Quote:
OK, I'm a bit confused. I'm pretty sure that earlier in the thread you agreed that he was always the Son, but were only questioning "eternally begotten". Are you now saying you no longer believe he was always the Son as well?


Sorry Brian...it does not happen often, but I have seemed to accomplish all on my own, confusing myself as well. :( This is not something I have ever thought about, heard about or was told was important. Did not even know it could be a question, other than those who deny that Jesus IS the Son of God, and IS God. Learn something new everyday.

It does not say God sent His Son...but that He sent His only begotten Son. The Second Person of the Godhead, was never begotten. Only the man Jesus was...we have both agreed to that, right?

I was reading something last night and wanted to share this with you, and I will make my comments a different color.

Heb 1:2 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;

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

He does not say that He IS His Father, but that He WILL be TO Him a Father, and that He Jesus, SHALL BE TO Me a Son. Hang with me...

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

This verse definitely tells us that Jesus is God!

So I see that Jesus is God, and He is a man, and He was not eternally begotten. As to whether or not the Second Person of the Godhead was always given the title of Son, I am not sure, because I do not find it in the OT Scriptures. However...hang with me...

Quote:
Forgoing the OT verses that have already been discussed a bit, what about all the NT verses that talk about God sending his Son - not sending someone that became his Son when he arrived. If I send my son into the store, he is my son before he gets to the store, he is my son for his entire existence prior to entering the store. He doesn't become my son just because he arrived at where he was sent.


I can see what you are saying, and I am thinking about this. Brian, do you think it makes any difference whether He always was the Son, equal in all ways with the Father, but was called, Son, or had the relationship of Son to the Father? Do you think this is somehow a salvation issue? Just want to be clear, and the importance of knowing this.

Quote:
Those are not the only possible answers. As I indicated in my previous response to you, I said that I believe that begotten can not only refer to his incarnation and his resurrection, but also his special unique relationship with the Father, like Isaac had with Abraham. Look at 1 John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." Does this not say that the person that was sent was the only begotten Son, and that the only begotten Son was sent into the world? I.e. that he was already "the only begotten Son" when he was sent, not just when he arrived?


Well, the Scripture that is most convincing that Jesus has always been the Son in relationship with the Father, to my mind is this one:

1Jo 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.

I have found some others which tell me that the relationship with the Father was always as Son. This one makes this discussion pretty important to my mind.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Quote:
Another small(?) issue - I noticed you said "conception", and not "birth". I'm not disagreeing with that (I usually simply use the word "incarnation";) , and maybe it's just semantics, but the "conception" happened approximately 9 months (I presume) before the "birth". Does this have any bearing on the issue?


Hmmm...interesting that I used that, but I believe He was fully God and fully man, in the womb at conception, when He was begotten as a man. But then I believe life begins at conception. That is the only bearing I see on the issue...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUr only difference....at least I think, is that I do not see the relationship pryor to the physical birth of Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:
How could there not be a relationship???


Well, I put that quite poorly...I meant that pryor to His being begotten, I did not at first see the relationship with the Father as Son...but now I am seeing that might not be the case, that the relationship was always as Father and Son, though equal. And Jesus was manifested as the Son of God, the only begotten of God, but not eternally begotten.


Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you are wrestling with this one, maybe this will help.

For the remission of sins - Not merely the sin of crucifying the Messiah, but of all sins. There is nothing in baptism itself that can wash away sin. That can be done only by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be pardoned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our conviction that there is no other way of remission. He who comes to be baptized, comes with a professed conviction that he is a sinner; that there is no other way of mercy but in the gospel, and with a professed willingness to comply with the terms of salvation, and to receive it as it is offered through Jesus Christ. Barnes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
by Brian: Well, I'm not sure if I agree with "Barnes" on this, but regardless: if one accepts that interpretation for Acts 2:38, one could accept it in the same way in the Nicene Creed, right?


In a way, yes, but that is not what they meant in the Creed, they meant that Baptism literally the rite and the water absolves sins, and that is not Biblical truth. To accept it would be turning a blind eye, because some Churches still teach salvation via baptism, which I believe is false....

Quote:
If you feel I have not responded to anything you particularly wanted me to, just let me know.


You have been doing a great job, because you have studied this and knew the question. You have also done a great job in putting up with me studying this out with you, and I sincerely appreciate that! This subject is much deeper than I first believed, and it is slowly coming clear as the word of God is showing me. I am very much enjoying this, as it is really fun to learn new and deep things of God. :D



Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. <br><br><br>Mari