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

37818: only begotten Son

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

  • 37818: only begotten Son

    Originally posted by 37818;
    Originally posted by apostoli
    There is not a single Trinitarian Christian who holds that the Son of God is unbegotten! Why do they reject such an opinion? Two reasons: the first is what scripture states & indicates. Can you guess the second?
    Not to answer the question: First take notice, no holy scripture teaches the only-begotten Son of God has an origin being begotten.
    Fair comment. However, A.John states "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him (1 John 4:3). This compares with Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son..." Was Isaac unbegotten or begotten? The texts closely parallel each other...

    Basically the Nicene Fathers explain that the Son didn't have an origin, but as with the spoken word which has source and cause, the Word of God, having been begotten, comes forth from the Father and is received by us.

    Ultimately, I was always taught that the begettal of the Son is a mystery, scripture is silent on how he was begotten. However, when scripture speaks we should listen and believe what it says, and scripture states that that Father sent his only-begotten Son to us.

    Originally posted by 37818
    Christians who accept the concept of the only-begotten Son being born of the Father before time also do not believe that means the Son of God has a beginning.
    I was always taught that the Son was begotten in eternity. Eternity is devoid of time, and there are no beginnings or ends in eternity.

    Originally posted by 37818
    Effectively "begotten of the Father before time" = "not begotten."
    Actually not! You can't simultaneously be begotten and unbegotten, it is a self contradition. You can be begotten in eternity which being devoid of time is external to time.

    Here is an interesting Catholic article titled "The Eternal Sonship of Christ" (it does a brief survey of the ancient fathers...
    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-e...ship-of-christ

    Originally posted by 37818
    The Son of God was never begotten nor made.
    Originally posted by apostoli
    "The Son of God was never begotten".

    Where in scripture does it say or indicate such. Please cite the exact scripture/s.

    "The Son of God was [not] made."

    Scripture definitely indicates he wasn't "made", Hebrews 1:3 points in that direction as does the fact that John 1:3, Col 1:16 etc tells us he (as the Logos) created all things made. He definitely didn't create himself! Scripture also tells us that the Father sent to the world his only begotten Son, and the scriptures indicate that this Son as Son pre-existed all of creation, his birth to Mary, his baptism and his resurrection.

    NB: Some groups who reject Trinitarian teaching reject the teaching that the Son was begotten before Mary conceived and so reject the teaching that the Son as Son had pre-existence. They insist that the Son only became Son at either his birth to Mary, his baptism or his resurrection. I've mentioned this as I suspect you are a member of one of these groups, or have recently come out of one of these groups.
    the holy scripture does teach the Son of God was begotten in regard to His bodily resurrection.

    ". . . 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. " -- Acts 13:33. Note: He was already the Son before being "begotten."
    See Psalms 2:7. As is evident from Acts 13:34 this is referring to the begettal of the King (consider 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). David already existed before YHWH says “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You".

    Earlier you said you believed that the Son has always been Son. Your appeal to Acts 13:33 (Psalms 2:7) would require him to be begotten as Son on his resurrection. As usual your scripture mining has failed you...

    Originally posted by 37818
    I believe in the eternal Sonship of the only begotten Son of God. And that He is the cause of all things (John 1:3).
    He didn't "cause all things", John 1:3 says "nothing was made that was made". A huge difference...
    Last edited by apostoli; 07-30-2015, 05:33 PM.

  • #2
    A correction and addition to my previous post...

    Originally posted by 37818
    I believe in the eternal Sonship of the only begotten Son of God.
    I am aware of your unique and very unorthodox ideas concerning the "eternal Sonship". Given you invented your ideas I have no doubt you believe them...it is a pity they have no support in the scriptures...

    Your various posts in various threads here at Theologyweb make it painfully clear that you reject the orthodox teaching that the Son is the only-begotten Offspring of the Father!

    Originally posted by 37818
    And that He is the cause of all things (John 1:3).
    He didn't "cause all things"! John 1:3 says "without him nothing was made that was made". A huge difference...

    Originally posted by 37818 to OBP from here
    Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology - post #101
    The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.
    The dictionary definition of eisegetical: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

    There are three reasons why your silliness is proved to be based on a total ignorance of the scriptures...

    1. Your premises are obviously the wishful thinking of a well exampled eisegete.

    2. Exegetically, Acts 13:33-34 is referring to the Son's royal ascendency. The same words are said of David at Ps 2:7.

    3. As you admit (or is it pretend?) to accept that Jesus is monogenēs (only begotten), it seems to have escaped your attention that David precedes Jesus in being "begotten" as King (cp. Acts 13:34). As usual, scripture contradicts your silly and heretical opinions...
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-01-2015, 04:26 PM.

    Comment

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