PDA

View Full Version : 37818 Curiosities: Homoousios



apostoli
08-17-2015, 01:43 AM
This is a split from here ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7785-Pentecost-on-37818-s-self-condemnation-in-an-error-of-his-view&p=228943&viewfull=1#post228943')



We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality), whereby the Son, having been begotten by the Father derives his ousia (essence) from his Father (cp. Heb 1:3).Only in part. I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father. I find the term "begotten" to be misleading and not used in this way in Holy Scripture, and as a concept lead to the error of Arius.You really do need to read Arius' letters to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria. Like you, he refused to admit that the Son was begotten by the Father even though such is the plain statement of scripture.



We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios...Only in part.Your rejection of the Son having been begotten by the Father means you reject the teaching of the homoousios 100%.

To be homoousios with anything one must be the natural offspring of that thing (ie: must be begotten). Thus Jesus having been begotten by the Father is homoousios with his Father (cp. Heb 1:3) concerning his theotēs (state of being God cp. Col 2:9), and upon his incarnation and conception in Mary, Jesus became homoousios with Mary and thus us, concerning his humanity.


I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father.The Arians would have agreed with your idea, they too rejected the begetal of the Son by the Father thus they rejected the teaching of the homoousios with the Father and insisted on homoiousios.

* Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).

* In other threads you have demanded that the Son as Son has without interval existed as Son. In which case, it was impossible for the Father to endow the Son with his ousia. If you now decide to allow an interval for the investiture then the Son underwent change and by your definition/s isn't God.

37818
08-17-2015, 12:09 PM
* Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia). That is false.

No one on Tweb has proved any such holy scripture that requires the only-begotten Son of God to have been begotten in any way in order to be the only-begotten from God the Father before all ages.

I hold the only-begotten of Son of God was always and was always was God with God His Father.

37818
08-17-2015, 01:49 PM
Corrected statement:


I hold the only-begotten Son of God was always and was always God with God His Father.

apostoli
08-17-2015, 11:30 PM
* Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).That is false.Which bit?

1. In many posts of yours and even here you acknowledge you reject the scriptural witness that the Son is the only begotten of his Father.
2. It is a fact that ousia can only be attained by inheritance (natural offspring) or endowment (creation). Which is why the non-Niceans rejected the term homoousios, prefering the term homoiousios.
3. The Church teaches in the homoousios that the the Father is the source and cause of the Son's ousia and the Spirit's ousia. Their Godhead defined from the ousia imprinted upon them by the Father.

Everytime you are incapable of offering any support for your silliness from any source you run for cover and shout "false" with absolutely no substantiation, which indicates you have no justification. It just makes you look like a complete moron...so if you feel something is false substantiate your accusation or don't make the accusation in the first place...


No one on Tweb has proved any such holy scripture that requires the only-begotten Son of God to have been begotten in any way in order to be the only-begotten from God the Father before all ages.No proof needed, it is a simple matter of grammar - monogenēs has only one indicative meaning. Consider Luke 8:38 where it is rendered "only child" or Luke 7:12 where we read of the "only" son of his mother or see Luke 8:42, 9:38; Hebrews 11:17. As even you should be able to read and see that in each case the word refers to the only child (offspring) of someone. A.John uses monogenēs when he speaks of the Son of the Father, it is most often translated "only begotten". If you retain your prejudice against the words "only begotten Son" then you have a problem because that is the sensible meaning of the Greek. If you want you can change John 1:14 to read "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only child of the Father,) full of grace and truth".


I hold the only-begotten of Son of God was always and was always God with God His Father.Thats lovely! It is a pity you don't actually believe what you say. In your posts you repetitively deny that the Son is the Father's "only-begotten" so apparently you are just playing the serpent, just tickling the ears.... (nb: to be only begotten, means to be the only offspring of someone/thing, thus the Son was begotten of the Father as scripture makes plain and as anyone with eyes can clearly see and perceive).

It is painfully obvious you reject the teaching that the Son is the Father's natural offspring! So you plainly make it obvious that you reject the Church's teaching on the homoousios. Always remember that if the subject is not natural offspring then it cannot be homoousios with anything.