tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post5104559606432074829..comments2024-03-22T07:16:35.188+00:00Comments on Against Heresies: The Unbegotten Son? Is Driscoll right to reject the eternal generation of the Son of God?Martin Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-85281366239867317282011-01-16T20:00:14.589+00:002011-01-16T20:00:14.589+00:00Justin Martyr explains the mystery of the godhead ...Justin Martyr explains the mystery of the godhead a bit differently than the trinity doctrine... that there is only one true, unbegotten, ineffable God, who is the Father of the Universe and He, before all creation and by an act of will begot His Word who is His Son, who is also called God by the prophetic Spirit because He makes known to men whatever the Father wishes Him to speak. That the Son is called Angel, and God and Lord by the Spirit because He is one with the Father in will. But Justin does not seem to adhere to the trinity so much (as that the one true God exists in three persons. Again, Justin states that there is One true God (as Jesus Himself said) the Father (alone unbegotten and the Father of the Universe) and He has a Son who is worthy of our worship and praise because He is the Son of the One true God. I wish the trinity doctrine explained it like that. Wouldn't make people so confused. It seems rather simple really. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-71429648088163358512010-10-21T07:13:25.699+01:002010-10-21T07:13:25.699+01:00Hi Martin, you don't know me, but I came acros...Hi Martin, you don't know me, but I came across your blog (as you do). Really interesting engagement with Driscoll here. <br /><br />@Steve - a good book on Jesus to give away to a non-Christian. Well, not to be a Tim Keller groupie, but I think he has adequately filed that niche. :)The Borghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17986276019307882740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-34390047758416680792010-07-19T11:59:55.790+01:002010-07-19T11:59:55.790+01:00I was a late developer
My eldest picked up Vintag...I was a late developer<br /><br />My eldest picked up Vintage Jesus yesterday and said that there shouldn't be pictures of Jesus on the coverMartin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-21839241833232356442010-07-19T11:55:30.000+01:002010-07-19T11:55:30.000+01:00Goodness Martin if I'd know your lower-sixth r...Goodness Martin if I'd know your lower-sixth report said that I wouldn't have just spent £8 on your book from Amazon to take on holiday!<br /><br />As for Vintage Jesus I was disappointed. A good book on Jesus to give away to an interested non-Christian or young Christian would be brilliant. Is there one? If not someone should write one.Steve Palfhttp://www.aigburthcommunitychurch.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-30976052848509924442010-07-18T16:09:11.892+01:002010-07-18T16:09:11.892+01:00Thanks Steve
I've just read the section that ...Thanks Steve<br /><br />I've just read the section that you mentioned from Vintage Jesus.<br /><br />To be honest I am at a loss as to what to say about it, it is one of the poorest things I've read in a while. <br /><br />Perhaps some words from my lower sixth school report may be apt, "...dreadfully overblown incomprehensible waffle. This verbose style, which tends to cloud rather than clarify, is hiding the fact that he doesn't really know what he is talking about."Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-46771545124164309442010-07-17T20:18:18.863+01:002010-07-17T20:18:18.863+01:00Hey Martin
This stuff also came out in Driscoll&#...Hey Martin<br /><br />This stuff also came out in Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus. So being a Facebook friend of Driscoll's (along with the other 3999 people who've never met him) I decided to message him to ask him to clarify, mostly because I couldn't understand what he thought the position achieved.<br /><br />Alas he never replied. Which makes me think he doesn't take our Facebook friendship seriously!<br /><br />SteveSteve Palfhttp://www.aigburthcommunitychurch.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-35776004012592363922010-07-13T13:51:10.747+01:002010-07-13T13:51:10.747+01:00The Son has always been the Son, the Trinity has a...The Son has always been the Son, the Trinity has always been. But the Son was born of a woman and became a man, a human with God as His father in time. he did not cease to be the eternal Son but now He had become and ever more will be the Godman.<br /><br />Take Hebrews 11:17 where it says that Abraham offered up his only begotten. But did not Abraham have another son, an older boy by his own seed?<br /><br />Ah, lets chew on this a whilemikehttp://bygrace4012@yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-5492133606052759772010-07-07T14:45:23.924+01:002010-07-07T14:45:23.924+01:00Is it possible that a problem resulting from textu...Is it possible that a problem resulting from textual criticism is also leading to the rejection of the "eternal generation of the Son of God?" Specifically In NA27 Joh 1:18 the text reads "monogenes theos" which NASB has as "Only Begotten God." I'm thinking it may be possible that there is a cause and effect relationship where because this "only begotten God" translation could sound Arian therefore it is necessary that monogenes should be redefined from "only begotten" to "unique of a kind." And then follows that having redefined monogenes there is then following a call to restate the creeds that understood monogenes as "only begotten". <br /><br />To resolve the problems caused by translations of "only begotten God" as we find in the NASB this word, monogenes, takes on a new shade of meaning, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God is weakened and then our newer Sys Theologies like Grudem and Reymond specifically begin to deal with this word and this doctrine. <br /><br />And we using those sys. theologies, who are no longer aware of the history behind monogenes or having no previous bias to understanding this word as only-begotten are convinced that those that came before us were mistaken and now we set aside previous creedal positions. <br /><br />Note: The traditional geek text reads "monogenes uios" which we had understood to mean "only begotten son."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03772782406743899142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-84460636346583017142010-07-07T14:31:55.181+01:002010-07-07T14:31:55.181+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03772782406743899142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-59090516134908391942010-07-04T09:30:55.399+01:002010-07-04T09:30:55.399+01:00What I find rather ironic is that in the paragraph...What I find rather ironic is that in the paragraph between going "we shouldn't define this" and "we should remove begotten and proceeds from the creed" they talk about the 'filioque' as causing a crisis of authority, due to changing the creed (the filoque shouldn't be there, but is true, I think) and then they redefine the eternal relationships and call for changing the creed!<br /><br />I think the problem they have is that begotten sounds like being made - well the Nicean bishops agree, so put "not made" afterwards. Without eternal begetting, then the Son is a son in name only until he's begotten (which they give a list of NT verses for on p27). Likewise the Father is only a father in name only before begetting the Son. We end up with a rather modalistic God - there's no distinction other than name at some point in history.<br /><br />Driscoll is strongly complementarian, so its odd he seeks to remove "begotten" and "proceeds" as complementary roles of man and woman come out of complementary roles in the Trinity.<br /><br />The other bits of the book that I've read (up to partway through chapter 10, plus a bit of the later stuff) are good, even the bits that I disagree with, but this is really bad - unlimited limit atonement (which is badly phrased and stands out like a sore thumb) pales in comparison to wanting to change the creed tucked away.Si Holletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928376477302729848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-78900521150961192822010-07-01T14:15:04.496+01:002010-07-01T14:15:04.496+01:00Really helpful, thank you.Really helpful, thank you.Jonathan Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12341478626195362383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-52406222914586297102010-06-30T23:54:20.227+01:002010-06-30T23:54:20.227+01:00They do. They give three reasons. I give them in...They do. They give three reasons. I give them in extract form in the next post.<br /><br />In the meantime, viva NiceaMartin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-82864678064881858772010-06-30T23:40:49.705+01:002010-06-30T23:40:49.705+01:00I haven't read the Driscoll book... do they gi...I haven't read the Driscoll book... do they give reasons why they don't like the doctrine? They say its misguided but do they give reasons?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846458475646782293noreply@blogger.com