Yes, I have made that point before to others - that Greek speaking fathers would be a much better place to understand a Greek word than men 2000 years removed.
MP3's by Robert Reymond
- Thread starter shackleton
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I have made that point before to others - that Greek speaking fathers would be a much better place to understand a Greek word than men 2000 years removed.
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
This is something that helped me
Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology on the doctrine of the Trinity
The Persons of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But why do the persons of the Trinity take these different roles in relating to creation? Was it accidental or arbitrary? Could God the Father have come instead of God the Son to die for our sins? Could the Holy Spirit have sent God the Father to die for our sins, and then sent God the Son to apply redemption to us?
No, it does not seem that these things could have happened, for the role of commanding, directing, and sending is appropriate to the position of the Father, after whom all human fatherhood is patterned (Eph. 3:14-15). And the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us is appropriate to the role of the Son, who is also called the Word of God (cf. John 1:1-5, 14, 18; 17:4; Phil. 2:5-11). These roles could not have been reversed or the Father would have ceased to be the Father and the Son would have ceased to be the Son. And by analogy from that relationship, we may conclude that the role of the Holy Spirit is similarly one that was appropriate to the relationship he had with the Father and the Son before the world was created.
Second, before the Son came to earth, and even before the world was created, for all eternity the Father has been the Father, the Son has been the Son, and the Holy Spirit has been the Holy Spirit. These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only in time. We may conclude this first from the unchangeableness of God (see chapter 11): if God now exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then he has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We may also conclude that the relationships are eternal from other verses in Scripture that speak of the relationships the members of the Trinity had to one another before the creation of the world. For instance, when Scripture speaks of God’s work of election (see chapter 32) before the creation of the world, it speaks of the Father choosing us “in” the Son: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:3-4). The initiatory act of choosing is attributed to God the Father, who regards us as united to Christ or “in Christ” before we ever existed. Similarly, of God the Father, it is said that “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). We also read of the “foreknowledge of God the Father” in distinction from particular functions of the other two members of the Trinity (1 Peter 1:2 NASB; cf. 1:20). Even the fact that the Father “gave his only Son” (John 3:16) and “sent the Son into the world” (John 3:17) indicate that there was a Father-Son relationship before Christ came into the world. The Son did not become the Son when the Father sent him into the world. Rather, the great love of God is shown in the fact that the one who was always Father gave the one who was always his only Son: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...” (John 3:16). “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4).
When Scripture speaks of creation, once again it speaks of the Father creating through the Son, indicating a relationship prior to when creation began (see John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; also Prov. 8:22-31). But nowhere does it say that the Son or Holy Spirit created through the Father. These passages again imply that there was a relationship of Father (as originator) and Son (as active agent) before creation, and that this relationship made it appropriate for the different persons of the Trinity to fulfill the roles they actually did fulfill.
Therefore, the different functions that we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit performing are simply outworkings of an eternal relationship between the three persons, one that has always existed and will exist for eternity. God has always existed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These distinctions are essential to the very nature of God himself, and they could not be otherwise.
Finally, it may be said that there are no differences in deity, attributes, or essential nature between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person.
This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say “equal in being but subordinate in role.” Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.
This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox expressions), at least since Nicea (A.D. 325). So Charles Hodge says:
The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority....The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation....
The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit...and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.
Similarly, A.H. Strong says:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation....
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority....We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.
only begotten: A mistranslation of the Greek word monogenh\v (from monogenh/v (from G3666, John 3:16, et al), which actually means “unique” or “one-of-a-kind.” The Arians used this word to deny Christ’s deity, but the rest of the church understood it to mean that the Son eternally related as a son to the Father. (14C.2.a)
Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology on the doctrine of the Trinity
The Persons of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But why do the persons of the Trinity take these different roles in relating to creation? Was it accidental or arbitrary? Could God the Father have come instead of God the Son to die for our sins? Could the Holy Spirit have sent God the Father to die for our sins, and then sent God the Son to apply redemption to us?
No, it does not seem that these things could have happened, for the role of commanding, directing, and sending is appropriate to the position of the Father, after whom all human fatherhood is patterned (Eph. 3:14-15). And the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us is appropriate to the role of the Son, who is also called the Word of God (cf. John 1:1-5, 14, 18; 17:4; Phil. 2:5-11). These roles could not have been reversed or the Father would have ceased to be the Father and the Son would have ceased to be the Son. And by analogy from that relationship, we may conclude that the role of the Holy Spirit is similarly one that was appropriate to the relationship he had with the Father and the Son before the world was created.
Second, before the Son came to earth, and even before the world was created, for all eternity the Father has been the Father, the Son has been the Son, and the Holy Spirit has been the Holy Spirit. These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only in time. We may conclude this first from the unchangeableness of God (see chapter 11): if God now exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then he has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We may also conclude that the relationships are eternal from other verses in Scripture that speak of the relationships the members of the Trinity had to one another before the creation of the world. For instance, when Scripture speaks of God’s work of election (see chapter 32) before the creation of the world, it speaks of the Father choosing us “in” the Son: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:3-4). The initiatory act of choosing is attributed to God the Father, who regards us as united to Christ or “in Christ” before we ever existed. Similarly, of God the Father, it is said that “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). We also read of the “foreknowledge of God the Father” in distinction from particular functions of the other two members of the Trinity (1 Peter 1:2 NASB; cf. 1:20). Even the fact that the Father “gave his only Son” (John 3:16) and “sent the Son into the world” (John 3:17) indicate that there was a Father-Son relationship before Christ came into the world. The Son did not become the Son when the Father sent him into the world. Rather, the great love of God is shown in the fact that the one who was always Father gave the one who was always his only Son: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...” (John 3:16). “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4).
When Scripture speaks of creation, once again it speaks of the Father creating through the Son, indicating a relationship prior to when creation began (see John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; also Prov. 8:22-31). But nowhere does it say that the Son or Holy Spirit created through the Father. These passages again imply that there was a relationship of Father (as originator) and Son (as active agent) before creation, and that this relationship made it appropriate for the different persons of the Trinity to fulfill the roles they actually did fulfill.
Therefore, the different functions that we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit performing are simply outworkings of an eternal relationship between the three persons, one that has always existed and will exist for eternity. God has always existed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These distinctions are essential to the very nature of God himself, and they could not be otherwise.
Finally, it may be said that there are no differences in deity, attributes, or essential nature between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person.
This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say “equal in being but subordinate in role.” Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.
This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox expressions), at least since Nicea (A.D. 325). So Charles Hodge says:
The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority....The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation....
The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit...and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.
Similarly, A.H. Strong says:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation....
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority....We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.
only begotten: A mistranslation of the Greek word monogenh\v (from monogenh/v (from G3666, John 3:16, et al), which actually means “unique” or “one-of-a-kind.” The Arians used this word to deny Christ’s deity, but the rest of the church understood it to mean that the Son eternally related as a son to the Father. (14C.2.a)
Last edited:
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
This also helped
THE CHALCEDONIAN CREED (A.D. 451)
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
THE CHALCEDONIAN CREED (A.D. 451)
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Forgive me if someone already posted this (I skimmed through this thread pretty quickly). Recently I read Calvin's understanding of "this day I have begotten thee" in Psalm 2. Elsewhere Calvin shows that he holds to eternal generation in some sense (for instance, he speaks of the "Speech of God" being begotten of God in John 1), but he doesn't think that is what Psalm 2 is talking about:
"'Thou art my Son.' David, indeed could with propriety be called the Son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels... When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken."
But as I said, Calvin does take John 1 as referring to Jesus as being "only begotten." On the other hand, as has been pointe out in this thread, I can see why it makes sense that the word may mean "unique" because of verses like Heb 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." It definitely seems like the word means unique at least here since it would be odd to call your second son your only begotten. It makes more sense, at the very least in this passage, that it means Abraham's unique child of promise. Anways, where was I going with this... oh yeah, even if the word might also mean "unique" in John 1 instead of "begotten", the concept of the Logos or Wisdom of God as coming from God like the Son of a Father is still there. It also seems natural to say this Wisdom is of God from eternity, and it seems like the phrase "eternal generation" describes this even if all the "only begotten" passeges turned out not to be referring to generation at all. I'm not saying they aren't, but I am saying it is not clear to me in some passages. For instance:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:16-17).
Does "God sent... his Son into the world" mean the incarnation or the beginning of his ministry after being annointed by the Spirit at baptism? Later in John Jesus tells his disciples the Spirit will come to them and he uses the same language to describe their minitry:
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:16-18)
Lately I have just been assuming the wording in John 3 refers to both Jesus' incarnation and being sent on his mission in time... John does, in the same passage in John 3, use wording which can be taken two ways (born again/born from above, wind moves/spirit moves). So although I have to admit it is not completely clear to me, my "working" interpretation for now is both. Which leaves it open for me whether "only begotten" is speaking of his annointing for him ministry at his baptism where God says to him, "You are my Son" or whether it refers to eternal generation, or my current thoughts: both. I don't know.
"'Thou art my Son.' David, indeed could with propriety be called the Son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels... When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken."
But as I said, Calvin does take John 1 as referring to Jesus as being "only begotten." On the other hand, as has been pointe out in this thread, I can see why it makes sense that the word may mean "unique" because of verses like Heb 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." It definitely seems like the word means unique at least here since it would be odd to call your second son your only begotten. It makes more sense, at the very least in this passage, that it means Abraham's unique child of promise. Anways, where was I going with this... oh yeah, even if the word might also mean "unique" in John 1 instead of "begotten", the concept of the Logos or Wisdom of God as coming from God like the Son of a Father is still there. It also seems natural to say this Wisdom is of God from eternity, and it seems like the phrase "eternal generation" describes this even if all the "only begotten" passeges turned out not to be referring to generation at all. I'm not saying they aren't, but I am saying it is not clear to me in some passages. For instance:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:16-17).
Does "God sent... his Son into the world" mean the incarnation or the beginning of his ministry after being annointed by the Spirit at baptism? Later in John Jesus tells his disciples the Spirit will come to them and he uses the same language to describe their minitry:
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:16-18)
Lately I have just been assuming the wording in John 3 refers to both Jesus' incarnation and being sent on his mission in time... John does, in the same passage in John 3, use wording which can be taken two ways (born again/born from above, wind moves/spirit moves). So although I have to admit it is not completely clear to me, my "working" interpretation for now is both. Which leaves it open for me whether "only begotten" is speaking of his annointing for him ministry at his baptism where God says to him, "You are my Son" or whether it refers to eternal generation, or my current thoughts: both. I don't know.
That is one reason why the doctrine of eternal generation is so confusing. To bring into existence is a neccessarily temporal process. "Eternal" then contradicts "generation".
However, I don't think the orignal meaning, or the meaning intended by the Nicean fathers, was "bring into existence". And if they meant an everlasting process, then this makes little more sense. A process is also a temporal event. And everlasting process must be circular in some sense. And we are taking about God, a being that is not restricted in time or space.
If it's ineffable there's no point in speaking about it. Ineffable means incapable of being expressed in words.
Turretin is going to take a while to digest. So far he seems much more obsure than Scripture. Phrases like "a generation made without time" seem inherently self-contradictory. How can somthing be made without time? While we are supposed to affirm that Chirst was not made, Turretin is saying Christ's was generated with a generation that is made without time. Now we have the generation of the generation of an eternal being. This is supposed to clear things up??!?
Last edited:
Explain your reasoning for finding this document unhelpful? How has he created a false scenario?
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten Son of God
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3441 and G1096
Citing in TDNT: 4:737, 606
Total KJV Occurrences: 16
only, 9
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9
begotten, 6
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9
child, 1
Luke 9:38
As you can see sometimes it is translated as only.
G3441
μόνος
monos
Thayer Definition:
1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from G3306
Total KJV Occurrences: 47
only, 24
Matt 4:10, Matt 12:4, Matt 17:8, Matt 24:36, Luke 4:8 (2), Luke 24:18, John 5:44, Rom 16:3-4 (2), Rom 16:27, 1 Cor 9:6, 1 Cor 14:36, Phil 4:15, Col 4:11, 1 Tim 1:17, 1 Tim 6:15-16 (2), 2 Tim 4:11, 2 John 1:1, Jude 1:4, Jude 1:25, Rev 15:4 (2)
alone, 21
Matt 4:4 (2), Matt 14:23, Matt 18:15, Mark 6:47, Luke 4:4, Luke 5:21, Luke 6:4, Luke 9:36, Luke 10:40, John 6:15, John 6:22, John 8:9, John 8:16, John 8:29, John 12:24, John 16:32 (2), Gal 6:3-4 (2), 1 Thess 3:1, Heb 9:7
themselves, 2
Mark 9:2, Luke 24:12
I tried to look up the word in the septuagint that is referred to in Hebrews 11:17 (Genesis 22:2) but the word from what I could tell just meant beloved son.
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten Son of God
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3441 and G1096
Citing in TDNT: 4:737, 606
Total KJV Occurrences: 16
only, 9
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9
begotten, 6
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9
child, 1
Luke 9:38
As you can see sometimes it is translated as only.
G3441
μόνος
monos
Thayer Definition:
1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from G3306
Total KJV Occurrences: 47
only, 24
Matt 4:10, Matt 12:4, Matt 17:8, Matt 24:36, Luke 4:8 (2), Luke 24:18, John 5:44, Rom 16:3-4 (2), Rom 16:27, 1 Cor 9:6, 1 Cor 14:36, Phil 4:15, Col 4:11, 1 Tim 1:17, 1 Tim 6:15-16 (2), 2 Tim 4:11, 2 John 1:1, Jude 1:4, Jude 1:25, Rev 15:4 (2)
alone, 21
Matt 4:4 (2), Matt 14:23, Matt 18:15, Mark 6:47, Luke 4:4, Luke 5:21, Luke 6:4, Luke 9:36, Luke 10:40, John 6:15, John 6:22, John 8:9, John 8:16, John 8:29, John 12:24, John 16:32 (2), Gal 6:3-4 (2), 1 Thess 3:1, Heb 9:7
themselves, 2
Mark 9:2, Luke 24:12
I tried to look up the word in the septuagint that is referred to in Hebrews 11:17 (Genesis 22:2) but the word from what I could tell just meant beloved son.
Reymond does bring out the point that Turretin's exegesis in question 29 is more scholastic than Biblical. Turretin is extremely helpful in asserting a point but weak in Biblical argumentation. This is why it is helpful to have a number of systematic works like Turretin, Hodge, Reymond, Berkhoff, and others, because each one makes a helpful contribution.
This was what Reymond has argued all along. His only point was that the Nicene Fathers went beyond Scripture by saying that the Son's essence is eternally generated by the Father & the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. He never denies that Christ is the only begotten Son of God but is concerned that we do not go beyond Scripture in by using language that intimates that the Son's existence comes from the Father.
Christ coming into this world refers to His incarnation. Christ became man at His incarnation. Christ as the eternal Son of God existed before His incarnation, but took on humanity at His incarnation.
Be careful of using dictionary definitions to define theological terms, because they are not accurate. Robert Reymond does not deny that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He takes issue with the understanding of generation.
The only point I am trying to make is that Reymond's position is that he affirms that the Son is eternally begotten but he takes exception to the idea that the Son draws His essence of diety from the Father (eternal generation).
This is just the old time and eternity problem. Every statement we make about the eternal is bound to a time-frame. Like saying God is, or God was, or God shall be. That's just the best we can do given the limitations of our experience and language. All such statements would be deemed inherently self-contradictory according to your criterion of judgment. We must be willing to accept the accommodating language of Scripture.
On p. 325 Reymond provides what he thinks are satisfactory answers to the traditional arguments for the begetting of the Son, and then states, "The only conclusion that one can fairly draw from this data is that Scripture provides little to no clear warrant for the speculation" (emphasis added). In the volume, "What is God," he provides an appendix which attempts to answer Letham's concerns over Reymond's restriction of biblical language to "economical activities." Reymond's only response is to assert that the biblical language "reflects the reality of a reasoned order within the Trinity" (p. 344). On this basis the most that can be said about the inner life of the Trinity is that there is a first person, a second person, and a third person, and that all these persons are God. This is not biblical, catholic, reformed Trinitarianism.
Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?
And he may be right! Unlike Calvin, I don't think speculation is wrong. We should reason out all the possible implications, as well as the necessary ones. But at any point our reason leads to contradiction, then something we have speculated is false - and we reject it (even if we deny we do this, we can not help it). Either our initial understanding is faulty, or our reasoning is faulty, but what ever is the case, we must correct it or reject it.
And anything speculative, even if not contradictory, is never grounds for condemnation of a brother in Christ.
So I do not reject the doctrine of eternal generation. Instead I assume that the Nicean fathers did not intend any meaning of the term that would cause a contradiction. However, the phrase is confusing at face, and I believe, at this point in my understanding, that it is a speculative doctrine and not a necessary one. The Trinity is a necessary doctrine, but eternal generation is an extension of the Trinity into areas that do not clearly follow from Scripture.
Unless I can be shown clearly from Scripture that "eternal generation" follows from Scripture, by good and necessary consequence, and not in any way by speculation, then it would be a violation of my conscience, and my Christian liberty, to be required to confess the doctrine of "eternal generation" is truth. I simply do not know if it is true. And all this assumes I can clearly understand what the phrase means without using undefined terms and more convoluted reasoning.
If it is required to confess "eternal generation" is true to be one this board, then I suspect that 90% of the members are in violation. Why, because I bet 90% of the members on this site don't really understand that doctrine. And those that do, can not seem to explain it in clear terms that other can understand.*
We can not, as rational beings created in God's image, believe something beyond our understanding. As reformed people, we reject the Romanist doctrine of implicit faith in those things we do not understand. We can never in good conscience confess something we do not understand. We each have a duty to study the Word, and prove to ourselves those things which are true and from God. We may listen to our fathers, but we do not believe their word implicitly. We believe God's word explicitly.
Consider the Athanasius Creed, it is considered "one of the clearest definitions of the Trinity and the incarnation ever written." Do we confess it today?
It's a beautiful statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. But what reformed person can confess the first and last clause? Can any in good conscience confess each point, and demand all to do likewise?
Why not? Because we have rejected the irrational idea of implicit faith.
*
(I've heard and read explanations of quantum mechanics and Einsteins theory of Relativity, and many other complex ideas - that I have reasonably understood. I understand fluid mechanics, I understand the TULIP, I understand many complex ideas and concepts. I can even program my VCR. There is very little that I have encountered that was so complex or technical that I could not figure it out for myself, or get an expert in the field to explain to me in terms that I could understand. But sometimes, especially in the areas of theology and certain philosophies, I encounter ideas that are so convoluted, that no matter who I talk to - these "experts" can not satisfactorily explain them to me. Maybe I am asking the wrong people. Or maybe these ideas really do not make sense, and the people who are explaining them realize their ideas are incoherent so they hide it behind specialized language and in-house terminology. )
Last edited:
What I was pointing out is that if one were to say Christ "being send into the world" is only referring to the incarnation it proves too much. I definitely think his incarnation is included many times when Jesus says this, but not always. And in the case of John 3:17, the context definitely includes the incarnation, but notice all the words with double meanings in the passage... born from above/again, moved by the wind/spirit. I'm wondering if "sent into the world" also has the double meaning in John 3. That might affect how we understand the word "only begotten" in the verse before. If we look at the rest of the book, Jesus uses these phrases to mean two different things. Jesus says, "I am not of the world," and says God "sent me into the world." Sounds like these refer to his pre-existent state and incoming into the world at the incarnation. But sometimes when he tells us what this means it isn't what we expect. For instance, in reference to the disciples Jesus says,
"They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." (John 17:16-19)
Jesus says that just like he is not of the world, so too are the disciples not of the world. That certainly isn't referring to pre-incarnate state anymore than it is referring to some pre-incarnate state the disciples had. And then Jesus says that like the way God send him into the world, so too he is sending the disciples into the world. That doesn't prove the disciples became incarnate and entered into the world from their pre-incarnate state. Instead it seems to mean that when the Spirit of Truth comes, the disciples will be anointed for their ministry and be sent to proclaim the message to the world just as Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and then went out into the world to proclaim the message. That might also be what Jesus means when he calls himself "him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world." The greek word for consecrate here is the same one he uses that is translated sanctify here: "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."
Jesus elsewhere in John uses "the world" to mean those he spoke to during his open ministry after his baptism: “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said" (John 18:20-21). Then in this same conversation Jesus says, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth." (John 18:37). Although one might argue that he is referring to the same event when he says "I was born" and then afterward says, "and... came into the world," with what he said right before this about his open ministry to the world, surely Pilate took this as meaning the mission Jesus was currently on, as if Jesus had said, "I was born to be a king, and then I came into the world to proclaim the message."
Hopefully all the above shows why I was wondering if "came into the world" John 3:17 also has this double meaning.
Wow! Thanks for posting that. That is incredibly, incredibly interesting that the word in Hebrew means beloved and the writer of Hebrews uses monogenes. I tried looking up the passage in the Septuagint and it didn't appear to use the word "monogenes" but I can't read greek. I can, however sound out the letters and nothing sounded like monogenes.
Check this out:
The author of Hebrews wants to talk about Abraham offering up Isaac, specifically this passage:
"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering" (Gen 22:2)
Where it says only loved son Isaac, the author of Hebrews writes his "monogenes son Isaac.":
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son..." (Heb 11:17).
It appears that the author of Hebrews thinks monogenes can mean "unique" and "beloved," and as you pointed out, he uses it to translate a hebrew word that means "beloved" (or alternately he exchanges it for the Septuagint greek word).
Now, if Jews in the New Testament era thought monogenes can mean "unique" and "beloved" then here is what they may have read John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only beloved Son"
Now that is interesting because understanding monogenes as meaning beloved would make John 3:16 sound even more like Genesis 22:2 where Abraham offers up his only beloved son. Which would imply that "only begotten" really really shouldn't be used to translate monogenes here because it breaks the connection (that is, if the connection I'm seeing really exists). Abraham didn't offer up his only begotten son. It wasn't even his only son. He offered up his uniquely beloved son.
And this is even more interesting: If monogenes can mean "beloved" then when John says:
"we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake..."
What he is saying is: "We beheld the glory of the beloved Son of God. John the Baptist bore witness..." In the book of John, John the baptist bears this witness after he witnesses the Spirit descending of Jesus and the other gospels tell us that when this happened God said to Jesus "you are my beloved son." But oddly enough, this gospel doesn't say that after Jesus' baptism. And if my line of reasoning is correct, that is because John already told us what God said at Christ's baptism earlier when he called him monogenes. Jesus is the uniquely beloved son. God said it: "You are my beloved son."
And even more interesting, notice what the NET bible notes say about the word translated "beloved" in God's proclamation to Jesus in the other gospels:
"24tn Grk 'my beloved Son,' or 'my Son, the beloved [one].' The force of agaphtos is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1).
Sounds like agaphtos means beloved in the sense of unique as well, like monogenes!
God gave his uniquely beloved son for us!
Stephen said:
I agree that many of the passages about Jesus "not being of the world" and "coming into the world" include the incarnation. What I was trying to say is that if one simply always understands those phrases as referring to his pre-existent state and incarnation, then that proves more than one wants to prove. It would prove that the disciples also had a pre-existent state and they two became incarnate and sent into the world. I quoted passages were Jesus uses those phrases with other meanings to show how within the whole book of John they are used in two ways and interchanged. Not only that but check out what John the Baptist says about Jesus' coming into the world at the beginning of the book:
"He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me."
John says Jesus' coming into the world is after him and his own mission, but then he says Jesus was before himself as well! That fits nicely with the passages where Jesus seems to go back and forth between two meanings of "coming into the world." Does it make sense what I was saying now?
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
From Spiros Zodiates Complete word dictionary of the New Testament
This word is mostly used of only son in the NT. Only John used it of Christ referring to him as the only Son of God.
G3439. μονογενής monogenēs; gen. monogenous, masc.-fem., neut. monogenon, from monos (G3441), only, and genos (G1085), stock. Unique, one of a kind, one and only. The only one of the family (Luke 7:12 referring to the only son of his mother; 8:42, the daughter of Jairus; Luke 9:38, the demoniac boy).
John alone uses monogenēs to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Genos, from which genēs in monogenēs is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and genō comes from ginomai (G1096), become, as in John 1:14, “and the Word became [egeneto] flesh.” This is in distinction from gennaō (G1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennaō is gennēma (G1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique. There are two schools of thought regarding the meaning of this term. The first view, which began with Origen, teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and His generation by the Father are eternal being predicated of Him in respect to His participation in the Godhead. Although monogenēs was traditionally cited in proof of this explanation, modern proponents, recognizing the mistaken identification of genēs as a derivative of gennaō instead of genos, understand the word to be descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. This would serve to distinguish the Sonship of Christ to God from that spoken of other beings, e.g., Adam (Luke 3:28), angels (Job 1:6), or believers (John 1:12). The last view teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and generation by the Father are predicated of Him in respect to the incarnation. The proponents of this interpretation unequivocally affirm the triune nature of the Godhead and Christ’s deity teaching that it is the word logos (G3056), 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, monogenēs 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.
He is never called teknon Theou (teknon [G5043], child; Theou (G2316), of God) as the believers are (John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). In John 5:18, Jesus called God His very own (idion (G2398)) Father. To Jesus, God was not a Father as He is to us. See John 20:17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Him and believers. The term monogenēs also occurs in Heb. 11:17.
This word is mostly used of only son in the NT. Only John used it of Christ referring to him as the only Son of God.
G3439. μονογενής monogenēs; gen. monogenous, masc.-fem., neut. monogenon, from monos (G3441), only, and genos (G1085), stock. Unique, one of a kind, one and only. The only one of the family (Luke 7:12 referring to the only son of his mother; 8:42, the daughter of Jairus; Luke 9:38, the demoniac boy).
John alone uses monogenēs to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Genos, from which genēs in monogenēs is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and genō comes from ginomai (G1096), become, as in John 1:14, “and the Word became [egeneto] flesh.” This is in distinction from gennaō (G1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennaō is gennēma (G1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique. There are two schools of thought regarding the meaning of this term. The first view, which began with Origen, teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and His generation by the Father are eternal being predicated of Him in respect to His participation in the Godhead. Although monogenēs was traditionally cited in proof of this explanation, modern proponents, recognizing the mistaken identification of genēs as a derivative of gennaō instead of genos, understand the word to be descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. This would serve to distinguish the Sonship of Christ to God from that spoken of other beings, e.g., Adam (Luke 3:28), angels (Job 1:6), or believers (John 1:12). The last view teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and generation by the Father are predicated of Him in respect to the incarnation. The proponents of this interpretation unequivocally affirm the triune nature of the Godhead and Christ’s deity teaching that it is the word logos (G3056), 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, monogenēs 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.
He is never called teknon Theou (teknon [G5043], child; Theou (G2316), of God) as the believers are (John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). In John 5:18, Jesus called God His very own (idion (G2398)) Father. To Jesus, God was not a Father as He is to us. See John 20:17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Him and believers. The term monogenēs also occurs in Heb. 11:17.
Great stuff, thanks for posting. Especially this part which emphasizes two of the biblical meanings of Son of God. Jesus is "begotten" as the "Son of God" in the old testament sense (including the surrounding ancient near eastern sense) when he was annointed to his position in time similar to how David and Solomon are described as being the Son of God by their position, and how by using monogenes John says Jesus is more than that. He is more than just the Son by position. He is the son by nature. He is unique:
Great info.
Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?
"What is God" is Reymond's work on the attributes of God following the pattern of the Shorter Catechism. It's published by Mentor.
Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?
"What is God" is Reymond's work on the attributes of God following the pattern of the Shorter Catechism. It's published by Mentor.
Sorry, brother. Thanks. What is God is one of his newer books that I have not read yet.
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
In looking back at different translations, KJV, NRSV, ESV, NLT at the following verses John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9, the KJV is the only one to use "begotten," the others use "only," or "one and only" Son.
In other places monogenes is translated "only" in these other verses and refers to "sons" or "only sons " Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9.
In other places monogenes is translated "only" in these other verses and refers to "sons" or "only sons " Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
We have been assigned this book for a class at RPTS this term. Look forward to reading it.
Correction on Dr. Reymond
I want to offer a correction about Dr. Reymond's retirement - he left Knox, but did not retire.
As a former student of his and friend, I have spoken with him several times since he departed from Knox Seminary. He did not retire, he RESIGNED out of protest. Specifically, he resigned because of how the new KTS leadership is treating Dr. Cal Beisner and Dr. Fowler White - two men whom Dr. Reymond has much respect for and whom he believes are completely confessional men.
I have posted a short history here.
I want to offer a correction about Dr. Reymond's retirement - he left Knox, but did not retire.
As a former student of his and friend, I have spoken with him several times since he departed from Knox Seminary. He did not retire, he RESIGNED out of protest. Specifically, he resigned because of how the new KTS leadership is treating Dr. Cal Beisner and Dr. Fowler White - two men whom Dr. Reymond has much respect for and whom he believes are completely confessional men.
I have posted a short history here.
- Status
