ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 758
Dec 20 06 1:20 AM
Lover of the Word
Quote:Well, to be honest I have a couple problems with that statement. First, no, I believe he was begotten (not in terms of a physical birth) eternally, not just at the physical incarnation/birth. Second, I'm not comfortable with the term "the man Jesus" in contrast to "the Second Person of the Godhead".
Quote:I *think* you're just trying to refer to the beginning of his humanness (and I'll agree with you in that sense), but "the man Jesus" is "the Second Person of the Godhead". He is God, manifested in flesh - not God with, but separate from, the flesh. I think you agree, but I'm a stickler for accurate Trinitarian doctrine.
Quote:True, but that doesn't preclude him being a Son already. For example, at my 50th wedding anniversary (assuming we live that long ), she "shall be" my wife - even though she is already my wife now.Also note that the verse is actually not saying that God says this to Jesus, but rather it is asking the rhetorical question: to which of the angels will he say of them, they "shall be" his Son? The answer of course is "none of them". He already has a Son.
Quote:I don't think it's a salvation issue. Mostly, it's just a terminology debate, and a rose by any other name is still a rose. However, I also don't think it's a pointless debate either - I think an accurate understanding of his relationship and role as the second person of the Trinity, not just now but in the past as well, is important.
Quote:If you agree that he was always "Son", then I don't think it's a big issue about disagreeing over "eternally begotten". I use "eternally begotten" to describe the eternal relationship of Son to Father. Since you agree he was eternally Son and had that relationship, I think you *do* believe in "eternally begotten" even though you don't like the term itself. Does that make sense?
Quote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm a bit puzzled: how do you know it means one thing in the Creed, but another in the scriptures, while they both use the same wording?
Quote:They (we) don't. Shain, like many KJV-only supporters, takes things too personally and thinks that opposition to a doctrine about the KJV is opposition to the KJV itself.
Share This