Those who promote the idea that monogenes only has reference to kind or type (without begetting) are faced with a very serious dilemma. This is because with respect to Christ it must be asked, what is this kind or type? It cannot be pertaining to Christ as a divine person. This is because the Father is also a divine person. Christ therefore, as far as His divinity is concerned, cannot be one of a kind or type (unique). This immediately brings us back to the realisation that monogenes must be with reference to Christ’s relationship to the Father, which in turn brings us back to His Sonship. It is His Sonship therefore that must be one of a kind or type. This is because He is the only begotten (monogenes) of God.
There is something else to consider here. This is the Creed of Nicaea mentioned earlier. It said “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten [monogenes], that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth,…” (Creed of Nicaea AD 325) The entire point of this creed was to show that the Son was “of one substance with the Father”. This is why the creed says that Christ is begotten “from the substance of the Father”. What though if the word monogenes is only said to mean one and only? We would need to ask “one and only what”? As has already been concluded (see above), it could not mean divine person. This would automatically rule out the Father as being divine. It would certainly mean that He and the Father were of a different kind (type). This reasoning would have completely destroyed the very purpose of formulating this creed. Those who formulated it though knew that monogenes would not destroy it. They could not have thought therefore that this word meant one and only. It must be to do with the Son’s generation from the Father, meaning His Sonship. He is the only begotten of the Father.
From the above we can readily see that at John 3:16, the word monogenes could not simply mean only or one and only (without the idea of begetting). This would violate the fact that its suffix is -genes. In other words, if John had wanted to say at John 3:16 (and other places) that Christ is the only son or one and only Son, he would only have needed to use monos (not mono + genes). It needs to be remembered too that he did write monogenes huios (son) – not just monogenes. He was obviously emphasising more than simply one and only Son. He was emphasising that the Son alone is begotten of the Father. And begotten does not nor has it ever meant 'created'.
