The Narrow Path Ministries

commonsense wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:27 am

Paidion wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:09 pm

Apart from Patristics, where do you glean "first of God's acts" from Scripture?

Paidion, I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you clarify?

That was my question to Paidion.

Paidion, I am sooo sorry - it looks like I accidentally edited Paidion's post when I tried to reply to it instead of quoting from it and deleting non-relevant things from it. I'll see if there's a log file from where I can resurrect the post. [update: it doesn't appear to still be on the site]

No problem Darin! Anybody can make a mistake.

I can't seem to find my explanation of "only begotten". Perhaps that is what was accidentally deleted.

I stated that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son" because he was Abraham's only son born from Sarah.
Abraham had wanted God to recognize Ishmael, but God said, "No."

Christians are said to be children of God, and so they are. But Jesus was God's "only begotten son" since he was the only true son, begotten before all ages as the first of God's acts.

Paidion wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:47 pm

I stated that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son" because he was Abraham's only son born from Sarah.
Abraham had wanted God to recognize Ishmael, but God said, "No."

Paidion, Ishmael and Isaac were both physically begotten by Abraham. It doesn't matter if they had different mothers. Isaac was chosen because he was the son who was begotten by God, born according to the Spirit, or born of the Spirit, it means the same thing.

commonsense wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:24 pm

Paidion wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:47 pm

I stated that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son" because he was Abraham's only son born from Sarah.
Abraham had wanted God to recognize Ishmael, but God said, "No."

Paidion, Ishmael and Isaac were both physically begotten by Abraham. It doesn't matter if they had different mothers. Isaac was chosen because he was the son who was begotten by God, born according to the Spirit, or born of the Spirit, it means the same thing.

I agree with Homer on this one.

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:17 am

I agree with Homer on this one.

Darin, I'm not sure what Homer had said, but Scripture says that Isaac was born of the Spirit, born of God, begotten of God etc.etc.

Galatians 4:29 "But he who was born according flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit.

"Now we are as Isaac was, children of the promise."
If you follow Jesus and obey the Law of God then you are born of the Spirit as well, just as Isaac was.

Again, Romans 8:4-5 " That the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
verse 13 "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

The Old Testament says " Now Isaac sowed seed in the land and that very year and produced a hundredfold.", as illustrated in the parable of the sower and the seed.
Deut. 8:18 " And you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is HE WHO GIVES YOU POWER...."

I've been thinking more about the term "son of God" in connection with monogones. There are quite a few places where "we" or others are called sons of God or that we will become sons of God (e.g., John 1:12). So, is it conceivable that this term monogenes isn't really a metaphysical or ontological term but is really trying to suggest that Jesus was not "like us" in the sense that we could "become" sons of God, but that (unlike us) he was unique and was already in that ethical condition from birth and remained that way through his obedience where we could only aspire to become such after receiving the word. He had inherently the fullness of what we seek in measure. And as to other living beings that he was truly born unlike all the angels, etc.

In other words, perhaps that our being called "sons of God" is more derivative of being adopted by being in Him, and that he is the only one "born into the family" so to speak.

Paidion wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:09 pm

Apart from Patristics, where do you glean "first of God's acts" from Scripture?

Paidion, I'm truly interested in where this notion comes from apart from John 1:1. "In the beginning" can refer to a number of "beginnings" (the least likely being so-called eternity past or -- if you prefer -- the point in the beginning of time when God first acts). But, if we back up before the "Big Bang" (or whatever) and assume God acted in other ways "before" our universe or that there was a state of existence "before" (or apart from) our universe where God created angels and other realms and heavenly hosts, etc., on what basis do you (or the Patristics) believe that the creation (or generation or whatever) of the Son was the "first" of those acts?

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:06 am

I've been thinking more about the term "son of God" in connection with monogones. There are quite a few places where "we" or others are called sons of God or that we will become sons of God (e.g., John 1:12). So, is it conceivable that this term monogenes isn't really a metaphysical or ontological term but is really trying to suggest that Jesus was not "like us" in the sense that we could "become" sons of God, but that (unlike us) he was unique and was already in that ethical condition from birth and remained that way through his obedience

Darin, if this is so, then why did Jesus need the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him and why would he be transformed on the mount?