Eternal Son

[gracebyfaith]

That's an interesting response.  You're challenged whether debating "Pentecostalism" or any other faith.  The topic of eternal son crosses many faiths.  Limiting yourself to the Catholic board will limit your choices of topics.


Good luck!
Grace

[Acumen]

I don't see the difference where the debate takes place. 

[Acumen]

In fact, I would prefer to argue it here.   

[Acumen]

Does it matter where we debate it?  If we debate it on the Catholic board or on the Pentecostal board, we will only show you that the eternal son is a contradiction in terms, that the trinitarian theology unnecessarily adds two "parts" to God's being, and that eternity doesn't make a Father any more true than an event in time. 

Are you really the type of person who only holds parties at your own house?

[Thorolf]

There are oneness pentecostals, and trinitarian pentecostals.

I don't see any reason, other than running away, to refuse to debate the issue of an eternal son here.

Incidentally, I don't think too many of us have trouble grasping the concepts of trinitarian theology - at least no more trouble than trinitarians routinely display at grasping the same. Some of us simply don't agree - that doesn't mean we don't or can't understand it. You don't need to "intentionally" make mistakes for the sake of those of us who you foolishly assume can't grasp it.

It's also foolish to presume, not to mention an insult, that everyone would agree with your belief if we were just ABLE to grasp the theology. Try debating the merits of the theology, and avoid attacking the people who don't follow lockstep in your interpretation.

[thedefender]

Doesn't it stand to reason that God's nature would be more complex than his creation can understand? What we do know of God's nature he has revealed to us in his word, and we can make inferences, but can we every really come to an understanding of the nature of God? It seems to me that Oneness theology attempts to limit God to terms that humans can understand, which, in all reality makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. However, just because the explanation seems simpler doesn't mean that there is a shred of truth to it. I guess I am arguing for the complexity of God, and that the doctrine of the Trinity fits into that sphere of complexity. God is other. This does not mean that we should not have these sorts of debates, because ultimately we are doing what folks have done for thousands (literally) of years; we can see ourselves as "carrying on the tradition" in some respects. Remember, just because things may not make sense to us doesn't mean that they are wrong. Acumen, do you really feel that you have the patten on the nature of God? Do you think that there is nothing else to be learned about his nature because you have your arguments formalized and calculated? Don't be so proud. . . you may in fact learn something from a Trinitarian one day.

Blessings,

Derrick thedefender

[Thorolf]

No, it really doesn't stand to reason that God's nature WOULD be more complex than his creation can understand. God can grant us the understanding of anything He wishes...

It does stand to reason that it COULD be more complex than His creation can understand, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Why would anyone assume that one theory would be more acceptable because it is less feasible? Why NOT presume that God would not intentionally confuse His creation, because He is NOT a god of confusion, and as such He would allow His creation the innate ability to understand His nature?

Incidentally, I don't see how, in any way, shape, or form, Oneness theology limits God. If anything, I see the reverse - that by assuming we are incapable of understanding His nature, Trinitarian theology has declared that God is limited in his ability to create.

WHY CAN'T we possibly understand? If, indeed, God is able to do anything, certainly that ability includes the ability to grant us the capacity to fully understand His nature.

[thedefender]

Okay Thorolf,

It does stand to reason that it COULD be more complex than His creation can understand, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

You have well stated. It does seem rather complex having the Father in Jesus Christ while on earth praying to Himself. It is also complex, no, rather confusing to this created being how the will of Jesus indwelled by the Father was not the same as the will of God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane.

But, I suppose this harkens back to the scripture that God uses the weak things of the world to confound the wise. . .

In terms of limitations, it does seem limiting to me that God the Father would indwell the man Jesus Christ (thus limiting his free will). In terms of omnipresence was God still able to be in all places presently and equally although he was in the body of the man Jesus?

Trinitarians believe that the Person of the son is an eternal and infinite being. He had an infinite past and he has an infinite future, and that this Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. We believe that he limited himself; he robed or veiled some of his divine attributes in order to come to earth to be born of a virgin through the power of another person of the Trinity: The Holy Ghost. (In other words, the Person of the Father did not overshaddow Mary, but rather, his role was in sending his Only Begotten Son to the earth). And that when he was conceived without the aide of human sperm he was 100% God and 100% man. So he knew all things, and yet he knew nothing. He was all powerful, and yet he was incredibly weak. He was everywhere present, and yet lying in a manger. And this same Jesus only lived a holy and clean life because his nature was not that of a man, but as Genesis 3:15 says: he was born from the seed of a woman. His blood was clean, holy, and pure because he was miraculously born with a dual nature.

Before the cross God the Son prayed to God the Father to allow him to not die, but God the Son submitted his will to God the Father and went to the cross. On the cross, God the Father turned from God the Son, and Christ the man died. Christ the Person of the Son went to Spirit Prison and regained the keys of Death and Hell and returned to his body and rose from the dead on the 3rd and appointed day. He demonstrated that he was a man continually forty days after his resurrection, and even ate fish at one point. He proved before and after his death that he was a man, and also God. Only God the Son could conquer death, hell, and the grave. He now sits at the right hand of God the Father bodily, scars and all, and will return for the "quick and the dead" whenever he gets good and ready. Without the trinity the redemption of mankind doesn't make sense.

Blessings,

Derrick the defender

[Thorolf]

I'm sorry, are you being critical of oneness or trinity?

Personally, I have a rather Nestorian view of the nature of Jesus that actually has ZERO problem with any of the things you seem to struggle with.

Jesus was fully God AND fully man. There are clearly places in the Bible where he is speaking as God, and places where he expresses himself as a man. The view I hold (which is not necessarily the one many of my fellow Oneness believers hold) has no problem with this, but trinitarians tend to dodge the fact that Jesus in the Bible was, in places, ignorant of events, tempted, and capable of death and suffering. He was clearly subservient to the Father... They will give lip service to 100% God and 100% man, but offer nothing whatsoever in terms of clarification for how that could possibly be...

I don't have a problem with any of this. How about you?

How can you justify an eternal "being" (as you called Him) being capable of death? How can you justify the fact that he was all knowing, but ignorant? You mentioned it in your post, but I don't think you can even pretend to explain how it is possible that Jesus could have been weak, ignorant, mortal, and bound by physical constraints, while simultaneously being infinitely powerful, omniscient, immortal, and omnipresent. And, of course, that's not even addressing the painfully apparent heirarchy of power among the so-called "co-equal" persons of the trinitarian perspective.

You mentioned that, "before the cross God the Son prayed to God the Father to allow him to not die, but God the Son submitted his will to God the Father and went to the cross." Herein lies the rub, in my opinion. Anything with "God" in the title is, by definition, incapable of death. Furthermore, God defeating death is hardly an impressive feat, being immortal and having invented "death" in the first place, and begs the question as to why any of Jesus' temptation, suffering, and death was even necessary - but if you consider that Jesus died as a mortal, sinless thanks to God's indwelling, then the feat becomes a true victory, and the salvation of the rest of humanity.

TRINITY is what doesn't make sense to me, Derrick. TRINITY removes the victory, marginalizes divinity, and dilutes the blood.

[Acumen]

Derrick,

We believe that he limited himself; he robed or veiled some of his divine attributes in order to come to earth to be born of a virgin through the power of another person of the Trinity: The Holy Ghost.

And this is one of the most significant problems that I have with this "brand" of trinitarianism.  First, I think the language is wrong.  Saying that God "limited" Himself is a euphemism for "He forfeited or lost" part of His power.  Limiting myself is what I "choose" to do when I'm riding my bike down a hill.  When Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming, he didn't limit his knowledge like a person blocking his own vision with his hand.  He didn't know because he was a man.  Knowledge isn't something you can decide NOT to have -- it's either there or it's not.

And that when he was conceived without the aide of human sperm he was 100% God and 100% man. So he knew all things, and yet he knew nothing.

Again, there is that allusion to the choice of self-limited knowledge.  The scriptures say that the "son" didn't know his second advent, which implies that God the Son wasn't omniscient.  This doesn't mean that he is omniscient one hour, but ignorant the next.  Unless of course, the term "son" isn't a reference to deity, but rather something else? 

Before the cross God the Son prayed to God the Father to allow him to not die, but God the Son submitted his will to God the Father and went to the cross. On the cross, God the Father turned from God the Son, and Christ the man died.

I see a few problems here.  First, why would God be praying to anyone?  Nine of ten times, prayer is either an act of asking or an act of thanking.  Either of these show lack of omnipotence, and therefore a lack of Godness.  Second, submission to the will of another demonstrates an acknowledgement that either someone has a higher rank, or that someone has made a better decision.  Either way, it demonstrates a lack of perfection, and therefore a lack of Godness.  And third, by God the Father turning from God the Son, it implies that (a) God the Son's power source was God the Father and (b) God the Son isn't really God, but the man Jesus.

-Acumen

[thedefender]

Acumen,

And this is one of the most significant problems that I have with this "brand" of trinitarianism.  First, I think the language is wrong.  Saying that God "limited" Himself is a euphemism for "He forfeited or lost" part of His power.  Limiting myself is what I "choose" to do when I'm riding my bike down a hill.  When Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming, he didn't limit his knowledge like a person blocking his own vision with his hand.  He didn't know because he was a man.  Knowledge isn't something you can decide NOT to have -- it's either there or it's not.

Well, I don't believe that God the Son lost any of his attributes, nor do I believe he forfeited his power. He revealed himself in all his glory on the Mt. Transfiguration and the veil as it were was taken away. So you see, it's like God the Son had to tie some of his divine attributes behind his back just to make it a fair fight because he couldn't go walking around the streets of Jerusalem as a big ball of light. Scripture says that no man can see God and live.

Did Jesus really not know the day or the hour of his return? I do not believe that this was a "knowledge" issue as if it were something he could decide not to have. I believe that Jesus was staying in the boundaries of prerogative, and since it is not the prerogative of the Son to send himself it is left to the Father when to tell Christ to return to earth to gather his saints. Jesus demonstrates his all-knowing abilities when he calls the apostle Phillip and tells him everything about himself, he does this with the woman at the well too.

 

[thedefender]

Again, there is that allusion to the choice of self-limited knowledge.  The scriptures say that the "son" didn't know his second advent, which implies that God the Son wasn't omniscient.  This doesn't mean that he is omniscient one hour, but ignorant the next.  Unless of course, the term "son" isn't a reference to deity, but rather something else?

And then again, do you think that Jesus was just ignorant of the time of his return or being really wise? Think about it Acumen, what if Jesus said, Yes, the time of my return is May 23, 2050. Plus, concerning the humanity of Christ I find my "human baby that knows nothing" much better than your shell theory.

I see a few problems here.  First, why would God be praying to anyone?  Nine of ten times, prayer is either an act of asking or an act of thanking.  Either of these show lack of omnipotence, and therefore a lack of Godness.  Second, submission to the will of another demonstrates an acknowledgement that either someone has a higher rank, or that someone has made a better decision.  Either way, it demonstrates a lack of perfection, and therefore a lack of Godness.  And third, by God the Father turning from God the Son, it implies that (a) God the Son's power source was God the Father and (b) God the Son isn't really God, but the man Jesus.

First, prayer shows a great understanding of submission and obedience. Christ humbled himself and scripture says that he "makes intercession" for us even today. To make intercession is really similar to prayer. The Father and the Son have always communicated even while Christ was on earth he communicated with his father. Something your shell could not do. It doesn't show inferiority. It symbolizes communion and unity; constant contact, the sort that only equality affords. And third, God cannot look on sin, so when God the Son took on all the sins of the world onto himself God the Father turned from the Son. And only God the Son could have went to Hades and conquered death, hell, and the grave. This is something no shell could ever do.


Derrick the defender

[Acumen]

Derrick,

The Father and the Son have always communicated even while Christ was on earth he communicated with his father. Something your shell could not do. It doesn't show inferiority. It symbolizes communion and unity; constant contact, the sort that only equality affords. And third, God cannot look on sin, so when God the Son took on all the sins of the world onto himself God the Father turned from the Son. And only God the Son could have went to Hades and conquered death, hell, and the grave. This is something no shell could ever do

First, you should probably drop the term 'shell,' because it doesn't accurately represent the oneness position.  Second, praying certainly denotes inferiority unless the action is merely example setting or symbolism.  If Jesus didn't pray for example or for symbolism, then it denotes subordination and inferiority.  And yes, it certainly illustrates an extent of unity, but not among equals.

-Acumen

[gracebyfaith]

Derrick,
Are you saying that when Christ said He didn't know the
time of His second coming - it was because He chose not
to know? 

Are you also saying that when He prayed not "my will" be
done but yours - He wasn't taking on an inferior role? 
Wouldn't both wills be co-equal?

I can't imagine that "if" there were two persons, one would
choose to turn His face from the other, when the "other" is
simply doing the will of the first???  None of it makes sense...


Grace by Faith

[Acumen]

Jesus "The Son" is subordinate to the Father, that's why He is the Son, however He is subordinate out of Love not out of obligation or inferiority.

It's not strictly a matter of love, El.  If it were, wouldn't we see the Father subordinate Himself to the Son?  Does this mean that the Father doesn't love the Son?  Nope, because it's essentially a matter of the Father's rank of superiority.     

[Thorolf]

"Shell"...I think it represents the oneness position quite well.

If that is the case, then you never understood the oneness position.

[Thorolf]

Sorry but that is incorrect, a person does not have to act "Fatherly" out of superiority.  Are you trying to suggest that being a Father always indicates superiority or can a person be "fatherly" out of love?

And can you define what it means to be fatherly?

I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that "the Son" is a separate being that is subordinate to "the Father" by virtue of title alone?

A father is a figure of authority. That authority can be wielded in a number of ways, but in every instance it is done so from a "superior" standing. Superior doesn't necessarily mean "better..."

This is not particularly cohesive with the concept of co-equality. Either they are equal, or one is subordinate. CLEARLY one is subordinate. Therefore, they are not co-equal.

Therefore therefore - they cannot be one in will, spirit, body, or mind. The Bible makes it apparent that they did not share any such commonalities.

So what is "the Son?"

What does "begotten" mean?

Why are there so many instances of subservience by Jesus?

It's easy to shout "YOU'RE WRONG" from the tallest mountain... but saying it a million times doesn't make it right.

[Acumen]

Sorry but that is incorrect, a person does not have to act "Fatherly" out of superiority.  Are you trying to suggest that being a Father always indicates superiority or can a person be "fatherly" out of love?

It's not an either/or dichotomy.  Being a father is a title of superiority that does not change unless one is no longer a father.  The superiority doesn't go away, but it doesn't negate the fact that He loves the Son.

You made a statement that the Son "is subordinate out of Love not out of obligation or inferiority."

If subordination was a natural outcrop of love, then we would see the Father subordinating Himself out of love also.  But since we don't see this, it is not strictly a matter of love -- so it must be something else.  That something else, I propose, is superiority of position.  The Son is not in a position to be superior -- his rank doesn't permit it.  To use your previous logic, since Fatherhood requires a superior rank to Sonhood, then eternal Fatherhood requires an eternal superiority. 

And can you define what it means to be fatherly?

One would think it involves the qualities of being an ideal father -- qualities such as authority, love, protection, providence, and support would be included in being fatherly.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Thor,

Are you suggesting that "the Son" is a separate being that is subordinate to "the Father" by virtue of title alone?

It would appear that is the route he is going.  I don't think the "by virtue alone" is a defensible view, in particular as it relates to God's "eternal" status as a father.

A father is a figure of authority. That authority can be wielded in a number of ways, but in every instance it is done so from a "superior" standing.

Exactly.  "Every instance" is done from the rank of superior authority.

[Acumen]

Thor,

If that is the case, then you never understood the oneness position.


I let his statement slide because I thought it was "tongue and cheek."  If it wasn't, then it may shed some light on a few things.