Name one doctrine that is not supported by Scripture.

[GodsGrace101]

Thank you. I found this article interesting:
https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/monogenes-“only-begotten”-or-“one-kind”

Hi Thatgirl
I did read the article you linked.
I knew that this debate is raging right now.
Thanks for the link!

 

[BNR32FAN]

That didnt take long. Seems like the doctrine concerning the Fillioque isnt supported by scripture. You keep referencing Athanasius. Can you please tell me where the doctrine of the Fillioque is supported by scripture.

The Filioque wasn’t added to the Nicene Creed until the 6th century which was after the council of Chalcedon. So it wasn’t a canon of Chalcedon.

 

[Abaxvahl]

This is also for @Abaxvahl

You had mentioned Strong's concordance...
Here's the page:

Strong's Greek: 3439. μονογενής (monogenés) -- only begotten

in which it states the meaning for Begotten:

single of its kind, only

monogenés: only begotten
Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Definition: only begotten
Usage: only, only-begotten; unique.
HELPS Word-studies
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).


As you can see, monogenes means one and only, one of a kind, the only of its kind, unique.

It can also mean born to someone...but in theology it cannot be accepted that Jesus was ever born....except to Mary as a child, as Jesus - NOT as the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Again, we must use the meaning UNIQUE because the 2nd person of the Trinity was never born...
John makes this clear in the beginning of his gospel and also in 1 John.

In the beginning was the Word...the Word already existed in the beginning. John 1:1
We proclaim to you the One who existed from the beginning.....1 John 1:1

John strives to make us understand that Jesus, as the 2nd Person, always existed...
and He has now come in the flesh.

I will only quote works I have read although a quotemine is possible, so that there is no confusion:

St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Third Theological Oration is most clearly using "generation" in the sense of "offspring," for he says:

"When did these [the Three Persons] come into being? They are above all 'When.' But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness — when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten — beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression which conveys the idea of time.

"How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light.

"But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it... Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.

"How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole?... How was He begotten?— I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight."

Notice to what He compares and contrasts the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Saint is not using the word in the sense of "unique," and also refutes that the Son being born of the Father requires that the Son did not exist at some point in time. He does not at all mean "unique." And again I say: the Creed recited at Church weekly says "born" after "only-begotten."

As for St. Athanasius in the very first discourse against the Arians (the above quotes by St. Gregory are against the Eunomians, a particular kind of Arian) he says, in the very first chapters of this work:

"Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods ,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through the Spirit.

"For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin, that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begot Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect."

The Saint does not mean "unique" here also. He means precisely what he says, generation, offspring, and notice the contrasts he draws. And again I say: the Creed says "born."

Now is the Son unique? Obviously so, God does not relativize His Son (borrowing a saying from Fr. Staniloae), He is truly unique, but He is also Generated, Born, Birthed, from the Father before all ages. The doctrine is literally called the Eternal Generation. The Son was "born from the Father before all ages and born from the Virgin Mary in time" as is commonly said, I believe some other Fathers have said that and I remember one saying "eternal birth" but I do not remember that work title and may have not read it in full so I'll not try to quote it.

If you want to read these works I have given you their titles, you will see that I am not lying or misrepresenting the Fathers at all for yourself.

 

[GodsGrace101]

He is the only begotten Son.

Do you mean Jesus or the 2nd Person?

BTW, I had to print out the letter you posted.
Will read it later on.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

The Filioque wasn’t added to the Nicene Creed until the 6th century which was after the council of Chalcedon. So it wasn’t a canon of Chalcedon.

What about the Athanasian?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you mean Jesus or the 2nd Person?

BTW, I had to print out the letter you posted.
Will read it later on.

I was referring to Jesus.

Yes I really liked the letter that Cyril sent to Nestorius, I thought it showed a huge amount of brotherly love and grace towards Nestorius even though they were in a theological dispute with one another. I think it’s a great example to us all as Christians of how we should try to convey our point of view to others with opposing views, an example that I often forget to follow myself.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Sorry, for the length of my posts as well.
It's the same person.

Do you mean Jesus or the 2nd Person?

BTW, I had to print out the letter you posted.
Will read it later on.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I will only quote works I have read although a quotemine is possible, so that there is no confusion:

St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Third Theological Oration is most clearly using "generation" in the sense of "offspring," for he says:

"When did these [the Three Persons] come into being? They are above all 'When.' But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness — when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten — beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression which conveys the idea of time.

"How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light.

"But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it... Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.

"How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole?... How was He begotten?— I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight."

Notice to what He compares and contrasts the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Saint is not using the word in the sense of "unique," and also refutes that the Son being born of the Father requires that the Son did not exist at some point in time. He does not at all mean "unique." And again I say: the Creed recited at Church weekly says "born" after "only-begotten."

As for St. Athanasius in the very first discourse against the Arians (the above quotes by St. Gregory are against the Eunomians, a particular kind of Arian) he says, in the very first chapters of this work:

"Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods ,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through the Spirit.

"For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin, that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begot Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect."

The Saint does not mean "unique" here also. He means precisely what he says, generation, offspring, and notice the contrasts he draws. And again I say: the Creed says "born."

Now is the Son unique? Obviously so, God does not relativize His Son (borrowing a saying from Fr. Staniloae), He is truly unique, but He is also Generated, Born, Birthed, from the Father before all ages. The doctrine is literally called the Eternal Generation. The Son was "born from the Father before all ages and born from the Virgin Mary in time" as is commonly said, I believe some other Fathers have said that and I remember one saying "eternal birth" but I do not remember that work title and may have not read it in full so I'll not try to quote it.

If you want to read these works I have given you their titles, you will see that I am not lying or misrepresenting the Fathers at all for yourself.

I know you're not lying A....
Some theologians agree with you.
Some do not.

Can you explain, in your own words, how Jesus could have the authority of God if He was born....
How does this make Him the same as God even though He has the same nature, as you correctly stated in a previous post.

As I can understand the word BORN,,,,if the 2nd Person was BORN,,,,how could He have existed from the beginning?

This, BTW, is the problem being dealt with at the time, wasn't it....

 

[GodsGrace101]

I was referring to Jesus.

Yes I really liked the letter that Cyril sent to Nestorius, I thought it showed a huge amount of brotherly love and grace towards Nestorius even though they were in a theological dispute with one another. I think it’s a great example to us all as Christians of how we should try to convey our point of view to others with opposing views, an example that I often forget to follow myself.

Oh!
I totally agree that JESUS is the only begotten Son.

But not the 2nd Person of the Trinity.....

I've been away for a long time but I remember you as being very intelligent and courteous...I doubt you forget to follow a loving debate often!

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sorry, for the length of my posts as well.
It's the same person.

Aha!
And here lies the problem.

I used to teach our faith to kids aged between 8 and 12.
One asked me a very interesting question:
When Jesus was on earth - where was the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

If they're the same person,,,then 1/3 of the Trinity was missing when Jesus was born....

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh!
I totally agree that JESUS is the only begotten Son.

But not the 2nd Person of the Trinity.....

I've been away for a long time but I remember you as being very intelligent and courteous...I doubt you forget to follow a loving debate often!

Your too kind but unfortunately I have been known to fall to aggravation at times.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Your too kind but unfortunately I have been known to fall to aggravation at times.

We forgive you.
LOL

Different time zone.
Must say good night...

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh!
I totally agree that JESUS is the only begotten Son.

But not the 2nd Person of the Trinity.....

I've been away for a long time but I remember you as being very intelligent and courteous...I doubt you forget to follow a loving debate often!

Oh and yes I agree the Holy Spirit precedes from The Father He is not begotten of The Father.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I know you're not lying A....
Some theologians agree with you.
Some do not.

Can you explain, in your own words, how Jesus could have the authority of God if He was born....
How does this make Him the same as God even though He has the same nature, as you correctly stated in a previous post.

As I can understand the word BORN,,,,if the 2nd Person was BORN,,,,how could He have existed from the beginning?

This, BTW, is the problem being dealt with at the time, wasn't it....

In my own words then:

The Person of the Son is not the same as the Person of the Father as persons, they are only the same in nature, but they have differences between them, the primary one being that the Father generated/begot/birthed the Son eternally.

How is the Son always existent? Because the Father is always existent. The Father did not "become" a father in time but always was a Father in eternity, and if He was always Father then He always was generating the Son. "Born" here does not mean "had a beginning," it's a relationship not an event in time. This is how He (the Son) has always existed.

How has He the authority? For the Father is always giving of Himself (and this is the generation) to the Son, giving the Son all things the Father has save being Father. This is how.

The crux of the matter seems to be this: I do not understand the word "born" to mean "was not always in existence," I understand it in this context to be an eternal relationship between the Father and Son, not an event in time like Adam begetting Seth.

 

[concretecamper]

The Filioque wasn’t added to the Nicene Creed until the 6th century which was after the council of Chalcedon. So it wasn’t a canon of Chalcedon.

yes

HOWEVER, this doctrine is accepted by virtually every Christian and it is not defined or explained in scripture. Sort of shoots the SS in the foot.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Aha!
And here lies the problem.

I used to teach our faith to kids aged between 8 and 12.
One asked me a very interesting question:
When Jesus was on earth - where was the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

If they're the same person,,,then 1/3 of the Trinity was missing when Jesus was born....

Isn't this 'localizing' the Divine person? Why can't he be on earth and in the bosom of the Father, at the same time?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

yes

HOWEVER, this doctrine is accepted by virtually every Christian and it is not defined or explained in scripture. Sort of shoots the SS in the foot.

No, it's not accepted by virtually every Christian. There are 200 million EO and 20 million Coptic Christians who don't accept the Filioque, plus others. I gave you the Biblical reason why the West believes it.

 

[concretecamper]

No, it's not accepted by virtually every Christian. There are 200 million EO and 20 million Coptic Christians who don't accept the Filioque, plus others. I gave you the Biblical reason why the West believes it.

Let's see. 2.5 Billion Christian, you named 220 million. Easy math (less than 10%, virtually all Christians.

The scripture you cited say NOTHING about the Filioque. All you posted is scripture that says there is a Holy Spirit.

Fact is, SS people by in large accept Rome's definition, without scriptural backup. ouch!

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The Trinity as in content (3 persons, one God)?

Yes, nowhere does the Bible say there is one God in three persons.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Because it's difficult to understand that there are 3 persons in one being.
If YOU can say that the 2nd Person was born at some time...this means that you also do not really understand the Trinity.

The 2nd does not proceed from the first. Where is this stated?
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son because He is the love between the Father and Son.
Also difficult to understand, IMO.

To suggest the Son was born of the Father implies that the Son is a created being of the Father and not God. This is a grave heresy adopted by cults.