Timeline for From a Trinitarian perspective, does the term 'only begotten Son' make sense outside of the concept of the incarnation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:40 | comment | added | bruised reed | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:39 | comment | added | Matt Gutting | Thomas tackles eternity in general: "Whether eternity differs from time?" His answer: "Eternity is simultaneously whole [i.e. it cannot be divided into 'now', 'before', and 'after']. But time has a 'before' and an 'after.' Therefore time and eternity are not the same thing." | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:28 | comment | added | bruised reed | Although it would be tackling the argument at one remove, of particular relevance would be Thomas's view on the nature of time and how it relates to God's eternity. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:24 | comment | added | bruised reed | @MattGutting When I have time, I will examine your references more thoroughly to see if there is something else in them that warrants your conclusion, but from what I see in front of me in this post, you are reading into that particular text something that just isn't there. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 16:37 | comment | added | Matt Gutting | In other words (and my point is), Thomas appears to be saying that the "begotten-ness" of the Son has nothing whatsoever to do with the Incarnation. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 16:28 | comment | added | Matt Gutting | When he talks about the distinction between the Father and the Son, and talks about "generation" (the Latin equivalent for being "begotten"; the same word), he doesn't talk about incarnation at all. That is, he addresses the issue of being "begotten", but he doesn't mention the Incarnation at all in his discussion (not here, or in any part of his discussion of the Trinity). He phrases his discussion as if the Son would have been "begotten" of the Father even if the Incarnation had not taken place at all. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | bruised reed | This is in the ball-park, but I don't think you've hit a home run with it (maybe about 2nd base?) - the quote doesn't explicitly reference the incarnation (and there is neither an implication of distinction between incarnation and an eternal begotten-ness), so I think your line is "The Son, in other words, is "begotten" not in virtue of the Incarnation etc." is over-reach if not non-sequitur. Maybe he just doesn't address the issue explicitly enough after all to definitively answer my question. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 1:35 | history | edited | Matt Gutting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarifying"begotten"
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 0:17 | comment | added | user13992 | Thanks! seen it and acted. Thanks for a new source for material. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 23:54 | history | edited | Matt Gutting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added link to quote
|
| Jul 17, 2014 at 23:35 | comment | added | user13992 | Long time no speak. Provide the link First Part (Prima Pars) for the access to Summa Theologica, in various parts of the "Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity" (First Part, Questions 27–43)? | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 20:38 | history | edited | Matt Gutting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed some phrasing for clarity
|
| Jul 17, 2014 at 20:10 | history | answered | Matt Gutting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |