 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:45 am |
|
| God's peace. Some sects, notably the Restorationists or Campbellites, teach that Christ became the Son of God at the Incarnation but was not eternally the Son of God. This seems slightly different from straight Arianism, since the deity of Christ is not denied, only the eternal nature of Christ's Sonship. They claim that the Catholic teaching of eternal Sonship ("eternally begotten of the Father") is not found in the Scriptures. Can anyone show where--in Scripture, councils, or other doctrinal pronouncements--this dogma was set forth? Thanks! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~ Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:01 pm by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 06:33 pm |
|
Br_Carlo wrote: God's peace. Some sects, notably the Restorationists or Campbellites, teach that Christ became the Son of God at the Incarnation but was not eternally the Son of God. This seems slightly different from straight Arianism, since the deity of Christ is not denied, only the eternal nature of Christ's Sonship. They claim that the Catholic teaching of eternal Sonship ("eternally begotten of the Father") is not found in the Scriptures. Can anyone show where--in Scripture, councils, or other doctrinal pronouncements--this dogma was set forth? Thanks!
John Chapter 1. It says it all.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:00 pm |
|
God's peace. Oddly enough, Rick, the person I was conversing with referred to this passage and said that it does not identify God as being the Son prior to the Incarnation. My response was that God is immustable, and that to become the only-begotten Son of God would involve a fundamental change in the economy of the Trinity--in fact, a change in the nature of God. Do you think that is a good enough answer?
Still, I would like to know where this issue was addressed in the councils. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 11:55 pm |
|
Please note that a message was posted in this thread that violated the forum guidelines. It has been deleted. For the sake of completion, I have also deleted the replies, since they didn't make sense without the original message. The user who posted the original message today (not the original message in the thread, but today's message) has been placed on probation. Should he ever return, he will be advised of his transgression.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 12:03 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
