Is eternal generation essential to the gospel? Charles Lee Irons and Matthew Barrett

[@Obrandoporlaverdad]

Great video thank you for your insight.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I share your concern about newer English translations.

[@mikeschmoll7762]

I have a question :) God is self-sufficient, not dependent on anything and anyone. How can we then say Jesus is God if he derived his essence from the father in eternity past? I know otherwise we would have three gods but I'm struggling to understand how I can say Jesus is God but his essence is dependent on the derivation from the father. I really appreciate any help!

[@marilynmelzian7370]

It is not a matter of time. All of this takes place within the Trinity eternally. It has nothing to do with the past. There is no past. We have to let go of using our own experience too much to understand this. We live in time. God does not.

[@rsk5660]

Before you start thinking about the ins and outs of this doctrine you have to have a good understanding of the whole of the bible yourself with no ones help. Once you have read it ten or twenty times you will have a fair idea of it's content. We are warned about false teachers so there is no point in looking to people for help in case they are false teachers. I had questions when I was a young Christian and I took them to my mentor who I trusted, but now I realise he was just passing on to me what had been passed on to him from the previous generation and so on. Only reading the scriptures for ourselves will get us away from this brainwashing.

[@rsk5660]

At 2;50 he says Christians who read their bible just aren't going to see it anymore. That seems to be a self condemnation to his own doctrine. Christians who only read their bible are the most likely to find the truth, and if they can't find the trinity etc then the trinity just isn't true.

[@hmichaelshultzjr]

The whole explanation from 24:00 - 25:00 is partial. While the point that's made is that John always uses the word monogenes in reference to the Father-Son relationship, and therefore that leads to a consistent translation, that doesn't at all prove that he consistently meant begotten rather than unique. By that reasoning he might have meant unique each time. The point of familial nature dictating the usage of "begotten" is simply incorrect. One easy example is Hebrews 11:17-19 wherein Isaac is called Abraham's "monogenes" son. In that case, Isaac is certainly Abraham's unique son, but definitely not his only begotten. He is not even the first begotten. That whole thought seems to be underdeveloped.

[@ThePristineFaith]

Paul uses "monogenes" in Heb. 11:17 BECAUSE in Gen. 22:2 God called Isaac Abraham's ONLY son, using the word ‎אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֤ which means SOLITARY (not one of a kind). The LXX reads differently here, saying: λαβὲ τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν ὃν ἠγάπησας τὸν Ισαακ "Take the son of you, the beloved one, whom you loved, Isaac." However, if you look at the very next verse, Heb. 11:18, it explains WHY Isaac was called by God Abraham's "only-begotten." Hebrews 11:17: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," That means God was not going to reckon Ishmael as "Abraham's seed" from His perspective, even though he was Abraham's seed literally.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

[@IsaakThiessen-u7b]

Read John 1 again. Slowly

[@HearGodsWord]

​@user-ei6ci4cy2r indeed. There's so many scriptures that support the trinity that it's one of the areas that Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed can all agree on.

[@IsaakThiessen-u7b]

You're ignoring dozens of Scriptures that prove Jesus is God. John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1. Smh

[@rsk5660]

Yes. Why can people not just start with the plain texts. The man God will judge the world through. The man God raised from the dead See the context of Acts 17 Paul preaching about the unknown God.

[@rsk5660]

@@IsaakThiessen-u7b Read Acts 4, Acts 17, 1 Cor 8, 1 tim 2v5. John 1 is about the word being God and with God. If the word is not a person but a message or something else, then the deity of Christ falls apart. It might be personification, The word became flesh, might mean the embodiment of the word. God the father is the God of the old testament. A single person, sometimes called the living God. Jesus is the son of the living God. My advice to anyone is to read the whole bible over and over and not just John 1. I think you probably concentrate on John 1 too much and are probably ignorant of the bible as a whole, otherwise you would not be trinitarian.

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Psalms 83:18KJV"That men may know that thou,whose name alone is JEHOVAH,art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please there is but one whose name is JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.

[@MaD-hp9hq]

We agree that there is one so far as being is concerned. If I say that there is only one Elvis Presley, that is true in the sense that I mean it. If you pointed out that there are other people named Elvis Presley, then that wouldn't count as a rebuttal to my point, because you mean something different by "one Elvis" than I meant. This is the same thing that you are doing to God in this argument.

[@rsk5660]

@@MaD-hp9hq There is one God the father 1 Cor. 8v6 not one God the father son and holy spirit. Paul could quite easily have said what you believe if he believed it. The fact that he didn't gives you a big problem. Jesus says the father is the only true God, he also could quite easily have said something more trinitarian, but he didn't, again giving you a big problem. It is easy to say things and paint a picture in your mind of what you think God is like, but if plain verses contradict what you imagine then you would be better rethinking

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Numbers23:19KJV"God is not a man,that he should lie;neither the son of man,that he should repent..." Thus if ones God is now or was ever a man (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.

[@MaD-hp9hq]

No one believes that the human nature entered into the essence of God. The person of Jesus simply has both the divine and a human nature, and it is in this sense that he is God.

[@lxfj2128]

Nah doesn’t make sense. How can Jesus be the son if he’s the exact same age as the father . If I have a son is he the same age as me . Jesus can’t be a true son if he’s always existed with the father

[@MaD-hp9hq]

You are imposing temporal categories onto God, like Arians did. "Same age" does not enter into the picture

[@Jamaal4Jesus]

How can the Father be the *Father* if the the Son doesn't exist?

[@IsaakThiessen-u7b]

How old are you as a Father? Exactly the same age as your oldest child.

[@BetterFuture-r9u]

Son implies relationship (Monarchical Trinitarianism). It doesn't imply age. Where the Son's does the will of the Father (willingly and in agreement). The Son is eternally generated from the Father (before time). God is beyond time. These terms are analogies. Every analogy has a limitation. If we could fully explain who and what God is in human and temporal terms, He wouldn't be much of a God now would He? Physics runs into the same issues, doesn't mean the material world doesn't exist. The Father's property is eternal generation (of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). The person of Son's property is that of being incarnate (in which you are made in the image of as a man or woman) The Holy Spirit's property is to indwell, inspiring the writing of scripture, and give life. Read the Nicene Creed for a summary for clarity. If you were raised with a Protestant version of Christianity (Modal Christianity, where God assumes the form of the Son) then this is likely extremely confusing, as the Trinity is never properly expounded upon. Look up Monarchical Trinitarianism as explained by the Orthodox Church (the same church that gave you the Bible, for the first 1000 years).