 |
Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit. The Three Persons of the Godhead are completely equal in every sense; There is no subordination of any kind or sense. In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant of or reject this simple bible truth. Economic Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit; --------the Son and Spirit are subordinated to the Father; the Spirit is subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world. |
August 21, 2016
This is how very many Christians make John
1:1,14 to read because of their erroneous view of the sonship of Jesus, i.e.
the eternal sonship of Jesus.
"In the beginning was the Son, and the
Son was with God, and the Son was 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."
Jesus,
the Son of God, is ETERNALLY
begotten, they insist.
I say, Jesus, the Son of God, is DIVINELY
begotten when the Word was made flesh.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was 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."
The Word is the one-natured Divine Being,
The Son is the dual-natured Divine-Human
Being.
The Son is the eternal divine Word made flesh.
Aren't these so simple and obvious?
A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
----------
John Burkett
So your saying Jesus didn't become unique
until he was born of Mary
Sing F Lau
The possessive pronoun "your" is
NOT the same as you're, the contraction of "you are."
DIVINELY begotten is not the same as
ETERNALLY begotten.
There was NO NO NO NO NO NO Jesus before he
was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Thus your question betrays some
misunderstanding somewhere.
The truth is quite simple; Jesus WAS UNIQUE
from the moment of His conception by the power from on high. He did not become
unique. He is the only begotten of God from the instant He was begotten.
I take it that your question presupposes that He was NON-unique prior to His becoming unique! Am I right, just asking?
Ante Zivkovic
Monogenes does not mean "unique" in
general sense, but only in procreational sense. It can only mean "only
begotten". Jesus became only begotten son in his conception/birth. Prior
to that, he was not begotten.
More and more people are using Monogenes to
mean unique generally. It is what one must do to avoid the doctrine that Word
was begotten.
Sing F Lau
Starting with the fiction of eternally
begotten, they have to invent other errors to explain that basic error.
Redefining "monogenes" is one such attempt.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/01/begotten-then-later-manifestedsent-at.html
Things New and Old: Begotten, then later Manifested/Sent at baptism
Another of the same attempt, read here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/12/jesus-eternal-or-begotten.html
Things New and Old: Jesus: Eternal but also
Begotten, i.e. eternally begotten! Really?
Sing F Lau
The uniqueness lies ENTIRELY in Jesus being
the ONLY-BEGOTTEN of the Father; there is no one else like Him.
Ante Zivkovic
I think people should cease to use that word.
So misleading. When you have an only child, you do not call him unique. You
call him your only child. With us humans it is understood that that child was
begotten. But with Jesus emphasis should be made on His begetting, because Word
became flesh. Thus Jesus is both "only "and "begotten".
There is no other rendering than the only begotten. These discussion are mostly
with Kjb deniers.
Sing F Lau
Yes, cease! But the PBs are all Kjb-only.
Ante Zivkovic
Then PB's have problem with
"begotten" in KJV.
Sing F Lau
Some DO have, on that point, because it
doesn't suit their fable of eternal sonship.
Jorge Quierrez Jr.
Ha?
Sing F Lau
Look at the links above on "jesus-eternal-or-begotten."
John Burkett
Sing, if only begotten means only born, then
what does one do with Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried,
offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son ,
Isaac was the only begotten because he was
the child of promise, born supernaturally, thus making him unique to his 7
brothers.
1. The Word had two titles which described who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were not the son before his incarnation Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word lest he be angry"
2 the personalities that compose the triune
Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God
the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a
father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born
the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV
[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.
3. If only begotten means only born what does
that say of us? We are born children of God and is we are considered the sons
of God he cannot be the only-born.
[sing: Jesus is the only begotten Son because He was "born in a supernatural way," just as Isaac was.]
Ante Zivkovic
Isaac was the only begotten because he was an
only heir. Isaac had no co-heirs. In that sense, Isaac had no brother. We are
co-heirs with Christ, being his real brothers, through adoption. Christ is the
only begotten Son because he was the only one fathered by the Highest. Isaac,
likewise ba Abraham. 2. Luke 1:35 teaches that that which shall be born shall
be called Son of God.
John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, you just proved my point that
only begotten doesn't mean only born but rather unique. Issac was the only heir
because he was the unique son but not the only son.
Luke 1:35 shall be "called" the son of God. By who? The answer by men not God. God already considered him a son but the world of men that he was born into would come to know him as the son of God.
Ante Zivkovic
Again, you mislead by translating monogenes
as generic "unique". That is violation of the menaning of the word.
The truth is, that it means only-born. Issac is still monogenes. He would only
stop being only born, if he had a brother, by Sara, who would in fact be
co-heir. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, "he would only stop being
only born, if he had a brother, by Sara" wrong! In a natural sense, he was
not only born; he had seven brothers. You gave Rom 9:7; what about Rom 9:10-13? Jacob and Esau both were born to the same people but only one was special, and
it is in his seed that the promise came. The only reason Isaac is termed only-
begotten is because he was special or unique in comparison to his brothers not
because he was only-born.
Ante Zivkovic
Your definition makes Jesus not the only born
son of God, which I reject. Other sons of God are either adopted or made (like
angels). No other son of God was generated by God except Jesus. And no
other son of Abraham was counted as an heir, or even a real son. Esau and Jacob
could never be monogenes, because the word cannot be used to mean unique. Gal
4:30 "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son:
for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
Ante Zivkovic
In your definition, even Jacob is monogenes.
Which is just a pure violation of the scope of uniqueness monogenes overs. And
the scope is within generation, an only child. Applying a generic
"unique" meaning to the term just violates it. Perfect rendering is
only begotten.
Sing F Lau
John @ 3. If only begotten means only born, what does
that say of us? We are born children of God, and if we are considered the sons
of God, he cannot be the only-born.
=========
Can you name me another similarly begotten
like Jesus?
Can you tell me in ONE way in which you are
born of God is similar to Jesus being the begotten of God.
Thanks.
Sing F Lau
John @ 1. The Word had two titles which described
who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he
became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were
not the son before his incarnation, Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word
lest he be angry"
==========================
When the Word was made flesh, the Son of God
was begotten!!!
Your prejudice has blinded you to this SIMPLE
PLAIN truth.
"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 only begotten of the Father is the only
begotten Son of God. There was NO begotten Son UNTIL the Word was made flesh.
Isn't that plain and simple?
Such plain and straightforward truth, but
VERY INCONVENIENT to the "eternal sonship" fable!
"Kiss the Son" is spoken of in the context of God resurrecting the crucified Son. See Acts 13:33. It is a prophetic Messianic Psalm.
Sing F Lau
John @ 2: The personalities that compose the triune
Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God
the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a
father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born
the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV
[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.
=====================
Are you saying that the designation "the
everlasting Father" in Isa 9:6 refers to God the Father? If you are, then
you are quite mistaken.
The Father didn't give His Son when He caused
him to be born the son of man. That is at best a false and erroneous statement.
When God MADE the Word flesh, He caused His
Son to be begotten. The Father gave His Son when Jesus was manifested and
entered His public ministry, at which point God thundered to Israel, "This
is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
PJ Walters
The subtle resurgence of Arianism...
Sing F Lau
Please describe briefly what is Arinianism.
Thanks.
Don't throw terms around. It doesn't help.
Deal with the precise issue at hand.
PJ Walters
That God had no Son until Jesus came.
Sing F Lau
Is that Arianism? Go read a bit further.
Jorge Quierrez Jr.
It's sound Arianism doctrine sir,
INC in the
Phl.
Sing F Lau
Arianism denies the DIVINITY of Christ, does
it not?
Do I? Go read and use the finest PB comb
at your disposal and see if you can find one shred of evidence.
Be careful of throwing labels around. The last
I read, it is still a TRANSGRESSION of the law of God to bear FALSE witness.
Read my initial post and tell me the error if
there is any.
Beware of SOUND BYTE.
Ante Zivkovic
Dear PJ. Our position is stronger, as it
gives the Word and the Spirit co-equality within the Godhead. So neither do they
proceed from the Father, but are co-eternal; neither is there hierarchy within
the Godhead. Our doctrine is also stronger concerning the manhood of Jesus, whose flesh, soul and spirit did not exist prior to his begetting when the Word
was made flesh. So we have Jesus who is 100% God, and 100% man.
Sing F Lau
Co-eternality and eternally begotten are
mutually exclusive concepts except for some nonsensical twisting. Co-eternality
also excludes the idea of anyone in the Godhead proceeding from anyone.
PJ Walters
Nay, but I allege that God GAVE his only
begotten Son.
Sing F Lau
Your begotten Son is eternally begotten.
The Scriptures plainly state that the Son was
begotten WHEN the Word was made flesh.
Read John 1:14.
PJ Walters
As Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son
(remember, he had Ishmael, too!), so the Word is the only begotten of the
Father. What meaneth this? That he is his Father's special Son.
Sing F Lau
"... so the Word is the only begotten of
the Father"?
A plain Scriptures is now TWISTED to fit your
eternally begotten fable!!!
It is getting worse!
PJ Walters
Ah, there is the denunciation!
Sing F Lau
Denunciation? If so, it is against a newfangled idea. I sure hope you are ALONE among the PBs who believe that the
eternal Word is the begotten of the Father, forget about the "only"
for the moment.
Good night.
Ante Zivkovic
Pj Walters, Gal 4:30, For the son of the
bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Rom 9:7 Neither,
because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac
shall thy seed be called.
Was Isaac the only begotten of Abraham? Yes! You see, only Isaac was the heir, or true legitimate son. Only he was a real son. For if Isaac is not only begotten of Abraham, neither is Jesus. Furthermore, " only begotten" does not mean "Unique" in English. "Unique" is just a modern pseudo-Greek translation of the word Monogenes. And a wrong translation. The correct translation is only begotten. Which means only born son. Which Jesus is. Not only is he the ONLY Son of God, but He is also the only BORN Son of God. (The fact that he is born or begotten ousts christophanies in OT, along with Heb 1:2) Monogenes is not applicable outside begotten offspring. "unique" argument weakens or even destroys KJV-only position.
PJ Walters
Sing, I am not alone in this position amongst
PBs.
Ante, in Hebrews 11, Isaac is called
Abraham's only begotten son. Monogenes is used in that text, as it is
elsewhere, because it means single of its kind, or only! He was his darling
son, and Ishmael was not.
Sing F Lau
A newfangled idea: the Word is the Son and
the Son is the Word.
You have just obliterated the most momentous
event in the history of redemption - the Word was made flesh, and the Son of God
was begotten.
Sing F Lau
Can I take it that it is the UNIVERSAL
opinion of the PBs that "... the Word is the only begotten of the
Father"?
Sing F Lau
The begetting of the Son - which happened
when God made the Word flesh - precedes the giving of the Son.
PJ Walters
Nay, God SENT his Son into the world.
Sing F Lau
God SENT His Son into the world when He
thundered from heaven, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.
The Son must be begotten first, the Word made
flesh, and at the appointed time SENT into the world. Plain reading from the
Scriptures.
Marty-Sandy Smith
Just as we may suppose that "Son"
necessarily implies "begotten", we may also suppose that "Word"
implies "expressed". One term seems no more co-equal or co-eternal
than the other.
John Burkett
God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Spirit the three personality have existed co-eternal and co-equal immutable for
all eternity. Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever.
According to the record of church history one
of the very first heresies in the church was the belief that the Son was not
eternally the son. The disciple of Peter was a huge defender of the Christ
being the Son before his incarnation.
Sing F Lau
The Word made flesh is how the eternal Word
was specifically expressed. When the eternal Word was made flesh by God is the
moment the Son was begotten.
I fear only a prejudiced mind could miss that
simple and obvious truth from John 1:1,14.
[Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.
Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.
(In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.)
Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father, the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.]
Sing F Lau
Hey John, move beyond soundbyte! Does the
statement "Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever" teach you
something. Move beyond soundbyte. YESTERDAY is not the same as eternal, is it?
Mark Thomas
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace
along with the three Hebrew children?
Joshua Winslett
The word "begotten", or more
specifically the phrase "only begotten" does not necessarily hold the
connotation of a procreation or birth in time.
The OED's third definition reads, "3rd.
Theol. Applied to the relationship of the Father to the Son in the Trinity
ME."
Notice that it's Middle English, theological
definition does not denote the idea of procreation or generation, but instead
one of relationship.
Also consider this quote from Zodhiates'
Complete Word Study New Testament, "John alone uses monogenes to describe
the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the
only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the
relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
Genos, from which genes in monogenes is derived, means race, stock, family,
class or kind, and geno comes from ginomai (1096), become, as in John 1:14,
"and the word became [egeneto] flesh." This is in distinction from
gennao (1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennao is gennema
(1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or
unique." End Quote.
It is also noteworthy that John actually used
two different Greek words when describing to us how Christ was the only
begotten (John 1:14,18 etc. - monogenes) and how we are begotten of God (1 John
5:1,18 - gennao). One shows a special kind and the other denotes being born, or
procreated.
Joshua Winslett
The truth of eternal Sonship can be seen in
how the NT often uses language that states that God sent his son into the
world, and gave his son. You cannot send or give a son that does not already
exist. I would challenge anyone to find a passage that says that God made a
son. (Isaiah 9:6, John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-10, Galatians 4:4-6, etc.). Isaiah 9:6
not only states that a son was given (not made) but it says that one name for
God is everlasting Father. How can you have an everlasting Father without an
everlasting Son. The Son is also said to have made all things (Colossians
1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2). Furthermore, how can something be manifest that did not
already previously exist (1 John 3:8)?
Also consider Hebrews 7:3, "Without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor
end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually." In comparing Melchisedec to Jesus and showing how this high
priest was "made like unto the Son of God", the writer of Hebrews
uses this parallel, "Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Please take note of
this parallel. The fact that Melchisedec was without father, mother, natural
decent, beginning or end of days proved that he was like unto the Son of God.
John Burkett
Excellent brother Joshua Winslett
Sing F Lau
Hebrews was written after the Word has been
made flesh. The author was pointing out the superiority of the priestly office
of Christ compared to that of the Levitical.
The author wasn't proving that Melchisedec
was like unto the son of God, but that the priesthood of Christ, being the Word
made flesh - the Son of God - is superior to and transcends that of the Levitical order, i.e. of the order of Melchisedec.
Sing F Lau
Joshua, is the eternal Word the same as the
Son?
It is strange no one dares touch those inconvenient statements in John 1:1,14!
John declared that the Word was made flesh.
Please tell what happened when the Word was made flesh? Was that a little bump
in the redemptive history, or was it a momentous watershed event in fulfilment of all that has been prophesied and foreshadowed?
Sing F Lau
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace
along with the three Hebrew children?
------------
Here is the answer to your good question: Dan
3:28,
28Then 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 b worship any god,
except their own God.
His angel... that's the identity of the son
of god stated in v25.
Marty-Sandy Smith
I can only find one angel that has ever gone
into affliction with God's children:
[Isaiah 63:8-9] For he said, Surely they are
my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their
affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his
love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all
the days of old.
What is the name of this angel?
Joshua Winslett
Sometimes the word angel does not speak of a
grouping of celestial beings but rather a messenger that can at times be
referring to God himself. Consider Exodus 3:2, Genesis 22:15- 16. Many more
verses could be cited.
Sing F Lau
The Word was made flesh.... was MADE FLESH by
God once, and remains so forever. Just ONCE... ONE TIME only.
The eternal Word is not an angel. The Word
was God.
John Burkett
Excellent point brother josh. We find in
Malachi 3:1 KJV
[1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he
shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
The term "messenger of the
covenant" in the Hebrew is angel of the covenant. Everywhere else in the
Old Testament the word for messenger is translated angel
John Burkett
It is also to be noted that all through the
Old Testament the "Angel of the Lord" takes to himself the identity
of deity.
Ante Zivkovic
Has Christ taken on the nature of angels in
OT? In which body did he appear then? Answer: he didn't appear. Angels did.
Looking like humans, representing God.
Sing F Lau
You are stating the obvious.
Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever.
Once the Word was made flesh, He remains in
that Divine/human state FOREVER.
The sundry times when angels took on human
nature it was temporary, for specific, temporary tasks.
The Divine Word WAS MADE FLESH, only once and
FOREVER.
Now "Jesus Christ the same YESTERDAY and
to day, and for ever" should make sense to some people.
Sing F Lau
If you need to depend on all those obscure
passages to prove your eternal sonship, I will leave the matter here. … See
more
Mark Thomas
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.
Sing F Lau
If that warrants you the liberty to derive
doctrines contrary to plain and clear Scriptures like John 1:1,14, you are free
to do so.
Mark Thomas
I firmly believe that all Scripture is free
from any contradiction when rightly divided. When I find folks who are willing
to cling to contradiction and cease to answer sincere questions or simply
ignore instruction provided, I begin to wonder if they prefer their fables to
truth.
Sing F Lau
I wonder too!
Ante Zivkovic
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go
out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and
he went out, not knowing whither he went. .... My wife was sent to that elementary school by her parents.... Was Abraham Abraham when he went out
of Ur, or was he Abram at that time? Was my wife my wife when she was going to
elementary school? That settles "sent" argument.
Sing F Lau
I thought that it is just everyday common sense,
but common sense does not mean anything to minds already prejudiced.
They just reject such an obvious thing, even
though they speak in the same common-sense manner.
I have a great acrylic painting by Alice at
home when she was 14. I often tell people that the drawing was done by my wife
when she was only 14. Everyone has common sense enough NOT to conclude that
Alice was my wife at 14!
Jorge Quierrez Jr.
INC in the Phil.?
Roy Armada Fidelis
So, using the word divinely begotten, and setting aside the term Eternal Son, What was Christ first existence?
Joey Candelaria
Christ is the Word.
But the question is, If God the Father became
only a Father because of creation, who is He prior to creation? What is the
distinction of the Triune God before creation?
Sing F Lau
Joey, know the distinction
May the Lord grant you understanding
Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.
Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.
In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.
Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father, the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.
Joey Candelaria
If Jesus is the Word, and Holy Ghost is the
Spirit/Holy Ghost before creation, who is the Father among the Triune God?
Joey Candelaria
*[[1Jn 5:7]] KJV* For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one.
I don't know if this verse is applicable
prior to the creation.
Roy Armada Fidelis
So you don't believe in the eternal sonship of
Christ?
Sing F Lau
You do, I don't.
I believe in the begotten Sonship when the
eternal Word was divinely MADE flesh... the eternal Word is not the Son; the
eternal Word who took upon Himself flesh and blood is the Son.
Marty-Sandy Smith
There are at least 3 scriptural aspects of
sonship:
- (1) A son is one who is begotten of, or born of, his father, e.g. I
Peter 1:3,
- (2) A son is one who receives or acknowledges his father, e.g. John
1:12-13, and
- (3) A son is one who emulates or obeys his father, e.g.
Philippians 2:14-16.
It is thus possible, within the scope of
scripture, to embrace the doctrine of "the eternal Son of God"
without advocating the doctrine of "the eternally begotten Son of
God". For prior to his incarnation, God the Son both received and obeyed
God the Father, acting in accordance with the Father's will even when he came
to be born of a virgin.
