djc49 wrote:
*Mike* | New York --
Yes, the FUTURE!
As indicated in Heb 1:5 (and elsewhere), the future time when the 2nd Person of the Trinity was to become "begotten" of the Father is in reference to the 2nd Person of the Trinity taking on FLESH (being made The Christ) and having become perfected by the resurrection and ascension, He was thereby "begotten."

Are you saying that the "begotten" has reference only to his incarnation?

And is the second person of the Trinity called a Son before he was "begotten" in the flesh, or is He referred to as the Son because of his "begotteness"?

If you believe He is eternally begotten, how do you conceive this? As formulated at Nicea?

____________________________________

Hey Jim

Is this the same John MacArthur who was hauled up for heresy on this very issue?

Mike wrote:
Sure. If he is eternally the Son, how do we "fit" the time-related phrases "..this day have I begotten thee" and, "..I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"?

I think Hebrews 1.6 (the verse immediately following the one you cited) answers your question viz.:

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

The verse implies that he was already the firstbegotten before he was brought into the world!!

The quotation in verse 5 is from Psalm 2 verse 6. The time signature "this day" is uncertain. But, these words are a declaration of a decree in connection with the Lord's anointed. It may therefore have no connection to any kind of "generation" but may be a reference to a "coregency". The son of a King often being a coregent.
____________________________________

Hidemi

Mike wrote:
How do we understand this verse in light of divinity?
Hebrews 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?"

Presbyfacts wrote:
WHY Baptist?
The basis behind founding a denomination upon "baptism" and seeking to identify with and in, this, is to provide a greater human participation, than paedobaptism allows or is perceived to secure.
This is why profession and immersion emerged in recent centuries, in *OPPOSITION* to covenantal infant baptism.
It is as if there was a kind of reactive resistance against the historic church sacrament. Even as we have seen down to changing the term sacrament itself. But reaction does not make for theologically or Biblically correct. It simply implies another method was brought to bear upon the ceremony, and support elicited from theology for it.
Hence the establishing of a new denomination.

Where did "Presbyterian" polity exist before the Reformation?

Hidemi Williges wrote:
My point is that Jesus (His human existence) is begotten considering that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in his human birth. I think that "one and only" is too broad a definition considering that an adopted son could also be a "one and only" son.

Hidemi Williges wrote:
My point is that Jesus (His human existence) is begotten considering that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in his human birth. I think that "one and only" is too broad a definition considering that an adopted son could also be a "one and only" son.

Hidemi Williges wrote:
be⋅get..

If we are going to consider this linguistically then we need to go back and refer to how the Greek word is used. The definition of the English word is of no help.

BUT let us put aside the linguistic considerations for just one moment and let me ask you a simple question. Is Christ, like the Father, self existent? Is it a necessary property of Divinity to be self existent? If so, how can he be said to be "generated"?

Any thoughts?

And if the idea of "generation" is true of Christ, why not of the Holy Ghost as well? Is it merely because the Holy Ghost is never referred to as "a Son"?

How can you be sure that the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to distinguish essential personal properties in the Godhead and that they do not serve an entirely different purpose?

Why is the Holy Ghost so called? Is He holier than the other 2 members of the Godhead? Or is He Spirit and the others are not? Or is it that He is a "Holy" Spirit, but the others are not?

If you say, that is absurd reasoning, then all I would say that it is analogous to the kind of reasoning that is used to come up with the doctrine of "generation"!

Falconer wrote:
γενοσ - comes out as offspring, progeny, lineage, .....etc
Therefore "one only" offspring.....

"Only begotten" Son or

"One only" Son

Theologically speaking we are sons by adoption. Christ is said to be God's "one only" Son, but in Scripture we are never told anything more of how or why. That he is eternally the Son, no one doubts any more than they do that the Father is eternally the Father. But the whole notion that because of the titles of Father and Son we are to conclude that there was some sort of "generation" is surely going beyond the Scriptures, seems to me to be absurd and ought not to be admitted. It would make Christ and the Holy Ghost NOT self existent, but dependent for their existence on the Father who is alone the "unbegotten" according to Nicea!

Falconer wrote:
Do you then have similar 'problems' with "0nly begotten" [μονογενη](monogenae) describing Christ?
eg
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his *only begotten* Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3.16
Is this where Nicene may have tried to carry through the terms it used?

All I would say is that [μονογενη](monogenae)can equally be translated "one only" instead of "only begotten".

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Biblicist, to answer your question about the Godhead, I think the Trinity is a viable "theory" or explanation/point of view but should not be pushed .. No, I am not anti-trinitarian.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Oh well, I speak as a linguist and know what more "complex" languages are able to convey to the reader, but hey, Biblicist, at least we agree on something for a change!

And BTW, I am sure that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
And a much more precise English, something that can more readily relay meaning from the original languages.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
One of the reasons that the KJV translators put the Bible into the "vulgar" tongue.

Maybe you should improve your reading skills, because I would say that a 12 year old whose mother tongue is English should be able to read and understand the majority of it.

ZxxZ wrote:
Because having sovereign power over nothing - is not having power over anything. Exit sovereignty.

Eddy Fying wrote:
Take for example the term "sovereignty" Many in the churches display a lack of understanding here too.
OR
Is it because proper definition of it would upset their pet doctrines on the amazing saving power of sinners?
EG.

Perhaps he has not grasped that the Queen is mortal. Education??
Sovereignty of GOD is actually something quite different from a mortal, Biblicist.

Even in the process of salvation he addresses the person's intellect. Through preaching, and the blessings of the Holy Spirit he moves the heart and brings a person under conviction, so that that person comes voluntarily in faith to submit to Christ!

But you must have God executing all this personally because otherwise in your scheme of things God is not glorified, the creature is.

As I said earlier, you have light that enables you to see things which are not there in the Bible. So congratulations. You are a very special person indeed! Happy?

Alan H wrote:
It is my personal opinion that one of the greatest factors in this decline is "the translation controversy."

kenny wrote:
Jim,
That last post is so terribly misguided and full of half-(non) truths that I wouldn't know where to begin! You have to be trying to yank our collective chain.
No wonder that Tony What's-His-Name guy thinks your a closet Jesuit, Jim.

Mike wrote:
God is indeed sovereign, lad. It just doesn't mean what you think it does.

Tell me, why is the title of "sovereign" of more significance to the calvinists' than the term God?

Is being a king somehow more important than being God? Or do they imagine that God can be God and not exercise His reign over his creation?

___________________________________

John UK

Presbyfacts wrote:
God made the man and the ox - different!

You calvinist may talk a great deal about God's glory, but all we can see is you glorying in Calvin and your calvinism and how special you all are, because you are the elect and have light that no other group possesses.

Tough on all the rest of us that have no good news, eh? But then again we cannot do anything to change our status if we happen to be non-elect, nor can we fall in with your understanding of the Bible when you cannot even give a clear scripture exposition in support of your tenets. You are so busy proof texting that we are left wondering whether you ever read the Bible in a connected fashion.