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.