Post #3 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Pray by the will of God when praying for healing (and a word about how I view the miraculous gifts)

Introduction:     

    In our last post we deal with the possibility of miracles in our world here Growing Christian Resources: Post #2 Principles For Miraculous Healing - The place of miracles in a world made by God.. If indeed we can demonstrate the cause of the universe being miraculous or supernatural, then we ought to expect miracles. The same God who created our universe is able to intervene in the course of affairs by His ordinary providence in history, answered prayers, and laws of nature as well. Such a God also does the same by way of extraordinary providences or "miracles". 

    In today's post I want to deal with the first principle for miraculous healing we pull from Luke 5:12-26: "Pray by the will of God when praying for healing". This of course raises a very important question: should we pray “Lord if it be your will, heal so-and-so”? 

    In the last post we saw the one extreme of skepticism, and the need to correct faulty thinking in denying the miraculous altogether. However, in exploring Jesus’ healing ministry, it is important we do “ground-clearing” on another error in our day, namely the teaching that it is always God's will to heal or that it is inappropriate to prayer "Lord, if it be your will". 

    Although some Charismatic groups, so-called 'Third-Wave" teachers, and New Apostolic Reformation authors would advocate such positions, it is recognized that not all will teach it. Nevertheless, some will even go so far to say: "it is always God’s will to heal, and if you don’t get healed, it's due to your lack of faith." 

A word about cessationism - my own personal journey on how I view the miraculous gifts.

    I think it important to grasp a little bit of the wider conversation on the miraculous gifts, and where I stand on the issue. I’m what you call “a cessationist” when it comes to the miraculous gifts. What is cessationism? John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue in their well edited work "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine", page 804, define it as follows:

"Cessationism is the view that the sign gifts (e.g., the performing of miracles, gifts of healing, speaking in tongues) and the revelatory gifts (i.e., the reception and proclamation of new revelation from God) passed away when the foundation stage of the church ended." 1

    When I first became a Christian over 40 years ago, I was in the Charismatic movement for many years. When I got trained in Bible College and Seminary, I first heard of cessationism, and then later a mediating position called "open but cautious". 

    For several years after seminary I avowed a form "continuationism" that proposes that most of the miraculous gifts still operate, albeit in a lesser form than those of the Apostolic era of the first century. I do not think this debate ought to ever break fellowship between Christians. For sure, on a practical level, especially in the realm of corporate worship or in regular Bible teaching, we must be sure we interpret experience by Scripture, rather than the reverse.  Furthermore, it seems a consistent yet charitable cessationist view handles better the Biblical data on spiritual gifts as a whole. 

    Dr. Wayne Grudem, an excellent Evangelical theologian in most respects and a continuationist theologian, defines "continuationism" in his 2nd Edition of his "Systematic Theology":

    "a continuationist would say that the miraculous gifts continue today."2

    Overtime I've enjoyed the ministries of men like Dr. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, who are able exponents of this sort of mainstream, evangelical "continuationist" teaching. Dr. Piper's presentations on his continuationist views were instrumental in my younger days when I first held to that position. I have their books and to a large degree trust their handling of Scripture, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on where they land on this subject. 

    I settled into the position I hold to today, cessationism, for a number of reasons.3 I have dear Christian friends who are Pentecostal and Charismatic, and ought not think the need to break fellowship. Nevertheless, on a practical and pastoral level, where one lands on how God works in our world when it comes to healing and miracles is important whether defending the Christian faith against skeptics or praying for those needing healing.   

What cessationism teaches

     Cessationism doesn’t deny God’s power to heal nor activity of healing. I remember for a long time resisting cessationist teaching because I thought they denied God's activity of miracle working today. Despite that caricature, I then learned that cessationists do teach God's healing power as He so chooses in answer to prayer. 4

    Dr. Tom Pennington, who pastors Countryside Baptist Church in Southlake, Texas, was for years associated with Grace Community Church, pastored by the late Dr. John MacArthur.5  Pennington offered the following definition of cessationism, and contrasted it with the overall view I mentioned earlier - "continuationism":

"So what is it that cessationists believe the Spirit has ceased.  Let’s be very clear.  We only believe He has ceased one function and that is He no longer gives believers today the miraculous spiritual gifts, gifts like speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing.

On the other hand, continuationists believe either that the miraculous gifts have continued unabated since Pentecost or other sects would say, no, they have waned through much of the church age but have now been restored."  

    Cessationism seems to best explain why not every single gift, office, and phenomena witnessed in the New Testament is evidenced today. Even among the spectrum of continuationist thought, they will allow some things to carry-on into this present era, while limiting or even claiming other aspects (such as the Apostolic office) have ceased. As John MacArthur said at the Strange Fire Conference, "ultimately, even continuationists are cessationists". 

Verifying why it is best to pray for healing according to God's will

    Let's be clear. God has always used providence and prayer in every age to work healing in accords to His will. In particular eras, God used a second route – miraculous giftings in individuals. As I study Scripture and look at church history, we see God healing whom he wills through providence and prayer, with the former route of miraculous gifts having waned (see Hebrews 2:3-4). In other words, we no longer see a continuation, but rather a cessation of miraculous gifts in and through specific individuals. 

    When I was in the charismatic movement decades ago, I recall preachers discouraging people to pray “if it be your will” as a sign of unbelief. Is this true. In Pentecostal, Charismatic, and NAR (New Apostolic Reformation or Third Wave Charismatic teaching), it is assumed that it is God’s will to heal. To pray "if it be your will to heal me God" is unbelief. Is this true? 

    Notice Luke 5:12-13 “While He was in one of the cities, behold, there was a man covered with leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, ‘Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.’ 13 And He stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ And immediately the leprosy left him.”  

    Jesus doesn’t correct the man. The leper’s request is his way of yielding himself under whatever purpose Jesus may have in mind. Why was it appropriate for the leper to say to Jesus “Lord, if you are willing”? Let’s finish out today's post by noting three points.

A. We don’t know God’s unrevealed will. 

    Here is a question: “why do some people get healed immediately and others later on?” I’ve yet to hear the Charismatic movement mention God’s unrevealed will when it comes to the question of healing. Let us be reminded of Isaiah 55:8  “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord.”  Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”  We have then God’s “revealed will” and then His “unrevealed will”. God’s will and purpose are closely related in Scripture. 

    God's will is His pleasure in bringing about whatever comes to pass (compare Psalm 115:3). Ephesians 1:11“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”  Thus, we don’t know God’s unrevealed will, which factors into why sometimes people don't get healed when we pray for them.

B. We know prayer is to follow God’s will.

    Praying according to God’s will in healing follows the pattern taught by Jesus about prayer in general. Matthew 6:9-10 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  We have the Biblical rationale for praying “Lord, if it be your will” when praying for miraculous healing. Let’s go further. We cannot know God’s unrevealed will, we know prayer is to follow God’s will, thirdly…..

C. We don’t know the timing of God’s will. 

    God’s will has decreed when He will heal, as well as whether He has another purpose in mind besides healing. God can immediately heal, but he may also decide to heal later or in some cases heal believers (like my late father) in heaven. 

    Think of it this way. If people were healed immediately, they may not be ready or they may easily stop relying on God. Only God knows ultimate outcomes, even paths which may never come to pass (compare Isaiah 46:10). At times the building of faith and trust in God can enable the person to see God’s glory when the healing comes later. 

    On the flip-side, God can heal immediately and thus get the glory. This mystery-side of healing and God’s will shows we do not know all of God’s purposes. God is aiming to be glorified and He is always good no matter what. 

Final thought

    Contrary to many so-called faith-healers today, it is appropriate to approach the Lord with humility, admitting our ignorance as to His purpose, and pleading His mercies for healing. Our first principle we learn from Jesus about miraculous healing: pray according to the will of God. 

Endnotes:

1. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue in their well edited work "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine",Crossway Publishers, Wheaton Illinois, 2017, page 804

2. Wayne Grudem. An Introduction to Biblical Doctrtine - Systematic Theology - 2nd Edition. Zondervan Academic. Page 1272. Note 23. 

3. Why did I settle into cessationist views on the miraculous gifts? Firstly, I did so because continuationism, seems inconsistent in viewing some of the miraculous gifts as ceased (like Apostles, Prophets) and advocating that other gifts (like prophecy or tongues) as different from their Apostolic Age counterparts. 

    My second reason for holding to cessationism is because, in my view, continuationist exegesis of Scripture feels strained. I just do not see this two-tiered view of the miraculous gifts as "full strength" in the Apostolic period and "lesser strength" advocated at all in Scripture nor strenuously in church history. 

    Then lastly, Charismatic or stronger views of continuationism admit to the discontinuity of the office of Apostle and Prophet, as well as the marked differences between so-called tongues today and claims to the gift of miracles compared to what we read in the New Testament.  

4. There are times I’ve prayed for healing, or where we’ve anointed people with oil, and God saw fit to answer those prayers. My father for instance was anointed four times in his four battles with cancer. In the third instance, the cancer disappeared, whereas in the other anointings with oil, God had other purposes in view. 

    Cessationists do advocate the definite possibility of healing, what they deny though is that such miraculous gifts are operating in individuals today as they once did in the Apostolic era. 

5. Over a decade ago, Dr. Pennington spoke at Grace Community Church's annual Shepherd's Conference, which had as its theme for that year: "Strange Fire". The conference featured a full presentation of cessationist teaching, and exposed the erroneous thinking of current Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third-Wave movements.

Post #11 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - The Nicene Creed's Meaning Of The Son Being "God of God"

Introduction:

    In our last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #10 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "Begotten of the Father before all worlds"I had summarized the statements in the Nicene Creed that help shed light on the confession of the Son being "the only-begotten". Note below:

1. His expressed identity. 

"the only-begotten Son of God",  

2. His eternal generation.

"begotten of the Father before all worlds" 

    In today's post we want to study what is meant by the Creed's statement of the Son as "God of God". In the last post I had a summary heading for that phrase...

3. His equality and unity with the Father. 

    "God of God," 

    To say the Son is "God of God" is to say He is equal in all perfections and being with the Father within the Trinity. Additionally, to say the Son is "God of God" is to affirm that He and the Father are "One" in being. One God. For interested readers, I'll draw out three senses that the noun "God" is used in the Nicene Creed, and what further nuances the phrase "God of God" is capturing to describe the Son as "the only begotten of the Father" in the endnotes following this post.1 

    His equality with the Father is due to them both having complete unity of nature or Divine essence. This idea of the Father and the Son being referred to as "God" is spoken of in the Bible. Note below.

1. Psalm 45:6-7 "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows." Within the eternal filiation or begetting of the Son by the Father, the Father speaks to the Son in this way. We know Psalm 45:6-7 is giving us a close-up look of the Father and the Son by what we read in Hebrews 1:8-9.

2. Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. 9 'You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions.” The eternal Son is addressed as "God" by the Father who is also "God". Yet Scripture expresses time and again that we're not dealing with two deities, but one. For example, take what Jesus says in John 10:30.

3. John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." Not one in purpose, as the Jehovah Witnesses are fond to say. Rather, this is "One" in being. The unity of the Father and the Son, with the Son being "God of God", co-equal and in union with the Father, is the emphasis. We see further elaboration by the incarnate Son of God on this in John 5:26.

4. John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." Only God has "life in and of Himself", or what theologians call "Divine Aseity". Aseity, from the Latin "a se" (from oneself) speaks of the self-existence and self-sufficiency of God. When God revealed His personal Divine name to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as "I am who I am", Divine aseity or self-sufficiency was in view. The Father's bestowal of aseity to the Son, an eternal act, independent and prior to time, is what the term "God of God" attempts to capture. We can see this in another New Testament text - John 1:18.

5. John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Without getting into the textual-critical technicalities, the NASB translation here represents a good textual history for the reading "only-begotten God". When I read the phrase in the Nicene Creed "God of God". It is this verse which comes to my mind.  

    We could cite other cross-references, yet we have enough Scripture here to show that the Nicene Creed's "God of God" is a Biblical summary of the unity and equality of being the Son has with the Father. 

Athanasius, the lead defender of Christ's deity at the original Nicene Council of 325, helps us unpack this phrase "God of God" that we have in the 381 Nicene Creed.

    Shortly after the Nicene Council in 325 A.D, the church father Athanasius wrote a theological treatise that functions as part commentary, part history of all that went on at the Nicene Council. He comments on the wording of the first Creed of Nicaea's article on the Son, which is worded as follows:

"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God)."

    I'm so thankful we have that initial creed, since it tells us plainly what the 381 Nicene Creed means by its comparatively abbreviated treatment of the Son in its article. Compare:

"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God"

    Athanasius comments on this part of the Creed of Nicaea of 325 (which aids us in discerning "God of God" in the Nicene Creed of 381) in his book "de decretis" section 20. I'll bold the relevant section to our post:

"but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things." 2

    If Athanasius had been still alive in 381, I'm almost certain he would had said a hearty "amen" to the 381 Creed's phrase "God of God". Remember, Athanasius was there in the thick of the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea in 325 as it combatted the Arian heresy's denial of the deity and equality of the Son with the Father. 

    The phrase "God of God" served to summarize the orthodox commitment to the unity and equality of the Son to the Father. This phrase "God of God", quite literally from its original Greek "God out from within God" echoes Jesus' famous "I in Him, He in me" statements about He and the Father's equality and unity in John 14:9b-11,

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves."

Closing thoughts:

    What is meant by the Son being "God of God"? This phrase confesses the co-equality of deity with the Father, as well their unity of deity as One God. The Divine nature is never divided, diminished, nor somehow changed between the Father and the Son. When we get to later posts on the Nicene Creed's section on the Holy Spirit, we will find its language expresses this same dual emphasis of equality/unity that the Holy Spirit shares with the Father and the Son. 

    What's the take away here? When I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, I am praying to God. When I pray to the Father, I am praying to God. Two Persons, One God. By extension, I can say the same of the Holy Spirit, hence "Three Persons, One God". As I pray, in addressing the Father or the Son, I automatically include the other Divine Person, since the Father and Son together are One in essence. To know the Son of God is infinitely able to help me in every day life, uphold my salvation, and sustain all of existence gives great comfort to my fears. Jesus Christ as "God of God" enables me to know the Father. As Jesus Himself states in John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” 

Endnotes:

1. When we look at the noun "God" in the Nicene Creed, we must become familiar with the different ways this word is used in Trinitarian theology to help us understand the Creed's statement of the Son being "God of God".

A. "God" speaks of the whole Trinity.

    In the opening line of the Creed, the term "God" is referring to what will follow, namely a confession about each member of the Trinity. The noun "God" expresses the One, undivided essence shared by all three. The Father, like each of the three persons, bears the Divine nature as a member of the Trinity. The phrase used to describe the Son as "God of God" is used similarly. 

    So, sometimes the term "God" can refer to how the totality of the Divine essence, in a qualitative sense, defines each member of the Godhead. Together, all three Persons are One God, quantitatively, and as members of the Trinity, each Person is qualitatively truly God, bearing all the perfections that define what it means to be God.

B. "God" speaks to how one member of the Godhead relates to another member of the Godhead.

    When I use the term "Godhead", I'm referring to the Divine nature itself. When we talk of the term "God", it also can refer not only to each member of the Godhead, but also how the Father relates to the Son, the Son relates to the Father, and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son, and they to Him. We see this use in the Creed by the description of the Son as "very God of very God". The phrase "very God of very God" is expressing what I noted earlier, a "qualitative" description of how each Person is by nature God in their own right. 

    The act of the Father eternally generating the Son, with the Son an eternal recipient of the Divine essence and His identity as the Son, is captured in the phrase we're focusing upon in this post - "God of God". This is a "quantitative" use of the term "God", meaning there is only one Divine essence shared between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

C. "God" refers particularly to the Person of the Father. 

    Sometimes the noun "God" in the Creed refers to the Person of the Father in particular. We see this usage in the Creed's statement about the Son as "the only begotten Son of God". It is not saying the Son is a lesser deity. Rather, the term "God" as used here refers to the Father as whom we look to when beginning to look at the revelation of the Trinity, God as a personal, infinite being, and He as the fount of the eternal relations between Him and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The "Godness of God" is conveyed without origin in and by the Person of the Father. 

2. CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius) Section 20

Post #2 Principles For Miraculous Healing - The place of miracles in a world made by God.

Introduction:

    In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #1 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Introduction , I began this new series by noting the need to understand miraculous healing from principles we can glean from Jesus' miraculous healing ministry. 

    In one respect, the purpose and manner of His healing ministry is almost unique when we compare other periods of miraculous activity in the Bible. In another respect, there are principles we can glean that can help us in this present era of history. It is important we first do what I call “clearing the ground” of misconceptions against miracles. We will understand four related ideas as we deal with the often-time resistance to miracles so as to unseat skeptical arguments we’ve heard over time.

A. Miracles attest to God's existence.

B. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching          and identity.

C. Miracles must be adequately defined.

D. An argument for miracles.

    Let's then consider the place of miracles in a world made by God. 

A. Miracles attest to God’s existence. 

     Theologian Vern Poythress’ on page 18 of his book “The Miracles of Jesus” draws a connection between the reality of miracles and God’s existence:

“But it is also important to address the question of whether the miracles really happened. Miracles confront us with the question of what kind of world we live in. Does the nature of the world allow for miracles, or is the world closed to them? Is the world just a self-sufficient mechanism that allows no deviation from its regularities? Questions about the world quickly lead to questions about God.” 

Exodus 15:11 reminds us: “Who is like You among the gods, O Lord? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?”  

    Miracles are important because they attest to God’s existence. 

B. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity.

  The Bible assumes the existence of miracles, and demonstrates such, because of it being God’s revelation. Jesus’ preaching and teaching ministry included miracles to confirm His identity (as God, as Messiah). John 5:36 

“But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.”  

    Even Jesus’ healing of the leper and the paralytic that we will eventually see in Luke 5:12-16 certifies Jesus’ fulfillment of predictive prophecy from the Old Testament (see Isaiah 35:6-2; Isaiah 61:1-2a). Miracles are important because they attest o God’s existence. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity. Thirdly….

C. Miracles must be adequately defined. 

    Sometimes the reason why people object to miracles in the Gospels or the Bible is due to lack of a working definition. We can see once again the definition of a miracle we gave in the last post: A miracle is an infrequently occurring act by God in a spiritually significant setting that confirms His messenger and message. 

    Are miracles possible? For the last three hundred years our Western Culture has operated on the assumption that miracles, in principle, are impossible and cannot be identified. 18th century Scottish skeptic David Hume had popularized this definition about miracles being violations of the laws of nature. We can summarize his argument as follows: 

1. First, miracles are violations of physical laws.

2. Second, physical laws cannot be violated. 

3. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

     Hume mistakenly taught that physical laws “prescribe” what happens in our world. Scientific laws do not “prescribe” how our world is to be, but rather “describe” our physical world apart from the intervention of some kind of agent. 

    The biggest weakness of Hume's reasoning is that it commits the dreaded fallacy of "vicious circular reasoning". What that means is that Hume has already baked-in the conclusion to his premises before his conclusion. In other words, Hume assumes a definition about miracles that presupposes they're violating nature's laws. That same assumption he then assigns to the natural laws themselves. Hence, miraculous events are ruled out in the two premises prior to the conclusion, leading the conclusion to repeat what Hume has already assumed!

     Author C.S Lewis notes: 

"In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her own resources, she could never produce them." 

    Jesus notes in John 10:38 “but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

Lewis gives an illustration that can counteract Hume's faulty thinking. Imagine a dresser drawer with six pennies placed in it on a Monday. Then on Tuesday, we would place six additional pennies in the same drawers. When we would open the drawer on Wednesday, we ought to expect to find twelve pennies, since the laws of mathematics describes 6 plus 6 equals twelve. Lewis then describes a person coming into the room and taking some pennies between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. 

    If we open the drawer on Wednesday, expecting to find twelve cents, and instead find a different amount, what are we to conclude? Have the laws of mathematics been "violated". No. Instead, an agent has intervened, changing the expected resulted. Miracles are important because they attest to God’s existence. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity. Miracles must be adequately defined. Fourthly, when we talk about the place of miracles in a world created by God, it helps to have an argument for them.

D. An argument for miracles.

#1. If miracles do not exist, God does not exist. (Note: Miracles are non-naturally caused events, based off our earlier definition.)

#2. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

#3. The universe began to exist.

#4. Thus, the universe has a cause.

#5. The universe’s cause would be non-natural.

#6. The universe’s cause, being non-natural, in principle, is miraculous.

#7. Therefore, God exists. 

    Out of all the premises in this argument, premise #5 is most pivotal. Since the universe began to exist, any cause prior to it could not be physical, finite, nor non-personal. Why? The universe by definition is all physical, material, space-time reality. The cause of the universe could not be a material cause. Also, the cause of the universe would have to be a personal agent, since there was a decision needed to begin the universe, and only a person possesses volition. Also, the cause of the universe would need to be eternal, which would mean this intelligent agent would exist by necessity of His own nature apart from the universe.  

    Contemporary multi-verse theory, which postulates some kind of "world-universe generating mechanism" does not do away with this observation, since in multiverse theory, the mechanism driving the so-called multiverse cannot be itself eternal. Even if the multi-verse were scientifically proven, it would still have to deal with the second-law of thermodynamics, which states that physical reality, over time, is running out of available, usable energy, leading to the conclusion that such a system had to have had a beginning. 

    As we have argued then, if a natural, physical reality like our own had a beginning, then reason would tell us that the cause would possess opposite properties or characteristics. The universe is a non-personal, material, physical space-time reality. The cause of the universe would need be Personal, immaterial, non-physical, non-spatial, timeless, independent Being - a.k.a God. This is why I argue that in principle, the universe's beginning was miraculous. God's creation of the universe would lead us to expect at least the higher probability of miracles taking place within the very universe He created. 

Closing thoughts 

    The above argument at least shows the place of miracles in our world, an important first step as we approach Jesus’ miraculous healings. With that ground clearing done, and hopefully demonstrating how to deal with skepticism about miracles (especially in the Bible), we will look next time at an important principle about miraculous healing from Jesus' ministry: Pray by the will of God. 

Post #1 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Introduction

Introduction:

    We will be continuing on with our series I've devoted the last couple of months to on "1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed." What I wanted to do today is begin a short new series as I continue working on the Nicene Creed series.

    I am currently preaching a series of messages in our ongoing Sunday morning study in Luke's Gospel. Within that overall series, we have arrived at Luke 5:12-26. I felt it necessary to glean principles from Jesus' healings of a leper and a paralyzed man that may aid in navigating the interesting and somewhat contentious topic of miraculous healing. 

     I wanted to begin today's post with some facts related to miraculous healings in the Bible. One author (Michael Aubrey, “Miracles of the Bible”, Logos Bible Software) has referenced over 60 places in the Bible where healing of physical diseases occur. Aubrey also notes some 14 different places where people were raised from the dead. 

    If we take his findings and add them to the total exorcisms Jesus and the apostles performed (over one dozen), we have nearly 90 places in Scripture devoted to healing miracles. I count 19 of the 66 books that contain such records. 

    One time, years ago, I heard a lecturer note that if we take all of history recorded in the Bible from Adam until the Apostles, miracles like these would occur on average once every five years. The Bible records miracles, and certifies God's revelation of Himself, His message, and messengers through them. Nevertheless, Miracles by occurrence are rare, exceptional, and are meant to raise people’s awareness of God at work (see Luke 7:16). 

What is a miracle?

    If I were to offer a definition of a miracle, it would be this: 

A miracle is an infrequently occurring act by God in a spiritually significant setting that confirms His messenger and message. 

    This post, and the next several, will aim to give us a Biblical perspective on how to practically and doctrinally approach miraculous healing, based on Jesus’ ministry. I plan to interact with skeptical arguments against miracles on the one hand, while dealing with the theology of miracles touted by those who call themselves "continuationists", representing a broad spectrum from conservative Pentecostals to the worldwide Charismatic movement to the extremes of the New Apostolic Reformation and Prosperity movements. 

    My goal is to give us some pastoral guidance in thinking about miracles as we approach Jesus’ healing ministry. I'll close today with an outline of what the next few posts will cover. 

1. Place of miracles in a world made by 

    God. 

2. Pray by the will of God for healing. 

    Luke 5:12-13

3. Patience by the Word of God while 

    waiting for healing. Luke 5:14-16

4. Presence and power of God needed 

    for healing. Luke 5:17

5. Priority of forgiveness by God over 

    healing. Luke 5:18-20

6. Purposes of God alongside healing.  

    Luke 5:21-26

Post #10 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "Begotten of the Father before all worlds"

Introduction:

    The last two posts in this series  handled the proper translation of the term "monogenes" or "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. I devoted time to that one word, since it figures so prominently in the Creed's confession of the deity of the Son. 

    I will not review the arguments I made for showing why the term "begotten" is the best rendering of the underlying Greek term in the creed - "monogenes". The doctrine to which this idea of "begotten" points is the doctrine of the Son's Eternal Generation. Interested readers who want to review may review the last two posts here Growing Christian Resources: Post #8 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P1 Arguments favorable to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son) and here Growing Christian Resources: Post #9 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P2 Why the doctrine of eternal generation holds despite opposing arguments to it).

    What we want to deal with in this post is the Nicene Creed's phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

How the Creed explains the Son as "the only begotten"

    It may help us to lay out the phrases of the Creed that serve to expound the main phrase in this section on the deity of the Son, "only-begotten".

1. His expressed identity. 

"the only-begotten Son of God",  

2. His eternal generation.

"begotten of the Father before all worlds" (our focus today)

3. His equality of position with 

    the Father.

"God of God," 

4. His effulgent glory

"Light of Light," 

5. His essence

"very God of very God;" 

6. He as eternally uncreated

"begotten, not made," 

7. His equality of nature with the 

    Father.

"being of one substance with the Father," 

8. His eternal power with the Father

"by whom all things were made." 

What is meant by "begotten by the Father before all worlds".

    So why does the Nicene Creed go to the trouble to express the begetting of the Son as "begotten by the Father before all worlds"? As we labored in the previous two posts, the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation is in view. 

    Eternal generation tells us that in the Trinity, the Father has always eternally communicated the Divine essence and the specific identity of "son-ness" to the Son. Hilary of Poiteirs (310-367 b.c.) expounds this point in his book "On the Trinity", Book 3, chapter 1, section 3:

"He therefore, the Unbegotten, before time was begot a Son from Himself; not from any pre-existent matter, for all things are through the Son; not from nothing, for the Son is from the Father's self; not by way of childbirth, for in God there is neither change nor void; not as a piece of Himself cut or torn off or stretched out.....Incomprehensibly, ineffably, before time or worlds, He begot the Only-begotten from His own unbegotten substance, bestowing through love and power His whole Divinity upon that Birth."1

    As Hilary noted, The Father's eternal generating of the Son isn't a creative act as would be a human father begetting a child. Eternal generation is outside time, independent of time, before time, and thus had no beginning. This interrelating between the Father and the Son isn't a willful act. Creation is a willful act of all three Persons of the Trinity - with the Father decreeing it, the Son designing it, and the Holy Spirit delivering the final touches to complete it. Eternal generation of the Son by the Father originates eternally from within the eternal relation of the Father and the Son as Trinitarian Persons, sharing one, undivided nature.

    The doctrine of eternal generation teaches that without the Son there is no Father; and without the Father there is no Son. The Father's filiating or begetting of the Son has occurred eternally from within the Divine nature shared by both the Father and the Son. What may help us to explain the Nicene Creed's meaning here is by appealing to its predecessor, the Creed of Nicaea of 325 A.D. 2

      As the Council of Nicaea convened originally in 325, they crafted that original Creed, which in its section on the deity of the Son read as follows:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.  Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made."

    The 325 A.D. Creed of Nicaea  is similar to the later 381 Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which we are studying in this post series.

    At the end of the 325 Nicene Creed, a section that condemns the teaching of Arius is included. That section, called an "anathema", helps clarify the later 381 Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "begotten of the Father before all worlds".

"But as for those who say, "There was when He was not", and, "before being born He was not", and "that He came into existence out of nothing", or who assert that "the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance", or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathematizes." 

    Both versions of the Creed are wanting us to be certain that when we confess the Son to be "begotten of the Father before all worlds", that it is not talking about a creative event. Rather, this is an act between the Father and the Son, within the Godhead, that has went on for all eternity, without beginning. 

    One more thing about this phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds". The nineteenth century Church historian Phillip Schaff published his study of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed of 381. As for the Greek text of this phrase, understanding the underlying Greek grammar can shed further light on what the Creed is trying to communicate. 

    I'll walk us through, phrase by phrase, the Greek text, along with an English translation, and then some explanation of what is happening in the grammar. Hopefully this will help us to slow down enough to soak in what the Creed means by "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

Walking through the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

1. First Phrase. 

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον ἸΗΣΟΥΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ, 

"And in One Lord JESUS CHRIST"

    The word translated "and" (Καὶ) is a conjunction that connects two portions of the Nicene Creed. The first part is the opening statement about the Father as "Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things visible and invisible". What follows after the conjunction (the word "and") gives an overview of the Son's equality with Father.

2. Second phrase.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, 

"The Son of God, the begotten one"

    The phrase translated "the begotten one" (τὸν μονογενῆ = ton monogenay) is what grammarians call an "appositional phrase", meaning the author(s) are explicitly bringing out the main feature that distinguishes the Son of God (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ = ton hooweeon too theoo). He is not just any Son. He isn't merely a unique Son. He is eternally generated by the Father. It is this manner of the Son's relation with the Father that makes him distinct from the Father, with whom otherwise He is equal in all respects. 

3. Third phrase.

τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα 

"The One who from-within the Father is begotten"

    The definite article "the one who" (τὸν = ton) and the participle it modifies, "begotten" (γεννηθέντα = gennaythenta), are one unit of meaning "the one having been begotten". For interested readers, I'll put the grammatical details of this word translated "begotten" in endnotes of the end of today's post.3 

    As noted already, there is no God Father unless there is a Begotten God the Son. Jesus Himself taught this John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." Now let's get to the final phrase of our overall focus in this post today of "Begotten of the Father before all worlds".

4. Fourth phrase.

πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων

"before all ages (i.e. worlds)

    The Greek noun τῶν αἰώνων (tone aionione) is translatable as either "worlds" or "ages". This is a Greek figure of speech referring to activity occurring before "time" or "history". In eternity, the Son was eternally generated from the Father. There was no creation of the Son, in other words. 

Final application.

    As we close out today, the main take-away of the Nicene Creed's phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is to show the eternality of the Person of the Son. This section of the Creed is followed by eight other statements that amplify and clarify the overall doctrine of the Son's eternal generation from the Father. Establishing the Son's eternal pre-existence combatted the heresy of Arianism, which denied the Son's true deity, making him no more than a created being. In the next several posts we will explore the remaining statements that shed further light on the only-begotten Son of God in the Nicene Creed.  

Endnotes:

1. To read Hilary's chapter in his "On the Trinity", readers may access the link here CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book III (Hilary of Poitiers)

1. The original Creed of Nicaea of 325 was drafted to combat the dreaded Arian Heresy. Arius taught that the Son of God was the highest created being of the Father. Arius was so subtle in his heresy that He even used the phrase "only-begotten" as evidence of the Son being created. For him, just as earthly fathers beget sons, it must be the case that the Father's begetting of the Son means "there was a time when the Son was not" - a favorite phrase of Arius. 

2. A participle in Greek is a "verbal adjective", meaning it is a descriptive verbal unit that tells us something about the Son - namely He is being begotten. Furthermore, the participle is in the "passive voice", meaning were told of what is happening to the Son, namely He being begotten. As a final note on this participle, it is in the "aorist", meaning it is portraying the whole act of the Son being begotten. Unless the participle is tied to a particular verb, there usually isn't any connection to time. 

    The article and its participle have between them the prepositional phrase that tells us whence the eternal generation of the Son flows - "from within the Father". The preposition "ek" (ἐκ) that is translated in most English translations of the Creed as "from" has the additional nuance in the Greek of "from within". What this means is that the Son is so intimately united with the Father that His begetting relation is "from within" the Father. 

Post #9 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P2 Why the doctrine of eternal generation holds despite opposing arguments to it)

Introduction:

    In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #8 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P1 Arguments favorable to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son),we began to look at that part of the Nicene Creed that asserts that Jesus Christ is "the only begotten Son of God". This is what the Nicene Creed says in its opening lines about God the Son:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God"

      I want to review first the main reason we are taking extra time on this phrase "only-begotten". It all has to do with the doctrine of the Son's "eternal generation" from the Father.

Review: What is the doctrine of eternal generation about?

    In the last post we looked at how the Greek word "monogenes", translated "begotten" in the Nicene Creed, is connected to what is known as "the doctrine of eternal generation." In the last post we defined this doctrine along two lines. 

1. First, those who argue for the eternal generation of the Son teach that Father eternally communicates to Him the entire Divine nature. In eternal generation, the Divine essence is shared without division from The Father to The Son. 

2. Then secondly, the distinguishing characteristic that defines the Son as "the Son" is in how the Father begets Him or what theologians call "filiates". Filiation conveys to the Son His identity. 

    Eternal generation is not creation. Unlike the ancient Arians, who proclaimed "there was a time when the son was not", akin to Jehovah Witnesses today who proclaim the Son to be God's "highest created being", eternal generation is an eternal act within the Trinity. 

    Theologian Matthew Barrett summarizes the main points of eternal generation in his book "Simply Trinity", pages 167-175. I'll supply headings and scripture to bring home what Barrett states.

1. The Divine essence is not reduplicated by the Father in eternal generation. "When the Father begets he communicates the one (simple) divine essence to His Son, but He does not multiply the Divine essence." Barrett later says: "Not only is the Divine nature not multiplied, it is not divided." Scripture supports this first idea in John 5:26 from Jesus Himself: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself."

2. The Son is eternally equal in all respects to the Father. Barrett comments on the eternality of the Son's generation: "And if eternal, then the generation of the Son is not the generation of a lesser being (made in time or before time) but the generation of a Son who is equal in deity to His Father." Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."

3. The Triune God undergoes no change with the Son's eternal generation. "The Son's generation involves no change in the Trinity." What Barrett means here is there is no change in the number of Divine persons (from one to now two or three). There has only ever been Three Persons. He also means there is no diminishing of the Divine nature, where God the Father has more deity than the Son. The Father and Son are equal in all respects. God's Divine immutability still holds in the eternal relation between the Father and Son. Hebrews 1:10-12 "And, 'You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; 11 They will perish, but You remain; and they all will become old like a garment, 12 And like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.”

4. Eternal generation is an act within the Trinity, between the Father and the Son. Barrett finally notes that the generation of the Son by the Father occurs within the Trinity, not outside, meaning the Father is not creating a lesser being. David writes in Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." We know this is in reference to an eternal acts between the Father and the Son, as in Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”? And again,
“I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”?

    The doctrine of eternal generation, as noted, centers around a particular word in the New Testament that is translated "begotten" in older English translations, the word "monogenes". Five key passages which we looked at in the last post are direct proof-texts used by those affirming the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation "begotten" (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; 1 John 4:19). That summarizes what is meant by the doctrine of eternal generation. 

Not everyone is a fan of the doctrine of eternal generation

    However, over the last century scholarly opinion has suggested that the term "monogenes" ought be translated "one and only" to highlight the uniqueness of the Son of God over against adopted sons (i.e. those born again in saving faith, see for instance Romans 8:14-16) and that special class of created angelic beings called "sons of God" (Job 38:7). 

    In so far as the second Person of the Trinity is certainly unique as compared to those other two classes, the point of those advocating monogenes to mean "one and only" or "unique" is to do away with what is in their view un-necessary speculation about the eternal relation between the Father and the Son. 1

    If we were to apply this more recent set of suggestions, the Nicene Creed would read something like this:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God".

    In this post, I'll mention a couple of thinkers that oppose the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of monogenes as "only-begotten". I will then end the post with why eternal generation of the Son as "only begotten" is still the preferred position.

Some suggest that the doctrine of eternal generation is unnecessary, and instead the Person of the Son is distinguished from the Father another way

    Two theologians whom I would otherwise consider sound in their doctrine have in the past denied the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have at various points attempted an alternative approach to describing what distinguishes the Father and the Son. Both men assert the co-eternality and co-equality of the two Divine Persons in the Godhead. For them though, the distinction lies in various roles of authority and submission.

    God the Father, for Ware and Grudem, is the lead authority in the Trinity, while the Son eternally submits to Him. This view, known as "eternal subordination of the Son" or "ESS", or "Eternal Relationships of Authority and Submission" or ERAS, sees the Son as subordinated in role, not essence or being to the Father. Grudem for instances writes in the second edition of his systematic theology:

"This priority of the Father (or leadership role, or authority, of the Father) with respect to the Son is a consistent pattern in Scripture that is true prior to creation."

    Grudem takes the doctrine of eternal generation to be about roles and positions between the Father and Son, while all the while continuing to affirm the Father and Son's eternal equality and unity of nature. 

    As Ware and Grudem apply this to understanding the roles of male headship in marriage, they argue that the marriage relationship is patterned off of what they claim is an authority structure within the Trinity. As much as I support the distinct roles and equal value of the husband and wife in marriage, I cannot find evidence in Scripture that directly links that pattern as drawn from equality and distinction within the Trinity. 

    ESS advocates will point to representative passages to show the Son's role of submission to the Father. For instance, in John 5:19, Jesus taught: "Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."2

  The failure at times to distinguish the work the Trinity does in our world from how the Three Persons are within the Godhead is among the weaknesses of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) view. Theologian Charles Lee Irons evaluates the ESS view and then makes this observation:3

"The urgent question that must be faced by theologians who want to retain and aspect of eternal functional subordination theology is whether it is possible to relate these two divergent understandings of Sonship: is the Son's identity grounded in eternal generation or in eternal obedience?"

    For Irons, such an attempt (as done by Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem) is fraught with too many tensions. Eternal generation affirms without qualification the equality of the Son to the Father, making the distinction between them only about the Begetter (The Father) and the Begotten (the Son). 

    The unintentional effect can be if we also add "roles" or "authority" language to the Father and Son, the ESS position can almost sound similar to the beginnings of the heresy of Arianism, which flat-out asserts the Son's subordination as a created being. 

Why eternal generation of the Son still best explains the term "monogenes" or only begotten in the Bible and thus the Nicene Creed

    Since around 2016, Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have changed their minds about denying the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. In Wayne Grudem's 2nd edition of his "Systematic Theology", he ends up affirming the doctrine of eternal generation. However, he still holds to the eternal submission of the Son to the Father as a second way of distinguishing the two Divine persons.4 Their change of opinion is commendable, since it takes a lot of humility to express how one has changed their mind on a major issue in print. Still, the tensions in their view as I described above shows how relatively fragile the ESS view can be compared to the time-tested view of eternal generation. 

    When I look at another modern example of someone changing their mind on the doctrine of eternal generation, Dr. John MacArthur, the difference is He didn't try to hold onto a viewpoint that would had tension with the doctrine. MacArthur's change of mind to affirming eternal generation led to him sharpening and preaching a more robust doctrine and defense of the Son's equality with the Father.5

Why "begotten" better captures the eternal relation between the Father and the Son than the rendering "one and only".

   As we draw this post to a close, let me offer one final argument to reinforce why the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of "begotten" is most appropriate as summarized by the Nicene Creed's handling of the Scriptural data. Many modern translations have taken the stance to render "monogenes" as uniformly "one and only" or "unique". The problem I have in translating "monogenes" as "one and only" or "unique" is it assumes that rendering is the only way to translate that word. 

    There are places of course where "monogenes" refers to the sole offspring of someone without other children (Judges 11:34 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament or Septuagint, also Luke 7:17; 8:42; 9:38). However, there are cases where "monogenes" carries the additional meaning of a special, covenantal, or even transmission of spiritual identity from a father to a son (take for instance Abraham and Isaac in Hebrews 11:17). In other words, to translate "monogenes" as one and only in those contexts may risk under-translating the passages that deal with the eternal relations of the Father and the Son (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16 for example).6

Final thought. 

   Despite modern efforts to deny the doctrine of eternal generation, or to do away with the translation "begotten", for the reasons cited near the end of this post, I would argue that the doctrine of eternal generation as expressed in the Nicene Creed still holds. 

Endnotes:

1. The "unnecessary speculation" referred to here has to do with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. For some, this view is a by-product of Greek philosophical thinking imported into the history of theological reflection on the Son. Further, opponents of eternal generation assert the Nicene Creed itself betrays this Greek influence, spelling out its doctrine of eternal generation with allegedly no Biblical support. Some notable authors of the recent past who had reservations about the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of "monogenes" as "only-begotten" were such notables as B.B. Warfield and New Testament Greek Scholar F.J. Hort. The latter began the idea that "monogenes" ought be translated "one and only" or "unique", prompting many English translators to gradually render "monogenes" as "one and only", especially in the last twenty five years.

2 Those promoting the eternal submission of the Son (ESS) doctrine will use such a passage to prove their point. However, when one carefully reads what Jesus is teaching, the passage is not advocating an eternal submissive role of the Son to the Father within the Trinity. Instead, Jesus is describing how He and the Father act inseparably in our world, what theologians call "inseparable operations". 

    When the Son became incarnated, He in His humanity yielded to the Father and submitted Himself under the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we see the Trinity at work in creation and salvation, we call their work an "economic work". In other words, for the sake of creation, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will work in a particular ordered pattern or economy. The Son is sent by the Father, for example, and the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. God in His revelation operates this way for our sakes. However, within the life of the Trinity itself, we do not see such ordering, since the only things distinguishing the Father from the Son is the Son being begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit's distinction from the Father and the Son lies in His proceeding from the Father through the Son (see John 15:26).

3 On Classical Trinitarianism. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Intervarsity Press. 2024. See chapter 23 in that book. Charles Lee Irons, Only Begotten Son, page 440-441. 

4 The doctrine of eternal generation teaches that the Father has conveyed to the Son the Divine essence without beginning, meaning that the Son, begotten of the Father from eternity, is equal and not lesser than the Father. It would seem that this would create a tension in Grudem's system, since eternal subordination of the Son does make the Son under the Father in position as ever submitted to Him. 

5 Here is the link to MacArthur's full statement on how he changed his mind on the doctrine of eternal sonship. Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ

6 Take for instance in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is offered by Abraham. In many more recent translations (LSB, NASB 2020, CSB, NIV, ESV), Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only" or "one and only" son. On the other hand, the KJV, NKJV, and MEV render Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten" son. If we were to translate monogenes as "one and only", that would neglect Abraham's other son, Ishmael, who came before Isaac by 13 years. Isaac is the son of promise, a special, spiritually significant begetting that transmits the promise of God given to Abraham to his son Isaac. As for the eternal Son of God, his "begetting" by the Father is an eternal act between the Father and the Son. 

    The Divine nature is shared in such a way between the Father and the Son that without the Son being begotten by the Father, there would be no Father. Likewise, without the eternal conveyance of "Son-ship" to the Son by the Father (as noted earlier, "filiation"), there would be no Son. The act of begetting is what makes the Father the Father, and being begotten by the Father is what makes the Son the Son. 

    No other means of distinction (whether differing roles, or heretical route of differing natures, as proposed by Arius) suffice to preserve consistently the equality of the Father and Son in essence with their distinct identities within the Godhead. The Apostle John captures this point when he records Jesus saying in John 6:65 - "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." This equality and union in nature is expressed by Jesus in John 14:9 "Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?"