The Eternal Son.

[37818]

The term "eternal" Son is an extra Biblical term like the term Trinity. But not all Trinitarians agree that the Son was always the Son. Such as Dr. Walter Martin author of the Kingdom of the cults held the concept as not Biblcial. While it is true the Son is arguably called the Son prior to His incarnation, Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, the view of some Chrstians is the preincarnate Word did not become the Son of God until His incarnation, Luke 1:35.

Now I Believe the Word was the eternal Son based on the truth that He as "the unique Son" who appeard as God in the OT according to John 1:18. But if that reading is false and is really "the unique" or "unique, God" then I loose that proof text.

What proof text do you have for the concept of the "eternal Son?"

 

[Yeshua1]

The term "eternal" Son is an extra Biblical term like the term Trinity. But not all Trinitarians agree that the Son was always the Son. Such as Dr. Walter Martin author of the Kingdom of the cults held the concept as not Biblcial. While it is true the Son is arguably called the Son prior to His incarnation, Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, the view of some Chrstians is the preincarnate Word did not become the Son of God until His incarnation, Luke 1:35.

Now I Believe the Word was the eternal Son based on the truth that He as "the unique Son" who appeard as God in the OT according to John 1:18. But if that reading is false and is really "the unique" or "unique, God" then I loose that proof text.

What proof text do you have for the concept of the "eternal Son?"

The so called "high priestly"prayer of Jesus in Gospel of John seems to indicate had an ongoing eternal relationship as between Father and the Son!

 

[HankD]

The term "eternal" Son is an extra Biblical term like the term Trinity. But not all Trinitarians agree that the Son was always the Son. Such as Dr. Walter Martin author of the Kingdom of the cults held the concept as not Biblcial. While it is true the Son is arguably called the Son prior to His incarnation, Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, the view of some Chrstians is the preincarnate Word did not become the Son of God until His incarnation, Luke 1:35.

Now I Believe the Word was the eternal Son based on the truth that He as "the unique Son" who appeard as God in the OT according to John 1:18. But if that reading is false and is really "the unique" or "unique, God" then I loose that proof text.

What proof text do you have for the concept of the "eternal Son?"

Some Christians believe that an essential doctrine must be clustered together in one place in the bible with every i dotted and t crossed'

This is not so. You mentioned the Trinity.

The word Trinity itself is not found in the bible, it took 3 centuries for the concept of the Trinity to be developed from the scriptures as opposed to Arianism (JWs are Arian).

Even after the efforts of Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea the church was and is still split over the matter.
Much, perhaps even most, of Christendom (even major denominations) is NOT Trinitarian but Arian.

While they claim to be Trinitarian they are actually Arian because they are modalists - Arian disguised as Trinitarian.

Such also the question of the eternal sonship of Christ has not been resolved by the church at large.

I believe the Logos to be the eternal Son of God who was/is the incarnation Jesus Christ.

The only begotten Son of God.
In Matthew 1 we see the word "begat" speaking of the human line leading to Joseph.
Jesus was not begotten of Joseph but of God the Father.

In fact He was the only Son begotten of God the Father.
You and I are born of the Spirit.

Why do I believe He is the eternal Son of God?

Because He emanates from the "bosom" of the Father. The innermost being of the Father.
bosom - kolpos: 03788 the region of the body extending from the breasts to the legs, - Louw-Nida Lexicon
bosom - kolpos: 23019-2 the womb - Liddell Scott Lexicon
They share the same essence of being.

And Jesus is THE ONLY ONE begotten of the Father in this manner.

Now is it an eternal relationship or not?

The scripture does not say in so many words whether it is eternal or not.
There are scriptures that can be used for eternal or temporal depending upon your choice of interpretation.

For almost 300 years Christendom floundered back and forth until Athanasius defined the Trinity and it was codified by the Council of Nicaea.

Ultimately your choice will determine if your are Trinitarian or Arian.

My choice - Jesus is the eternal son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some Christians believe that an essential doctrine must be clustered together in one place in the bible with every i dotted and t crossed'

This is not so. You mentioned the Trinity.

The word Trinity itself is not found in the bible, it took 3 centuries for the concept of the Trinity to be developed from the scriptures as opposed to Arianism (JWs are Arian).

Even after the efforts of Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea the church was and is still split over the matter.
Much, perhaps even most, of Christendom (even major denominations) is NOT Trinitarian but Arian.

While they claim to be Trinitarian they are actually Arian because they are modalists - Arian disguised as Trinitarian.

Such also the question of the eternal sonship of Christ has not been resolved by the church at large.

I believe the Logos to be the eternal Son of God who was/is the incarnation Jesus Christ.

The only begotten Son of God.
In Matthew 1 we see the word "begat" speaking of the human line leading to Joseph.
Jesus was not begotten of Joseph but of God the Father.

In fact He was the only Son begotten of God the Father.
You and I are born of the Spirit.

Why do I believe He is the eternal Son of God?

Because He emanates from the "bosom" of the Father. The innermost being of the Father.
bosom - kolpos: 03788 the region of the body extending from the breasts to the legs, - Louw-Nida Lexicon
bosom - kolpos: 23019-2 the womb - Liddell Scott Lexicon
They share the same essence of being.

And Jesus is THE ONLY ONE begotten of the Father in this manner.

Now is it an eternal relationship or not?

The scripture does not say in so many words whether it is eternal or not.
There are scriptures that can be used for eternal or temporal depending upon your choice of interpretation.

For almost 300 years Christendom floundered back and forth until Athanasius defined the Trinity and it was codified by the Council of Nicaea.

Ultimately your choice will determine if your are Trinitarian or Arian.

My choice - Jesus is the eternal son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Many are also functional Arians in theology,as they would describe Jesus and God in a way, such as eternal subordination, that would imply Father greater God!

 

[Van]

Hebrews 1:8

Thus the Second Person of the Trinity, existing forever and ever, is referred to as "the Son."

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

 

[MartyF]

the view of some Chrstians is the preincarnate Word did not become the Son of God until His incarnation

I think this is mostly because very few bother to educate young Christians. Half of preachers are too busy stomping out the heresy of "free-will" while the other half tend to give sermons based on a single verse like Spurgeon. Not too many want to spend the time going through the entire bible with someone.

 

[37818]

Some Christians believe that an essential doctrine must be clustered together in one place in the bible with every i dotted and t crossed'

This is not so. You mentioned the Trinity.

The word Trinity itself is not found in the bible, it took 3 centuries for the concept of the Trinity to be developed from the scriptures as opposed to Arianism (JWs are Arian).

Even after the efforts of Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea the church was and is still split over the matter.
Much, perhaps even most, of Christendom (even major denominations) is NOT Trinitarian but Arian.

While they claim to be Trinitarian they are actually Arian because they are modalists - Arian disguised as Trinitarian.

Such also the question of the eternal sonship of Christ has not been resolved by the church at large.

I believe the Logos to be the eternal Son of God who was/is the incarnation Jesus Christ.

The only begotten Son of God.
In Matthew 1 we see the word "begat" speaking of the human line leading to Joseph.
Jesus was not begotten of Joseph but of God the Father.

In fact He was the only Son begotten of God the Father.
You and I are born of the Spirit.

Why do I believe He is the eternal Son of God?

Because He emanates from the "bosom" of the Father. The innermost being of the Father.
bosom - kolpos: 03788 the region of the body extending from the breasts to the legs, - Louw-Nida Lexicon
bosom - kolpos: 23019-2 the womb - Liddell Scott Lexicon
They share the same essence of being.

And Jesus is THE ONLY ONE begotten of the Father in this manner.

Now is it an eternal relationship or not?

The scripture does not say in so many words whether it is eternal or not.
There are scriptures that can be used for eternal or temporal depending upon your choice of interpretation.

For almost 300 years Christendom floundered back and forth until Athanasius defined the Trinity and it was codified by the Council of Nicaea.

Ultimately your choice will determine if your are Trinitarian or Arian.

My choice - Jesus is the eternal son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

So then the Word only became the Son in the incarnation, John 1:14, Luke 1:35? The being "unique" does not establish from God the "Father" the Word to be the Son.

 

[37818]

Hebrews 1:8

Thus the Second Person of the Trinity, existing forever and ever, is referred to as "the Son."

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Post incarnation Hebrews 13:8, Psalms 110:1, 1 Corinthians 15:28.

 

[HankD]

Many are also functional Arians in theology,as they would describe Jesus and God in a way, such as eternal subordination, that would imply Father greater God!

IMO the eternal subordination of the Son of God to the Father is still Trinitarianism because it holds to the basics although and again IMO it weakens the true nature of the Trinity.

God is three persons in one divine essence.

 

[37818]

The so called "high priestly"prayer of Jesus in Gospel of John seems to indicate had an ongoing eternal relationship as between Father and the Son!

The second Person always existed with God the "Father." John 1:2, John 17:24, ". . . Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. . . ." This truth does not disallow the notion that the eternal Word only became the Son through His incarnation by which He was sent into the world that He the Word is sole Creator, John 1:3.

 

[HankD]

So then the Word only became the Son in the incarnation, John 1:14, Luke 1:35? The being "unique" does not establish from God the "Father" the Word to be the Son.

No! I choose to believe the sonship is eternal because the begotten relationship of emanating from the bosom of the Father must of necessity be eternal.

 

[37818]

I think this is mostly because very few bother to educate young Christians. Half of preachers are too busy stomping out the heresy of "free-will" while the other half tend to give sermons based on a single verse like Spurgeon. Not too many want to spend the time going through the entire bible with someone.

Maybe so. But you have offered no Biblical text for the Son to be the Son prior to the incarnation.

 

[37818]

No! I choose to believe the sonship is eternal because the begotten relationship of emanating from the bosom of the Father must of necessity be eternal.

"Begotten" is assumed for being "unique" with the "Father." The assertion does not make so.

 

[HankD]

"Begotten" is assumed for being "unique" with the "Father." The assertion does not make so.

it does for me.

 

[Jerome]

Son of God Eternally Subordinate to the Father? | Banner of Truth UK

"a view known as the eternal subordination or submission of the Son....Those who espouse ESS...take a specific position in respect of the relationship of the Father and the Son in the Godhead – particularly in relation to the divine will. They assert that the subordination of will and obedience that we see in the Gospels is not simply a product of Jesus’ incarnation but a reflection of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son"

"In America, Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are advocates of this position. In England, it has recently received strong support in the last publication of the Rev. Dr Mike Ovey, the late principal of Oak Hill Theological College."

"ESS is untrue and unbiblical...it has dangerous implications for the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity and indeed the doctrine of salvation"

"suggesting that there is a difference of will between the Father and the Son and that the Son eternally submits his will to that of his Father...is going against the testimony of Scripture."

"If...Jesus’ personal will differs from that of his Father, then....There is then no single divine will. That means that, as we have already said, that either Jesus does not have the same nature as his Father...or that his nature is different and inferior....While this is not full blown Arianism it tends dangerously in that direction. Both positions are grievous errors. The eternal submission of the Son is not taught by Scripture. It undermines the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not faithful to the early creeds or the Protestant confessions. If we wish to preserve the gospel and sound doctrine we should reject it."

 

[Noah Hirsch]

The term "eternal" Son is an extra Biblical term like the term Trinity. But not all Trinitarians agree that the Son was always the Son. Such as Dr. Walter Martin author of the Kingdom of the cults held the concept as not Biblcial. While it is true the Son is arguably called the Son prior to His incarnation, Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, the view of some Chrstians is the preincarnate Word did not become the Son of God until His incarnation, Luke 1:35.

Now I Believe the Word was the eternal Son based on the truth that He as "the unique Son" who appeard as God in the OT according to John 1:18. But if that reading is false and is really "the unique" or "unique, God" then I loose that proof text.

What proof text do you have for the concept of the "eternal Son?"

But John 3:16 would still be using the phrase “the only unique Son of God.”

 

[Jerome]

This false teaching apparently arose as an attempt by some to bolster their 'Complementarian' gender notions:

Subordinationism Warning

"One wing of [the Calvinist Complementarian] movement has been arguing for a while that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father and importantly the way that the Son submits to the Father is mirrored in the way that wives submit to their husbands. So the hierarchy in the Trinity is said to provide grounds for a hierarchy in gender relationships....this trinitarian debate is not really about the Trinity but about gender"

"Yet...many Calvinistic Complementarians, especially one’s that know their...doctrine of the Trinity, have...balked at the idea of postulating the Son’s eternal subordination and questioned the wisdom of using the Trinity to bankroll a particular view of gender. In their mind, Calvinist Orthodoxy....affirms the eternal equality of the divine persons, which rules out any hierarchical subordination. They are still complementarian in regards to marriage and ministry but they reject perceived tinkering with the Trinity by the Subordinationist Calvinists."

"Dr Liam Goligher of 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, offers a scathing and penetrating critique...'I am an unashamed biblical complementarian....But this new teaching is....like the Pharisees of old...going beyond Scripture....They are building their case by reinventing the doctrine of God, and are doing so without telling the Christian public what they are up to. What we have is in fact a departure from biblical Christianity'"

 

[HankD]

hmm, so we have a needle here - uh, now many angels?

 

[37818]

But John 3:16 would still be using the phrase “the only unique Son of God.”

A couple things here. First, "only unique" is redundant. Second the fact that He is called the Son in John 3:16 does not eliminate Him from only becoming the Son at His incarnation. John 3:16 does not establish He was always the Son prior to His incarnation.

 

[37818]

hmm, so we have a needle here - uh, now many angels?

Two thirds. One third are fallen.