Only Begotten God?

Pastor Larry said:

Monogenes means one of a kind or only or unique in all of its uses. It means the same thing here.

Quite true . . . but trying to point out facts to KJV-onlyists is generally a waste of time when they are presuppositionally committed to the English anyway . . .

 

EXCELLENT point. I'd be very interested in FFF's response to this.

 

Pastor Larry said:

The "only begotten Son" is a problem for those who argue as FFF has done here. If a "begotten God" means God came into existence, then "begotten Son" means that the Son came into existence. However, Scripture teaches eternal Sonship, thus showing that the argument FFF has put forth shows the KJV to be a heretical translation as he has understood it.

Thanks for highlighting PL's point here, Brian, as I had accidentally glossed over it and didn't give it the attention it deserved.

John MacArthur, whom KJV-onlyists almost universally love to hate, caught flak years ago for his errant teaching of "incarnational Sonship," a belief he later recanted.

(Indeed, if you google on "macarthur incarnational sonship, the first link is to a Grace to You site, but the second hit is a link to Cephas Ministry, an apologetics ministry that is also KJV-only. The third is the "Calvary Contender" - also KJV-only. The fourth is "We Care Ministries" - again, KJV-only.)

So if the KJV-onlyists are upset about "incarnational Sonship," why is it that they continue to promote a reading which, by their own logic, implicitly denies eternal Sonship?

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

The problem here is your misunderstanding of the Greek language (both Koine and Modern).

So you're saying we can't have a proper understanding of God's Word without knowing Greek, is that it?

 

FFF, are you going to address Pastor Larry's comment about your argument meaning the Son coming into existence?

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

If what Larry said was true half the Bibles on the market would be heretical.

So your rebuttal boils down to "But the KJV does it too!"

 

I am not talking about the begetting part. Larry's doing just fine with that without me helping.

I'm talking about *your* argument. If, as you claim, "begotten God" means Christ's Godship had a beginning, then "begotten Son" would also mean Christ's Sonship had a beginning. Do you believe Jesus wasn't the "Son" until he was begotten? If "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship had a beginning, why does "begotten God" mean his Godship had a beginning???

 

It is antichristian heresy to believe and teach that "only begotten" refers to Christ's humanity. This satanic error has been referred to as "incarnational sonship". For a refutation of it and other errors related to Christ's glorious Person read J C Philpot's book The Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ at

http://grace-for-today.com/728.htm


Harald

 

Then why is FFF saying that "begotten" refers to the beginning of something?

 

Really?? Wanna compare backgrounds?? Why don't you give your curricula vitae with regard to Greek.

This is untrue in that Isaac was Abraham's monogenes huios when he also had a son named Ishmael. Thus, it means one of a kind, or unique. The problem is not my understanding of Greek at all.

I agree that it refers to a relationship between parent and child. However, in none of those cases does it refer to the coming into existence (begotten) but rather the unique place (only). If you look at how the KJV translates monogenes in those cases, my point will be proven by your preferred version. The KJV translate monogenes as "only" (the dreaded sin of the NIV) in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. It translates it as only begotten in the others. Why the inconsistency?? The reality is that the KJV translators admit what I am saying by their choice of "only" in the contexts above. Your version contradicts you and supports me.

 

The AV says "No man hath seen God at any time;the only begotten Son,which is in the bosom of the Father,he hath declaired him." The Alexandrian bibles say "No man has seen God at any time;the only begotten god(little g)who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one who has explained him." Now let me see here, a God(big G) explaining another god(little g),thats 2!! Now, that teaching is Arianism!!! This teaching is against John 10:30 that says "I and my FATHER ARE ONE." not 2 but 1..1st John 5:7 clearly show the Trinity,in other words 3 in one; Not 3 seperate or 2 seprate Gods, but ONE(1) GOD. Now, where did this come from? Origen(see page 231,on John 1:18 in Nestle's apparatus) and this Polytheistic rendering is found in the "oldest & best Manuscrips",Aleandrian,Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus..

 

Last I checked you are the one who was furthering the conversation here. We are not justifying the CT. We are telling you what the word monogenes means. It is not a stretch for us in the least. We who hold to the deity of Christ love to preach from the NASB and NIV because it is so crystal clear that the Word made flesh was none other than God himself.

 

Um, no. There is not "big" or "little" G in the "Alexandrian Bibles". If someone, like the JWs want to convey polytheism, they use the little g in translating. Regular, orthodox Christians who are monotheistic use big G in translating. Crack open an NASB and see what I mean.

Origen was monotheistic.

 

Who cares about a language that has been dead for over 1800 years?? We have His word in the King's English...

 

Oh, pick me, pick me!

 

Big G little g whatever,fact is the same text used by the JW's is the same North African jesuit Vatican text used by ALL alexandrian bibles.John chapter 1(KJB) is contrary to the Polytheistic doctrine of Arianism in the Alexandrian texts & the "bibles" translated from them.John 10:30 says different,as well as 1st John 5:7(KJB)These verses CLEARLY show the superiority of the Protestant text of the Reformation over the North African Jesuit Vatican text of the dark ages...

 

Oh, OK. Whatever.

And AGAIN we're back to interpretion. Whee!

JYD, which do you have a problem with: that Jesus was "begotten", or that he is "God"?

Saying the text is Arian just because of someone's *interpretation* is silly. Arians make arian interpretations from the KJV just as easily in other passages.