was jesus eternally beggoten By God, or just the Logos/Word?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Yeshua1, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,097
    Likes Received:
    49
    was the Son eternally with the father, or did sonship start when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us?
     
  2. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    In original was the word (saying) and the word (saying) was toward the God and God was the word (saying) this was in original toward the God.

    In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;

    And the word (saying) flesh became.

    Maybe the living speaking God beget a flesh Son and they called his name Jesus.
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    You have to wonder why a thread is started asking a question with no issue attached. Like "I wonder if Jesus had brown eyes?" Meaningless speculation. Was the second person of the trinity known as the Lamb of God before creation? Yes, 1 Peter 1:19-20.

    What verse says the Second person of the Trinity was "eternally begotten?" None, it is from the Nicene Creed.

    So by the numbers, the Second Person of the Trinity is eternal, hence never "begotten" or "fathered" or "brought into existence."

    Next, the Second Person of the Trinity is referred to in scripture as the Son before the foundation of the world, so the role of sonship existed before creation.

    When the Son of God, the second person of the trinity, became flesh, he was begotten, or fathered, or brought into physical being. That occurred at a specific point in time.

    In summary, God the Son, the second person of the trinity is eternal and is the same yesterday, today and forever. He was not begotten.
    Jesus in the flesh was begotten at a specific point in time, and so the incarnate Son was begotten, as to His fleshly body but not as to His eternal Spirit as God the Son.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,097
    Likes Received:
    49
    Actually, the father begot the Son, and Both of them the Holy Spirit!

    Eternally begotten....
     
  5. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Your first two assertions do not prove the third.

    Anywhere your last point is a mere assertion. What about Van's point? Where is there scripture for the Son being eternally begotten?
     
  6. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are asking about what is called the eternal generation of the Son.

    The Nicene Creed reads:

    Also, the Chalcedonian Creed:

    Jesus said, of Himself, "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). Jesus is clearly claiming to be Jehovah God.

    The Son is autotheos, inherently God. This does not present a problem within Nicene Christianity as Jesus being begotten of the Father is one of order within the godhead, not one of equality or eternality. The denial of the eternal generation of the Son was the error of Arius (Arianism) and its modern day stepchild, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
     
  7. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    What scripture says the second person of the trinity?
     
  8. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Your quotation of those two creeds is confirmation of Van's point (made in the other post). He said that the "eternal generation of the Son" is not found in Scripture.

    The verse from John proves Christ's deity and his eternality. It does not prove eternal generation.

    I admit that I am somewhat weak in this area, but when someone says, as Van did, that a concept is found in the creeds but not in Scripture that causes me to take note. I intend to study this out further. We are to examine all things. Hold fast to that which is true.

    At the outset, however, the fact that you (1) went first to the creeds to prove your point, then (2) misapplied Scripture, then (3) demonized my position with heretical associations does not make you very credible in my eyes.

    There may, in fact, be better proofs of the eternal generation of the Son, but it didn't come from you - at least not yet.

    I used to believe this doctrine, I guess, because Calvin believed it and spoke often of it. But now I think I need to hold it at arm's length to take a closer look at it.
     
    #8 asterisktom, Jul 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2012
  9. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    I responded to the OP directly without reading any other posts. I wanted to answer it cleanly; without reading any other responses.

    I think John 8:58 is a strong proof of the eternality of the Son, as the Son. Another is John 17:5:

    "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

    An oblique reference is found in Philippians:

    The eternal generation of the Son is both a positive and negative doctrine. It is positive in that it is biblical. It is negative in that it is the logical antithesis of modalism or arianism. It is not an issue I debate often. I am quite convinced of the biblical basis for the eternality of the Son. I do get bothered at the exegetical gymnastics that are often employed in butchering the Son being begotten.
     
  10. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    I do not understand what your last sentence means. Was he, the Son of God begotten or was he the Son of God not begotten. If begotten in what manner was he begotten? What was his name before he was begotten and after he was begotten. What does son mean? What does father mean? Can there be a father without offspring?

    Did the Holy Spirit inspire words of which we thought we knew the meaning of but maybe we didn't?

    I asked Tom a question in this thread, " Did Christ suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder," that went unanswered and the last poster was worried about being struck by lighting whether because of my post or not don't know.
     
  11. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    If you asked me it must have been during my crunch time. I had both a heavy teaching schedule and a deadline for publishing. I am more free now. I vaguely remember something about it. Feel free to ask again.
     
  12. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    I remember you being quite busy at the time. No big deal.

    I think it could be relative here however i don't think anyone else would think so,
     
  13. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    A good post: But I am not sure this proves your point
    Does not, IMO negate the possibility of his being "begotten" eternally. This does not seem to follow. You are defining "begotten" to mean that one MUST necessarily have a beginning. I do not think that is the point though. The creed uses the phrase "eternally begotten"...It does not imply the Son's having to have been "brought into existence". It merely describes the fundamental nature of the relationship, and that relationship would (you are correct) not have changed in its fundamental nature.
     
  14. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Son was begotten in that He proceeded forth from the Father. This proceeding forth can mean one of two things: 1. The Son did not exist until He was begotten. 2. The Son existed but was sent forth by the Father. If the answer is #1 then modalism, and not the Trinity, is the correct Christian doctrine to explain the godhead. If #2 is correct then the integrity of the godhead is preserved as well as the eternal generation of the Son. Passages I would use in support of #2 are John 8:58; 17:5; Hebrews 1:2.
     
  15. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    Let me ask.

    Rev. 13:8 the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
    John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

    Was the Lamb of God, a man or God? Was the Lamb, God the Son, find that phrase in scripture, or was the Lamb the only begotten Son of God the Father.

    I hope Tom is reading this also for I will refresh his memory. I had asked him.

    Did Jesus pay tithes in Abraham? Jesus was also the seed of Abraham was he not? Why are we given the information concerning Levi having payed tithes in father Abraham. Does it show that the Son was always in the Father?

    John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    Is this the Lamb speaking?

    Has anyone else beside Jesus been begotten of God within a woman, the help meet taken from the man, Adam, who was created in the image of God?

    Do the thoughts above take anything away from the Son of God or do they magnify the living God?

    From the foundation of the world was the first man Adam to be the ultimate creation of God or from the foundation of the world was the ultimate creation of God to be the last Adam the Lamb of God, resurrected from the dead, thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee?

    Which image above would we prefer to be resurrected (as)?


    As for myself:-- Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
     
  16. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I forgot where you were going, Percho, with this line of questions. I will just answer each one individually and we will play it from there.

    He was both man and God. "God the Son", as a phrase, is not found in Scripture. Not sure what you are asking in the last one. The Lamb was the only-begotten Son of God.
    Yes and yes.
    The context tells us the purpose for this information:Ultimately, to show the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ. In nearest context, it would be found at the "therefore" of verse 10. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I don't at all see Levi being "in the loins of Abraham" as a fitting proof for the Son being in the Father. But perhaps I am misreading your purpose here?
    This is Christ speaking, while still in the process of being the Lamb of God. "Lamb" is mainly a description of His Messianic mission.
    I think we are shifting away from the intended meaning of μονογενὴς in John 1:18 to an altogether different type of "begetting" in Genesis.
    Still not clear on your thoughts here, so I can't say.
    The question is a bit too complicated for me to understand. Could you break it down or rephrase?
    Are we speaking of image of Christ vs. Adam's?
    We are indeed predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.

    OK, this is a start. Over to you. Refine, rephrase, re...something. The topic is a good one. Maybe I will still have time for one more answer before I go off to work.
     
  17. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    [Q] asterisktom
    He was both man and God. "God the Son", as a phrase, is not found in Scripture. Not sure what you are asking in the last one. The Lamb was the only-begotten Son of God.[/Q]

    I believe the scripture teaches God beget in the ovum of the virgin Mary a man child that she brought forth, gave birth, and as was told by God they called him Jesus. He was the Son of God. I understand about only begotten of 1:18 and 3:16. The Archangel had a very good post about this back in Dec. 2011 as to the correct root word whether γεννάω or γενός of which he contends for the latter with meaning along the lines of, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species or one of a kind. I do not have a problem with that, however when, kind or species or whatever is followed with the word Son relative to another word Father, that is, some type of being begotten, anyway you look at it.

    Now either scripture teaches a Son was begotten by God or it does not teach that. I believe it does teach that.

    God the Son is used to imply that the Son of God was not truly begotten by God the Father, but was the eternally begotten Son of God, which as you said isn't in scripture.

    I say scripture teaches the plan of God from the foundation of the world was that the Lamb, his human Son, born of a woman, who would die destroying him who had the power of death, deceit unto sin, thus also destroying death and redeeming those under the power of sin by he, the Son of God being regenerated from death, receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father shedding it on the redeemed that they also could be made in the image of the resurrected Son.

    This was not done by one called God the Son but by one who was, the Son of the living God.
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    You are proving "a" then claiming "b" was proven.

    That Jesus is God is supported by John 8:58, i.e. before Abraham, I am. But that is not the issue.

    That God the Son existed before the world was is supported by John 17:5. But that is not the issue.

    That God (the Father) unilaterally appointed God (the Son) to be His Lamb, the Messiah, the Christ is supported by Hebrews 1:2. But that is not the issue.

    You are claiming that when the Father chose God the Son to be His Redeemer, His Chosen One, that equates with being begotten in eternity, hence, Christ was eternally begotten.

    This is simply a definitional argument, saying being chosen or appointed is a definition of "begotten."

    I would have no objection to claiming as doctrine that God the Son was "chosen" eternally, before the foundation of the world to be the Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:19-20) but to refer to this appointment as being begotten only adds confusion, not clarity.

    As I said, the incarnate Son was begotten, and was sent by the Father, and was given by the Father, and proceeded forth from the Father, John 8:42. But these references, being sent, being given, proceeding forth and being begotten all occur in time about 2016 years ago, rather than the absurd idea of being proceeding before creation and traveling oh so slowly. Not credible.

    Last point, claim something that happens in time, actually happened before creation. All these time travel arguments are simply an effort to nullify what scripture says in order to shoe-horn man-made doctrine into scripture. Revelation 13:8 does not say the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The ESV mistranslates "apo = from" as "pro = before" but just about all other modern translations say "from the foundation of the world." Then of course, it is the names that were not written in the Lamb's book from the foundation of the world, rather than the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world. Both the names were written or not, and the slaying occurred in time and not before creation.
     
    #18 Van, Jul 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2012
  19. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,891
    Likes Received:
    37
    Van,

    Just for information. How close to the same moment would you say these the two phrases would be.

    From (ἀπό, apo) the foundation of the world (current system) Rev. 13:8 and before (πρό, pro) times of ages Titus 1:2.

    Was one determined at about the same moment the other was made?

    When it was determined that one would take place was there also a promise made for the one so determined?
     
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Percho, what is the purpose of your post?

    from the foundation of the world refers to a different period than before the foundation of the world. Anyone who says otherwise is simply redefining apo to mean pro.

    Paul says God promised eternal life before (pro) times eternal. When would that be? Most commentaries say before the foundation of the world, or a promise made before creation. That could refer to when the Father appointed the Son to be the Lamb of God.

    The reason I do not state this view as a certainty, is that another possibility is that it refers to before times of the ages, which could refer to the Old Covenant promise. This seems less likely to me.

    In summary, Titus 1:2 probably refers to the period before the foundation of the world, i.e. in eternity before creation, with the promise being given to the Son by the Father.

    Using this view, then no, the two periods are separated, one before creation and the other after creation.
     
    #20 Van, Jul 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...