erm nm
For(be)gotten and not made?
Audio Transcript
Pastor John joins us today over Skype remotely, even though today’s question comes in from a pastor not far from you. “Pastor John, hello! I pastor a small congregation in Minneapolis. As we endured the inability to gather in person as a congregation in the midst of the virus, I emailed the church weekly, slowly working through the questions in the New City Catechism. It raised again a question that has been gnawing at me for a number of years. What does it mean that the Son was ‘begotten’ by the Father, and ‘not made’? Why this distinction? And why does it matter so much?”
Well, hello brother, fellow lover of Minneapolis — our sad city, our sinful city. The early church had to settle certain really crucial disputes over the nature of Christ. And one of those disputes came to a head in the fourth century, when a group called the Arians argued that Jesus Christ was created, made, and was not God. The summary and the end of that dispute was the Council of Nicaea. I’ll just read a little section of it.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten [that is, of the substance] of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made [clearly in the face of the Arians], of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made.
Now, that has been, and is today, the historic, biblical, orthodox position of the church throughout history. I believe that what that says is true. The phrase “begotten, not made” comes from that Council of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed.
Never Not the Son
So, we now should ask, Since the Bible and not creeds is our final authority that we really esteem — I esteem highly and love to ponder the wisdom of the creeds — is it biblical, and why does it matter?
I think a compelling case can be made biblically from the first fourteen verses of the Gospel of John that the phrase “begotten, not made” is biblical. John begins like this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He [this Word is a person] was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)
And then he adds in John 1:14,
And the Word became flesh [we’re talking about Jesus Christ] and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only [the KJV reads begotten] Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
“The eternal begetting of the Son secures the Son’s very same, exact nature with the Father.”
And this is why You are wrong, because like biggy, You think not out of the box , that is meant For IT
That there are those, who think out of the box like this, undetermined to freely disconnect the link that matters most, by a double edged battle ax as it were.
Less we forget that redemption was an exclusion of the in it’s self by it’s self. Amappetently through it’s self , a will full act
as merely an alternate ‘shadow’ theory turned image
That there are those, who think out of the box like this, undetermined to freely disconnect the link that matters most, by a double edged battle ax as it were.
Less we forget that redemption was an exclusion of the in it’s self by it’s self. Amappetently through it’s self , a will full act
as merely an alternate ‘shadow’ theory turned image[/quote
A theory which defies the originally meant image of progressive , objective evolution , destroying Diogenes distinctive ‘ladder to heaven’ knocking out all objective rationale for the steps necessary even sans it’s Absolute behind the redemption, .
In fact, the guy made a contingent necessity out of an apperant necessary contingency.
That is the very thin margin of doubt which underlines the internal and external domains professed to hinge the most complex and subtle simplicity ever begot .
Still in doubt?
From the link: “ None of this makes sense to me. My alternative theory, which is mine, is that the crucifixion, if it happened, was a big failure because Jesus’s followers (if he existed) all thought that he would bring them salvation in their lifetime, and didn’t expect the Messiah to be executed. But, as the story goes, he was, and the corpse rotted or disappeared. Therefore the story of the resurrection was invented to try to convince the disappointed masses that, like Jesus, they too would have eternal life, since obviously the messiah wasn’t going to come during their lifetimes, as he promised he would.”
Granted they all thought Jesus would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression—to the point Judas got miffed enough to try and instigate a conflict—
…how would that explain 1) the empty tomb… even if it were merely a lie, and 2) the persistence of the disciples to go and make disciples, and 3) the conversion of skeptics (during Jesus’ life) only AFTER Jesus’ death?
Just a start.
Doubt your doubts.
Are you going to multiply stuff like that? Have you not read my prior suggested stuff?
Of course , have read it, but playing devil,s advocate is no mere mean sleight of hand, it’s persistence is overwhelming
What do you mean by that?
Removed for reasons other than……
Shadowy or persistent, it is in God’s hands.
The sun is just a metaphor.
God’s light casts no shadow.
True but for appearance of shade, the resultant blindness caused by the irony of an allusion that non but those directly affected by anything but certain experience through the miracle of apprehending the sun, could make that absolute inference.
The reason why the game has to replay as many times as alluded to, is the compelling persistence by which the shade challenges the light behind it, fully certain of it’s own fallibility by those directly witness if His appearance.
Maybe the light is challenging the fallible (who among the willing isn’t fallible, but the light?) to let it temper them to become stronger swords? Stronger to lift others from the mud when ready, or welcome them home?
Maybe the shade, or the cave, is muddy indulgence, an eventually wearying respite even for the most prodigal?
It appears, as if this exemplifies a secondary derivative of the interaction above described.
What grabs me is the very seemless analogy between the attainment of ‘egolessness’ as an example of modal logic that is appearent between bot Christ, and those who have been chosen to follow in His footsteps.
It is an unbelievable painful experience, and has very little to do with the personal will to choose.
Especially for Judas. The painful part.
We always have a choice.
“Not my will, but yours”