tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post4661245799941097940..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: The Eternal Generation of the SonDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-73971396828490149932012-03-30T15:42:22.016-07:002012-03-30T15:42:22.016-07:00Hi Heather,
Welcome to AF !!!
I want to thank yo...Hi Heather,<br /><br />Welcome to <i>AF</i> !!!<br /><br />I want to thank you for the link to your father's article. I just got home and have not had a chance to read it yet; will hopefully get to it tomorrow.<br /><br />Hope to see you contributing a good deal in the near future.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />David<br /><br />P.S. Your post was number 5,000 !!!David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-57293093699368724672012-03-30T00:48:18.221-07:002012-03-30T00:48:18.221-07:00Hi David,
I found this article through a googl...Hi David,<br /><br /> I found this article through a google search of "eternal generation." I've been studying the doctrine of the Trinity lately, and specifically the eternal generation of the Son. My dad wrote a book on the Trinity, with a great focus on eternal generation. He also wrote a more simple article of monogenes, and I thought you might find it interesting: http://www.silicabiblechapel.com/onlybegotten.html<br /><br />Thanks for bringing this important subject to the light!Heather Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745178076902712909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-29860776258880590742010-03-05T12:41:45.581-08:002010-03-05T12:41:45.581-08:00Hi Ken,
Thanks much for taking the time to respon...Hi Ken,<br /><br />Thanks much for taking the time to respond; you posted:<br /><br />>> Thanks for all the quotes from various theologians, etc.>><br /><br />Me: It was pleasure; I really enjoyed studying this issue anew.<br /><br />>>Does this (the disagreements and debates between Christian theologians and thinkers) mean that is it not un-orthodox or heretical to not hold to the "eternal generation" or "eternal begotten-ness" of the Son; as long as one holds to the Deity of Christ as the logos (Word) from all eternity (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 8:24; 17:5; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:3, 1:6; 1:8, etc.) and that the Father, the Son (Word) and Spirit are one in nature/substance/essence and also three in persons or personal relationships from all eternity past?>><br /><br />Me: That is certainly the argument/position of many Trinitarian theologians since Adam Clarke (though as I noted earlier, they remain in the minority).<br /><br />>>I am still wondering more about the following verses and explaining it to Muslims; and discipleship with former Muslims.<br /><br />1. What about Luke 1:34-35 ?<br /><br />"for this reason, the holy offspring will be called 'the Son of God' " <br /><br />The reason (s) are because:<br />1. Jesus had no human father<br />2. It was by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit<br />3. It was by the power of the Most High (God the Father)<br /><br />This seems to point to the incarnational Sonship, rather than eternally in the past generated "Sonship", of pure "Spirit". (God is Spirit, John 4:23-24)>><br /><br />Me: I too have had some difficulty with a few of the ‘traditional’ verses that have been used to defend “eternal generation”—the above is one of those. <br /><br />>>I am not saying "eternal generation" of the Son is not true; just that it is a difficult concept to explain from a specific Scripture verse, and for Muslims and former Muslims.>><br /><br />Me: Agreed.<br /><br />>>Jesus as the Logos/ Word from eternity past is easier to explain for Muslims and former Muslims.>><br /><br />Me: Once again, I agree. As you well know the Qur’an calls Jesus a/the Word (<i>Kalima</i>) from Allah/God. <br /><br />>>The Father, Son, and Spirit, in eternity past, were pure spirit. (before the word/Son became incarnated)<br /><br />God (Father), the Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14 - Jesus), the Spirit are more helpful for explaining to Muslims and former Muslims.>><br /><br />Me: Agreed.<br /><br />>>2. What about the word "today" ? in Psalm 2:7, and Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 (seems to be talking about time, the incarnation) and Acts 13:33 (seems to emphasize the resurrection)>><br /><br />Me: This is another one of those difficult passages, and I am currently vacillating over whether or not one should understand it “timelessly” or incarnationally (though Hodge argues for the latter, he also states it speaks to divinity of the Person who became incarnate).<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-71041555867430613762010-03-05T12:25:39.642-08:002010-03-05T12:25:39.642-08:00Hello Lvka,
Good comments! You wrote:
>>Bi...Hello Lvka,<br /><br />Good comments! You wrote:<br /><br />>>Birth denotes the relationship to another Person, not to Time. Of course, people are temporal creatures, possessing a physical body of certain limited dimensions, etc... but God is without time, physical body, and limits, etc. , so His birth is also spiritual, timeless, eternal, non-physical, etc.>><br /><br />Me: That is how I have understood the Father/Son relationship for over 30 years now; to deny this relationship and demote our Lord’s sonship to an “incarnational sonship” and/or threat it metaphorically ultimately (IMO) leads one to Socinianism (i.e. adoptionsim) if one follows through consistently.<br /><br />>>It's also interesting to note the conflation of created and begotten when saying that because of being uncreated, the Son must also not be begotten. -- and this 1,000 yrs after Niceea!>><br /><br />Me: Indeed.<br /><br />>>It's also interesting to see how he denies the sonship AND affirms the mind-wisdom relationship at the SAME time. (The imagery becomes even more complete when taking into account the fact that in Semitic anthropology, man thinks with the heart, not with the mind: the human heart is at the same time the seat of both wisdom as well as life: just as the Father is at the once the origin of both Son/Wisdom/Logos and life-giving Spirit).>><br /><br />Me: I too see this as being inconsistent; and, once again, if there was consistency here, there would be the abandonment of Trinitarianism—this is perhaps THE most important reason for retaining the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father (i.e. God from God).<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1732046826420057772010-03-05T10:06:48.169-08:002010-03-05T10:06:48.169-08:00David,
Thanks for all the quotes from various the...David,<br /><br />Thanks for all the quotes from various theologians, etc.<br /><br />Does this (the disagreements and debates between Christian theologians and thinkers) mean that is it not un-orthodox or heretical to not hold to the "eternal generation" or "eternal begotten-ness" of the Son; as long as one holds to the Deity of Christ as the logos (Word) from all eternity (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 8:24; 17:5; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:3, 1:6; 1:8, etc.) and that the Father, the Son (Word) and Spirit are one in nature/substance/essence and also three in persons or personal relationships from all eternity past?<br /><br />I am still wondering more about the following verses and explaining it to Muslims; and discipleship with former Muslims.<br /><br />1. What about Luke 1:34-35 ?<br /><br />"for this reason, the holy offspring will be called 'the Son of God' " <br /><br />The reason (s) are because:<br />1. Jesus had no human father<br />2. It was by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit<br />3. It was by the power of the Most High (God the Father)<br /><br />This seems to point to the incarnational Sonship, rather than eternally in the past generated "Sonship", of pure "Spirit". (God is Spirit, John 4:23-24)<br /><br />I am not saying "eternal generation" of the Son is not true; just that it is a difficult concept to explain from a specific Scripture verse, and for Muslims and former Muslims. <br /><br />Jesus as the Logos/ Word from eternity past is easier to explain for Muslims and former Muslims. <br /><br />The Father, Son, and Spirit, in eternity past, were pure spirit. (before the word/Son became incarnated)<br /><br />God (Father), the Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14 - Jesus), the Spirit are more helpful for explaining to Muslims and former Muslims. <br /><br />2. What about the word "today" ? in Psalm 2:7, and Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 (seems to be talking about time, the incarnation) and Acts 13:33 (seems to emphasize the resurrection)<br /><br /><br />ThanksKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-58907654413702150622010-03-05T01:59:39.475-08:002010-03-05T01:59:39.475-08:00Birth denotes the relationship to another Person, ...Birth denotes the relationship to another Person, not to Time. Of course, people are temporal creatures, possessing a physical body of certain limited dimensions, etc... but God is without time, physical body, and limits, etc. , so His birth is also spiritual, timeless, eternal, non-physical, etc.<br /><br />It's also interesting to note the conflation of created and begotten when saying that because of being uncreated, the Son must also not be begotten. -- and this 1,000 yrs after Niceea! <br /><br />It's also interesting to see how he denies the sonship AND affirms the mind-wisdom relationship at the SAME time. (The imagery becomes even more complete when taking into account the fact that in Semitic anthropology, man thinks with the heart, not with the mind: the human heart is at the same time the seat of both wisdom as well as life: just as the Father is at the once the origin of both Son/Wisdom/Logos and life-giving Spirit).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43661826439592722732010-03-04T20:45:03.206-08:002010-03-04T20:45:03.206-08:00David,
I knew you would be thorough!
Wow.
Thanks ...David,<br />I knew you would be thorough!<br />Wow.<br /><br />Thanks for all that work.<br /><br />It will take me a while to digest it.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Ken TempleKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.com