Trinity.

[darinhouston]

This is my point exactly. Paidion, you suggest begotten means born, but at least in the context of Acts 13:33, it seems clearly to refer to Jesus' resurrection as the firstborn from all creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

...but at least in the context of Acts 13:33, it seems clearly to refer to Jesus' resurrection as the firstborn from all creation.

I don't think so. I think verse 33 speaks of the begetting of the Son before all ages. The "raising" of which he speaks in this verse is not Christ's being raised from the dead. Rather Christ was raised up to bring the gospel of the Kingdom to man. This was one of the purposes for which God had begotten Him as his first act.

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers; this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “ You are my Son, today I have begotten you."

Then in verse 34, he speaks of a different matter, the raising of Jesus from the dead:

And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “ I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David." (Acts 13:33,34 ESV)[/color]

[Homer]

Perhaps begotten is used because God is called "Father". Children are begotten by the father, and born of the mother. And then again, the words may be figurative and not literal.

Interesting comment by Alexander Campbell on the controversy we are engaged in; especially his attitude shown in his remark at the end:

The strongest objections urged against the Trinitarians by their opponents are derived from
what is called the unreasonableness, or the absurdity of three persons being but one God, and that
each of these three is the Supreme God. Now as you know I am not at all disposed either to adopt
the style nor to contend for the views of the Trinitarians, any more than I am the views of the
Socinians or Unitarians of any grade: you will bear with me when I tell you that no man as a
philosopher, or as a reasoner, can object to the Trinitarian hypothesis, even should it say that the
Father, the Word, and the Spirit, are three distinct beings, and yet but one God. There is nothing
unreasonable in it. I will, indeed, in one sense, say, that it is unreasonable there can be a God at
all, or an Eternal First Cause; because in all the dominions of reason there is nothing could
suggest the idea: and because it is contrary to all the facts before us in the whole world that any
cause can be the cause of itself, or not the effect of some other cause. No man, from analogy, can
reason farther than every cause is the effect of another, ad infinitum. Here reason shuts the door.
Here analogy puts up her rule, and shuts her case of instruments. Now in this sense, the Unitarian
and the Trinitarian are alike unphilosophical--alike unreasonable. But here is the sophism: the
bible originates, or still keeps up the idea of a God--both the name and the idea. We see it is
proved by every thing within and without us. The bible teaches us something concerning three
beings, (I shall call them) the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. It teaches us that there is but
one God. From what the bible teaches "A" supposes that these three beings are each and together
one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. "B" says it is inconsistent--it is absurd.
How can three persons or beings be one? How can one of these three be the Deity, and yet the
three be no more than the Deity? "C" says, This is not more unreasonable than that there should
have been from all eternity one First Cause uncaused; and adds, Your error is this: you know
nothing of the existence of spirits at all. All bodies you know any thing of occupy both time and
place; consequently, it would be absurd to suppose that three beings whose modes of existence
are such as to be governed by time and space, could be one being. But inasmuch as we do know
nothing about the mode of existence of spirits, we cannot say that it would be incompatible with
their nature, or modes of existence, that three might be one, and that one being might exist in
three beings. Now, as no man can rationally oppose the Calvinistic hypothesis (note: Trinitarian) on principles of reason, so neither can he prove it to be correct by any analogy, or principle of reason whatsoever.
Why, then, wage this warfare? We may disprove a theory by what the bible declares, but not by
our reasoning on such topics. Why not, then, abide in the use of bible terms alone? There is as much reason on the side of the Trinitarian as on the side of the Unitarian; and neither of them can, without a gross dereliction of their grand positions, accuse the other of being unreasonable in their reasoning or conclusions.
But I adopt neither system, and will fight for none. I believe that God so loved the world that
he sent his only begotten Son: that Jesus was the Son of God, in the true, full, and proper import
of these words; that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, which was sent
by the concurrence of the Father and the Son to attest and establish the truth, and remain a
comforter, an advocate on earth, when Jesus entered the heavens. If any man's faith in this matter
is stronger or greater than mine, I have no objection. I only request him not to despise my
weakness, and I will not condemn his strength.

[TheEditor]

If any man's faith in this matter
is stronger or greater than mine, I have no objection. I only request him not to despise my
weakness, and I will not condemn his strength.

I can live with that. Interestingly, Dr. John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians, was a close associate of Campbell, though the Disciples of Christ and affiliated churches don't like that to be known.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

If by saying the Father and Son are "co-eternal" you mean that they Both existed from The Beginning, then I would agree that They are co-eternal.

That is all my argument requires... that there was never a 'time' when the Father existed without the Son.

He is positionally secondary, though ontologically equal.

I guess that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I'll simply re-state what I said before with the extra clutter:

Authority structures can be mutually agreed upon by equals or commanded by a higher authority. But there is no ESSENTIAL hierarchy among equals.

[Paidion]

Okay, I hope I can clarify my position by human analogies:

A father begets (procreates, generates, produces) a son. (He didn't create his son). Both the father and the son are equally human (ontologically equal). As the baby grows into a young child, it must be subject to his father. His father produced the child; the child didn't produce the father. But when the child fully matures, he doesn't have to be subject to his father.

God begets (procreates, generates, produces) a Son. Both the father and the son are equally human (ontologically equal). The Father produces the Son, not vice versa. So the Son must be subject to the Father. However, the factor that is different is that the Son never "grows up". He is always his Father's Child or Boy.


Mt 12:18 "Behold! My Boy whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased! I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He will declare justice to the Gentiles.
Ac 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Boy Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.
Ac 3:26 "To you first, God, having raised up His Boy Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."
Ac 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Boy Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Ac 4:30 "by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Boy Jesus."

True, "Pais" which I have translated as "Boy" in these verses, often has the idea of "servant", perhaps in a similar sense that slave owners used to shout "Boy!" to a male slave. But the main idea is "boy", or in some cases "girl". Here is an example of the latter:

But He put them all outside, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Little girl, arise." (Luke 8:54, NKJV)

The Greek word which the NKJV renders as "little girl" is none other than "pais". This girl was 12 years old.

So Jesus was always his Father's "little boy servant". The Father was always greater than He, as Jesus Himself declared when He said, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

[mattrose]

The problem I have is twofold...

1. The analogy doesn't work b/c there was a time when a human father existed and his human son did not. But your intention is to relate that to a situation where, we're both agreed, there was never such a time. It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want all the benefits of saying the Father existed before the Son (making sense of the hierarchy) without actually saying that He existed before the Son.

2. You can quote a thousand verses about the son being submitted to the father, but it doesn't add progress to the dialogue since we both agree with that point. You haven't provided any reason for me to believe that the submission isn't a voluntary arrangement.

So I'll re-state what I said before b/c I don't yet see any refutation:
Authority structures can be mutually agreed upon by equals or commanded by a higher authority. But there is no ESSENTIAL hierarchy among equals.

[darinhouston]

Matt, Paidion has a bit of semantics going when it comes to "time" and "before" which will make this a challenging discussion. He thinks time began when Christ was begotten. There is no "before" before time but clearly whatever we choose to call it there was some eternity past "before" that event even if we lack words to describe it (if it was an actual event, causation requires some notion of time - within our understanding and from our perspective at least).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

Matt, Paidion has a bit of semantics going when it comes to "time" and "before" which will make this a challenging discussion. He thinks time began when Christ was begotten. There is no "before" before time but clearly whatever we choose to call it there was some eternity past "before" that event even if we lack words to describe it (if it was an actual event, causation requires some notion of time - within our understanding and from our perspective at least).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, I'm dancing around that issue a bit b/c I doubt we'll see eye to eye on it. For my own 2 cents, I can understand some of the reasons why Paidion would want to avoid the idea of an 'infinite regression of time into the past,' but I (with you, it seems) don't really think it is avoidable. In fact, it seems that Paidion actually believes that God didn't exist (logically) until time began (how else would one interpret his statement that "There was no God before the Beginning, simply because there WAS no "before"."???). I'd guess he's taking that stance b/c the idea of an infinite regression of time into the past seems illogical (how could we have ever gotten to NOW if there an in infinite regression of time in the past?), but I think by nixing that problem he creates too many others (how could God, logically, just exist to start time?). I find it more likely that there is another way of understanding time that eliminates the 'infinite regression' problem.

But the reason I was avoiding that debate was b/c, even granting his premise, I don't think the Father can make the action of beget'ing the Son without some quantity of time passing by (as you say, if it was an actual event, causation requires some notion of time). Therefore, I stand by my argument that paidion is, semantically, trying to eat his cake and have it too.

But boy oh boy.... we're talking about some nitty-gritty details here. What a great forum this is, haha

[darinhouston]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk