Defining "the only begotten" and "firstborn"

[theplains]

  @InCognitus and I were involved in a discussion in another thread but I wanted to
start a new one as we were moving away from the topic of that thread.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73894-hie-to-kolob-lyrics/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1210050277

 

Why does it seem like a lot of modern Protestant Christians are distancing
themselves from the doctrine that Jesus is the "firstborn" of the Father, that he
was begotten of God from the beginning?  This is, or was at one time, a central
tenant of creedal Christianity.

I don't believe firstborn or begotten in that context means being born of a Heavenly
Mother and Father in some marriage relationship. I don't see anything in the scriptures
where Jesus is ever anything less than the Eternal God.

The use of begotten also has other contexts.

"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" (Acts 13:33).

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(Hebrew 1:5).

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee (Hebrews 5:5).

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the
dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed
us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5).

 

The fact that there are other meanings of "firstborn" in scripture does not mean
that "firstborn" does not mean "first born":

Except when it does, for example:   Luke 2:7  "And she brought forth her firstborn
son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes..."

I agree.  In this context, Jesus is the first born son of Mary.  The church's training
manual (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel - Student Manual) refers to this
as a Celestial Sireship; not a violation of natural law but a higher manifestion
of it.

I found these four biblical passages about the term "firstborn":

Joseph, though not the firstborn of Jacob, received the inheritance as though he
were the firstborn (1 Chr. 5:1–2).

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel
is my son, even my firstborn."

Speaking of David, Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher
than the kings of the earth."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I
will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
                                                                   
What does firstborn mean in the above verses?

 

Do you believe Jesus was "begotten before the worlds"?

I hope I explained it earlier.  I believe begotten in this sense is a future picture
of his incarnation.

You alluded to Colossians 1:18, but the context of the passage puts Jesus as "the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (verse 15), and "he
is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."  Clearly there are
literal and figurative ways to understand "firstborn" going on here.  And before
the beginning, before creation, Jesus was the "firstbegotten" of the Father.

Firstborn in this case is not first born in the sense of a male and female union.

There are several LDS scriptural passages where Jesus is called the *Only Begotten*
of the Father *from the beginning*.

"And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father
and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning" (Moses
1:9)

"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were
ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the
Father, even from the beginning" (D&C 76:13).

This is, what I assume, an LDS-forward-looking picture of Christ's incarnation
through some form of union between Heavenly Father and Mary.  Jesus is never
considered the Only Begotten of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother from the
beginning but rather the Only Begotten of the Father (through Mary). Neither do I
find any mention of Jesus being the *First Begotten* of Heavenly Mother and Father.

I see a mention of all the other begotten sons and daughters of Heavenly Father
through faith in Christ (as mentioned in Mosiah 5:7) but this is not some birth in
a union between a Heavenly Mother and Father.

Additionally, I see this mentioned in Hebrews 11:17.  "By faith Abraham, when he
was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his
only begotten son."

Isaac was considered the only begotten son of Abraham because he was born of promise
(born after the spirit).  Ishmael was born after the flesh (not according to God's
plan but of Abraham and Sarah's scheme).

Edited August 28, 2021 by theplains
grammar

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, theplains said:

  @InCognitus and I were involved in a discussion in another thread but I wanted to
start a new one as we were moving away from the topic of that thread.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73894-hie-to-kolob-lyrics/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1210050277

 

Why does it seem like a lot of modern Protestant Christians are distancing
themselves from the doctrine that Jesus is the "firstborn" of the Father, that he
was begotten of God from the beginning?  This is, or was at one time, a central
tenant of creedal Christianity.

I don't believe firstborn or begotten in that context means being born of a Heavenly
Mother and Father in some marriage relationship. I don't see anything in the scriptures
where Jesus is ever anything less than the Eternal God.

The use of begotten also has other contexts.

"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" (Acts 13:33).

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(Hebrew 1:5).

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee (Hebrews 5:5).

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the
dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed
us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5).

 

The fact that there are other meanings of "firstborn" in scripture does not mean
that "firstborn" does not mean "first born":

Except when it does, for example:   Luke 2:7  "And she brought forth her firstborn
son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes..."

I agree.  In this context, Jesus is the first born son of Mary.  The church's training
manual (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel - Student Manual) refers to this
as a Celestial Sireship; not a violation of natural law but a higher manifestion
of it.

I found these four biblical passages about the term "firstborn":

Joseph, though not the firstborn of Jacob, received the inheritance as though he
were the firstborn (1 Chr. 5:1–2).

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel
is my son, even my firstborn."

Speaking of David, Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher
than the kings of the earth."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I
will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
                                                                   
What does firstborn mean in the above verses?

 

Do you believe Jesus was "begotten before the worlds"?

I hope I explained it earlier.  I believe begotten in this sense is a future picture
of his incarnation.

You alluded to Colossians 1:18, but the context of the passage puts Jesus as "the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (verse 15), and "he
is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."  Clearly there are
literal and figurative ways to understand "firstborn" going on here.  And before
the beginning, before creation, Jesus was the "firstbegotten" of the Father.

Firstborn in this case is not first born in the sense of a male and female union.

There are several LDS scriptural passages where Jesus is called the *Only Begotten*
of the Father *from the beginning*.

"And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father
and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning" (Moses
1:9)

"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were
ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the
Father, even from the beginning" (D&C 76:13).

This is, what I assume, an LDS-forward-looking picture of Christ's incarnation
through some form of union between Heavenly Father and Mary.  Jesus is never
considered the Only Begotten of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother from the
beginning but rather the Only Begotten of the Father (through Mary). Neither do I
find any mention of Jesus being the *First Begotten* of Heavenly Mother and Father.

I see a mention of all the other begotten sons and daughters of Heavenly Father
through faith in Christ (as mentioned in Mosiah 5:7) but this is not some birth in
a union between a Heavenly Mother and Father.

Additionally, I see this mentioned in Hebrews 11:17.  "By faith Abraham, when he
was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his
only begotten son."

Isaac was considered the only begotten son of Abraham because he was born of promise
(born after the spirit).  Ishmael was born after the flesh (not according to God's
plan but of Abraham and Sarah's scheme).

Hard to tell who is who in this exchange. Are you concerned that the terms begotten, only begotten, and firstborn can be used both literally and figuratively by the same individual believer in Jesus Christ or by the same Christian denomination?

[The Nehor]

If I understand other Christians then the Father begat the Son and the Son is the only begotten of the Father but there is no time before that happened when the Son or Word did not exist.

[Navidad]

On 8/28/2021 at 8:37 AM, theplains said:

Why does it seem like a lot of modern Protestant Christians are distancing
themselves from the doctrine that Jesus is the "firstborn" of the Father, that he
was begotten of God from the beginning?  This is, or was at one time, a central
tenant of creedal Christianity.

Before I could comment on your initial statement, I need some clarification. I find it confusing. You start out referring to "modern Protestant Christians." Then you close with "creedal Christianity." There is a huge difference between these two groups, their theology, and hermeneutics. Most "modern Protestant Christians" are not creedal, a minority are. If you include Catholic modern Christians, the data shifts in a significant manner. If you are indeed only talking about Protestants, may answer would change. If you are only talking about creedal Protestants, my answer would change. In the same vein, if you are talking about non-creedal modern Protestants my answer would change. Please clarify if your question is about modern creedal non-LDS Christians; "modern Protestant Christians," a majority of whom are not creedal, so have no loyalty to any creed other than the Bible; or about only creedal Protestants? These are not differences without a distinction, especially when talking about doctrine. Thanks. 

One of my greatest frustrations on this forum is the tendency to lump non-LDS Christians into monolithic aggregations without recognizing the inherent differences. Yet at the same time, some fuss and proclaim the necessity of the restoration from a "complete apostasy" because there was/is so much confusion/variance among the groups. One or the other generalizations is brought out depending on the point of the statement. I am not saying you are doing that, just ranting a bit. Take care.