Crises In Christology

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)

This Scripture is understood to mean that the "Word", Who is also the "Son", is begotten of the Father, from eternity (without beginning).
I think that is twisting the simple meaning of that verse. That no man but Jesus has seen, comprehended, discerned, perceived the Father.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
When we say that Jesus is begotten by the Father, we are saying that Jesus is of the same nature as Him. Consider what follows this phrase in the Nicene Creed:

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

That's a good point. We aren't exactly saying God had a baby, but that Jesus is the same divine being that created the universe.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think that is twisting the simple meaning of that verse. That no man but Jesus man has seen, comprehended, discerned, perceived the Father.
Take your thought a step further, and ask how it is that Jesus knows the Father, but no one else does? Then call to mind the words of the Apostle John, who writes that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and He became flesh..."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Take your thought a step further, and ask how it is that Jesus knows the Father, but no one else does? Then call to mind the words of the Apostle John, who writes that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and He became flesh..."
Well yes, since as I stated a half dozen times. He is the eternal Jehovah the Word. That does not however designate birth. The only birth I see is when he laid down the physical attributes he had as God, like omnipresence, and became a human being.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's not fully comprehensible. It's considered a sacred mystery.

People are strident about it because they believe it is divinely revealed.
I agree it’s mysterious and not everything about it can be known. Thing is. What people have accepted as truth has consequences. Fruit. I think what is revealed in the Bible is meant to bear fruit. This subject is not excluded from all that rule. My personality type is geared towards looking at the fruit of what is accepted as truth. I don’t like what I’m seeing out there.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well yes, since as I stated a half dozen times. He is the eternal Jehovah the Word. That does not however designate birth. The only birth I see is when he laid down the physical attributes he had as God, like omnipresence, and became a human being.
If you don't like the term "birth" in regards to the eternal relationship between the Father and His Word (or Son), then it might comfort you to know that the term "generation" is also very often used to describe how the Word comes from the Father. It basically means that the Father "generates" the Son/Word, and in contrast the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father. However, Orthodox Christians take "generates" and "begets" to mean the same thing.

Nobody pretends to understand what the "generating" or "begetting" of the Word/Son, or the "procession" of the Holy Spirit is. These are beyond all creatures comprehension.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you don't like the term "birth" in regards to the eternal relationship between the Father and His Word (or Son), then it might comfort you to know that the term "generation" is also very often used to describe how the Word comes from the Father. It basically means that the Father "generates" the Son/Word, and in contrast the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father. However, Orthodox Christians take "generates" and "begets" to mean the same thing.

Nobody pretends to understand what the "generating" or "begetting" of the Word/Son, or the "procession" of the Holy Spirit is. These are beyond all creatures comprehension.
I would say pretending to understand it that way is like pretending to understand how God came into being. So you would be correct. It’s not comprehensible.
However I believe it is written in the Bible in such a way to be comprehensible and it is if you take Jesus being begotten to be speaking of him becoming a human and being raised up to manhood and kept by God in Heaven.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I would say pretending to understand it that way is like pretending to understand how God came into being. So you would be correct. It’s not comprehensible.
However I believe it is written in the Bible in such a way to be comprehensible and it is if you take Jesus being begotten to be speaking of him becoming a human and being raised up to manhood and kept by God in Heaven.
We have to take Jesus as having been a Son eternally, because The Father is a father eternally. The Father's fatherhood did not begin only when the Word became flesh: His fatherhood is eternal, because he has a Son who is eternally with Him. If Jesus is the Son only according to his humanity, then the Father was not always Father, having had no only-begotten Son until the Word became flesh. This is unacceptable, because Jesus' relationship with His Father is from all eternity, without beginning.

In other words, the relationship between the Father and the Son does not change. It is eternal. Christ was with the Father (His words), which means that He was a Son of His Father. This relationship between them exists eternally, without beginning. There are not two persons in Christ - one Divine and one human - there is only one, the Divine Son of God.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

His glory as Son of the Father is from "before the world was".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We have to take Jesus as having been a Son eternally, because The Father is a father eternally. The Father's fatherhood did not begin only when the Word became flesh: His fatherhood is eternal, because he has a Son who is eternally with Him. If Jesus is the Son only according to his humanity, then the Father was not always Father, having had no only-begotten Son until the Word became flesh. This is unacceptable, because Jesus' relationship with His Father is from all eternity, without beginning.

In other words, the relationship between the Father and the Son does not change. It is eternal. Christ was with the Father (His words), which means that He was a Son of His Father. This relationship between them exists eternally, without beginning. There are not two persons in Christ - one Divine and one human - there is only one, the Divine Son of God.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

His glory as Son of the Father is from "before the world was".
Everything you just said about the relationship of the trinity and eternity applies whether there is a father son relationship or not. So that does not in and of itself prove an eternal father\son relationship. In the OT there must be over a thousand references to the name Jehovah. There may be only a handful that attach the word son to the name and those ones are all prophetic. As far as attaching the pronoun father to Jehovah. That is more generic to all mankind and the creation in general. Again with such an abundant usage of the name Jehovah in reference to all three persons of the Trinity. I can't think of any that call the relationship of Jehovah to Jehovah as father and son. It's when you get to the NT that, that all changes. When Jehovah the Word lays down the physicality nature of God and becomes a man now dependent on Jehovah in heaven for everything.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Everything you just said about the relationship of the trinity and eternity applies whether there is a father son relationship or not. So that does not in and of itself prove an eternal father\son relationship. In the OT there must be over a thousand references to the name Jehovah. There may be only a handful that attach the word son to the name and those ones are all prophetic. As far as attaching the pronoun father to Jehovah. That is more generic to all mankind and the creation in general. Again with such an abundant usage of the name Jehovah in reference to all three persons of the Trinity. I can't think of any that call the relationship of Jehovah to Jehovah as father and son. It's when you get to the NT that, that all changes. When Jehovah the Word lays down the physicality nature of God and becomes a man now dependent on Jehovah in heaven for everything.
The glory that the Person Who we call Jesus Christ,is the glory of the only Eternal Son of the Only Eternal Father. That glory existed before anything was created, and before the beginning of time itself. It is not a glory that began in time with the Incarnation of the Word as a man. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always, eternally, and forever the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The very recently appearing doctrine of a strictly incarnational sonship of Christ, as opposed to the Orthodox doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ, reduces the revelation of God to us in Christ to something far less than is willed by God and made available in the Church.
 
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

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,576
59
Wyoming
✟75,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That seems like a bit of a stretch.
“And 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.”
‭‭
How is it a stretch to say "begotten refers to Jesus' Resurrection"?
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The glory that the Person Who we call Jesus Christ,is the glory of the only Eternal Son of the Only Eternal Father. That glory existed before anything was created, and before the beginning of time itself. It is not a glory that began in time with the Incarnation of the Word as a man. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always, eternally, and forever the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The very recently appearing doctrine of a strictly incarnational sonship of Christ, as opposed to the Orthodox doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ, reduces the revelation of God to us in Christ to something far less than is willed by God and made available in the Church.
I don't see how it reduces any revelation. I do however see fruit of incorrect revelation.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how it reduces any revelation. I do however see fruit of incorrect revelation.
It reduces the revelation of God to something less than what has been revealed, because what can be known about God is limited to what God Himself has revealed, which is that God is the Father, with the Son, and with the Holy Spirit. "Incarnational only" sonship takes away the Father/Son relational aspect between the first and second persons of the Trinity by claiming that this relationship came about only as a result of the second person of the Trinity becoming a man, and therefor is not something that properly expresses the "eternal" relationship between the Divine Persons. This is misinformation about what God has actually revealed, and is a subtraction from what God has revealed about The relationships between each Person of the Holy Trinity.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Everything you just said about the relationship of the trinity and eternity applies whether there is a father son relationship or not. So that does not in and of itself prove an eternal father\son relationship. In the OT there must be over a thousand references to the name Jehovah. There may be only a handful that attach the word son to the name and those ones are all prophetic. As far as attaching the pronoun father to Jehovah. That is more generic to all mankind and the creation in general. Again with such an abundant usage of the name Jehovah in reference to all three persons of the Trinity. I can't think of any that call the relationship of Jehovah to Jehovah as father and son. It's when you get to the NT that, that all changes. When Jehovah the Word lays down the physicality nature of God and becomes a man now dependent on Jehovah in heaven for everything.
Well, Jehovah, I suddenly remember, says "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee." (Psalm 110). The Church has always understood this to indicate that the Son was begotten of the Father before the creation of the morning star, or in other words, before the ages, coinciding with the creation of light (i.e. "Let there be light", and there was light).
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, Jehovah, I suddenly remember, says "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee." (Psalm 110). The Church has always understood this to indicate that the Son was begotten of the Father before the creation of the morning star, or in other words, before the ages, coinciding with the creation of light (i.e. "Let there be light", and there was light).
Even if that were a proper translation, which it’s not. It would simply be a propheticb utterance about the messiah...,.not come yet except in the mind of God.
Psalm 110:3 Interlinear: Thy people are free-will gifts in the day of Thy strength, in the honours of holiness, From the womb, from the morning, Thou hast the dew of thy youth.

By the way. I use the name Jehovah for a specific purpose. To show the doctrine of the trinity is an OT doctrine that the NT is just repeating. Nothing wrong with me doing so since the title Jehovah is in the OT around 5000 times.
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Okay, I see that in the creed but don't necessarily see anything like that in the scripture. I don't disagree that Jesus is the "same nature" or substance. Nor do I disagree in any way shape or form that Jesus is Jehovah the Word, one with Jehovah the Almighty and Jehovah the Spirit. Further that these three titles are sometimes used interchangeably to describe three different persons as one God. I just don't see any declarations about Jehovah the "Father" begetting Jehovah the Word at some point in the eternal past in the sense of Jesus having a beginning. The only beginning I see is when Jehovah the Word became a man.
Maybe it should be thought of as like something morphing into something else, not separate from what we started with, but changed. I do not think this is the perfect answer, but I also think that this issue is beyond our ability to completely comprehend anyway, so its just a thought.

Incidentally, you ask why people are so strident in their belief about the nature of God. To that question, I think that this stridency occurs when the definition that someone holds to is actually in conflict with the Scripture. That is to say, it is not about how to understand begotten and yet not created, but it becomes a claim that the Son actually was created or there are three separate entitles that are called by a collective term, God. Theories like those naturally call the whole nature of God into question, not just the fine points.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe it should be thought of as like something morphing into something else, not separate from what we started with, but changed. I do not think this is the perfect answer, but I also think that this issue is beyond our ability to completely comprehend anyway, so its just a thought.

Incidentally, you ask why people are so strident in their belief about the nature of God. To that question, I think that this stridency occurs when the definition that someone holds to is actually in conflict with the Scripture. That is to say, it is not about how to understand begotten and yet not created, but it becomes a claim that the Son actually was created or there are three separate entitles that are called by a collective term, God. Theories like those naturally call the whole nature of God into question, not just the fine points.
I guess my issue is, if there is a morphing going on. Why not look first at what the scripture clearly and abundantly declares. That Jehovah the Word was "morphed" into a man. Begotten into a man, a son, the only begotten Son of God. That seems to me to be about as common sense and obvious as the nose on our faces. Why go back to eternity and try to figure out what the scripture does not plainly declare and claim. That Jehovah the Word was begotten or morphed into the Son of God sometime in eternity passed? I am not understanding how people are murdering the language and claiming prophetic scriptures that declare the messiah as the Son of God, a man as anything but in the mind of God but not actually come to pass yet.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I guess my issue is, if there is a morphing going on. Why not look first at what the scripture clearly and abundantly declares. That Jehovah the Word was "morphed" into a man. Begotten into a man, a son, the only begotten Son of God. That seems to me to be about as common sense and obvious as the nose on our faces.
Well, first off, that isn't what I was suggesting. My thought was that the matter of the Son being eternally begotten might be approached that way, not the business of the Incarnation of the Son as Man. If we think of the Incarnation in the "morphed" way, it
borders upon denying that Jesus had two natures, that he was both completely God and also completely Man.

Why go back to eternity and try to figure out what the scripture does not plainly declare and claim. That Jehovah the Word was begotten or morphed into the Son of God sometime in eternity passed? I am not understanding how people are murdering the language and claiming prophetic scriptures that declare the messiah as the Son of God, a man as anything but in the mind of God but not actually come to pass yet.
I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are making there.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, first off, that isn't what I was suggesting. My thought was that the matter of the Son being eternally begotten might be approached that way, not the business of the Incarnation of the Son as Man. If we think of the Incarnation in the "morphed" way, it
borders upon denying that Jesus had two natures, that he was both completely God and also completely Man.


I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are making there.

Believe it or not I think this is the crux of the matter. The nature of Jesus when he walked this earth in a flesh and blood body. The question being. Can Jesus who is God lay down the physical attributes of God like his omnipresence and miraculous abilities and still be the same person he always was; Jehovah the Word of God. Yet that person who is a spirit, (God is s spirit, John 4) come live in a flesh and blood body the same way and manner as a man (who is also a spirit) lives in a flesh and blood body?

The other alternative, held mostly by the evangelical community is he walked this earth as a demi God. Not quite all God,(my father is greater than I) but not quite all man either, ( sinless, walks on water etc etc.) More like Hercules that has power greater than men but not the same power as Zeus. Now I know that sounds outrageous. But having been a member of an Evangelical church for 10 years and considering evangelicals as true Christians . I know what their practical beliefs are. They would never agree with that statement in a doctrinal manner but in a practical manner that pretty much nails it.

I went through the first half of Acts the other day. Did you know the Apostles never presented him to the people as God a single solitary time in the first half of acts? Maybe the second half either but I haven't double checked that. Yes I know in their letters they do. My point is that they were completely comfortable with presenting him as a straight forward man to the masses. (They knew him as a flesh and blood man.) But you try to get an Evangelical to use that same wording they did in their preaching. No way no how, not in a million years. They would be 100% uncomfortable doing so and would have an overriding need to qualify such language with "he is God." Again I am not saying either way is wrong or right. Both are right. I am simply pointing out that there is something amiss here with Evangelical consensus and I know what it is. Their doctrine on the nature of God is all hosed up and I think I am learning, maybe, that it starts way before Jesus becoming a man.

Off to work though. Would love to continue the conversation, (I think.)
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Believe it or not I think this is the crux of the matter. The nature of Jesus when he walked this earth in a flesh and blood body. The question being. Can Jesus who is God lay down the physical attributes of God like his omnipresence and miraculous abilities and still be the same person he always was; Jehovah the Word of God.
I would say so. Consider that the body with which he was resurrected was not what we think of when we talk about a real flesh and blood body. And it was with this body that he ascended to Heaven.

The other alternative, held mostly by the evangelical community is he walked this earth as a demi God. Not quite all God,(my father is greater than I) but not quite all man either, ( sinless, walks on water etc etc.)
I surely do hope that that is NOT what the majority of Evangelicals believe! I don't think that those whom I know personally would agree with it.
 
Upvote 0