The accusation from BVBD is at post 100 and the discussion is 101-110.
This has a lot to do with how we look at "only begotten Son". So the discussion is on two levels, the attempt to fabricate an accusation against Gail Riplinger and the fascinating issue, including early church writers, of "the only begotten Son". I was thinking of putting in some of the more modern discussion as well, maybe we will do more here.
Today I was surprised a bit to see that one of the bible.org (Daniel Wallace land) folks actually wrote some about monogenes with real sense, in certain key paragraphs. So in this post we have the wording that is from the Bible and from straight grammar. (In some places where it varies a little, such as creedal terminololgy, I put in a '...' . To keep this on grammar and basics. ) I also corrected one scripture typo and placed in the verses, plus the one in 1 John.
The Son of God, Begotten, Not Made - Allen Ross
The Doctrine Of The Son http://bible.org/seriespage/son-god-begotten-not-made
2. The ?Only Begotten Son? Language. ... the expression ?only-begotten.? It is the Greek word ?monogeneis.? This is not simply ?begotten,? for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the ?only generated one.? ...
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him.
Perhaps the language can be better understood if contrasted with synonyms. Take the verbs ?make,? ?create,? and ?beget.? The verb ?make? is general; one can make dinner, clothes, a house, or any other product. The ?create? can have the same objects, but usually elevates the act to an art: one creates a masterpiece, or a work of art, or a symphony. While these creations bear the imprint of the creator, they do not share his nature. But ?beget? is different. You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have--a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you--genes, personality--all of it. You can use ?make? or ?create? for producing a child; but when you use ?beget? it only means you produce a child that has your nature.
Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. ... To call Jesus ?the only begotten Son? means that he is fully divine and eternal. ...
This is why the creed says that Jesus was ?begotten, not made.? Why? Because he is of one substance with the Father.
One more point. The word ?begotten? has ?only? (mono-) prefixed to it. There is only one. This means that Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father--they two along with the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. You and I, if we are believers, have been born into the family of God--we are said to be begotten of God. But we are not ?only-begotten.? That refers to Jesus? divine nature. We were adopted by grace and given the divine nature by the Spirit so that we may be called the children of God. But Jesus--... is the only-begotten Son of God .
