Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[fastfredy0]

Actually, women are just as sinful as men. Neither is less sinful than the other.

The stats like imprisonment rates would suggest a difference. Almost all the "worst" people are men. For example, seems there's a shooting somewhere on the news every 3rd day and I don't ever recall it being a woman, nor do I recall a woman raping a man, etc. I'll make a wild conclusion that the heat in the women's area of hell is not a hot.

As Walter Cronkite said: And that's the way it is!.

Wow, we're dating ourselves seeing as I am familiar with the statement.

Edit} I think when people argue that Mary was sinless (therefore so was her seed) we start getting into Catholicism.

Agree. If Mary was sinless then we need an exception to Matt. 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Seem's Mary's mom and dad broke the general rule.

 

[fastfredy0]

I've been spending time over at civ's forum and I often think, "Man, if could get a half-dozen members from CCAM in here to deal with this dross....."

lol

Does anyone here believe God is unable to save (anyone)? Everyone post me an answer to that question. All you lurkers, too. I do not care whether your monergist, synergist, or druxilationist. Does God have an inability to save? Yes? No?

YES ... (I think ... giggle)
Explanation: Although God had the power to save everyone, yet that power's usage is an effect of His wisdom. God has chosen to not save everyone which indicates His wisdom has declared this is the best way to go. Stated another way, God is unable to do anything that is not perfect as determined by His wisdom.

 

[Eleanor]

Arial said:
One thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on
Or maybe @Arial is confused on what they are saying.
No. We are saying that HIS HUMAN PHYSICAL TEMPORAL BODY was created. That is, I am saying that, and I'm pretty sure (apologies to @Josheb (post 113)) that is what @Eleanor is saying.
But I agree with everything else. AND I add to it, that to 'get his human nature and flesh from Mary', is, in fact, "creating" his human physical temporal body, every bit as much as it would have been, had he also have been conceived of Joseph instead of being "conceived of the Holy Ghost".

Yes, the divine Son of God took on created human flesh in the womb of Mary, but his Father being sinless, made him sinless also, for God reckons through the father.

 

[Eleanor]

I had a literature teacher who admonished me for repeatedly saying, "I think....." She explained everyone reading me writing or hearing me speak KNOWS what I think because I am the obvious author. Even when "I think..." is an expression of qualified hesitancy or a lack of surety everyone knows the words are the authors views. Give that some thought. The members here are a heady bunch and will gladly report on words that are wrong and affirm the words that are correct. Nothing said well needs to be couched in "I think.... [but] don't know." One of the purposes of the discussion board is to provide a platform for sorting things out - within ourselves and between each other.
I've been spending time over at civ's forum and I often think, "Man, if could get a half-dozen members from CCAM in here to deal with this dross....."

Does anyone here believe God is unable to save (anyone)? Everyone post me an answer to that question. All you lurkers, too. I do not care whether your monergist, synergist, or druxilationist. Does God have an inability to save? Yes? No? @civic tells everyone what he thinks. It makes no difference whether what is posted is factually correct or not. He'll tell everyone. Everything he thinks about Calvinism is wrong, but it makes no difference how much correction is provided, it will not stop the deception.
You, @makesends, my friend, do not have that problem.

God has ordained that salvation is through means.; i.e., faith, which is a gift from the sovereign Holy Spirit (as unaccountable as the wind, (Jn 3:6-8) in the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
God is able to give the Holy Spirit to anyone, which Holy Spirit is the author of one's faith.

 

[fastfredy0]

That is the only difference I am able to see. I think if frankly useless to speculate on how that came to be or how the sin nature is passed from the father---such as DNA or genetics or what not. Or whether or not God used an ovum from Mary. Or any other speculation. We don't know and we don't have to know everything. We are grossly kidding ourselves if we think we can figure it all out. That is just my two cents. I know many find the topic fascinating, and enjoy the discussions on it. I am not giving a lecture.

Agreed

I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from.

I'm with those three. I think God created a 1 celled fetus out of nothing. My only scripture to support my view that I can think of off the top of my head is Matt 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. The logic being, since Mary has a sin nature she is a "bad Tree" that could not bear "good fruit"(Jesus).

 

[Arial]

Or maybe @Arial is confused on what they are saying.

I was at first, and that is the potential danger of stating Jesus was created without further clarification. It is the same way two other people stated it. Only after I questioned you did you say his flesh was created, not his divinity. With still no explanation beyond that. And it is exactly why theologians from the ECF and the Reformation were so careful in using the word "created" applied to Jesus.

It is actually something, that if mentioned, at least requires a brief summary of the work of the ancients that was done on it. I would start a thread on it and go into deeper detail, as it is very informative, but since it has come up here, and a great many of my threads sit dead in the water, I will do a brief version.

One cannot say "Christ's flesh was uncreated" in a literal sense, as that would deny his humanity. But one can say his flesh in created in nature, and in time, but uncreated in union. It never existed apart from the Word. His humanity has a different status than ours. His flesh did not decay after death, because of the hpostatic union. It is never separate from the uncreated Logos. His flesh is never "merely created". It is never independent of the uncreated Logos. It participates uniquely in the uncreated life of God. His flesh is created as to its nature (like us) but it was inseparably united to the uncreated Word therefore, never had the mode of existence that ordinary creatures do.

A formula for this might be:
As nature: created like us.
As a person: never merely created, because it is the flesh of the eternal Son

Scripture holds the tension thusly:
Jesus; flesh is fully human, created in time via being born of Mary.
On the other hand, his flesh is life-giving and incorruptible because it is the flesh of the eternal Son. The early Creed and councils worked to safeguard this tension.

I asked ChatGPT to give a catechism-style of wording this.

Here is what it came up with.

Q. Is Christ’s flesh created?
A. Yes, as to its nature: true human flesh conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit.

Q. Is anything about His flesh uncreated?
A. Not its nature, but its mode of existence: from conception it subsists only in the uncreated person of the Son, and so is life-giving and destined for incorruption.

Q. Does this divide Christ?
A. No. There is one person in two natures—the properties of each nature remain, yet all acts are of the one Christ.

Q. Why does this matter?
A. Only thus is He truly one of us to redeem us, and truly God to save us—so that through His flesh we have a new and living way to God (Heb 10:20).

 

[Eleanor]

God says in Gen 3 that the one who will crush the serpents head is the seed of the woman.
My reasoning on why Jesus could get his human nature and flesh from Mary and not inherit a nature to sin, is from God's declaration of federal headship in the man, not the woman. It is a decree. Therefore, even though women are just as sinful as men, by decree of God, that nature of Adam comes from the male, and that is how the children are born sinners---including their mothers. Both genders have sin nature, but a child conceived of the Holy Spirit does not have a human father.
That is the only difference I am able to see. I think if frankly useless to speculate on how that came to be or how the sin nature is passed from the father---such as DNA or genetics or what not. Or whether or not God used an ovum from Mary. Or any other speculation. We don't know and we don't have to know everything. We are grossly kidding ourselves if we think we can figure it all out. That is just my two cents. I know many find the topic fascinating, and enjoy the discussions on it. I am not giving a lecture.

One thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on?

Orthodoxy is that Jesus' material body was created, as all matter is created.
It is his divine nature that is not created, Jesus having two natures, 100% human (created) and 100% divine, in one person.

 

[Arial]

@makesends

Addition to post #126.

So Jesus' flesh was created in the sense that it came into existence as human in nature, in time,minus the propensity to sin. But it did not come into existence as flesh is the normal creative means of other humans. It came as flesh by the decree and predestination of not just the Father but in the eternal Covenant of Redemption involving purpose, with all persons of the Godhead. He had no earthly father as the rest of us do. So there is a uniqueness of his conception in the seed of the woman that keeps the creation of his flesh never separated from, but never mixed with his divinity.

Our flesh will die and will decay.
His could die but could not decay, because of the hypostatic union.
He took on human flesh sole for the purpose of redemption through substitionary atonement.

Our flesh cannot give life, his does give life.

 

[Arial]

Orthodoxy is that Jesus' material body was created, as all matter is created.
It is his divine nature that is not created, Jesus having two natures, 100% human (created) and 100% divine, in one person.

That should be stated and clarified even more, when stating that Jesus was created--which is how the statements were originally made. If that is not going to be done then it is best to not declare that HE (Jesus) was created. I actually thought that is what you and @makesends and @fastfredy0 meant. Which of course is the very heresy of the Unitarian. He is created only in the sense of his humanity coming into existence through Mary, in time. That is why the Reformers were careful always to clarify what they meant, an soften simply worded it as the Bible does. "He came as one of us." "The WORD became flesh." "He put on humanity." "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:6-8).

The Bible itself, near as I can remember, never refers to Christ as to his flesh, as being created by calling him created.

 

[Arial]

Isn't that saying that Jesus will be human? Christ is the central figure of scripture. His humanity is 100% human, like every other human ever born.

I don't disagree with that. My point was that it was through the seed of the woman, in response to this:

So, her seed was also sinful;

 

[Arial]

Orthodoxy is that Jesus' material body was created, as all matter is created.
It is his divine nature that is not created, Jesus having two natures, 100% human (created) and 100% divine, in one person.

Technically, a nature is not created. All flesh is created and all flesh has a nature. All flesh (and everything else created) has a nature. Jesus' flesh is created in the sense that it came into existence in time and his mother was human---giving him a human nature and flesh. The eternal Son came into existence as flesh---not less than divine, but divine with humananity added---by God through Mary for the sake of substitutionary atonement. He had to be both and each are 100% because the divine and the physical cannot mix ----there can only exist equally and simultaneously in the same person, not two ,and not a combining of the two with each other. (I know you know this. I am just searching out the words I need to make my point).

Whenever orthodoxy states that Jesus' material body was created, it always (at least I have found it to be the case) includes the statement worked out a long with the hypostatic union. The two should never be separated. Also one must never skip over the "no human father" therefore, Christ's conception and birth are in no way exactly like our creation in the womb. He is fully human but he is also fully divine.

 

[Carbon]

The stats like imprisonment rates would suggest a difference.

Well, I would agree with you if we were to judge it according to man's standards. But by God's standards?

Almost all the "worst" people are men.

According to man's standards.

For example, seems there's a shooting somewhere on the news every 3rd day and I don't ever recall it being a woman, nor do I recall a woman raping a man, etc. I'll make a wild conclusion that the heat in the women's area of hell is not a hot.

Oh, it's all the same temperature.

Wow, we're dating ourselves seeing as I am familiar with the statement.

Ya, haha.

Agree. If Mary was sinless then we need an exception to Matt. 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Seem's Mary's mom and dad broke the general rule.

 

[Josheb]

YES ... (I think ... giggle)
Explanation: Although God had the power to save everyone, yet that power's usage is an effect of His wisdom. God has chosen to not save everyone which indicates His wisdom has declared this is the best way to go. Stated another way, God is unable to do anything that is not perfect as determined by His wisdom.

Interesting take. A little circular for my taste, but interesting. God cannot save those it would be unwise to save..... and He decides what's wise . How would that be different than God will not save those He's decided it would be unwise to save? The former boils down to God cannot contradict Himself, or God cannot contradict His divine nature. Yes? Or have I misunderstood the argument?

 

[Carbon]

Interesting take. A little circular for my taste, but interesting. God cannot save those it would be unwise to save..... and He decides what's wise . How would that be different than God will not save those He's decided it would be unwise to save? The former boils down to God cannot contradict Himself, or God cannot contradict His divine nature. Yes? Or have I misunderstood the argument?

@fastfredy0

In that sense, all is unwise to save. As it seems it would have something to do with the person, according to that take?

I dont believe it has anything to do with His wisdom. It has to do with His choice from the same bucket of scum; one worm isn't better than the next. Christ is a powerful Savior, and grace is amazing.

I think we three agree?

 

[Josheb]

lol



YES ... (I think ... giggle)
Explanation: Although God had the power to save everyone, yet that power's usage is an effect of His wisdom. God has chosen to not save everyone which indicates His wisdom has declared this is the best way to go. Stated another way, God is unable to do anything that is not perfect as determined by His wisdom.

@fastfredy0

In that sense, all is unwise to save. As it seems it would have something to do with the person, according to that take?

I dont believe it has anything to do with His wisdom. It has to do with His choice from the same bucket of scum; one worm isn't better than the next. Christ is a powerful Savior, and grace is amazing.

I think we three agree?

Just so everyone knows, this is the original set of statements in a thread titled, "God's Inability to Save."

The doctrine of total inability doctrine has it all wrong. Its God who is unable to save everyone. So much for the reformed doctrine of Sovereignty. The reality is God does not control mans faith, choice to reveive/believe the gospel or reject it. That on man as we read below.​

I have argued no one believes such a thing and the claim is a red herring. Apparently, I am wrong. Someone does believe God has an inability to save.

 

[makesends]

@makesends

Addition to post #126.

So Jesus' flesh was created in the sense that it came into existence as human in nature, in time,minus the propensity to sin. But it did not come into existence as flesh is the normal creative means of other humans. It came as flesh by the decree and predestination of not just the Father but in the eternal Covenant of Redemption involving purpose, with all persons of the Godhead. He had no earthly father as the rest of us do. So there is a uniqueness of his conception in the seed of the woman that keeps the creation of his flesh never separated from, but never mixed with his divinity.

Our flesh will die and will decay.
His could die but could not decay, because of the hypostatic union.
He took on human flesh sole for the purpose of redemption through substitionary atonement.

Our flesh cannot give life, his does give life.

That comes across to me as more poetic than exactly rational. But, ok.

I don't agree with the idea that "his flesh could not decay". It is accurate in that my old axiom stands, that "As history demonstrates, the only thing that ever can happen is whatever happens". In the same way that God cannot fail, yes, his flesh could not decay. But not by nature, or it was not quite human—is my thinking on it, anyway. It could have decayed, and would have, if God had let it stay dead longer than 3 days.

The flesh of his living body, but for the brain, like ours, which self-replace cell-for-cell within 7 years, from what I've been told, lost skin cells constantly, the blood had to be cleansed by his kidneys, he was nourished the same way we are. I see no way it was genuinely human without that, the same as Adam, pre-fall.

 

[Arial]

That comes across to me as more poetic than exactly rational. But, ok.

Now that is a false equivalency. SInce when is something being poetic exclude it from being rational? We would have to discount most of Job, all of Psalms, a great deal of the Prophets, Song of Soloman, Proverbs, much of Revelation, as not being rational.

But I do not understand why you think what I wrote is poetic.

I don't agree with the idea that "his flesh could not decay". It is accurate in that my old axiom stands, that "As history demonstrates, the only thing that ever can happen is whatever happens". In the same way that God cannot fail, yes, his flesh could not decay. But not by nature, or it was not quite human—is my thinking on it, anyway. It could have decayed, and would have, if God had let it stay dead longer than 3 days.

That is why I said his flesh could not decay because of the hypostatic union. (See the Chalcedon Creed.)

The flesh of his living body, but for the brain, like ours, which self-replace cell-for-cell within 7 years, from what I've been told, lost skin cells constantly, the blood had to be cleansed by his kidneys, he was nourished the same way we are. I see no way it was genuinely human without that, the same as Adam, pre-fall.

That is why I said he could not die because of the hypostatic union. The creation of his flesh should not be stated in a vacuum. It should be connected to the hypostatic union. Otherwise, it verges of heresy. Not in belief, but in the impression it leaves.

 

[Arial]

Agreed



I'm with those three. I think God created a 1 celled fetus out of nothing. My only scripture to support my view that I can think of off the top of my head is Matt 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. The logic being, since Mary has a sin nature she is a "bad Tree" that could not bear "good fruit"(Jesus).

Well, ok. I am not even going to comment of that particular speculation as I am 100% unqualified to do so.

All I can do is return to the federal headship of the first man, not the first woman. The federal headship of Jesus over his church and people. Male. And his own headship---Father. He says it and so it is so.

 

[makesends]

Now that is a false equivalency. SInce when is something being poetic exclude it from being rational? We would have to discount most of Job, all of Psalms, a great deal of the Prophets, Song of Soloman, Proverbs, much of Revelation, as not being rational.

I did not say that the poetic cannot be rational. I put the two in apposition as a reference to the fact that I could characterize it the one way more than I could characterize it the other.

But I do not understand why you think what I wrote is poetic.

More than once I have been told I am a poet, (lol, and that, as a complement, believe it or not!), because I combine themes described in Scripture by terms that others consider allegorical, symbolic, etc, but I take them as literal. For example, when I suppose the New Jerusalem to actually be The Bride, and not just a place for the Bride to live, or when I conjecture that the existence of what we consider force and matter to be actually comprised of something OF or FROM God —perhaps something we never considered possibly 'material' in that sense, such as his Love— in part because that could answer an awful lot of questions, such as how he can love the world, and be intimately involved and in absolute control of all fact.

I saw you combining several terms that don't necessarily go together how you used them, to render a conclusion that doesn't quite work for me.

makesends said:
I don't agree with the idea that "his flesh could not decay". It is accurate in that my old axiom stands, that "As history demonstrates, the only thing that ever can happen is whatever happens". In the same way that God cannot fail, yes, his flesh could not decay. But not by nature, or it was not quite human—is my thinking on it, anyway. It could have decayed, and would have, if God had let it stay dead longer than 3 days.

That is why I said he could not die because of the hypostatic union. (See the Chalcedon Creed.)

I don't follow, plus, I'm not sure to what you are referring in saying, "he could not die". After all, he did die. You must be speaking of his Divine nature, and whatever else is not his earthly flesh. Or maybe you mean, he could not stay dead? Either way, I don't get what you are saying.

That is why I said he could not die because of the hypostatic union. The creation of his flesh should not be stated in a vacuum. It should be connected to the hypostatic union. Otherwise, it verges of heresy. Not in belief, but in the impression it leaves.

Ok, I suppose I agree with your fears on how it is stated. Maybe I'm not as careful as I should be. But from what I've heard, here, the opposite is also possible, that the fact of his divinity rules out his humanity.

When I, or most anyone here, tries to get a concept or description of something across, we may do so to the exclusion of showing the other side. That is common speech. But I am sorry for any misleading, on my part. I hope at least, that I did not engage in hyperbole in a matter as sensitive as the hypostatic union.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: Does anyone here believe God is unable to save (anyone)?

The former boils down to God cannot contradict Himself, or God cannot contradict His divine nature. Yes?

Yes, God actions are restricted by His nature which is perfect. God defines "perfect".

In that sense, all is unwise to save. As it seems it would have something to do with the person, according to that take?

I'm not sure I understand the question. My take on things is the God determines everything so everything I do is an effect and He is the First Cause. God, IMO, does not respond to our self-determined actions as all our actions are determines by Him. So, when you say "it would have something to do with the person" I would need clarification as when God does has something to do with the person, but not the self-determined actions of the person as no such thing exists ... IMO
Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]. AMP
... in Him we live and breath and have our being

I dont believe it has anything to do with His wisdom. It has to do with His choice from the same bucket of scum;

Well, I'd say it has to do with God's nature and His being "all wise" is an aspect of His nature.
God choosing from a "bucket of scum" is a given.

Aside: There is no such thing a WHY GOD DOES THIS OR THAT because WHY implies a cause and everything God does is uncaused as He is eternal and does not change. Therefore, what He does boils down to it being His nature.