-
How did Edwards use the doctrine of Christ’s begottenness (i.e., the doctrine that Christ is generated by or proceeds from the Father) to argue for Christ’s deity, while others like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, use this same doctrine to argue against the divinity of Christ?
-
3 Replies
-
EDWARDS POINTS OUT THAT CHRIST IS THE ETERNAL SON PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS A SON OF THE DIVINE FATHER AND THAT IN HIS CASE THE TERM SON SO FAR FROM SIGNIFYING THE GENERATION OF A TEMPORAL CREATHURE, ARGUES THE ETERNAL BEGOTTENNESS OF AN ETERNAL CREATURE.
HE SAID CHRIST IS THE ORIGIINAL AND FOUNDATION OF ALL SPIRITUAL LIFE AND NOURISHMENT.
CHRIST AND BELIEVERS ARE ONE, AND BELIEVERS RECEIVE ALL NOURISHMENT FROM HIM BECAUSE OF HIS ETERENAL DIVINE NATURE
-
The mediator had to be a devine person.
-
The Jehovah’s Witnesses of our time, could never understand. Their fundamental argument against the deity of Christ is the very argument by which Edwards establishes the deity of Jesus Christ. Their error is in thinking that because Christ is called the Son of God He must have been begotten in time, whereas Edwards, like Athanasius, was pointing out it’s exactly the opposite, that He is the eternal Son precisely because He is a Son of the divine Father and that in His case the term “Son,” so far from signifying the generation of a temporal creature, argues the eternal begottenness of an eternal creature
