Only Begotten God?

This is creative but notice how badly you missed the text in Hebrews. Hebrews says the only begotten son of Abraham. In fact, if you look at the uses of monegenes in Scripture, I do not believe it is ever used with reference to both parents. Check it and see if I am right.

But even at that, that is not the point. The point is that monogenes refers to uniqueness; it does not refer to something coming into existence, as the theological lexicons will tell you. Look it up if you doubt me. (I already have).

Not only does this not support your position and damage mine, it does not even make sense. To say that I do not believe that monogenes is used to mean only or unique in a pure sense is to say something I don’t believe I said. Perhaps you can quote that for me or admit that you made it up … In Scripture, it is only used in conjunction with a parent child relationship. That does not speak to its use in other areas. I really have no idea and it really makes no difference. The issue is not “How else can monogenes be used?” The issue is “What did the author intend to communicate by monogenes when he used it?”

It may well refer to his relationship with the Father, akin to Psalm 2. It does not refer to his coming into existence, which is what my point is.

This word does not talk of creating human beings. The orthodox position on the creation of human is traducianism, meaning that God is not creating human beings but that a human being is created by the union of sperm and egg. While that is mostly irrelevant, I think it speaks to the fact that this discussion is not about the creating of human beings. The NIV and NRSB do not take a “more liberal” interpretation. Their interpretation is a possible one although it may be disputed whether it is what John intended.

Again, I don’t follow you here … “one” or “one and only” is not a redefinition of the word. It is what the word means. “Redefinition” has unfortunately become “anything that the KJV doesn’t say;” but that is a horrible method of exegesis. Definitions should be determined by the dictionaries and lexicons.

Consider the TDNT:

Consider also the words of the NIDNTT:

So two of the premier lexical works say exactly what I have said. And you must understand my point. I am not saying that “only begotten” is unorthodox or wrong. I think we know what it means with reference to Christ. What I am saying is that “one and only” is more clear and does not open the door to people whose deficient theological understanding might lead them to a false understanding.

But this misses the point of John 1. John is setting forth that the one who was made flesh did not come into existence; he has always been. Your argument is the one John was trying to refute. You are arguing against the very thing that he was arguing for.

No problem here understanding the incarnation. I got that fully.

Gennao is the causal form of ginomai. But as has been pointed out, monogenes is only distantly related. You have made the classic compound word error. The meaning of a compound word is not always the sum of the meaning of its parts. (See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies). Consider “pineapple” for proof of this fallacy. It has nothing to do with “pines” or “apples.”

There are very few sound exegetes who agree with you and you have certainly not helped your case here.

This discussion has gone way past where it should have gone. Let me say this in closing.

This discussion is not about whether “only begotten” is orthodox. It is about what John intended to communicate. If one chooses “only begotten” they are not heretics. If one chooses “one and only” they are not heretics. Both are possible meanings and they may be so closely related as to both be saying essentially the same.

The evidence leads us to believe that “God” is what John wrote rather than “son.” We do not have the right to change that, no matter how much one sounds better to our ears. Let us consider the argument of John in John 1: From v. 1, he is very clearly telling us that the Word is God. In v. 14 he tells us that the Word became flesh; in v. 18 he tells us again that the Word who became flesh is the only God. He is not a mere representation of God; he is not a mere apparition of God. He is actually God, the only God there is. This is designed to convince his reader of his deity. Therefore, “one and only God” or “only begotten God” is explicit on his deity and leaves absolutely no room for any misunderstanding; it leaves room only for denial … and that, I believe, is what John intended.

[ February 12, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

But is this the point of John 1? I do not believe it is. The point of John 1 is that the "Word in flesh" is God. The point of John 1 is not about the father/son relationship. That is why "theos" makes the most sense. The "Word in Flesh is God."

If you suggest "uios" instead of "theos" a case can be made that you have tampered with God's word. My point was not an accusation so much as it was statement about the integrity of the text. We cannot change it just because we prefer a different reading. There must be more substantial reasons.

I did not mistakenly word anything. Notice the bolded part, "The church of the living God who was manifest in the flesh." It seems any reasonable person would see that "who was manifest in the flesh" modifies the closest antecedent "living God" rather than a much farther and less sensible antecedent "church." If I was referring to church, in English I would have used "that was manifest" instead of "who." The church is not a person; the living God is. My words were clear; you misunderstood. 1 Timothy 3 does not undermine the deity of Christ; it affirms it in the MVs.

Then why does virtually every commentator and Bible scholar disagree with you?

There is no bunny trail here. As I said, this discussion is way past where it should have gone. There are some legitimate theological points of discussion. However, contrary to your accusation, this is not a place where the MVs have distorted teh deity of Christ. Right or wrong, they are more clear on the deity of Christ than the KJV is. You seem to have simply got your name mixed up, placing your feeling about a particular version ahead of the facts of the situation

I have no ill will towards you. I write only to correct some misunderstandings and misrepresentations that you have put forth here. As I have often said, I really don't care what version you use. My problem is when some malign the word of God in modern versions. We should honor the word of God whereever it is faithfully translated.

 

I've just read all this thread with interest, and want to pick up a point made at the start. BrianT, on page 1, wrote that "only begotten God" was fine because:

Therefore Jesus is the begotten God. Many others used the same argument. Ransom even accused FFF on page 2 in the following manner:

Therefore, not wanting to be part of FFF's Nestorianism, I must conclude:

1. Mary was the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus was God.
3. Therefore Mary was the mother of God.

Do you believe this??? I don't. Am I a Nestorian? If BrianT's argument follows, then so does the pope's.

 

You don't believe it?

The problem, which is being avoided for obvious reasons, is that using the term "mother of God" or "begotten God" does NOT require the concept of the *origin* of God - which is the meaning those who opposed the terms are trying to impose on it. Neither I, nor the translators of "modern versions", nor the Catholics are trying to suggest God had a beginning. The context of this term is obviously in terms of Jesus' human flesh, not his eternally preexistent Godhood in the spirit. Perhaps people need to consider this, and I think people are avoiding considering it just to misrepresent what someone else is saying and to keep the argument alive.