3 persons of God, how is that exactly, which way do you believe

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
Yes it is. I am making a soteriological argument. If Jesus is not the Son of the Father then no one is. man can only call God Father through the Son. The only way that the faithful in the OT can call God Father is because of the Son. They can call God Father by grace through their union with Christ who is the Son by nature.

Jesus is the Son of the Father. But prior to the birth of Jesus, Jesus was not called "Jesus," nor was He called "Son." This is so evident in the Old Testament, because nowhere does it say anything of the Son. I challenge you to go and search through the entire Old Testament. Then, when you have found a single verse that says that the Son was with the Father, or if you have a single verse that mentions the Son prior to His First Coming, then we shall discuss it. Otherwise, you're appealing to ignorance.

Blackhawk said:
Why should I accept your view that God's role changed? What evidence do you have that this happened? This is a positive statement so you need to give proof. Just because Jesus is called the Son only in the NT is not because something changed but because there was more revelation given to us in the NT. When the church has argued arguments like this for the doctrine of the Fatherhood of god in the NT why should I accept your novel declaration that God's role changed?

Why shouldn't you? Clearly you have offered Scriptural proofs that God says, "I will call them 'my people,' those who are not my people." You are yet well aware that the Gentile nation was not God's people, but later became so, not by nature, not by faithfulness, but by role. Now, do you know why we find the word "Son" in the New Testament? Because, that is a reference to the Incarnation of our Lord. Prior to this, our Lord was not called "the Son," but "the Word." Luke writes, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." Consider the future tense, "will." Only after conception would Jesus be called "the Son of God."

Blackhawk said:
But you have made a positive statement that God's role changed in the NT or after the incarnation. You, my friend must prove that conclusion.

Surely it is not for me to provide anything, because I am not the one who is saying that God has always been the Father, and that the Son of God has always been known as the "Son" prior to the birth of Jesus. You, however, persist me with these same arguments, as if the Son had always pre-existed as the Son. You assume that because God is called "Father" in the Old Testament, that there must be the Son. But you're reading the New Testament and forcing it into the Old Testament, rather than the other way around. In order to understand the New Testament, you must be familiar with the Old. You don't read a book backwards. God is never called in the Old Testament, "God the Father," nor is He called such in regard to another divine person.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
First the Church's tradition states that the God is an eternal Father. that is the Father is the Father eternally.


Is this what Scripture says?

Blackhawk said:
Only heretics have claimed that the Father was not always the Father. Athanasius stated that the Arians were heretics partly because they stated that the Father was not always Father. they said there was a time when he was not the Father. i am not saying you are an Arian but just trying to show that the Chruch has been very clear on this. And not only the Catholic church but protestants also.

The only legitimate reason I find that Athanasius would say this is because the Arians denied that the Son always was, that is, that He was a created being. For Athanasius to say that the Father was always the Father eternally would argue against the point that the Arians made so as to say that if the Father is the Father eternally, then so must the Son, for God could not be the Father eternally if there was not the Son. However, as much as you would like to say this and use Athanasius as your defense, I can hardly agree with him.

With God was His Word eternally, and if the Word was not with God eternally, then God would have lacked His Eternal Wisdom, which would mean that the Arians would have deprived God of His Wisdom, as though God were ignorant. This is also a justifiable argument. What is more is that there is no reason to think that the Son had always been eternally generated, for we could speak of the Word, saying that He was conceived within God as a man conceives his thoughts. The Word then, is neither unbegotten like God, nor begotten like men.


Blackhawk said:
Second if the Father is not the eternal Father of the Son then our salvation is in question. one metaphor for salvation in the Bible is that man becomes part of the family of God. We become sons of God through Christ by the power of the Spirit. If Christ is not Son by nature then he cannot make us sons by grace. he cannot pass sonship along to us.

I never denied that the Son was God by nature. I deny that the Son always pre-existed as the Son. In other words, I deny eternal Sonship. Yet, I cannot find any reason to think that if the Son is not the Son by nature, that we cannot become sons of God by grace. What a confounding thought, as if God had begetted offspring like that of the Roman gods.

Blackhawk said:
so if Sonship is only a title for Christ then we cannot be sons.

I deny eternal Sonship, but accept Incarnational Sonship.

Blackhawk said:
We are not part of his family because the only begotten son cannot make us Sons by grace.
Blackhawk said:
Rom 9:22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?
Rom 9:23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–
Rom 9:24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[fn9]

Rom 9:26and,

“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”[fn10]

Gal 3:23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
Gal 3:24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[fn8] that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Gal 3:26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
Gal 3:27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


I do not see how any of these argue against what I have said.


Blackhawk said:
Third the Bible is very clear the Father has been eternally the Father or in inverse the Son has eternally been the Son. Look at the passages below.
Blackhawk said:
Psa 2:7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.


You are sadly mistaken. This is not to be taken literally. It actually refers to the coronation of the Son of God. The word "Son of God" is synonymous with "Messiah." It has nothing to do with actual begetting, nor with birth, but with kingship.


Blackhawk said:
Jhn 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


This says nothing of the Son pre-existing as the Son. It speaks of the Word, God's creative power, which became flesh and tabernacled among us.

Blackhawk said:
Jhn 1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].


Again, this has nothing to do with the Son pre-existing as the Son, especially since we take note that John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh, to which He would be called "Jesus."

Blackhawk said:
Jhn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Nor do these.


Blackhawk said:
Hbr 1:5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hbr 5:5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.


This, again, is coronation. It is no different from Psalm 2:7.


Blackhawk said:
1Jo 4:9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.


And John was sent from God (John 1:6). Are we to assume that John pre-existed?


Blackhawk said:
Col 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.


"Firstborn" has nothing to do with literal begetting. It has to do with being the supreme heir, however. Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness.


Blackhawk said:
Fourth it is widely acknowledged that the story of Abraham offering Isaac to God is a foreshadowing or type of salvation in the NT. That God the Father offers up his only begotten Son in much of the same way that Abraham was willing to offer his Son.
Blackhawk said:
The Father offered his Son when he sent the Son.

This is a foreshadowing. God is both omniscient and providential. It is what is to come, not what already is.
 
Upvote 0

BrendanMark

Member
Apr 4, 2007
828
79
Australia
✟16,317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
kai qeoV hn o logoV
and God was the Word

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, as we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was qeoV thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in kai qeoV hn o logoV.
Wallace, Daniel B. quoted from Mounce, Willam D. – Basics of Biblical Greek [Zondervan 1999, 2003 p27-28]
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus is the Son of the Father. But prior to the birth of Jesus, Jesus was not called "Jesus," nor was He called "Son." This is so evident in the Old Testament, because nowhere does it say anything of the Son. I challenge you to go and search through the entire Old Testament. Then, when you have found a single verse that says that the Son was with the Father, or if you have a single verse that mentions the Son prior to His First Coming, then we shall discuss it. Otherwise, you're appealing to ignorance.

Again you are making a positive claim that Jesus was not the Son before the incarnation. Prove that! You are not just denying historic Christianity's version of eternal Sonship but also you are claiming that you know what relly happened. So prove what really happened since you know.



Why shouldn't you? Clearly you have offered Scriptural proofs that God says, "I will call them 'my people,' those who are not my people." You are yet well aware that the Gentile nation was not God's people, but later became so, not by nature, not by faithfulness, but by role. Now, do you know why we find the word "Son" in the New Testament? Because, that is a reference to the Incarnation of our Lord. Prior to this, our Lord was not called "the Son," but "the Word." Luke writes, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." Consider the future tense, "will." Only after conception would Jesus be called "the Son of God."

Hmm. First when Mary asked how could she have a child when she wa a virign the angel told her and said that people will call him the Son of God. It is clearly future not because he was or was not the Son of God before but because people in the future will call him so.

Second yes we are not sons by nature. That was part of my soteriological point. So I do not see your point there. you assume many things here.



Surely it is not for me to provide anything, because I am not the one who is saying that God has always been the Father, and that the Son of God has always been known as the "Son" prior to the birth of Jesus. You, however, persist me with these same arguments, as if the Son had always pre-existed as the Son. You assume that because God is called "Father" in the Old Testament, that there must be the Son. But you're reading the New Testament and forcing it into the Old Testament, rather than the other way around. In order to understand the New Testament, you must be familiar with the Old. You don't read a book backwards. God is never called in the Old Testament, "God the Father," nor is He called such in regard to another divine person.

Actually you read the entire Bible through Christ. So you do read the Bible knowing the gospel. That is a proper heremeneutic. If you do not, like you say you do not, then you are making a mockery of the text. Only if you read the OT through the prism of Jesus Christ can you understand the OT. It is not to be read in the chronological fashion that you have stated.

Also again, like I said in my other posts, you have made a positive statement that you must prove. I have no stated that the Son was not the Son before the incarnation. You have said that. You must show proof of that.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[/color]

Is this what Scripture says?.


You asked me for proof and what the church has taught abut scripture is proof. If you went into a room where 99 people saw the murder and one read about it. The 99 said Joe did it while the one said Jim did it. Who would you believe?



The only legitimate reason I find that Athanasius would say this is because the Arians denied that the Son always was, that is, that He was a created being. For Athanasius to say that the Father was always the Father eternally would argue against the point that the Arians made so as to say that if the Father is the Father eternally, then so must the Son, for God could not be the Father eternally if there was not the Son. However, as much as you would like to say this and use Athanasius as your defense, I can hardly agree with him.

I know you would not agree with him. That is obvious. My point was to show how firmly the church and a particular church father supported the Eternal Sonship of Christ. I also wanted to show how heretics in the past also denied the eternal Sonship of Christ.

With God was His Word eternally, and if the Word was not with God eternally, then God would have lacked His Eternal Wisdom, which would mean that the Arians would have deprived God of His Wisdom, as though God were ignorant. This is also a justifiable argument. What is more is that there is no reason to think that the Son had always been eternally generated, for we could speak of the Word, saying that He was conceived within God as a man conceives his thoughts. The Word then, is neither unbegotten like God, nor begotten like men.

Where do you get the whole God would lack his Wisdom argument? And no the Son of God was not begotten like we are. That is true. I am not saying that the Son was eternally born just like man. I am saying that the Son was begotten but is also eternal. Thus he is an eternal Son and the Father was always a Father.




I never denied that the Son was God by nature. I deny that the Son always pre-existed as the Son. In other words, I deny eternal Sonship. Yet, I cannot find any reason to think that if the Son is not the Son by nature, that we cannot become sons of God by grace. What a confounding thought, as if God had begetted offspring like that of the Roman gods..

Actually you have. You say that it was a role he played. It was just basically a title only. That is what you have claimed. So yes you have stated that the Son is not the Son by nature. And again if the Son is not the Son by nature but by the grace of a title bestowed upon him alone then he cannot make us sons of God.




Okay for the scriptural passages and allusions. First the John 1 passages demonstrated that the Son was the Son before the incarnation. The passage from John 3 demonstrates the Father sent his only Son to save us. He sent his Son. the Passage does not say he sent the Word but that he sent his Son. The Galatians 3 passage demonstrates that salvation is becoming part of the family of God or becoming sons of God. This is accomplished through Christ the one and only true Son by nature. The 1 John passage again demonstrates that the Father sent his Son. It again does not say that he sent the Word or his wisdom but His Son. And finally the Abraham passage demonstrates that the Son was the Son again when the Father sent him. The offering up of Isaac, Abraham son, foreshadows the incarantion and the cross where the Father gives his one and only Son. The incarnation is the begginng of the offering.

So again I think I have made my point.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
Again you are making a positive claim that Jesus was not the Son before the incarnation. Prove that! You are not just denying historic Christianity's version of eternal Sonship but also you are claiming that you know what relly happened. So prove what really happened since you know.

I've actually made a negative claim, thank you. I never said that the Son was eternally the Son. But you have. To tell me that I must prove that the Son has never been the Son eternally is to ask me to prove something that is non-existent. You are asking of me to become omniscient, when you know that I am not. So be it. You wish to tell me that the burden of proof is on me, and that if I am incapable of doing so, that you must not believe what I say. But this is foolishness, because it is like a caviler asking that you prove that God is triune, and that you demand non-existent verses! What a child's game that you demand me to provide Scripture stating that the Son was not eternally the Son.

Proof 1: Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a Father-Son relationship like there is in the New Testament. To say that God had not revealed His Son, and therefore, it means that the Son had been eternally the Son is ad ignorantiam, because you cannot prove either that the Son has eternally been the Son.

Proof 2: Nowhere does it show that God is speaking to another divine person.

Proof 3: Nowhere is God called the Father in the same manner presented in the New Testament. To say that He must be called such as though He was eternally the Father, and that there was eternally the Son is merely an assumption not based off of Scripture.

Proof 4: To say that the Son was eternally the Son, we must regard John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father." We then must accept Modalism, for this says, "and the Son was the Father."

Proof 5: We find that Wisdom/Word had always been with God (Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:1, 2), but nowhere do we find that the Son had always been with God. We may say that the Son is the Incarnate Wisdom/Word of God, but that's all we could say.

Blackhawk said:
Hmm. First when Mary asked how could she have a child when she wa a virign the angel told her and said that people will call him the Son of God. It is clearly future not because he was or was not the Son of God before but because people in the future will call him so.

This sounds like a desperate argument. Without any backing that the Son was always the Son, your argument crumbles in ad ignorantiam. So, I ask that you prove by Scriptural proof that the Son was always the Son eternally.

Blackhawk said:
Second yes we are not sons by nature. That was part of my soteriological point. So I do not see your point there. you assume many things here.

As do you. But that's unproductive.

Blackhawk said:
Actually you read the entire Bible through Christ. So you do read the Bible knowing the gospel. That is a proper heremeneutic. If you do not, like you say you do not, then you are making a mockery of the text. Only if you read the OT through the prism of Jesus Christ can you understand the OT. It is not to be read in the chronological fashion that you have stated.

The Jews wrote the New Testament based off of the Old, yes? The Jews did not know who Jesus was prior to His birth. To say that I make a mockery of the Text is an unjustifiable claim. The New Testament was not written first. You cannot tell me that one could understand what John meant when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," or prior to that, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us." It is to be read in a chronological order. No wonder then, that you do not understand what I am saying!

Blackhawk said:
You asked me for proof and what the church has taught abut scripture is proof.

And clearly I have stated previously that you offer me Scriptural proof. The Church is made up of human beings. Human beings are fallible. The Church is also fallible. The only two things that are not fallible are God and His Word.

Blackhawk said:
If you went into a room where 99 people saw the murder and one read about it. The 99 said Joe did it while the one said Jim did it. Who would you believe?

The ninety-nine, of course. But what are you attempting to get at with this?

Blackhawk said:
I know you would not agree with him. That is obvious. My point was to show how firmly the church and a particular church father supported the Eternal Sonship of Christ. I also wanted to show how heretics in the past also denied the eternal Sonship of Christ.

You are aware that there were many Christologies long before the Council of Nicea, aren't you? You can cite every Church Father, but that won't mean that they are right. It will only mean that the majority agreed. Yet, we are well aware (or I am, at least), that just because the majority agrees, doesn't mean that it is true. To think such is to fall into the logical fallacy of ad populum.

Blackhawk said:
Where do you get the whole God would lack his Wisdom argument?

Proverbs 8:22-31 and Calvin's Commentaries on the Gospel of John.

Blackhawk said:
I am saying that the Son was begotten but is also eternal. Thus he is an eternal Son and the Father was always a Father.

Would you care to support this claim?

Blackhawk said:
Actually you have. You say that it was a role he played. It was just basically a title only. That is what you have claimed. So yes you have stated that the Son is not the Son by nature. And again if the Son is not the Son by nature but by the grace of a title bestowed upon him alone then he cannot make us sons of God.

"Son of God" is figurative. Surely you know this, as well as that for Jesus to be called the "Son of God" is to say that Jesus is the Messiah. I do not deny that our Lord was divine, that He was God Incarnate, and if I do not deny this, then how can you say that I have rejected the notion that Jesus is the Son by nature? I need not believe that Jesus had eternally been the Son in order to agree that Jesus is the Son of God by nature.

Blackhawk said:
Okay for the scriptural passages and allusions. First the John 1 passages demonstrated that the Son was the Son before the incarnation.

Where?

Blackhawk said:
The passage from John 3 demonstrates the Father sent his only Son to save us. He sent his Son. the Passage does not say he sent the Word but that he sent his Son.

And John was sent by God (John 1:6). Does that make John pre-existent and divine? Clearly, if Jesus is the Word Incarnate, then God sent His Word, for it is written,

"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10, 11; emphasis mine).

Blackhawk said:
The Galatians 3 passage demonstrates that salvation is becoming part of the family of God or becoming sons of God. This is accomplished through Christ the one and only true Son by nature.

I haven't denied that our Lord is the Son of God by nature.

Blackhawk said:
The 1 John passage again demonstrates that the Father sent his Son. It again does not say that he sent the Word or his wisdom but His Son.

I have demonstrated above that God sent His Word to earth, as well as that if God should send someone, does it thus follow that the person sent had always been pre-existent with God? Now, again, I shall show to you that God sent His Word, Who became flesh. Jesus is God's Word Incarnate, so in reality, God sent His Word.

Blackhawk said:
And finally the Abraham passage demonstrates that the Son was the Son again when the Father sent him. The offering up of Isaac, Abraham son, foreshadows the incarantion and the cross where the Father gives his one and only Son. The incarnation is the begginng of the offering.

This is prophetical, nay, shadows, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says. It doesn't mean that it is reality.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've actually made a negative claim, thank you. I never said that the Son was eternally the Son. But you have. To tell me that I must prove that the Son has never been the Son eternally is to ask me to prove something that is non-existent. You are asking of me to become omniscient, when you know that I am not. So be it. You wish to tell me that the burden of proof is on me, and that if I am incapable of doing so, that you must not believe what I say. But this is foolishness, because it is like a caviler asking that you prove that God is triune, and that you demand non-existent verses! What a child's game that you demand me to provide Scripture stating that the Son was not eternally the Son..

It seems like you are playing a game. You know that I have stated that you must prove not that the Son was not eternally the Son but that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. See your positive statement is that the Son became to be the Son at a certain period of time. So you must prove that.


Proof 1: Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a Father-Son relationship like there is in the New Testament. To say that God had not revealed His Son, and therefore, it means that the Son had been eternally the Son is ad ignorantiam, because you cannot prove either that the Son has eternally been the Son.

Arguing against your proof is the statement that there was progressive revelation in the Bible. It does not prove anything nor did I use it to prove something. What it does though is throw doubt on your proof #1. There is another more historical alternate which is a better explanation of why the Father-Son relationship is not mentioned.

Proof 2: Nowhere does it show that God is speaking to another divine person.

Huh? Do you mean the OT only or all of the BIble? If all of the Bible then it is just clearly false. But the OT has allusions to other persons in the Trinity. Like in the Psalms where it states something like My Lord said to my Lord." or something like that. I am too lazy right now to look up the reference. But I will if you want me to. So this is false.

Proof 3: Nowhere is God called the Father in the same manner presented in the New Testament. To say that He must be called such as though He was eternally the Father, and that there was eternally the Son is merely an assumption not based off of Scripture.

Okay but then again my point about this has always been that no one can call God Father at all unless there was an eternal Son. So I would state that becasue of progressive revelation and my point here this statement is not any form of proof. At the very least it does not really support what you are saying.


Proof 4: To say that the Son was eternally the Son, we must regard John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father." We then must accept Modalism, for this says, "and the Son was the Father."

Why? There is no reason to do so. First one can call the 2nd person of the Trinity the Word. I have no problem with that. Especailly since John calls him that in John 1. And why would calling him son in that passage be any closer to Modalism than using the Word? Why did you replace God with the Father? You are making no sense here and are suggesting things I never have. This proof is just silly.

Proof 5: We find that Wisdom/Word had always been with God (Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:1, 2), but nowhere do we find that the Son had always been with God. We may say that the Son is the Incarnate Wisdom/Word of God, but that's all we could say.

Why are you bringing up Prov. if you beleive in proof #2? It makes no sense. But anyways I have no problem saying that the Word has always been. And have no problem using Wisdom also for Christ.

This sounds like a desperate argument. Without any backing that the Son was always the Son, your argument crumbles in ad ignorantiam. So, I ask that you prove by Scriptural proof that the Son was always the Son eternally.

UMMM. As you know I was responding to a statement by you. You brought up the Verse where Mary asks the Angel how can she conceive if she is a virgin? You had said that the use of future language demonstrates that the Son will be the Son in the future or after the birth. I was just demonstrating that the verse does not say that. What it states is that in the future others will call him Son of God. It does not mention if he is the SOn of God at that moment or not. But you know all of this. This is clearly some type of game you are playing.

The Jews wrote the New Testament based off of the Old, yes? The Jews did not know who Jesus was prior to His birth. To say that I make a mockery of the Text is an unjustifiable claim. The New Testament was not written first. You cannot tell me that one could understand what John meant when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," or prior to that, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us." It is to be read in a chronological order. No wonder then, that you do not understand what I am saying!.

What I said is that you sould read the whole of the NT through the lens of Christ. This is a very historic heremeneutical principle. The church fathers, the medieval theologians, the reformers, the puritans, some of the Neo-Orthodox, the fundamentalists, etc. All support some type of this hermeneutical prinicple. So what I am saying is that you cannot understand the OT fully without the NT. You see what was going on in the OT in a new light because of what is revealed in the NT. Thus one by looking through Christ can keep the mosaic of the king together instead of shuffling around the pieces to make the mosaic look like a dog or fox. (Irenaeus). Thus only by looking through Christ can we see the pattern in the OT that displays Christ.



And clearly I have stated previously that you offer me Scriptural proof. The Church is made up of human beings. Human beings are fallible. The Church is also fallible. The only two things that are not fallible are God and His Word.

okay. but the problem you have is that tradition is very important even in the Biblical text. In Deut. God through Moses tells the Jews to tradition what he said to future generations. The great commission also tells us to tradition all the teachings of Christ to future generations. Although it is not infallible proof to many it should seem like some kind of proof to state that the church has believed the eternal Sonship of Christ for 2,000 years.

The ninety-nine, of course. But what are you attempting to get at with this?

I was attempting to show why historical tradition is a kind of proof. I think I made my point as you chose the 99.

You are aware that there were many Christologies long before the Council of Nicea, aren't you? You can cite every Church Father, but that won't mean that they are right. It will only mean that the majority agreed. Yet, we are well aware (or I am, at least), that just because the majority agrees, doesn't mean that it is true. To think such is to fall into the logical fallacy of ad populum.

Sure but it does give proof that it could be true. To say that the 99 gives no proof is crazy. You seem like many to state that there cannot be anytime where a proof might not be true. Well all the 99 could be wrong sometimes so it can't be proof. I do not accept that kind of argumentation. Real life is not like that. in real life we look at probabilty and if something has a very high degree of probability then it is proved. That is the only way in which we can function. So the tradition of the church gives us proof of a higher probabilty that the eternal Sonship of Christ is true.

Proverbs 8:22-31 and Calvin's Commentaries on the Gospel of John.

huh? You are using tradition to state your case? Calvin could be wrong. Right? That is no proof. ;) ;)

"Son of God" is figurative. Surely you know this, as well as that for Jesus to be called the "Son of God" is to say that Jesus is the Messiah. I do not deny that our Lord was divine, that He was God Incarnate, and if I do not deny this, then how can you say that I have rejected the notion that Jesus is the Son by nature? I need not believe that Jesus had eternally been the Son in order to agree that Jesus is the Son of God by nature.

So the title of son is just figurative. Hmm. But then how do you explain Jesus' use of Fahter in the NT. Clearly he did not see it as just figurative. Second you can't say that the title "Son of God" is figurative and then say he is the Son of God by nature. I am not saying that you donot think the Word is God or divine. I am saying that you believe that he is not Son by nature which is clearly what you have said also.

And John was sent by God (John 1:6). Does that make John pre-existent and divine? Clearly, if Jesus is the Word Incarnate, then God sent His Word, for it is written,

"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10, 11; emphasis mine).

My point was that he was what he is stated to be when he sent him. So if we can speak in temporal terms. The Son was the Son at or really before the time of sending. So it was before the incarantion that the Son was the Son. Sicne God is outside of time then the SOn was the Son eternally.



I haven't denied that our Lord is the Son of God by nature.

I have already show nthat you have. And you state that you have also.

I have demonstrated above that God sent His Word to earth, as well as that if God should send someone, does it thus follow that the person sent had always been pre-existent with God? Now, again, I shall show to you that God sent His Word, Who became flesh. Jesus is God's Word Incarnate, so in reality, God sent His Word.

But many passages it does not say that God sent His Word. BTW I am fine with that statement. But the passages say "God sent His Son." or as John 3:16 "that he (God/Father) gave His only begotten Son . . ." Thus when the Father sends or gives the Son the Son the Son is the Son. There is no way around that. He is the Word and He is the Son.


This is prophetical, nay, shadows, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says. It doesn't mean that it is reality.

But it shows a pattern. The Son is the Son when the FAther gives him. Thus gives even more credibilty to the statement that the Son is eternally the Son and the Father is thus eternally the Father.

I think I have shown much proof that the Father and the SOn are both eternally so. You have really show nvery few if no proof of your positive claim that the SOn became the Son after the incarnation. Please do so. YOu know that is a positive claim. You are not just saying that there is no proof that the SOn was not the Son eternally. You are saying that the SOn became the SOn at a certain time. So prove it. And stop playing games.
 
Upvote 0

MrSnow

Senior Member
May 30, 2007
891
89
✟8,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Jesus is the Son of the Father. But prior to the birth of Jesus, Jesus was not called "Jesus," nor was He called "Son." This is so evident in the Old Testament, because nowhere does it say anything of the Son. I challenge you to go and search through the entire Old Testament. Then, when you have found a single verse that says that the Son was with the Father, or if you have a single verse that mentions the Son prior to His First Coming, then we shall discuss it. Otherwise, you're appealing to ignorance.

Psalm 2 "The LORD said to me, 'You are my Son. Today have I begotten you. Ask of me and I shall make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'"
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Psalm 2 "The LORD said to me, 'You are my Son. Today have I begotten you. Ask of me and I shall make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'"

I tried that verse before and it has some historical baggage also.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
It seems like you are playing a game. You know that I have stated that you must prove not that the Son was not eternally the Son but that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. See your positive statement is that the Son became to be the Son at a certain period of time. So you must prove that.

And I have already explained to you what is so evident. You just continue to deny it because you wish to hold onto some tradition that Origen enthusiastically spoke of. But as long as you are unable to provide me Scriptural reference that the Son was eternally the Son, you are no better in your argument than me.

Blackhawk said:
Arguing against your proof is the statement that there was progressive revelation in the Bible. It does not prove anything nor did I use it to prove something.

Then you commit ad ignorantiam.

Blackhawk said:
What it does though is throw doubt on your proof #1. There is another more historical alternate which is a better explanation of why the Father-Son relationship is not mentioned.

Please, do tell.

Blackhawk said:
Huh? Do you mean the OT only or all of the BIble? If all of the Bible then it is just clearly false. But the OT has allusions to other persons in the Trinity. Like in the Psalms where it states something like My Lord said to my Lord." or something like that. I am too lazy right now to look up the reference. But I will if you want me to. So this is false.

I am speaking of the Old Testament only. But, then you quote Psalm 110:1, which says, "Yahweh says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Please prove to me that God is speaking to another divine person, and not a royal king.

Blackhawk said:
Okay but then again my point about this has always been that no one can call God Father at all unless there was an eternal Son.

So, you're denying that the Jews called God their Father? Why do you continue to repeat yourself? You think that just because God is called "Father," that it must logically follow that God has a Son who always was with Him eternally. But this doesn't prove anything. It's merely an assertion.

Blackhawk said:
So I would state that becasue of progressive revelation and my point here this statement is not any form of proof. At the very least it does not really support what you are saying.

Again, you commit the logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam.

Blackhawk said:
Why? There is no reason to do so.

But you assume that the Son was eternally the Son.

Blackhawk said:
First one can call the 2nd person of the Trinity the Word. I have no problem with that.

Probably because you act as though by me saying that the Word was with God, that I am really saying that the Son was with God.

Blackhawk said:
Especailly since John calls him that in John 1. And why would calling him son in that passage be any closer to Modalism than using the Word?

You've read the above statement of John 1:1 by BrendanMark, haven't you? To say that the "Word was God" is to say in a good, but terse translation, "What God was, the Word was." This cannot be said of the Father and the Son, lest you commit Modalism, nay, Sabellianism, because then you would be saying that the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father. So, you would have it either as, "and the Son was the Father," or again, "And what the Father was, the Son was." As if God and His Word were one person, as if the Father and Son were not distinct.

Blackhawk said:
Why did you replace God with the Father? You are making no sense here and are suggesting things I never have. This proof is just silly.

You need not state them, for if that were the case, then you could never falsely accuse me of saying that the Son of God is not the Son by nature. You are telling me that the Father has eternally been the Father, and that the Son has eternally been the Son. You use "Word" and "Son" synonymously. And because God is commonly called the Father in the New Testament, it must naturally flow that you would be telling me, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father." Even moreso, "The Son was with the Father in the beginning."

Blackhawk said:
Why are you bringing up Prov. if you beleive in proof #2? It makes no sense.

Because, Wisdom is personified and not a real person. Furthermore, if I were to say that Wisdom was a person, it would not affect what I meant, since we don't see God speaking to Wisdom. And if you want to get really picky with this, well, I could say that God had an eternal Daughter, not Son.

Blackhawk said:
But anyways I have no problem saying that the Word has always been. And have no problem using Wisdom also for Christ.

That is because you are using "Son" synonymously with those two words. That is deceptive.

Blackhawk said:
UMMM. As you know I was responding to a statement by you. You brought up the Verse where Mary asks the Angel how can she conceive if she is a virgin? You had said that the use of future language demonstrates that the Son will be the Son in the future or after the birth. I was just demonstrating that the verse does not say that. What it states is that in the future others will call him Son of God. It does not mention if he is the SOn of God at that moment or not. But you know all of this. This is clearly some type of game you are playing.

So, you are unable to support your argument. If you want to have me believe that the Son has eternally been the Son, then you must show to me from both the Old and New Testament that the Son was always known as the Son. Besides, whether or not others would call our Lord, "Son of God," does not mean that you have refuted my previous statement, as your interpretation is not mutually exclusive with mine. You're merely saying that it does not disprove that the Son of God was not the Son of God eternally, which is yet again, ad ignorantiam.

Blackhawk said:
What I said is that you sould read the whole of the NT through the lens of Christ.

Or rather, that I should read it from a historical perspective. There is no reason for me to impose my theological agenda to Scripture. That's eisegesis.

Blackhawk said:
This is a very historic heremeneutical principle. The church fathers, the medieval theologians, the reformers, the puritans, some of the Neo-Orthodox, the fundamentalists, etc. All support some type of this hermeneutical prinicple.

Ad populum. Again, just because the majority of people have done this or that does not make it true or correct. Such fallacious arguments.

Blackhawk said:
So what I am saying is that you cannot understand the OT fully without the NT. You see what was going on in the OT in a new light because of what is revealed in the NT. Thus one by looking through Christ can keep the mosaic of the king together instead of shuffling around the pieces to make the mosaic look like a dog or fox. (Irenaeus). Thus only by looking through Christ can we see the pattern in the OT that displays Christ.

However, I am not shuffling around Scripture. I do not need to act like those who say that when Moses said, "In the beginning Elohim created," that this is a reference to a triune God, nor do I need to take up Deuteronomy 6:4 and think that it is speaking of a triune God, either. Not that I deny that God is triune. I fully accept it. But there is no reason for me to go back and ruin the historical perspective. Even the Jews act as though they have it right when they mention that Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one, that is, numerically, for it can also be written, "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." Thus, we understand that Ancient Israelt was monolatristic.

Blackhawk said:
okay. but the problem you have is that tradition is very important even in the Biblical text. In Deut. God through Moses tells the Jews to tradition what he said to future generations. The great commission also tells us to tradition all the teachings of Christ to future generations. Although it is not infallible proof to many it should seem like some kind of proof to state that the church has believed the eternal Sonship of Christ for 2,000 years.

You would have to prove that our Lord, even His disciples, believed that the Son was eternally the Son.

Blackhawk said:
Sure but it does give proof that it could be true. To say that the 99 gives no proof is crazy. You seem like many to state that there cannot be anytime where a proof might not be true. Well all the 99 could be wrong sometimes so it can't be proof.

Unless the ninety-nine witnessed it. Otherwise, just because a majority of people say that something is right or wrong, does not necessarily make it true or false. To think that the majority is correct is ad populum, unless they have evidence.

I do not accept that kind of argumentation. Real life is not like that. in real life we look at probabilty and if something has a very high degree of probability then it is proved. That is the only way in which we can function. So the tradition of the church gives us proof of a higher probabilty that the eternal Sonship of Christ is true.[/quote]

Did the disciples of Jesus teach eternal Sonship?

Blackhawk said:
huh? You are using tradition to state your case? Calvin could be wrong. Right? That is no proof. ;) ;)

Calvin could be wrong. Let any man refute Calvin's arguments, then we can say that Calvin was wrong. Besides, I also made note of Proverbs 8:22-31. I'll go so far as to say that even Tertullian himself spoke of God's Word as Reason first, for Reason is first manifested before Word. Not that the Reason is not the Word, but that God's Reason was within God's mind, and was God's mind. And when God spoke, then came forth His Word. Thus, if God is eternally, and if God is rational, then God has possessed Reason from all eternity. Therefore, it follows, as I have said before, that for the Arians to deny that God's Wisdom was not, but came into existence is to say that God was not a rational being.

Blackhawk said:
So the title of son is just figurative. Hmm. But then how do you explain Jesus' use of Fahter in the NT. Clearly he did not see it as just figurative.

Oh, how little you know of this. The angels are called "sons of God." This is a figurative term, yes? Surely God does not have offspring. No wonder the Muslim's get riled up when they hear that God had begotten a Son. They think that God had actually begetted an offspring. But clearly you have stated that the term "begotten" is figurative. And yes, we can say that the term "Father" is figurative, for God had fathered Jesus as a Son. And though you quoted Psalm 2:7 previously, the JPS says, "You are my son, I have fathered you this day." This is a support that God's role as a Father came into play when the Word became flesh. And is it any wonder why John does not call the Word, "Son," until after the Word became flesh?

Blackhawk said:
Second you can't say that the title "Son of God" is figurative and then say he is the Son of God by nature.

When I say that Jesus is the Son of God by nature, what I mean is that by nature, Jesus possess godhood, just as the Father. Not that the Son has eternally been called "Son."

Blackhawk said:
I am not saying that you donot think the Word is God or divine. I am saying that you believe that he is not Son by nature which is clearly what you have said also.

Read above.

Blackhawk said:
My point was that he was what he is stated to be when he sent him. So if we can speak in temporal terms. The Son was the Son at or really before the time of sending. So it was before the incarantion that the Son was the Son. Sicne God is outside of time then the SOn was the Son eternally.

You must then present an argument why Jesus is not called the "Son" until after the time of His become flesh.

Blackhawk said:
I have already show nthat you have. And you state that you have also.

If you wish. As if it say anywhere in the New Testament that the Son of God is the Son by nature.

Blackhawk said:
But many passages it does not say that God sent His Word. BTW I am fine with that statement. But the passages say "God sent His Son." or as John 3:16 "that he (God/Father) gave His only begotten Son . . ." Thus when the Father sends or gives the Son the Son the Son is the Son. There is no way around that. He is the Word and He is the Son.

The Word is pre-Incarnate. The Son is Incarnate. Again, you're quoting off of verses that say "Son of God" after the Word became flesh. Prior to this, it does not say, "the Son was with the Father."

Blackhawk said:
But it shows a pattern. The Son is the Son when the FAther gives him. Thus gives even more credibilty to the statement that the Son is eternally the Son and the Father is thus eternally the Father.

How about you refute my statement that this was prophetical, that it was a shadow, not reality.

Blackhawk said:
I think I have shown much proof that the Father and the SOn are both eternally so. You have really show nvery few if no proof of your positive claim that the SOn became the Son after the incarnation. Please do so. YOu know that is a positive claim. You are not just saying that there is no proof that the SOn was not the Son eternally. You are saying that the SOn became the SOn at a certain time. So prove it. And stop playing games.

I have proven it. Denial of it doesn't make what I have said any less true.

Blackhawk said:
I tried that verse before and it has some historical baggage also.

That is because it was never meant that way until someone had to go about and think that the Son was the Son from all eternity. Surely, if anyone in the Early Church went by historical understanding, they would have not fallen into the error of thinking that Psalm 2:7 speaks of eternal generation.
 
Upvote 0

IamAdopted

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2006
9,384
309
South Carolina
✟18,557.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Son has always been the Son for scriture tells us Jesus is the same today,yesterday and forever.. we can also read this
Heb 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
Heb 10:6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
Heb 10:7 "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'"
Heb 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),
Heb 10:9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And I have already explained to you what is so evident. You just continue to deny it because you wish to hold onto some tradition that Origen enthusiastically spoke of. But as long as you are unable to provide me Scriptural reference that the Son was eternally the Son, you are no better in your argument than me.

You are playing a game. You continue not to read or respond to what is written. I am asking to prove that the Son became the SOn at the incarantion. I do not think you can get around this.


Then you commit ad ignorantiam.

So I cannot say that you can't prove your argument? This is just silly.

Please, do tell.

I have already told you that.

I am speaking of the Old Testament only. But, then you quote Psalm 110:1, which says, "Yahweh says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Please prove to me that God is speaking to another divine person, and not a royal king.

So, you're denying that the Jews called God their Father? Why do you continue to repeat yourself? You think that just because God is called "Father," that it must logically follow that God has a Son who always was with Him eternally. But this doesn't prove anything. It's merely an assertion.

No I am not denying that and you know I am not. I continue to repeat myself because either you do not read my posts or you intentionally misinterpret them. And yes I think that no one can call the Father Father without going through the Son. This I have explained in my soteriological argument I have made more than once before.

Again, you commit the logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam.

Again I am arguing against your proof. I am saying that it does not hold up. I do not see any logical fallacy in that.

But you assume that the Son was eternally the Son.

Again this is not about what I am assumming. This is about what your proving. So my assumptions have no bearing at all. But just continue to dodge what I say.


Probably because you act as though by me saying that the Word was with God, that I am really saying that the Son was with God.

I am not saying that you say that. I am asking why you are bringing

You've read the above statement of John 1:1 by BrendanMark, haven't you? To say that the "Word was God" is to say in a good, but terse translation, "What God was, the Word was." This cannot be said of the Father and the Son, lest you commit Modalism, nay, Sabellianism, because then you would be saying that the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father. So, you would have it either as, "and the Son was the Father," or again, "And what the Father was, the Son was." As if God and His Word were one person, as if the Father and Son were not distinct..

How do you get around any of this by calling the Father God and the Son the Word? Either way one is clearly, according to you, speaking about two different persons of the Holy Trinity and saying that they are the same. But where have I said that I wanted to change in John 1 Word to Son and God to FAther. I do not think one can do that. Especially since I do not think the word God is always used in the same way in John 1. If it was then John 1 would make no sense. So you are just creating a strawman here.

You need not state them, for if that were the case, then you could never falsely accuse me of saying that the Son of God is not the Son by nature. You are telling me that the Father has eternally been the Father, and that the Son has eternally been the Son. You use "Word" and "Son" synonymously. And because God is commonly called the Father in the New Testament, it must naturally flow that you would be telling me, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father." Even moreso, "The Son was with the Father in the beginning."..

NO! First it is you that is claiming that I would think that God =Father always. But I do not believe that. Sometimes it is true. Sometimes in John 1 I think it is okay to replace Word with Father except that it would be improper to change the language of scripture because it usees the words it does for a reason.



Because, Wisdom is personified and not a real person. Furthermore, if I were to say that Wisdom was a person, it would not affect what I meant, since we don't see God speaking to Wisdom. And if you want to get really picky with this, well, I could say that God had an eternal Daughter, not Son.

Huh? So by what you are saying the 2nd person of the Trinity is not a real person?

That is because you are using "Son" synonymously with those two words. That is deceptive.

I do not think so.

So, you are unable to support your argument. If you want to have me believe that the Son has eternally been the Son, then you must show to me from both the Old and New Testament that the Son was always known as the Son. Besides, whether or not others would call our Lord, "Son of God," does not mean that you have refuted my previous statement, as your interpretation is not mutually exclusive with mine. You're merely saying that it does not disprove that the Son of God was not the Son of God eternally, which is yet again, ad ignorantiam.

Again you know that in this part of the post I was just refuting what you were saying. You were using it as proof that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. So i was saying that your proof was not valid. I am not saying that it does not disprove anything and thus it proves my argument. You are making an assertion and I am saying this is not proof of your assertion. That is all I am saying. But I think you know that but you are using this silly logical fallacy stuff to point away from where your argument is defective.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Or rather, that I should read it from a historical perspective. There is no reason for me to impose my theological agenda to Scripture. That's eisegesis..

Everyone does. No one reads scripture with a blank slate. It would be improper to do so. It is not eisegesis. It is taken the whole of the Bible into account when you are interpreting a part of it.

Ad populum. Again, just because the majority of people have done this or that does not make it true or correct. Such fallacious arguments.

Again I reject that kind of thinking. In the real world one cannot be so precise. One has to believe something based upon probabilty and it is more probable to believe something that the Church has beleived for thousands of years. I am not saying it undisputably proves anything. It just makes it more likely.


However, I am not shuffling around Scripture. I do not need to act like those who say that when Moses said, "In the beginning Elohim created," that this is a reference to a triune God, nor do I need to take up Deuteronomy 6:4 and think that it is speaking of a triune God, either. Not that I deny that God is triune. I fully accept it. But there is no reason for me to go back and ruin the historical perspective. Even the Jews act as though they have it right when they mention that Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one, that is, numerically, for it can also be written, "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." Thus, we understand that Ancient Israelt was monolatristic.

God is the ultimate author of scripture so I do not live and die by what Moses meant in Genesis 1. A lot of times in the OT and NT the authors did not fully understand what they were writing but later it was demonstrated more of what the Bible was saying. Take for instance an allusion to or prophecies about Christ. The author probably did not understand the meaning fully but after Christ we can understand what it means more fully. Sorry but this is a very orthodox hermeneutical principle.


You would have to prove that our Lord, even His disciples, believed that the Son was eternally the Son..

The church traditioning it to me is proof. Also I have shown you in scripture and thus I have shown you another proof that the disciples and Jesus thought so. The church has handed down to me the teaching of our Lord and the Disciples and the scriptures are the writings of the earliest Christians and some of the Disciples themselves testifying about what I am saying.

Unless the ninety-nine witnessed it. Otherwise, just because a majority of people say that something is right or wrong, does not necessarily make it true or false. To think that the majority is correct is ad populum, unless they have evidence.

look at what I have already said earlier in this post.

Did the disciples of Jesus teach eternal Sonship?

YES.

Calvin could be wrong. Let any man refute Calvin's arguments, then we can say that Calvin was wrong. Besides, I also made note of Proverbs 8:22-31. I'll go so far as to say that even Tertullian himself spoke of God's Word as Reason first, for Reason is first manifested before Word. Not that the Reason is not the Word, but that God's Reason was within God's mind, and was God's mind. And when God spoke, then came forth His Word. Thus, if God is eternally, and if God is rational, then God has possessed Reason from all eternity. Therefore, it follows, as I have said before, that for the Arians to deny that God's Wisdom was not, but came into existence is to say that God was not a rational being.

It is just so ironic that you are so against tradition and then you use it as part of your argument. It was kind of funny. But you know you are not using the term Word as Tertullian or Calvin did. They would see reason as not just personified but actually as something real. What I am trying to say is that they thought that reason was not just the intellect of a being but that this intellect was a being. That when someone says they personfied it they are speaking mroe literally then you are.

Oh, how little you know of this. The angels are called "sons of God." This is a figurative term, yes? Surely God does not have offspring. No wonder the Muslim's get riled up when they hear that God had begotten a Son. They think that God had actually begetted an offspring. But clearly you have stated that the term "begotten" is figurative. And yes, we can say that the term "Father" is figurative, for God had fathered Jesus as a Son. And though you quoted Psalm 2:7 previously, the JPS says, "You are my son, I have fathered you this day." This is a support that God's role as a Father came into play when the Word became flesh. And is it any wonder why John does not call the Word, "Son," until after the Word became flesh?

So you reject the Trinity now? Clearly the Bible teaches that ther are three persons in the Godhead. And that the term Son is not just figurative. And again I have shown that John calls the Son the Son before the incarnation. What I mean, so you do not get confused or miscontrtue this statement (I wish), is that John speaks of the Son as being with the Father before the incarnation. When the Father sent the Son the Son was the Son.

When I say that Jesus is the Son of God by nature, what I mean is that by nature, Jesus possess godhood, just as the Father. Not that the Son has eternally been called "Son."

Okay but that is not how the word Son is completely used in the scripture. Sure it alludes to the fact that Jesus is God along with the Father. That is why the Jews wanted to stone him many times. But in many passages it also shows the relationship between the Father and Son. and I have shown also how this relationship along with the word Son is used to describe what the Son was before the incarnation.


You must then present an argument why Jesus is not called the "Son" until after the time of His become flesh.

I already have. Did not read my argument against your proof about this? Really I think again you are just playing a game to make yourself sound very smart and to get away from having to answer the faults I am showing in your reasons and proofs for the Son becoming the Son at the incarnation. And again there is such a thing called progressive revelation.


The Word is pre-Incarnate. The Son is Incarnate. Again, you're quoting off of verses that say "Son of God" after the Word became flesh. Prior to this, it does not say, "the Son was with the Father."

The verse was written after he became flesh but the verse is about before he became flesh. You seem to live in this weird world where no one speaks aobut the past. Where if one states something after the fact then it can't be proof for an item in the past. This is clear because of your constant attack of the verse I use because they were written after the incarnation of our Lord. What a silly argument. Again John many times writes about the Son being the Son preincarnate.


How about you refute my statement that this was prophetical, that it was a shadow, not reality.

I do not want to do that because it is a shadow. So what? That is what I meant when I said it foreshadowed (hmm interesting word) or that it was a type of Christ and his incarnation and passion. Types have the same basic pattern as the future event. That is why they are called types.

I have proven it. Denial of it doesn't make what I have said any less true.

AGain I have shown the holes in your theory and you instead of rebutting my arguments again are playing games. You accuse me of logical fallacies in places where I am not trying to prove anything. Stop playing games and prove that where I have discredited your proofs I am still wrong. But I have a feeling you will not do that. Because this seems to be more of a game than an honest discussion. You are trying to win an argument and not trying to learn truth.


That is because it was never meant that way until someone had to go about and think that the Son was the Son from all eternity. Surely, if anyone in the Early Church went by historical understanding, they would have not fallen into the error of thinking that Psalm 2:7 speaks of eternal generation.

You mean that historical heremeutic that came about in the modern era? Clearly yes.

Wasn't that about the 18th or 19th century? Yes it was.

So why do you think the Bible was written in that kind of style and why should we read a text not written in the modern era like it was? That makes no sense. This was one a the major downfalls of the modern historical-critical hermeneutic. And it is why it is being rejected more and more as time goes on. Even those who did not hold to all of it but were influenced by it (like many conservative protestants) are rejecting it now. Postmodernism is not (especially in some of its forms) a good alternative. But one thing it is doing that is positive uis getting rid of the old modern worldview that has been demonstrated to be faulty. Hopefully yu will see how your exegesis and hermeneutic are faulty and discard the modern elements you seem to cherish so much.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
You are playing a game. You continue not to read or respond to what is written. I am asking to prove that the Son became the SOn at the incarantion. I do not think you can get around this.

Does one have to prove something that is non-existent? Again, you must assume that I am omniscient. A universal negative is self-defeating.

Blackhawk said:
So I cannot say that you can't prove your argument? This is just silly.

Why is it silly? You argued for progressive revelation. I said that this doesn't prove anything. Why not? Well, you ask of me to prove that the Son was not the Son up until the time of the Incarnation. But how can I, when what I have told you before is that nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a Father-Son relationship? It isn't really that difficult to understand this. You can go back and reread the Old Testament countless times, and I assure you, not once will you find this. Why not? Because it's non-existent?

That's like telling an atheist to prove that God does not exist. How can an atheist do this, since God is unobservable? The burden of proof would be on the theist. Unless there is proof that God exists, the atheist doesn't need to believe that God exists, nor does he need to find any reason to believe in the existence of God. In the same manner, neither do I need to believe that the Son was always the Son prior to His birth. You can quote the Church Fathers all you want until you're blue in the face. It won't get you anywhere.

Blackhawk said:
I have already told you that.

So, you've already told me another historical alternative as to why the Father and Son are not mentioned? What is that? The Church Fathers? If this is who you are referring to, you are aware that they are in question, yes?

Blackhawk said:
No I am not denying that and you know I am not. I continue to repeat myself because either you do not read my posts or you intentionally misinterpret them. And yes I think that no one can call the Father Father without going through the Son. This I have explained in my soteriological argument I have made more than once before.

First of all, if you want to talk soteriology, go to the soteriological forum. Second, in the Old Covenant, Israel was considered as God's son. To be in that covenant would mean that you are a part of God's community. You could, therefore, without the Son existing, call God your Father. It would be understood in a different manner, but then again, it is understood in a different manner between God and His people. Therefore, under adoption, we are called "sons of God." That's a figurative term, by the way.

Blackhawk said:
Again I am arguing against your proof. I am saying that it does not hold up. I do not see any logical fallacy in that.

In proof 3, I told you that nowhere do we find God being called the Father in the same manner as we do in the New Testament. You told me that this is because God had not given further revelation. You also told me that this is progressive revelation. But again, because I cannot find anywhere in the Old Testament, that God is called Father in the Father-Son relationship in the New Testament, it is, for you, an appeal to ignorance to say that God only revealed this later on. Prior to this, however, you have no proof. Search the Old Testament, and I assure you, not once will you find that God is called the Father in the same manner as the New Testament. So yes, that is a logical fallacy, which occurs when one lacks evidence, but thinks that they are right because it does not say otherwise. I just may call this argument an impasse and withdraw myself from further discussion.

Blackhawk said:
Again this is not about what I am assumming. This is about what your proving. So my assumptions have no bearing at all. But just continue to dodge what I say.

Here you are, thinking that you've gained the day like a gladiator in a battle field, just because I cannot (for how can I present something that does not exist?) give you a reply. I haven't dodged a word you said, and even if I did, I am a better fighter for not having been inflicted.

Blackhawk said:
I am not saying that you say that. I am asking why you are bringing

Monergism said:

How do you get around any of this by calling the Father God and the Son the Word? Either way one is clearly, according to you, speaking about two different persons of the Holy Trinity and saying that they are the same. But where have I said that I wanted to change in John 1 Word to Son and God to FAther. I do not think one can do that. Especially since I do not think the word God is always used in the same way in John 1. If it was then John 1 would make no sense. So you are just creating a strawman here.

It is not a straw man fallacy, my friend, for you have made so evident your claim of eternal Sonship, as well as God always being the Father of the Son. I would only be commiting a straw man if you were not claiming that the Word and Son are one and the same words. You believe that the Son is also called the Word, don't you? If you do, then what have I done wrong, except expose your way of understanding John 1:1? How do you read John 1:1?

Blackhawk said:
NO! First it is you that is claiming that I would think that God =Father always. But I do not believe that. Sometimes it is true. Sometimes in John 1 I think it is okay to replace Word with Father except that it would be improper to change the language of scripture because it usees the words it does for a reason.

Think real hard on what you've just said here. You're telling me that you do not believe that God always refers to the Father, that is, in the Bible. Why not? Isn't it, according to your view, that the Father and Son have eternally been the Father and the Son?

Blackhawk said:
Huh? So by what you are saying the 2nd person of the Trinity is not a real person?

That doesn't seem to have bothered Tertullian when he said,

Against Praxeas said:
For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made “in the image and likeness of God,” for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance.

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word.

Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

I hope you don't take Proverbs 8:22-31 in a literal meaning, as it is bent on personification.

Blackhawk said:
I do not think so.

So, you're not using "Son" and "Word" synonymously?

Blackhawk said:
Again you know that in this part of the post I was just refuting what you were saying. You were using it as proof that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. So i was saying that your proof was not valid. I am not saying that it does not disprove anything and thus it proves my argument. You are making an assertion and I am saying this is not proof of your assertion. That is all I am saying. But I think you know that but you are using this silly logical fallacy stuff to point away from where your argument is defective.

Yes, I know what you were hoping to refute, but you have not. I have stated that "will" is future tense, and that this means that the Word is not yet called the "Son of God" until the time of His birth. You then told me that this doesn't disprove your statement of eternal generation. You said that it means that Jesus will be called the "Son of God" by people.

Again, this is not mutually exclusive with what I have said previously. What makes it mutually exclusive is that you are telling me that that it does not mean that Jesus was not called "Son of God" prior to His birth. This, again, is an appeal to ignorance. You do know what that means, don't you? It means that you are arguing that just because we do not find eternal generation, that it does not mean that it is untrue. That's a logical fallacy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
M

Monergism

Guest
Blackhawk said:
Everyone does. No one reads scripture with a blank slate. It would be improper to do so. It is not eisegesis. It is taken the whole of the Bible into account when you are interpreting a part of it.

It would not be improper to read the Word of God without any theological baggage. It would be far better to read it without any theological influences given by previous fathers and divines. So, if everyone reads Scripture with a theological agenda, then one wonders who is correct. God is not the author of confusion.

Blackhawk said:
Again I reject that kind of thinking. In the real world one cannot be so precise. One has to believe something based upon probabilty and it is more probable to believe something that the Church has beleived for thousands of years. I am not saying it undisputably proves anything. It just makes it more likely.

You can reject that kind of thinking all you want. It makes it no less different. Just because the Church has believed in eternal generation for a number amount of years doesn't make it true. They also doubted that the earth revolved around the sun. What a concept! The Church can err. We need to stop being like blind sheep and start acting like the noble Bereans.

Blackhawk said:
God is the ultimate author of scripture so I do not live and die by what Moses meant in Genesis 1. A lot of times in the OT and NT the authors did not fully understand what they were writing but later it was demonstrated more of what the Bible was saying. Take for instance an allusion to or prophecies about Christ. The author probably did not understand the meaning fully but after Christ we can understand what it means more fully. Sorry but this is a very orthodox hermeneutical principle.

Yes, we can understand both Testaments by placing them together. Nevertheless, it does not mean that eternal generation is true. To say otherwise, you would do well to prove eternal generation.

Blackhawk said:
The church traditioning it to me is proof. Also I have shown you in scripture and thus I have shown you another proof that the disciples and Jesus thought so. The church has handed down to me the teaching of our Lord and the Disciples and the scriptures are the writings of the earliest Christians and some of the Disciples themselves testifying about what I am saying.

Where does it say that the disciples thought of Jesus as pre-existing as the Son, that the Son was eternally generated?

Blackhawk said:

Where do the disciples teach eternal Sonship?

Blackhawk said:
It is just so ironic that you are so against tradition and then you use it as part of your argument.

I am not against tradition. But there isn't any reason to accept something without Scriptural backing. Eternal generation is on trial here.

Blackhawk said:
It was kind of funny. But you know you are not using the term Word as Tertullian or Calvin did. They would see reason as not just personified but actually as something real.

That's quite funny, indeed, as John Calvin never commentated on the Book of Proverbs. Of course, Tertullian uses Proverbs 8 in Against Praxeas. To support that God's Reason became His Word, Tertullian quotes from Proverbs 8:22-25. It appears to me that Tertullian and I aren't disagreeing, since he writes, "'before all the hills did He beget me;' that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence." I do not deny that the Second Person of the Trinity is personal. I fully accept that He is a person.

Blackhawk said:
What I am trying to say is that they thought that reason was not just the intellect of a being but that this intellect was a being. That when someone says they personfied it they are speaking mroe literally then you are.

A personification is a personification. That means that an inanimate object is seen as personal. Or are you to assume that when the pots say to the potter, "Why have you made me like this?" that the pots are really living things?

Blackhawk said:
So you reject the Trinity now? Clearly the Bible teaches that ther are three persons in the Godhead. And that the term Son is not just figurative.

You don't understand, apparently. I do not reject the Trinity. But, are you saying that "Son" is both literal and figurative? You are telling me that the term "Son" is not just figurative. By that statement, you wish to tell me that it is something more. What is it? Surely when Jesus called two of His disciples, James and John, "Sons of Thunder," they weren't literally sons of thunder! They were given the name because of their outburst on entering the Samaritan villiage.

Blackhawk said:
And again I have shown that John calls the Son the Son before the incarnation. What I mean, so you do not get confused or miscontrtue this statement (I wish), is that John speaks of the Son as being with the Father before the incarnation. When the Father sent the Son the Son was the Son.

So, you have demonstrated to me that John called Jesus, "Son" before the Incarnation? Where? And where does John speak of the Son as being with the Father before the Incarnation? And again, just because Jesus was sent from God does not mean that He pre-existed as the Son. You've evasively attempted to not deal with John 1:6, where it says that there was a man named John who was sent from God.

Blackhawk said:
and I have shown also how this relationship along with the word Son is used to describe what the Son was before the incarnation.

Where?

Blackhawk said:
I already have. Did not read my argument against your proof about this? Really I think again you are just playing a game to make yourself sound very smart and to get away from having to answer the faults I am showing in your reasons and proofs for the Son becoming the Son at the incarnation. And again there is such a thing called progressive revelation.

Don't mock my intellect. I am not calling out logical fallacies on you because I am playing a game, or that I want to look smart. These are hardly my concern. But that's beside the point. Simply saying that eternal Sonship is true because of progressive revelation doesn't make it true. You wish to make me think that in the Old Testament, the Son was always the Son, and that by continuing to throw out the word "progressive revelation," that you have me caught in a trap like a bear. You can call out that phrase all you want, but it won't make any difference.

Blackhawk said:
The verse was written after he became flesh but the verse is about before he became flesh... Again John many times writes about the Son being the Son preincarnate.

Never mind your unnecessary verbiage. You are telling me that John 3:16 is a reference prior to the Incarnation of our Lord. If this is true, then why didn't John use the word "Word" like he did when he was introducing his Johannine Christology? Why didn't John also speak of the Son as being pre-existent? You've already concede the point that John 3:16 was written after the Word became flesh. Your argument is unconvincing.

Blackhawk said:
Types have the same basic pattern as the future event. That is why they are called types.

Then not only has Jesus always been the Son of God, but Jesus has always been Jesus, that is, He was always called by this name as well as had a physical body, since Jesus acts as a type with Adam.

Blackhawk said:
AGain I have shown the holes in your theory and you instead of rebutting my arguments again are playing games. You accuse me of logical fallacies in places where I am not trying to prove anything. Stop playing games and prove that where I have discredited your proofs I am still wrong. But I have a feeling you will not do that. Because this seems to be more of a game than an honest discussion. You are trying to win an argument and not trying to learn truth.

What holes have you shown me? You haven't even scratched the surface. And yes, I accuse you of logical fallacies because you wish to hide behind them. Come now, be honest here. You're not here to learn. You act as if you know the truth, just because the Early Church Fathers accepted the teaching of eternal generation. But what you continue to forget is that these men are fallible. Furthermore, you poorly attempt to quote God sending His Son as though the Son had always been the Son. What is this?

Blackhawk said:
You mean that historical heremeutic that came about in the modern era? Clearly yes.

Wasn't that about the 18th or 19th century? Yes it was.

Oh, I'm sorry that you do not accept what is older than the modern era. Ancient Near Eastern thought, anyone? Psalm 2:7 is about the coronation of the Messiah. But if you wish to think that even the modern era is so wicked and untruthful, then you may go back from whence you came, since you are unwilling to learn anything new. Don't accuse me of some modern era thought. My intention is to go back to the original sources, even if that means that it contradicts what the Fathers said.

By the way, you can put aside your snide remark about me having faulty exegesis. As if you were any better.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Does one have to prove something that is non-existent? Again, you must assume that I am omniscient. A universal negative is self-defeating..

What are you talking about? Never have i said you are omniscent. i have never asked you to prove a negative. Again prove that the Son was given the title of the Son at the incarnation. This is what you have said. I am not asking for you to prove that the Son was not the Son eternally. i am asking you to prove your statement. Get it?



Why is it silly? You argued for progressive revelation. I said that this doesn't prove anything. Why not? Well, you ask of me to prove that the Son was not the Son up until the time of the Incarnation. But how can I, when what I have told you before is that nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a Father-Son relationship? It isn't really that difficult to understand this. You can go back and reread the Old Testament countless times, and I assure you, not once will you find this. Why not? Because it's non-existent?

Again i argued for progressive revelation not to prove anything really. What i was using it for was to give an alternate explanation of your proof. See you said that one of your proofs that the son became the Son at the incarnation was that he is only called the Son in the OT. i used progressive revelation as one way in which the son was not called the son in the OT but yet he did not become the Son at the incarnation. I do not have to prove anything. I am not the one trying to prove something in this part of the post. you are. So prove it.

That's like telling an atheist to prove that God does not exist. How can an atheist do this, since God is unobservable? The burden of proof would be on the theist. Unless there is proof that God exists, the atheist doesn't need to believe that God exists, nor does he need to find any reason to believe in the existence of God. In the same manner, neither do I need to believe that the Son was always the Son prior to His birth. You can quote the Church Fathers all you want until you're blue in the face. It won't get you anywhere.?

Huh? I am not asking you to prove a negative. But BTW if an atheist stated that he knew that God did not exist i would ak him to prove it. If he just said he finds no evidence that God exists then I would not because i would be asking him to prove a negative. But if he said I know that something is true then he is actually making a postive claim. it is only when he would state that he has no evidence for it that the burden of proof would be on the other foot.

But your example is not characteristic of what I am asking you to do. i am asking you to prove your positive statement that the Son became the Son at a certain point in time. There is no negative statements in that. You are the one who has said and has tried to prove the statement that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. But when you find that your proof is shot full of holes then you try a poor tactic of saying I am asking you to prove a negative. i am not doing that at all.



So, you've already told me another historical alternative as to why the Father and Son are not mentioned? What is that? The Church Fathers? If this is who you are referring to, you are aware that they are in question, yes?

what do you mean in question? That makes no sense.



First of all, if you want to talk soteriology, go to the soteriological forum.

Sorry but theology is not so easy to seperate like that. When one is talking about the Trinity one naturally brings up questions about salvation. The Trinty is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of all Christianity. Everything branches off from it. So no I do not have to go to the soteriological forum to give an answer to your question that is soteriological in nature. i am sure Erwin would agree with me.

Second, in the Old Covenant, Israel was considered as God's son. To be in that covenant would mean that you are a part of God's community. You could, therefore, without the Son existing, call God your Father. It would be understood in a different manner, but then again, it is understood in a different manner between God and His people. Therefore, under adoption, we are called "sons of God." That's a figurative term, by the way.

okay you are not understanding what my argument is. first i agree that we can be called sons of god and so can Israel or the kings of Israel like Solomon and David. However what I am saying is that first Israel and King David would not have the oppurtunity to be called sons of God if it was not for Christ. sure Christ came later but that is not the point. it is the same point for us but easier to explain. How are we sons of God? Well Galatians 3 says that w are through faith in Christ. The Bible makes it clear that we become sons of God by grace because we have unity with Christ who is the Son of God by nature. So us and King David and israel are saved (become sons of God or in the family of God or in the nation of God0 through Christ. No one was saved in the OT except through Christ. So if Christ is not a Son by nature then we are not also and neither is King david nor israel. Thus even though we come much later than jesus and King david and Israel came intlo existence much earlier, we all are dependent on Christ for salvation.

In proof 3, I told you that nowhere do we find God being called the Father in the same manner as we do in the New Testament. You told me that this is because God had not given further revelation. You also told me that this is progressive revelation. But again, because I cannot find anywhere in the Old Testament, that God is called Father in the Father-Son relationship in the New Testament, it is, for you, an appeal to ignorance to say that God only revealed this later on. Prior to this, however, you have no proof. Search the Old Testament, and I assure you, not once will you find that God is called the Father in the same manner as the New Testament. So yes, that is a logical fallacy, which occurs when one lacks evidence, but thinks that they are right because it does not say otherwise. I just may call this argument an impasse and withdraw myself from further discussion.

NO! Again, and I do not know how many times I have to say this, i used progressive revelation not as an argument for or proof of the eternal Sonship of Christ. nowhere have I done that. i just demonstrated that your proof for christ or the Word becoming the Son at the time of the incarnation could be wrong. Why did he not become the Son at his baptism or maybe you could jsut say that you do not know when he became the Son. But this is not what you have stated. You have argued that the Son became the son at a particular point in time. That you must prove in some way. At least you have to show why it is very probable that it occurred at that time.



Here you are, thinking that you've gained the day like a gladiator in a battle field, just because I cannot (for how can I present something that does not exist?) give you a reply. I haven't dodged a word you said, and even if I did, I am a better fighter for not having been inflicted.

What do you mean trying to prove something that doees not exist. you have stated that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. What does not exist in that?



It is not a straw man fallacy, my friend, for you have made so evident your claim of eternal Sonship, as well as God always being the Father of the Son. I would only be commiting a straw man if you were not claiming that the Word and Son are one and the same words. You believe that the Son is also called the Word, don't you? If you do, then what have I done wrong, except expose your way of understanding John 1:1? How do you read John 1:1?

When have I said that everytime that the term God is used that it means the Father? You have stated that not me.



Think real hard on what you've just said here. You're telling me that you do not believe that God always refers to the Father, that is, in the Bible. Why not? Isn't it, according to your view, that the Father and Son have eternally been the Father and the Son??

Yes i think that Father has always been the Father and the son has always been the Son. But how do you get from that to me thinking that the term God always means the Father? It does not compute.



That doesn't seem to have bothered Tertullian when he said,

i do not see how Tertullian helps you since he says that reason is something different than yourself. But even so he was just using a person as an example in which God is far greater. So again I do not see wher Tertullian agree with you past where i do.

Yes, I know what you were hoping to refute, but you have not. I have stated that "will" is future tense, and that this means that the Word is not yet called the "Son of God" until the time of His birth. You then told me that this doesn't disprove your statement of eternal generation. You said that it means that Jesus will be called the "Son of God" by people.

Again, this is not mutually exclusive with what I have said previously. What makes it mutually exclusive is that you are telling me that that it does not mean that Jesus was not called "Son of God" prior to His birth. This, again, is an appeal to ignorance. You do know what that means, don't you? It means that you are arguing that just because we do not find eternal generation, that it does not mean that it is untrue. That's a logical fallacy.


Again you brought up the verse to dmonstrate that jesus WAS THE SON ONLY AFTER THE INCARNATION. You stated that that verse proved because it was in the future tense that he would become the son in the future. You said it proved that. But it does not. It does not prove either way when the Son became the Son. It just says when some people will call him the Son of God. That is it. So stop trying to reverse this and say that i am trying to prove my case that the Son is eternally the son by that verse. You brought it up as sound proof of YOur argument. I showed how you misinterpreted it. That is all.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It would not be improper to read the Word of God without any theological baggage. It would be far better to read it without any theological influences given by previous fathers and divines. So, if everyone reads Scripture with a theological agenda, then one wonders who is correct. God is not the author of confusion..

Sorry no major Christian tradition except for maybe some in the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions think the way you do. Neither did Luther or Calvin or Zwingli. And since it is impossible to come without theolgy or a tradition to the text it would be impractical to try and do otherwise. It is like folrovsky said " The only alternative to tradition is BAD TRADITION!"



Yes, we can understand both Testaments by placing them together. Nevertheless, it does not mean that eternal generation is true. To say otherwise, you would do well to prove eternal generation.

I was just trying to show that the modern assumption that what is important (only) is the human author'sunderstanding of what he had written is faulty.


Where does it say that the disciples thought of Jesus as pre-existing as the Son, that the Son was eternally generated?

Again the Son was the Son as the Father sent him. So clearly the Son was the son when he sent him. REally it can't be much clearer than that.



I am not against tradition. But there isn't any reason to accept something without Scriptural backing. Eternal generation is on trial here.

But then you use tradition as proof of your case when you think doing so is wrong. HMMM!



That's quite funny, indeed, as John Calvin never commentated on the Book of Proverbs. Of course, Tertullian uses Proverbs 8 in Against Praxeas. To support that God's Reason became His Word, Tertullian quotes from Proverbs 8:22-25. It appears to me that Tertullian and I aren't disagreeing, since he writes, "'before all the hills did He beget me;' that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence." I do not deny that the Second Person of the Trinity is personal. I fully accept that He is a person..

What is funny is that you brought up john Calvin as proof (in his commentary) on what you say he never talked about. HMMM.



A personification is a personification. That means that an inanimate object is seen as personal. Or are you to assume that when the pots say to the potter, "Why have you made me like this?" that the pots are really living things?

no. You are using a modern definition for a pre-modern world. not very good exegesis. You msut understand how terms are used before you can understand them.



You don't understand, apparently. I do not reject the Trinity. But, are you saying that "Son" is both literal and figurative? You are telling me that the term "Son" is not just figurative. By that statement, you wish to tell me that it is something more. What is it? Surely when Jesus called two of His disciples, James and John, "Sons of Thunder," they weren't literally sons of thunder! They were given the name because of their outburst on entering the Samaritan villiage.

Ummm Jesus was Mary's Son. Right? That was not figurative right? So what is your argument here again?



So, you have demonstrated to me that John called Jesus, "Son" before the Incarnation? Where? And where does John speak of the Son as being with the Father before the Incarnation? And again, just because Jesus was sent from God does not mean that He pre-existed as the Son. You've evasively attempted to not deal with John 1:6, where it says that there was a man named John who was sent from God.sons of thunder! They were given the name because of their outburst on entering the Samaritan villiage.

john states the Son was with the Father when he sent him. Thus the son was with the father before the incarnation. He sent the Son. you cannot send something that is not something before you send it.



D
don't mock my intellect. I am not calling out logical fallacies on you because I am playing a game, or that I want to look smart. These are hardly my concern. But that's beside the point. Simply saying that eternal Sonship is true because of progressive revelation doesn't make it true. .


where and when did say that because of progresive revelation that the son was always or eternally the son? i have said that it shows your proof that the son became the son at the incarnation does not hold up. but not that it proves the eternal sonship of the son. You are puttign words in my mouth,


D
Never mind your unnecessary verbiage. You are telling me that John 3:16 is a reference prior to the Incarnation of our Lord. If this is true, then why didn't John use the word "Word" like he did when he was introducing his Johannine Christology? Why didn't John also speak of the Son as being pre-existent? You've already concede the point that John 3:16 was written after the Word became flesh. Your argument is unconvincing.

Why did he not use the term the word. He would have if what you said is true. At least he would have to have done so. But since he did not use the term to describe Christ before the incarnation then it is proof for his eternal sonship. Again he gave his son to be incarnate and die before the incarantion. We all know that he gave Christ before the icarnation. so when it says he gave the son then he gave the son.


D
What holes have you shown me? You haven't even scratched the surface. And yes, I accuse you of logical fallacies because you wish to hide behind them. Come now, be honest here. You're not here to learn. You act as if you know the truth, just because the Early Church Fathers accepted the teaching of eternal generation. But what you continue to forget is that these men are fallible. Furthermore, you poorly attempt to quote God sending His Son as though the Son had always been the Son. What is this?

I have no comment here because i have shown in this and the last post why i am not committing a logical fallacy.

D
Oh, I'm sorry that you do not accept what is older than the modern era. Ancient Near Eastern thought, anyone? Psalm 2:7 is about the coronation of the Messiah. But if you wish to think that even the modern era is so wicked and untruthful, then you may go back from whence you came, since you are unwilling to learn anything new. Don't accuse me of some modern era thought. My intention is to go back to the original sources, even if that means that it contradicts what the Fathers said.

By the way, you can put aside your snide remark about me having faulty exegesis. As if you were any better.

Go back to the original sources. hmmm where I have I read that before? hmmmm. Maybe the humanism of teh rennasiance. Yes that is it. See you are not going back to Near eastern Thought because you are looking at it through modern eyes. unfortunately they were not moderns. Post modernism has shown the fault in this. and I am no post modernist. I like the term pre modern better although i will have to admit I am probably not thoroughly pre modern. But you are clearly modern. And yes I do see it as a great evil in the church. So you do haave faulty exegesis.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
I stated previously that “the Son is called the Son in relation to His birth. Thus, prior to the birth of the Son, the three persons were: God, Word/Wisdom and Spirit.” (p. 4, #33) Then you came along and you asked me, “Was the Father not the Father prior to the birth of the Son? If so then why does Jesus call God his Father instead of God?” (#34) I told you that “God the Father was not known as the ‘Father’ prior to the birth of Jesus.” (#35) I presented John 20:17 to show you that Jesus called His Father, “God.” Another example would be when Jesus is on the cross, and He cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” You told me that “the only way any created being can call God his Father is through the Son.” (#37) I gave you examples of how God could be called “Father” without having the Son of God by use of the Old Testament. (#38) On post #39, you told me that if Jesus is not the Son of the Father, then no one is. Where did I deny this? I simply spoke of an Incarnational Sonship as opposed to an eternal Sonship. Even if the Lord became the Son at the Incarnation, it doesn’t mean that He is not the Son of the Father, for when Jesus’ parents said, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you,” Jesus replied, “Why were you searching for me? Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:48, 49)

Therefore, even if the Son was the Son at the Incarnation, it does not mean that He was not the Son of God by nature. You, however, would wish for me to accept your definition of Sonship. Why else would you be arguing with me? You also asked me, “Why should I accept your view that God’s role changed?” Later on in my rebuttals, I presented to you from the Jewish Bible, Psalm 2:7, which says, “You are My son, I have fathered you this day.” And again, elsewhere have I told you that the term “Son of God” was synonymous with “Messiah.” It doesn’t appear to me that you have a problem with this. You accuse me of something as though it were novel. It may appear novel, but then again, you could say that of many things from within the Church. For example, what was the purpose of teaching that at the Eucharist, that the bread and wine became flesh and blood? Why, transubstantiation was used to oppose the Docetists, and if John wrote against the Docetists in his general epistle, First John, later than when Paul wrote First and Second Thessalonians to think that when Paul spoke of tradition, that he was referring also to transubstantiation? Catholic might point to me John 6 and First Corinthians 11, as though these were proofs, or again, point to me that the Church has always had these teachings, for it is “tradition,” and Paul speaks of tradition, as if when Paul spoke of tradition, that he meant transubstantiation, the Trinity, the perpetual virginity, &c. So, accuse me I say! Accuse me of making up something, when in fact it could have been not known up until this point of time. But I assure you, the doctrine of Incarnational Sonship is not mine, nor did I make it up.

You then wanted to present to me the evidence of eternal Sonship. (#40) So, you started by telling me that “First the Church’s tradition states that the God is an eternal Father. [sic] that is the Father is the Father eternally.” You tell go on to say that “the Arians were heretics partly because they stated that the Father was not always the Father.” Please, I ask, what is heretical about this? Is it necessary for salvation to accept this? You then tell me that “if the Father is not the eternal Father of the Son then our salvation is in question.” Is it? Well, you would have me believe that it is necessary that the Son is the Son of God by nature, because if this were not so, then how can we become sons of God by grace? You quote Romans 9:22-26, which honestly, I cannot find how any of that concerns the thought that Jesus should be the Son of God by nature. Then you also present Galatians 3:23-29. This says nothing of having to accept that Jesus is the Son of God by nature, but simply that “you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Next, you offered Psalm 2:7, which says, “I will proclaim the decree of Yahweh: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.” However, that has nothing to do with eternal generation. Rather, it deals with the coronation. Or are we to think that when it says, “today I have begotten you,” that we should take the begetting seriously? For elsewhere it is written, “I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you” (2 Sam. 7:14, 15). I trust that you remember that Saul was the first king of Israel. Prior to what Nathan says, we have that coronation terminology, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.”

After these proofs, you point me to John 1:14, 18, as though here it was proof of eternal Sonship. But in verse 14, we find that it says, “And the Word became flesh.” Hereafter, whether it should be written “only-begotten Son” or “only-begotten God” matters not. You do wish to prove to me that the Son had always been with the Father, however, because it says in verse 18, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Other translations say “but the only-begotten Son.” Even if the word is “Son,” it does not refer to eternal Sonship, since prior to this verse we have verse 14 that tells us that the Word became flesh. We don’t find the terminology, “Son” until after verse 14. You mention 3:16, 18 also, as if these were proof eternal Sonship. Why is this? Is it because you see the word “only-begotten”? I would think that was the reason, since verse 18 also uses the same word. But “only-begotten” has nothing to do with actual begetting. If it did, then we have a problem when the author of Hebrew writes, “By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his only-begotten son” (Heb. 11:17). Surely, if the word, “only-begotten” has to do with literal begetting, then you are no different from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor are you at odds with thinking that God had begotten a literal offspring. But I know that you would not accept these two false notions. The Greek word, μονογενης may be translated also as “unique,” “one of a kind,” “one and only.” We know for certain that Abraham had more than one child, so “only-begotten” could not refer to an actual begetting, and Isaac was not Abraham’s first-born son. Ishmael was.

You make note of Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, but that is no different from Psalm 2:7, so I need not discuss that further. You cite 1 John 4:9. I am uncertain if you are citing it because the word “only-begotten” is used, or because you see the word “sent.” If the former, this has already been discussed. If the latter, it has already been covered by my previous posts. Why? Because, I have cited John 1:6, and the word there is απεσταλμενος, though 1 John 4:9 uses απεσταλκεν. Both Greek words are translated as “sent.” So, if you are arguing that the Son was sent from God, then again, it really has no bearing as though the Son had been the Son eternally. It is not a good case, since we might ask if John was also pre-existing with God. But I know for certain that you would not accept that notion. Following that, you also had Colossians 1:15, since it mentions the word “first-born.” But again, as I have stated previously, this should be rendered as, “supreme heir” (Carson).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
M

Monergism

Guest
Continued

On page 5, I present my case further, telling you that “Jesus is the Son of God.” (#41) We are, therefore, in agreement that Jesus is the Son of God. The difference we have is that you believe in eternal Sonship, while I believe in Incarnational Sonship. I state that clearly, “nowhere [in the Old Testament] does it say anything of the Son.” I need not tell you that, of course, because it is so blatantly evident, and you must concede this point. Now, when you asked me why you should believe my “novel” teaching, I cited Luke 1:35, which says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” Another rendering is, “So the child to be born will be called holy.” Now, this is a good Scriptural proof that there was never an eternal Sonship. I affirm that this is the verse that tells us that the one to be born will be called the “Son of God.” You, however, deny that, saying that people will call Jesus the “Son of God.” But, my interpretation and yours here are not mutually exclusive. Keep in mind of that. Again, as I have stated previously, it would only be mutually exclusive, were you to say that the Son of God could have still been the Son of God prior to His birth. This, however, as I have stated previously is an appeal to ignorance. It seems to me that you still don’t understand what this means, so I’ll give you an example:

X is true, because there is no proof that it is false.
X is false, because there is no proof that it is true.


So, this is an appeal to ignorance. Because I have presented Luke 1:35 for my proof-text that eternal Sonship is not true, you go on, agreeing that Jesus will be called the Son of God, that this is future tense, but disagree in thinking that it disproves the notion of eternal Sonship. Because of this, you believe that eternal Sonship has not been proven false, so it must be true, regardless. So, then I raise the question: Why don’t we see a Father-Son relationship until the New Testament? That question is legitimate. Now, even if this means that there has always been a Father-Son relationship, but no one ever knew of it until later on, that is still an appeal to ignorance, because again, as I have stated before, I would have to be omniscient in order to tell you that truly, there was no eternal Sonship. This continues on post #44, where you tell me to prove that Jesus was not the Son before the Incarnation. But again, for your sake and mine, I would have to be omniscient in order to prove that eternal Sonship is false. I have pointed out an irrefutable fact, that is, that we do not find eternal Sonship in the Old Testament. You must concede this point. So, if we follow this reason, it follows then that by inference, we only find the Father-Son relationship in the New Testament. Again, to say that the Son was always the Son, but that progressive revelation made it known for us that there was a Father-Son relationship prior to the New Testament, even to the birth of Jesus, is at best, an appeal to ignorance, since we don’t have any hint from the Old Testament. It is actually imaginative. From thence, we continue to go back and forth repeating the same thing we have done before, and not one fruitful thing comes from any of it. We are thus, on page 6, starting with #57.

Now, I stated previously that you must assume that I am omniscient, because you are asking me to prove something that I am unable to prove, since the evidence of it is lack. You think, of course, that I am saying that you ever called me omniscient, hence, “Never have I [sic] said that you are omniscient.” No doubt. But to ask of me to prove that the Son became the Son at His birth is to assume that I am omniscient, since you hold fast to eternal Sonship. So, what are you asking me to prove, exactly? You tell me to “prove that the Son was given the title of the Son at the incarnation.” The fact that the Father-Son relationship is mysteriously missing and only presented in the New Testament is a strong proof that the term “Son” refers to the Incarnation only. Again, you may make your appeal to progressive revelation, though you state that you did not argue progressive revelation to prove anything, but to only offer me an alternative. Again, it gives me on reason to accept what you say for an alternative, since that is simply bouncing off from an appeal to ignorance. In other words, you would be telling me that X is true, and just because we don’t find it in the Old Testament, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. You may continue to believe in eternal Sonship. But you haven’t offered me any convincing reason to think of it as true. You continue this same thing again and again, and you repeat your arguments, though they have been dealt with.

There are two statements you say to me, and these are:

“But you use tradition as proof of your case when you think doing so is wrong. HMMM!” and “What is funny is that you brought up john Calvin [sic] as proof (in his commentary) on what you say he never talked about. HMMM.” (#58) To these I reply, I do not find anything wrong with tradition. I have no problem. But I can use tradition as proof, and yet not believe it, in order to use it against your case. Paul did the same when he quoted Epimenides first, and then Aratus in Acts 17:28. He even quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12. Consider the following:

“’For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” (Acts 17:28)

And again,

“Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’” (Titus 1:12)

Consider the following from Epimenides, who spoke of Zeus, saying,

“They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one –
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.” (italics mine)

That’s kind of ironic, isn’t it, when you tell me later on that I am like that of the Renaissance Humanist! You know, the saying, Ad fontes? But, as if going back to the original sources was a terrible thing! Surely, if you want to know the truth, you want to go far back in time to understand what the people of the day meant. But you then accuse me for not using proper exegesis. If you think so, then present to me a scholar who speaks of Proverbs 8 as literal. But be sure of it, I will in like manner present to you a number who disagree. I am using proper exegesis, because Proverbs 8 is a personification, just as those pots are a personification. Or do you not know what that is, even though I have told you previously as to what it is? Now, you wish to argue against my point when I say that the term “Sons of Thunder” and “Sons of God,” are figurative. You ask me, “Ummm Jesus was Mary’s Son. Right? That was not figurative right? So what is your argument here again?” It’s quite simple, actually. I argued that the term “Son of God” need not be understood as literal. And hopefully you would agree with me on that, lest a Muslim confronts you and tells you that God does not literally beget offspring. But Mary actually gave birth to a son, for it is written, “But [Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

Now, you return to your same old argument, and that is that “john [sic] states the Son was with the Father when he sent him. Thus the son was with the father before the incarnation. He sent the Son. you [sic] cannot send something that is not something before you send it.” The problem here is that you assume that something had to exist in order to be sent. Again, I can point to you that John 1:6 says that John was sent by God. But John did not pre-exist with God, did he? And again, prior to the birth of Jesus, Jesus was not Jesus, but God’s Word. I don’t deny that God’s Word pre-existed with Him, for even Tertullian clearly states that! The only real discussion we have is between an eternal and Incarnational Sonship. You also return to the progressive revelation argument, which you state that is not an argument, though you go on saying, “i [sic] have said that it shows your proof that the son became the son at the incarnation does not hold up. but [sic] not that it proves the eternal sonship of the son.” So, which is it? That progressive revelation is not an argument, or that it is an argument, telling me that the Incarnational Sonship does not hold? Why would you present it? Is it to just say that the Incarnational Sonship does not hold water? But if it’s not helping you either, then it is no use at all. We thus fall into an aporia.

Now, here is a great concern, for you argue that John “would have [used the term, Word] if what you said is true. At least he would have to have done so. But since he did not use the term to describe Christ before the incarnation then it is proof for his eternal sonship. Again he gave his son to be incarnate and die before the incarantion [sic]. We all know that he gave Christ before the icarnation. so [sic] when it says he gave the son then he gave the son.” But again, John 1:14, and prior to that, not once does John refer to Jesus as “the Son.” Not once, and this is an argument that proves your notion of eternal Sonship is incorrect. John may use the word “Son” all he wants, as long as it is after John 1:14, since that verse says, “And the Word became flesh.” It is now an introduction, telling us that this Word who became flesh is now God’s Son. But, your argument only works if John 3:16 is a reference prior to John 1:14. Yet, it is not.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.