This is a split from here
You really do need to read Arius' letters to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria. Like you, he refused to admit that the Son was begotten by the Father even though such is the plain statement of scripture.
Your rejection of the Son having been begotten by the Father means you reject the teaching of the homoousios 100%.
To be homoousios with anything one must be the natural offspring of that thing (ie: must be begotten). Thus Jesus having been begotten by the Father is homoousios with his Father (cp. Heb 1:3) concerning his theotēs (state of being God cp. Col 2:9), and upon his incarnation and conception in Mary, Jesus became homoousios with Mary and thus us, concerning his humanity.
The Arians would have agreed with your idea, they too rejected the begetal of the Son by the Father thus they rejected the teaching of the homoousios with the Father and insisted on homoiousios.
* Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).
* In other threads you have demanded that the Son as Son has without interval existed as Son. In which case, it was impossible for the Father to endow the Son with his ousia. If you now decide to allow an interval for the investiture then the Son underwent change and by your definition/s isn't God.
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
To be homoousios with anything one must be the natural offspring of that thing (ie: must be begotten). Thus Jesus having been begotten by the Father is homoousios with his Father (cp. Heb 1:3) concerning his theotēs (state of being God cp. Col 2:9), and upon his incarnation and conception in Mary, Jesus became homoousios with Mary and thus us, concerning his humanity.
Originally posted by 37818
* Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).
* In other threads you have demanded that the Son as Son has without interval existed as Son. In which case, it was impossible for the Father to endow the Son with his ousia. If you now decide to allow an interval for the investiture then the Son underwent change and by your definition/s isn't God.
Comment