Trinity.

[darinhouston]

Paidion (and others), do you equate begat with born? What was the begetting act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Since the word 'begat' doesn't really communicate anything substantial to my mind... and since you admit the sense in which it is to be taken is incomprehensible... I will leave it at that. I guess I prefer a greater sense of equality between the Father & Son. I think the passages that lead you to think of some sort of hierarchy of essence only lead me to believe in some sort of voluntarily submissive authority structure.

Well, I am sure that "begat" means something to you where it is written that Abraham begat Isaac. There was a sense in which Abraham generated Isaac. The Greek word "γενναω" (gennaō) does carry the meaning "generate". Indeed, "generate", although derived from Latin, begins with the same three letters as "gennaō" in Greek. Nothing incomprehensible in that. As for equality, the Father and the Son are equally divine. But they are not equal positionally. And this is the way that the scriptures indicate the relation between a husband and wife. Though they are equally human, they are not equal positionally, since the wife is to submit herself to the husband.

As I see it, the Son always submitted Himself to the Father, not only while He was on earth (as He clearly did), but right from the beginning, and also in the future when after all things are subjected to Him, then He will subject Himself to the Father so that the Father may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28). I know of no scripture that states that the Father and the Son are equal positionally or are equal in authority relative to each other.

Jesus Himself said, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

[Paidion]

Paidion (and others), do you equate begat with born? What was the begetting act?

I don't mean that the begetting (or generation) of the Son took place when Jesus was begotten in his mother's womb. Second-century Christians affirmed that He was "begotten before all ages", and so does the orginal Nicene Creed. The early Christians said that this begetting was the first of the Father's acts.

[Homer]

Jesus Himself said, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

The present indicative active "is" does not tell us that the Father was greater than the Word prior to the Son being begotten in Mary.

[mattrose]

Well, I am sure that "begat" means something to you where it is written that Abraham begat Isaac. There was a sense in which Abraham generated Isaac. The Greek word "γενναω" (gennaō) does carry the meaning "generate". Indeed, "generate", although derived from Latin, begins with the same three letters as "gennaō" in Greek. Nothing incomprehensible in that.

Abraham existed before Isaac... so I don't have any problem understanding their relationship. I can understand what it means to say that Abraham 'generated' Isaac or 'begat' him. How to apply that concept to a situation where both partners are co-eternal is incomprehensible to me. I think it needs to mean something totally different when applied to divine beings.

As for equality, the Father and the Son are equally divine. But they are not equal positionally. And this is the way that the scriptures indicate the relation between a husband and wife. Though they are equally human, they are not equal positionally, since the wife is to submit herself to the husband. As I see it, the Son always submitted Himself to the Father, not only while He was on earth (as He clearly did), but right from the beginning, and also in the future when after all things are subjected to Him, then He will subject Himself to the Father so that the Father may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28). I know of no scripture that states that the Father and the Son are equal positionally or are equal in authority relative to each other. Jesus Himself said, "The Father is greater than I."

We are only a hair's breadth apart on these issues. We both agree that there is a hierarchy of authority. But you seem to suggest this hierarchy exists in some essential sense. I say it is voluntary. In fact, I cannot comprehend what you even mean by suggesting that 2 equally divine beings are not essentially in the same and equal positions of authority. To my mind, the Son voluntarily submits Himself to the Father. So it's not that we disagree on any of the Scriptures you cited. We both agree that the Son submits. You suggest this submission is essential. I say it is voluntary. Authority structures can be mutually agreed upon by equals or commanded by a higher authority. But there is no ESSENTIAL hierarchy among equals.

[jriccitelli]

Paidion (and others), do you equate begat with born? What was the begetting act? (Darin, top)

I guess you are arguing from a Unitarian position. Do you believe Jesus pre-existed as an angel, or do you hold that he was the literal son of ‘Joseph’ and Mary?

(I believe begotten (gennethesis and forms of, yet specifically of Christ in relation to Acts 13:33, David, Psalm 2, Hebrews 1) means that the Father gives the kingdom to the Son. As Solomon received the Kingdom from David, all that was the Kings is given unto the son. Only begotten, although not the same, refers to the ‘appointment’ of the ‘one’ ‘chosen’ to receive all things from the father, with an emphasis on only)

Some Unitarians believe a created being was perfect and without sin (Jesus), and others believe Jesus was from God, not created, but not God (You said this is what you believe), so what was he ??

[TheEditor]

This may be a bit off-topic, but not too far astray from what's being discussed. The idea was floated that God would of neccesity need to at least have the Son with Him from eternity past for Him to be "Love". The distinction is made between what God is versus what He does. Sometimes I have thoughts that to the vast majority of orthodox seem heretical and maybe even blasphemous. That being said, it's how my mind works. I have wondered over the last several years about a matter that may tie into this discussion. We read the following in Hebrews:

"Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also [was]. So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.” Just as he says also in another place: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek.” In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek.
(Hebrews 5:4-10)

We read that the Son "learned" something, namely, obedience, from the things he suffered, or experienced.

When my wife and I were childless, and subsequently had our first child, I know that I learned what Love was in a way I had until that time not known. Especially if one is a trinitarian, one could obviously not object to God "learning" something, since a trinitarian belives that Jesus is God, and Jesus clearly "learned obedience". That said, why could God not "learn" Love in a way He had not known it prior to the Son? I am putting on my Arian hat for this postulate.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

That said, why could God not "learn" Love in a way He had not known it prior to the Son?

I have no real objection to the God (in your question a reference to the Father) learning something in a sense (for instance, when a free creature chooses amongst genuine possibilities God, having previously only known all the possibilities and the probabilities, learns their choice and, then, knows it as an actuality). In this sense, God's omniscience remains perfect BY changing. But I also believe that God's CHARACTER never changes. And I consider love to be the essential core of God's character... so I would not see any sense in which God's character changes or grows.

Plus, I don't think incarnational realities can so easily be applied to the godhead.

[darinhouston]

I'm actually not arguing this point from any perspective -- it was a question, not an argument. The term came up and most of these terms are used without precision or consistency, so I was trying to establish any of your premises on this point before continuing with other arguments or discussions. It is clear that many people mean different things by "begotten," and some translations even add the term "begotten" in John 3:16 where it seems to be only "monogenes" in the greek manuscripts. I know many non-trinitarians see this as evidence that Jesus didn't exist prior to the nativity, but the only explicit uses of the term don't seem at all related to the nativity.

As for me, I actually don't argue that Jesus isn't God. I have, in fact, suggested that I believe there is a sense in which He can rightly be in a sense seen as God here with us without Himself actually being an eternally existing "part" of the eternal so-called godhead. Mostly I'm uncommitted on this point, but my present leaning is that most non-trinitarians go too far, but have many legitimate points against the traditional Trinitarian view(s) and I am trying to test/explore them even as I continue to explore/test the Trinitarian ones. On subjects like these which have divided Christians over the ages, I tend to think that there is a middle position somewhere (like Calvinism, etc). If pressed, I think there is probably a physical sense in which Jesus is man and a spiritual sense in which He can be said to "be God" in that unlike us, He not only has a measure of infilling by the Spirit, but is actually completely filled with the Spirit so that it can be said that His spirit is completely the Spirit of God. That's not the same as saying He pre-existed in the godhead as a "person" in communion with the Father (whether in addition to or by means of the Spirit). I've discussed this on this site before, but as I think of it, it seems we don't just think of "ourselves" (and each other) as our material physical existence, but recognize at some level that the "real" "me" also has a spiritual component that has personality/personhood/expression/existence apart from my body/mind/brain. I don't know if I'm a dichomist or trichomist, but I definitely believe there are two aspects of us and that the same was true of Jesus. I believe the answer to this question likes somewhere in that reality. Whether this was true of him from birth or just after His baptism is another question, perhaps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Abraham existed before Isaac... so I don't have any problem understanding their relationship. I can understand what it means to say that Abraham 'generated' Isaac or 'begat' him. How to apply that concept to a situation where both partners are co-eternal is incomprehensible to me. I think it needs to mean something totally different when applied to divine beings.

What do you mean by "co-eternal"? By "eternal" do you mean an existence which extends infinitely into the past? If so, I would affirm that neither the Father nor the Son are eternal, and therefore they are not co-eternal. For I do not believe in an infinite regression of time into the past. "In the Beginning was the Logos". This was a beginning which was "THE Beginning". There was only one such Beginning which was marked by God's first act, the begetting or generation (not creation) of the Son.This was also the Beginning of time itself, and there was no "before The Beginning." There was no God before the Beginning, simply because there WAS no "before". 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.

But the thing that makes the Father greater than the Son, (and Jesus affirmed that this is the case) is the fact that the Father is the source of the Son's generation (or "begetting"), and the Son is secondary in the sense that He is the One who was generated. Indeed He was the ONLY-begotten Son of God. No other was directly begotten by God. Adam was not begotten, but created. The angels were not begotten, but created (although the Son may be "the Angel of The God" in the sense that He is The God's messenger). So the Son is not the Obedient Servant of the Father simply because He chose to be such, but because He is positionally secondary, though ontologically equal.