Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How did you as a Christian come to the understanding . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'd like to know who these "some evangelicals" are...
    Source: The Eternal Generation of the Son by Kevin Giles


    Today, some of the best-known names in the evangelical world advocate vocate the abandonment of the doctrine of the eternal begetting, or generation, of the Son. Those who have put this argument in writing include J. Oliver Buswell,33 Lorraine Boettner,34 Walter Martin'35 Wayne Grudem,36 Bruce Ware,37 John S. Feinberg,38 Millard Erickson,39 Robert Reymond,40 Paul Helm,41 William Lane Craig,42 and Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears,43 while John Frame admits to "a certain amount of reverent agnosticism on this doctrine."44 The Korean theologian Jung S. Rhee argues that the Old Princeton theologians logians Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, who questioned tioned the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, are to blame for its widespread rejection among contemporary evangelicals today.45

    Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 271-276). Kindle Edition.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Source: The Eternal Generation of the Son by Kevin Giles


      Today, some of the best-known names in the evangelical world advocate vocate the abandonment of the doctrine of the eternal begetting, or generation, of the Son. Those who have put this argument in writing include J. Oliver Buswell,33 Lorraine Boettner,34 Walter Martin'35 Wayne Grudem,36 Bruce Ware,37 John S. Feinberg,38 Millard Erickson,39 Robert Reymond,40 Paul Helm,41 William Lane Craig,42 and Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears,43 while John Frame admits to "a certain amount of reverent agnosticism on this doctrine."44 The Korean theologian Jung S. Rhee argues that the Old Princeton theologians logians Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, who questioned tioned the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, are to blame for its widespread rejection among contemporary evangelicals today.45

      Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 271-276). Kindle Edition.

      © Copyright Original Source

      What's their alternative then? That God the Son was not generated from the Father? That it was a single temporal act apart from eternity?
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        In a comment from the link on a reason for this book, ". . . the eternal generation of the Son is routinely rejected by some evangelicals as unbiblical, . . . "
        And they would be wrong.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          What's their alternative then? That God the Son was not generated from the Father? That it was a single temporal act apart from eternity?
          This is what WLC has to say in a Q&A that touches upon the issue:

          Source: Is God the Father Causally Prior to the Son?


          5. Protestants bring all doctrinal statements, even Conciliar creeds, before the bar of Scripture. In this case one has to say honestly that nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that God the Son is begotten of the Father in His divine, rather than in merely His human, nature. The vast majority of contemporary New Testament scholars recognize that even if the word traditionally translated “only-begotten” (monogenes) carries a connotation of derivation when used in familial contexts--as opposed to meaning merely “unique” or “one of a kind” as many scholars maintain--nevertheless the biblical references to Christ as monogenes (John 1.1, 14, 18; cf. Revelation 9.13) do not contemplatesome pre-creation or eternal procession of the divine Son from the Father, but have to do with the historical Jesus’ being God’s special Son (Matthew 1.21-23; Luke 1-35; John 1.14, 34; Galalatians 4.4; Hebrews 1.5-6). I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. This primitive understanding of Christ’s being begotten is still evident in Ignatius’s description of Christ as “one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and unbegotten, . . . both of Mary and of God” (Ephesians 7). There is here no idea that Christ is begotten in his divine nature. Indeed, the transference by the Apologists of Christ’s Sonship from Jesus of Nazareth to the pre-incarnate Logos has helped to depreciate the importance of the historical Jesus for Christian faith.

          http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-go...ior-to-the-son

          © Copyright Original Source

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            This is what WLC has to say in a Q&A that touches upon the issue:

            Source: Is God the Father Causally Prior to the Son?


            5. Protestants bring all doctrinal statements, even Conciliar creeds, before the bar of Scripture. In this case one has to say honestly that nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that God the Son is begotten of the Father in His divine, rather than in merely His human, nature. The vast majority of contemporary New Testament scholars recognize that even if the word traditionally translated “only-begotten” (monogenes) carries a connotation of derivation when used in familial contexts--as opposed to meaning merely “unique” or “one of a kind” as many scholars maintain--nevertheless the biblical references to Christ as monogenes (John 1.1, 14, 18; cf. Revelation 9.13) do not contemplatesome pre-creation or eternal procession of the divine Son from the Father, but have to do with the historical Jesus’ being God’s special Son (Matthew 1.21-23; Luke 1-35; John 1.14, 34; Galalatians 4.4; Hebrews 1.5-6). I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. This primitive understanding of Christ’s being begotten is still evident in Ignatius’s description of Christ as “one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and unbegotten, . . . both of Mary and of God” (Ephesians 7). There is here no idea that Christ is begotten in his divine nature. Indeed, the transference by the Apologists of Christ’s Sonship from Jesus of Nazareth to the pre-incarnate Logos has helped to depreciate the importance of the historical Jesus for Christian faith.

            http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-go...ior-to-the-son

            © Copyright Original Source

            Wow...
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One LORD God, ". . . The LORD our God is one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4. ". . . I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. . . ." -- Isaiah 43:11.
              I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.
              Very simply, while they are three different Persons they are One True God without division without parts. Deuteronomy 6:4. And both the Father and the Son are the one and the same Savior not two. Neither of these things should be at issue.

              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              In a comment from the link on a reason for this book, ". . . the eternal generation of the Son is routinely rejected by some evangelicals as unbiblical, . . . "
              And they would be wrong.
              Merely stating that does not explain the reasons that is so.

              This link addresses some of the issues:
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              The Logos/the Word is the "true light" (John 1:9) even as God is the "true God" (John 17:3). ". . . Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, . . ." (Hebrews 1:3). ". . . Who is the image of the invisible God, . . ." (Colossians 1:15). ". . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. . . ." (John 1:18). ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . ." (John 14:9).

              And none of this should not be at issue either.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Very simply, while they are three different Persons they are One True God without division without parts. Deuteronomy 6:4. And both the Father and the Son are the one and the same Savior not two. Neither of these things should be at issue.
                I agree. But my worry is that if someone denies the eternal generation of the Son the step to concluding that there are three distinct Gods (since the Son and the Holy Spirit would then logically have to be the source of Their own godhood and existence) is far too close for comfort. I.e how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be a Trinity if they all have their source of existence in themselves, rather than one of them being the source of existence for the rest of the Persons in the Trinity?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  I agree. But my worry is that if someone denies the eternal generation of the Son the step to concluding that there are three distinct Gods (since the Son and the Holy Spirit would then logically have to be the source of Their own godhood and existence) is far too close for comfort. I.e how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be a Trinity if they all have their source of existence in themselves, rather than one of them being the source of existence for the rest of the Persons in the Trinity?
                  God whose very Hebrew Name means Self-Existent. The three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One Self-Existent. And there is none else (Isaiah 44:6 etc.)
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    God whose very Hebrew Name means Self-Existent. The three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One Self-Existent. And there is none else (Isaiah 44:6 etc.)
                    I agree that the Bible teaches that there are three Persons in one God, and that there are no other Gods. What I'm saying is if you deny the doctrine of the Eternal Generation you have to explain how this does not make each Person in the Trinity the source of Their own existence and godhood, and therefore distinct Gods. Perhaps there is a valid explanation, I just haven't seen one yet.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      I agree that the Bible teaches that there are three Persons in one God, and that there are no other Gods. What I'm saying is if you deny the doctrine of the Eternal Generation you have to explain how this does not make each Person in the Trinity the source of Their own existence and godhood, and therefore distinct Gods. Perhaps there is a valid explanation, I just haven't seen one yet.
                      The whole purpose of this thread is to present the Bibical basis for the concept of the eternal generation of the Son of God by the Father. The very fact of God being the Father carries the connotation of the Son being the one begotten from God (John 5:18). Now I have always held to the concept of the eternal Sonship. And it would have be understood that "begotten" in that sense is not to be understood in a temporal way.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        The whole purpose of this thread is to present the Bibical basis for the concept of the eternal generation of the Son of God by the Father. The very fact of God being the Father carries the connotation of the Son being the one begotten from God (John 5:18). Now I have always held to the concept of the eternal Sonship. And it would have be understood that "begotten" in that sense is not to be understood in a temporal way.
                        That's correct. And the doctrine of the eternal generation is not to be understood in a temporal way. What the doctrine of eternal ( <---- it's right there in the name) generation teaches is that the source of the Son's existence and diety is the Father. The Son exists eternally because the Father exists eternally. Everything the Son has and is he has and is in virtue of being eternally begotten of the Father before all time.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Jesus is the Word (John 1), so he is eternally generated in that way being from eternity in the bosom of the Father. Once we say things and the sound goes out our words often get distorted as we lose control over them. Jesus is the living active word of God so He keeps sure what God has said. Where we distort and degrade what God has spoken (the creation and words of wisdom), He is faithful, mends and restores. Psalm 19 is about the works and words of God and imo v.4 is about the incarnation.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                            Jesus is the Word (John 1), so he is eternally generated in that way being from eternity in the bosom of the Father. Once we say things and the sound goes out our words often get distorted as we lose control over them. Jesus is the living active word of God so He keeps sure what God has said. Where we distort and degrade what God has spoken (the creation and words of wisdom), He is faithful, mends and restores. Psalm 19 is about the works and words of God and imo v.4 is about the incarnation.
                            A side question: How do you get Christ's (John 1;14) incarnation from natural revelation (". . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word[ρήματος] of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. . . ." -- Romans 10:17-18. ". . . Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, . . ." -- Psalm 19:4)? Please explain, thanks.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              A side question: How do you get Christ's (John 1;14) incarnation from natural revelation (". . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word[ρήματος] of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. . . ." -- Romans 10:17-18. ". . . Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, . . ." -- Psalm 19:4)? Please explain, thanks.
                              Here is my take on it
                              I think God reveals what they should expect.
                              Boris Maslov in Pindar and the Emergence of Literature writes: "Nature's ability to perceive divine presence in Alcaeus, as recounted by Himerius, is an example of what might be called the sponte sua imagery usually associated in Classical sources with the mythical Golden Age. The presence of the god creates an aura which transforms and often animates the surrounding space [...] I propose to distinguish epidemia from epiphany, at least on two counts. First epiphany designates visual, often momentary, appearance of a deity to an individual or a group, who in Archaic sources tend to react with apprehension; by contrast epidemia refers to a gods lengthy stay, often tacit but always socially significant and beneficient. It does not bring with it the trauma of being confronted with the larger-than-life presence of a divinity or the suspicion that the god may be active in disguise"

                              So there we can see that the appearance of Christ to Paul happened in a way which resonated with Gentile understandings of deity and the appearings of deity. I think Christ's earthly sojourn would also resonate with their understanding of a deity being active. Paul in his speech before Agrippa (Acts 26) says the Jews should not be surprised that someone rose from the dead as their own prophets fortold this.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                                Here is my take on it
                                I think God reveals what they should expect.
                                Boris Maslov in Pindar and the Emergence of Literature writes: "Nature's ability to perceive divine presence in Alcaeus, as recounted by Himerius, is an example of what might be called the sponte sua imagery usually associated in Classical sources with the mythical Golden Age. The presence of the god creates an aura which transforms and often animates the surrounding space [...] I propose to distinguish epidemia from epiphany, at least on two counts. First epiphany designates visual, often momentary, appearance of a deity to an individual or a group, who in Archaic sources tend to react with apprehension; by contrast epidemia refers to a gods lengthy stay, often tacit but always socially significant and beneficient. It does not bring with it the trauma of being confronted with the larger-than-life presence of a divinity or the suspicion that the god may be active in disguise"

                                Whoops missed out a pertinent word when typing in this quote, here it is again with missed word added and emboldened

                                Boris Maslov in Pindar and the Emergence of Literature writes: "Nature's ability to perceive divine presence in Alcaeus, as recounted by Himerius, is an example of what might be called the sponte sua imagery usually associated in Classical sources with the mythical Golden Age. The presence of the god creates an aura which transforms and often animates the surrounding space [...] I propose to distinguish epidemia from epiphany, at least on two counts. First epiphany designates visual, often momentary, appearance of a deity to an individual or a group, who in Archaic sources tend to react with apprehension; by contrast epidemia refers to a gods lengthy stay, often tacit but always socially significant and beneficient. It does not bring with it the trauma of being confronted with the larger-than-life physical presence of a divinity or the suspicion that the god may be active in disguise"

                                Here is a link to google book extract
                                https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...maslov&f=false

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X