Eternally Begotten Son or Eternal Word and Begotten Son

Do you believe in a begotten God, even though eternally begotten?
Is Jesus the eternally begotten Son,
or was He the eternal Word made flesh in time,
and begotten the Son of God?

A brother posted this, and these exchanges took place:

Pjalthers
From what I perceive, Jesus did not have the body which was conceived in Mary's womb before it was conceived. Having said that, was He of only divine nature before this? and at this time, did He take on the human nature, also? All this is said bearing in mind Christ's eternal sonship.

Chasen
IMO, Christ's eternal sonship is not constituted, defined, or based upon whether He had a body or not, or when He got a body and took on humanity....

Christ's humanity does not = His Sonship

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me"
- Heb 10:5

Bro Sing will be on shortly to offer the opposite opinion.

Chasen
‎"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;" - Heb 5:7-8

Matth
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.

This verse with the word a child is truely fully fulfilled. Not just a lesser God, it is the full perfect nature taking on the nature of the Son.

Heb 5:7 was referring to Him after being borne.

Chasen
Here's an interesting thought:

"For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." - Heb 7:28

The Greek word for "evermore" in this verse is "aiōn" (G165), and it is also translated into the word "eternal" in two different places in the NT.

Sing F Lau
From what I perceive, Jesus did not have the body which was conceived in Mary's womb before it was conceived. Having said that, was He of only divine nature before this? and at this time, did He take on the human nature, also? All this is s...aid bearing in mind Christ's eternal sonship.

Pj I will answer your questions.

"From what I perceive, Jesus did not have the body which was conceived in Mary's womb before it was conceived."

How can you even say that Jesus did not have the body which was conceived in Mary's womb before it was conceived???? Jesus IS IS IS IS IS IS IS the very person of flesh and blood DIVINELY conceived in the womb of Mary.

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a SON, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

There was NO JESUS the before the Word was made flesh, i.e. there was no Jesus the Son of God before the Word was made flesh. Before that miraculous and unique conception in the womb of Mary there was the eternal Word.

The Word is the one-natured divine Person of the eternal God-head. At a very specific point in time, the eternal Word was made flesh, and the Son of God was begotten, i.e. the eternal Word took upon Himself the full human nature, One Person with the full divine nature and the full human nature, making him fit to be the redeemer of His people who are human.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
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.

Post incarnation, when the Son of God has been begotten, all the works of the eternal Word pre-incarnation are attributed to the Son of God. [SO MANY just don't understand this manner of speech even though they use the same all the time!]

I consider the idea that one is BOTH 'eternal' but also 'begotten' as bizarre nonsense!

To me, that which is eternal cannot be begotten; and that which is begotten cannot possibly be eternal. May be I am naive.

The divine nature is eternal, the human nature is begotten. And what is begotten is the Son... it is that which is begotten of the Father that did and accomplished redemption for sinners of SIMILAR flesh and blood.

Heb 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same..."

The pronoun 'he' obvious refers to the eternal Word spoken of in John 1:14... 'and the Word was made flesh.'

Sing F. Lau
Christ's humanity does not = His Sonship - Chasen

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.

So, who do I believe, Chasen or Scriptures?

Chasen
Actually, the antecedent for "he" in Heb 2:14 is the name "Jesus" in Heb 2:9. The "he" refers back to "Jesus"

In verse 9, Jesus is established as the named subject, and in the following verses all the "he's" and "him's" refer back to the n...amed subject, "Jesus"

To say a "he" in Hebrews refers to something in a totally different book is foolish.

A pronoun needs an antecedent that is in the SAME CONTEXT, not in another book.

In context, the "he" refers to "Jesus" in the case of Heb 2:14.

Sing F Lau
Chasen, such like arguments have been explained, and dismissed so many times.

Totally different book? What has gone wrong with your hermeneutics! Scriptures interpret Scriptures!

I wrote above:
"Post incarnation, when the Son of God has been begotten, all the works of the eternal Word pre-incarnation are attributed to the Son of God. [SO MANY just don't understand this manner of speech even though they use the same all the time!]"

Hebrews began like this:
1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds...

His Son spoken of here is the begotten Son, the Word made flesh.

So with Heb 2:7 it would be that divine Person, who had no flesh and blood that partake of flesh and blood.

The Son is the Son of God who partook of flesh and blood - the Word made flesh.

If you idea is correct, may I ask, why would the Son who already partook of flesh and blood still need to be partakers of flesh and blood?????? Jesus is ALREADY flesh and blood... conceived supernaturally, and is born. Why such one who is ALREADY flesh and blood be partaker of the same!

It is like the stupid idea that Jesus became man! Jesus is ALREADY a man... why must a man become a man still???

We hear men say, "I was married to my wife" and understood the meaning. No one is so stupid and ask....but why do you need to marry one who is already your wife! Because after marriage, anything concerning one's wife before she became a wife is also referenced as one's wife.

Any idea of a Son prior to the eternal Word made flesh is just a plain fiction not warranted by the Scriptures.

Joshuat
The Error of Denying the Incarnation of Christ l
Written by Sylvester Hassell
http://marchtozion.com/jesus-christ/569-the-error-of-denying-the-incarnation-of-christ

Joshuat
A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity.
Written by John Gill

http://marchtozion.com/jesus-christ/568-a-dissertation-concerning-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ-shewing-by-whom-it-has-been-denied-and-opposed-and-by-whom-asserted-and-defended-in-all-ages-of-christianity

Sing F Lau
Brother Joshuat I suppose you studied have through read Gill's Dissertation. Do you agree with all his arguments and proof text? I am just wondering.

I know Gill is a great man of course, and it is can be dangerous to disagree with such a giant!

I will shut now on this thread.

Pjalthers
No one denies that Christ was without a body of flesh before the incarnation. He was the divine Word/Son and took on flesh.

Benjiman
A short point: It's impossible to be an Everlasting/Eternal Father without an Everlasting/ Eternal Son.

Chasen
Yes, brother Ben, that is exactly right....

It is fine if they want to believe and hold the position that Jesus Christ the Son is not eternal, but if they hold that position, then they at least need to be consistent and not refer to God as the ETERNAL FATHER!

How can God be an ETERNAL Father if He did not become a Father until the Word was made flesh??

Be more consistent in your view so that it at least makes logical sense.

If God does not have an eternal Son, he cannot be called an eternal Father, but rather He became a Father when the Word was made flesh.

[Matth deleted the question to Sing why if he publicly disputes the error of eternal sonship but neglect to amend the 'eternally begotten' error in the 1689 LBCoF.]

Chasen
And the 1689 LBCoF is NOT our rule of faith and practice. As Primitive Baptists, it is not our "official creed". Our ONLY rule of faith and practice is the Divinely inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as translated into the English language in the 1611 King James Translation.

It is a valuable historical document in our Baptist heritage but it does not establish our doctrinal orthodoxy for what we believe and hold to. The Scriptures alone are sufficient for that.

Matth
I know LBCoF is NOT, I was talking to Sing here about LBCoF.

Sing F Lau
Matthew, you are raising the matter at the wrong place!

Matth
Ok. I would post it in a different post.

Sing F Lau
Matth, if you need to, just cross out 'eternally' and replace it with 'divinely'. The Bible does not teach 'eternally begotten.' The Bible most definitely teach that Jesus is DIVINELY begotten.

Chasen
Ok, sorry brother Matthew. I just wanted to be clear that we don't appeal to the LCoF when we need to decide a doctrinal matter fully and finally. I don't mean to offend anyone. I apologize if I did.

Sing F Lau
A short point: It's impossible to be an Everlasting/Eternal Father without an Everlasting/ Eternal Son.
===========
LOOOOOOOOOOL! Who is the everlasting Father?

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.

First people invent the idea of eternal Son, and having invented that, they must necessary invent the idea of eternal/everlasting Father! The child, the Son is born.

God, Word, and Spirit were eternal, and eternally one.

When the Word was made flesh, we have Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the dual-natured Divine-human Person.

Eternal Word ---> the Word was made flesh --> Son of God

Of this dual-natured Divine-human person, His divinity is eternal and unbegotten, his humanity which is begotten and has a definite beginning.

When Jesus Christ speaks of being together with the Father before the word was, He was obviously speaking of His divine as the eternal Word, e.g. 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.

That which was with God before the world was was the Word, and not the Son of God.

Scriptures declares this:
Joh 1:1-2,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 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.

Scriptures is made to say this:
"In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God. The same was in the beginning with God. And the Son 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.

Ricstew
Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Proverbs 30:4 settles it for me: "...what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
It does not say, "what will his son's name be once he's born in Bethlehem?"
God had a Son long before Jesus was born of Mary in Bethlehem.

Chasen
Bro Sing,
When Jesus Christ speaks of being together with the Father before the word was, He was obviously speaking of His divine Person as the eternal Word, e.g. Joh...n 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. That which was with God before the world was was the Word, and not the Son of God.

You assume that because of your preconceived view! Your view forces you to make that interpretation. But if you will just read verse 1 of John 17, you will see that it clearly says the SON.... Jesus is speaking and praying to the Father as the SON in John 17..... and I didn't have to make that up or try to connect it with some distant Scripture that is out of context.... The Scripture in context stated it for me! John 17:1 says the SON, and therefore I am just going to believe what is says that Jesus is praying as the SON when He says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" because the context supports it. The context establishes Jesus the Son praying in verse 1, and THE SON says He had glory with His Father BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

Sing F Lau ‎
Ricstew read that passage again, and see what's the context?
Agur is teaching just one lesson to proud haughty men that wisdom is revealed, and not gathered by man's own clever effort. "The answer to each question is an obvious negative. No man has gone to heaven, or come back, or conquered the elements to learn the ways and wisdom of God. Agur forced Ithiel and Ucal to admit by force of reason there was no man. They could not name any man who had done such a thing, and they could not name his son."

You are grasping at a straw for eternal sonship.

Jerryin
‎@ Ric, point of information for me...When Jesus prayed in John 17, He did not say that He was the Son when in heaven with the Father.
In verse 1 He is praying as the Son. {He became the Son when He was born of Mary,IMO] In verse 5 as you mentioned, He did have glory with the Father...as the Word, but not as the Son...

Sing F Lau
The context establishes Jesus the Son praying in verse 1, and THE SON says He had glory with His Father BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

Have you not read these words that opened the John's epistle???

John 1
1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
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.

Your PRECONCEIVED IDEA has force you to read this grand passage as this:

1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
14 And the Son 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.

So who have preconceived idea?

Good night.

Benjiman
Because Christ was called Word in that text does not mean He was not also the Son. The text also does not say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was not the Son."

Matthew reports Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 1 John reports Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. Because the His title of Word is used, it does not exclude His title of Son.

Benjiman
Another point and I am off on a road trip. Galatians 4 says "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..."

God SENT His Son. To send a son means one is a son at the point he is sent. It does not say "God sent forth the Word, who became His Son."

Sing F Lau
Benji, the begetting of the Son is prior to the sending of the Son. It is that basic!
The Word was made flesh resulted in a Son is prior to the sending of the Son .
Incarnation was the begetting of the Son.
The Son was official sent forth at His water baptism by John the Baptist where it was declared from heaven, 'This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'

Chasen
Bro Sing,
Elder Michael Gowens has already ably explained John chapter 1 to you in the past, and to no avail. So I'm not going to go through it again.

I am done with particular topic. We have discussed it multiple times in the last six mo...nths and have gotten no where. We just go in circles and it is not profitable. However, Elder Martyins has humbly and respectfully asked you to be so kind as to not push this among our people. I understand and respect your view, but I do not agree with it. Most PBs do not agree with it. Since you are a non-PB, I would hope that you would have enough respect for us and our group to NOT push things among our people that we respectfully request you just let go. It would be like me coming up into the church you pastor, or group that I am not a part of by name, and teaching something that I know you disagree with. Although not a major point of contention, or test of fellowship, it is confusing to our people.

Bro Sing, I love you and highly respect you. I enjoy most all of your writings. We just do not agree on this particular point. Like any of us, it is fine to state your belief and interpretation, but please just leave it at that. You have stated your opinion of the Sonship of Christ many, many times. I am confident that everyone on here knows where you stand on this subject. We are aware of your view and respect it. But again, we respectfully request that you please stop pushing this particular belief among our people. I fear that it is becoming confusing and contentious among the folks in this group. Thank you, dear brother.See More

Sing F Lau
John 1:14 Read again
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.

The Word was made flesh is STATED EXPLICITLY as the explanation of the only begotten Son of the Father.

Word (divine) >> incarnation >> Son (divine/human)

Word >> Word was made flesh >> Only begotten of the FatherSee More

Martyins
This debate is growing very old, but one point that I would like to make. The incarnation did make Jesus a son, but it made him the son of David as described in Romans 1:3. Note that it was the Son Jesus Christ our Lord that was made the ...seed of David. How can the Son Jesus Christ our Lord be made the seed of David if he was not the Son Jesus Christ our Lord before he became the seed of David? He became the seed of David at conception (the incarnation) and therefore must have been the Son Jesus Christ our Lord before that point in time. The resurrection, declared him to be the Son of God, but did not make him so. The incarnation made him the seed (or son) of David. Who was made the seed of David in the incarnation, and who was declared the Son of God at the resurrection? I would say it was the Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

The various sources that I have read that quote our forefathers even as far back as the first four centuries all assert and defend the Eternal Sonship of Christ. The greatest of theologians of our time such as John Gill down to J.C. Philpot, also all defend it. I can see reasonable scripture to support it. Therefore, I am as yet not moved.

With that, I am out of this debate. It is not profiting anybody at this point. Brother Sing persists in his belief, which I respect, but I do not respect his wish to push it among our people. God bless us all to seek light rather than heat.

[I wonder whether you have read Jill's Dissertation. I have studied it. He did poorly... hardly any exegesis of Scriptures. he starts of with eternal sonship, and then tries desperate to prove it by grasping at straws.]

Sing F Lau
Martyins, I read this:
Lk 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."

You said, 'The incarnation did make Jesus a son, but it made him the son of David as described in Romans 1:3.' Martyins, what a load of twisting and juggling there.

Scriptures says, The incarnation did make the eternal Word the only begotten Son of God, and it made Him the Son of God - therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. "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."

You said:
"How can the Son Jesus Christ our Lord be made the seed of David if he was not the Son Jesus Christ our Lord before he became the seed of David? He became the seed of David at conception (the incarnation) and therefore must have been the Son Jesus Christ our Lord before that point in time."

The Son Jesus Christ our Lord is ALREADY the seed of David, the eternal Word ALREADY made flesh. You can't even distinguish the Word before incarnation and Jesus Christ the incarnated Word. You equated them!

You said,
The resurrection, declared him to be the Son of God, but did not make him so. The incarnation made him the seed (or son) of David. Who was made the seed of David in the incarnation, and who was declared the Son of God at the resurrection? I would say it was the Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

You are right here: the resurrection of the Son of God demonstrated that He is indeed the Son of God. HOWEVER, the INCARNATION of the Word did make the Word the only begotten Son of God. In incarnation, the eternal Word was made flesh, and as a result we have the only begotten Son of God.

Don't accuse me of pushing anything. I am stating what the Scriptures teach me. See it as the golden opportunity for you to state the truth to correct errors of sing, to ground PBs in what you believe as truth. To me, it is just another subject I want to be clear and certain what the Scriptures declares. Truth will prevail in open discussion with open Bible.

Sing F Lau
‎Chasen @ "We are aware of your view and respect it. But again, we respectfully request that you please stop pushing this particular belief among our people. I fear that it is becoming confusing and contentious among the folks in this group. Thank you, dear brother.
==============

Listen, I am not pushing anything. I am responding to valid objections and what I consider as abuse of Scriptures to support a lie.

Our discussion have given you great opportunity to ably defend eternal sonship... so you should be glad.

So, thank you.

‎Jerryin
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." Deut 6:4, Mk. 12:29
With all the debating about the Sonship of Jesus Christ, it all boils down to the fact that there is ONE God, Jesus the Christ!
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angles, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Tim. 3:16 It still remains, there is only ONE God, [not three 'persons'] and that is Jesus Christ.

Jesus: Eternal but also Begotten, i.e. eternally begotten! Really?

What is eternal needs not to be begotten;

and what is begotten CANNOT possibly be eternal.
'Eternal' and 'begotten' are mutually exclusive!
Unless one perverts the meaning of 'begotten'!

'Only begotten' is μονογενής (G3439),
from μόνος (G3441) and γίνομαι (G1096).
μόνος (G3441) : alone, only;
γίνομαι (G1096): to become, i.e. to come into existence,
begin to be, receive being.

Dane posted, and the following discussion took place.

Is it true that the word BEGOTTEN in John 1:18, John 3:16, etc. is a mistranslation in
KJV (i.e. monogenes/unicus, meaning one of a kind or unique - not unigenitus) ?
Any comments?

Sing F Lau
Is there a different between 'mono...' and 'uni...'?

Dane
None. Mono is the Greek word for one or only while Uni is the Latin rendition of it (according to my study). The issue at hand is on the word BEGOTTEN.

The word itself "monogenes" does not imply begetting. How come then that Jesus is called 'only begotten' when the original text did not suggest it?

Sing F Lau
Please note very carefully, and pay attention!

Begotten is γεννάω. 'Only begotten' is μονογενής (G3439), from μόνος (G3441) and γίνομαι (G1096). [It is fiction that 'only begotten' is from from μόνος (G3441) and γενής (genes).]

μόνος (G3441) : alone, only; γίνομαι (G1096): to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being.

'Begotten' is a VERB, 'Only begotten' is an adjective.

Jesus is NOT the eternal Son of God. Jesus is begotten, the ONLY begotten Son of God.
What is eternal needs not to be begotten; and what is begotten CANNOT possibly be eternal.
Jesus the Son is the eternal Word made flesh... therefore unique, one of its kind. There isn't another man like Jesus, the Son of God.

Pjalters
In Hebrews 11:17 we find Isaac referred to as Abraham's only begotten son; he had another son, Ishmael; but he was not the unique son. Is there a similarity here?

Dane
If that's the case bro. Sing, then the more that monogenes should not be rendered as BEGOTTEN for the verses that contain the word monogenes that pertain to Christ do not express begetting - that is if begotten means to become or to be born.

Martyins
As much as I appreciate, Brother Sing, this is one are where myself and most PB's disagree with him. Jesus is the eternal son and begotten does is not meant to imply generation or beginning, but rather placement as the Son in the Godhead.

Sing F Lau
Jesus is the eternal son?
That there was a time when Jesus did not exist. Before the Word was made flesh, there was no Jesus, the God-man. The Word is eternal, but the Word was not the Son. The Son is the eternal Word made flesh in time.

I would be grateful if you can tell me where I am wrong with that the above sentences. Thanks.

So the word 'begotten' means 'placement as the Son in the Godhead'! when used in reference to Jesus? So, when the word 'begotten' is used with respect to Jesus the man, its meaning suddenly become altogether different? I am puzzled!

Martyins
Brother Sing, I love you, but we have all been down this path before. It is time to agree to disagree until God gives one of us more light on this subject. However, even though you may not appreciate it, since this is Primitive Baptist group, I did think it right to point out that most PB's believe in the doctrine of Eternal Sonship and so has the ancient fathers of the Church as can be seen by their writings. You can persist if you like, but out of respect, I would request that you do not. I love you for Christ's sake, but what you are preaching on this particular topic we do not believe. That fact that we do not believe it, does not make us right, and I acknowledge the possibility that we are wrong, but at the moment Eternal Sonship is certainly something that we as a people hold dear. I am going to bow out of this conversation.

I hope that you will note that I am not trying to prove you wrong, simply stating that this is the conviction of Old Baptists, and has been for some time. I hope you will realize that the doctrine you are pushing here has divided our people in the past and done so with great harm to the cause. If you love us, please let this go! If you cannot change your belief on this topic, fine, but please quit pushing it among our people.

Sing F Lau
If that's the case bro. Sing, then the more that monogenes should not be rendered as BEGOTTEN for the verses that contain the word monogenes that pertain to Christ do not express begetting - that is if begotten means to become or to be born. - Dane

Monogenes is translated ONLY BEGOTTEN because Jesus the Son the man is BEGOTTEN... and begotten in a very special and unique way... Jesus came into being when the eternal Word was made flesh. That is the plain biblical data.

Chasen
I am posting this on behalf of Dan Delmo's original question regarding "monogenes", and I do not seek to get into another long and drawn out discussion again regarding the Eternal Sonship of Christ....

These are just my thoughts that have come from what I have studied on the word before:

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 a lot 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.

Chasen
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.

Chasen
These were copy and pasted from a previous discussion thread, so the context of what I said may not fit exactly...

[Sing F Lau
- 6 times monogenēs is translated into "only begotten"
- 2 times monogenēs is translated into "only"
- 1 time monogenēs is translated into "only child"
-----------------
Each, and every occasion of those nine occasions, speaks of the coming into being of the object spoken of. There was no Jesus before the Word was made flesh; Jesus was conceived and came into being; the Word was eternal and un-begotten. To make the work to support eternal sonship of Jesus requires the special twisting of the meaning of 'monogenes' with respect to Jesus, unless the same meaning is applied to all others... all others are eternal too!]

Sing F Lau
Brother Martyins, it is a topic raised by brother Dan.
If PBs are so settled and convinced on eternal sonship, then they can at least answers some straight forward questions... to fortified their position further!
[If I have the truth, I will let others attack it! It will only confirm the truth further!]

Sing F Lau
"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. - Chasen

Abraham had MANY sons, but Isaac is the ONLY begotten because he is unique above all the others... he alone is the promised child.

God has many sons... but Jesus is the only begotten Son because He is the eternal Word made flesh.

That's pretty plain sense, I think.

Why would the word 'begotten' suddenly takes on an entirely different meaning when it is applied to the MAN Jesus Christ? Isn't that most arbitrary to maintain an obvious error?

Sing F Lau
If that's the case bro. Sing, then the more that monogenes should not be rendered as BEGOTTEN for the verses that contain the word monogenes that pertain to Christ do not express begetting - that is if begotten means to become or to be born. - Dane

Brother Dane, you are reasoning well. The matter is, you begin with Jesus' eternal Sonship... you end up with difficulties like that, the need to amend Scriptures to fit that notion, or as others insist, the need to amend the meaning of 'begotten.'

Andrewn
I'm confused. I believe that John saw Jesus in Revelation 1, and that description of Jesus is the same as the one who appeared to Ezekiel in Ezekiel chapter 40. Jesus has always existed, according to Bible: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given..." Isaiah 9:6. But what is this "placement as the Son in the Godhead?" That sounds like you're saying He wasn't part of the Trinity until Mary gave birth. I think you need to come up with better way to word that, Bro. Martyins

Dane
Bro. Sing,
Brother Dan, you are reasoning well. The matter is, you begin with Jesus' eternal Sonship... you end up with difficulties like that, the need to amend Scriptures to fit that notion, or as others insist, the need to amend the meaning of 'begotten.'

First off, my reasoning is not founded on the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ (though I personally believe He is eternal) neither is it founded on His not being eternal.

The only matter in question is the right translation of the word "Monogenes" which DOES NOT in any way suggest or mean "begetting".

Mono means alone.
Genes means kind.

Begetting is not in the coined word. It is from "Gennao"

The Mormons try to do a little tweak by teaching that Jesus was begotten by God from eternity, not by His virgin birth.

As far as I know the phrase "only begotten" is a by-product of the early theologians to, esp. Origen and Jerome, to combat the ancient heretical Arian teaching denying the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ.

Either way, both suggest and challenge the deity of Christ.

I do not care much about the Mormon's, Origen's & Jerome's cause. My point is, their effort of fortifying the eternal sonship of Christ did more damage to it than benefits for the ff. reasons.

1. The word BEGOTTEN suggest a beginning. Deity does not have a beginning; Deity IS.

2. The word BEGOTTEN is not found in the original text "monogenes".

If "monogenes" had been translated properly into ONLY UNIQUE Son, there would not have been difficulty in explaining alongside with Heb.11:17 wherein Isaac is the ONLY UNIQUE son of Abraham among the seven other sons that include Ishmael.

[sing: Jesus the man is no deity, but true man. Jesus is the humanity the divine Word took upon Himself. The 'only unique' son is a son, and a son always have a BEGINNING! A son that has no beginning is just philosophical fiction. Jesus is the only unique son because his beginning is UNIQUE! ]

Martyins ‎
Andrewn, You are probably right on wording, but I did emphatically state that I believe in the Eternal Sonship of Christ, which should indicate that I do believe he was in the Godhead prior to the incarnation. Brother Sing believes in incarnational Sonship. He believes that Jesus is and always has been, but he wasn't Jesus or the Son of God until the incarnation.

Sing F Lau
Brother Martyins, I am very sorry that you can't even represent me correctly! You have the liberty to believe your eternal sonship of Jesus, but you need to represent me correctly. If you can't even represent me correctly, what business have you to disagree with me

You said, 'He believes that Jesus is and always has been, but he wasn't Jesus or the Son of God until the incarnation."

I wrote these words...
"That there was a time when Jesus did not exist. Before the Word was made flesh, there was no Jesus, the God-man. The Word is eternal, but the Word was not the Son. The Son is the eternal Word made flesh in time."

Did you read and try to understand...or you are just too busy stating what you be believe???

The Word is the eternal Divine being... yes the Word is and always has been. NOT Jesus! Jesus is born, is begotten - declares the Scriptures repeatedly!

Jesus is the eternal Word made flesh, the dual-nature Divine-human being. Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. Before incarnation, there is no Son. Before the Word was made flesh, the Son was not begotten.

In your mind, the eternal Word is the same as Jesus. That's is just ignoring the Scriptures.

The eternal Word is a one natured Divine Being.
Jesus, the eternal Word made flesh, is a dual natured Divine/human Being.
Jesus is born in time. He is NOT eternal.

Sing F Lau
Brother Dane,
You understand μονογενής as a compound of:
Mono means alone, and Genes means kind.

That's where the big ERROR lies.

'Only begotten' is μονογενής, from μόνος (G3441) and γίνομαι (G1096).

γίνομαι (G1096):
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

Begotten is a VERB, 'only begotten' is an ADJECTIVE.

Martyins
Brother Sing, I knew that I shouldn't have said "Jesus always has been", but I thought when I said "he was not Jesus until the incarnation" would be enough to make it clear that before the incarnation he was something other than what we describe as Jesus. If that wasn't sufficiently clear, then I apologize. I thought by making that dual statement, it would be clear that what you were saying was the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been but that he became Jesus and the Son at the incarnation.

Sing F Lau ‎
'The Word always has been' and 'Jesus always has been' are two very different statements.

The notion of 'eternal sonship' equates them.

I believe that Word is and always has been, but the Word wasn't Jesus or the Son of God until the incarnation, until the Word was made flesh. The Word was not the Son until incarnation. The man Jesus had to be born... '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.'

So, help me to see where I am wrong in understanding the Scriptures.

Randyler
Bro Sing, I come and go on this board due to work, but I have a simple question that I need you to explain. First, I fully support what Elder Martyins has stated about the Eternal Sonship. How can you line up your belief and also Daniel 3:25?

Tomfin
The answer to the original question is no.

Chasen
Sister Kate, since I have been on here, I have mostly witnessed that it seems to be a closed PB discussion and fellowship group, however, people have added others to this group at times that were not PB, and we were glad to discuss what we believe with them and welcomed them to the group as long as they "played nice" and did not become rude or contentious. Haha. :-)

But, for the most part, my experience in this group has been that it is closed to PBs so that PB folks would feel comfortable asking questions or sharing any thoughts and not be criticized by those of other denominations and doctrinal beliefs. Having said that, I think most, if not all, members of this group would welcome any non-PB that is either curious or eager to learn what Primitive Baptists believe about the true doctrines of grace.

If I have misspoken or misrepresented the purpose or intent of this group in what I have said, then I trust the creator of this group and/or others will graciously correct me. :-)

Joshuat
This is a closed group, meaning that you cannot see what is happening in the group unless you are a member, but this is not a seclusive PB group. For instance, Bro Sing Lau is not a Primitive Baptist. There are several others that are not PBs that are members. It is my understanding that this group is (as Elder Harrison stated) 'so that PB folks would feel comfortable asking questions or sharing any thoughts and not be criticized by those of other denominations and doctrinal beliefs.' But it is also for people that want to learn about PBs and those who have closely aligned views. Atleast this has been the 'case law' history of the forum.

Chasen
yeah, I am still on a couple of them but rarely participate anymore :)

Joshuat
Sis. Kate, there has been some debates on this forum. Most of the 'perpetual debaters' that were on this forum have left. Usually all correspondence is very respectful, even when we disagree.

I have also come to heavily dislike online debates. They accomplish very little. They often end with one side declaring victory and the other side screaming insults. Usually they are the same people every time. It would be comical if it wasn't so annoying.

Now, that doesn't mean all online communication is unprofitable. It is always encouraging and refreshing to see real questions, Godly and exhortive posts, honest interests, and healthy discussions.

This group did have a rough, debating, start. I had multi people complain to me about how it was just another debating forum. But it has become edifying. I appreciate everyone on here that keeps it a wonderful place.

Forgot to mention, I at one time was one of those debaters.

Sing F Lau ‎
Randy Thanks for your question, 'How can you line up your belief and also Daniel 3:25?'
My simple answer is this:
Dan 3:25 '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.'

Dan 3:28 ¶ '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.'

The term 'son of God' is commonly used to describe angelic being in ancient times.

The fourth that was like the son of God in verse 25 is later identified as an angel, nothing more and nothing less, in verse 28. Scriptures interpret Scriptures, not man's notions!

With all due respect, Dan 3:25 is THE LAMEST prop for eternal sonship! And please don't mention the popular one in Proverbs 30!

Some claim that Nebuchadnezzar saw Jesus! But I don't think you will go that far!

Randyler
‎Sing F Lau, Thank you for your response. I can now see that there are many different debates going on about this subject matter by Elders that I respect and trust. I am just a pew sitter and I will bow out. I will leave with a quick observation: I asked about Daniel 3:25, because I thought you might think it too simple a text, but I am a simple man. I also understand studying context. I suspected you would go with explaining away with the angel. That is what the scripture states. However, please note that in the O.T, whenever the reference of angels being sons of God are made, notice that the word "son" is lowercase and not Uppercase. That is not the case with the lame example in Daniel 3:25. I certainly hope you can understand that means something, but again I may be lame and cannot discern. I will stand with my brethren on this and say farewell. I will not stir contentions, but keep to my simple understandings without questioning if the "right" word is being used, or if there is a better word to use instead. That is a great way to lead people astray from the simplicity of the Gospel.

Sing F Lau
Brother Randyler, if the upper case 'S' is inspired, i would grant you your point. I prefer simplicity too. If Nebuchadnezzar had met the Second Person of the divine Godhead, I quite doubt he would just refer to him as an angel. I told you I am too simple.

David H. Blackshear Simply put: Begotten - "To be born of the flesh." Jesus is the only ONE to be directly placed into the virgins' womb by the angel of THE LORD. HE, Jesus was carried through term and " BEGOTTEN" ( Born of the flesh ). Hence; Only Begotten SON, directly from HIS HOLY insemination/ if you will.

Dane
As my knowledge of Greek is very limited, I shall appeal directly to the scriptures.
"For this purpose the Son of God was MANIFESTED, that he might destroy the works of the devil." - 1 John 3:8
To manifest means to display or to bring to appearance.

Could we at least take the verse at face value. It says the Son of God was manifest.

Language could not be any plainer.

Sing F Lau
Isn't language more plainer than that the Son must be begotten first before the Son can be manifested?

And may I inquired, just when exactly was the Son of God manifested?

Was it when the Word was made flesh, or was it when the Son of God officially entered His public ministry?

Mt 3:
13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Please don't equate the begetting of God's Son as the manifesting of God's Son.

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.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Your fixation on 'eternal sonship' has confused your mind on these basic things.

Joshuat
The Error of Anti-Trinitarianism
Written by Sylvester Hassell
http://marchtozion.com/jesus-christ/572-the-error-of-anti-trinitarianism

Sing F Lau
Is anyone anti-trinitarian here?
Are you implying that those who repudiate 'eternal sonship' are anti-trinitarian?
Just in case you think so... let me put it plain and simple:
God, Word, and Spirit - the eternally divine Triune God, before incarnation.

At incarnation, when the Word was made flesh:
God the Father, God the Son, (divine/human) and Spirit.

Matth
I also do not believe in Eternal Son, but Eternal Word as clearly shown in John 1:1-2 and 1 John 5:7. These are the 2 most frequently attacked verses by all the modern 'english bibles'. Actually only made popular since 1881 by Westcott and Hort.

Joshuat
A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity.
Written by John Gill

http://www.marchtozion.com/jesus-christ/568-a-dissertation-concerning-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ-shewing-by-whom-it-has-been-denied-and-opposed-and-by-whom-asserted-and-defended-in-all-ages-of-christianity

Sing F Lau
Thanks Joshua, I have read and studied that when it was posted a few days ago. I hope to write a summary and a critique on that dissertation one day... God willing.

Dane, Isn't language more plainer than that the Son must be begotten first before the Son can be manifested?

"For this purpose the Son of God was MANIFESTED"
Undeniably, prior to the Son being manifested, He was the SON.

This is very obvious.
When Jesus said,
"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad."
-Luke 8:17

...something that is hidden in secret does not change it's substance or essence when it is manifested.

It only makes it APPEAR to the visible eye.

The same is true that when the SON was manifested, He was indeed the SON prior to His appearing in the flesh.

John, John 1:14, said the Word was made flesh. In 1John 3:8, He equated the Word with the Son being made manifest.

We cannot deny it, it is the Word that was made flesh which He later clarified as the SON being manifested.

The WORD was made flesh.
The SON was manifested.

Dane
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 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 powers: all things were
created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

-Col 1:13-17
By whose kingdom have we been translated? THE SON'S.
By whose blood do we have redemption? THE SON'S.
Who is the image of the invisible God? THE SON.
Who is the firstborn of every creature? THE SON.

Now,
Who created all things, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers?
THE SON.

All things were created by Him (SON).
Who is before all things? THE SON.
By whom do all things consist? THE SON.

He was the SON before creation. He was/is the Creator.

This would only mean that the Son was the Son prior to His being born manifested in the flesh.

Sing F Lau
One BASIC PRINCIPLE: POST incarnation, everything done by the pre-incarnated Word, the second person of the divine God-head is spoken of as the work of the Son. This is the common manner of speaking... but ignored to prop up 'eternal sonship' fiction.

A man say, 'my wife grew up in that town', even though he refers to a woman who was not his wife when she was growing up in that town.

"All things were created by Him (SON).
Who is before all things? THE SON.
By whom do all things consist? THE SON.
He was the SON before creation. He was/is the Creator."

I can sense that you don't like to read John 1:1-2!!!

Here it is again:
1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
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.

You can conveniently separate sonship from the Word made flesh... and maintain your eternal sonship.

It is a fundamental error to equate the eternal Word as the eternal Son... thus repudiating the central event of incarnation when the eternal Word was made flesh!

Sing F Lau
John, John 1:14, said the Word was made flesh. In 1John 3:8, He equated the Word with the Son being made manifest.

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.

When was the glory of Christ began to be witnessed by the public - when he was an unknown in his parents home, or when He was made manifest to the world at His baptism by John the Baptist?

1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

When did Christ began to destroy the works of the devil? When He was growing up in His parents home, when He was announced to Israel at His entry into His public ministry?

The choice is simple. Read the Gospel accounts.

Dane
Careful reading had been done with John 1:1-2 before those statements had been presented.

I do not deny what John said of the Word being the Creator, but neither with I deny that the Son is the Creator as Paul stated in his letter to Colossians.

To say that "everything done by the Word, the second person of the divine God-head is spoken of as the work of the Son." has no clear cut biblical support and is something suspect and speculative.

This kind of argument also denies the obvious inspired words of the apostle Paul as to who the creator really was -the SON.

It has been advised not to look at the subject matter with the preconceived idea of eternal sonship, but if I may advise, I shall also say the contrary: that is to view the subject matter not through the eyes of incarnational sonship of Jesus Christ.

Who did John say was the creator? THE WORD.
Who did Paul say was the creator? THE SON.

These two servants of God did not contradict each others statements but complemented each other.

SON = WORD
WORD = SON

It could not be plainer and more obvious than this: the Son was there in creation and was the creator just as equally and essentially as the Word was.
These two are essentially the same.See More

Sing F Lau
Who did John say was the creator? THE WORD. Who did Paul say was the creator? THE SON.

The answer is pretty simple:

John was speaking of the Second Person of the divine Godhead before incarnation, when the Son does not exist yet, and Paul speaks of the Second person of the divine Godhead after incarnation, when the Word has been made flesh!

CONTEXT, Brother!

The Word is one-nature Divine Being, the Son of God is a two-nature Divine/human being.
How could Word = Son, Son = Word??? God = God/man; God/man = God????

It is a fundamental error to equate the two.

Sing F Lau
Brother Dane, let me give an illustration, and I will bow out from this thread. Supposing Wendy painted a lovely picture when she was 15. Later you married Wendy, and her painting became a fixture in your home. When a visitor inquires, 'who painted that lovely picture?'- you said, 'O my wife did that when she was 15!' But when she was 15, she was the daughter of her father, and not your wife yet!

Such manner of speaking when recognized, will help a great deal in understand the 'eternal sonship' issue.

Thanks, Brother.

Dane
John was speaking of the Second Person of the divine Godhead before incarnation, when the Son does not exist yet, and Paul speaks of the Second person of the divine Godhead after incarnation, when the Word has been made flesh! - sing

What has been dismissed in the quoted statements is the common truth between John's and Paul's statements of the Word and the Son existing BEFORE and DURING creation.

The quoted arguments can be very convincing, but it cannot deny the obvious reference of Paul to the Son as the creator.

What I admire the most among the ranks of those who teach the doctrines of grace is the right contextual understanding of scriptures.

Yes, we must not overlook the contextual meaning, but neither should we deny the very obvious message presented by the verse.

Colossians 1:16 states it very clearly. It was stated very clearly that it should leave no room for doubts and challenges.

Paul said the Son was there in creation, I stand by that.

He said the Son created all things both visible and invisible, I stand by that.
Dane
John was speaking of the Second Person of the divine Godhead before incarnation, when the Son does not exist yet, and Paul speaks of the Second person of the divine Godhead after incarnation, - sing

Also, this could not be true for both books were several years after the incarnation of the Son/Word.

This could not also be true for the reason that Paul spoke of the existence of the Son/Word prior to incarnation, just as John did.

To claim that Paul was referring to the post incarnation as the creator and John to the preincarnation as the creator is an assumption that tries to invalidate the truth that the two wanted to express: that the Word was the creator and that that Word that was the Creator was also the Son.

Sing F Lau
Dane, the whole of the NT was written AFTER incarnation.
But NT does speak of many things BEFORE incarnation, like the creation of the world by the eternal Word.

After incarnation, the eternal Word is known as the Son.
Everything done by the Word prior to the incarnation is then referred to as the work of the Son post incarnation, because after incarnation the Son is the new reference point.

After incarnation, the Son is the reference point. John brings us beyond the incarnation (the Word was made flesh) as spoke of the eternal Word, the second Person of the Divine Being.

After marriage, the 'wife' is the reference point', including all of Wendy's work before she was married.

What John was writing in John 1:1-2, and using the 'Word' because the Word has not be made flesh yet... but when the Word was made flesh, and we have the only begotten of God, the new reference point.

If you understand this, I am contented.

Dane
I fully understand your analogy and illustration, bro. Sing.

I have shared what I was convinced to share. Thank you for your time.
Just so you know that I carefully read each of your posts on this thread so I could fully understand what you meant to say.

May God bless you.

Reformed Folks DENY the Ordo Salutis Stated Plainly in their WCF!

Reformed Folks DENY the Ordo Salutis
Stated Plainly in their WCF!

This is what the Reformed Ordo Salutis leads too

by Sing F Lau on Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 11:07pm

From: sing
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:46:55 +0800
To: Reformed folks
Subject: WCF 10-14
 
Please pardon me for this post.

You confess that you do subscribe to the WCF and are well versed with it. You can even quote so well from both the Shorter and Larger Catechisms. I have a genuine puzzle I can't get over with for weeks now. I would like to ask you a few simple questions.

What follows are statements from Chapters 10-14 of WCF [sic], your Doctrinal Standard. Though incomplete, they are sufficient to serve the purpose at hand. I will tell you in a separate mail some significant differences between the WCF and the Second London Confession of Faith (1689). The First LCF (1644) was framed before the WCF (1647) was around.

10.1 "All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

[Please note: effectual calling is the calling the elect out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation. What is involved in calling an elect out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation? Let your Confession spell them out for you. Hear well!] 

11.1 "Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth..."

[Please note what is the very first thing involved in the effectual calling of an elect out of his native state of sin and death, i.e. under the state of condemnation! The effectual call of an elect out of his native state of sin and death requires first and foremost justification, accounting the righteousness of Christ to an elect under condemnation.] 

12.1 "All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption..."

13.1 "They who are effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them are also farther sanctified, really and personally..."

[Please note that there is a clear distinction between effectual call and regeneration. They are not the same. The effectual call of an elect out of his native state of sin and death involves the divine act of regeneration. Application of righteousness to an elect by God gives divine warrant to the Spirit of God in the work of regeneration. And the regenerated are made partakers of the grace of adoption, with the gift of the Spirit of adoption to dwell in them, thus working all the saving graces in them.] 

14.1 "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word..."

[Everything stated in chapters 10-13 is accomplished by the free and sovereign activities of God and enables the elect (now justified, regenerated and adopted, with the Spirit dwelling in them) to believe in the saving of their souls. Only those already saved by God with eternal salvation are enable to believe the gospel for the temporal salvation of their souls. The grace of faith is one of the graces worked by the indwelling Spirit in each effectually called elect. This grace of faith is drawn forth and made manifest by the ministry of the word. This grace of faith is expressed in the act of believing through the gospel ministry. The ministry of the word is relevant ONLY AFTER justification, regeneration, and adoption have been accomplished by God's free and sovereign activities.]

Here are my simple questions. I would be very grateful to hear from your own mouth your clear answers to these questions. I have framed them in such a way that they require the SIMPLEST answers. If you feel that the way I phrased the questions is unfair, please indicate so and give your reasons, or suggest how should they be phrased.

From the above (i.e. the plain statements of your WCF):

1. Do you agree that there is a strict logical order and progression in the statements of truths of salvation?

2. Do you agree that the effectual call to grace and salvation requires and embraces the divine acts of justifying the condemned, regenerating the dead, and adopting the regenerated into the divine family, in that order and number?
- Without these divine acts, can a man in his native state of sin and death be brought into that state of grace and salvation?

3. Do you agree that justification by God is logically before regeneration and adoption?

4. Do you agree that effectual call is distinct from regeneration?

5. Do you agree that regeneration and adoption are logically prior to faith in Christ?

6. Do you agree that justification by faith in Christ follows AFTER, both logically and chronologically, regeneration and adoption? 

7. Do you agree that the effectual call (definitive sanctification) by God's sovereign activity enables a man to further sanctification through the gospel ministry?
- Effectual call is termed definitive sanctification because it once and for all and completely sets a man free from his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.
- Effectual call enables a man to hear, and respond to the gospel call.
- Definitive sanctification makes further sanctification possible.

8. Do you agree that 'further sanctification' presupposes a certain sanctification that is completed and done? i.e. the effectual call that sanctified/separated an elect "out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ"?

9. Do you agree that the gospel call and faith (conversion) come under the lifelong process of further sanctification?

10. Do you agree that the grace of faith is worked by the Spirit of Christ in the heart of an ALREADY justified, regenerated and adopted elect by the free and sovereign activities of God, without any human cooperation?

11. HERE IS A BIG ONE: Are the statements of your Confession a faithful summary of the Bible's teaching? Do you believe them?

I have asked simple questions.

I would be grateful for some simple answers to clear my puzzle.

Thank you for entertaining an 'erring' brother.
sing
----------
"And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not" Acts 28:24

POSTSCRIPT
But here is the standard and popular ordo salutis of the Reformed people:
(taken from a reformed website, Monergism)

1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30).

The WCF's statements above plainly taught the Bible's order of salvation (in the application part of the redemption)
1. Effectual call by the free and sovereign grace of God
- Justification - righteousness freely applied to each individual personally
- Regeneration - justification of life secures the regeneration to life
- Adoption (together with the gift of the Spirit of adoption dwelling in God's children, working all saving graces in them, including faith.) 

The Divine act of effectual call makes an elect perfectly and completely fitted for glory. Nothing more is needed for his eternal salvation. It is finished and completely secured by God's free and sovereign grace.

The gospel ministry is needed for his temporal salvation... i.e. for his spiritual well-being here in this present life.
a. Gospel call through the gospel ministry ministered by men.
- Initial conversion: in repentance and faith
- Farther sanctification: lifelong conversion through the ministry of the word.

Effectual Call [this deals with the eternal salvation of the elect, every elect without exception
is effectually called; with each one justified, regenerated and adopted in exactly the same
way, on the same basis, to the same extent; perfectly fitted for eternal glory.]
- justification
- regeneration
- adoption

Gospel Call [this deals with the temporal salvation or the well-being of God's children, each experience the gospel call to a vastly varying degree; some none, many little, and a few more, depending on so many human factors.

Glorification
read these related article too.
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/05/order-of-salvation.html
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2010/10/messing-up-romans-829-30-ordo-salutis.html

John Calvin's notions on John 3:16

Calvinists and Arminians meet at a common point in John 3:16!

John Calvin wrote these words in his comments on John 3:16.
He sounds so much like an typical Arminian!

'For God so loved the world...' - "Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish..." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.ix.iii.html

Here we see some of the classic Arminian fables:
- Christ was offered to be Savior of all men...
- Faith in Christ brings life to all...
- Heavenly Father loves the human race...
- Heavenly Father wishes they should not perish...

Christ was offered to be Saviour... so what is offered is up to sinners dead in trespasses and sins to decide whether to accept or reject. That's a classic Arminian fable!

Faith in Christ brings life to all... so the life-less can believe in Christ in order to bring life! That's a classic Arminian fable!

Heavenly Father loves the human race?... That's a classic Arminian fable! God is Creator of all His creatures, but God is Father only to His children.

Heavenly Father wishes they should not perish?... That's a classic Arminian fable! No, He does not wish, He powerfully saves His elect to the uttermost, effectually calling them OUT of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, DESPITE their enmity and rebellion.

Who is the true John Calvin of Geneva? Those who love and adore John Calvin, please show us the genuine unvarnished John Calvin, please! December 8 at 4:45pm

Sing F Lau
It is a monumental mistake to read John 3:16 as a statement of offering salvation conditioned on faith in Jesus Christ!

John 3:16 is a statement declaring certain immutable truths concerning God's love:
- The object of His love: the world lost in sin and death and condemnation
- The evidence of His love: He gave His only begotten Son
- The assured blessing of that love: eternal life
- The effect of that eternal life: believes in the Son of God
- The consequence of believing in Christ: should not perish... because they possess everlasting life.

There is absolutely no offer of anything, much less salvation of any sort to any one!

God so loved the world, yes, the world, and not just the Jews, but both Jews and Gentiles of the world - Rev 5:9 'And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.'

The 'world' embraces men 'out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.' That's the quantitative sense of the word. But the 'world' also indicates their spiritual condition - a 'world' that lies in death and condemnation because of sins. That's the qualitative sense of the word 'world'.

His love was shown to such of the world... The 'world' cannot possibly refers to all men of the world. God gave His Son to save His people... that's is His explicit will and Christ understood it. John 6:38 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.'See More

Sing F Lau
‎- The evidence of His love: He gave His only begotten Son:

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amon...g us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The eternal life-giving Word, the second person of the Godhead was made flesh - thus the Son of God was begotten.

Luke 1
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
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.

Thus Jesus is uniquely the only begotten Son of God. None was begotten like him.

Luke 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

God send His only begotten Son to secure eternal redemption for His people... that's the evidence of His 'so loved' the world.

Sing F Lau
‎- The assured blessing of that love: eternal life.
This eternal life is not offered to any one. If this eternal life is offered to those dead in trespasses and sins, it would be a cruel mockery to them... for how would those spiritually d...ead be able to perform the spiritual act of receiving the offered eternal life? It is a cruel insult and mockery to offer eternal life to those dead in trespasses and sins.

God so loved, he NOT ONLY secured our eternal redemption through His Son Jesus Christ, He also freely and sovereignly APPLY that eternal redemption to each elect in effectually calling them out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation: in applying the righteousness of His Son to them, thus providing the ground for their regeneration unto life, and adopting them into the family of God, and giving the Holy Spirit to dwell in them.

In their NATIVE state of condemnation, death, and slavery, God freely and sovereignly acted on the elect who are in enmity against Him, and effectually calling them into a state of justification, eternal life, and sonship!

God DOES NOT offer salvation, and wait for sinners in enmity against Him to accept His offer! He actively applies the eternal salvation secured and obtained by Jesus Christ to each individual elect personally, bring them out of the state of death to that of eternal life - with his elect contributing nothing at all, and assisting in nothing at all.

And once God has applied that salvation to an elect, that elect is perfectly and completely fitted for eternal glory.

That's salvation by free grace, pure and unadulterated.

But God is not just interested in the eternal glory of His children. He cares for their well-being while here on earth, waiting to enter into their eternal inheritance.

The gospel ministry is ordained and appointed for that end.See More

Historical Redemptive
Welcome back, Bro. Sing!
-----------------
Here we see some of the classic Arminian fables:
- Christ was offered to be Saviour of all men...
- Faith in Christ brings life to all...
- Heavenly Father loves the human races...
- Heavenly Father wishes they should not perish...
----------------

Maybe by "all men" Calvin meant "all men" without distinction NOT "all men" without exception.

Maybe by "life" Calvin meant temporal life only and not eternal life.

Maybe by "human race" Calvin meant the human race of the elect.

Maybe by "wishes" Calvin meant "wills."

Give our old brother the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, both Calvin and Arminius are in heaven and laughing out loud over the mess they left on earth!See More

Daniel Hodges
Don't forget that the 'revered' John Calvin also had Michael Servetus burned at the stake, because the man dared to disagree with Calvin's theology in public. Don't forget that Calvin wanted to govern Geneva as a THEOCRACY (i.e - the church IS the state). I don't question his eternal salvation, just the fruits, labors, and legacy that he left behind.

Pj Walters
Even if, as HR suggests, Calvin meant the elect, faith does not bring life. That is just plain wrong.

Sing F Lau
HR, it is weird to me that your name is HR. Why don't you give us your real name!

Welcome here. Be my guest! Among the Chinese, the host welcome the guests; not the reverse!

Calvinism may have some serious inconsistencies; Arminianism is a complete hogwash, another gospel entirely, even though many who embrace those errors are very sweet people, like you! But Calvinism is not much better... being mingled with much Arminianism.

So, don't not too happy just because I point out Calvin's inconsistencies.

He expresses himself quite well, and he needs no benefit of the doubt! Don't come across too condescending!

His 'all men' and the 'human race' are parallel.
His 'wishes' and 'offered' are parallel too.
His 'life' is in the context of John 3:16... everlasting life.

John 3:16 speaks of everlasting life, and what make you think he is speaking of 'temporal life'? I don't see the connection!

And just what is 'temporal life'? Please explain.

Sing F Lau
Here is Calvin's commentary to the clause '... that whosoever believeth on him may not perish' of John 3:16, with three paragraphs, as follow:

Paragraph 1
"It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
=====

Remarkable commendation of man's faith in Christ indeed - that is, men's faith in Christ frees them from everlasting destruction... and secures for them an entrance into eternal life. And this is Calvinism - man's faith is an instrumental means to secure eternal salvation.

Bible says faith is a FRUIT and EFFECT of eternal salvation bestowed freely by God's grace.

He repeatedly emphasize the free offer of salvation to all men without distinction, thus 'the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life... to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life... he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world... he invites all men without exception...'

Will God offer eternal life to those whom He did not give Christ to be their Savior? Does God do such contradictory nonsense? Does God actually offer salvation, and wishes those dead in trespasses and sins to accept the eternal life offered? Hmmmm.

Paragraph 2
“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ."
========

May I ask:
So, in the words of Calvin, is it eternal life that enables the believing OR is it believing that is necessary to get the promised eternal life?

Do men believe because they have been made heirs of eternal life, or do they believe in order to obtain the promised eternal life?

The Scriptures declares the former, but Calvin teaches the latter!

Paragraph 3:
"Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”
===========

So, in the words of Calvin, is the faith that embraces Christ an EVIDENCE of life of Christ already given, or is faith that embraces Christ the MEANS to OBTAIN the life of Christ? The Scriptures declares the former, but Calvin teaches the latter!

Calvin: "Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. "
So, it is plain and clear that Calvin believes that faith in Christ BESTOWS life upon the believers, even though he admits that is not yet very evident why and how that happens.

Pj Walters
Calvin did not believe the atonement of Christ was specifically for the elect. In other words, he did not believe in limited atonement. If I remember correctly it was some of his followers who adopted the view of limited atonement.

Not to start another thought on this thread, but it is as equally peculiar that Arminius originally believed in total depravity.

How far have their followers misconstrued their ideas!

Matthew Ong
I am more interested on how he viewed
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. <<< Especially this verse, because I heard many just hop over this verse.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.vii.ii.html
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, *on the contrary*, *it is an effect of faith*, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life.
---------------------------------
*on the contrary*, *it is an effect of faith* With reference to that: the Holy Ghost first impression was right then, "But will of God." was totally negated out of his lengthy explanation.

Sing F Lau
Just some obvious inconsistencies... like many lovers of Calvin are oblivious to all the inconsistencies in their beloved 'calvinism' named after their hero!

It is an anathema to point out that Calvin is plainly wrong in some of these basic gospel issues! Calvin is ALMOST infallible to his followers!