Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/20/2008 4:49 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
What is the biblical basis for the Son becoming begotten by the Father? And why is it important?
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/20/2008 5:48 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Worthwhile question.
 
 
The thread title says "the son being eternally begotten by the father."
 
The lead question says "the Son becoming begotten by the Father."
 
(I bet you mean the first, H.)

The Christmas hymn (O Come All Ye Faithful) says "Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing."
 
 
For variety I'll post the statements and proof-texts of the Reformed tradition's Belgic Confession:

BC Article 10

The Deity of Christ
We believe that Jesus Christ,
according to his divine nature,
is the only Son of God—
      eternally begotten,
      not made nor created,
           for then he would be a creature.

He is one in essence with the Father;
coeternal;
the exact image of the person of the Father
and the "reflection of his glory,"^13
      being in all things like him.

He is the Son of God
not only from the time he assumed our nature
but from all eternity,
      as the following testimonies teach us
      when they are taken together.

Moses says that God "created the world";^14
and John says that "all things were created by the Word,"^15
           which he calls God.
      The apostle says that "God made the world by his Son."^16
He also says that "God created all things by Jesus Christ."^17

And so it must follow
that he who is called God, the Word, the Son, and Jesus Christ
already existed when all things were created by him.

Therefore the prophet Micah says
that his origin is "from ancient times,
      from eternity."^18
And the apostle says
that he has "neither beginning of days
      nor end of life."^19

      So then,
      he is the true eternal God,
      the Almighty,
      whom we invoke,
      worship,
      and serve.

^13 Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3
^14 Gen. 1:1
^15 John 1:3
^16 Heb. 1:2
^17 Col. 1:16
^18 Mic. 5:2
^19 Heb. 7:3

 


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/20/2008 5:49 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
What does Karl Barth say?


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/20/2008 6:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

As to why it is important...

Unless Christ is God (and unless he is man) we cannot be saved.

 

 


(o)

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 12:11 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I haven't read Barth fully on this. My point is asking is I just finished reading a article by Bruce Ware in which he advocates a hierarchy within the Godhead of authority, the Father having the most authority, with the Son next, then the Spirit in the rear. So I was wondering about the biblical basis for it. I know why its important that Jesus is God. I was wondering why it is that he has to be begotten by the Father. Could he not be God regardless...does this have to be one of the proofs...

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 12:42 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
H, I'm not going to dwell on the last two sentences, now. But I don't like the subortionism you say Bruce Ware has. Kallistos Ware would not. Nor John Chrysostom in his homily on 1 Cor. 15!!!

- the other Bruce


(o)

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 3:01 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
My reason for asking is that those who advocate such a view rely on Jesus being sent by the father to maintain that Jesus is subordinate to the father. This can be brought about by the view that the Father is the origin of the deity of the son and spirit. Horrell even quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as struggling with the implications of his own position, particularly before the Arians he was then fighting: "I should like to call the Father the greater, because from him flow both the equality and the being of the equals...but I am afraid to use the word Origin, lest I should make Him the Origin of inferiors, and thus insult Him by precedencies of honour. For the lowering of those who are from Him is no glory to the Source,"
Quoted from Jesus In Trinitarian Perspective.

It seems to me if one takes that view, that the Father is the origin (or source) of all divinity (including the Son and Spirit), then one does open oneself up to the issue of subordinationism. I am trying to get a handle on how to view this.


Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 9:44 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
feelinahole said...
My reason for asking is that those who advocate such a view rely on Jesus being sent by the father to maintain that Jesus is subordinate to the father. This can be brought about by the view that the Father is the origin of the deity of the son and spirit. Horrell even quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as struggling with the implications of his own position, particularly before the Arians he was then fighting: "I should like to call the Father the greater, because from him flow both the equality and the being of the equals...but I am afraid to use the word Origin, lest I should make Him the Origin of inferiors, and thus insult Him by precedencies of honour. For the lowering of those who are from Him is no glory to the Source,"
Quoted from Jesus In Trinitarian Perspective.

It seems to me if one takes that view, that the Father is the origin (or source) of all divinity (including the Son and Spirit), then one does open oneself up to the issue of subordinationism. I am trying to get a handle on how to view this.

 
I see.
 
I'm interested how you said "...quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as struggling with the implications of his own position." But it looks to me like Gregory's concern is with how his words might be twisted, or inappropriately built upon. So doesn't it mean (irregardless of Horell--and I don't know what his thesis was) that Gregory KNEW that he had to have both. Truth came before rhetoric, as the deposit of the apostles (Scripture and liturgy and relayed tradition directly from the apostles) holds authority.
 
Consonant with this is the doxological phrase "equal in honor."
 


(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/21/2008 9:16:21 PM (GMT-6)

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 10:23 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Regardless of whether or not Gregory was worried about his words being twisted (which may or may not be the case), it still is the case that one opens oneself up to the chargesof subordinationism. And regardless of whether or not truth came before rhetoric, truth must still be interpretated, particularly in the area of the Trinity. And I am sure we wouldn't agree as to what the deposit of the apostles consists of....
Besides equal in honor does not equate will equal in authority

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/21/2008 11:53 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The Trinity is "of one substance" and of "one will." Those of one will do not deal in authority -- as if one has to convince or cajole another. But only ONE of these is "in-originate (without source), while all are uncreated.

As to charges...every step forward was likely to make potential some backward motion. Gregory knew this. It happens.

I think the Son and the Spirit SHARE the authority of the Father, in oneness of will and in unity of action while often doing different tasks. How are we to understand the Gospel without THIS framework? Did the Spiriti have to be forced to descend like a dove, or was the Son shanghied? Horrors.


(o)

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/22/2008 1:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I agree, of course. But I wonder how only one could be without source while the others are uncreated. Such is God, I suppose. Still investigating...


Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/22/2008 5:57 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
feelinahole said...
And I am sure we wouldn't agree as to what the deposit of the apostles consists of....
Maybe not so much disagreement. I wrote "Scripture and liturgy and relayed tradition directly from the apostles." What I said first was scripture. Liturgy includes Paul saying "on the night he was betrayed..." as its both scripture and liturgy, and before Paul penned it is was "only" liturgy. The third is the handed down tradition of *treating* the Holy Spirit as God that St. Basil reported in his book "On the Holy Spirit" -- that was living doctrine, going back to the apostolic authority, just like scripture has.
 
Those were my thoughts.
 
B.


(o)

Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/23/2008 9:01 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
feelinahole said...
What is the biblical basis for the Son becoming begotten by the Father? And why is it important?
I don't know that it's necessary to believe that the Son was eternally begotten in order to deal with the subordination thing; it could be very well that if the Son was not begotten from eternity past that He was, and still is, in some sort of subordination position - the subordination not being one of essence but of God's makeup, if you will.
 
Starkman
 


 

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/23/2008 12:52 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
That is what I've been thinking. Those who profess some type of subordinationism ttend to use the fact that Jesus and the Spirit were sent, that Jesus was begotten. My way of thinking is that these descriptions simply indicate or are trying to show something that cannot be fully shown: the relationship between the three. I am not sure they are meant to be taken so exact when decribing their relationship.


Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/23/2008 5:43 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman said...
...not being one of essence but of God's makeup, if you will.
I don't understand that at all, Kieth.


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/23/2008 5:58 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

“To whom was the ransom (Christ’s death on the Cross) paid?”

QUOTE:

St. Gregory the Theologian on our Ransom by God

One of the greatest orators of his age, St. Gregory the Theologian (also known as Gregory Nazianzus), is considered among the most central of Church fathers. His work, and that of St. Basil the Great, did much to win the day for the Nicene Creed (by God’s grace) and to secure its completion at the first Council of Constantinople, where the Creed received its final and present form. He is not as easy to read for moderns as Augustine or some of the Latin Fathers. But is well worth the read. Below is a portion from his Second Paschal Oration in which he asks the question: “To whom was the ransom (Christ’s death on the Cross) paid?”

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence.

His final summation puts my garrulousness to shame.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/st-gregory-the-theologian-on-our-ransom-by-god/


(o)

Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 10:06 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PotOnWheel said...
Starkman said...
...not being one of essence but of God's makeup, if you will.
I don't understand that at all, Kieth.

Hmm... I do not believe, B., that the Son was begotten from or within eternity past; that the Father begat the Son prior to the birth of Christ. We differe here, but that's where I stand.
 
Second, if there is subornination within the Trinity (and I tend to believe there is), then this is how God has always existed as three persons "making up" the one God.
 
I tend to believe there is subordination within the Trinity because I can't see how one cannot get away without believing in some sort of polytheism otherwise.
 
Starkman
 
P.S. We differ on this, I know, B., so there's no sense in trying to convince me otherwise! smilewinkgrin


 

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 11:16 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman, could you elaborate a little further on your first statement. I am not trying to change your mind about anything, I have just been reading a lot on the subject and would like your view on it. Thanks! Harold
Also, could you comment also on your reasons as to why you think there has to be polytheism without subordination. Thanks again!


Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 4:23 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
feelinahole said...
Starkman, could you elaborate a little further on your first statement. I am not trying to change your mind about anything, I have just been reading a lot on the subject and would like your view on it. Thanks! Harold
Also, could you comment also on your reasons as to why you think there has to be polytheism without subordination. Thanks again!

Oh, I wasn't suggesting YOU were trying to change my mind. I just know ol PotOnWheel! You gotta watch that Orthodox guy!!! (kidding ya, Pow!)
 
It doesn't demand too much logic, for me at least, to see the trouble of trying to cram three completely separate beings (which is what you have if each is autonomous, God and independent of the other in mind/will) into one being and call that being "one God." That's polytheism to me.
 
Three separate persons with three separate wills and minds are three separate persons! But if there's subordination, that subordination may include (would have to include, I would think) something in the order of a hierarchy that makes way for eliminating polytheism; three absolutely equal persons in all aspects.
 
Unless the Son is subject to the Father (not in essence but in activity), and unless the Spirit is subject to the Father (and in some theological circles, the Son as well) it seems too much to ask that they can all be equal in every aspect of personhood and yet be just one God. Doesn't jibe in my math.
 
Granted, a "Subordination" solution, in the broad sense of the term, is not going to be enough to satisfy the polytheistic elements of traditional trinitarianism. I myself am a trinitarianist, but I have reservervations, which I've just expressed, with classically accepted trinitarian doctrine, just as I have problems with the Chicago statement of faith; the matter of every single word of God having to have been inspired at (practically) the grammatical level, though I believe God's word is fully inspired by God and not man.
 
Funny, but the idea of an eternally begotten Son might just address the problem of polytheism better than anything else! Hmm! It certainly address the hierarchical aspect of this, and it removes the matter of three absolutely separate will/mind gatherings... I think!
 
Hmmm!
 
Starkman


 

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 5:15 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman said...
I tend to believe there is subordination within the Trinity because I can't see how one cannot get away without believing in some sort of polytheism otherwise.
 
Keith, I can think of three or four different manners in which there can be "subordination" among various things or people. So I want to ask you, sincerely, as far as you and the Trinity go, what do YOU mean by subordination?
 
Thanks.


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 5:24 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman said...
Hmm... I do not believe, B., that the Son was begotten from or within eternity past; that the Father begat the Son prior to the birth of Christ.
 
 
 
Keith: "I do not believe. . .that the Father begat the Son prior to the birth of Christ."
 
(Inserting tongue in cheek...)
Keith, I assure you that *I*, myself, was begotten prior to my own birth! rotfl  And even if Jesus Christ were not God incarnate...we can be sure (based on all the other humans, well, other warm blooded creatures and many cold blooded ones as well) that he was too.
(finishing laughing...)
 
 
But seriously, are you saying that the "Son" was begotten at the conception by Mary? (or after, as you suggested above)
 
Please be so kind as to tell me if this is what you think of Jesus. (Who asked, "Who do men say that I am.")
 
Thanks again.
 


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 5:41 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman said...
Three separate persons with three separate wills and minds are three separate persons! But if there's subordination, that subordination may include (would have to include, I would think) something in the order of a hierarchy that makes way for eliminating polytheism; three absolutely equal persons in all aspects.
Keith, I'm not a great reader. Sincerely, on first reading you looked like you were contradicting yourself within this one sentence.
 
Please help me by parcing out and explaining what you'd mean. Can/will you do that for me?
 
Yours,
 
Bruce


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 5:46 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Starkman said...
Funny, but the idea of an eternally begotten Son might just address the problem of polytheism better than anything else! Hmm! It certainly address the hierarchical aspect of this, and it removes the matter of three absolutely separate will/mind gatherings... I think!
 
Hmmm!
 
Starkman
 
Let me in on your thoughts. (I'm dense.)
 
I come back to the question of asking myself "what does Keith mean by "subordination?"
 
As for me, I say (according to the definitions I associate with the terms): "hierarchy" yes; "subordination" no.
 
Note underline!


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 5:57 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

I appreciate your considering my questions, Keith.

And I appreciate your thoughts, Harold.

- Bruce

 

p.s. Keith, my family and I attend a Dutch Reformed Church, and my kids go to a Presbyterian Church in America based Christian school. And I was baptized in a Swedish Baptist church. So, please don't steriotype me. Thanks.


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/24/2008 7:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

My son's memory verse for school seems to apply:

John 5:22-24 (New International Version) 

22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

 24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.


(o)

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads