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.
"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.
