Quote by mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where do you find in the Scriptures that say He was eternally begotten, not as born, but as relationship. Typing that does not even make sense.

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

Quote:
by Brian: Do you agree that Jesus as Son has a unique relationship with God, similar to the unique relationship that Isaac had with Abraham (Heb 11:17)? If so, did that relationship always exist, or did it have a beginning? I know you agree he was "Son" eternally, but do you think he was ever "Son" without also having that unique special Father-Son relationship? I don't, and that's all "eternally begotten" means.


In light of what I just posted, it will be interesting to see what you think. I really am not sure about how to answer your questions. I think God has always been the Godhead, but I don't see that the relationship was always as Son with the Father, until He manifested Himself in the flesh as His only begotten Son. I do not see that as the Second Person of the Godhead, that He always had a relationship with the Father as a Son. I just don't the Scriptures anywhere showing Jesus as the eternal Son, only when He emptied Himself of His glory and took on flesh, do I see Him regarded as the Son, and only begotten Son at that.

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

and He sent His only begotten Son, meaning that He did not send other's as His Son into the world as other Saviours, because there is only one, and that is Jesus Christ.

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

Quote:
by Brian: That would still be the case if "begotten" didn't appear in that verse. So why is "begotten" in the verse? Because the "begotten Son", not the "yet-to-be-begotten Son", was sent.


Only begotten is a statement of fact. Jesus is the only begotten of God. When did this occur? At the conception, or at the resurrection? Or both times? The whole point of Him being begotten of God is that Jesus is God, not the product of man. If you are speaking of the Psalm 2:7...he is saying he WILL declare...and the great purpose which was formed in regard to him.

Quoteby Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The distinction is that Jesus Christ is not a prophet, but the ONLY BEGOTTEN of God, His true Son. Do you understand and see that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Brian: Of course. I am just saying that Jesus was not only "begotten" at his birth. He was also "begotten" from the dead (resurrection), and also has always been "begotten" (had his unique special relationship with the Father).


Okay...so you believe what I asked above, that he was begotten at birth and at His resurrection. OUr only difference....at least I think, is that I do not see the relationship pryor to the physical birth of Jesus.

Wow...I hope I have not confused you with all this. I am not sure in some ways we are not saying the same thing. But, bottom line, I just don't see where Jesus is considered eternally begotten.


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

That Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham that fulfillment of the promises depended. The promises of God would not be fulfilled by Ishmael.

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

Quote:
Exactly. Special unique relationship with Abraham that Ishmael did not have, even though Ishmael was physically born from Abraham.


Okay, I admit it...I will have to look at this once again. It has been too long between posts. :Whiner




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

Brian, the Nicene creed also says this:

I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.

Do you believe that you are baptized for the remission of sins?

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

Quote:
Brian: I'm still wrestling with that issue, actually. No formal decisions yet. What's ironic about it, is that this statement in the Nicene Creed comes directly from Acts 2:38, which most KJV-only supporters like Shain like to point out has been "deleted" in other versions. Perhaps we should also ask Shain if he believes in being baptized for the remission of sins.


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

That just helped make it so clear to me, that and comparing Scripture to Scripture. At least that one is clear. :D
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. <br><br><br>Mari