quote:

---

Tom: …what you are denying, namely, that the “Son” is the Son eternally and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. That’s what they grabbed a hold of. If you’re cool with that, then you DO believe the Father eternally begets the Son. But you seem to be flat out denying this even makes sense.

Starkman: I've only conceded the terms as vehicles to communicate a concept, not to adhere hook, line and sinker to eastern doctrine about the Father begetting the Son all throughout eternity in any other manner than what I'm describing here.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: Here my point: …it is simply to utilize the terms "Son" and "begotten" as a way to describe the relationship of the Trinity in eternity insofar as it says something about the indivisibility yet the unity of God in view of the primacy of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: The emphasis in Scripture is always placed upon the one we call Father--more notably from the incarnation forward, but implicit prior to this event. THAT is where the language of "Son" and "Father" makes sense: it can say something about the primacy of the Father because without that stressed, we are much to close to polytheism; it wouldn't be enough to assert typical orthodox statements about the Godhead and the will each has, though in consonant with each other. There would still be divisibility. The theology of "Son" and "begotten" alleviates this tension, demonstrating the indivisibility of God, and yet the unity in view of the Three. I think that's very, very important.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: Yes, but just know that I'm not uncomfortable anymore refering to the "Father/Son" in a pre-incarnate context.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: …the use of Logos takes us into the eternal existence of the second person of the Trinity without any color, flavor or garnishing as to "how" this is.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: The use of "Son," however, speaks of positioning the Logos for our understanding of the Godhead, at least as it concerns how the Trinity was (and is) to be involved with restoration of relationship between God and man.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: "Son" colors the Logos with the "how" salvation can even be possible. Logos alone, though, does not. It leaves us with the concept of three gods if we do not learn something about the Trinity in how they have both created and restored relationship.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: Let me state things this way (because I don't disagree with you): "No man has seen God at any time. The only Begotten Son of God has declared/revealed Him." And, as I noted in the quote that caused your response, when we get to heaven, it will only be then that we can grasp what we cannot grasp now, something of the essence of God. (As I said, I don't hold to all of eastern thinking, bro, just because I reference it. But now you've got me even wondering what the hek I was even referencing if for! Eee gads!)

---

quote:

---

Starkman: I'm not saying that the terms "Son" et. al., reflect only post-incarnate meaning; I'm saying that I do[i/] see their pre-incarnate theological use, as long as it's qualified…

---

Tom: What would an unqualified use be? Thinking God had physical relations with somebody and gave birth to the second person of the trinity, a “Son”? For sure, nobody goes there. The “qualified” use would be the figurative use of “Father” and “Son,” as metaphors that teach us something about how these two relate eternally, right? That’s it! That’s all we’re saying.

Are we on the same page?

Tom

quote:

---

Originally posted by TGB

PoW: Last time I even said anything to Tom he ripped his computer out of the wall and threw it into the Mediteranian Sea. I don't like how he treats me in that setting. Nor do I think it fair what he insists I "solve" for him -- that's his responsibility, not mine.

Tom: Oh that works well. I’ll just tell others what I believe and tell them any difficulties they have making sense of it are their own problems not mine.

---

quote:

---

(I hope Tom has a 'wireless' computer!) I agree with Tom when he says -- Got that? Tom? -- that "if you believe what God reveals isn’t really revealing God (as God, who he really is), that is, if the unrevealed God (ad intra) is DIFFERENT than the revealed God (ad extra)." I agreed with that before, too, when you were tossing computers into the Sea. Nothing false. Got it. But there is another distinction.

---

quote:

---

Of the Father's Love Begotten

Words: Au­rel­i­us Pru­den­ti­us, 5th Cen­tu­ry (Corde na­tus ex pa­ren­tis); trans­lat­ed from La­tin to Eng­lish by John M. Neale, 1854, and Hen­ry W. Bak­er, 1859.
Music: “Di­vin­um Mys­ter­i­um,” Sanc­tus trope, 11th Cen­tu­ry

Of the Father’s love begotten, ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega, He the source, the ending He,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see, evermore and evermore!

At His Word the worlds were framèd; He commanded; it was done:
Heaven and earth and depths of ocean in their threefold order one;
All that grows beneath the shining
Of the moon and burning sun, evermore and evermore!

He is found in human fashion, death and sorrow here to know,
That the race of Adam’s children doomed by law to endless woe,
May not henceforth die and perish
In the dreadful gulf below, evermore and evermore!

O that birth forever blessèd, when the virgin, full of grace,
By the Holy Ghost conceiving, bare the Savior of our race;
And the Babe, the world’s Redeemer,
First revealed His sacred face, evermore and evermore!

This is He Whom seers in old time chanted of with one accord;
Whom the voices of the prophets promised in their faithful word;
Now He shines, the long expected,
Let creation praise its Lord, evermore and evermore!

O ye heights of heaven adore Him; angel hosts, His praises sing;
Powers, dominions, bow before Him, and extol our God and King!
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert sing, evermore and evermore!

Righteous judge of souls departed, righteous King of them that live,
On the Father’s throne exalted none in might with Thee may strive;
Who at last in vengeance coming
Sinners from Thy face shalt drive, evermore and evermore!

Thee let old men, thee let young men, thee let boys in chorus sing;
Matrons, virgins, little maidens, with glad voices answering:
Let their guileless songs re-echo,
And the heart its music bring, evermore and evermore!

Christ, to Thee with God the Father, and, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant with high thanksgiving, and unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion,
And eternal victory, evermore and evermore!

www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/f/ofthefat.htm

---

quote:

---

Thus, the problem which the christological character of truth has presented to the Church from its earliest days may be summarized in the following question: How can we hold at one and the same time to the historical nature of truth and the presence of ultimate truth here and now? How, in other words, can truth be considered simultaneously from the point of view of the "nature" of being (Greek preoccupation) from the view of the goal or end of history (preoccupation of the Jews), and from the viewpoint of Christ, who is both a historical person and the permanent ground of being (the Christian claim) -- and all while preserving God's "otherness" in relation to creation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starkman

Well, they don't write hymns like this anymore, do they. Sad.

Starkman

---

quote:

---

Starkman: I've only conceded the terms as vehicles to communicate a concept, not to adhere hook, line and sinker to eastern doctrine about the Father begetting the Son all throughout eternity ...
if you also deny the Eastern doctrine that the Father eternally begets the Son?

---

quote:

---

Starkman: Here my point: …it is simply to utilize the terms "Son" and "begotten" as a way to describe the relationship of the Trinity in eternity insofar as it says something about the indivisibility yet the unity of God in view of the primacy of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Tom: That’s all the terms are meant to convey. If that’s what you’re saying, then what are you denying when you deny that the Son is the Son eternally?

---

quote:

---

Starkman: …the use of Logos takes us into the eternal existence of the second person of the Trinity without any color, flavor or garnishing as to "how" this is.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: The use of "Son," however, speaks of positioning the Logos for our understanding of the Godhead, at least as it concerns how the Trinity was (and is) to be involved with restoration of relationship between God and man.

---

quote:

---

Starkman: Let me state things this way (because I don't disagree with you): "No man has seen God at any time. The only Begotten Son of God has declared/revealed Him." <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TGB

. . . What I can’t seem to get anybody to interact with is my question regarding this whole distinction between God’s economy/energies and his essence. The EO claims that this distinction is unique to our relationship with God. This distinction then influences what we say and believe about God. I’m saying that this distinction between “essence” and “economy” is not unique to our relationship to God. It defines the limits of our relating to and knowing ANYTHING outside ourselves. It even defines God’s knowledge and relation to us. Its simply a matter of fact that knowledge and experience of personal beings by other personal beings (whether human-human or divine-human) excludes knowing that other as the other knows himself. So you can't know God’s essence. You cant experience him as he experiences himself. You can only know him personally if he chooses to open himself up to you. But instead of seeing this distinction as a unique characteristic of our knowledge of God that in turn becomes a theological grid through which we run all our God-talk, I see it as universally the case about our knowledge of any other person outside ourselves. You can’t know your wife’s essence either. You can’t experience her as she experiences herself. You can only know her personally if she chooses to open herself up to you. Same as with God. Same distinction. PoW refuses to consider the implications this has for the whole distinction between the immanent God and the economic God that he insists remains intact and is unlike the limits we face in knowing other people. Its “my responsibility” to solve. Well, I'm not asking for his help to solve it. I wasn't trying to solve it anyhow. Its solved as far as I'm concerned. There is no distinction between God’s essence and his energies that limits our knowledge of God any differently than does the same distinction between energies and essence in other persons limit our knowledge and experience of them. We don't make anything of that distinction or go around cautioning people to not talk about other peoples’ “essences,” telling them to limit their descriptions of other persons to those persons’ “energies.” What do we do? We just talk about them, the true them, the real them, without supposing there to be some unrevealed essence that's unavailable and unknowable. I'm suggesting we do the same with God. Moreover, I'm suggesting we have no choice but to do the same with God.

---