Can YHWH exist without divine attributes?

There seem to be three Biblical arguments favouring the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Some people understanding this term literally as an act of creation (generation) of the Son by the Father which takes place in eternity, and so being an eternal act, it can’t have a beginning or an ending. However, others taking careful note of the words in the Nicene Creed: ‘begotten not made,’ regard this term as merely functional and not as a literal term, expressing that eternal relationship between the Father and Son and not to some specific act of creation (generation).

1. Psalm 2:7: ‘Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.’ However when this verse when it is quoted three times in the New Testament at Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 is always directly applied to Christ’s resurrection and never to his birth, or to an act of begetting which taking place in eternity is eternal.

2. The word ‘monogenses’ is translated ‘Only begotten’ five times when it’s applied directly to Christ in the KJV and NASV: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son.’ (John 3:16). However, Isaac is also spoken of as ‘an only begotten Son’ at Hebrews 11:17. So does ‘monogenese’ i.e. ‘only begotten’ always imply ‘eternally begotten’ except at Hebrews 11:17? For to be consistent, if Christ being ‘monogenes’ implies that he’s an eternally begotten Son, then Isaac too must also be an eternally begotten son, as he’s also spoken of as being ‘only begotten’ (monogenes) in the KJV and NASV Bibles at Hebrews 11:17.

3. John 5:26, we read here that the Father gives life to the Son. This I will concede seems to be a plausible argument for doctrine of eternal generation, however as the ‘life’ which is then given to us by Christ from the Father is the Greek word: ‘Zoë’ and not ‘bios’ does it possibly refers to Christ’s meditorial work in redeeming us, and not to his own ontological nature? The immediate context for John 5:26 covers Christ’s resurrection of his redeemed people, and so it’s doubtful that hermeneutical constraints permit this to be applied to Christ own ontological nature. For unlike John 1:1-4, at John 5:26 Jesus is here telling us about our future resurrection and present salvation, i.e. that we receive a life which derives from the Father through him. Thus John 5:26 possibly concerns us, and how we (not Christ) receive new life, this life (Zoë) being a pseudonym for redemption and future resurrection. After all the context of raising the dead in verses 21 and 25 concerns our salvation and how this new life (Zoë) is mediated to us.

Eternal generation is certainly an extremely difficult doctrine to understand, yet alone prove, and the key for any discussion of this complex doctrine depends upon how it is defined at the outset. Certainly the early Arians took Psalm 2:7: ‘this day have I begotten thee’ literally and form this claimed a literal creation of the Son, from which they then proceeded to deny his deity. That this is a misquotation of Psalm 2:7 is easy to prove by a simple examination of its application in the New Testament by the inspired writers. However, in the past this verse has been the chief proof text for the doctrine of eternal generation, with the words ‘this day’ incredibly being applied to an eternal day (i.e. in eternity) by Trinitarians, which is contradictory nonsense. Finally, whilst the creeds state that the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding, the creeds never properly explain just what these terms mean.

Originally Posted by Chan

The phrase "only begotten Son" most certainly is biblical - it's in the Bible and that makes it biblical. The Greek word monogenes in John 3:16 can most literally be translated "only born" and, so, "only begotten" is an accurate translation. I don't give a rat's behind what "many modern scholars" do!

No, it's not a non-issue. You insisted above that "only begotten Son" is not biblical. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the Son was not begotten.


I did no such thing! First of all, I never refer to the Father as "Jesus"! So, you need to STOP this nonsense of continually accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

What I said in my earlier post is applicable here: "since the Bible consistently refers to Jesus as God's 'only begotten Son,' meaning that Jesus became the Son when He was begotten, you cannot have Jesus - as the Son - doing things in eternity because He wasn't begotten yet!"

Let me turn your statement into a question: "Does the SON (I said SON) have two natures of deity and humanity?" Well, to answer that question we need to answer the question "What is it about Jesus that makes HIM 'the Son"? Is it Jesus' divinity that makes Him the Son (in which case there would exist two divine beings, one of which was somehow begotten or fathered by the other)? Is it His being the memra or logos (divine expression) that makes Him the Son (in which case His having been begotten is merely figurative)? Is it His having been conceived by God in the womb of a virgin girl named Mary that makes Him the Son? How one answers whether the Son as the Son has two natures of deity and humanity depends on how one answers the other questions.

For me, it's Jesus that has two natures in hypostatic union; it's not Jesus status as the Son that has these two natures.

'By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten Son.' (Hebrews 11:17 KJV).

Your comments are not quite incorrect. ‘Monogenos’ is used of Isaac at Hebrews 11:17, specifically to state that Isaac was NOT Abraham's only child; please read the entire context in Hebrews from 11:8 to verse 19. But rather 'monogenos' here implies that whilst Abraham had two Sons; Isaac and Ishmael, but that only Isaac alone partook in the covenantal promises which God made with Abraham. The writer of Hebrews was perfectly well aware that Abraham did not have only have one son, but that Ishmael was also Abraham's other son. So the writer of Hebrews is simply making the theological point here, that just as Isaac was spiritually the unique ‘monogenos’ Son of Abraham, being alone the inheritor of the covenantal promised which God made with his Father. So too by implication is Christ the unique Son of God, at John 3:16. So you see, in both instances (John 3:16 and Hebrews 11:17) 'monogenos' has a spiritual, but not a physical meaning. So Christ is spiritually, the unique Son of God at John 3:16 (because he is himself deity). Just as at Hebrews 11:17, Isaac alone, and not Isaac together with his elder brother Ishmael, is the spiritual inheritor of God's covenantal promises which God made with his father, Abraham.

Sadly, like so many Oneness folk you tend to constantly interpret the Bible in a very literalistic and physical manner. This is why you have constantly missed the real nature of the Son of God, and why you keep on attempting to erroneously prove that he is only a physically created being, who is then called ‘God,’ simply because he is then indwelt by God's spirit. You have failed to interpret the words within their proper theological contexts, and to you, no effort is required to understand the meaning of words such as 'only begotten.' Thus the fact that the KJV translators were all very firm Trinitarians who spoke virtually Elizabethan English, (Queen Elizabeth had actually died a few years before), is completely irrelevant to you. So you have taken the words 'only begotten,' which at John 3:16 simply implies 'an eternal generation of the Son,' in the orthodox creedal Economic Trinitarianism of the time. And then you then firstly ignore the word 'only,' secondly you then misinterpret this term 'only begotten' as 'begotten' when it does not actually say this. Lastly Chan, you then interpret the word 'begotten' as any twenty first century American inner-city youth, would understand this term today, i.e. that ‘begotten’ means born or created.

Originally Posted by Chan

The phrase "only begotten Son" most certainly is biblical - it's in the Bible and that makes it biblical. .

Don't you realise that 'Only Begotten' means eternally begotten, if I sum it up like this, 'Only begotten' does not mean begotten! Secondly, the term 'only begotten' refers to Christ's deity and not to his humanity, it's a term invented by Trinitarians to mean that Christ's deity (not his humanity) is eternally begotten, re the Trinitarian doctrine of the etenral generation of the Son (which I don;t hold to by the way, as I hold to a variant position myself). monoigenese cannot possibly mean 'Onlyu begotten' on account of hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is also monogenese.

'By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten Son.' (Hebrews 11:17 KJV).

Jesus Christ is not the only person to have this word ‘Monogenos’ used as a descriptive term of himself as Isaac at Hebrews 11:17 is also called ‘Monogenos.’ So if this term is wrongly translated as implying an ‘eternal generation,’ then Isaac too must also be an ‘eternally generated’ as well!

Originally Posted by Chan

For me, it's Jesus that has two natures in hypostatic union; it's not Jesus status as the Son that has these two natures.

But this is NOT hypostatic union, which is the doctrine that the eternal Son took upon himself flesh at the incarnation. You and Oneness folk instead believe that the eternal Father took upon himself flesh, which was then called the Son when the Father indwelt that flesh. This is not hypostatic union and you should not use the term 'hypoostatic union' as it means somthing quite different to the Oneness position. It would be like a JW deciding to call his belief Oneness or a cessationist calling himself a tongues speaker!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

But this is NOT hypostatic union, which is the doctrine that the eternal Son took upon himself flesh at the incarnation. You and Oneness folk instead believe that the eternal Father took upon himself flesh, which was then called the Son when the Father indwelt that flesh. This is not hypostatic union and you should not use the term 'hypoostatic union' as it means somthing quite different to the Oneness position. It would be like a JW deciding to call his belief Oneness or a cessationist calling himself a tongues speaker!

Hypostatic Union is the doctrine that a Hypostasis with a Divine nature was ontologically united with a Human nature too. One hypostasis and two natures.

Us OPs....the ones I am representing, believe the One Hypostatic Deity called Yahweh was hypostatically united with a Human nature, not merely indwelt a body or indwelt someone else. Thus HE became the Son, Deity and Humanity together, though Deity was latent in Him as the Son (Kenosis)