ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 85958
Nov 25 06 3:35 PM
Administrator
Quote: - "We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was so begotten" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (from the same paragraph you asked me to quote!)
Quote: - "the Word became the Son" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (middle of right-most
Quote:- "His Sonship, which began at His incarnation" (BBB, Oct 02, page 8 (bottom of 3rd column)
Quote: "Eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No!" (BBB, Oct 02, page 16 (middle of second column))
Posts: 1861
Nov 25 06 5:21 PM
Quote:This is from Ruckman: Quote: ..." for they ( Ruckman, Herb Evans, & Riplinger) believe in the preexistent Word was deity or God and that the God/man, the Son of God is also deity or God. This straw-man issue is merely a semantics exploitation of the Title rather than the Being or Person of our Lord. The contention is over whether HIS Title as the " Son of God " ( rather than His Being) originated and functioned in eternity or time. We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was MADE flesh and dwelt among us not that God the Son was made flesh ( Jn. 1:1,14)
Quote:Now who are we to believe you or the Word of God.
Quote:Before the " Son of God", came into the World and was crucified died and rose from the dead, was anyone saved by GRACE ALONE? If Jesus Christ did not come ( Begotten) he would not be the " Eternal Son-ship" because the Word of God says so, not because those who believe in the " Eternal Son-ship" do.
Quote:As I said before, I never gave this any thought before ,
Quote: Quote: - "We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was so begotten" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (from the same paragraph you asked me to quote!) This is correct, there was no Son in the Flesh until he was begotten, period.
Quote: Quote: - "the Word became the Son" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (middle of right-mostThis is also correct, the Word became the Son in the flesh when the Word was Begotten.
Quote: - "His Sonship, which began at His incarnation" (BBB, Oct 02, page 8 (bottom of 3rd column)Once again this is correct, the Son became flesh and dwelt among us.
Quote:For those who do not have this information they are at the mercy of those who do, and they have no idea at all how badly this has been distorted.
Posts: 758
Nov 26 06 7:21 PM
Lover of the Word
Nov 27 06 8:04 AM
Dec 2 06 6:46 PM
Quote:Shain, I am completely at a loss how you are interpreting this to mean the exact opposite of what it says. Let's look at it - are they saying that the Word was the Son before he was made flesh? NO, they are "saying that The Word was not the Son before He was made flesh". Are they saying that God the Son was made flesh? NO they they are saying "not that God the Son was made flesh".
Quote:What?? I have no idea what you're trying to say. "Eternal Sonship" is the term used to label the belief that he was rightfully called the "Son" of God before his incarnation. Period.
Quote: The quote does not say "not the Son in the flesh", it says "not the Son".
Quote:But they deny the Son became the Son in the flesh. They believe he wasn't the "Son" until he came in the flesh. They believe the Word became the Son when he was made flesh.
Quote:Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Dec 7 06 1:13 AM
Quote: by Brian: It depends on how you mean "begotten". If you're using it to mean "born", i.e. a beginning, then you are right. However, as I've said earlier, orthodox Trinitarian thought says that he was eternally begotten of the father - not referring to a birth or beginning, but instead of the special relationship of Father to Son - which existed into eternity past. In that sense, he was and is begotten.
Quote:Notice also that the text says "God sent his only begotten Son into the world" and not "God sent his only Son to be begotten into the world" - do you see the difference?
Quote:One more example may help clarify this point: Hebrews 11:17 says Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten Son". This can not be referring to the birthing of Isaac, because Abraham also had another son, Ishmael. Instead, the phrase signifies the special unique relationship had between that father and son, a relationship not shared with anyone else, not even Ishmael.
Quote:Yes, of course a Creed is not scripture. However, it is simply the church explaining its position, its understanding of the scripture. In other words, it appears in the creed not because the church wanted to add it to scripture, but because that's what the church saw the scripture as saying in the first place. I.e. "God sent his begotten Son" as meaning he was begotten before being sent (not just after), and thus since he had no beginning "eternally begotten" is simply the term to explain how he was begotten before his incarnation. Its simply a term to explain how he was the "Son" yet without a beginning.
Dec 9 06 12:46 PM
Dec 9 06 7:10 PM
Dec 10 06 6:56 PM
Dec 11 06 1:45 AM
Dec 11 06 8:53 AM
Dec 11 06 4:29 PM
Quote:What Ruckman is saying is that there was no " Flesh " until the Word was born. There was no " Internal Sonship," because the Word wasn't even born yet.
Quote:Show us the scripture that says Jesus Christ was always the eternal Son of God.
Quote:In order to be Son of God, there would have had to be a beginning for the Son
Quote:Brian...so sorry, my server was messed up for almost a week! It is really difficult anymore to be without a computer!
Quote:I am speaking of born, as Jesus was born of a virgin. That is what the Bible tells us, and that is what I am sticking too.
Quote: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: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: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: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: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?
Dec 13 06 4:11 PM
Quote: Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? Yet future event..Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Dec 13 06 5:02 PM
Quote:Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?Yet future event..
Quote: Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.There are differing opinions on this verse of scripture and what Son of God means here.
Dec 14 06 8:30 PM
Quote: Ignatius was bishop of Antioch in this century, after the first bishop of that place Evodius, and was early in it, if any truth in these reports that he was the child Christ took in his arms, when he rebuked his disciples; and that he saw Christ after his resurrection; but though these are things not to be depended on, yet it is certain that he lived in the latter end of the first century, and suffered martyrdom in the beginning of the second. Several epistles of his are extant, in which, as well as by words, he exhorted the saints to beware of heresies then springing up among them, and abounding, as Eusebius observes;16 meaning the heresies of Ebion arid Cerinthus about the person of Christ: and says many things which shew his belief, and what was their error. In one of his epistles17 he exhorts to decline from some persons, as beasts, as ravenous dogs, biting secretly, and difficult of cure; and adds, "there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten. God made flesh, in a true and immortal life, who is both of Mary and of God." In a larger epistle to the same,18 thought by some to be interpolated, though it expresses the same sentiment; "our physician is alone the true God, the unbegotten and invisible Lord of all, the Father and begetter of the only begotten one; we have also a physician, or Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son before the world, and the word, and at last man of the virgin Mary;" and afterwards in the same19 epistle still more expressly, "the Son of God, who was begotten before the world was, and constitutes all things according to the will of the Father, he was bore in the womb by Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the seed of David by the Holy Ghost." And a little farther,20
Dec 14 06 8:54 PM
Dec 14 06 9:09 PM
Quote:Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Quote:What is his sons name - Some copies of the Septuagint have η τι ονομα τοις τικνοιο αυτου; Or the name of his sons; meaning, I suppose, the holy angels, called his saints or holy ones, Pro_30:3.The Arabic has, What is his name? and what is the name of his father? him who begat him. But the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, read as the Hebrew.Many are of opinion that Agur refers here to the first and second persons of the everblessed Trinity. It may be so; but who would venture to rest the proof of that most glorious doctrine upon such a text, to say nothing of the obscure author? The doctrine is true, sublimely true; but many doctrines have suffered in controversy, by improper texts being urged in their favor. Every lover of God and truth should be very choice in his selections, when he comes forward in behalf of the more mysterious doctrines of the Bible. Quote nothing that is not clear: advance nothing that does not tell. When we are obliged to spend a world of critical labor, in order to establish the sense of a text which we intend to allege in favor of the doctrine we wish to support, we may rest assured that we are going the wrong way to work. Those who indiscriminately amass every text of Scripture they think bears upon the subject they defend, give their adversaries great advantage against them. I see many a sacred doctrine suffering through the bad judgment of its friends every day. The Godhead of Christ, salvation by faith, the great atoning sacrifice, and other essential doctrines of this class, are all suffering in this way. My heart says, with deep concern,Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis,Tempus eget.When truth is assailed by all kinds of weapons, handled by the most powerful foes, injudicious defenders may be ranked among its enemies. To such we may innocently say, Keep your cabins; you do assist the storm.
Dec 14 06 10:06 PM
Quote:I agree Jesus was born of a virgin. The issue (I'm discussing with you, Shain's still suck on Sonship) is whether "begotten" always refers to that birth. I think it doesn't, because besides physical birth, the KJV uses it in three other senses: physical resurrection (Acts 13:33, Rev 1:5), spiritual birth (Philemon 1:10, 1 Pet 1:3, 1 John 5:1, etc.), and unique relationship (Heb 11:17). Maybe you think I'm saying "begotten" does not mean physical birth - if so, sorry for not being clearer. I *do* believe it means physical birth, I just also believe it can mean other things too, as just explained.
Dec 14 06 11:08 PM
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.
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.
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).
Quote:Exactly. Special unique relationship with Abraham that Ishmael did not have, even though Ishmael was physically born from Abraham.
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.
Dec 15 06 12:45 AM
Quote:I will not go back repeat what I have already said. I have re-read all the post here and the sticking point again is trying to pin something on a group of believers that's simply not true. KJV's all believe in the Trinity, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Quote:I just don't the Scriptures anywhere showing Jesus as the eternal Son
Quote: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?
Quote:OUr only difference....at least I think, is that I do not see the relationship pryor to the physical birth of Jesus.
Quote: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
Share This