Why does Jesus call the Father 'HIS God'?

Can you explain in simple terms what "eternal Sonship" is?

 

Vlad_IL, you are completely wrong to assume that by showing Jesus referring to the Father after His Incarnation, as "My God", that this proves the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. I don't know how you come to this conclusion, but it does not hold good.

You see, you forgot to mention one very important text, from Hebrews 1:8, where the Father refers to Jesus as "God". Where He says; "Thy throne, O God is forever". What do you make of this? In verse nine, according to correct Greek interpretation, it should read: "therefore, O God, Thy God"

All of this is used after the Incarnation of Jesus, and does not by any means show the eternal relations within the Trinity.

 

Vlad,

I think that represents what I believe,

In John 3:16 It mentions Jesus as being Begotten. As I understand it this means comes forth from the Father rather than Created by the Father.

 

By "after" Jesus' Incarnation means just that. That before this time, and even during the Incarnation, Jesus was on the one hand "subordinate" to the Father, which will continue to be the case, based on 1 Corinthians 15:29, till the New Age is brought in. My point is that you cannot make much of Jesus calling the Father "My God", since these words, like the references you quote from Revelation, refer to Jesus AFTER His becoming the God-Man.

There is NO eternal "generation" of "begetting" in the Godhead, as supposed by the heretic Origen and others. Nor does the Greek "monogenes" mean "only begotten" as rendered in the KJV. The Greek is from "mono", that is, "only", "single", and "genos", "kind", more correctly, "of a single kind", or, "unique". The KJV's "only-begotten" is from the Latin of Jerome, who was influenced by the then Orthodox debate with the Arians, and wrongly rendered the Greek "monogenes" by the Latin "unigenitus", rather than what the Old Latin correctly has, "unicus". The correct Greek word for "only begotten", is "monogennetos"

You cannot have a "subordiantion" within the Trinity, which any notion of "begetting" of either the Son from the Father, or Holy Spirit from either/both Father are Son, would mean. The Three Persons in the Godhead are coequal, coessential and coeternal, which removes aby doubt that the Three are equally Almighty God in every respect. Liberal theology would have us believe in a Godhead of subordinate Persons, but the Bible is very clearly against this.

The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE God, but that there are also Three "Persons" Who are equally referred to as "God". This then brings us to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, from "Tri" (three Persons), and "(u)nity", as touching their essence, or nature. 1 John 5:7, as found in the KJV and NKJV, is a very clear teaching on this fundamential doctrine, where the language shows that there are Three distinct "Persons" ("these three", masculine plural), are "one", neuter singular, literally, "one thing". Like what Jesus says in John 10:30; "I and the Father (Two Persons), one (neuter singular) we are (masculine plural)". This can ONLY be taken to mean, that the Father and Son, though distinct Persons, are yet united by their "nature", since both are God. The interpretation that Jesus is only speaking of "unity of will, or purpose", is destroyed from what preceds, where Jesus shows in verses 28-29 His absolute power equally with the Father, which must show unity of "essence". Also, from the understanding of Jesus' words by the Jews, where they clearly understood Him to claim Deity from Himself (see ver.33).

 

No where in the New Testament are we told that the Son "proceds from the Father", in the sense where the preposition would be used to denote, "out of". Jesus Himnself speaks of "coming from (para) the Father" (John 16:28), where the reading has been corrupted by some to have the preposition "ek" instead of "para". The former denotes a "deriving", whereas that latter, a "proceding from besides". The early Church used the "Creeds" of Lucian and Eusebius as their basis for the Nicene Creed. Both these men were "Arians" with their Christology. Even the Orthodox Cyril and Athanisus subsituted the preposition "ek" for "para" at John 15:26, when used for the Holy Spirit, which has no textual support.The Nicene Creed's language, like "God form God, Light from Light", etc, makes use of the preposition "ek", which in itself is not a problem, since this is what John 8:42 says. However, its the interpretation of these words that are nothing short of heretical. The phrase itself was taken from the Creed of Caesarea, which was adopted from another earlier Creed by the heretic Lucian. Even the Orthodox were in error to adopt the theology of the heretic Origen, and conclude from the words "God out of God", that "The preposition (ek) denotes origin and derivation from the Father as Fons Deitatis. The absolute possesion of life from another is the essential character of Sonship" (Dr T Herbert Bindley; The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, p.30).

This language goes beyond that of Scripture, where the Father is shown as the only Person in the Godhead as having unoriginated Being, whereas both the Son and Holy Spirit have their origin in the Father. This is a heretical teaching of the Holy Trinity, and rightly needs to be condemned as such. I am not too interested whether many of the Protestants accept the doctrine of the "Eternal Generation" of the Son from the Father, and I will never do so, since there is not a shred of Biblical evidence for this doctrine which clearly makes Jesus in to a demi-god. To my mind, that is no advantage in any way to any of the Three Persons in the Trinity. They are equally Almighty God. Even though there is language in Scripture that "suggests" there is a subordination, which is clearly for the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Since both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Almighty God, they, like the Father can never at any time be said to be "less" than Almighty God. In which case there is no Biblical data for the Father being the "source" of either the Son or Holy Spirit.

 

I was not aware that eternal Sonship was a liberal doctrine.

Also, I don't think anyone who is supporting subordination within the Godhead is supporting the 3 Persons of the Trinity not being co-equal, co-essential, or co-eternal.

Why can it not be that eternal Sonship shows a relationship within the Trinity? Since the 3 Persons are distinct from each other within the Godhead, then it makes sense that the Sonship of Jesus is a distinction and mark of a relationship within the Trinity.

 

I was not aware that eternal Sonship was a liberal doctrine.

Also, I don't think anyone who is supporting subordination within the Godhead is supporting the 3 Persons of the Trinity not being co-equal, co-essential, or co-eternal.

Why can it not be that eternal Sonship shows a relationship within the Trinity? Since the 3 Persons are distinct from each other within the Godhead, then it makes sense that the Sonship of Jesus is a distinction and mark of a relationship within the Trinity. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Marcia, can you explain to me, how it is possible for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be "co-equal", and yet both the Son and Holy Spirit are "subordinate" to the Father? Where in Scripture do we read of any "subordination" of the Persons in the Godhead? This has led many to arrive at heretical conclusions, where they make the Father alone as "unoriginated", while both the Son and Holy Spirit have their "origin" from the Father. If, as Scripture teaches, that Three are Almighty God, then there can be no "subordination" , not even functional, within the Godhead. Just because the Son is "sent" by the Father, does not make the Father any "better" than the Son, or more important. Jesus' coming to this world was an act of His own free will, which was in agreement with the Father and Holy Spirit.

In my understanding, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is not Biblical orthoxody, in which case it is liberal. This doctrine come with the Eternal Generation of the Son out of the "essence" of the Father, whereby the Father "generates" the being of the Son. It is the heresy of Origen and has no place in Evangelical theology, sine it is not Biblical.

 

I don't really care what you label me. These is NO, thats right, NOT EVEN ONE VERSE in the entire Bible that teaches any form of "subordination" of the Son and/or Holy Spirit to the Father. This is blatant heresy, and must be so condemned.

In case you do not understand what the Bible teaches about God, let me refresh you. There is only ONE God, Who is Tri-Personal, NOT Three God's, but Three distinct, yet equal Persons Who are at the same time 100% Almighty God. If they are Almighty God, this alone proves that neither One can be in any way "subordinate" to the other. You are teaching heresy when you suppose that the Son or Holy Spirit are "subordinate" to the Father. Why not the other way around? Would you ever say that the Father is "subject" in His Deity to the Son or Holy Spirit? Of course not. Then, on what authority do you say that the Second and Third Persons are "subject" to the First Person? I do NOT believe in Three Gods as you suppose I do, nor do I accept the doctrine of demons that teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit is anything less than the Father, which your position no doubt does make them.

 

Vlad, instead of finding Scriptures to back up your theological bias, you should do a deep study on what the Bible actually says on the Holy Trinity.

Your reference to the passage from Proverbs to show that it refers to Christ, is complete nonsense. There is no reason to apply the words to Jesus, even though the early Church fathers did so in error. It is very clear that it is a personification of "wisdom", as it is also elsewhere in the Proverbs. This passage is what the Jehovah's Witnesses love to us for their heresy, because they also do not know what it teaches.

Your reference from John 16:13 does not mean that the Holy Spirit is in any way inferior to Jesus. What Jesus is here saying, that, when the Holy Spirit comes, He will agree with everything that Jesus Himself is saying, and teach nothing different. This is why Jesus rebukes Philip in John chapter 14, when he asks Jesus "to show us the Father", as if to say that this is more convincing for Him. Jesus replies, that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him, and He that has seen Him has seen the Father. Not because they are the same Person, but their authority is one and the same (see also John 10:28-30)

The Nicene Creed in my view is closer to heresy than to what the Bible teaches. It is no wonder that the likes of Eusebius was happy to accept it, even though his Christology was more Arian.

 

Vlad, your statement, "In my theology, I don't have three Gods, I don't have three separate Persons, I have ONE God, the Father, who is Invisible, and the Son, who is VISIBLY what/Who the Father is invisibly (because He is the IMAGE) and I have ONE Spirit, who is the Person that shows the Son and the Father (by showing the Son)", is blatant heresy. This is what the Church condemned, which is known as "Modalism", which denies the permanence of the Three Persons, and maintained that the distinction in the Godhead were only transitory. This heresy was taught by Praxeas, Neotus, and Sabellius. By denying that the Three Persons are "separate" or "distinct", you will also fall into the heresy called "Patripassianism", which means that the Father suffered as the Son. This was also taught by the heretic Sabellius. I see where you theology is coming from, and can now better understand your arguments. Are you a "Oneness" person? The heresy that is the modern version of what I have just described.

From one Sccipture I can demolish your argument that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not "separate". Look at John 10:30 in the Greek: "ego kai ho Pater hen esmen", literally, "I and the Father, one thing (neuter singular) We are (masculine plural, impossible if both the Father and Son are the "same Person)". 1 John 5:7 has the same language, but also includes the Holy Spirit.

 

Wow. I never knew this was an issue! You mean there are folks other than Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that believe that Jesus was not always the Son?

How about 1 Cor. 11:3.

Of course there is rank in the Godhead.

Excellent point!

Don't be callin' St. Paul and heretic!

 

Aaron, what do you mean in my calling St Paul a heretic? Unless you too do not understand the Biblical teaching of the Holy Trinity, you can only conclude that an "order" within the Godhead, or "subordination", is against what the Bible teaches.

By saying what Vald said: "A wife is not sub-human just because the husband is her head, or... is she?", an excellent point, further shows your lack of understanding of what Scripture says, and just agree for the sake of it. The wife might not be "sub-human", but she, and all women are "subordinate", that is "not equal" to the husband/man. This is NOT possible with the Persons in the Godhead, as I have already shown, since they are completely "co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal", and this means that they are each Almighty God. It is interesting to note the language used by Paul in Philippians 2:6, where he speaks of Jesus "being on an equality with God the Father", where the Greek for "equal" is "isos" (isa), where it is used adverbally, to denote, as Homer uses it: "on equal terms, without advantage to either side". This very clearly shows, that the Persons in the Godhead are eternally "coequal", neither is "better", or "greater" than the other. Unless you can fully grasp this, you will never understand God.

Did you see my last post, where I question the Orthodoxy of Vald's doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where he rejects that the Three Persons are "separate"? If this is not heresy, then what would you call it, Orthodox?