Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

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

  • Commentary Thread: lee_merrill & 37818 - nature of Only Begotten Son

    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Berkhof argued, "This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past,." But goes on to argue, "but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son." Now the full deity of the Son with God the Father and the immutablity which accompanies the deity of the Son is not dependant upon that argument. But is true independantly of it.
    Certainly immutability and the deity of the Son are not being argued for. But Berkhov speaks here of the deduction from Scripture of the eternal generation of the Son.
    You simply quoted Berkhoy and gave a conclusion he made - not his argument, not his deduction from any cited Scripture. So please explain the deduction he made.

    Remember that term "begotten" in its ordinary use refers to a beginning. The concept of eternal generation refers to an "origin" without a "beginning." Which is a non sequitur on the face of it. God has no origin. What has an origin is not God.
    Last edited by 37818; 10-08-2017, 12:30 PM.
    . . . 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

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    You simply quoted Berkhoy and gave a conclusion he made - not his argument, not his deduction from any cited Scripture. So please explain the deduction he made.

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

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      You might want to PM him so that he knows this thread and your question exists.
      Done.
      . . . 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


      • #4
        The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.
          yeah that's what I was thinking.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            yeah that's what I was thinking.

            This is supposed to be for people to comment on the debate, not to continue the debate.
            Well make your comments already. No body did, so I had a question and a comment.

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


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              The thread's OP is not so much a commentary on the debate but rather a seeming attempt to continue it.
              IIRC I've seen debate participants do that in commentary threads before. The only difference is that this thread was started by one of the participants.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Source: Berkhof

                Berkhof argued, "This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past,." But goes on to argue, "but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son." Now the full deity of the Son with God the Father and the immutablity which accompanies the deity of the Son is not dependant upon that argument. But is true independantly of it.

                © Copyright Original Source


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

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

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

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Yes, that was my intent, to explain the deduction he made, from Scripture.
                  What was the scripture that Berkhof was making his deduction from? And please explain that deduction step by step.

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

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

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  You are a good brother. Thank you.
                  . . . 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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    What was the scripture that Berkhof was making his deduction from? And please explain that deduction step by step.
                    Yes, that was what the first part of my opening statement was:

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

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

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

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Yes, that was what the first part of my opening statement was:

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

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


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

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Well a number of things here. Berkhof's quote preceded the references which you provided in your opening argument. And you still are not indicating what Berkhof's Scripture reference(s) where for his deduction. Nor the steps of that deduction.
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      “Its eternity [of the generation of the Son] follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son.” (Louis Berkhof)

                      I hope we both conclude that God is eternal (Rom. 16:26, Deut. 33:27), that God does not change (Ps. 102:26-27 / Heb. 1:11-12, Mal. 3:6, James 1:17), and that the Son is divine (John 20:28, 1 John 5:20).
                      Do you not understand that I do not deny the eternal Son and that I am only contending that the concept of eternal generation is both not according to God's word and unnecessary? The concept of "begotten of the Father before all ages" gave rise to the heresy of Arius. And the creed had to add the words "not made" to counter his heresy. Without those words "not made" the words "begotten of the Father before all ages" makes the Son of God a created being.
                      . . . 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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Well a number of things here. Berkhof's quote preceded the references which you provided in your opening argument. And you still are not indicating what Berkhof's Scripture reference(s) where for his deduction. Nor the steps of that deduction.
                        I don't know what exact verses Berkhof would have given, I included a sample here. Then I noted the steps of Berkof's deduction, as far as I understand it:

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

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

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          I don't know what exact verses Berkhof would have given, I included a sample here. Then I noted the steps of Berkof's deduction, as far as I understand it:

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


                          • #14
                            Moderated By: Littlejoe

                            Moved to correct forum, please continue

                            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Ok, can you set your understanding and my understanding of Psalm 2:7 side by side and explain how and why they differ? (1 Corinthians 1:10.)
                              I'm not sure I can speak for you, but an earthly begetting would speak of a nature of begetting, of begetting in the Father-Son relationship.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment

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