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.'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.
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.
