Eternal Son

[Altarboy]

How is this not a contradiction in terms?  Trinitarians believe that God the Son was eternally begotten.  Eternity, meaning without beginning, cannot be a descriptive term used for a creature of any kind.  Perhaps I'm wrong?

[Scribbles]

Eternity seems to have no beginning and no end.. There is no time in eternity is there?

But the bible calls Jesus the ONLY Begotten son of the Father..

We are limited in our abilities to understand all things for now.. 

[Thorolf]

Eternity seems to have no beginning and no end.. There is no time in eternity is there?

I don't know... is there?

What I do know is that the term "begotten" connotes a reference to a genetic timeline of some sort. A Father cannot beget a Son without first being in existence.

[Acumen]

Scribbles,

I don't know about that.  The scriptures don't specifically say that God the Son is eternally begotten.  It does say, however, that the son of God was begotten in Bethlehem from a woman.  And that this Son is the fulness of the Godhead.  What that tells me is that an eternal God dwelt in and entirely united Himself with a human creature.   

[Thorolf]

"Mystery of faith"

Translation: "Nope. Can't explain it, and don't really want to get into a battle I can't win..."


We can blather on all day about mysteries, and not taking them lightly, but the fact of the matter is that there are things that are LIGHTLY waved off with a dismissive brush of the back of the hand that simply don't have to be "mysteries."

And, in the opinion of many, AREN'T "mysteries."

Allow me to dramatize, with apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Watson: Gee, Holmes. I just don't know how this one was pulled off. It's a mystery!

Holmes: It's elementary, my dear Watson. The brigand stole through the open glass roof over the courtyard, climbed down the latticework, and murdered poor Alexander as he took his Poodle "Pixie" for her morning walk. This, of course, is quite obvious by the signs left all over the roof and on the latticework itself, the footsteps leading to the body, and bloody footsteps with exactly the same size and make of boot leading away from the body, the small, still-warm droppings of exactly the right size, shape, and consistency of a Poodle, and the collar labeled "Pixie" on the ground nearby. Absolutely obvious, wouldn't you agree, Watson?

Watson: Yep, Sir. It sure is a mystery.

[Altarboy]

The "Son" is in reference to the relationship between the two persons in the Godhead.

It is a very deep mystery of faith that must not be taken lightly.

The "Son" is the constant expression of self recognition on behalf of God. an eternal thought and expression of his very nature.

Ellum,

Okay, I'm buying the relationship part, the constant expression of self-recognition is a somewhat, shall I say, uninformative.  Yeah, so God recognizes Himself.  And we need two persons for this?

[Acumen]

And a "mystery" does not mean unknowable, it's a fact that is not self evident but requires faith and the grace of revelation.

Who said that mysteries are unknowable?

[Acumen]

Oh, and I don't know why the username isn't popping up for you, but I can see who I'm posting to.  Perhaps your computer has different settings?

[Thorolf]

I don't know who is responding to me, why aren't the names by where it says "newbie?"

And a "mystery" does not mean unknowable, it's a fact that is not self evident but requires faith and the grace of revelation.

Your definition is both interesting and convenient.

But that's not a mystery. A mystery is, indeed, a fact (what else would it be - your imagination?), but whether or not it is self-evident is not a factor. It's just not yet understood by the one calling it a mystery. The character of Sherlock Holmes found all sorts of facts self-evident that others termed a mystery - thus my little story earlier.

Holmes found that he was able to see things with a perspective that allowed him to come to a fuller understanding of events and situations based on the evidence available to him than many others.

Or, maybe he just had more faith and grace than everyone else.

[Thorolf]

And I disagree... but maybe I just have a deeper understanding. 

[thedefender]

Our idea of the Son being eternal comes from verses such as John 1:1, and Colossians chapter 1.

We cannot understand God, but we can understand those parts about his nature that he has revealed.

And there is something to be said about the word "begotten" that being, English fails to actually fully arrive at a word sufficient enough for the relationship between the Father and his son, but Begotten here, to me is more of a term of Deity and Divinity than a term of subordination.

Blessings,

Derrickthedefender

[Acumen]

Derick,

I agree that we can understand those parts of God that He reveals to us.  But it gets to the point that we need to acknowledge when a doctrine has some serious flaws.  Personally, I believe that almost anyone can find ways to smooth over difficulties with erroneous biblical interpretations if they try hard enough.  However, this one takes the cake as far as contradictions are concerned. 

Ps 2:7   "I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father."   

[thedefender]

Acumen,

I would not pretend to say that God and his nature has serious flaws, but I would say that our understanding of that doctrine, and our finite ability to describe and explain the nature of God, does often fall short of perfection.

Concerning the nature of Christ, when considering the work that was set out for him, his temptation, his suffering and death, and his awesome power to snatch the keys away from Satan, and ultimately the ability to save lost souls like you and me, I find it almost absurd to relegate the nature of Christ to that of a created being, albeit the first among all creatures created by God. Any created being, yea, all creation fell when Adam and Eve sinned and it stands to reason that if Christ was God's first created being that he would be subjected to the same fall as all the other created beings. Any person less than God could save a sinners soul. Only the arms of divinity could reach far enough to span the gulf that created beings could not cross. It took the blood of God to redeem mankind. And thus in the Trinity it seems that we find the answer to this complicated question. Had a created being won the victory on the cross, then creation would have gained the glory and power over sin. However, since God in the Person of the Son Jesus Christ gained the victory of sin, death, and hell, now all glory belongs totally to the indescribable Three-in-one God of the Universe Yahweh. Created beings have no power in themselves. They derive power from other sources yet in Christ we find that he had the power to lay his life down freely and to take it up again.

Likewise, it is difficult for me to believe that God created a human and indwelled him so totally, as to take over his nature, his own free will so that he, a man, with the presence of God dwelling inside of him could conquer death and hell. For me, sin was a God-sized job, and only the God-man could take care of it.

(Please forgive me if I am misrepresenting the argument. I am a little rusty on exactly how the oneness view Christ and his divinity).

Blessings,

Derrickthedefender

[Acumen]

Derick,

I would not pretend to say that God and his nature has serious flaws, but I would say that our understanding of that doctrine, and our finite ability to describe and explain the nature of God, does often fall short of perfection.

The problem I have is not with the nature of God, but with the doctrine of an eternal son.  The only thing eternal about the Son of God is the eternal Father that dwelled within him.  I reject the notion that the eternal person of God the Son dwelled within Jesus -- the concept is contradictory to the rules of logic and entirely unnecessary in the revelation of God's nature.

Concerning the nature of Christ, when considering the work that was set out for him, his temptation, his suffering and death, and his awesome power to snatch the keys away from Satan, and ultimately the ability to save lost souls like you and me, I find it almost absurd to relegate the nature of Christ to that of a created being, albeit the first among all creatures created by God.

The oneness doctrine doesn't relegate the nature of Christ to that of a created being.  We, too, believe in the dual nature of Christ as exhibited in the gospels.  We believe that the deity infused with the man Jesus giving us the unique blend we call the "Godman." 

Any person less than God could save a sinners soul. Only the arms of divinity could reach far enough to span the gulf that created beings could not cross.

Are you confusing us with the Jehovah's witnesses?  We believe in the full deity of Jesus.  In fact, I might go as far as to say we believe in the fulness of Jesus' deity even more than the trinitarians.

Likewise, it is difficult for me to believe that God created a human and indwelled him so totally, as to take over his nature, his own free will so that he, a man, with the presence of God dwelling inside of him could conquer death and hell. For me, sin was a God-sized job, and only the God-man could take care of it.

On this particular issue, I cannot speak for all oneness pentecostals.  I don't believe that God inhabited a human shell devoid of a human personality and free-will.  I would venture to say that most oneness pentecostals are in this boat with me, however I have known some to use language that implied such. 

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Why? Because you think that the term "Son" has to denote a begining?  

Yes.

That's your problem, you can't see that the term "son" has nothing to do with origins, it has to do with the relationship between the two persons in the Godhead.

Ps 2:7  I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

The passage here, referred to by Luke and Paul in the NT, is a reference to Jesus as God's son.  The term "today" denotes a beginning within the parameters of time that, by the way, corresponds with the terms Son and Father, which also denotes beginnings within time. 

I agree with you that the term "son" certainly involves relationship, but not at the expense of time.

Will you get your dad out of the equation already and start using that philosophy degree of yours.

Hmmmmm . . . .

[Acumen]

El,

This is the reason why the relationship is deemed a Father & Son relationship, culminating in the incarnation.  "Before" the incarnation, the Son was a "son" precisely because of the incarnation, and as Grace pointed out on another thread, this plan that had been eternally in the mind of God has always been a reality in how God relates to Himself (outside of time and space.)

You may have chosen your words carefully, but "culminating" doesn't mean "beginning", and that's exactly what you need to make the theology of an eternal son work.  The term "Son" makes no semantical sense in terms of divine relationship if there is no difference in "generation."  If the incarnation is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the son of God, then retroactively applying a title received precisely due to a physical event of birth, in reality, neutralizes the meaning of the word "son" to nothing other than a divinely crafted plan that has come to fruition in the form of salvation.  There need be no intimate relationship between the persons of the trinity.

-Acumen

[Thorolf]

I can't speak for Acumen, but as for me - no, I will not. Either God, in His fullness, was born in Bethlehem a bit over 2000 years ago, or your god is not the Christian God. There is no "part," nor are there three "parts."

God is God. He does not have a Father and Son relationship with himself. He IS.

The notion of the eternal Son is/was an attempt to explain something that confused people - how could Jesus have been fully God and fully man? It quelled people's curiosity for a while, but the fact that scripture has to be "interpreted" (twisted) to make it fit has resulted, in the long run, in nothing more than error and the punishment of numerous people who disagree with Rome's interpretation of the Godhead.

Insisting otherwise over and over again despite absolutely nothing more than "because the Catholic Church says so" and a few select scriptures claimed as proof (when, in fact, they could be used by either side of the disagreement) as support for the position doesn't win any points. Personally, I couldn't care less how long Rome has been wrong on the subject.

[Acumen]

El,

The point I am making is that it is not just the incarnation, it is the God of the incarnation.  The "part" (if you will) of God that was destined from all eternity to be born in Bethlehem did not need to become incarnate to be who he already was, but yes at the same time because His sonship was to culminate in His incarnation is a proof of His eternity Sonship.

When I first previewed your post earlier this morning, the issues that Thorolf pointed out is the same problem I had with your description of God.  When discussing the concept of an eternal son, it is inevitable that we will encounter the nature of the trinity.

Right here, at this point in the discussion, I think it is ironic how someone like you (a previous oneness pentecostal) is using such blatent trinitarian terminology like all the rest of the trinitarians we used to debate on forums like this one.

By using the term "part" when describing the son of God, you have made him something less than God.  The term "part" is a fraction of a whole, and a fraction of God did not incarnate into a human for the purposes of our salvation.  It is trinitarian theology that specifies that God the Son came down in the flesh for our redemption, but if God the Son is a part of a triune being, then it stands to reason that Jesus wasn't anything more than a demi-god.

Again, it sounds like this theology, in an attempt to explain the more obscure parts of the NT, has made more of a mess of our understanding of the divine.

-Acumen

[gracebyfaith]

If this is a repeat, I apologize.  I've tried to post this three times now,
and I keep losing everything to sign back in???

This looks like a fresh beginning to the eternal son debate, and I'm in.

I have to clarify a few comments I've made on the other thread.  First, the
Word was NOT manifested in the flesh until Bethlehem, and I believe there is
significance in that.  Previously, I said I didn't think things were any less real
when in the mind/plan of God than in our reality.  I will have to take that back.
I'll explain. 

There are some things that absolutely need to be manifested in the flesh.

Do we consider Isaac an eternal son, because in the mind of God he existed.
Abram's name being changed to Abraham (Father of nations) years before
Isaac was born.  He was promised, but didn't become a son until he was "born."

Jesus didn't become a son, until He was born.  Even though foreordained before
the foundation of the world to be the lamb slain, He still needed to be manifested
in the flesh and shed His blood for there to be our new covenant/testament.

1 Peter 1:20
20 It is true that He was chosen and foreordained (destined and foreknown for it) before the foundation of the world, but He was brought out to public view (made manifest) in these last days (at the end of the times) for the sake of you.
AMP

Heb 9:15-18
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament , that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament , they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
KJV

I think it was El who said, Jesus was a part of God as the Son.  I would like for
someone to explain how you can be the fullness of the Godhead and part of the
Godhead at the same time in the same person.

There are somethings I really have a hard time comprehending.  Can an eternal and
omniscient God have a new thought?  I'm sure that wouldn't stop Him from "creating"
a new thing.

Gotta go, I'll be back when I get some time.

Grace BY Faith

[Acumen]

El,

I used the the word "part" only for the sake of those who can't grasp the Trinity, for what it is.

So it's not a "part?"  If it's not a part, then it must be the whole.  And if the whole of God incarnated into Jesus, then it's not just God the Son.  And if it's not just God the Son, then Jesus really is the Father incarnate.

The irony is that it is the oneness theology who try and seperate the aspects of God.

Not following you here.  We don't believe in three divine persons.

Who and what is Jesus according to oneness?

Father incarnate, redeemer of the world, dispenser of grace, judge of our souls, and Son of the living God.

He is both the Father and the Son, but without any distinctions?

You're right.  We accept a distinction between the man Jesus and the Father that indwelt him -- just like there is a distinction between Christians and the Holy Spirit that dwells within them.  The bible mentions that the incarnation is a mystery of godliness.  However, I don't particularly recall it mentioning that the triune nature is a mystery as well.

I tried to use the eternal fatherhood to explain the Trinity, that didn't go over well with you three, how about this....

I'm sure it didn't go over well with anyone who read it, not just us three.  This isn't just an issue of oneness people versus trinitarians.  I particularly remember a trinitarian that said he couldn't follow your argument as well.

We have been called to share in the Divine life of God...right?  Is the nature of "sharing" something God learned or has God always "shared" the Divine life?

I don't understand the question.

-Acumen