Oneness believers

[RBerman]

1. "the son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father". I reject such an expression, as to me it implies both the Son and Spirit are merely emanations of God and have no "real" personal existence.

Your implication is mistaken. "The Son is eternally begotten of the Father" means that the Son's nature, not his person, emanates from the Father. When dealing with pithy summary statements, you have to see how they're unpacked. Certainly the brief version of the statment doesn't mention persons or natures at all and thus can't be assumed to deny the "real personhood" of Jesus.

2. "the Son is begotten in eternity, and the Spirit proceeds from eternity". As by definition there is no time in eternity, then we cannot designate a beginning to the begetal or spiration.

This is correct but not incompatible with the previous formulation.

[apostoli]

Your implication is mistaken. "The Son is eternally begotten of the Father" means that the Son's nature, not his person, emanates from the Father.

Ah! But not "perpetually begotten" which these days the phrase "eternally begotten" implies and is understood by many a person within and outside of Christianity.

Imu, Calvin and others thought the idea of "eternally begotten" total foolishness (and the idea of a continuous procession of the Father's essence to the Son is even a grosser idea - like every so often the Son needs a booster shot).

Imu, the idea originated with Origen, who the EOC consider a complete heretic, and the RCC found it necessary to remediate to find what is extant acceptable. Your term "emanates from the Father" implies that the Son does not have his own hypostasis (distinct personhood), for the Son to have his own hypostasis would require him to have personal possession of an ousia, in this case the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (cp. Heb 1:3) - it is a point Calvin required! Imu, the Father communicated his essence once on the begettal...

Imu, if the begettal is not a one off event, then there is no begettal in the general meaning of the word. I'm assuming that is why theologians in both the East and West now refer to the Son being "begotten in eternity"

[RBerman]

Ah! But not "perpetually begotten" which these days the phrase "eternally begotten" implies and is understood by many a person within and outside of Christianity.

Imu, Calvin and others thought the idea of "eternally begotten" total foolishness (and the idea of a continuous procession of the Father's essence to the Son is even a grosser idea - like every so often the Son needs a booster shot).

No, it was not "like every so often needing a booster shot." It was a recognition of God's eternal "nowness."

Imu, the idea originated with Origen, who the EOC consider a complete heretic, and the RCC found it necessary to remediate to find what is extant acceptable. Your term "emanates from the Father" implies that the Son does not have his own hypostasis (distinct personhood), for the Son to have his own hypostasis would require him to have personal possession of an ousia, in this case the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (cp. Heb 1:3) - it is a point Calvin required! Imu, the Father communicated his essence once on the begettal... Imu, if the begettal is not a one off event, then there is no begettal in the general meaning of the word. I'm assuming that is why theologians in both the East and West now refer to the Son being "begotten in eternity"

"Emanates from the Father" doesn't even mention whether Christ has personhood or not, so it can't very well deny his personhood. It all depends on what you want to pack into "emanates." "Once upon the begettal" is a highly problematic phrase when dealing with an eternal circumstance of God which "predates time." Even that phrase is problematic, since "predates" implies time. "I'm fine with "begotten in eternity," but not because there's a problem with "eternally begotten" or "begotten before the worlds."

[apostoli]

No, it was not "like every so often needing a booster shot." It was a recognition of God's eternal "nowness."

Would you explain (?) Even Calvin differentiated the person of the Son from his essence (ousia) and that the Son's person had origination though his essence (ousia) didn't. Imu, it is a consistant teaching of the Trinitarian churches.

"Emanates from the Father" doesn't even mention whether Christ has personhood or not, so it can't very well deny his personhood.

Emanationism, imu, implies phantasm. The scriptural witness is that the Son is the manifestation of God, which is something completely different. I vaguely recall there were numerous heresies that followed the emanation/phantasm route...

It all depends on what you want to pack into "emanates." "Once upon the begettal" is a highly problematic phrase when dealing with an eternal circumstance of God which "predates time."

Not if we accept Athanasius argument that there is no time in eternity, and the idea of potentiality...

Even that phrase is problematic, since "predates" implies time.

I never mentioned a 'predate", you are reading into my words some predisposition of your own that are and were not even insinuated.

In tradition it has always been recognised that the Father has precedence over the Son in his person. Calvin was concerned about those that subordinated the Son to the Father, in economy he didn't see a problem as the biblical witness is obvious. Calvin's solution, which traditionally the churches have agreed upon, is that the Father and Son are equal in essence, the Son being an exact imprint of his Fathers hypostasis (Heb 1:3).

"I'm fine with "begotten in eternity," but not because there's a problem with "eternally begotten" or "begotten before the worlds."

In the Nicean creed "begotten before the worlds/ages" is the traditional phrase and has biblical support. The replacement phrase "eternally begotten" seems to have crept in since about 1975 via the ecumenical movement and seems to be only used in various minority churches in the USA (correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can discern no conservative orthodox church uses the phrase when reciting the Nicean Creed).

[RBerman]

Would you explain (?) Even Calvin differentiated the person of the Son from his essence (ousia) and that the Son's person had origination though his essence (ousia) didn't.

Where did Calvin say that?

Emanationism, imu, implies phantasm. The scriptural witness is that the Son is the manifestation of God, which is something completely different. I vaguely recall there were numerous heresies that followed the emanation/phantasm route.

Tell me about this heretical usage of "emanation." I don't imbue the word with those connotations, but then again it's not a word I go to either.

Not if we accept Athanasius argument that there is no time in eternity, and the idea of potentiality...

I never mentioned a 'predate", you are reading into my words some predisposition of your own that are and were not even insinuated.

I did not put "predates time" in quotations because you used it. I put it in quotations because I went on to comment on the limitations of that phraseology.

In the Nicean creed "begotten before the worlds/ages" is the traditional phrase and has biblical support. The replacement phrase "eternally begotten" seems to have crept in since about 1975 via the ecumenical movement and seems to be only used in various minority churches in the USA (correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can discern no conservative orthodox church uses the phrase when reciting the Nicean Creed).

At my church we say "begotten before the worlds" as well.

[apostoli]

Even Calvin differentiated the person of the Son from his essence (ousia) and that the Son's person had origination though his essence (ousia) didn't.

Where did Calvin say that?

I was tempted just to point you to the Institutes Chaper 13 where the idea is regularly implied (if not stated, though not in exact words), but assuming you'd want specific words, I reread through the Institutes and found what I specifically had in mind...see towards the end of paragraph 25...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html


"...we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God..."

Tell me about this heretical usage of "emanation." I don't imbue the word with those connotations, but then again it's not a word I go to either.

I assume you already know of the heretical usage of emanationism (especially in gnosticism).

Though, some churchmen used the idea, it is often said (though as far as I can tell, without evidence) that they used it in a modified form. Imu, use of emanationist examples has always been considered a dangerous mechanism for teaching as it regularly leads to heretical innovations in respect of the church's traditional understanding of most things. Imo, Calvin's theology eliminates in all ways any appeal to emanationism in Christian thought...

Calvin makes an interesting statement (again in paragraph 25) "...They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God..."

...Your term "emanates from the Father" implies that the Son does not have his own hypostasis (distinct personhood), for the Son to have his own hypostasis would require him to have personal possession of an ousia, in this case the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (cp. Heb 1:3) - it is a point Calvin required! Imu, the Father communicated his essence once on the begettal...

"Once upon the begettal" is a highly problematic phrase when dealing with an eternal circumstance of God which "predates time." Even that phrase is problematic, since "predates" implies time

Not if we accept Athanasius argument that there is no time in eternity, and the idea of potentiality...

I did not put "predates time" in quotations because you used it. I put it in quotations because I went on to comment on the limitations of that phraseology.

OK. But appealing to Athanasius: "predates time" is pure sophistry, especially given the Son as creator originated time.

Imu, in the Nicean debates, no one, including Athanasius, disputed an origination of the Son before all ages. However, as you know, the Antioch school (the Arians), reasoning on the idea of begettal, ended up arguing that "there was when the Son was not" ie: he didn't have existence at some point. Ignoring, the peripheral issues for now, the Alexandrian school saw their idea as a direct attack on the immutability of God, for if there is time (a timeline) in eternity then God is changable. Thus in his fourth discourse to the Arians, Athanasius basically argued that (paraphrased): as by definition there is no time in eternity, we cannot say "there was when the Son was not".

At my church we say "begotten before the worlds" as well.

I consider such an imperitive witness...

[RBerman]

Calvin also has some wonderful comments in that chapter warning us not to quibble over terminology so long as we're describing the same underlying truth:

John Calvin

Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence. I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in translating ὁμοούσιος used consubstantialis (consubstantial), intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son, and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression, though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated.

© source where applicable

It is in this spirit that I said I had no problem with your terminology, though I did not consider it the only admissible terminology.

[37818]

. . . an origination of the Son before all ages.

The Son is co-eternal with the Father, which would mean NO origin of any sort. God has no origin.

"I'm fine with "begotten in eternity," but not because there's a problem with "eternally begotten" or "begotten before the worlds."

It is NOT biblical.

[apostoli]

Calvin also has some wonderful comments in that chapter warning us not to quibble over terminology so long as we're describing the same underlying truth:

Indeed, and on face value we could rush to Phil 3:14-16 for assurance. But notice Calvin's focus is quibling on foreign words without taking notice of the definitions given to them by the church eg: in paragraph 2, Calvin says "The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑπόστατις, it betrays 111excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term. The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three πρόσωπα (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance".


In paragraph 4 Calvin makes a case that it is essential that we determine what a person actually means by the words he/she uses...

"the early Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God...But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of wiles [Arius] out of his lurking-places, the ancient Church...declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed when the Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation of the term ὁμοούσιος. Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the Father...That little word [ὁμοούσιος] distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind. When the matter was debated, he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise. Accordingly, he sung another note—viz. that the Father was the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction. The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in order to defeat it is man’s dishonesty, proclaimed that three subsistence were to be truly acknowledged in the one God. That they might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God. "

It is in this spirit that I said I had no problem with your terminology, though I did not consider it the only admissible terminology.

Hmmm! Calvin notes Hilary said "more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God." "Substantia" in translation being Latin's closest equivalent to the Greek "Hypostasis" but Jerome found the Greek term suspicious if not heretical. Calvin notes (para 5) [i]"He suspect[ed] some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God"[i] = to him it smacked of Arianism, though he was prepared to accept Basil's redefinition of various words. So historically we find that great disturbances have arisen and do arise in the church when someone's terminology is misunderstood, or can be manipulated to the benefit of opposers. JWs etc do just that when representing the church as teaching Sabellianism, and the phrase "eternally begotten" is one of their best weapons. Given my ex-wife's long term involvement with the JWs (and she was a fanatic) I'm very sensitive in regards to such matter as it has been my main defense against their arguments for decades.

Not long ago I began a study of Calvin's use of the idea "autotheos", which from some of the books I scanned, imo, came across as unorthodox, if not heretical (the Arians holding that the Son was autotheos, but the Nicenes holding he wasn't). From experience I've always found it necessary to read Calvin direct, as authors, imo, often distort what he actually says. Though I see problems in Calvin's exposition, I see it as acceptable, and not worth quibling about, except for in the spirit of an intellectual excercise amoungst friends ;-)

[apostoli]

The Son is co-eternal with the Father, which would mean NO origin of any sort. God has no origin.

In which case you are demanding that the Son is not Son and the Father is not Father, instead you present us with Brothers (multiple Gods) or you deny that there are three persons in the one God.

The church has long argued there is no time in eternity, and that the Father, Son & Spirit persist eternally, so it is logical that the three are co-eternal. And as there is no time in eternity there is no impediment to the person of the Son being originate from the Father. As Athanasius argued: the Father was never without his wisdom and power, but it was only as potential until it was manifested in the person of the Son. (cp. 1 Cor 1:24; Jn 1;1-3,18).

[37818]

In which case you are demanding that the Son is not Son and the Father is not Father, instead you present us with Brothers (multiple Gods) or you deny that there are three persons in the one God.

False

I hold God is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, three Persons One God.

[RBerman]

It is NOT biblical.

As you wish. I won't fight with you over it.

[RBerman]

In paragraph 4 Calvin makes a case that it is essential that we determine what a person actually means by the words he/she uses.

Wise counsel indeed.

Hmmm! Calvin notes Hilary said "more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God." "Substantia" in translation being Latin's closest equivalent to the Greek "Hypostasis" but Jerome found the Greek term suspicious if not heretical. Calvin notes (para 5) [i]"He suspect[ed] some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God"[i] = to him it smacked of Arianism, though he was prepared to accept Basil's redefinition of various words. So historically we find that great disturbances have arisen and do arise in the church when someone's terminology is misunderstood, or can be manipulated to the benefit of opposers. JWs etc do just that when representing the church as teaching Sabellianism, and the phrase "eternally begotten" is one of their best weapons. Given my ex-wife's long term involvement with the JWs (and she was a fanatic) I'm very sensitive in regards to such matter as it has been my main defense against their arguments for decades.

OK. It may be that in the JW context, the distinction you make between "begotten in eternity" and "eternally begotten" is meaningful. Certainly I wouldn't endorse Sabellianism.

Not long ago I began a study of Calvin's use of the idea "autotheos", which from some of the books I scanned, imo, came across as unorthodox, if not heretical (the Arians holding that the Son was autotheos, but the Nicenes holding he wasn't). From experience I've always found it necessary to read Calvin direct, as authors, imo, often distort what he actually says. Though I see problems in Calvin's exposition, I see it as acceptable, and not worth quibling about, except for in the spirit of an intellectual excercise amoungst friends ;-)

OK.

[apostoli]

I hold God is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, three Persons One God.

Apparently in name only, given you deny the Father begot the Son before all ages. Imo, using your philosophy, we may as well call them Tom, Dick & Harry as you do not attach any significance to the idea "Father" and the idea "Son" other than they are relational terms. But note that the Spirit is not a relational term. So how do you account for him?

The whole doctrine of the Trinity relies on the Son being homoousios with the Father ie: the Father communicated his ousia to the Son when the Father begot the person of the Son. Deny that premise and you deny the Trinity = there are three persons in one God...

[apostoli]

OK. It may be that in the JW context, the distinction you make between "begotten in eternity" and "eternally begotten" is meaningful. Certainly I wouldn't endorse Sabellianism.

From our conversations I know you wouldn't endorse Sabellianism, but others inadvertantly are led away from the church because people use terms without explaining (and probably understanding) what they imply. It is not you I am concerned about but them. So though I may be conversing with you, you are not my direct target. I'm focused on the audience our conversation might attract.

OK. It may be that in the JW context, the distinction you make between "begotten in eternity" and "eternally begotten" is meaningful.

Here at TWEB people seem to be fixated on JWs. Where I live, Christadelphians, the INC and Muslims are more active and an immediate threat. Concerning the two terms we have been discussing: tell a Muslim that Isa (Jesus) is "eternally begotten" they'll close their ears and ridicule you for blaspheming Allah (Jehovah nb: in their 'The Holy Zabur' = our book of Psalms, wherever YHWH would be encountered in the Hebrew of our book they have Allah). Now, tell a Muslim that Isa was "begotten in eternity", they'll start asking questions (they do accept the miraculous conception).