[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Luke

Will, forgive me if I am wrong. I noticed fssl on fff said something about eternally begotten or something.

Do you believe that "this day" refers to a specific day in time, or some eternal decree?

Hi Luke. This is a good question. Like I said earlier, I do not believe the eternal Sonship is a "deal breaker" as long as one believes that the Lord Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH God. He is the God-man, with two natures. His deity took on humanity at the incarnation.

I think the Baptist commentator John Gill explained the various uses of the phrases "begotten" and "only begotten Son" quite well. However when it comes to the specific phrase used when God says: "This DAY have I begotten thee" I think this refers specifically to the very real DAY when God gave the Son's dead body life again at the resurrection as recorded in Acts 13:33, and as most Christians used to understand Psalms 2:7.

Christ then became "the first begotten from the dead" Rev. 1:5 and "the firstborn from the dead" Colossians 1:18.

This has been the long held traditional view. It is not some new kind of doctrine. However there are some who disagree with the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the second Person of the Trinity; yet I believe they are Christians too.

I hope that answers your question. If not, then please clarify.

Thanks,

Will K

[Will Kinney]

You may have already seen this, Luke, but here is another present day Baptist who is pretty well know who see it this way too.

Dr. Douglas Stauffer, a Baptist pastor and preacher, has written a book called One Book Stands Alone, which is a good defense of the King James Bible. Regarding Acts 13:33 and its meaning, Mr. Stauffer notes on pages 24-25: KJB Acts 13:33 "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

"When the Father said this to the Son, it was not at His birth. It was at His resurrection. He became the "first BEGOTTEN of the dead" Rev.1:5. God did not become the Lord's Father when He was born or Mary or at the resurrection. He is from everlasting, with no beginning. The Son always was...but not so in the NIV."

NIV Acts 13:33 "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

"The Lord Jesus Christ did not become THE SON of God at any time during His earthly life or ministry. (Psalm 2:12) The Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be found throughout the Old Testament. Numerous appearances are revealed prior to His being born of Mary. A great passage in proof of this truth is located in the book of Daniel when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace. Notice who else shows up... the ETERNAL Son of God." (Dr. Douglas Stauffer)

Will K

[Luke]

Thanks. I just wondered if you went down that line that some reformed do, and end up with a begotten God and an unbegotten God and a whole lotta confusion by substituting "this day" for eternity.

[boaz212]

Hi Will, quick question for you. Why do many new versions say:
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” Dan 3:25 (NIV)
Where does that reading come from? Thanks.
Tim

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by boaz212

Hi Will, quick question for you. Why do many new versions say:
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” Dan 3:25 (NIV)
Where does that reading come from? Thanks.
Tim

Hi Tim. Their variant English translation comes from the way they read the Hebrew text. If you believe the verse is talking about the Son of God, then you translate it that way. If you do not, then you go with what the NIV and other modern versions have.

Here is a bit more on it.

Daniel 3:25 "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

John Gill - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "like the Son of God--Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

Matthew Henry - "Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire."

John Wesley - " The Son of God - Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation."

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of the King James Bible, Geneva Bible, Webster's, Douay, Green's interlinear, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible and the NKJV.

However the NKJV also has a footnote that reads" "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace. "A son of the gods" is the reading of the NASB, NIV, RSV and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Luke

Thanks. I just wondered if you went down that line that some reformed do, and end up with a begotten God and an unbegotten God and a whole lotta confusion by substituting "this day" for eternity.

Hi Luke. No, like I said, I go along with the traditional view on what the phrase means. I definitely think the specific "day" referred to is a real 24 hour day, and it was the day God raised Christ from the dead.

Blessings,
Will K