Is the Son eternal?

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.

Divine and human!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.

Humanity and Deity.

Here is that revised post on Malachi 3:6, which I changed after Praxeas pointed out a mistake.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6, KJV).

This chapter deals from verse one, with God's specific prophecy concerning the messenger (John the Baptist) who will precede himself; the Messiah. It’s a message to Israel which is why verse six is addressed to the ‘Sons of Jacob.’ He then goes onto explain his future judgements upon the wicked in verses two to five. Nevertheless, this statement about his not changing in verse six, must to some extent refer to his own essential being and not just specifically to his covenantal promises with Israel. For although these covenantal promises with Israel are certainly the main focus of the unchangeableness of Malachi 3:6, this steadfastness of his promises comes from the immutability of his own nature.

So God’s assurance to us at Malachi 3:5 is that because he is an immutable being, who cannot change, learn or grow in wisdom and understanding just as we do. Therefore his promise of a Messiah (verse 1), and future punishment of the wicked (verses 2-5), is absolutely assured, because the actions and prophecies of such an immutable being would always be completely secure and trustworthy. So God is telling us at Malachi 3:6, that we can trust him and rely upon his promises, because an unchanging God’s words and prophecies (re verses 1-5), will always come to pass exactly as he states them. So God’s word, which in this case is his covenantal promises with Israel are unchanging, because he himself is an immutable God.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Apparently Mary didn't believe in the eternal sonship doctrine.
And the angel answered and said to her ,The Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the Highest will overshadow you ;therefore also ,that Holy One who is to borned will be called the Son Of God. LUKE 1:35 NKJV
Notice the verse says The Holy One who is to be borned ,not eternally existant will be called The Son Of God. Prior to the virgin birth ,the Son only existed in the mind or foreknowledge of God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Apparently Mary didn't believe in the eternal sonship doctrine.
And the angel answered and said to her ,The Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the Highest will overshadow you ;therefore also ,that Holy One who is to borned will be called the Son Of God. LUKE 1:35 NKJV
Notice the verse says The Holy One who is to be borned ,not eternally existant will be called The Son Of God. Prior to the virgin birth ,the Son only existed in the mind or foreknowledge of God.

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.

Scott referred to:

“God sent forth his Son born of a woman,” (Galatians 4:4).

The Son of God Jesus Christ has always existed, eternally, with the Father Scott: ‘that ETERNAL life which was WITH the Father.’ (1st John 1:2). John in verse 3 then goes onto tell us that this ‘life’ who was ‘with the Father,’ was the Son! Besides which, the Father cannot logically exist with out the Son, for although these two terms reveal a spiritual and not a physical truth, nevertheless, a Father becomes a Father at the very same moment in time that a Son becomes a Son, so the idea of an eternal Father, existing all alone and eternally without a Son, is logically impossible.

So the Son (in his deity) has existed eternally, together with the Father (Hebrews 1:2, John 17:5, 24 etc). However, before his birth, he (the Son), was sent into this world by God the Father (John 17:28-29, 1st John 4:9-14). So to answer Scott's question; ‘was the Son created or eternal,’ in the light of (Galatians 4:4), this clearly describes the Son as being born (i.e. created). So the answer is both Scott, as the Son was both sent (as God) and he was also made of a woman (as man). So in his deity, he was sent into the world by God the Father (John 16:28, 1st John 3:8, 4:9-14) having preexisted eternally with the Father. But his humanity was created (begotten) in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35, Galatians 4:4).

Scott I'll await your reply with interest.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.

Please explain how Galatians 4:4 does this. The Son is both deity (YHWH) and humanity, and 1,000 verses such as Galatians 4:4 which refer to his humanity, don’t in any way disprove the Son’s deity. So as a man the Son is created as Galatians 4:4 states, but as God (Hebrews 1:8) the Son is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), creator (Hebrews 1:2) and Yahweh (Hebrews 1:10). So both statements are true, he (the Son) is both God and man, he’s both eternal and created, he’s both the creator and a part of the creation, he’s both omnipresent and not omnipresent and he’s both multiple and immutable. So we’re not to pick up one of Christ’s attributes and exclude the other simply because it disagrees with our theology.



((Note: I'm now saving threads to my memory stick and writing replies at home, where I have more time, then posting them from my memory stick into the forum. So hopefully my replies won't be so rushed now as they were previously).

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

Hello MF, well in response I would suggest, that the text of Luke 1:35 does not state that God becomes (or is made) ‘son of God’ at Bethlehem. It rather merely states that from the time of the birth of the baby Jesus, ‘Jesus Christ’ is now declared and known to the world as the ‘Son of God.’ The Greek word which is used in this verse and is translated as ‘called’ is the word ‘Kal-eo,’ which is numbered 2564 in Strong’s concordance. It simply means ‘to call’ or to ‘make something known’. Then in the next section, I have quoted every occurrence of ‘kal-eo’ (numbered 2564 in Strong’s), as found in the Gospel of Luke’s Gospel from Chapters 1-2. One of the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, is that we translated the same word in a similar way within passages that have a similar context. So by examining the other uses of this word ‘kaleo,’ we can discover that it does not mean to create or to make, it just means to reveal or to make known.


Luke 1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:59: And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Luke 1:60: And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.

Luke 1:61: And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

Luke 1:62: And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.

Luke 1:76: And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

Luke 2:4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

Luke 2:21: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Luke 2:23: (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

So I have a problem with your insistence that the word ‘called’ (kaleo), in some way proves that the Son is ‘made’ or was ‘created’ at Bethlehem, when this term is really a declarational term. And so if what you say were really true, why then does the Bible not say either that the Father becomes the Son at Bethlehem, or that the Son was created (or made) at Bethlehem? Also why do none of the 11 quotations of ‘kaleo’ from Luke chapters 1 and 2 support your interpretation? I believe that you have read ‘kaleo’ ‘ (Luke 1:35) completely out of its context?

Also at Luke 1:59 this same Greek word is used: ‘And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.’ Now, the Child (John the Baptist) existed before being named as Zacharius, on the eighth day of his life. He did not come into existence at that very moment when he was named by his father. In a similar manner, I suggest that the ‘Son of God’ existed (as deity) before his birth at Bethlehem, but that he was then declared to the world as the ‘Son,’ by his birth.

M.F. Blume, I really do hope that you'll address these points! As a Trinitarian I believe that the Son possesses two natures of deity and humanity, so yes the humanity of Christ (called the Son) is begotten, made, mutible and so isn't eternal. However the Son is also God (Hebrews 1:8), YHWH (Hebrews 1:10)
and as such is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), omnipresent (John 17:23) and the creator (John 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17) again as the Son. No amount of proof-testing that the Son is begotten will somehow refute Trinitarian theology as we believe that! The Son (in his humanity) is indeed begotten-created-not God- not eternal etc. However, you need to engage with the obvious fact that the Son is also presented as YHWH God and that he also possesses every divine attribute as the Son. So in order to be Christians we need to; 'honour the Son JUST AS we honour the Father.' (John 5:23). If we don't and instead only honour the Father then we're doing essentially what subordinationists like JWs and Unitarians do.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

Then, of course, there's the prophetic psalm where God said of the Son "this day have I begotten thee."