eternal sonship?

[Paidion]

Hi Steve,
I agree that Psalm 2 is not affirming "an eternal begetting". There is no evidence that the concept of an "eternal begetting" existed until later Trinitarians invented it in order to be consistent with their idea that the Father and the Son co-existed in an infinite past. Both the original and revised Nicene Creed spoke of Christ as "having been begotten", as if it were a single act. Even the Nicene Creed as revised by the first Council of Constantinople in 381 referred to "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages". So most of the early Christian writers from the second century to the late fourth century (and even some of the Trinitarians of the fourth century) understood the begetting of the Son to be a single act by the Father. I won't say "an event within history" since I see the Son's begetting as marking the beginning of time, and therefore the beginning of history. There were no events before the beginning of time, since there was no "before". Thus, contrary to Arius's affirmation, there was never a "time at which the Son of God did not exist".

I see this most wonderful first act of God as the begetting in Psalm 2:7. I understand Luke's quote of verse 2 in Acts as being employed to say that God raised Him up for the purpose of bringing the good news to mankind. For even at the beginning of time, God anticipated creating mankind with free will. Thus God foresaw the possibility or probability that man would rebel and require salvation from sin.

[Paidion]

Steve brought up an interesting point:

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world..." (ESV)

or else:

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world..." (NKJV)

In the two translational options, the placement of the word "again" is crucial. Does it just introduce a new point, as in the ESV (and the KJV, the NIV and the NLB); or does it refer to Christ coming again into the world (i.e., at His second coming), as in the NKJV (and the NASB, the ASV and the Young's Literal Translation)?

The order of the Greek words would suggest that the second option is more likely. But this "again brings" doesn't necessarily refer to the second coming. It may refer to His birth into the world! If we can accept that God brought the firstborn into the world (cosmos) when God begat Him at the beginning of time, then the firstborn's birth would be the second time that God brought Him into the world.

Hmmmm.... In this case, it seems that I am the preterist.

[Priestly1]

Concerning how I get "has always existed" it is the very meaning of "Ene" in "En arche ENE ho Logos.... Always was, already existed...etc. Check out your local lexicon and parser. 1st year Greek my friend. "In the Beginning (Arche) the LOGOS already was i.e. already existed prior to creation. "This (Logos) always existed with God in the Beginning......classical rendering. The Word and the Spirit always existed with the Father from whom they eternally originate...for He is the Beginning Arche and the End Telos...... It is understood by all Greek translators and scholars....well....except the Watchtower Translators whom ever they are.




Priestly1

[Priestly1]

the Nicaean Creed was a mere biblical approximation of the data given in Scripture. There were many local creedal statements much earlier. It was the Word, who is Jehovah who spoke all things into existence. God does not change and so logically and according to scripture...the Word has always been God Himself. "Theos ene ho Logos is emphatic....."God Himself has always been the WORD" or if you prefer,"The Word Himself has always been God." The Word has always been generated (begotten) from God who is the Father (Arche=Source)...and has always existed as God's Form (morphe), Image (Iconos) and visible Light (Phos)......from genesis to revelation (LXX OT/Koine NT). It was He who was the Image and Likeness Adam was created after, It was He who walked in Paradise, it was He who visited Abraham, it was He who on earth cast down fire and brimstone from God the father in Heaven, it is He who walked amidst the divided sacrifice, it was He who met Moses at the Bush, lead Israel from with the pillar of fire, met Moses atop Mount Sinai, Dined with Moses, aaron and the 12 Elders atop Sinai, and it was He who was seen by the Prophets and was made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth....The eternal and unique brought forth WORD..the Son of God and Son of Man. Before Abraham existed Ehyeh (Eime) = I AM. This is the doctrine which is scripture born and in the Nicaean Creed explained. What is it about the unique eternally brought form WORD/SON that boggles you? As the Core of the Sun perpetually generates it's Visible Coronal Light, so to the Father eternally generates His WORD. As the Sun's core perpetually breaths for it's Solar Wind, so too the Father eternally breaths forth His Holy Spirit. As the Sun in nver without it's Corona and Wind, so too God the Father is never without His generated WORD and His Proceeding Spirit.....this is the revealed nature of God to man...Jewry even holds this...read Philo of Alexandria or the Talmud, they just deny that the Davar "Yahya" could become human or that Jesus was this Davar or the Messiah either......do you agree with them?


Priestly1

[Priestly1]

I am truly stunned that so many Sola Scripturists deny the eternity of God with His Word and His Spirit. Stunned. Paul is so very clear. John is explicit....and the Torah and Prophets are beyond doubt.......they all proclaim it as Jesus Christ Himself stated. If you choose to use a Strongs or a lexicon...get a Greek Grammar and Parser too. Christ is the PROTO'TOKOS of all Creation.....not firstborn as many translate....but First Cause....Theotokos means Mother of God not Godborn...Prototokos means Firstbirther or Primary Mother of all Creation. The WORD spoke at it was brought forth. God alone is creator, hence His Word is the Father's Spokesman...His Self representative...eternal God eternally revealed in His Son who came was brought forth into this world as a Man...Hebrews is clear. It designates the WORD implicitly as the Son before creation and before incarnation...thus eternal.

[Priestly1]

i know and accept the original Nicaean-constantinoplean Creed Paidion...no need for English approximation for me. He is Generated nor created...as in english begotten not made. Eternally generated out of (ek) the Father before all ages.....out of one essence (homouosia) with the Father: God out of God, Light out of Light, authentic God out of authentic God......Generated not Created. I'll post it in the original Koine Greek if you would like.

Priestly1

[darinhouston]

before creation and before incarnation...thus eternal.

How is it that you equate "before creation" with eternal? Did not some of the angels pre-exist creation? Are they eternal beings? To say something was in the beginning begs the question "beginning of what." Paidion suggests there was no time before the beginning, but I don't see time that way. Something "was" before the "beginning." It is interesting to wonder whether the spiritual realm(s) have any temporality, but I'm not smart enough to understand how they could not have temporality without cause and effect being true as well. If they go together, then it couldn't be said that He caused all things to come into being since that first cause would have no meaning. It would only be the second cause that would have meaning if temporality didn't pre-exist creation.

[Paidion]

If you choose to use a Strongs or a lexicon...get a Greek Grammar and Parser too. Christ is the PROTO'TOKOS of all Creation.....not firstborn as many translate....but First Cause....Theotokos means Mother of God not Godborn...Prototokos means Firstbirther or Primary Mother of all Creation.

What is your basis for supposing that "firstborn" is a mistranslation of "πρωτοτοκος"? I know of no Greek experts who say so. All of the Greek lexicons I have consulted render the word as "firstborn" and none of them as "first cause". But never mind lexicons. Look up the usage of the word in the gospels. Does the following verse affirm that Mary gave birth to her first cause son --- or to her first-born son?

Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her πρωτοτοκος son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Furthermore, "πρωτο" is the prefix, meaning "first" and the root "τοκος" comes from "τικτω" (or possibly its alternate) which means "to give birth to". Thus "born" is the corrrect rendering of "τοκος". The word "τικτω" can be used figuratively and therefore translated as "bring forth" in some contexts, but to translate it as "create" is a stretch.

There are many more verses which clearly indicate the correct translation to be "firstborn". Let's examine two of them:

Colossians 1:18 he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

Was Jesus the first to have a true resurrection? The first-born, the first fruits of the resurrection from the dead? Or was He the first cause from the dead?

Hebrews 11:28 by faith [Moses] kept the passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the destroyer of the first-born might not touch them.

Did the destroying angel destroy the oldest in every family whose door post was not sprinkled with the blood, the firstborn? Or did he destroy the first cause in every family? (Would that be the father in every family?)

i know and accept the original Nicaean-constantinoplean Creed Paidion...no need for English approximation for me. He is Generated nor created...as in english begotten not made. Eternally generated out of (ek) the Father before all ages.....out of one essence

Generated not created! I have no problem with that; I agree wholeheartedly. But you can not get "eternally generated" out of that. In the early church it was generally understood his generation out of the Father was an single act, and not an ongoing eternal process. That is the case with even those who drew up the original Nicene creed. It was only much later that the concept of an "eternal" generation or begetting came about.

[Apollos]

you have interpreted 'prototokos' contrary to all Greek lexicons and dictionaries, as well as against the clear sense intended by Paul (cf. 'firstborn from the dead) and the above writers.

[Sean]

What about this verse:

1 John 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

If God sent His Son into the world, then is this not the Word/Son being called the Son before being born into the world?