Dizerner
Active Member
no problem friend
The Eternal Son
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
no problem friend
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Is it not true that most think of Jesus as having been begotten?
Nicene Creed, first part
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
And the reason for this is because until Jesus walked the earth as God's begotten
Son, no one ever heard of him, by name, and therefore begotten is always used
with His name.
What I would like to know is this. There are references in the Old Testament to God referring to
Him as Father in a varied way.
Jeremiah 31:9, They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel…
Isaiah 64:8, But now, O LORD, thou art our father; … and we all are the work of thy hand.
Isaiah 63:16, Doubtless thou art our father, …, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Deuteronomy 32:6, Do ye thus requite the LORD,…? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?
Jeremiah 3:19, …I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.
Malachi 1:6, A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honor?
Malachi 2:10, Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
Proverbs 3:12, For whom the LORD loves he corrects even as a father the son in whom he delights.
Hosea 1:10, Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered;… Ye are the sons of the living God.
Would this be because God was always a Father, even before creation?
If so... then WHY?
Why was He a Father before time? Which of course would lead to a Son (or child) before time.
What could have been the necessity for the titles here?
civic
Active Member
nope the Triune God has always shared the same attributes, before creation, after creation. pre Incarnation, post Incarnation and throughout all eternity.
don't confuse attributes with function/roles.
next fallacy
DavidTree
Active Member
civic
Active Member
Here is the problem. We cannot impose our humanity/family/conception/creation onto God. God has always been Triune as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. There never was a time when They were not the One God identified as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The only thing that changed within the Trinity is the Son became human via the Incarnation. So the Son is now permanently both Divine/Deity and humanity. Forever God Incarnate, in the flesh.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Pretty pretty pretty please with a cherry on top?
BTW. I think that was the only time I ever said no to you.
civic
Active Member
monogenes is used five times, all in the writings of the apostle John, of Christ as the Son of God; it is translated "only begotten" in Heb 11:17 of the relationship of Isaac to Abraham.
With reference to Christ, the phrase "the only begotten from the Father," John 1:14, RV (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before "only begotten" and before "Father," and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The apostle's object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, "from." The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word "begotten" does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.
We can only rightly understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. "The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father" (Moule). The expression also suggests the thought of the deepest affection, as in the case of the OT word yachid, variously rendered, "only one," Gen 22:2, 12; "only son," Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10; "only beloved," Prov 4:3, and "darling," Ps 22:20, 35:17.
In John 1:18 the clause "the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father," expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father's counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, "God only-begotten." In John 3:16 the statement, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son," must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase "the name of the only begotten son of God" lays stress upon the full revelation of God's character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the object of faith. In 1 John 4:9 the statement "God hath sent His only begotten son into the world" does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cf. the parallel statement, "God sent forth the Spirit of His Son," Gal 4:6, RV, which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.) @Dizerner
hope this helps !!!
DavidTree
Active Member
Much more valuable and important is your Post #2,611 from the 'Works Salvation' thread
PLEASE keep in mind that the passage/Commandment from the OT that i will post is all about the LJC and your post #2,611 from the thread
'Works Salvation'
i will reply to your post on 'Works Salvation'
civic
Active Member
And here @Red Baker @Dizerner and whoever else denies the Eternal Sonship of Christ.
The Use in the New Testament: 1. In the NT Mono-genes occurs only in Lk, Jn. and Hb., not Mk., Mt. or Pl. It is thus found only in later writings. It means "only-begotten." Thus in Hb. Isaac is the Mono-genes, of Abraham (11:17), in Lk. the dead man raised up again at Nain is the only son of his mother (7:12). the daughter of Jairus is the only child (8:42), and the demoniac boy is the only son of his father (8:42). 2. Only Jn. uses Mono-genes, to describe the relation of Jesus to God. Mk. ... The further step taken by Jn. to describe Jesus corresponds to the fact that believers who as children of God are called [Greek] the same word as is applied to Jesus - in Mt., Pl. etc., are always called [Greek] in Jn., 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn.3:1, 2, 10, 5:2, while [Greek] is reserved for Jesus. Jn. emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship. It is not that Jesus is not unique in this sonship for Mt., Pl. etc. also. His Messiah-ship proves this. But Jn. puts it in an illuminating and easily remembered formula which was taken up into the baptismal confession and which ever since has formed an inalienable part of the creed of the Church. To Mono-genes, as a designation of Jesus corresponds the fact that God is the [Greek], of Jesus, Jn. 5:18; for [Greek], means to be in a special relation to Jesus which excludes the same relation to others. Mono-genes occurs in Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9. What is meant is plainest in Jn. 3:16 and I Jn. 4:9. Because Jesus is the only Son of God, His sending into the world is the supreme proof of God's love for the world. On the other side, it is only as the only-begotten Son of God that Jesus can mediate life and salvation from perdition. For life is given only in Him, Jn. 5:26. But the fact that He is the only-begotten Son means also that men are obligated to believe in Him, and that they come under judgment, indeed, have done so already, if they withhold faith from Him, 3:18. Mono-genes is thus a predicate of majesty. This is true in Jn. 1:18. Here we are to read [Greek]. 14 As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God. There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship. He shares everything with this Son. For this reason Jesus can give what no man can give, namely, the fullest possible eye-witness account of God. He knows God, not just from hearsay, but from incomparably close intercourse with Him. In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9, 1: 18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: [Greek], His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of Mono-genes is very emphatically against taking [Greek] Mono-genes as a mere comparison. In Jn. 1: 14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 Mono-genes denotes more than the uniqueness or Incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1-14. In Jn. Mono-genes denotes the origin of Jesus. He is Mono-genes, as the only-begotten. What Jn. means by [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek] in detail can be known in its full import only in the light of the whole of John's proclamation. For [Greek] is simply a special form of [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek]. When Jn. speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord. The relation of the pre-existent Lord to God is that of Son to Father. This comes out Indisputably in John 17:5, 24. Jesus is aware that He was with God, and was loved by Him, and endued with glory, before the foundation of the world. This is personal fellowship with God, divine sonship. It is true that neither In the prologue, nor 8:58, nor c. 17 does Jn. use the term "son" for the pre-existent Lord. But He describes His relation to God as that of a son. To maintain that in Jn. the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the Son is only the historical and risen Lord, is to draw too sharp a line between the pre-existence on the one side and the historical and post-historical life on the other. In Jn. the Lord is always the Son. Because He alone was God's Son before the foundation of the world, because the whole love of the Father is for Him alone, because He alone is one with God, because the title God may be ascribed to Him alone, He is the only-begotten Son of God. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Gerhard Kittel, Buchsel, 1967, Vol. IV, p 737-741)
The Use in the New Testament: 1. In the NT Mono-genes occurs only in Lk, Jn. and Hb., not Mk., Mt. or Pl. It is thus found only in later writings. It means "only-begotten." Thus in Hb. Isaac is the Mono-genes, of Abraham (11:17), in Lk. the dead man raised up again at Nain is the only son of his mother (7:12). the daughter of Jairus is the only child (8:42), and the demoniac boy is the only son of his father (8:42). 2. Only Jn. uses Mono-genes, to describe the relation of Jesus to God. Mk. ... The further step taken by Jn. to describe Jesus corresponds to the fact that believers who as children of God are called [Greek] the same word as is applied to Jesus - in Mt., Pl. etc., are always called [Greek] in Jn., 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn.3:1, 2, 10, 5:2, while [Greek] is reserved for Jesus. Jn. emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship. It is not that Jesus is not unique in this sonship for Mt., Pl. etc. also. His Messiah-ship proves this. But Jn. puts it in an illuminating and easily remembered formula which was taken up into the baptismal confession and which ever since has formed an inalienable part of the creed of the Church. To Mono-genes, as a designation of Jesus corresponds the fact that God is the [Greek], of Jesus, Jn. 5:18; for [Greek], means to be in a special relation to Jesus which excludes the same relation to others. Mono-genes occurs in Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9. What is meant is plainest in Jn. 3:16 and I Jn. 4:9. Because Jesus is the only Son of God, His sending into the world is the supreme proof of God's love for the world. On the other side, it is only as the only-begotten Son of God that Jesus can mediate life and salvation from perdition. For life is given only in Him, Jn. 5:26. But the fact that He is the only-begotten Son means also that men are obligated to believe in Him, and that they come under judgment, indeed, have done so already, if they withhold faith from Him, 3:18. Mono-genes is thus a predicate of majesty. This is true in Jn. 1:18. Here we are to read [Greek]. 14 As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God. There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship. He shares everything with this Son. For this reason Jesus can give what no man can give, namely, the fullest possible eye-witness account of God. He knows God, not just from hearsay, but from incomparably close intercourse with Him. In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9, 1: 18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: [Greek], His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of Mono-genes is very emphatically against taking [Greek] Mono-genes as a mere comparison. In Jn. 1: 14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 Mono-genes denotes more than the uniqueness or Incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1-14. In Jn. Mono-genes denotes the origin of Jesus. He is Mono-genes, as the only-begotten. What Jn. means by [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek] in detail can be known in its full import only in the light of the whole of John's proclamation. For [Greek] is simply a special form of [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek]. When Jn. speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord. The relation of the pre-existent Lord to God is that of Son to Father. This comes out Indisputably in John 17:5, 24. Jesus is aware that He was with God, and was loved by Him, and endued with glory, before the foundation of the world. This is personal fellowship with God, divine sonship. It is true that neither In the prologue, nor 8:58, nor c. 17 does Jn. use the term "son" for the pre-existent Lord. But He describes His relation to God as that of a son. To maintain that in Jn. the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the Son is only the historical and risen Lord, is to draw too sharp a line between the pre-existence on the one side and the historical and post-historical life on the other. In Jn. the Lord is always the Son. Because He alone was God's Son before the foundation of the world, because the whole love of the Father is for Him alone, because He alone is one with God, because the title God may be ascribed to Him alone, He is the only-begotten Son of God. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Gerhard Kittel, Buchsel, 1967, Vol. IV, p 737-741)
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@civic
HOW DO YOU KNOW ?
There were no written words before
Word of mouth? How come Moses did not start out with Before the Spirit was hovering over the waters, the creator(s) were sitting around the ole camp fire discussing what they would do and who would do what? OR The God, who was the CEO of creation
was delegating plans for who would speak actual words, that could be heard so someone would either pass it down to
the generations ? OR The God was busy with His giant sketch pad drawing up blue prints and making models of what would be on this earth with his giant modeling clay, Lincoln Logs and Silly putty, possibly with the Word or the Holy Spirit working at the giant, junior chemistry set.
I know... very silly but we have zero way to know before the Holy spirit was hovering over those waters what actually took place.
It was not revealed, as I suppose that "There was NO need to Know.!
But @civic, would it have any effect on you or your salvation if some ancient document came to light that said A long, long time ago above a galaxy far, far away there were 3 in this single Godhead that were doing and creating together. They made the angels and other heavenly things and then the idea for earth took place. AND THE NAMES OF THE THREE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITS WERE THE GOD , THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.
And maybe, just maybe 30 or 40 quintillion years later the plan, almost ready, started with The God, telling the Word that the word was going to become as one of the flesh and blood people they were going to make BECAUSE there were going to be a tremendous amount of sinning taking place because they had decided to give a measure of free will to every person born, and they had decided that whoever would love them, and believe in the, and have the measure of Faith in the incarnated man to be named Jesus..... because He would save those who loved Him and had Faith in Him.
And so it began. It began with the Word being called son and The God being called Father before First day so that The Word would be used to it when he was here.... because in addition to everything else, they were not going to make man to be overly intelligent. A little lower then the angel's intelligence etc. etc. etc.
Now @civic ... would this alter your view in any way to possibly learn that The God, and the Word did not start using the terms Father and Son as far back as you think?
To me it makes no difference... They always have been the Trinity... They always will with Jesus moving into the Words place
DavidTree
Active Member
It was not revealed, as I suppose that "There was NO need to Know.!
correct
DavidTree
Active Member
Is this not what you just stated you are doing........imposing human terms upon Elohim from Eternity
civic
Active Member
Please don't take this wrong but you are making the same fallacious argument that the JW's do with the only name for God- Jehovah. You are doing the same with the Son with the Word.
Here is a list for the names of God- God is not only YHWH/ Jehovah.
- El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
- El Elyon (The Most High God)
- Adonai (Lord, Master)
- Yahweh (Lord, Jehovah)
- Jehovah Nissi (The Lord My Banner)
- Jehovah-Raah (The Lord My Shepherd)
- Jehovah Rapha (The Lord That Heals)
- Jehovah Shammah (The Lord Is There)
- Jehovah Tsidkenu (The Lord Our Righteousness)
- Jehovah Mekoddishkem (The Lord Who Sanctifies You)
- El Olam (The Everlasting God)
- Elohim (God)
- Qanna (Jealous)
- Jehovah Jireh (The Lord Will Provide)
- Jehovah Shalom (The Lord Is Peace)
- Jehovah Sabaoth (The Lord of Hosts)
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Geesh.....
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I've had an interesting journey in theology. I can assure you that came to a point in my life many years ago that tried to abandon every presupposition I'd ever known.
Relative to the doctrine of the "Eternal Son", I never presupposed such before I knew the Scriptures that support the doctrine.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I don't see what you're seeing here. Can you elborate?
Also, do you notice that Christ has a name that only He knows alone?
Jay
Active Member
Sounds right to me.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
More like First and Second Adam.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I'm glad you brought this up..... It is an excellent point where we can discern the Scriptures....
Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Jos_4:9 And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant stood: and they are there unto this day.
John The Baptist as recorded in Matthew and Luke's writings reminds us what a son really is. It isn't all about flesh and bone. Nor is it about rules and regulations defined to control a "child/son" until they come to the "station" of an heir.
Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
There are no real sons without the Character and Morality or likeness repeated in the descendent.
The "Son" Innately Personifies the "Father".
FreeInChrist
Active Member
You do not know when it began.
You cannot prove that but one thing to consider....
I believe we both agree that in Genesis , the Word was there. Is that not true?
John 1 opened with talk of the Word. Is that also not true?
Then why would wording in Genesis not reflect it was the Son speaking?
Not until John 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Verse 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
And here He is not called Son yet.
In the New Testament, Jesus is first mentioned in Luke 1:32, which states "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." This verse is significant because it marks the beginning of Jesus' role as the Son of God.
So if the was the start of Jesus being the Son of God.... something is amuiss that it was not revealed earlier to those
writing the scriptures that the Son has always been.
