Jesus - "Eternally" Begotten

Madeline · August 2, 2009

Most in protestant Christianity will undoubtedly hold firm to the belief that Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God, and that He is "eternally" begotten. My question is...where in the bible does it state that the Son is "eternally" begotten? I understand that Jesus was begotten at His incarnation (Jn. 3:16) and in the Psalms 2:7, which I believe is a prophecy of the Jesus' incarnation. But I find no concept of the Son being eternally begotten in the scriptures, and the concept of Jesus being "eternally" begotten almost implies as if He is lesser than His Father.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson comments:

But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogene?s theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogene?s huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16.

Even in A.T. Robertson's commentary he states that Jesus is God the only begotten, and most, if not all commentaries, would interpret Jesus being begotten at His incarnation. So where do bible teachers and commentators get the doctrine of Jesus being "eternally" begotten except from Origen's theology?

Love,
Madeline

LindaR · August 2, 2009

The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God.

Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history

Revelation3:20 · August 2, 2009

Most in protestant Christianity will undoubtedly hold firm to the belief that Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God, and that He is "eternally" begotten. My question is...where in the bible does it state that the Son is "eternally" begotten? I understand that Jesus was begotten at His incarnation (Jn. 3:16) and in the Psalms 2:7, which I believe is a prophecy of the Jesus' incarnation. But I find no concept of the Son being eternally begotten in the scriptures, and the concept of Jesus being "eternally" begotten almost implies as if He is lesser than His Father.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson comments:

Even in A.T. Robertson's commentary he states that Jesus is God the only begotten, and most, if not all commentaries, would interpret Jesus being begotten at His incarnation. So where do bible teachers and commentators get the doctrine of Jesus being "eternally" begotten except from Origen's theology?

Love,
Madeline

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

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

Notice he was already the only begotten son when he was sent into the world. Without the concept of Christ eternally being the only begotten son of the father the concept of the trinity is destroyed, and that teaching is very clear in scripture. Jesus is 100% God but positionally he is and always has been in submission to the will of the father because he is eternally the only begotten son. That is why he said that the father is greater than he is.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

LindaR · August 2, 2009

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

In Colossians 1:16 it says that all things were created by the Son of His love. Therefore the Son of God must have existed as the Son at the time of creation, long before He became incarnate.

JerryNumbers · August 2, 2009

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 (KJV)

The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:2 (KJV)

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:58 (KJV)

I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 (KJV)

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
John 14:9-11 (KJV)

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are
John 17:11 (KJV)

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:22 (KJV)

For some reason some people, maybe it does not fit their perceived idea, try do everything they can to make Jesus less than He is, to me the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit are equal, always have been, always will be.

I suppose for some, its amazing to them that Jesus had the nerve to say before Abraham was "I am." I suppose they think Jesus lied at all times and is not really equal to the Father.

I suppose we have to remember, those who are not saved, those who do not have the Holy Spirit within them, just cannot grasp the spiritual meanings of this wonderful Holy Book God provided us. So these people are going to come up with doctrine that just plainly contradicts very plain verses with in this Great Book.

Madeline · August 2, 2009

The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God.

Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history

Wilchbla · August 2, 2009

The "eternally begotten" nonsense is a Calvinist doctrine. How can someone be eternally begotten. The passage simply means that Christ, physically, was begotten of God. Christ had a body prepared by the Father like none other.

Hebrews 10:5- Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

JerryNumbers · August 3, 2009

Q: In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?

A: The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Matt. 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Matt 8:29).

As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit.

But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.

We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

Let

Madeline · August 3, 2009

Q: In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?

A: The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Matt. 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Matt 8:29).

As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit.

But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.

We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

Let

JerryNumbers · August 3, 2009

Revelation3:20 · August 3, 2009

Since Jesus is described here and of course as the Logos earlier in the chapter as being present with the Father from before time began, the creed used the word "eternally" (in the Greek version it is more literally "before all the ages", or as I would say "in eternity past [before the creation of the world]"). The reason for the "begotten" part in the formula is to be explained by the use of the word in the creed, taken from the adjective in the Greek of John 1:18 /mongenes/: "only begotten", or "uniquely born", or "/one and only/". The Greek word /mono-genes/ has two morphemes: "only" / /mono/, and "born/begotten / /genes/. However, the meaning of a word is determined not only (or even decisively) by its etymology but by its actual use in a language. Etymology can give some very good clues, but to get really on the wave-length of the meaning, checking its use in context is required. The word /monogenes /is the Greek translation for the Hebrew word /yachidh/, or "one and only" (note, no hint of "begetting" at all in this word derived from the numeral "one"), the word used of Isaac, who was Abraham's "one and only son" in the sense of his uniqueness and exclusivity as the son of promise and a type of Christ. The New Testament writers have this Hebrew adjective and this context in mind when they use /mongenes/. So in terms of its actual usage in the Greek New Testament the "born/begotten" part is not nearly as important as the "unique" part, and the word itself cannot be taken to mean that Jesus was "eternally begotten", whatever the people who wrote the creed three hundred years after the Bible may have thought they meant by this phrase. Their idea is unclear to me in any case, for immediately after saying He was "begotten not created" they say He is "of the same essence as the Father"; the only way this last statement can be true, and it is, is if Jesus is God in essence and was from eternity past just like the Father (which He certainly was), and of course there was no "begetting" in eternity before the creation of the world. Only since the incarnation is Jesus "begotten"; He was the unique Son of God in eternity before creation, but there was no "begetting" before the first advent. This creed, by projecting back half of an adjective in a linguistically inappropriate way has thrown unnecessary confusion into many people's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. Yet another reason why we go to and with scripture and not the tradition that follows it.

Madeline, "eternally begotten" refers to the fact that the life of Christ was and is from the life of the Father. That has always been true.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Now you may bring up this verse:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That is referring to Christs resurrection from the dead, not his incarnation, and it does not mean he was not the only begotten son before that point. Jesus had from eternity past been the living only begotten Son of God but he did die. When he was raised up by the Father he was at that point begotten of the Father and restored to the life he had always had in the Father in addition to becoming our high priest.

Acts 13:33-34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Notice Paul directly quotes Psalm 2:7 in reference to the resurrection.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Christ did not become our high priest till after he rose from the dead, so again Psalm 2:7 is quoted in reference to the resurrection.

He was already the only begotten son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

Madeline · August 4, 2009

Madeline, "eternally begotten" refers to the fact that the life of Christ was and is from the life of the Father. That has always been true.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Now you may bring up this verse:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That is referring to Christs resurrection from the dead, not his incarnation, and it does not mean he was not the only begotten son before that point. Jesus had from eternity past been the living only begotten Son of God but he did die. When he was raised up by the Father he was at that point begotten of the Father and restored to the life he had always had in the Father in addition to becoming our high priest.

Acts 13:33-34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Notice Paul directly quotes Psalm 2:7 in reference to the resurrection.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Christ did not become our high priest till after he rose from the dead, so again Psalm 2:7 is quoted in reference to the resurrection.

He was already the only begotten son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

I am puzzled by this quote:

He was already the only */begotten/* son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

What passages would these be? There is no answer to my question because as I pointed out in the prior post the phrase "eternally begotten" is not biblical; it does not occur in the Bible. The only "begetting" of Christ is of His humanity and that happened a little over two thousand years ago.

Therefore when you set out to explain what "eternally begotten" means and says "it refers to the fact . . .", you have gotten caught in a logical fallacy.

Since the phrase only occurs in the Nicene Creed, attempting to explain "what it means" begs the question, "what it means */to whom?/*". For it means nothing in the Bible or to the Bible since it does not occur in the Bible. Attempting to "exegete" extra-biblical material as if it had some authority is always very dangerous as this post shows. It forces a person unnecessarily to try and "wedge in" some non-biblical concept into scripture where it does not belong and results in any manner of doctrinal errors as a result.

What does the phrase mean? This (i.e., the content of your post) may well be what "it means" to you. But no writer of scripture would accept the phrase in the first place. And I seriously doubt if the explanation of the phrase given here even explains what the non-inspired writers of the creed had in mind, having examined the Greek text (explained in the prior post).

Bottom line: neither the phrase "eternally begotten" nor the concept occurs in scripture. The phrase is a late development and is to be explained by an attempt to analyze the adjective /monogenes/ etymologically instead of semantically and theologically. The fact that this is a mistake and was suspected as such even by the men who wrote the creed is evident from their extensive rebuttal of the sort of explanation given by you right after inserting the phrase itself ("begotten */not/* created" they say, and "of the same essence as the Father"). We would all be better off expunging "eternally begotten" from our theological lexica as it explains nothing and only invites incorrect assumptions about the Person of Christ, and completely unnecessarily so.

Love,
Madeline

Revelation3:20 · August 4, 2009

What passages would these be?

John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9.

There is no answer to my question because as I pointed out in the prior post the phrase "eternally begotten" is not biblical; it does not occur in the Bible.

No, it isn't a phrase found in the bible, but it is a concept found in the bible. The term "trinity" isn't found in the bible either, but the concept is there.

The only "begetting" of Christ is of His humanity and that happened a little over two thousand years ago.

I already showed you that wasn't the case. Please look at Acts 13:33 again, what Paul said couldn't be any clearer. He directly said the resurrection was the fulfillment of Psalm 2:7. Surely given that you can't in good conscience say that Psalm 2:7 is speaking of anything but the resurrection.

Therefore when you set out to explain what "eternally begotten" means and says "it refers to the fact . . .", you have gotten caught in a logical fallacy. Since the phrase only occurs in the Nicene Creed, attempting to explain "what it means" begs the question, "what it means */to whom?/*". For it means nothing in the Bible or to the Bible since it does not occur in the Bible. Attempting to "exegete" extra-biblical material as if it had some authority is always very dangerous as this post shows. It forces a person unnecessarily to try and "wedge in" some non-biblical concept into scripture where it does not belong and results in any manner of doctrinal errors as a result.

I don't care what the nicene creed says, and I don't give it any authority. You assume to much. :icon_smile:

The statement that Christ was eternally Gods only begotten son is a sound one though.

Bottom line: neither the phrase "eternally begotten" nor the concept occurs in scripture. The phrase is a late development and is to be explained by an attempt to analyze the adjective /monogenes/ etymologically instead of semantically and theologically. The fact that this is a mistake and was suspected as such even by the men who wrote the creed is evident from their extensive rebuttal of the sort of explanation given by you right after inserting the phrase itself ("begotten */not/* created" they say, and "of the same essence as the Father"). We would all be better off expunging "eternally begotten" from our theological lexica as it explains nothing and only invites incorrect assumptions about the Person of Christ, and completely unnecessarily so.

If it makes you happy, fine, "expunge" the phrase from your "theological lexica". :coffee2:

I don't find it confusing and it isn't exactly a term I use every day so I don't think I need to bother personally. :lol:

I will not "expunge" the doctrine behind the term because the eternal sonship of Christ is a bible doctrine and I don't care to let it slip.

There was never a time when God the father was not the father, and there was never a time when Jesus Christ was not the son. In order to be a father you must begat in some form or another. It can be physical, or it can be spiritual as it was with Paul and Onesimus, but in order for the father to be the father he must begat a child in some manner. Likewise in order to be a son you must have been begotten or have had a father. God the father is the father for a reason. We may not fully understand the relationship of God the father and God the son since they are both eternal, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. If you are denying Christ was eternally begotten of the father you are denying that Christ was always the Son of God and are thus denying the very essence of the trinity. That is a sad thing to see, no matter if intentional or accidental.

Paslm 40:7-8 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Christ was obedient to the father even before he came, that relationship was already there.

JerryNumbers · August 4, 2009

Joh

Revelation3:20 · August 4, 2009

Joh

Sign In

Welcome Guest

Jesus - "Eternally" Begotten

Recommended Posts

Madeline

LindaR

Revelation3:20

LindaR

JerryNumbers

Madeline

Wilchbla

JerryNumbers

Madeline

JerryNumbers

Revelation3:20

Madeline

Revelation3:20

JerryNumbers

Revelation3:20

Join the conversation

Topics

Hello

Answer to prayers

The AP has called the Presidential Race for Donald Trump!

The Scopes trial

Father given just a few days to live

Topics

Members

Recent Achievements

Tell a friend

Sermon Entries

Baptist News

Activity