John wrote:
> You apparently teach that Christ was
> at one time not the Son.
It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake,
Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc. The word "son," especially as used in the
phrase, "Son of Man," is a term that applies to him when he became human
flesh. Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the son, he seemed
to prefer "son of Man" to "son of God."
John wrote:
> If He existed apart from sonship, this
> begetting you speak of, is, in effect,
> a rite of adoption. It is only a role the
> 2nd Whatever in the Godhead plays
> to effect the salvation of us all. He
> was not ---- but now is the son.
> That is the very essense of adoption.
> You cannot call it such for "biblical
> reasons" but that is the effect of your
> teaching. Not an entirely unwarranted
> conclusion -- just something I strongly
> disagree with.
The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's womb. Luke
1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some reason you seem to
overlook this miracle
Luke 1:35
(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God.
Why would the holy thing born of Mary be called the son of God? Because the
Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and
created that which was of God within her womb. This was not some adoption!
This was a miracle of the Logos becoming flesh, the miracle of God begetting
the son of Man. God had now begotten a son among men, something never
before done, and it opened the doors of adoption whereby we all can be
adopted into his family.
David Miller wrote:
>> All of us were adopted because we were born
>> children of Satan, but he was born a child of God
>> from the beginning. Therefore we call him the only
>> begotten son of God.
John wrote:
> Gosh, David, which is it? "begotten son" means
> "virgin born" or is He the child of God (that would
> make Him "son") from " the beginning?"
I was talking about the beginning of his existence in flesh and blood. This
was the start of a new relationship, not just of the Logos to the father
above as a son, but also a new relationship of God to man, God relating to
man through the flesh. From the very first moment he partook of flesh and
blood, he was son of God as well as son of man.
John wrote:
> More than simply being confusing, the above seems
> to equate "begetting" with the English definition of that
> word "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth ."
> rather than the definition of monogeno (only begotten)
> which has to do with uniqueness (Kittle, Arnt/Gengrich).
> Christ was the only unique son of God.
The definition of "monogenes" has a long history of debate that goes back to
the early church fathers. Some of the debate hinges on whether the second
half of the word originates from "ginomai" (to become) which would lend
itself toward the translation "only existing," or "gennao" (to beget) which
would lend itself toward "only begotten." Kittle tends to take an extreme
position on defining this word that is propelled by the theological
viewpoint of eternal sonship. Not all theologians fully accept this
definition. While there is no dispute regarding the concept of uniqueness
being communicated, there is some debate over what kind of uniqueness is
being communicated. The dictionary of New Testament words by Zodhiates
acknowledges the viewpoint that I tend to adopt. Perhaps his wording will
better communicate to you the perspective that I tend to accept, which
relates his uniqueness to the incarnation, to his being begotten not just of
the flesh, but of God. No other man is like Jesus in this way. Jesus is
unique.
Zodhiates says, "... it is the word "logos" (3056), Word, which designates
His personage within the Godhead. Christ's Sonship expresses an economical
relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation.
This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both
human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David
and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by
position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He
is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5). Thus the
appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the
preincarnate Word. Therefore, "monogenes" can be held as syn. with the
God-Man. Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy
Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God."
John wrote:
> That He (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect
> of who He is, is clear in John 8:54-59
> "If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father
> who glorifies me ........ Your father, Abraham, rejoiced
> to My day and he saw it and was glad .... The Jews,
> therefore, said to him, You are not yet fiftey years
> old and have you seen abraham? Jesus said to them,
> Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born,
> I am " (all of this spoken in the context of being the
> Son of God.)
The phrase "Son of God" is not used in this passage. We have to go all the
way back to John 6:69 to find this phrase, "Son of God." So I'm not sure
what you mean by the context being "Son of God."
The Jews in this passage made the claim that Abraham was their father, which
Jesus rebutted and claimed that Abraham was not their father. Then the Jews
made the claim that God was their Father. Jesus rebutted that by saying
that if God were their father, they would love him (Jesus). Jesus makes a
very important point in John 8:42 that has a bearing on our discussion here.
Jesus said that he proceeded forth and came from God, but even in that, he
did not come of himself, but rather God sent him. This seems to me to speak
of the begetting of the son at the time of the incarnation, when the Word
was made flesh. Jesus seems to make a point that it was not his idea nor
even his own action, but an action of God. Jesus then claimed that they
were of their father the devil. He maintains that those who are of God
would hear his words. Jesus goes on to make another interesting point here
in John 8:56. He says that Abraham rejoiced to see his day. What day is he
talking about? Surely he is not speaking about some pre-existent begetting
of him, but rather he is speaking about his incarnation in the flesh. When
the Jews then questioned his age in relation to Abraham, and whether or not
he could have ever seen Abraham, Jesus made the famous statement, "Before
Abraham was, I am." This statement speaks to his divine nature as having an
existence that preceeded his existence as the son of God in the flesh. To
surmise that this statement in some way means that he was begotten of God
and was the son of God prior to his incarnation is to read one's theology
into the text. Nothing here indicates that he was the son of God prior to
his incarnation. It only speaks to his having existence as God prior to
Abraham's existence. It corresponds to John's opening statement, "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Such speaks of the Logos existing with God and at the same time being God.
Later in John 1:14, when John speaks of the Word becoming flesh, this is
when he introduces the term "only begotten" which is the translation of the
word "monogenes."
John 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten ("monogenes") of the Father,) full
of grace and truth.
John 1:18 is the first time John introduces the word "son" and associates it
also with the word "monogenes."
John 1:18
(18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
This passage of John 1:18 also continues the "Word made Flesh" theme from
four verses earlier. The idea is that man hath not seen God, but man has
seen the only begotten Son. Why? Because the son of God is a term that
refers to the Word made flesh, to Jesus, the Word Incarnate. Men know the
son of God because he is flesh, and men can know God only through the
declaration of this unique son of God. It seems pretty clear that the
phrase "son of God" refers to the miracle of the incarnation.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
