evidence that the Father is older than His Son. It does not take a wise man to figure out something that is so plain a child can understand it. Ask your child, “Who is older, you or me?” I am sure he will give you the right answer.

The word also carries the meaning of "greater" as even Strong's will tell you. Hence the English translation. I think this meaning to best fit the context. W.E.Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words, gives the definition: <1,,3187,meizon>
is the comparative degree of megas (see GREAT, No. 1), e.g., Mat_11:11; in Mat_13:32, the RV rightly has "greater than" (AV, "the greatest among"); Mat_23:17; in Luk_22:26, RV, "the greater (among you)" (AV, "greatest"); in Jam_3:1, RV, "the heavier (marg., greater) judgment" (AV, "the greater condemnation"); it is used in the neuter plural in Joh_1:50, "greater things;" in Joh_14:12, "greater works" (lit., "greater things"); in 1Co_12:31, RV, "the greater," AV, "the best." See GREATEST, No. 2.

God bless you, Tony--AV