Hi Brothers and Sisters,

I wrote this in another discussion board. For your consumption:

Official Trinity Doctrine - Begotten

According to what I have read, the following is what it means for the Son of God to be "begotten" of God.

The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.


The terms we use are much less important than the MEANING we attribute to the terms. To confess a belief in a term is meaningless if one does not confess to the official meaning attributed to the term.

To confess a belief in the Trinity, IN TRUTH, one must confess that where it refers to the BEGOTTEN aspect, the Son of God is still being begotten of the Father. It is a never-ending process.

If one is an OFFSPRING of another, the offspring "comes to be" as a result of the FINISHING of the process one can call "begotten." In other words, one can say that so and so begat so and so. In a sense, one does not think of "so and so" as BEING until so and so was begotten.

Thus, to confess the Sonship of Christ, IN MEANING, I believe, requires confessing that Christ was begotten of God and that the Sonship is a result of the TERMINATION of that process of God begetting.

But, the Trinity denies this for Christ continues to be begotten. It is a never-ending phenomenon.

Thus, for me, homage to the Trinity is tantamount to denial that the Son of God IS the SON of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

I believe the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son refers not to an ongoing process, but to a process that dates from eternity rather than in time, defined so as to counter the idea of Christ as subordinate through a later creation, as with the Arians, Socinians, etc.

Belated Welcome to TWEb o2.

Hi Solly,

Thanks for your welcome!

My belief is that the Sonship (Son of God) of Christ is tied to His having been begotten (only begotten Son of God) and thus was an event such that:

1. Before it happened, perhaps before time existed, there was no Son.

2. After it happened and because it happened, there is a Son of God.

3. It needed to happen in order for there to be the Son of God.

4. In a sense, it needed to be completed in order for there to be the Son of God.

For our highly finite minds, I confess to looking at it as God gave birth to a Son.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here
Solly:

I believe the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son refers not to an ongoing process, but to a process that dates from eternity rather than in time, defined so as to counter the idea of Christ as subordinate through a later creation, as with the Arians, Socinians, etc.

Belated Welcome to TWEb o2.

Agreed, with a reservation... Instead of looking at it as a "process" (which demands "timing"), consider it a logical rather than sequential construct. It probably happened "before" time, so it has no basis in time. It describes the relationship, apart from time.

Jacob

**8** thumbs up to Jacob regarding conceiving the procession of the Son in a logical rather than chronological/sequential template. now, to o2--

1. Before it happened, perhaps before time existed, there was no Son.

**7** to speak of a before time seems to me to be incoherent. if we are to think of God as existing timelessly, then this cannot simply imply thinking of a moment on an everlasting timeline as "the beginning" of time. in that case, time would be nothing more than the prolongation of what was already there.
since the nature of the Son's being begotten hasn't been discussed by you on a level that addresses this point, i don't see how your first point can stand. in other words, the evidence hasn't been given evaluation enough to warrant even a tentative conclusion.

2. After it happened and because it happened, there is a Son of God.

**8** if your "after" is understood in a logical rather than chronological sense, then i have no problem with your second point.
it is clearly not nonsensical for one thing to be "from" another for more than one moment--the analogy you mentioned above regarding the sun and light proves that, at the very least, the notion of a termporal eternal generation is by no means incoherent. and also, it may be worth pursuing whether or not the begetting of the Son necessarily "must" occur (according to your tentative chronological template) within, rather than outside of, time.
if we are to use words in a less than (or more than) literal manner when talking about God, we should consider in what sense do the words we use speak meaningfully about God? when the Psalmist writes that he is under the "shadow of the wings" of God, this (i hope you will agree) is not intended literally; what, then, is it saying? what is it to be under the shadow of the wings of God?
and likewise with the words "beget" and "Father". what manner of begetting would be most appropriate to our thoughts of a purely spiritual being? and so on.

3. It needed to happen in order for there to be the Son of God.

**8** granted. at the same time, there needed to be a Son in order for God to be Father.

4. In a sense, it needed to be completed in order for there to be the Son of God.

**7** i'm not sure what this might mean? a human is a real person both after and while they are being begotten. and furthermore, while being spatially separate from our parents does emphasize the distinctness between us and them, this does not nullify the fact that at every moment of our existence we receive being and life mediately from God ("he upholds all things by his word of power", etc.) hence though we are materially distinct, the fact of perpetual generation in a very real sense remains--the parents are merely the conduits through which God gives us life, our birth from them is no more than one moment--the first--out of an eternity of such.
if it is true that everything that exists exists by the power of God (the Father) himself, then it follows that if the Son is not God (the Father), and the Son exists in an immediate relationship to the Father (i.e., he isn't brought into being through the agency of something else, as we are with our parents), therefore the Son must subsist in relation to God (the Father) in an identical manner at every moment of his being. and furthermore, it follows that if the Father can at one moment bring forth the Son, there is no reason why he can't bring forth the Son at every moment at which he exists, and thus at every moment at which the Father exists, the Son would exist also. ("always" and such words, in the above, can be taken either in a chronolgical or logical sense. i personally believe God to be "outside of time", and thus take words such as "then" or "next" or "always" in an analogical manner).

For our highly finite minds, I confess to looking at it as God gave birth to a Son.

**8** but i wonder whether or not this is being too anthropomorphic--the very validity of the concept you seem to suggest depends on the categories of time and space (at time1 the Father only exists; at time2 the Son is begotten outward from the person of the Father; at time3 the Son exists, just to the left of [or, how would you put it?] the Father).
and out of curiousity--i imagine that Col. 1:15ff is quite an important verse for you. would you be interested in looking at a different interpretation of it?
peace!

Yesterday @ 07:23 PM post located here
Jacob:



Agreed, with a reservation... Instead of looking at it as a "process" (which demands "timing"), consider it a logical rather than sequential construct. It probably happened "before" time, so it has no basis in time. It describes the relationship, apart from time.

Jacob

Your right Jacob, wrong choice of word on my part; he always was the Son. Eternal Generation defines the relationship he stands in to the Father - not the process by which he became the Son, just as procession defiens the relationship the Holy Spirit stands in to the Father and the Son (unless you're Eastern Orthodox).

Hi Solly,

Eternal Generation defines the relationship he stands in to the Father

I believe SON defines the relationship He stands in to the Father. And this requires that Christ was begotten and that being begotten is not some continuous process.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Hi phantaz,

Man, I think you guys complicate things more than is necessary.

The things of God, even the INVISIBLE things of the Godhead can be understood by the things that are made.

Why not just look at how this creation operates? Every offspring is younger than its parents. Every offspring is LIKE its parents via inheritance.

God is God.

The Son of God is the Son of God via birth. And if our finite minds can't quite wrap themselves around how "birth" isn't exactly precise or accurate because "God is Spirit," I am sure He will cut us some slack.

God gave birth to a Son. The Son is divine by virtue of being the Son of God.

Very simple.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here
o2bwise:

Hi Solly,
I believe SON defines the relationship He stands in to the Father. And this requires that Christ was begotten and that being begotten is not some continuous process.
God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Yes, it does, but Eternal Generation of the Son defines the relationship he stands in, in distinction from creationist and subordinationist doctrines. It is a clarifying of the issue; there are those who say he became Son in his incarnation, or baptism for instance, or even post resurrection. There are those who see "Son" as metaphorical of his mystical experience of God, or his anointing with the Holy Spirit, or his righteous life. Where error abounds, the Church will more carefully define what it believes.

**8** hey Solly, i dig ya picture! from the cover of Quasten's _Patrology_, aye? if so, bravo!
say hey o2--

Man, I think you guys complicate things more than is necessary.

**7** that's what analysis is--the freeing of thought from the bewitchment of language. your complaint of "complexity" has no force at all with me; it seems rather an attempt to give yourself a greenlight so as to carry on with your presuppositions without having them checked.
you didn't at all engage my points. if you continue to believe as you do, don't pretend as though no one was there to answer your objections.

The things of God, even the INVISIBLE things of the Godhead can be understood by the things that are made.

**8** rather, "what can be known" through created things is knowable.

Why not just look at how this creation operates? Every offspring is younger than its parents. Every offspring is LIKE its parents via inheritance.

**7** and every offspring is one day greater than its parents, and every parent is substantially lessened by bringing forth its offspring. are you going to carry these over into your understanding of the procession of the Son of God as well? what of the Son being "in" the Father and the Father "in" the Son? in what way does that correspond to a human being who, after being begotten, will never again be "in" the parent?

God is God.

**8** and unless it is also true either that "God is a human being" or that "God exists within time at a particular place within the universe", your argument has no force whatever.

The Son of God is the Son of God via birth. And if our finite minds can't quite wrap themselves around how "birth" isn't exactly precise or accurate because "God is Spirit," I am sure He will cut us some slack.

**8** he may well.
but this doesn't imply that we should ignore what hints he has given us, such as "radiance of the Father's glory" and "image of the invisible God" and "refulgence of eternal light".
these suggest the "sun and sunshine" analogy as opposed to the "born at 12:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 1,000,987 b.c." model you opt for.

God gave birth to a Son. The Son is divine by virtue of being the Son of God.

**7** agreed.

Very simple.

**8** if that's your stance, you probably haven't thought enough about it.
if you don't go back through and engage the points i made in my initial post, i won't talk with you anymore.
peace.

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** hey Solly, i dig ya picture! from the cover of Quasten's _Patrology_, aye? if so, bravo!

/ot Phantaz, I didn't know the origin, thanks for that. Found it on a website.

05-13-2003 @ 02:45 PM post located here
o2bwise:

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

I wrote this in another discussion board. For your consumption:

Official Trinity Doctrine - Begotten

According to what I have read, the following is what it means for the Son of God to be "begotten" of God.

The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.


The terms we use are much less important than the MEANING we attribute to the terms. To confess a belief in a term is meaningless if one does not confess to the official meaning attributed to the term.

To confess a belief in the Trinity, IN TRUTH, one must confess that where it refers to the BEGOTTEN aspect, the Son of God is still being begotten of the Father. It is a never-ending process.

If one is an OFFSPRING of another, the offspring "comes to be" as a result of the FINISHING of the process one can call "begotten." In other words, one can say that so and so begat so and so. In a sense, one does not think of "so and so" as BEING until so and so was begotten.

Thus, to confess the Sonship of Christ, IN MEANING, I believe, requires confessing that Christ was begotten of God and that the Sonship is a result of the TERMINATION of that process of God begetting.

But, the Trinity denies this for Christ continues to be begotten. It is a never-ending phenomenon.

Thus, for me, homage to the Trinity is tantamount to denial that the Son of God IS the SON of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

This is a bunch of spagetthi if i have ever seen any. twisted motion going nowhere but ingested into stomach acid. Often resulting in futher sickness.

Hi phantasz,

you didn't at all engage my points. if you continue to believe as you do, don't pretend as though no one was there to answer your objections.

Job stress. Expected to travel 80% of my time. Very high learning curve.

I suppose I shouldn't have replied at all.

I'll tell ya what. Make it easy on me. List THREE points, labeled #1, #2, and #3. Succinctly summarize what the point is and elaborate following such summarization.

Eventually, I'll respond.


"As though no one was there to answer..."

When the Trinitarian doctrine was first officially declared, those who did not believe in it were labelled heretics and could suffer penalty of DEATH. (I'll find the quote.) It is papal through and through. It's rise is synonymous with papalism and persecution of professed Christian against professed Christian. I doubt I will ever "see" that the foundation of the papal church, the Trinity, is essential truth.

A historicist application of the 1260 day prophecy (of persecution) sees a fit between 538AD and 1798AD. When the little horn uprooted three horns and emerged as a religious power within Rome. Hmmmm, what theology emerged with this power?


I have mentioned this before. I have gone through entire books of the NT and listed all texts that refer to ho theos. Counted the times ho theos is Father only, counted the times ho theos is Father only and the text refers to Christ as some other than ho theos. Counted the times the Holy Spirit was not mentioned at all.

The main problem I see, is that we likely disagree at a fundamental level just how truth is extracted from the word. I personally believe in a preponderance of evidence study. Bring all the texts to the fore. Some may not be understood, but just look at the weight of evidence.

It's not even close. For example, numerous times, God is declared to be the God of our Lord Jesus Christs. Hundreds of times, ho theos is specified as the Father ONLY.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

From:
http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_...%20Trinity.htm


When the Trinity was developed after Nicaea and the doctrine of eternal generation was added, a revolutionary new teaching regarding the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God was formally incorporated into the Christian faith. The doctrine of eternal generation was but a subtle variation of the Gnostic Platonian philosophy of emanationism which taught that Christ and the Father as well as a pleroma of other beings had a co-eternal existence. On the other hand, eternal generation taught that the Son of God was being eternally generated from the Father by an unceasing process in the same way a ray of the sun’s light is being constantly emitted from the sun–its source–to which it is inseparably and permanently attached. This meant that the Son had an eternal manifestation alongside the Father, however, not as a Being, (another sun Mal.4:2) but as a projection, a ray of light emanating from the Father (sun). Since the Son has always extended from the Father and it is His role to reveal the Father, and if this was, in the first instance, through the act of creation, then it would logically follow that created beings were also co-eternal with the Father and the Son. This is, in effect, what Origen was saying in a somewhat different way.

This was contrary to the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists:
that the Son of God pre-existed from all eternity immanently within His Father’s bosom as His thought and was begotten or extrapolated as the Word in eternal times to reveal the Father through creation.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

**8** SOLLY!! and you use the Jesus Prayer as your signature line! if you was a girl i'd be kissin' ya!
say hey o2--

I'll tell ya what. Make it easy on me. List THREE points, labeled #1, #2, and #3. Succinctly summarize what the point is and elaborate following such summarization.

**7** eh? just (eventually) interact with what i've already posted, point-by-point -- i'm also busy, and i don't see any real reason to restate something that is already clear enough.

When the Trinitarian doctrine was first officially declared, those who did not believe in it were labelled heretics and could suffer penalty of DEATH.

**8** so? if a maniac says "the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, and anyone who disagrees will be handed over to the state for punishment", how does the unjustness of the latter assertion in any way disqualify the possibility of the former being nonetheless true?
and besides, during the Nicene period, the anti-Trinitarians also had their days of favor with the emperors. Ossius--a 90 year old bishop--was put to the whip for believing in the real divinity of the Son; pope Liberius was exiled for several years; Athanasius was given the boot half a dozen times, once by (the "wretched"!) Constantine himself.
if the period from 320 to 381 proves anything at all, it proves unambiguously that politics could not and did not shape the theology of the Church.

It is papal through and through. It's rise is synonymous with papalism and persecution of professed Christian against professed Christian.

**7** what?!? the Pope wasn't even present at the Council of Nicea--the bishop who had the most power at it was probably Osius of Cordova, and it is doubtful that he was one of the Pope's legates. there wasn't even one Roman representative at the Council of Constantinople (which gave the definitive statement regarding the Trinity, and issued the form of the Nicene Creed which is still adhered to today). there wasn't a major theological figure from Rome during the entire controversy. while it is true that Rome was the most doctrinally consistent place during the whole period, it would be absolutely false to claim that Christendom "became Trinitarian" because Rome was Trinitarian.

I doubt I will ever "see" that the foundation of the papal church, the Trinity, is essential truth.

**8** well, since i am a Roman Catholic, the above comment--even ignoring its complete absence of substance--has no force at all against me. both Irenaeus and Origen also make the Father, Son, and Spirit the point of departure for their theology as well.
therefore, so much the better for the papists--they believe as they are baptized.

A historicist application of the 1260 day prophecy (of persecution) sees a fit between 538AD and 1798AD. When the little horn uprooted three horns and emerged as a religious power within Rome. Hmmmm, what theology emerged with this power?

**8** ? and on the side, it is interesting that none of the Apostles used the 69 weeks of Daniel as "proof" that Jesus was the awaited one; even moreso that we have no evidence of some independent whipster "going by the Scripture and the Scripture only" arriving at that conclusion after analyzing the text for himself.
i grant no authority whatever to conspiracy theorists who see incrypted in the Bible everything that they want to. if the Trinity is false, let it be shown by reason, exegesis, and the testimony of history.

I have gone through entire books of the NT and listed all texts that refer to ho theos. Counted the times ho theos is Father only, counted the times ho theos is Father only and the text refers to Christ as some other than ho theos. Counted the times the Holy Spirit was not mentioned at all.

**7** a Jehovah's Witness named Brian Holt did the exact same thing with the entire New Testament, and then wrote a 400 page book on it. for my review of his book, and critique of this approach, go to
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html
your objection misses the point and has no force against the doctrine of the Trinity.

The main problem I see, is that we likely disagree at a fundamental level just how truth is extracted from the word. I personally believe in a preponderance of evidence study. Bring all the texts to the fore. Some may not be understood, but just look at the weight of evidence.

**8** i deal with that in the above link as well.
my approach is as follows--read the Bible within its historio-theological context, and interpret within the Tradition of the Church in order to stay within bounds.

From:
http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and...e%20Trinity.htm

**7** ...etc. there are other articles on the Trinity at Tekton as well, by JP Holding, Dee Dee Warren, and myself, that dismantle your link.

When the Trinity was developed after Nicaea and the doctrine of eternal generation was added, a revolutionary new teaching regarding the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God was formally incorporated into the Christian faith.

**8** the notion of the eternal generation wasn't "added" "after Nicea". it is explicitly present from Origen onwards, and implicit whereever you find anyone speaking of the Son as the logos of God.

The doctrine of eternal generation was but a subtle variation of the Gnostic Platonian philosophy of emanationism

**7** to the extent to which the above is true, then so much the better for the Gnostics and Platonists.
but the doctrine is actually to find its origin in Scripture; specifically, the equating of Christ's Sonship with his being the Word, and the identity of the Word with the Wisdom of God. more specifically, with interpreting Heb. 1:3 in light of Wis. 7:25f.

Since the Son has always extended from the Father and it is His role to reveal the Father, and if this was, in the first instance, through the act of creation, then it would logically follow that created beings were also co-eternal with the Father and the Son. This is, in effect, what Origen was saying in a somewhat different way.

**8** Origen did not teach the above. he recognized a distinction between everlastingness (forwards and backwards) and eternality, and placed the Trinity only in the the latter category, while placing creation in the former as a hypothesis rather than as a dogma.

This was contrary to the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists:
that the Son of God pre-existed from all eternity immanently within His Father’s bosom as His thought and was begotten or extrapolated as the Word in eternal times to reveal the Father through creation.

**8** if the Son exists within the Father in a manner analogous to the way in which though exists in the mind of God (and God was, for the Apologists especially, pure mind), how is it that a doctrine of eternal procession is not clearly implied?
peace.

• and besides, during the Nicene period, the anti-Trinitarians also had their days of favor with the emperors. Ossius--a 90 year old bishop--was put to the whip for believing in the real divinity of the Son; pope Liberius was exiled for several years; Athanasius was given the boot half a dozen times, once by (the "wretched"!) Constantine himself.
  if the period from 320 to 381 proves anything at all, it proves unambiguously that politics could not and did not shape the theology of the Church.

Now you're going to have to recommend another book to me.