A Question Concerning John 1: 18

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by UZThD, May 12, 2005.

  1. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Howdy Carl:

    I've a question for you. In the King James Translation John 1:18 reads,

    "the only begotten Son."

    What does that mean, and what is your evidence?

    Thanks a bunch.

    [ May 12, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]
     
  2. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Doc,

    It means it was his only begotten Son.

    John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    You're welcome.
     
  3. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===

    Thanks. You are saying that "only begotten" in 1 :18 refers to Christ's virgin birth. Is that right?
     
  4. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===

    Thanks. You are saying that "only begotten" in 1 :18 refers to Christ's virgin birth. Is that right?
    </font>[/QUOTE]John DEFINED it in verse 14 BEFORE verse 18. The Word was MADE FLESH, concerning the ONLY BEGOTTEN.

    You're welcome.
     
  5. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carl

    It certainly is a very important doctine. If one did not understand "only begotten Son," how could he even grasp John 3:16? So, I'm very glad we can chat about this here. Thanks.

    Now, since you are sure that John defined it that way, what would that make someone who disagreed with you? EG, is he a heretic or stupid or deluded? And, could you "correct" such a one with your "authority"?

    Bill
     
  6. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Understanding "only begotten" is not necessary to GRASP God's love and gift to the world of his Son.

    Yes, John defined it as the Word being flesh the first time he WROTE it. No doubt about that.

    Disagreement with me makes no difference. Disagreement with the statement of the Book puts one in the UNIQUE CATEGORY of being one of those who DESPISE and REJECT the words of the Lord. (See Jeremiah)

    Paul SAID that I was to preach the word. (2 Tim.4) In doing that, correction will be ACCOMPLISHED by those who HEAR! (The non-hearing go into apostasy.)

    Very simple brother.
     
  8. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Understanding "only begotten" is not necessary to GRASP God's love and gift to the world of his Son.

    Yes, John defined it as the Word being flesh the first time he WROTE it. No doubt about that.

    Disagreement with me makes no difference. Disagreement with the statement of the Book puts one in the UNIQUE CATEGORY of being one of those who DESPISE and REJECT the words of the Lord. (See Jeremiah)

    Paul SAID that I was to preach the word. (2 Tim.4) In doing that, correction will be ACCOMPLISHED by those who HEAR! (The non-hearing go into apostasy.)

    Very simple brother.
    </font>[/QUOTE]===

    So , since John, the Book, said it, would you say, then, that Chafer and Walvoord despise and reject the words of the Lord and will go into apostacy because they disagree with the statement of the Book?

    Is not there even the tiniest possibility that they are right and that you are wrong on this matter?
     
  9. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Understanding "only begotten" is not necessary to GRASP God's love and gift to the world of his Son.

    Yes, John defined it as the Word being flesh the first time he WROTE it. No doubt about that.

    Disagreement with me makes no difference. Disagreement with the statement of the Book puts one in the UNIQUE CATEGORY of being one of those who DESPISE and REJECT the words of the Lord. (See Jeremiah)

    Paul SAID that I was to preach the word. (2 Tim.4) In doing that, correction will be ACCOMPLISHED by those who HEAR! (The non-hearing go into apostasy.)

    Very simple brother.
    </font>[/QUOTE]===

    So , since John, the Book, said it, would you say, then, that Chafer and Walvoord despise and reject the words of the Lord and will go into apostacy because they disagree with the statement of the Book?

    Is not there even the tiniest possibility that they are right and that you are wrong on this matter?
    </font>[/QUOTE]No brother, I don't. While I was researching some material for a book, I called Bro. Walvoord (years ago) and spoke with him for quite a while. He is a very personable and nice man, and we enjoyed our conversation together. I respect him. I have the majority of his books. But I don't BELIEVE and TEACH everything that he says. On that point, (Christ begotten in eternity), he is wrong. It is a HERESY. (1 Cor.11) Christians manifest heresies brother. (Gal.5)

    Mine seem to be the same one that the Jews "accused" Paul of TEACHING. (Acts 24) [​IMG]
     
  11. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes, but the phrase is used in Hebrews of Isaac who was not virgin born:

    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,

    So, brother Carl am I correct in what I am hearing you say, that the orthodox Trinitarian definition of the relationship of the Son to the Father (begotten from eternity - not "in" eternity) is heresy (or have I misunderstood something)?

    HankD
     
  16. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but the phrase is used in Hebrews of Isaac who was not virgin born:

    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,

    So, brother Carl am I correct in what I am hearing you say, that the orthodox Trinitarian definition of the relationship of the Son to the Father (begotten from eternity - not "in" eternity) is heresy (or have I misunderstood something)?

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Hank,

    That was Paul's statement of term, NOT JOHN'S, which didn't concern the Son of God. Issac WAS Abraham's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. The virgin birth is connected ONLY with the JOHN'S SON OF GOD, thereby AGAIN connecting it to his incarnation in FLESH.

    The Son is begotten IN TIME, but the WORD is there from eternity. (Matt.1, John 1,1 John 5)
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Thank you.

    What about the pre-incarnate Scripture references to "the Son"?

    Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

    Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

    Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the Eternal Word become flesh is identical in person to Jesus Christ?


    HankD
     
  18. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, since you are sure that John defined it that way, what would that make someone who disagreed with you? EG, is he a heretic or stupid or deluded? And, could you "correct" such a one with your "authority"?

    ......

    Yes, John defined it as the Word being flesh the first time he WROTE it. No doubt about that.

    Disagreement with me makes no difference. Disagreement with the statement of the Book puts one in the UNIQUE CATEGORY of being one of those who DESPISE and REJECT the words of the Lord. (See Jeremiah)

    Paul SAID that I was to preach the word. (2 Tim.4) In doing that, correction will be ACCOMPLISHED by those who HEAR! (The non-hearing go into apostasy.)

    Very simple brother.

    ..........

    So , since John, the Book, said it, would you say, then, that Chafer and Walvoord despise and reject the words of the Lord and will go into apostacy because they disagree with the statement of the Book?

    Is not there even the tiniest possibility that they are right and that you are wrong on this matter?


    .........

    [/qb][/QUOTE]No brother, I don't. While I was researching some material for a book, I called Bro. Walvoord (years ago) and spoke with him for quite a while. He is a very personable and nice man, and we enjoyed our conversation together. I respect him. I have the majority of his books. But I don't BELIEVE and TEACH everything that he says. On that point, (Christ begotten in eternity), he is wrong. It is a HERESY. (1 Cor.11) Christians manifest heresies brother. (Gal.5)

    ......


    Carl:


    We have some agreement on this , despite many differences about other things. I appreciate your estimate of Walvoord. I am still unclear, however, about some of what you say. As you have time I'd appreciate your responses to these questions:

    1) Why would you say that believing in the eternality of Christ's Sonship, by a process of eternal begetting, is a heresy? Where does Scripture say that is a heresy?

    2) What IS a heresy IYO? The dictionary defines a heresy as that which is against the opinion of a religious GROUP.

    You, on the other hand, seem to be defining in this case a heresy as that which is against your own personal opinion.

    3) Why do you think that scores of otherwise seemingly very competent commentators and theologians ( as FF Bruce, Grudem, Erickson, Leon Morris, Hengstenberg, Chafer, Beasley- Murray, Tenny, McGee, Walvoord, etc) disagree with you in your understanding that 1:14 means that "only begotten" refers to the Incarnation?

    I understand that you are saying that you don't care what anyone says but John. Yet, neither do these. They care what John says too. They say that he says something different than what you say he says!

    How can you be so very confident that you are right in this matter and they are wrong?

    4) Of course, IMO, the KJV translators erred in the rendering of the adjective. But I'm interested in your view.

    Why do you think the translators of The KJV were made so very competent to translate accurately that word as "only begotten" but were so very INcompetent that they could not even understand what that word means and , in fact, clung to a heretical belief regarding it (IYO)?

    5) Why are not Chafer and Walvoord IYO despising God's Word if it is God's Word itself that undoubtedly and obviously (IYO) says does, that "only begotten" refers to the incarnation but Chafer and Walvoord resolutely and emphatically deny that it does? If they reject your word in this matter are they not rejecting John's?


    Thanks,


    Bill

    [ May 14, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  19. jdcanady

    jdcanady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope I am not interrupting a private discussion here. I would like your take on the varient Greek manuscripts that say "only begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son".

    Also, the I Cor. reference to "firstborn": Isn't that a term refering to position, not chronology? In other words, isn't Paul saying in context that Jesus has the first place (i.e. authority) over all creation?
     
  20. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page

Loading...