1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

My Father is greater than I

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by UZThD, Aug 16, 2005.

  1. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    OR: I disagree with the Confession that says the Son is eternally begotten. Neither do those Scriptures provided teach an eternal begetting. That Creed postulates that the Father Who is "of none" experiences the divine aseity in a way that the Son does not, for the Son is "of" the Father(by an eternally begetting) but the Father is of none!

    Hank: If it were true that God the Son were confined to the body during His earthly time, then

    1) is He still? or

    2) does He now exist both in and out of that humanity?

    Is that body now omnipresent? As we will have bodies as His, will we too be omnipresent ?

    But if He can NOW exist both IN and OUT of His humanity, then why not before?

    You see, what I am saying is that even on earth He continued to exist OUT of His humanity and that some texts and experiences and acts and qualities of the earthly Christ are to be attributed to that humanity and others to that unchanged deity.

    To be restricted to humanity, IMO, is to lose deity, and I think that IN GOD there are only Equals.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    UZThd, men (humanity) have been bantering these things since He walked the earth.

    Perhaps no earthly human language can exactly pinpoint every detail of the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. I am willing to discuss it as long as the temptation of personal attacks is resisted as you also have indicated and in reality I suspect our views are closer than you have seemingly assumed.

    However, sooner or later the point of diminishing returns will be reached and perhaps already has with this issue of the Kenosis.

    Similar to the issue of Christ's impeccability folks seem sooner or later get around to throwing each other in hell over the matter of the Kenosis and its meaning and extent in the life of Christ.
    I also appreciate your spirit in this matter.

    Having said that:

    Personally, I don’t like the word "subordinate" with language addressing the pre-incarnation status of the Second Person of the Trinity. My own view explained within the sphere of the limitation of human language to describe the relationships between the persons of the Trinity is that that God is three distinct co-equal persons in one divine essence, the Father being somewhere within the realm of "initiator" within the consensus of the Godhead. The Logos being the “executor” of that consensus.

    Probably through a Triune consensus or collaboration, Christ took the initiative and "made Himself of no reputation" ("for a little while") and then subjected Himslelf to the will of the Father.

    I don't know about the word "changing" To be Scripturally correct I would have to say several things :

    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.

    Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

    1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
    I can choose not to see by closing my eyes. Again IMO we need to focus upon the person of Christ. Whatever limitations there were, Christ willingly yielded, though there are Scriptural indications that the prerogatives of God were available to Him.

    Both were held in her arms.

    Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Some good objections, however there are Scripture which indeed indicate these limitations which He willingly imposed upon Himself.

    Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

    Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    Personally, I have difficulty in dividing Christ between his human and divine nature.

    He Himself never says things like “my humanity thirsts” but “I thirst”.
    In spite of all that I have said, I agree more with number three than one or two.

    However
    I don’t know but with God all things are possible including your view [​IMG]

    Ditto.

    Your additional questions:

    If He is eternally restricted IMO it is because it pleases Him and He wants it to be so and not due to a "weakening" in His humanity or a subordination thereof whether when on earth or now in heaven:

    Psa 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

    Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    HankD
     
  3. SavedbyHISGrace

    SavedbyHISGrace New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of what the "Creeds" might say, the teaching of an "eternal begetting" of the Son from the Father, is not what is taught in Scripture, and has its origins in early heresy, notably from about the time of Origen, who is the forerunner to the heretic, Airus.

    Though it was held by even some of the Orthodox party in the early Church, that the Father alone is "Fons Deitatis", and that both the Son and Holy Spirit have the origin (ek) and derivation from the Father, is to be condemned as heresy, and has no place in the Church. The Father is truly God, and the Son is truly God, and the Holy Spirit is truly God. Each Person is "coequal" to the other, in every respect, and neither is subordnate to the other, except the Son during His time on earth, which subordination was also something that He did of His own free will. We must reject any notion of an "order" in the Godhead, as touching the Divinity of the Persons of, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither Person existed before the other, nor is any Person "above" the other. All Three are equally addressed as "God", in the absolute sense in the New Testament, and from the Theophanies in the Old Testament, we have both the Father and the Son as equally being addressed as "YHWH". Any attempt to weaken the term "theos" when used for Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as even some of the Evangelical faith do today, is something that originates in the pit of hell, and not from the Holy Word of God.
     
  4. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

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

    UZThD New Member

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


    I agree with you re eternal generation.
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I am not comfortable with the term "eternal begetting" either and have not been for many years. In fact I am not comfortable with the term begotten. The reason that I posted the two statements is to show that they stated each having the whole Divine Essence.

    You lost me with aseity but I have a dictionary.
     
  7. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not comfortable with the term "eternal begetting" either and have not been for many years. In fact I am not comfortable with the term begotten. The reason that I posted the two statements is to show that they stated each having the whole Divine Essence.

    You lost me with aseity but I have a dictionary.
    </font>[/QUOTE]===

    sorry.

    Aseity is commonly defined as God "having life from Himself."

    But were it true that the Son as God receives life from the Father ( or essence or deity or subsistence), as that creed along with many, many theologians and exegetes as Berkhof and Shedd say, then the Son has life by the Father and NOT life from Himself.

    Some become quite dogmatic on this. Williams in his ST says that unless the Son is eternally begotten, God CANNOT exist. Bavinck insists that if we deny eternal generation, then we deny the deity of both the Father and the Son. To me this preposterous!

    It should be obvious to all that this doctrine of et gen connects to the issue of how the Father is greater (Jo 14:28) . But if the connection of et gen to role subordination is not yet to any reader clear, then by clarification: Dahms says that the Son is subordinate BECAUSE He is eternally begotten!

    Arminius writes that while the Father is autotheos (God from Himself), the Son is NOT! Tertullian and many, many ancients say that the Father is the cause of the Son!

    Thus DIFFERENT ONTOLOGICAL attributes are predicated of the Son than are predicated of the Father. The TWO are attributionally said to be different!

    In contrast to these I reason,

    Major Premise: The essence of God is perfect and ALL the divine attributes, not SOME, of the attributes of God's nature, as sovereignty and aseity, inhere in that nature.

    [this is the teaching of many evangelical theologians of which I know. essence even is said to =attributes and that w-out any of the necessary attributes God ceases to be God!]

    Minor Premise: The Son as God has the whole of that divine nature.

    [in my opinion the Trinal Persons do not divide up the essence of God, each has the same, identical essence]

    Conclusion: So, the Son as God has ALL the divine attributes of the Father INCLUDING sovereignty and aseity.

    Therefore, I reject both eternal generation and eternal role subordination. This rejection IMO is very consistent both with correct exegeses of the relevant texts and with my belief system as a whole [ie, each doctrine must cohere with the other tenets held, eg, Incarnational Christology].


    Bill
     
Loading...