Dizerner
Active Member
It's bound up in the very words "Eternal Son" definitionally.
Otherwise you don't have a Father and a Son, you have a co-God and a co-God.
The Eternal Son
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
It's bound up in the very words "Eternal Son" definitionally.
Otherwise you don't have a Father and a Son, you have a co-God and a co-God.
atpollard
Active Member
How are they not inseparable? [color me confused]
The "Eternal Son" as "2nd Divine Person of the Trinity" IS both "Deity" and "preexisting", isn't he?
civic
Active Member
Yep
civic
Active Member
No there was no time when the Son was not the Son. The Son did not come forth from the Father as taught in the creeds.
Dizerner
Active Member
What do you even think "Son" means, lol.
Son has no meaning if there is no derivation from a father.
civic
Active Member
Dizerner
Active Member
civic
Active Member
Sure it does relationally . God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit has always been, never a time when the Son was not the Son. Not my problem you can’t understand or comprehend this truth.
Saying God is Eternal means God has no beginning , God remains the same before and after Creation. Nothing changes in Gods Deity, nature.
The same is True with the Father
The same is True with the Son
The same is True with the Holy Spirit
hope this helps !!!
Dizerner
Active Member
civic
Active Member
You cannot transpose humans to God.
You are working backwards from a human perspective ( manology) instead of with God ( theology ).
It’s a denial of the Trinity as Father, Son, Holy Spirit no matter how you try and say otherwise.
It makes sense that you think that way being Kenosis.
You error on both now with the Trinity and 2 natures in Christ.
atpollard
Active Member
If a couple adopts an infant and raises the boy to manhood … do they, or do they not have a father/son relationship?
The relationship transcends mere origin.
Dizerner
Active Member
You can argue from the exception, but the basis of the relationship does come from origin. A natural father can not treat his son like a son, does that make him not a son? Treating someone like something is the exception not the rule, because it is based on the rule. I am not downplaying the spiritual significance of adoption, but I think you are downplaying the origin of the word. If son was not at all based on origin, why is that the derivation and source of the meaning? Why not just divorce son from origin altogether? Angels and humans are not sons of God just because he treats them like sons—but because they came from God. When someone says "He was like a son to me," why do they include the word "like" at all? Why not just say he was literally their son? Because there is a semantic difference between adoption and lineage, however meaningful adoption can be.
Jesus was not adopted.
atpollard
Active Member
That was my point, too. They would be father-son in the biological/origin sense of the term, but they would NOT be father-son in the relational sense of the terms.
Even so, Jesus is not God’s son in the biological sense (at the risk of being crass, God did not contribute a sperm and Jesus does not have 50% God DNA and 50% Mary DNA). However, Jesus was God’s son in the RELATIONSHIP sense of the word. There is no reason to think that “relationship” is not eternal.
civic
Active Member
Ditto
civic
Active Member
In your theology he is exactly like a human son and having a human father . His father created , birthed, originated his being a son. There was a time where there was no son.
Next fallacy
