Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.07UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.07UNLIKELY
Fear
0.07UNLIKELY
Joy
0.5LIKELY
Sadness
0.14UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.45UNLIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.02UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.93LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.33UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.16UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.39UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.47UNLIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
9-Christology
“Only Begotten Son”
History & Statement of the Doctrine
Apostles’ Creed
Council of Nicea (325)
Council of Constantinople (381)
DISCUSS: What do you think of this doctrine?
Are you comfortable with the lingo?
Could you
support it with Scripture?
What do you think the language of these creeds and confessions may
be missing?
Issues with the Doctrine
1. Jesus is obviously eternal (Mic 5:2), and He is obviously begotten (Ps 2:7; Jn 3:16; etc.).
However, there is no textual support for combining the two doctrines to teach that
Jesus is the eternally begotten Son.
2. In Psalm 2 and its subsequent quotations, the Father’s declaration that He has begotten
the Son is time-bound: “This day have I begotten thee.”
3. The context of Psalm 2 and its quotations is used in context of the Davidic Covenant,
and the Son’s “begotten” status relates not to ontology but to functionality (King).
4.
This language of “eternally begotten” is used in attempt to describe the ontological
relationship of the Son to the Father.
It is a metaphysical description.
The description
makes Christ a contingent being, dependent upon the Father’s begetting Him.
a.
I think of it as a hologram.
The Father is projecting Himself and His essence in the
person of the Son, but the hologram has an original.
b.
This language of contingency undermines the doctrine of the aseity (selfexistence) of Jesus.
If the Son is co-existent, co-equal, co-eternal, then the Son
must be self-existent, not contingent on anyone or anything else.
Indeed, “in
Him [is] life” (Jn 1:4).
c.
Some would say that this is an unfounded distinction because the begetting is
both eternal and necessary, eternal because it does not negate Jesus’ eternality
and necessary because it does not undermine Jesus’ aseity.
Davidic Covenant Language
“Father/Son”
“This
day…Begotten”
“Firstborn”
“Beloved Son/ Well
pleased”
2 Sam 7:14
1 Chr 22:10
1 Chr 28:6
Ps 2:7 (Acts 13:33;
Heb 1:5; 5:5)
Ps 89:26
Is 9:6 (Note Deity)
Ps 2:7
Acts 13:33
Heb 1:5
Heb 5:5
Ps 89:27
Col 1:15, 18
Heb 1:6
1 Chr 28:4
Is 42:1
Baptism1
Transfiguration2
As we work toward the NT and the “Son of God” after the Davidic line, it becomes evident that
Messiah was not only going to be the son of God in the sense of adopted for the divine right of
kings.
Even more, this seed of David would be God Himself, of the very essence of God.
Thus…
“Son of God” in the Synoptics
Luke’s Intro
Jesus Baptism
Jesus’ Temptation
Jesus’ Transfiguration
Lk 1:34 – Connected
to the virgin
conception.
Lk 3:38 – Genealogy
Mt 3:17
Mk 1:11
Lk 3:22
Mt 4:3/Lk 4:3
Mt 4:6/Lk 4:9
Mt 17:5
Mk 9:7
Lk 9:35
Finally, John seems to develop the idea at length in his Gospel as well as 1 John and Revelation.
“Son of God” in John
“Son of God”
Jn 1:34 John’s witness
Jn 1:49 King of Israel
Jn 11:4, 27 Lazarus
Jn 19:5 Trial
Jn 20:21 Purpose
Rev 2:18
“Only Begotten”
Jn 1:14
Jn 1:18
Jn 3:16
Jn 3:18
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9