 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  feelinahole Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 754 | Posted 1/20/2008 4:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | | 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) |   | | 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:
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) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/20/2008 6:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | As to why it is important...
Unless Christ is God (and unless he is man) we cannot be saved.
| | Back to Top | | |
    |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/21/2008 9:44 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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 | | |
    |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/22/2008 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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.
| | Back to Top | | |
    |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/23/2008 5:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | “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/
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 1/24/2008 10:06 AM (GMT -6) |   |
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! | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 1/24/2008 4:23 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/24/2008 5:15 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/24/2008 5:24 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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!  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.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/24/2008 5:41 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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,
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/24/2008 5:46 PM (GMT -6) |   |
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.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 1/24/2008 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | 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 | | |
  | 40 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:26 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|