• 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.

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
I agree with you that those such as a Dr Grudem would be Christians, its just this eternal subordination viewpoint is not really what scriptures teach concerning the trinity!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When Jesus said what He prayed to His Father, He was then the incarnate Son. He aways existed with God. How He existed with God changed with His incarnation. The only reference that can be used to establish that His Sonship existed prior to His incarnation is the understannding that John 1:18 teaches that He as "the unique Son" is how God appeares to men.
he was always God, as Jesus was eternal in his deity, but His sinless humanity cam about via Virgin Birth in Mary 2000 years ago!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Certainly, WHEN the demons cried out, He was in human form as the Son.

However, remember when Michael was contending for the body of Moses? Whom did He call to rebuke? Was it not the total authority of the very creator - the Lord?

When Jehovah appeared with two other visitor before Abraham (Genesis 18-19) He is not referred to as a Son but the very God - yet in appearance of a human.

It isn't that I disagree with the eternity aspects, rather, I take the Scriptures do present that there was a specific place in the human aspect of understanding time, that the very Jehovah, the LORD, out of Love for the creation, set aside the eternal glory, "being found as a human" performed all that the prophets spoke concerning the first advent, and then was again exalted by the Father. Therefore, the eternal sonship, is a question in which the eternal son began at the time of human conception, but the eternal Christ was as recorded of Melchizedek (imo, another illustration to the Christ) - without birth, death, and worthy of all praise.



I have already responded to part of this.

I will add another aspect already somewhat discussed (if I recall) in the thread.

John opens with the Logos. The spoken word of God. That all creation was through the spoken word, and that word became flesh.

Remember the angel coming to Mary, and explaining the power of the most high overshadowing her?

See, it isn't that Christ had a beginning for God cannot die. Rather the son had a beginning as a human. The very Creator took upon himself human flesh. In that submission, He took upon the roll of Son to the Father.

In the Revelation, it displays the Christ in the glorified form, and equal with God.
4they will see His face, and His name [will be] on their foreheads. 5And there will no longer be [any] night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.​

Did not Christ state, "I am the light...." ?
prophet Micah said that Messiah origins fro everlasting" Father of eternity"
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
in spite of the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence i do not reject the johannine Comma as spurious.
I am not KJVO although I was in my youth.
I believe it was preserved in the early Latin Vulgate text and writings of the Latin fathers and several of the Textus Recepti.
The good news would be that regardless on how one views this as being scripture or not, the Deity of Jesus is well established!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Prophecy of the yet future incarnation to become the Son does not prove the eternal Word was the Son prior to His incarnation. @Van, "I see we have two pages and no resolution."

Either the notion of the "eternal" Son is false or the minority texts in John 1:18 saying "unique, God" at the Father's side is a false word of God.
Either Jesus as the Son or God would be acceptable as a translation!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


Bar Elohin...(Aramaic)
Ben Elohim ...(Hebrew)
Psalm 8 also tied Jesus, as did Daniel, into being the Son of Man, His claim to being Deity while on Earth!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
just a reminder.

of course the Trinity is only fully revealed in the New Testament and even there it must be concluded after a historical and comparative scripture search which was not codified until the Council of Nicaea.
yet even in Genesis there were hints as to God being trinity!
 

37818

Well-Known Member
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I made the case, you ignored it. I did not rely on John 1:18,

Apparently (I bolded it in red) you deny that the "Angel of the Lord" was the second person of the trinity, but something from the "side of the Father." :)
You are making a false accusation. I have not denied any Biblical truth here. At issue is to show the the second Person of the trinity was the Son of God prior to His incarnation. This has not been done.

Again, my oposition is John 1:18 with the reading "the unique Son" shows all the OT appearances was as the Son.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
We have the Holy Spirit in the beginning, we have the Lord here with Abraham on earth, while the Lord was also in heaven!
There were not two of the LORD, only always the one. See John 3:13 regarding the incarnate Son as the Son of man. Both places.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There were not two of the LORD, only always the one. See John 3:13 regarding the incarnate Son as the Son of man. Both places.
God the Son was on earth talking to Abraham, while the Father was still in Heaven!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are making a false accusation. I have not denied any Biblical truth here. At issue is to show the the second Person of the trinity was the Son of God prior to His incarnation. This has not been done.

Again, my oposition is John 1:18 with the reading "the unique Son" shows all the OT appearances was as the Son.

I did not charge you with making a "straw man argument." You did.
I have shown the biblical truth that the Second Person of the Trinity was referred to in Psalm 45:6-7 as the Son. You have denied this obvious biblical truth.

Did you say that the "Angel of the Lord" was not the Second Person of the Trinity? No you did not answer the question.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I did not charge you with making a "straw man argument." You did.
I have shown the biblical truth that the Second Person of the Trinity was referred to in Psalm 45:6-7 as the Son. You have denied this obvious biblical truth.

Did you say that the "Angel of the Lord" was not the Second Person of the Trinity? No you did not answer the question.
The Angel of the lord was the preincarnate Christ!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Angel of the lord was the preincarnate Christ!
Folks, Y1 has actually presented a biblical truth. Except he did not capitalize "lord."

The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of [fn]a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Folks, Y1 has actually presented a biblical truth. Except he did not capitalize "lord."

The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of [fn]a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
He also announced Himself to Samson parents, Gideon, and to Joshua also!
 

37818

Well-Known Member
I did not charge you with making a "straw man argument." You did.
I have shown the biblical truth that the Second Person of the Trinity was referred to in Psalm 45:6-7 as the Son. You have denied this obvious biblical truth.

Did you say that the "Angel of the Lord" was not the Second Person of the Trinity? No you did not answer the question.
So you think. You did not show Pslams 45:6-7 did not refer to be a prophecy regarding the post incarnastion of the Son on His throne.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So you think. You did not show Pslams 45:6-7 did not refer to be a prophecy regarding the post incarnation of the Son on His throne.
I answered that assertion in post #49. Rather than asking me to prove your addition to scripture is not true, why not ask yourself to prove your addition is true.
 
Top