37818
Well-Known Member
The incarnation, Luke 1:35.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Eternal Son.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Before that event, Prologue of john!
37818
Well-Known Member
The Biblical reference that teaches it, please. The whole point of this thread.
YES
Colossians 1:13-16
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, most of the world holds that Jesus was just a man, never the Son of God.
1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden. The idea communicated in this verse is not that the second Person of the trinity became the Son of God, but that the already existing Son of God was made manifest or appeared in order to fulfill God’s predetermined purpose. This idea is also seen in other verses such as John 11:27 and 1 John 5:20.
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
"Hebrews 13:8 teaches that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” This verse again seems to support the doctrine of eternal Sonship. The fact that Jesus’ divine nature is unchanging would seem to indicate that He was always the Son of God because that is an essential part of His Person. At the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, but His divine nature did not change, nor did His relationship with the Father. This same truth is also implied in John 20:31, where we see John’s purpose in writing his gospel was so that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” It does not say that He became the Son of God but that He is the Son of God. The fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God is an essential aspect of Who He is and His work in redemption."
ibid #227
ibid #227
Last edited:
"Finally, one of the strongest evidences for the eternal Sonship of Christ is the triune nature of God and the eternal relationship that exists among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Particularly important is the unique Father/Son relationship that can only be understood from the aspect of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This relationship is key to understanding the full measure of God’s love for those whom He redeems through the blood of Christ. The fact that God the Father took His Son, the very Son He loved from before the foundation of the world, and sent Him to be a sacrifice for our sins is an amazing act of grace and love that is best understood from the doctrine of eternal Sonship.
One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. At His incarnation the Son “came from the Father” in the same sense as upon His resurrection He returned “to the Father.” Implied in this verse is the fact that if Jesus was the Son after the resurrection, then He was also the Son prior to His incarnation. Other verses that support the eternal Sonship of Christ would include John 17:5 and John 17:24, which speak of the Father’s love for the Son from “before the foundation of the world.”
ibid #227
One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. At His incarnation the Son “came from the Father” in the same sense as upon His resurrection He returned “to the Father.” Implied in this verse is the fact that if Jesus was the Son after the resurrection, then He was also the Son prior to His incarnation. Other verses that support the eternal Sonship of Christ would include John 17:5 and John 17:24, which speak of the Father’s love for the Son from “before the foundation of the world.”
ibid #227
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
According to what you have explained thus far, the Athanasian view either holds that the Logos never had a human nature or always had a human nature or temporarily had a human nature. Which is it?
I think Yeshua is not including the world is his inquiry,
He wrote volumes and to be forthright I'm not 100% sure about that one. I believe it was at primal creation that Jesus took upon Himself a human nature.
Although I do remember reading that it did not matter when because there was an eternal relation ship between the Father and the Son that did not require Christs humanity.
For sure God knew in His foreknowledge of Christ humanity.
Look - in 2016 i had a stroke, 2 heart failures and a coronary thrombosis - so give me a break trying to remember stuff!
Am I making excuses? You bet I am!
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but it’s good to be reminded that we are all in the minority here. It doesn’t matter what the majority view is, but rather what the truth is.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
He wrote volumes and to be forthright I'm not 100% sure about that one. I believe it was at primal creation that Jesus took upon Himself a human nature.
Although I do remember reading that it did not matter when because there was an eternal relation ship between the Father and the Son that did not require Christs humanity.
For sure God knew in His foreknowledge of Christ humanity.
Look - in 2016 i had a stroke, 2 heart failures and a coronary thrombosis - so give me a break trying to remember stuff!
Am I making excuses? You bet I am!
Well, this isn’t meant to attack your health, so don’t wear yourself out. But the impression was that the Athanasian view was also your own.The answer matters very much in regard to the argument. Unless God has a human nature the way he has a divine nature, in other words always and inherently, then something changed. Saying “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever,” does not mean the Logos did not take to himself a human nature and cannot be used to establish an inherent eternal sonship. In fact, the “yesterday” could be intended to refer to the Incarnation.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I like the explanation from the #227 reference. However, the writer seems to emphasize the deity of Jesus to the detriment of his humanity, which seems to be a common problem in the modern church, perhaps in large part due to the Athanasian influence.
i see your point though i disagree.
The answer matters very much in regard to the argument. Unless God has a human nature the way he has a divine nature, in other words always and inherently, then something changed. Saying “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever,” does not mean the Logos did not take to himself a human nature and cannot be used to establish an inherent eternal sonship. In fact, the “yesterday” could be intended to refer to the Incarnation.
he wasn't perfect but he was marvelous for his time standing against the colossal Arian influence
37818
Well-Known Member
There is no "begotting" of the Son of God unless you are referring to the incaration in John 1:14.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is an interpretation of those texts. None of those references prove the pre-incarate Sonship of Christ. Yes, the Person who is now the man the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole creator of all created things, Ephesians 3:9.
For the record the words, ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." in Colossians 1:15 refers to the bodily resurrection of the incarnate Christ who by way of His incaration is part of His creation.
and therefore all may understand one of the controversies which overtook Christendom to this very day.
hopefully that is what is achieved here at the BB - understanding - of our differing views and not condemnation, calumniation and insults.