Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[One Bad Pig]

What does the Bible say? The Biblical use of "begotten" regarding the Son of God has to do with His bodily resurrection. Not His preexistence as the Son.

No. Read John 1:1-18 again.

[JonathanL]

Where do you find that explicitly taught in the word of God?

I'm not sure using the Scripture as a dictionary is a proper use of the sacred writings.

What is begotten has a beginning at being begotten. What has a beginning is not eternal. Again, where is the holy scripture?

The bolded is patently false. Jesus being begotten of the Father means that he derives His being and divinity from the Father, it does not mean that he has a beginning. And as I said, Heb 1:3 is the scripture I'm using as support. The Son is the exact expression of God the Father by virtue of him being begotten of the Father.

[37818]

You're really splitting hairs here. And you are denying Heb 5:5. "Only-begotten" is a SUBSET of "begotten." I think I'll take the word of people who actually thought in Greek.

So you hold the Son of God did not really become the only-begotten until His resurrection and ascension then.

Hebrews 5:5, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

Then Dr. Walter Martin is wrong. Becoming implies temporality, which puts him in the same boat as Arius.

It was because of Dr Martin, in his book "kingdom of the Cults" that caused me to study this some 20 years ago. I concluded the word of God does teach the eternal Sonship. The Trinity is a temporal relationship, which has always existed, since God is eternal. But the church Fathers fail in this. Causing the errs of Arianism and Sabellianism.

[One Bad Pig]

So you hold the Son of God did not really become the only-begotten until His resurrection and ascension then.

Hebrews 5:5, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

NO! I have no idea how you get that from my posts here.

It was because of Dr Martin, in his book "kingdom of the Cults" that caused me to study this some 20 years ago. I concluded the word of God does teach the eternal Sonship. The Trinity is a temporal relationship, which has always existed, since God is eternal.

No, the Trinity is not a temporal relationship; time did not exist prior to creation, and the Trinity is from eternity (has always existed).

But the church Fathers fail in this. Causing the errs of Arianism and Sabellianism.

Perhaps Origen (who was later condemned for heretical teachings) failed at this, but the Fathers who incorporated that quote in the Creed came AFTER Arius and Sabellius. The only one who seems to be failing to interpret the phrase properly is you.

[DesertBerean]

I don't recall Martin saying that. I'll have to look it up and get back to you.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Good garsh, I post one little thing a few days ago and check back today to find this debate going on.

37818, I think you're very confused about the Trinity being eternal.

[Leonhard]

???????? The only-begotten Son is the uncreated creator of all things!!! That is not at issue.

Ease off the number of question and exclamation marks, it makes you look aggressive and irrational, which is not what you should be trying to convey. Right now we're all struggling to understand you.

We know that the Son was not created, 37818, but they were responding to what you said. They thought you meant that The Son was created ("What is not taught in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation."). Since none of them ever brought up the idea that The Son was created, we assumed that you believed that he was, or at least that yet again your use of language terrible confuses what you're trying to convey.

To be frank I really have no clear idea of what you're saying, or what exactly you're objecting to.

Where do you find that explicitly taught in the word of God?

Why does it matter whether its explicitly taught? If you press this point you'll be committing a special pleading fallacy.

What is begotten has a beginning at being begotten. What has a beginning is not eternal.

Here's a snip from the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."

That The Son is begotten means that He is consubstantial with the Father, and perfectly one with Him in essence, but not in person. Denying that The Son is begotten of the Father, is to deny that The Son is of the same substance as the Father, and therefore to deny God's simplicity in the Trinity.

[37818]

No. Read John 1:1-18 again.

It speaks of the only-begotten, Not of being begotten. You are reading into the text what is not there.

[Leonhard]

Here's a question for you 37818. Do you believe that the The Son, during the incarnation, underwent a change going from a Divine Substance to becoming a human? Where as in classical theology, Jesus had two natures, His divine nature (which underwent no change in the incarnation), and His human nature. And that therefore He has two wills, His divine will and His human will that coexist in one person.

[37818]

I'm not sure using the Scripture as a dictionary is a proper use of the sacred writings.

Yes, the word of God is not a Dictionary. So according to you we are to disregard Biblical usage and meaning.

The bolded is patently false. Jesus being begotten of the Father means that he derives His being and divinity from the Father, it does not mean that he has a beginning. And as I said, Heb 1:3 is the scripture I'm using as support. The Son is the exact expression of God the Father by virtue of him being begotten of the Father.

You are arguing interpretation of a Creed. Which uses a term [begotten] in an unbiblical way.

I am asking for the Biblical support. [Knowing there is none.]

[37818]

Here's a question for you 37818. Do you believe that the The Son, during the incarnation, underwent a change going from a Divine Substance to becoming a human? Where as in classical theology, Jesus had two natures, His divine nature (which underwent no change in the incarnation), and His human nature. And that therefore He has two wills, His divine will and His human will that coexist in one person.

I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures. Divine being God with the Father [John 1:1, 3]. And being also not divine in being someone other than God too. ["with God," John 1:2]. It was in His non divine nature which changed, from how He was "with God." Being with/facing someone is not to be that someone. He was both "with God" and "was God." In that He was God He did not change. How He was "with God" did change in the incarnation.

[One Bad Pig]

I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures. Divine being God with the Father [John 1:1, 3]. And being also not divine in being someone other than God too. ["with God," John 1:2]. It was in His non divine nature which changed, from how He was "with God." Being with/facing someone is not to be that someone. He was both "with God" and "was God." In that He was God He did not change. How He was "with God" did change in the incarnation.

Your belief is unorthodox. Please change your faith designation accordingly.

The Son of God was not of two natures until He became incarnate. He became man at the Incarnation - that's what "incarnation" MEANS!

[Pentecost]

Is it explicit unorthoodoxy to claim the Son alway had a man nature but at the incarnation took on flesh and so became full man at that point? It is wrong, but is it unorthodox?

[One Bad Pig]

Is it explicit unorthoodoxy to claim the Son alway had a man nature but at the incarnation took on flesh and so became full man at that point? It is wrong, but is it unorthodox?

Human nature is created, so the Son cannot have always had a human nature. And He couldn't be perfect man if he were only partly man; if anything, that's even worse. And orthodoxy is largely Christological, so an error in Christology is almost certainly going to qualify as unorthodox.

[Pentecost]

Human nature is created, so the Son cannot have always had a human nature. And He couldn't be perfect man if he were only partly man; if anything, that's even worse. And orthodoxy is largely Christological, so an error in Christology is almost certainly going to qualify as unorthodox.

Thank for your explanation even though it was not required. Certainly if we hold to the either Nicene or Athanasian creeds as authoritative in determining orthodoxy then 37818's statements are unorthodox, (and my charicterization of his statement).