 |
| My son, you are eternal, but you are also begotten, that is, eternally begotten! I know it sound nonsensical but I hope it makes sense to you. I ain't senile yet, you know! |
A brother posted and inquired:
It seems that Predestination and the the Decrees of God are both dealt with in the London Confession in one chapter -- Chapter III -- Of God's Decrees. The wording in this chapter may not be verbatim wording from the Westminster. But whether it is or not (or just resembles it, or bares no resemblance to it, for that matter) is not really that relevant to the main point being conveyed in Elder Bazemore's writing. The important point is that the LCoF wording on God's decrees does not square with the Scriptures. Specifically -- this statement: "God hath . . . decreed in himself from all eternity . . . freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass" This position has been rejected by sound Primitive Baptists because it reproaches the character of God and is refuted by the Scriptures. For example -- Jeremiah 7:30-31 and Romans 3:5-8.
Markus
Chapter 3 of the LCoF is about the Decree of God. How one defines the word 'decree' will make a vast difference in how the entire chapter is understood. The New School Calvinist and the New School Baptist (reformed theology) would define it in such a way as to make the whole chapter untenable to a Primitive Baptist. The question we ought to be concerned with is how did the men who framed the 1677/1689 London Confession of Faith define the term. There is a vast difference in the Old School Calvinists (Presbyterian) and a New Schooler's definition compared to a Particular Baptist definition. Especially in definition of doctrines! I will hope those feeling they have a good grasp of 17th century language will also have fine line defined this distinction as well! Further, there should be understood a difference in Old School Presbyterian/Calvinisits if Particular Baptist took a different form of words from men of their own time frame. Thus, if the original language of the Westminster changes in either the Savoy or the London Baptist Confession, it ought to be a 'heads up' to a major significant difference in doctrine.
Decree as found in the LCoF is further defined by the words contingency (condition) and second causes. This indicates that the words decree as understood and defined by the Particular Baptists is not always defined as a decree causitive by God. Causality may arise from contingency (condition) or via second causality.
For me this means that God does not cause all of the things that He allows or suffers to take place in His decree. This not only includes sin, but also the obedience of the elect child of God to the commands given them to which they are obediant.
Given these thoughts, I would like to hear from anyone who still finds fault with the language of Chapter 3 of the 1689 LCoF.
Markus
Please Brethren, if I am in fault in defending the language, definitions, and understanding of my forefathers in the faith regarding the 1677/1689 LCoF.......correct me. I will count you my faithfull Brother in doing so.
Jabine
Regarding the London Confession, sure there are some sound statements. But looking at it through the lens of the scriptural truths held by Primitive Baptists, the pottage has a lap full of wild gourds shredded up in it. For example, what would we do with the statement in Chapter X: ". . . much less can men that receive not the Christian religion . . . be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess" (section on Effectual Calling). Example after example could be cited.
Ballast
The understanding of the word "saved" is not difficult for a Primitive Baptist in either practice or definition. The only problem one finds with that term is when it is used to denote a one time salvation unto eternal life, otherwise, when I read it (the term 'saved') among Primitive and Historic Strict Baptists I examine their context to see that they are discussing the distinctions present between our Hope of Eternal life and our Conditionally being Saved according to our obedience to the gospel message.
I choked on this gnat for too long to worry over the word definition, it is evident that men who do not receive the Christian Religion (as termed among Strict Historic Baptists and present day Primitive Baptists---the faith once delivered to the saints) can most certainly not be enjoying the fullness of their promise of salvation in this present life...or else...Ye men of Israel, save yourselves from this untoward generation...and further, take heed O Timothy to your self and your doctrine, for in so doing you save both yourself and those that hear you must also be removed from among our literature for the support of our and all the people of God being now through faith and obedience in Christ alone, to enjoy experiential gospel salvation by putting off the old man and putting on the new.
Just some thoughts from a poor sinner in hope of Eternal Life.
Brother Markus, 1677/89? Bout as far back as I can remember is gonna be 1977, maybe occasionally '74, most certainly '89, but I do agree with your estimation of the Particular Baptist document, I have no doubt that its language was understood to delineate Strict Baptists from among the Protestants, because many Protestant groups have taken it up and by mainstream popularity made modern definitions and understandings to undermine that document is no more reason to throw it out than to throw out the KJV, of which the greatest argument against is the archaic language and idioms presented in that word.
That of itself is a great motivator for studying for greater understanding for a poor hillbilly who has a very limited and bare command of his native modern language...
Markus
Bro. Ballast, the wording of the London confession was prepared in 1677 but in so far as I know it was not published and presented to the public at large until 1689.
Ballast
Brother Markus, I have heard alot of people talk about context for the understanding of scripture but the most consistent use of it I have seen is among Primitive Baptists. The word saved is such word. Where most receive it to be a one time event, Primitive Baptists receive it according to its context. I believe the Particular Baptists did likewise.
Otherwise it would be like saying because I am born of my parents they have no need to instruct and teach me of the dangers of this world because I am already 'saved' from these things because of my birth to them.
Markus
Brother Jabine, that section of Chapter 10 is dealing with unregenerated men. The point being made, as I understand it, is that no unregenerated man - either those attempting to jump through the hoops of religion or those that do not - can possibly be eternally saved. There is no eternal salvation apart from the immediate work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
Sing F Lau
Brethren, interesting subject indeed.
I just have another look at 1689.3.1-7. So many have difficulty with those beautiful words, "God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever come to pass..."
And I wonder why should they? Just what is their problem? Just what do they think the words 'ALL THINGS' refer to? We have been told so many times, and rightly so, 'Context is the first, second, and third rules of interpretation.'
Read the rest of the chapter, and see what the wise and logical Framers meant by their words 'ALL THINGS'?
I am rejoicing that the 'ALL THINGS' in context was decreed by the most wise and holy counsel of God! Any PB who would deny any one of the "ALL THINGS" stated in the latter paragraphs is repudiating the very beliefs of the PBs!
Beware my good friends! Beware. I am no PB... but I am an old school baptist.
Pjaw
According to the Scripture from which it quotes, "all things" contextually are "all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."
Sing F Lau
So many take the words 'all things' out of context, and impute silly things to the Framers of the Confession. Besides that, the notion that God has decreed 'all things' - as commonly understood - because He is sovereign, so that He will remain in control of 'all things'.
The whole idea is blasphemous. One who is truly sovereign and omnipotent does not need to decree 'all things', and He gives all His creature freedom ... AND still remains sovereign and in control of His whole creation. There is no contingency with God. An all-wise and all-powerful Sovereign can let His creatures have full freedom. That's the foundation of His moral government!
Pjaw
No contingencies? I agree, but what about the BCoF 1689 5.4? "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without his providence; yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
Sing F Lau
'There is no contingencies with God' is very different from 'thing happening according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.'
Avoid sound-byte. Grasp the sense!
Prestone
Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Michaelo
"...all things WHATSOEVER COME TO PASS". If language means anything, the framers themselves defined what "all things" they had under consideration.
Markus
Brother Michaelo, I would agree with you that all things means all things. But I do not believe that the framers were teaching that the decree was entirely Divinely causative in bringing all things to pass. I believe the language demonstrates that they believed that some things came to pass by direct and Divine causality, and that some things came to pass contingently, and that some things came to pass via second causality ie some things are caused by men. Unless one understands the framers in regard to causality, one will not understand what they were teaching in this chapter of the LCoF in regard to the decree of God.
Michaelo
So, the fault again originates from my lack of understanding? Sorry, brother. I don't buy it. If they were that obtuse in explaining their views, then I reserve the right to conclude that the document is more harmful than helpful to defining orthodoxy. Pray tell, why do the Absolute Predestinarians use the identical language? Do they also fail to understand what Keach & Co. were saying? And why do the many groups that teach gospel instrumentality in eternal salvation cite the 1689 as their basis. Do they also fail to properly grasp the language employed? If only a few really understand what the framers really meant and the rest of us come to conclusions that are inaccurate, I seriously question the usefulness of the document. But if, in fact, the 1689 was an ecumenical attempt of a variety of different brands of Baptists to show essential solidarity with the established church (Presbyterians) in order to gain religious tolerance, as I believe the historical evidence supports, then the ecumenical appeal of the document to such a wide variety of groups today suddenly begins to make sense.
Markus
The Absolute Predestinarians and Gospel Regenerationist also cite the Bible to attempt to prove their heretical points. Sound Primitive Baptists also cite the same Bible to teach truth. Being in error does not keep someone from claiming that a particular source proves their legitimacy.
I am aware of the ecumenical argument regarding the 1689 and the argument that the Particular Baptists had grown so tired of persecutions that they just gave in and adopted the language of the Presbyterians to escape persecution. The thing is though, that 1689 brought new rule to the throne and more religious toleration than had been had for the previous 50 years. So, I don't buy the argument that when the very religious freedoms that the Particular Baptists had sought for 50 years came, that it was at that moment that they threw in the towel and gave up. I take them at their word in the prefacing remarks to the confession that they adopted the format that they did to make it easier to make direct comparisons of what they believed as compared to the beliefs of others that used the same general format of presentation.
Jabine
Maybe I am too simplistic. But it really seems strange to me for people to take a clear and concise statement from this document and say, in essence, "This is what they said, but they actually meant the something entirely different."
Martyn
Here is my biggest problem with the LCofF supporters. They say "The LCofF is not scripture and therefore it is not infallible." And for that, I applaud them. However, after saying that, they never actually admit any specific error in the document. Whenever one points out a possible error, they defend the language. My problem is not that they used common language of their day, my problem is that they did not use Biblical language! Just my thoughts. No offense meant, Brother Markus. I am sure you have heard all this from me before. I realize the LCofF is part of our history and we cannot deny it completely, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it is an accurate reflection of what I believe.
Martyn
I should have said "with some LCofF supporters". Such general statements as I made before are very hard to support.
Cherry
Thomas S.F. Cayce
C.H. Cayce
J.H. Oliphant
P.D. Oliphant
Lemuel Potter
Sylvester Hassell
John R. Daily
All these Elders understood, apprehended, and comprehended the truth of the articles, or confession, of faith encompassed by the London Confession. Interestingly, though these men, who were fierce contenders for the Truth, debated and defended that Truth from many attackers, they never once found themselves in a position of defending that Truth from Primitive Baptists. What would they have thought, these Old Fathers in the faith, had they known that just a few short generations later, the old Confession of would be thus scorned by the very descendants of those who so contended for the Truth.
You boys all really think you are up to the snuff of those fathers? I sit here amazed.
Just saying.
Ballast
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
A lot of varying degrees of error is supported in the minds of many by this statement.
I know there is not any writing of man that measures up to the Scripture. I also know that man can and does take that scripture and build upon it all manner of fanciful positions.
It continually amazes me that this:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Is altogether ignored, I mean what wife is Joyce Meyer the husband of?
And this is unmistakably clear language.
Sing F Lau
Cherry @ 'You boys all really think you are up to the snuff of those fathers? I sit here amazed.'
======
Only the Matriarch has the right and honor to utter these words to the boys.
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ 'If only a few really understand what the framers really meant and the rest of us come to conclusions that are inaccurate, I seriously question the usefulness of the document.'
=========
'If only a few Primitive Baptists really understand what the writers really meant and the rest of us come to conclusions that are inaccurate, I seriously question the usefulness of the Holy Scriptures' - I hear this all the time from the butt of the PBs!!!
Isn't that what the PB claim with regard to the Scriptures!
Say that of the Holy Scripture - a perfect statement!
Reggie
Does anyone else have a problem with the Futon Confession where we find the words (or similar): ".....yet, such that God is not the author of sin" - I don't go along with that either. To me it is easy to just say that
"God does not predestinate everything that comes to pass."
Sing F Lau
Reggie @ '".....yet, such that God is not the author of sin" - I don't go along with that either.'
======
May I ask, what do you go along with?
I thought predestination is concerned with PEOPLE, not things!
Michaelo
Sing, you're comparing apples and oranges. An uninspired creed crafted by fallible men cannot be compared to Divinely inspired Scripture. The argument is a classic case of the "false dilemma" fallacy.
Cherry
Sorry, Bro Sing, but I agree w/ M on this one. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God; the LCoF is a statement of beliefs written by men. One is to rule, and bring salvation to light; the other to describe the pathway trodden by those who went before us. HUGE difference there.
Michaelo,
Cherry @ "You boys all really think you are up to the snuff of those fathers?" (Cheri Thomas)
=======
Sing, if you are asking me why I don't garnish the sepulchres of the pious dead, I answer that they were men of their times, just like we are men of our times. Neither the signers of the 1689 nor the Fulton signatories were infallible.
Have you ever wondered why John Gill drafted his own "Confession" at Goat Yard Church? Why didn't he just use the 1689? After all, it was signed by his predecessor at Goat Yard, Benjamin Keach.
Were the brethren who signed the Fulton document correct to use the 1689? Why did they use it? Because the Burnam/Pence/Kirkland group (theological Fullerites) preferred it and wanted to make it a "denominational" creed. Oliphant and Co. agreed to it in an attempt to foster unity among at least three groups that were about to split into sawdust?
So, were they correct to employ it? The best way to answer that is to ask, "Did the use of the 1689 achieve the intended objective? Did it foster unity?" The answer is "no."It is a fact that the Burnam/Pence/Kirkland group (btw, the Kirkland bros. were signers of the Fulton doc), as well as Durand's "absoluter" contingency, broke away from our people within a few short years after the Fulton Convention.
I'm sure you know that when interpreting the past, it is critical to view circumstances in historical context. Without an understanding of the details surrounding the drafting of the 1689 in England (vis a vis, coffee shop fraternities, Cromwell's Act of Toleration, bi-denominational ministers who preached for the Congregationalists in the morning and for the Baptists in the afternoon, etc.) and the historical context surrounding the purpose and outcome of the Fulton Convention of 1900, accurate interpretation of the outcome of those two events is unlikely.
I know the Philadelphia Assn adopted the 1689 LCF in 1744. I also know that Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall and other Baptists in the south stridently resisted every push toward credalism. Like them, I am suspicious of the usefulness of a formal or official creed from uninspired men. I think Statement's of Faith s/b kept very brief and concise and used as a basic summary of core tenets within a local church, not as a denominational test of orthodoxy.
I have great respect for those who ran before me, but I do not believe they were inerrant, either in terms of their individual actions or in terms of their actions as a group. I do not worship or idolize them. Just b/c they have been dead for 200 years does not affect my opinion of them either positively or negatively. What I am trying to say is that I really cannot judge them one way or the other, except by what they've written.
And there is the rub. If what they have written means what you say it means, then I judge that they were very poor at explaining themselves. If what they have written means what it actually says, then I judge that they were theologically in error. The assumption that men today are not possibly intelligent or well-read enough to understand them because they were so superior to us, however, is fundamentally faulty.
Sing F Lau
Sir Michaelo, I am not comparing the 1689 with the Scriptures - FAR from it. I am saying the same phenomenon happens to every document that must be subjected to men's reading and interpretation
Just because sincere believers differ greatly on the meaning of the Scriptures doesn't undermine its USEFULNESS for what it is - the inspired word of God. EVEN SO, the same with the 1689 CoF for what it is - a summary of what the Framers believed to be the teaching of Scriptures.
Reggie
Like you Bro. Sing, I do not go along with it either.
Martyn
I would still like for those that claim that 1689 is not infallible to show me where they feel that it is inaccurate. Every time anyone points out a possible failing in the language, it is defended. Once can give voice to the lack of infallibility, but if one then defends it against every possible suggestion of error, then one is making it infallible in practice.
Sing F Lau
Here is one example:
1689.2.3 '..... the Son is ETERNALLY begotten...' I repudiate this as erroneous.
The Son Jesus is DIVINELY begotten, has a beginning.
The Word is eternal and un-begotten, has no beginning.
The second person of the of the Triune God is stated as the Word or Son... the Son is the Word made flesh, a dual natured Divine Person. The Word is the one-natured divine Person.
What is eternal cannot be begotten in any sense... and what is begotten cannot be eternal in any sense.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
The Son is divinely begotten makes perfect sense.
The Word is eternal and has no beginning is truth indeed.
1689.2.3. "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and Holy Spirit, (27) of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided,(28) the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son eternally [SHOULD READ 'DIVINELY'] begotten of the Father;(29) the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;(30) all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon Him."
Sing F Lau
Michaelo Sir @ 'So, were they correct to employ it? The best way to answer that is to ask, "Did the use of the 1689 achieve the intended objective? Did it foster unity?" The answer is "no."
Try using the infallible Scriptures, even the KJ translation... you have better chances of fostering unity!
Michaelo
You deny the eternal sonship of Christ, Sing? Have you been hanging around Jonathan Crosby, Ben Mott or Conrad Jarrell? Tell me it ain't so, Zing?
Sing F Lau
I hang around the PBs on FGF all the time! I know one of three men you mentioned. I have no idea who the others are. What do they believe - eternally begotten, or divinely begotten?
I learned it from John 1:14,18, the proof texts for the 1689.2.3 saying the 'eternally begotten.' The Son was divinely begotten in time - that I am very certain, unless 'begotten' has some strange extra-biblical meaning.
Can you tell me the difference between eternally begotten and divinely begotten?
Yes, I deny that Christ Jesus is ETERNALLY begotten.
I affirm that Christ Jesus is DIVINELY begotten, and the Word is eternal and un-begotten.
Michaelo
I seriously doubt the PB's on FGF would go along with your denial of the eternal sonship of Christ. Conrad and Mott were both excluded from PB churches for teaching the view that you hold. Jonathan Crosby was one of their converts. That is their sugar stick. Your arguments sound like you have been hanging around them. Sure enough! I am correct. :)
Your interpretation of Jno 1:14,18 is incorrect. The prologue to John's Gospel builds in rising action from the concept of Logos to the identification of that Logos by the name "Jesus, Son of God"! I've worked you through the logical progression of thought in this passage before, but you were too entrenched in the Crosby position. That is a grave doctrinal error and I hope you will repent of it.
Cherry
Awww, Sing, Conrad Jarrell is a brilliant man in a lot of ways, but on this, he's all washed up. I wish you could see that. What more can I say than to you I have said? :-(
Sing F Lau
May be I should locate him and get to know him.
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ That is a grave doctrinal error and I hope you will repent of it.
Of course, I will repent of when when the Lord show me other wise. I don't remember ever believing ETERNALLY begotten Son! If the Word was made flesh in eternity, then the Son was eternally begotten. If the Word was made flesh in time, then ETERNALLY begotten is a fiction!
I know Jesus Christ, the Son of God is begotten... and he was begotten when the Word was made flesh... and that happened in time. If this is not true to you, it is ok with me!
That is quite simple... if you despise those men named, that's ok with me. But please don't accuse me of hanging around them.
So, don't rave and rant silly - said with all due respect - just because I believe divinely begotten and you believe eternally begotten!
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ I seriously doubt the PB's on FGF would go along with your denial of the eternal sonship of Christ.
==========
O, you are right! I was tolerated as a misguided heretic!
Cherry
Well, in a very serious way, Sing, you already have. Crosby is a Jarrellite.
Sing F Lau
Refresh my memory... what's a Jarrellite?
Cherry
One who follows the teachings of Conrad Jarrell
Sing F Lau
Then call Conrad a Singite!
What impudence! No, there is only one Sing.
Michaelo
BTW, no "ranting & raving" here, my friend. Just a friendly challenge to your views... That's the first time I've ever been called "silly...with all due respect". ;)
Ballast
Brother Michaelo, you always provide excellent 'friendly challenges'...I am thankful for your stand and ministry though we do not always agree I sincerely and earnestly respect your words as those of wisdom based on truth with the desire to speak only against that which you believe untrue. May God continue to Bless you dear Brother.
Sing F Lau
Your are raving and ranting in saying that I hang around the three men you mentioned... I don't even know two of them. And I did not believe in eternal sonship before my acquaintance with Crosby
Challenge my views by all means - you are most welcome! I love them... challenges like that will drive us to the truth. Just examine what i have said above, and tell me where I am wrong! Get to the point... don't rave about others believing as I do!
Cherry
Ahem..... Heat..... Light..... balance..... please!
Bro Sing, Bro. Mikelo is far from 'silly', and he neither rants, nor raves. As far as CJ being a Singite... sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You've been introduced to his theology, but obviously not to the man himself, or you'd know better.
I personally get a great deal more edification and satisfaction from reading reasonable statements of individual understanding, and courteous discussion of the differences. What need is there to play word games, Sing? I happen to know that you are capable of much better. Bro. Mikelo is worthy of courtesy and genuine respect, as are you. Step up to the challenge, and answer reasonably that which has been put to you, please. What hinders you from a straightforward discussion?
"Come now, and let us reason together..."
Sing F Lau
Brother Michaelo is a great teacher... I am not doubting that. I have read his books... it was selling his books that got me into big trouble with the RBs in 2004! He is FAR FROM silly - I know!
But he is 'silly' - really silly in this instant. I did state what I do believe in the plainest manner i can. Instead of saying what I have stated is wrong, he just ranted and raved about I don't believe this and that, and I believing the same as the three men he mentioned. That's great discussion indeed!
I am zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Enjoy the discussion!
Michaelo
Touche, brother. LOL Ok...here is my argument (again, for we've had this discussion before) on Jno. 1. The entire prologue (vs 1-18) contains a logical progression of thought. John begins with a point at which both his Jewish readers and his Greek readers could agree - That the Word (Logos) is the Creator. The Jews would have thought of Ps 33:6 and the Greeks would have thought of their philosophers who traced the principle of "logic" (logos) in the universe back to an eternal Mind.
Michaelo
After talking about the abstract principle of logic, John proceeds to say that the principle is actually a Person - 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh!" Next, he identifies this Person that is the Word as God's only begotten Son (1:14b, 18). Finally he indicates that the Word that is a Person that is the Son has a name. He names him -- "Jesus Christ".
John is not distinguishing between the Word & the Son. In fact the very opposite is true. He is saying that the Word is the Son.
You maintain that He was not the Son (but was the Word) until the incarnation. If that is the case, let me also point you to the image of him in verse 5 as the "Light". If He was the Word in eternity past, but became the Son at the incarnation, when was He the "Light"? My point is simply that to distinguish the Word from the Son in John's prologue requires you to also distinguish the "Light" from the "Word" and the "Son". You see, I hope, the tangled web of this method of Biblical interpretation. If however you understand that John is making an iron-clad case to identify the one named Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who is also the Creator, then the passage flows nicely.
[Sing F Lau
The Word of God was Light both before and after incarnation. He did not cease to be light after incarnation, just as the Word did not cease to be divine when He was made flesh, incarnated.]
Pjaw
There is a question I have, if I may ask it... It is evident that the Word has always been the Son, and to say that He must have been begotten in the flesh in order to become the Son is to misrepresent His being. In our human minds, we often attempt to define things in ways that we understand them. Now, I believe that Word was the Son before He descended into the womb of Mary and there put on (became?) the body which was prepared for Him. It is not impossible or unfathomable for Him to have been the Son before He was conceived in the womb. Now, my question... I believe it proper to call Him the "Eternal Son," but is it proper to call Him the "Eternally begotten Son?"
Michaelo
Interestingly, references to the 2nd Divine Person by the title "Word" are confined to the Johannine books in the NT (Gospel of John, 1 Jno, Rev). Though there are a few other places where the concept of "word" is personalized (e. g. Heb. 4:12-13), yet it is not applied as a title to our Lord except in John's sacred writings.
The idea of "begetting" is probably the point of tension in this discussion. I suspect many people tend to think of "begetting" in terms of procreation, or in biological terms; hence, the position that the "Son" was "begotten" at the incarnation.
But Scripture uses this term in reference to our Lord in a two-fold sense, neither of which has to do with the genesis of physical life. First, it is used "euphemistically" in Jno 1:14 ("the only begotten of the Father"), meaning "the unique one." An example of the euphemistic use of the expression is Isaac who is called "the only begotten son" of Abraham. Was Isaac Abraham's only biological son? No. Ishamel was also Abraham's biological son. But Isaac was his "unique" son, the only son of promise. Likewise, the expression "only begotten Son of God" does not refer to the incarnation, i.e. the beginning of his earthly life and pilgrimage, but to the fact that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense.
[sing: unique in the sense he was the promised one in the redemptive purposed of God. Uniqueness does not EXCLUDE the reality of begetting! Christ is the only begotten in the sense of him being UNIQUELY begotten! How simple and plain if n is not blinded by prejudice!]
Unique, in what way? Well, we are sons of God by adoption and new birth. But Jesus is in relationship with the Father from all eternity past. He didn't need to be adopted or regenerated. And the angels are termed "sons of God" in Job. But Jesus is preeminent to angels (Heb. 1). And there is a sense of creation sonship (Mal. 2:10), but Jesus is unique in the sense that He possesses an uncreated essence. So, he is God's Son in a different sense than all the rest. He is the "only begotten" of the Father.
Secondly, the term begotten is used to speak of the resurrection. Ps. 2 says, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." That passage is quoted in Acts and applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence, he is called "the first BEGOTTEN from the dead".
So these are the two ways in which the term is used in Scripture, as far as I can tell, and neither has reference to the inception of physical life. To interpret it in biological terms, then, is a mistake.
That said, I do not like the language of "eternal generation" or "eternal begetting", terms that suggest a kind of beginning to the Son's existence or progressive development (like a child growing in the womb) into Sonship. I do think it is thoroughly Biblical to say, however, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from all eternity past.
I hope that explanation is somewhat clear.
Chaser
Amen! To me, the Abraham/Isaac example is as strong and clear of an example as it gets to demonstrate how the word "begotten" is used in a different sense than what our natural minds initially think. If one refuses this clear example, then it is indicative that that person is indeed not seeking the true Biblical usage and position, but is rather stuck in their own ideas in which they have previously been established and rooted in for so long.
Isaac is a type of Christ in that He was the seed/child of promise and also in the way he was the "only begotten son" of Abraham, as Bro. Michael has already ably explained. If we can clearly see how the phrase is used in describing Isaac as the "only begotten son" of Abraham, how much more should we be able to see it when applying it to the antitype, Jesus Christ!
Chaser
"the expression 'only begotten Son of God' does not refer to the incarnation...but to the fact that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense."
Brother Michaelo, I just had a thought.... would the following support your claim above?:
"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." - John 1:14
The parenthetical in this verse seems to support what you say and qualify Jesus Christ, The Word, as having a specific, distinct, and unique glory, i.e. the glory AS OF THE ONLY begotten of the Father. In other words, there's only ONE glory that is like this glory! It is 100% unique in that way, and the phrase "only begotten" is used to describe the uniqueness.
Chaser
So, brother Pjaw, to try and answer your question, I suppose it depends on a person's understanding of the word "begotten" in the context:
If begotten = biological/natural conception and birth,
then NO, I would say it would be inappropriate to use the phrase "eternally begotten Son".
If begotten = unique (i.e. "one and only"),
then YES, I would certainly say that Jesus Christ is eternally unique in the fact that He is the One and Only Eternal Son of God. :-)
[sing: begotten NOT EQUAL unique. Only equals unique, one of its own kind. Jesus Christ is the only begotten because he was uniquely begotten of God!]
RiceS
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?"
This passage tells us that God ALREADY had a Son hundreds of years before Christ was born in Bethlehem. The text poses the question, "what IS his son's name," not "what will his son's name be?" [sing: what a fictional idea!]
Chaser
Actually, what I found to be VERY interesting in studying the word "begotten" is that when it is used to refer to Jesus as the only Son, it NEVER is the word "begotten" by itself, but is always the phrase "only begotten". In fact, the phrase "only begotten" is translated from one single Greek word:
Strong's G3439 - monogenēs - "single of its kind, only"
(this Greek word is used 9 times in 9 verses in the NT)
So, this one Greek word is translated into "only begotten" six times in the NT to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son. Even the other three times this Greek word is used (not referring to Jesus), it is used in the sense of "an only child":
- "ONLY son" - Luke 7:12
- "ONLY daughter" - Luke 8:42
- "ONLY CHILD" - Luke 9:38
(CAPS for emphasis on the what English word/phrase was transliterated from the Greek word monogenēs)
So, in summary:
- 6 times monogenēs is translated into "only begotten"
- 2 times monogenēs is translated into "only"
- 1 time monogenēs is translated into "only child"
I usually don't like going to the Greek or Hebrew unless I have to, but in this case, it helped me alot to see that "begotten" is never used by itself to describe Jesus Christ, but is used as the phrase "only begotten" all six times. This lends strongly towards the interpretation of the word begotten (in this context) meaning "unique" and not "born naturally". Not only is the Greek definition consistent with this interpretation, but the usage of the Greek word throughout the entire NT is consistent also.
[sing: 'begotten' is a very common word. The 'only begotten' speak of uniqueness... unique in its specific context. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, there isn't another like him... him being the only one that is DIVINELY begotten.]
Pjaw
Your explanation is very appreciated, Bro. Michaelo!
Pjaw
That is something else interesting about Christ. We are made sons of God after our natural conception, but Christ was the Son before His "natural" conception.
Ballast
1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Context: vs. 35-50
Chaser
I must amend (or "mend", lol) my previous post a little bit.
I stated that "SIX" times the Greek word monogenēs is translated into "only begotten" to describe Christ.... well it is actually FIVE times.... the other time that it is translated "only begotten" is:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried , offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten3439 son" - Heb 11:17
This time, it refers to Isaac. But the point and principle remains the same and is actually proven even more firmly. The same Greek word used to describe Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten" son is the same Greek word used to describe Christ as God's "only begotten" Son.
Martyn
Wouldn't ya know that the one place that Bro. Sing would cite a place where he disagreed with the LCoF would be one place where I think the LCoF is correct!
Sing F Lau
Micahelo @ John is not distinguishing between the Word & the Son. In fact the very opposite is true. He is saying that the Word is the Son.
There is a VAST difference between:
He is saying that the Word is the Son.
VERSUS
He is saying that the Word MADE FLESH is the only begotten Son.
The Word was made flesh is the Son, the God-man Jesus.
The Son is begotten, the only begotten, uniquely and supernaturally in time as described plainly in Luke 1.
That's my belief. Saying further, and answering imagined difficulties is not difficult - answered them enough times.
Thank you very much, Teacher Michaelo.
Martyn
Bro. Sing F Lau, You have not addressed Prob 30:4 which refers to God as creator and Jesus as his son well before the incarnation and in the context of the creation. Jesus was called the son in reference to events that well predate the creation.
Sing F Lau
Brother Martyn, I have... quite adequately elsewhere... on FGF I think.
Those rhetorical questions are meant to rebuke men who are WISE in their own eyes. The purpose is to show them that he is actually very bruthish and have no knowledge ...of the holy.
But since man insists that he is wise, let him answer some questions. Which man has ascended to heaven, and returned with wisdom? And if you know there was such a MAN, what is his name, and his son's name! It is that plain!
If you apply these questions to God and His Son, then you are saying that ascending and descending of God's son has taken place in Solomon's time!
Why would people apply those questions to God and His imagined Son?
What a mess!
Martyn
Bro. Sing F Lau, I guess I have to apologize for not reading every one of your messages on FGF. What about Psalms 2 which says "10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling12 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."
Sing F Lau
No apology needed... best don't read them... may corrupt your pure mind
Ps 2 is clearly a prophetic psalm... of the time when the eternal Word has been made flesh, and the begotten Son of God is on earth... his death and resurrection, and his exaltation.
The apostles on many occasions declare Jesus the Son of God as the fulfillment of this passage to the rebellious Jews.
Martyn
I agree the first part of that Psalm is prophetic, but verse 10 starts with "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings....." which seems to be addressing those living at that time that they are to "Kiss the Son" which is clearly a reference to Christ.
Sing F Lau
The psalm is prophetic... ' a child is born, unto us a son is given' - the prophesied Son exalted as king at His resurrection... the exalted Son commanded to be kissed. So, all prophetic reference to Christ.
Martyn
Bro. Sing F Lau, You are certainly encouraging me to study this topic more than i ever have and i am sure that my mind is not pure. Here is a question that just occurred to me. If Jesus became a son only at the time of incarnation in the womb of Mary, would that not make Him the son of the Holy Ghost for that which is conceived in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost? Therefore, if his incarnational cenception was not of God the Father, then when did he become the Son of God for God the father said he had begotten Him? The begetting cannot refer to the incarnation since it was the Holy Ghost that overshadowed Mary and conceived the Christ child. The begetting must not refer to a point in time that he became the Son of God but rather to his uniqueness as one that is equal to God. If there is no stated beginning to the father/son relationship, then i conclude that it has always been so.
Sing F Lau
Brother Martyn, sharpen your hook and get me! When you can hooked me, I will surely believe what you and your PBs believe on this matter! And I am serious.
"If Jesus became a son only at the time of incarnation in the womb of Mary, would that not make Him the son of the Holy Ghost for that which is conceived in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost?"
Jesus the man DID NOT become a son. Jesus is the Son.
The Word was made flesh and the Son was begotten, at the time of incarnation. That which was begotten was later sent.
"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." Luke 1:35.
When the Scriptures say Jesus is the Son of the Holy Spirit, then I will do the same. When your reasoning run contrary to Holy Scriptures, turn around!
Sing F Lau
"... He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest... 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." Luke 1:32-35
The Son of the Highest...
The power of the Highest...
The Son of God.
The Holy Spirit works in perfect harmony with the Father.
That plain and simple... to unprejudiced eyes and minds.
I told you I am simple.
Ballast
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Brother Sing, this passage settled it for me long ago along with Proverbs 8 and John 1. I agree with Brother Martyn your writings always give me reason to study. However, I am satisfied completely in the understanding I have of this question.
Sing F Lau
This passage settles what for you? What does it settle for you?
Please explain a bit.
Hmmmmm. 'A child is born... is born... born.
'A son is given... is given... is given.
When born, and when given, may I ask?
When not born or begotten, was there a son to be given?
And why is the eternally begotten son born and given ALSO the everlasting Father?
I am glad you are completely satisfied... that should be the case... how can a man do otherwise?
Ballast
Ok, it was showing me your notification but I couldn't read what your reply was.
To me a child is born and a son is given states his sonship. This is where my satisfaction is found. With other passages such as Ps. 2, Proverbs 8 and John 1, these each operated together long ago to convince me of his Eternal Sonship.
As far as 'how or why' he is also the everlasting Father I cannot answer except that he is given to be the fullness of the Godhead bodily Col. 2:9.
To my mind, this even would not permit the question asked by Elder Martyn, being the fulness of the Godhead bodily includes each, the express image of the Father (John 5:37; John 14:7 & 9; 15:24) and likewise, that He is the Eternal Son and Express Image of God and the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He is of the Spirit of God.
I cannot NOT believe these things. The Comforter is from Himself and the Father, this is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, both statements being true. To me this is truth upon all else of which I hope is standing. In His Sonship He has had a presence among His people from Everlasting being brought forth in Eternity, He is the word and by Him all things that have been created are created and without Him was no thing created that is and all things are created for Him and He being the word is the wisdom of God in Creation such that God, the Godhead operated through the word the Son in creation, such that God said Let there be and there was and is. This moment of creation, in my understanding of things as poorly as my mind is upon these things, is the moment of His having been 'begotten' to His unique glory. Having been begotten it is said he is the beginning of the creation of God, though he is not created he is in Creation standing in that glory that was His before the world was (throughout John 17 especially vs. 5). He took upon Himself the body prepared for Him, He did this because He was the Eternal Son, whether His title is King, Father, Word, Wisdom, it is and remains He who is in view in that glory that was His before the foundation of the world.
His birth was at that moment of the virgin, He being given was from Eternity before the world was. There is where I stand satisfied.
Michaelo
Well, Br Sing...Even though I think it is an error to teach that His "Sonship" speaks of his humanity while "Word" is the pre-incarnate title for His deity, I wonder if you believe that the man Jesus was not only fully human but also fully divine. Did Jesus Christ have two natures--God of very God and man in all points like us except sin? That is the ultimate question, in my opinion.
I ask it because while you argue so stridently for the distinction between "Word" and "Son", the question is raised in my mind: "He is saying they are different and distinct. Is he then saying that they are not the same Person?" May I suggest to you that if your views raise this question in one mind, others also likely entertain the same question. Why is it is so important to you to make this distinction, beside the interest in theological precision? Why is it doctrinally significant?
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ Well, Br Sing...Even though I think it is an error to teach that His "Sonship" speaks of his humanity while "Word" is the pre-incarnate title for His deity, I wonder if you believe that the man Jesus was not only fully human but also fully ...divine. Did Jesus Christ have two natures--God of very God and man in all points like us except sin? That is the ultimate question, in my opinion.
======
O mighty glad you come up with the ULTIMATE question. Should have asked it from the start to save all the ding-dunging! You didn't read what I said, did you, and you went off blah blah blah!
I said I deny eternal sonship... you jump to conclusion I deny the divinity of Jesus Christ!
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh... He is DIVINE and HUMAN, a dual natured DIVINE-HUMAN Person. The Word is the one-natured DIVINE Person.
The Son Jesus is DIVINELY begotten, has a beginning.
The Word is eternal and un-begotten, has no beginning.
What is eternal cannot be begotten in any sense... and what is begotten cannot be eternal in any sense. Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Michaelo
Fair enough! I feel better...albeit worse, for having failed to read your initial disclaimer. ;) Thanks, bro.
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ I ask it because while you argue so stridently for the distinction between "Word" and "Son", the question is raised in my mind: "He is saying they are different and distinct. Is he then saying that they are not the same Person?" May I suggest to you that if your views raise this question in one mind, others also likely entertain the same question. Why is it is so important to you to make this distinction, beside the interest in theological precision? Why is it doctrinally significant?
=======
Why? The Word is not the Son. The Word made flesh is the Son. Isn't that so obvious? The Word is not the same as the Word made flesh.
How can the one-natured Divine Person be the SAME as the two-natured Divine-Human Person? One might as well said the man Jesus is eternal... never born nor begotten!
If the Word and the Son were the same Person, there would be no need of incarnation... no need for the Word to be made flesh! What a terribly wasted move on God's part!
Whatever has happened to the centrality of the doctrine of incarnation, the eternal Word made flesh?
Probably the mess of the Christless x-mas has made men forgotten all about the momentous event and glorious doctrine of the eternal/divine Word made flesh, God giving us His Son.
Michaelo
How can the one-natured Sing Lau that was born into this world be the same person as the two-natured Sing Lau after the work of God in regeneration? The fact that you are now a complex person does not mean that you were not a person before. My brain simply cannot fathom the distinction you make.
According to Phi 2:5ff, "Christ Jesus" is the same Person that "thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet made himself of no reputation and was made in the likeness of men." Though he wasn't "called" Jesus before the incarnation (Mt. 1:21), yet there is no doubt that the One who was made flesh was the very One that existed with the God the Father and God the Holy Spirit before time began. Micah 5:2 indicates that the very One born in Bethlehem did not begin to exist at his incarnation. Rather, "[His] goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The fact that he assumed another nature (a human nature) did not alter his identity as the "Son of man that descended from heaven."
I don't know of anyone that believes as I do that discounts the doctrine of the incarnation. But the "me" for whom the body was prepared (Heb. 10:5) was not a different "me" that existed prior to the incarnation. The kenosis, or self-emptying of "Christ Jesus" at the incarnation was not an emptying of his divine nature (that is, who He was from all eternity) but of his glory. He divested himself of his divine prerogatives, not of his divine nature, at the incarnation.
Anyway, thank you for answering my question.
Johnett
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! brother Michael what a glorious truth this is.
Pjaw
It is undeniable that Christ did not have the body He was given when He entered into the womb of Mary. That body was different from the body which appeared to Abraham and different from th body which appeared in the fire with the three Hebrew children. Even though He was without this prepared body does not mean that He was not the Son of God. He was the Son of God even without that prepared body. Now, it is evident that He had some sort of body, but equally evident, once again, that this body was not the same as the body conceived in Mary's womb.
Sing F Lau
Michaelo @ How can the one-natured Sing Lau that was born into this world be the same person as the two-natured Sing Lau after the work of God in regeneration? The fact that you are now a complex person does not mean that you were not a person before....
==============
Sir Michaelo, you sound pretty desperate to me arguing like that!
The fact that Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is now a complex Divine-Human Person does not mean that the eternal Word, prior to being made flesh, was not a Divine Person before! The divine remains divine but took on humanity.
I said this in plain black and white:
Jesus Christ is the Word (DIVINE) made flesh (HUMAN), THEREFORE He is DIVINE and HUMAN, a dual natured DIVINE-HUMAN Person. And yes, WITHOUT sin. The Word is the one-natured DIVINE Person.
And you come up with this nonsensical argument:
"The fact that you are now a complex person does not mean that you were not a person before...." - which assumes that I deny the Personhood of the eternal Word before He was made flesh!
What make you say that I believe the eternal Word was not a Person before He was made flesh? Come on sir, straw man is not worthy of a great man like you!!! I won't waste a single match burning it! ;-))
You have a big problem, if I use your kind of illogic. Why don't you ask instead, "How can Michael that was begotten as a son of God in time be said to be the eternally begotten son of God?
No need to spin!
I grow up playing spinning top. And I can spot a spin from a mile away!
Johnett
my question is this if you don't believe that the son was always the son in eternity past what do you do with col 1:13-17 "who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of HIS DEAR SON: in whom we... have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him (i.e. THE SON) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power: ALL things were created by him (i.e. the son) and for him (the son) and he is before all things ( i.e. the son) and by him all things consist." this whole passage put Christ the SON as the creator of all things. How could the son create all thing we he didn't become the son till he was incarnate? if he had to wait to create till he became the son then there would be no need for there would be no world for him to be born into. this passage is very similar to john 1:2-3 "the same was in the beginning with God. all things were made by him;(i.e. the word) and without him was not any thing made that was made." this passage gives the creation to the WORD now either the WORD and the SON are both the eternal same being or you've got a problem. my second question is this if Christ had to be born in order to be the son of God then by him being born would that not denote change in his essence for he would become something different than what he always has been?
Sing F Lau
Johnette @ 'my second question is this if Christ had to be born in order to be the son of God then by him being born would that not denote change in his essence for he would become something different than what he always has been?'
======
Christ ...is the TITLE, Jesus is the personal name. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the divine-human Person, the eternal Word made flesh.
Show me where is the change of Jesus Christ's divine essence, and we can continue discussion.
I just wonder whether you understood what transpired at incarnation, the Word was made flesh???
Sing F Lau
Johnette, I have answered this type of questions endless times.I will answer one more time
The kingdom of heaven (in contrast to the earthly theocratic kingdom of Israel) was set up post incarnation, AFTER the Word was made flesh.... i.e. ...set up by the Son.
Remember this: POST incarnation, the works of the eternal Word before He was made flesh is always referred to as the work of the Son of God, Word made flesh.
I read that you are a married man. A married man often speak of things done as by HIS WIFE even though those things were done by her when she was her father's daughter, and remotely the man's wife! Your wife didn't play with dolls! She played with dolls when she her mother's sweet little girl.
That's common manner of speech. To construe otherwise lead to confusion, and error. There is a lovely framed picture in my house... when guests asked, 'who painted that?'. I said, 'My wife when she was 16?' An attentive young nephew said, but that can't be , uncle. You told us you were married at 27, and both you and aunt are of the same age. So, if she painted the picture at 16, she can't possibly be your wife then!'
I said, 'Good lad. You will make a good lawyer! Here's a sovereign for you." Get the point!
So all the works of the eternal Word, like creation, is spoken of as by the Word-made-flesh (Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the divine-human God-man). How else can you speak?
Do you ever speak like this: "this woman who is my wife, when she was her mother's sweet daughter, and not my wife yet, she loved to play with dolls.
Michaelo
@ Sing: LOL! You forgot your own words! :) My previous post was not "desperate" or "spin", but turning your own faulty logic back on its head. I was responding to these words from you: "How can the one-natured Divine Person be the SAME as the two-natured Divine-Human Person? One might as well said the man Jesus is eternal... never born nor begotten! If the Word and the Son were the same Person, there would be no need of incarnation..". Go back and read my last post again as a response to your own bizarre argument.
Sing F Lau
It is 'faulty' only because to you the one-natured Divine Person is the SAME as the two-natured Divine/Human Person.
If that be the case, incarnation is a wasted and superfluous move by God!
Your argument is sleek and smooth!
Mine, like you say, is faulty and bizarre!
My day is over... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz time!
Martyn
The incarnation was necessary because man had offended God and a perfect man had to make it right. I don't see how the eternal sonship debate has any impact on that necessity.
[sing: the incarnation IS the begetting of the Son of God, when the Word was made flesh!]
Chaser
Amen, Brother Martyn, the reason for His incarnation is that HE MUST NEEDS HAVE SUFFERED IN THE FLESH to be an adequate mediator and intercessor in reconciling and saving His people from their sins!!
----------------------------------------
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be MADE LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that HE HIMSELF HATH SUFFERED being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." - Heb 2:17-18
----------------------------------------
"Who in the DAYS OF HIS FLESH, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though HE WERE A SON, yet learned he obedience by the things which he SUFFERED; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
----------------------------------------
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." - Mat 16:21
----------------------------------------
"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." - Mark 8:31
----------------------------------------
"And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought." - Mark 9:12
----------------------------------------
"Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day." - Luke 9:22
----------------------------------------
"But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." - Luke 17:25
----------------------------------------
"Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." - Luke 24:26-27
----------------------------------------
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day" - Luke 24:45-46
----------------------------------------
"But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." Acts 3:18
---------------------------------------
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." - Acts 17:2-3
---------------------------------------
"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." - Acts 26:22-23
----------------------------------------
The fact and reality of His incarnation has NOTHING to do with whether He is or is not the eternal Son of God....
New argument please.....
Sing F Lau
Brother Chaser, just how do those passages prove your notion of eternal Sonship? They are passages that speak of the Son of God begotten when the Word was made flesh!
Martyn, you start with the premise of eternal sonship.... so of course the begetting of the son is not needed... and yet you admit that incarnation is needed. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
The Scriptures speaks of the Son of God ONLY after incarnation. Before incarnation the Son of God was prophesied to be born.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is BORN, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The Scriptures put the begetting of the Son and the giving of the Son side by side... but you have chosen not to see it... or seeing that it is merely the eternal Son made manifest.
No incarnation, no Word made flesh, no Son of God.
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.
Go and tell the pagan philosophers that there be son prior to and without begetting activity... they will believe you!
Go and search the whole of Scriptures for such a pagan idea.
Before the Word was made flesh, there was no Son of God, the divine-human Person.
Yes, new new argument please!
Good night.
Chaser
(1) "just how do those passage prove eternal Sonship?"
You obviously missed the point of my post. I was not trying to prove the eternal sonship of Christ. I was refuting your earlier statement that "If that be the case, incarnation is a wasted and superfluous move by God!". You accused Brother Michaelo earlier of a nonsensical argument, and then you turn right around and use one of your own here. Just because we do not believe like you do about how you explain the Word being made flesh constitutes His Sonship, DOES NOT mean that we, as a result, believe that Jesus Christ's incarnation was "a wasted and superfluous move by God". Now that, my dear brother in Christ, is nonsensical.
To say that the ONLY reason for Christ's incarnation is to define Him as the Son of God is to be rather ignorant of the scriptures. My post was to show that the incarnation has no bearing on whether or not Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God or not. The purpose of His incarnation was to suffer in the flesh and to offer His body as THE sacrifice for this sins of His people. His incarnation IS NOT what defines Him as the SON OF GOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) "Go and search the whole of Scriptures for such a pagan idea.
Before the Word was made flesh, there was no Son of God, the divine-human Person."
Ok, I took your little challenge and found the Son of God in Daniel... the preincarnate SON OF GOD, Jesus Christ.
"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." - Daniel 3:25
Now everyone, watch, as Brother Sing comes up with an argument to explain that away. :P
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Sing, you are hung up on the idea that "begotten" always means "born in the flesh" or "born naturally" or "born physically". But, as was shown and thoroughly proven earlier in this discussion thread, the phrase "only begotten" used to describe Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, DOES NOT mean His natural birth. It describes His uniqueness as the one and only Son of God. Again, see the Abraham/Isaac example in Hebrews 11:17 and you will see how the phrase "only begotten" is meant and used.See More
Michaelo "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I agree with Chaser that it's time to move on to other subjects. And I thought Sing was going to bed an hour ago... :)
Chaser
I agree, and I apologize if I was too strong, but we have had the "eternal sonship" discussion with brother Sing on several different occasions and it is evident that he is settled in his understanding of it. :)
And that is fine. Right or ...wrong, we are all entitled to our own interpretation of scripture and the persuasions and convictions of belief that we get from our studies. But, at the same time, I will defend my own beliefs when implied that I believe something that I do not. :D
Sing F Lau
Chaser@ Brother Sing, you are hung up on the idea that "begotten" always means "born in the flesh" or "born naturally" or "born physically".
==========
That's your idea.
Yes, begotten ALWAYS means begotten... whether born naturally or physically, or born SUPERNATURALLY or DIVINELY in its context.
Very many believe begotten means eternally existing but still begotten. That fable and fiction is fine with me.
'Only begotten' still means begotten but uniquely, being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else. And the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
Thanks. You are pretty settled in your view too.
Sing F Lau
Nebu... in his rage said:
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.
Nebu... in his sober moment said:
28 ¶ Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Job tells us that 'sons of God' are angelic beings.
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
But of course people would grasp at a flimsiest straw!
