Only Begotten God or Only Begotten Son?

I must make this disclaimer because their will be those who accuse me of being a King James only proponent for which I am not one, nor can I be, because the Greek was not, but the KJB is my favorite, and I am more than little bias toward it because of starting my Christian walk reading it’s pages. I am very sure to see  criticism because of posting this honest look at the two uses of John 1:18 in history. I am  pretty sure of the criticism I will receive  because of being so critical of the popular rendering of John 1:18 monogenes theos or only begotten God, and the claim of those as the earliest manuscript rendering but I do not care! I will speak what I see, and observe, and you can do with it what you will. The rendering in my opinion "only begotten God" is pure polytheism.

The earliest Greek manuscripts nobody quoted from in a so-called early church history until after Nicea.

 I  like to make the quick disclaimer that I do not believe these men were part of the early church simply because we have writings from these men who claim to be Christians and those that would claim them as such either. Because someone was closer to Jesus times does not automatically make him or her teach truth. We are not told to follow men in history who make wild claims or even speak truth. Examples of that idea would be of two men who lived at the same time in the 16^th century and who held completely different views concerning the nature of God and who he is. I am of course talking about  John Calvin and Michael Servetus. There is no way to prove or disprove what they speak is truth unless it is compared to what scripture says.  Only one came actually speaking truth and that was Jesus, he proved he was truth personified with all the miracles and good he did in the prophecies concerning him. If we follow him, and those whom he sent we cannot be wrong.

Only after the council of Nicea will you find “only begotten God” instead of only begotten Son for John 1:18 being quoted. Before that time nobody who is called a (so-called) “church Father” says anything about an “only begotten God.” Again the disclaimer must be made that these men to whom I am quoting are not because I am trying to show they taught truth. I do not believe they are teaching truth when compared to scripture. I am quoting them to see the text they used in quoting scripture. Hymeaneus and Philetus (2^nd Tim. 2:17) are two very good examples I like to use of men that existed in The Apostles time; who were right there with the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles, but yet somehow managed to teach false doctrine. How much more so those removed many years afterward, and we are also told that the Lord would not return until there was a great falling away from truth.

A Few Examples From History of Only Begotten Son Quoted from John 1:18

Tertullian (212) In Against Praxeas

"Well, (I must again ask, ) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him[ Against Praxeas].

 John 1:1 Now the word of life became flesh, and was heard, and seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was "the word in the beginning with God" the Father, John1:1-2 and not the Father with the word. For although the word was God. Yet was He with God because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. “And we have seen His Glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father: (John 1:14) that is, of course,(the glory) of the Son, even Him who was invisible, and was glorified by the invisible Father.

We see above Tertullian lacked any depth of thought in dealing with  Praxeas, but that is par for the course in dealing with Trintiarains  today.  In spite of  his opinion added to the text  you will notice how Tertullian quotes John 1:18....

Athanasius (357) says the following concerning John 1:18

It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this.... John in saying, “The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does “in the bosom” intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?

There are so many witnesses that quote only begotten son as a viable rendering instead of only begotten God.

Augustine 430 only begotten son

Ambrose “ ” ” 389

Chrysotom “ “ “389

Alexander “ “ “ 324

Ignatius “ “ “ 110

There are some from history who quote both *only begotten God*, and *only begotten Son*. Some of those are claimed to be Arians, and Trinitarians in history, and some even ancient Oneness. We cannot be sure of any of this. Could it be corruption or something else? Could both uses be correct?  It certainly should be carefully considered. God cannot be One God and be  both begotten and non begotten; there cannot be any distinction made between begotten God, and non begotten God, or we are not talking about one God. The only solution that remedies this polytheistic problem is the Oneness answer and the solution is  that the rendering must be only begotten Son in reference to his genuine humanity and the virgin Birth as God manifest in the flesh.

CS Lewis said  God beget God?.

To beget is to become the Father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue, which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man.

There simply is only one God. God did not pass his gene and make a copy of himself and beget that way. God gave the genuine man and his only miraculously sired Son his own spirit sharing his divinity with his genuine only begotten Son in the incarnation.

Only begotten Son refers to God siring miraculously.

As you can see above the ridiculous idea that abounds, and to be fair not all believe this farce, but I have heard it so many times this very idea from Trinitarians. Only begotten God is more appealing to some Trinitarians because they actually believe it is a trinity proof when it is nothing more than thoughtless polytheism, and those who attempt to force the reading are not doing any service to the cause of Christianity.  

 What if it is true? Well then you would think that the more thinking people (Apologists) would put it out there. People Like Dr. James White who will quote the Greek Mongenes  theos( pronounced Mono ganaze thay ‘os) but will not much render the reading as only begotten God for the obvious reasons I pointed out, and they know they will be called on it.

Earliest Greek manuscripts do not mean the best. But why did these men whom I quoted not use the supposed earliest Greek manuscripts renderings with boldness?

It seems in my estimation to tone down the obvious result of the charge of polytheism. Should that not be alarming?

Only begotten Son refers only to the virgin birth, and God miraculously siring the Son by overshadowing the virgin. (Matthew 1:21) 

As a side note and this will not cost the reader anything accept for a minute or two of time, but you will also hear a protest from the trinity bunch  of the rendering concerning the word made that the KJB employs for instance in John 1:3  where all things were made by him. Some renderings have all things have become by him instead of made which seems a little strange to say the least, and is highly suspect in my estimation for the rendering so as in my opinion to get us to forget about the KJB 'rendering "the word was made flesh," but rather the word became flesh.  What that tiny suspect nuance does is get us to think the word was a person and changed from one thing into another on it’s own or “ god the son’s” own, instead of God making and carrying out his plan for the ages by the breath of his mouth as the word pertaining to God speaking it and it holds fast. The word is with Jesus as God manifest in the flesh. Jesus as God in flesh wields the power of the word/Logos as both the creative and judgment power that is intended. This is all for another posting at a later date.

 Back to the subject of the only begotten God versus only begotten Son.  There is the one tiny problem of the scriptures as evidence and that never refers to Jesus as the only begotten God anywhere, but supposedly only once in John 1:18 and in the other passages refers to him as the only begotten Son which are as follows: John 1:14 the only begotten God of God/Father, which sounds ridiculous. Of course John 1:18 true rendering would be the only begotten Son, John 3:16  the only begotten Son,  John 3:18 only begotten Son. 1^st John 4:9  the only begotten Son.

Some will say that he is the only one of kind God and then try and say that Jesus is the only begotten God but then what does that make the other two non- begotten God kinds? Very contradictory in every-place you go with this bad idea. Something future apologists should give consideration to think about.

Answering Eisegesis Edward Dalcour.

 I am not trying to sound mean spirited in using the title, but thought I would give Edward Dalcour a taste of his own medicine. In a recent radio interview you can listen to here [Apologiaradio] with Dalcour concerning the debate Roger Perkins had with Dr. James White in Brisbane Australia in 2011. Dalcour resorted to name calling of Roger Perkins for what he considered as a dodge concerning Dr. White’s questioning of John 17:5. We expect Trinitarians not to like the answers we give, and call them “dodges.” We can make the same claims. I for one am very satisfied with the debate that took place and it did whole lot for our side of the issue. Of course you will never hear Dalcour say a thing about James White’s argument concerning the supposed one God with three separate-centers of consciousness (Which is conceptual tritheism) he propped up in the debate.

One of the things I see a lot on Apologetic sites and hear on radio programs and forums are misrepresentation of what Oneness actually teaches about God. It is absurd to hear a Trinitarian try and represent the Oneness view in any meaningful way that their folks could actually engage in real discussion. We actually welcome the uninformed apologetics they use because it makes it easier for us in discussion. Edward Dalcour is a self-proclaimed expert on Oneness, if you go to his site here [Link]you will see his ridiculous apologetics arguments. One argument on his site Dalcour boasts:" Oneness claims Jesus was his own Father."  Actually no, we do not make that claim! Trinitarian’s make that claim about us and there is a big difference in saying it and actually proving it. Dalcour talks a big talk but has never actually debated anyone Oneness in polemic platform that I am aware of. 

Of course one of the first things Dalcour said on the radio program was that Oneness misrepresents the doctrine of the trinity by saying:" the trinity is polytheism or that three persons are three gods." That is true, we say the trinity is three gods. However, it is not true we misrepresent the doctrine and this is why; The Hindu three persons are three gods: Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma.  Trinity doctrine will be quick to say that Hinduism is polytheism, but not before making a side note to throw you off of their scent so that you forget the main point. They will say something to the effect:" well they have many gods." So? Let’s not lose sight of the issue. The point is their three persons are three gods. What is the difference?   What they will do is protest vehemently but not say how their doctrine is any different.

The point can be made both sides can misrepresent one another and both can make the claim we are being misrepresented, but who is really misrepresenting whom? I gave the two examples above from each respective discipline but let’s take a look and see if what is being said is unfounded or true? We know the Trinitarian does not believe they are polytheists but their own words and doctrine betray them.

John 17:5 a closer Look

What really happened in John 17:5? Well, for starters who would believe a flesh and blood man living in Jesus time claiming that he pre-existed with God the Father before the world existed? We already see the Jews were going to stone him because they saw only a man claiming equality with the one and only God they knew, which was the Father. (John 10:30-39) Anyone witnessing this event would have thought Jesus crazy.  Matt Slick a Trinitarian and founder of carm.org says the following concerning the Communicatio Idiomatum in John 17:5.  Latin for communication of the divine and human properties.   [Carm]

Notice here that Jesus, the person, is laying claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was.  Jesus is laying claim to the attribute of pre-existence before the world was created.  How can Jesus, the man, lay claim to this since Jesus, the man, didn't exist until He was born on earth? The answer is that Jesus, the person, has two natures: divine and human and the attributes of the divine nature were ascribed to the single person of Christ.

This all illustrates my point that they take literal only parts of what Jesus says to prove pre-existence in John 17:5. The above illustrates and also highlights the exact teaching of Oneness doctrine.

Literal language and throw away what you do not want of John 17

Jesus says in one place: I am no more in the world  (But was he?) (Verse 11) While I was with them in the world I kept them and none of them is lost accept Judas. (Verse 12) Are you getting this? A flesh and blood man standing before them in the world saying he was not in the world and he pre-existed. (Most of the hearers would have no idea he was talking about a kingdom they could not see) Most would consider him a liar as a man standing and saying he pre-existed. But you will notice he says literally he was in his kingdom even though he was not that anyone could see, although his divinity put him there, and neither were his disciples, but they were going to be. Jesus also talks about his glory he has given to them, but has given them nothing. (verse 22) He did not literally give them his glory any more than he literally pre-existed with the Father, but that is the very language Jesus uses because as God in flesh it is going to happen.

The glory with the Father was his passion or Jesus being slain

Trinitarian's have glossed over John 17:5 so many times before in the past, and it is easy to  read something without giving it much thought. Not only did the disciples not as yet receive his glory (as it did not actually happen.) The Glory was his passion. The glory he had with the Father was that which all creation had been waiting upon. The plan of God executed out of eternity into such a time as this for the redemption of mankind. This literal language actually betrays the doctrine of the Trinity. John establishes these facts and proves the Oneness doctrine in Revelation 13:8 as he calls Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was no more a literal Lamb than he were literally slain or that he literally existed in eternity past as such.  John bares witness again to the truth of the glory as the plan of God for the redemption of mankind when he records Jesus proclamation if any man thirst let him come unto me and drink but this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified.(John 7:39)

Confusing the Communicatio Idiomatum

Dalcour says "Oneness believe I was once the Father and Now I am the Son." This has been dealt with many times in the past and is absolutely not true whatsoever. Oneness proclaims that God/Father and man/son are simultaneous and both are found in Jesus. We do not confuse the incarnation and put the Son back at creation because the Son was born of Mary. The miracle of the incarnation calls upon those things in Jesus ie. His divinity that of God the Father incarnating the man. The multitudes saw Jesus do miracles; and Jesus proclaims that truth In John 14:10 the Father that dwells in me, he does the works and miracles you see me do. The miracle of the incarnation made the Son born of Mary the creator that the Trinitarian confuses, even though he did not exist.(Romans 4:17) We actually explain the creation through Jesus the same way The trinity doctrine does.(See above how the Communicatio Idiomatum is confused when it is convenient) .

The Trinitarian does not say the man born of Mary created because he was not back there; they say his deity created and yet still attribute everything to the whole person of Jesus.  That is the same thing we do although we do not believe the non- extra-biblical doctrine of “god the Son.” Jesus is one person, both God and man at the same time. Jesus divinity is the One God of the Old Testament. The totality of that one God is called the Father in Malachi 2:10. The difference we have is because of the incarnation, and who we believe that God was that incarnated the man. That sounds strange to a Trinitarian because they do not really believe Jesus was a man.

Lumping the Cults

 Dalcour then takes a prophecy and says of the Son, as the Father spoke to the Son in  what they claim as “pre-existence” your throne oh God is forever.( Hebrews 1:9 taken from Psalm 45:7) Dalcour fails to mention this a prophecy of the coming incarnation. Hebrews 1 the Father calls Jesus, God, which is a powerful fact that proclaims the incarnation; not God speaking to God, which is blatant polytheism; but rather God calling the man and Son born of Mary, God in the coming incarnation. Of course Dalcour plays on the emotions of the Trinitarians by lumping Oneness together with Muslims and JW's and Mormons. Muslims do not believe Jesus is God, we do! JW's do not believe Jesus is God, we do! Mormons are polytheists most like Trinitarians who believe in the three persons at least in this universe just like the trinity; but have other gods of other universes and worlds. Three persons are simply three gods.

Trinitarian Lip service to Jesus genuine humanity

Dalcour asks how in the world could Jesus be God if God is one person? Well Ed, the same way you say he is both God and man and is still one person. Would you like to talk about that?  We actually believe it; you simply give lip service to it.  Oh and by the way; we have no more gods, but One God, and that is God in flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

He briefly gives lip service to Jesus humanity in passing and claims all the passages that say so such as Mark 13:32 where Jesus says he does not know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only knows that fact. Which I did not hear a hint of mention that only the Father knew as God. In my opinion in dealing with Trinitarians This is the greatest weakness of the trinity doctrine which is something 1st John 4:2 deals with in depth and actually calls those who deny Jesus humanity Antichrist. My suspicions are they give the lip service because of the passage but when pinned down they are very careful because it would give them too many persons.

God with God?

Then they discuss the monotheism of the Jews and how that there is one God and the strict Monotheism of the OT. Neither of which talks about a trinity nor exegetes as the radio host says proclaims the trinity and more than one person of God. Dalcour brings up (Genesis 19:24 ) How YHWH rains down fire from YHWH.  Dalcour of course is proclaiming what he thinks are two YHWH’s and establishing as thinks is the trinity. Two YHWH’s are two gods in my own estimation. I have my Jewish English version Davis H Stern which says: that God (Adonai) rains down fire from (Adonai). .….Adonai is a word that means Lord or Father. Simply put God!  As David Bernard says in his book the Oneness of God concerning (Genesis 19:24) it is a literary tool or  “the reiteration or restatement of emphasis” (Bernard 154). There are not two Adonai’s (Fathers or YHWH’s) of course the Trinitarian will seize upon any opportunity to find Trinitarianism that simply does not exist anywhere in the bible. Many times you will hear the Trinitarian say:” God was with God” in John 1:1 and Dalcour is famous for it, but does not recognize it is a polytheistic interpretation which is symptomatic of not having the spirit of God to lead and guide through the scriptures.

 John1: 1 The Only begotten God and the other two non begotten Gods

John 1:1 Dalcour admits his confusion by making the statement that John 1:3 -14 should be read back into verse 1 and son is interchangeable with the Greek word logos/word which is false doctrine. Dalcour twists what is said in John 1:1 based on him reading the pronoun he  in the other verses ignoring the fact the he was he to whom John handled and seen as God in flesh. What he is admitting is that he makes no distinction between the son born of Mary. He then says:" the word was always there" which again is truth because God cannot be God without his power or spoken creative word.(Psalm 33:6) He then again says:" the word was the Son" something the scripture does not  actually claim.  His name is called the word of God. (Revelation 19:13)  His name is also called wonderful but wonderful or counsellor from ( Isaiah.9:6 ) are not persons anymore than God's word is a person. You will notice it does not say he is the word of God but that his name is called the word of God. The word of God is his power that he wields as God in flesh. They then use John 1:1 to say the Son/word was with the Father in eternity. He then goes to the Greek preposition *pros* Pros ton theon we now have peace with God and say that it is “face to face” in eternity without proving the word was “god the son” all by hoping you do not actually call him on reading the pronoun he back into John 1:1 and Dalcour says John declares it perfectly.  I say John declares No such thing, and I deal with this in another post here:(Burgos Error) and the word was with God, and the word was God.  Yes the word was God as the word pertains to God in a qualitative sense that belongs to God actually destroying trinity doctrine. They actually read the word as a person holding the qualitative sense when the word belongs to God and cannot be separated from God. Jesus as God in the incarnation wields that power and quality of the word in judgment as God in flesh and cannot be separated from it.  Dalcour then makes another blunder and admits he is a polytheist by giving the interpretation of Monogense theos  or as  Dalcour forces * only begotten God* in contra-distinction to the other two non begotten gods.(Which is conceptual tritheism) This all goes back to the error of God being with God and clearly being two gods and tritheism.

Then close toward the end of the interview we hear again supposed errors Roger Perkins made in abuse of sources, which can also be pointed out of Dr. White, but of course will not be highlighted in the interview. White said of Col.1: 15 the Greek *Dia was in the dative when it was in the genitive.

They will be quick to point to small mistakes that Perkins might have made, but excuse their own and not give a mention. Humans make mistakes all the time, and it does not prove for one side or the other in a debate to concede to the other side the debate.  This is all part and parcel to Dalcour's ad-hom style & ridicule is one of several reasons Perkins does not even really acknowledge Dalcour - Roger Perkins simply does not take him seriously.

We know hundreds of Oneness pastors that are very satisfied with the debate outcome and thought that White submitting that the God of the Bible with 3   separate centers of consciousness in the way he understands it was a clear admition that the Trinity God is as we suspect pure polytheism, and he solidified it for us in the debate.