Open Debate on the "Eternal Sonship vs Incarnate Sonship which is biblical?"

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua,
if you missed it. express image, means Exact.... meaning it's the same one PERSON...... (smile).

101G.

There is no context of a singular Person here. You're adding that context to the "image". The "image" is Character. Christ the express Image of the Character of God shared among the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

It was manifest in flesh but it is more than flesh. That is why we Trinitarians demand that the Person of Jesus Christ is Divine. The strength of God is greater than man.

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

 

[101G]

You really don't think I know this verse? or that I've never considered it in the context of the Trinity?

Why do you think I used the English word "Character"? Some translations use the word "nature".

I reject this characterization of what "Character" is......

So tell me about this "idol" you've "sharpened to a point".....

the truth hurts ... don't it. ... you been serving a a three headed god and did not even know it. the devil have deceived many, good day... 101G hope.

101G.

 

[civic]

It appears the debate is over....

The Eternal Sonships have won.

By a landslide buried them 10 feet under the mud

 

[praise_yeshua]

the truth hurts ... don't it. ... you been serving a a three headed god and did not even know it. the devil have deceived many, good day... 101G hope.

101G.

I know we got "at it" from time to time but I hope you realize that your theology is lacking the necessary structure to be successful.

My God doesn't have "three heads".

 

[praise_yeshua]

By a landslide buried them 10 feet under the mud

I would love to get into all the aspects of Character shared among the Person's of the Holy Trinity.

Like "Love", Mercy, Loving Kindness, Forgiveness, Empathy.... and on and on.

 

[Red Baker]

@FreeInChrist

Without eternal Sonship, we cannot affirm that the Father has always been the Father. And if the Father has not always been in communion with the Son

Your error is seen very quickly by you using terms that you have never establish a right to use them, doing so only by what others say and they say though corrupt creeds of men void of the Spirit of God. By doing so, you folks expect God's children to accept your use of them, which we refuse to do so. If you want to convinced us, then use the word of God to do so. We will forever stand upon God's testimony recorded for us in Luke 1:35 concerning the time and manner God's Son was conceived and born.

God is more a NT teaching concerning His Son, and rightly so, since he was born a little over two thousand years ago.

And if the Father has not always been in communion with the Son, then love cannot be eternal, for the Father would have had to create another being in order to give and receive love. Likewise, it is only with eternal Sonship that the economic Trinity (that which we see about God in the unfolding of redemptive history) corresponds to any real ultimate truth about God. The God who is must be the God who always was.

Love is eternal because God IS love, it is His very nature to love, even in His destruction of the wicked his love is on display, for his hatred against sin and His love for righteousness.

Question for you: so, are you saying that before God can love, he must have a Son that is eternal as he is?

Another question for you: How do you explain son and eternal as not being a contradiction of terms? The Eternal Sonship is a dogma that is discredited logically by self contradiction. To contend that Jesus was eternally begotten is a manifest contradiction of term. We ask: can an object begin and not begun? No. The saying within itself is most absurd. How can a Son be as eternal as his father? That's impossible. Again, you cannot begin and having NOT begun! That position destroys Jesus' Deity of being Self-existence, Infinity, Independence!

_Although, I admit that the more I learn about your Trinity beliefs, or lack thereof, I suppose this reply, will not
be understood by you. IDC... I know what I know and my know knows it too.
_____________________________________________

It is not mine, but backed up by God's testimony. I can explain my uses of all of my teachings they are not discombobulated as so many terms used by those who teach the eternal Sonship position. Example:

Please consider carefully: Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in reference to time ~ Son supposes time, generation, and father; time is also antedent to such generation~therefore, the conjunction of the two terms: Son and eternity~is absolutely impossible as they imply different and opposite ideal. Words must have meaning, or else, how can we communicate with each other on a level where we can understand each other? I understand eternity and I also understand the word son, and so do my readers, and we should know how to use each word properly, without confusing the meaning of either.

So, do you understand eternity? Son? Father? If yes, then why use them in relation of Jesus being the eternal Son of God, that's impossible, yes or no? Please answer.

That was the bone of contention with Arianism, the fourth century heresy which rejected the full deity of the Son of God. The issue was not whether the Son was divine in some sense, but whether he shared the same essence (homoousia) as the Father. In particular, Arius held that sonship necessarily implied having a beginning. While Arius affirmed that Christ was preexistent and that all things were created through him, he also believed that the Father created the Son. According to Arius, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten has a beginning of existence; hence it is clear that there was when he was not.” Arius was careful not to use the word “time,” because he believed the Son existed before the ages began, but for Arius eternality and sonship could not go together. The Son was a divine being, but a created being with a derivative deity

How should we respond to this claim? It’s not enough to point to passages where Christ is worshiped or where the deity of the Son is broadly affirmed. Arius did not reject these conclusions and neither do modern day Arians. Where do we turn to defend the belief that there never was when the Son of God was not?

1. Arius insisted that Origen’s doctrine of eternal generation required a finite and created Son of God.
   1. More consistent than Origen, he denied any existence possible between Creator and creature.
   2. The son must be a creature, not divine in any sense, though the highest and first of all creatures.
   3. Arianism. The doctrine that Jesus Christ is not of the same essence or substance of God.
   4. Arians would teach that Christ was God and not a creature by subtle use of semantics.
2. Arianism attracted many followers. The controversy divided the state church of the Roman Empire.
   1. Constantine called the Council of Nicea in AD 325 to settle this and other religious issues.
   2. The Nicene Creed was the first extra-scriptural, formal statement of eternal sonship from Origen.
   3. Any church or bishop represented at such a state council had long before departed from the faith.
   4. The small, persecuted bands of saints that make up the true body of Christ were far from Nicea.

The doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship is one of the steps to gross heresy regarding Jesus Christ. Origen, who invented the terms, knew full well that they required an inferior begotten God.

Arius, more consistent than Origen, applied the language to make the begotten God a creature. Athanasius, a state church heretic reverencing Origen, chose to use the same language anyway.

The doctrine assumes by definition and teaches a begotten God, the second person in the Trinity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are consistent in teaching this: the Word is a begotten God. The NASV translation teaches this same damnable heresy in its perversion of John 1:18. To even say the words is blasphemy, for Jehovah is not begotten in any way at all.

The next consistent step after eternal sonship is to deny the full deity of Jesus Christ, for the inventor of the words and concept of “eternal generation” understood this theological necessity. Too bad many in our day do not understand the ramifications of this.

A) In John 8:58 Jesus says to his opponents, “before Abraham was, I am.” Not only does Jesus link himself to Yahweh’s great “I AM” statement of Exodus 3:14, he also makes allusion to the “I am” declarations in Isaiah 40-55 (e.g., “I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he” [Isa. 41:4]). Jesus considered himself as eternal as the God of the Old Testament was eternal. Little wonder some unbelieving Jews thought him a blasphemer and tried to kill him (John 8:59).

B) Likewise, Philippians 2:5-11 places Christ Jesus right in the middle of the most exalted language of Isaiah 45-46. The prediction that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (v. 10-11), comes from Isaiah 45:23. Jesus is identified with the God who says “I am” and “there is no other” (Isa. 45:22), with the God who declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:9-10).

C) Hebrews 7:3 describes Melchizedek–the mysterious king of Salem from Genesis 14–as “having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Whatever this means about Melchizedek himself (a pre-incarnate Christ or simply a type of Christ), for the analogy to hold (“resembling the Son of God”) Christ must also have neither beginning of days nor end of life.

D) Most convincingly, in Revelation 22:13 Jesus announces, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Earlier in the book, God says the same thing, making specific reference to his eternality as the one who is and who was and who is to come (Rev. 1:8; 21:6). In whatever sense the Father is the beginning and the end, so is the Son. One cannot be more or less eternal than the other.

Later I'll finish

 

[FreeInChrist]

@FreeInChrist

Your error is seen very quickly by you using terms that you have never establish a right to use them, doing so only by what others say and they say though corrupt creeds of men void of the Spirit of God. By doing so, you folks expect God's children to accept your use of them, which we refuse to do so. If you want to convinced us, then use the word of God to do so. We will forever stand upon God's testimony recorded for us in Luke 1:35 concerning the time and manner God's Son was conceived and born.

God is more a NT teaching concerning His Son, and rightly so, since he was born a little over two thousand years ago.

Love is eternal because God IS love, it is His very nature to love, even in His destruction of the wicked his love is on display, for his hatred against sin and His love for righteousness.

Question for you: so, are you saying that before God can love, he must have a Son that is eternal as he is?

Another question for you: How do you explain son and eternal as not being a contradiction of terms? The Eternal Sonship is a dogma that is discredited logically by self contradiction. To contend that Jesus was eternally begotten is a manifest contradiction of term. We ask: can an object begin and not begun? No. The saying within itself is most absurd. How can a Son be as eternal as his father? That's impossible. Again, you cannot begin and having NOT begun! That position destroys Jesus' Deity of being Self-existence, Infinity, Independence!

It is not mine, but backed up by God's testimony. I can explain my uses of all of my teachings they are not discombobulated as so many terms used by those who teach the eternal Sonship position. Example:

Please consider carefully: Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in reference to time ~ Son supposes time, generation, and father; time is also antedent to such generation~therefore, the conjunction of the two terms: Son and eternity~is absolutely impossible as they imply different and opposite ideal. Words must have meaning, or else, how can we communicate with each other on a level where we can understand each other? I understand eternity and I also understand the word son, and so do my readers, and we should know how to use each word properly, without confusing the meaning of either.

So, do you understand eternity? Son? Father? If yes, then why use them in relation of Jesus being the eternal Son of God, that's impossible, yes or no? Please answer.

1. Arius insisted that Origen’s doctrine of eternal generation required a finite and created Son of God.
   1. More consistent than Origen, he denied any existence possible between Creator and creature.
   2. The son must be a creature, not divine in any sense, though the highest and first of all creatures.
   3. Arianism. The doctrine that Jesus Christ is not of the same essence or substance of God.
   4. Arians would teach that Christ was God and not a creature by subtle use of semantics.
2. Arianism attracted many followers. The controversy divided the state church of the Roman Empire.
   1. Constantine called the Council of Nicea in AD 325 to settle this and other religious issues.
   2. The Nicene Creed was the first extra-scriptural, formal statement of eternal sonship from Origen.
   3. Any church or bishop represented at such a state council had long before departed from the faith.
   4. The small, persecuted bands of saints that make up the true body of Christ were far from Nicea.

The doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship is one of the steps to gross heresy regarding Jesus Christ. Origen, who invented the terms, knew full well that they required an inferior begotten God.

Arius, more consistent than Origen, applied the language to make the begotten God a creature. Athanasius, a state church heretic reverencing Origen, chose to use the same language anyway.

The doctrine assumes by definition and teaches a begotten God, the second person in the Trinity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are consistent in teaching this: the Word is a begotten God. The NASV translation teaches this same damnable heresy in its perversion of John 1:18. To even say the words is blasphemy, for Jehovah is not begotten in any way at all.

The next consistent step after eternal sonship is to deny the full deity of Jesus Christ, for the inventor of the words and concept of “eternal generation” understood this theological necessity. Too bad many in our day do not understand the ramifications of this.

Later I'll finish

Red,

I am saying what I said.

It is perfectly clear.

You say....
"Your error is seen very quickly by you using terms that you have never establish a right to use them, doing so only by what others say and they say though corrupt creeds of men void of the Spirit of God. By doing so, you folks expect God's children to accept your use of them, which we refuse to do so. If you want to convinced us, then use the word of God to do so. We will forever stand upon God's testimony recorded for us in Luke 1:35 concerning the time and manner God's Son was conceived and born."
Don't bother coming back to me... you are the King when it comes to quoting what others say

And it is only your opinion that

" and they say though corrupt creeds of men void of the Spirit of God." Because

There is certainly enough scriptural references, with explanation here, and elsewhere that I have posted.

But for sure, when you say "By doing so, you folks expect God's children to accept your use of them, which we refuse to do so." you have every right to be wrong.

You were the one who goaded and chided over and over to answer what you were asking.... I being in that group being tagged. I have done as asked and I stand by the scriptures from every point in this thread and previously that proves the Son is Eternal.

So accept it and move on

 

[Red Baker]

@FreeInChrist

that proves the Son is Eternal.

Well, no one has even come close to showing the Jesus Christ as the Son of God is eternal, he is so in his Deity as God, who is blessed ever more, but his Sonship had a beginning and we have the record from heaven when that started.

You are acting like the Democrat's ~ their motto is: "If you say something long enough even though it is a lie, gullible man will begin to believe that lie", so they use the art of deceiving their followers with lies. I do not think you do so on purpose, yet the devil can use folks to deceive men, by doing this very thing.

You get upset/offended too easy. And I was not even hard on you. Do not post to me and not expect a post back. You and I fight like brothers and sister's - next week everything be must better and then we can make up. Still love you...RB

 

[Jim]

That argument doesn't work because the one flesh is derived from the two. There is no sense of the Person of Jesus Christ being derived from something else.

The One Spirit, God, is derived from the three, the Father, the Son (the Word if you prefer) and the Holy Spirit. The argument works in the same exact way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The One Spirit, God, is derived from the three, the Father, the Son (the Word if you prefer) and the Holy Spirit. The argument works in the same exact way.

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ proves otherwise. The tangible Person of Jesus Christ is what exactly to you? Material? Immaterial? Metaphysical?

This is good.

 

[praise_yeshua]

@FreeInChrist

Well, no one has even come close to showing the Jesus Christ as the Son of God is eternal, he is so in his Deity as God, who is blessed ever more, but his Sonship had a beginning and we have the record from heaven when that started.

The way you're "mixing" the Character of the Son is extremely troubling. You seem to think you can just say the "Son" isn't Eternal and that doesn't matter at all. I'm concerned you don't see the problem with doing this? Is the Word Eternal?

If the Son isn't Eternal, then God's Character is suspect. You're creating a division in 100 Percent God and 100 percent man claims you were making earlier. They become nonsensical relative to substance. The substance of the Son is Eternal.

So how do you value Character? You've been avoiding me. Not that I demand you answer me. Make your choices. You really haven't thought this through.

 

[Jim]

Listen carefully. do not a single person have a "SOUL", even married persons have separate souls, who is one flesh in a marriage. is this not so? so their flesh is not the person. well God have a SOUL. and he is only ONE PERSON.

101G.

No God does not have a SOUL. God is Spirit. That Spirit is comprised of the three divine beings, the Father, the Son (Word if you prefer) and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jim]

Sure He was. Just not in human flesh. Case closed.

Not really. Jesus was a man. That man did not exist until He was born of the woman Mary. What existed prior to that was the Christ, the Messiah, the Savoir, but not the man Jesus. If you wish to think of Him as the Son, you are free to do that, but that is not the man Jesus. Jesus was the name of the human being born to Mary.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Not really. Jesus was a man. That man did not exist until He was born of the woman Mary. What existed prior to that was the Christ, the Messiah, the Savoir, but not the man Jesus. If you wish to think of Him as the Son, you are free to do that, but that is not the man Jesus. Jesus was the name of the human being born to Mary.

I know what you're saying. It is a common belief. You actually believe that the Incarnation changed the character of the relationship between Father and Son. It didn't.

The Son and Father relationship has always been Eternal.

Who did Moses "see". Who did Job say He would "see"? Who did Moses and Elijah see in the Transfiguration?

 

[Jim]

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ proves otherwise. The tangible Person of Jesus Christ is what exactly to you? Material? Immaterial? Metaphysical?

This is good.

Jesus is the name of the human being born of the woman Mary. All human beings have both a body and a spirit. Jesus, likewise, had both a body and a Spirit. However, that Spirit was eternally existent. He was variously referred to before His human birth as the Messiah or Savior, etc. In Hebrews we read that Spirit partook (took on) of the flesh and blood (Heb 2:14-17). From that time on He was given the identifier as the Son of God (Luke 1:31-32).

 

[Jim]

I know what you're saying. It is a common belief. You actually believe that the Incarnation changed the character of the relationship between Father and Son. It didn't.

No, I don't believe that at all. The incarnation was the preincarnate Spirit, taking on the flesh and blood of the human being. You can call that Spirit whatever you like. In John 1:1 that Spirit is called the Word. In the OT He was variously called the Messiah, the Savior, etc. He is not called the Son until the birth.

The Son and Father relationship has always been Eternal.

Who did Moses "see". Who did Job say He would "see"? Who did Moses and Elijah see in the Transfiguration?

Job didn't say He would see Jesus. The transfiguration was of the man, Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, I don't believe that at all. The incarnation was the preincarnate Spirit, taking on the flesh and blood of the human being. You can call that Spirit whatever you like. In John 1:1 that Spirit is called the Word. In the OT He was variously called the Messiah, the Savior, etc. He is not called the Son until the birth.

Now we are getting into this "double talk" that comes from some Unitarians.

Is Jesus the Son of God or the Son of Mary? YOU are saying the the Son only existed as the son of Mary. That is what you're presenting. If this is true, then you're forcing a change of substance upon this "son" as you see it.

Job didn't say He would see Jesus. The transfiguration was of the man, Jesus.

Relative to Job. I'm asking about Job calling what he would see.... God. If God is only Spirit...... Immaterial, then what does the eye behold?

Relative to the Transfiguration, we clearly know that such can not be the case.

Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

There is great and glorious beauty to be found in the Son of God.

I can tell you guys haven't had a meaningful debate with Unitarians that deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. The way you approach this..... you're just confirming everything is true for those who deny the Divinity of Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus is the name of the human being born of the woman Mary.

To be exacting. It is actually Joshua/Yeshua in English.

All human beings have both a body and a spirit.

Be exacting. Adam wasn't spiritual in any sense of being Eternal.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Jesus, likewise, had both a body and a Spirit. However, that Spirit was eternally existent. He was variously referred to before His human birth as the Messiah or Savior, etc. In Hebrews we read that Spirit partook (took on) of the flesh and blood (Heb 2:14-17). From that time on He was given the identifier as the Son of God (Luke 1:31-32).

The distinction "Son of God" can not be mixed with the connotations you're forcing here. In the Incarnation, Christ is both the Son of God and the son of Mary. You're excluding the context of "Son of God". 100 percent God. 100 percent man.

 

[Runningman]

Sure He was. Just not in human flesh. Case closed.

That's what we are discussing and you won't be able to prove it regardless.

 

[Runningman]

yes, 101G understand PERSON, and FLESH, (smile).
the context is person of God. which the Lord Jesus said is SINGULAR in the BEGINNING. Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

now ... READ CAREFULLY, the Lord Jesus said God is a HE. read it....

101G.

Brilliant point. I think we agree on this particular point, too. Wow. Jesus called God a "He" and not a "they" or "them." That's very easy to understand that God isn't a compound being or group of persons. Jesus believed the one and only God is the Father. Jesus' God is YHWH so that's what I follow too. We must believe Jesus was right about who God is.