"Eternally begotten of the Father"...?

[DHK]

If the Word's being is grounded in that of the FATHER (ie is "from" the Father), then He can appropriately be called the "SON" even before His Incarnation. In other words, if the Father can legitimately be referred to as "Father" from eternity before the Incarnation, the Word of the Father can likewise legitimately be referred to as the "Son" from eternity.

Now if someone wants to deny that the Word eternally derives His being from the Father, I'd like to see how this can be "defended" without collapsing into modalism or tritheism.

God is first revealed to mankind as "Elohim," not as Jehovah. Jehovah is the personal name for God which denotes a relationship.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
--God: Elohim--One God; The Supreme God, and yet the word is used in its plural form, a possible reference to the trinity. God first revealed Himself to us as the Creator, the one and only Supreme God of the universe. Not until much later was he known as Jehovah.
He was therefore not known as the Father from eternity.
We must take these "titles" in the context in which they are written.

Perhaps it may be even more accurate then to say: God the Creator, God the Word, and God the Holy Spirit. God is God. There is only one God. He reveals Himself in many different ways (under different titles) at different times throughout human history. I think you are straining at gnats.

He is the Messiah, the King of Kings, the Lord of lords, the Great Shepherd, The Door, the Alpha and the Omega, the Resurrection and the Life, the Great I Am, the Prince of Peace, the Rose of Sharon, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star, the Rock of Ages, the Saviour, Jehovah, and on and on. He goes by many titles and many descriptions. The Book of Ruth describes him as the Great Redeemer/Kinsman.

 

[Matt Black]

'Son' is no mere 'title'; it is relational, positional and relates to being rather than mere function or doing. That's why to deny the eternal Sonship is to collapse the Trinity; if 'Son' is a mere function or role, then we're back to Modalism

 

[DHK]

'Son' is no mere 'title'; it is relational, positional and relates to being rather than mere function or doing. That's why to deny the eternal Sonship is to collapse the Trinity; if 'Son' is a mere function or role, then we're back to Modalism

John 1:1; 1:14: 1John 5:7 all point to the Word as being the second person of the Trinity, not the Son. It is the Word that is eternal, not the Son. To deny the eternal Sonship has nothing to do with the trinity. The trinity has always been: God the Father, the Word, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[TCGreek]

'Son' is no mere 'title'; it is relational, positional and relates to being rather than mere function or doing. That's why to deny the eternal Sonship is to collapse the Trinity; if 'Son' is a mere function or role, then we're back to Modalism

MB, you're making no ordinary charge here. Why not demonstrate scripturally why a denial of eternal Sonship is a denial of the Trinity for the heresy of modalism?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today and forever.

If He is the Son now, He has always been the Son.

John 3:16 states that "God gave His Son", not that "God gave an infant who became His Son".

Scripture declares "the Word became flesh", not "the Word became the Son"

 

[TCGreek]

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today and forever.

If He is the Son now, He has always been the Son.

John 3:16 states that God gave His Son, not that God gave an infant who became His Son.

Has he always been the Messiah?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Has he always been the Messiah?

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

John 3:17 clearly says God sent His Son into the world. Jesus was the Son before entering this world in the flesh.

 

[TCGreek]

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Was he called Jesus before His incarnation?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Was he called Jesus before His incarnation?

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[DHK]

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That verse is speaking of his attributes: holiness, love, justice, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc.
It is not speaking of his titles.
In Isaiah 9:6 he is called the "prince of peace."
But he will not rightfully assume that title until he sits on the throne of David in the Millennial Kingdom. Then and only then will the "Prince of Peace" reign over this world, and then there will be perfect peace in this world. Right now the prince of darkness rules.

 

[TCGreek]

Did Jesus ever become hungry and tired before His incarnation?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

That verse is speaking of his attributes: holiness, love, justice, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc.
It is not speaking of his titles.
In Isaiah 9:6 he is called the "prince of peace."
But he will not rightfully assume that title until he sits on the throne of David in the Millennial Kingdom. Then and only then will the "Prince of Peace" reign over this world, and then there will be perfect peace in this world. Right now the prince of darkness rules.

Just because the prince of darkness rules the world does not mean the prince of peace does not rule today in the hearts of His people.

Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee.

And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Peace is an attribute of the fruit of the Spirit. All christians should have that peace. Not as the world gives, but the peace that Christ has bestowed.

 

[TCGreek]

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Jesus Christ; the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Did Jesus get hungry before his incarnation?

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Did Jesus get hungry before his Incarnation? lol. What kind of question is that?But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:23

 

[TCGreek]

Did Jesus get hungry before his Incarnation? lol. What kind of question is that?But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:23

If Jesus is the same yesterday and forever, then he either never gets hungry or gets hungry like the bible says.

There's nothing fooling about my question.

 

[Linda64]

If Jesus is the same yesterday and forever, then he either never gets hungry or gets hungry like the bible says.

There's nothing fooling about my question.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

When Jesus Christ became flesh, He hungered and thirsted...however, this doesn't mean that His deity hungered and thirsted. It also says in Psalm 121:3-4:

Psalms 121:3 He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber

Psalms 121:4 Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

Did Jesus sleep when He walked this earth? Of course He did:

Mark 4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

God is immutable...He never changes.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Jesus was subject to normal human characteristics.

 

[TCGreek]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

When Jesus Christ became flesh, He hungered and thirsted...however, this doesn't mean that His deity hungered and thirsted. It also says in Psalm 121:3-4:

Psalms 121:3 He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber

Psalms 121:4 Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

Did Jesus sleep when He walked this earth? Of course He did:

Mark 4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

God is immutable...He never changes.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Jesus was subject to normal human characteristics.

So there's a proper way to understand Heb 13:7. :thumbs:

It's an ontological text with a functional aspect.

 

[Matt Black]

MB, you're making no ordinary charge here. Why not demonstrate scripturally why a denial of eternal Sonship is a denial of the Trinity for the heresy of modalism?

I am indeed making a serious charge here. I suppose for me (and for many other Christians both presently and historically) the issue has to do with divine ontology as defined by the intra-Trinitarian relationships. The Trinity is in part defined by the fact that the Father eternally begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from within the Trinity ( certainly from the Father and, depending whether you're an Eastern or Western Christian, possibly the Son as well, but definitely from the Father). Deny one or both of these basic truths, and you risk destroying that distinction within the Trinity and conflating the Three Persons into one, the logical conclusion of this being that Jesus Christ is merely a mode of expression (whence Modalism) of this one Person.

As to the Scriptures, I never thought I'd say this but SFIC and Linda have done a pretty good job there:applause: