Is the Son eternal?

Originally Posted by Chan

No, I don't agree because Jesus' status as the Son doesn't apply to His divinity. The SON was begotten; divinity cannot be begotten because it is, by its very nature eternal. As the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed indicates, Jesus (in terms of His divinity) is the same substance as the Father.

The Son is only begotten in only two ways: firstly as a man his flesh was begotten in the virgin's womb. Secondly, through the resurrection he was begotten from the dead as Psalm 2:7 quoted at Acts 13, Hebrews 1:1 and 5:5 confirm also Colossians 1:18. However these scriptures refer only to the Son's humanity (human nature), the Son has two natures and is also God (YHWH) so as YHWH God the Son is unbegotten and thus is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), also creator (Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17 re 'son' at verse 13) and omnipresent (John 14:23). The Son is begotten in his flesh but unbegotten in his deity.

Chan I therefore challenge you to show me any verse which states that the Son is begotten, I certainly do accept that the Son's human nature was begotten, but the above verses (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Col 1:18) are completely irrelivent to the obvious fact that as God the SON (as the SON) is unbegotten, for you can't have a begotten God and the Son is certainly God (Hebrews 1:8), so the Son is YHWH (Hebrews 1:10).

I have been remembering you in my prayers of late as I believe that you need to come to see that the Son is also YHWH God (as well as flesh) in order to know the true God revealed in Scripture. As you believe that the Son is begotten, then what you're saying essentially something similar to what the Unitarians and JWs claim; namely that the Son is a created being, although you do correctly claim that the Father indwells the Son (which JWs deny) but then you then refuse to admit that the Father also indwells the Son (John 14:9-10) which Trinitarianism affirms. You need to see that the Son is two things as the Son he's the eternal, YHWH God the creator who's unbegotten and at the very same time hes a man, created, begotten, not eternal and not the creator.

The main difference between most forms of Oneness and the Watchtower (JW) religion is that JWs call God the Father ..... Jehovah, whilst Oneness types call him ..... Jesus. However, implying that the Father is YHWH, eternal, creator and unbegotten won't save anyone, for in order to be saved we have to 'honour the SON EVEN as we honour the Father '(John 5:22-23) and so Oneness like the Unitarians and JWs won't do this because it like them also states that the Son doesn't possess any divine attributes (as the Son). Only the Father who indwells the Son and yet is confusing called 'Jesus' is honoured as YHWH God in Oneness. Oneness calls the Father 'Jesus' and the JWs call the Father Johovah, but both of them see the Son incorrectly as a begotten, mutible being who lacks divine attributes.

I'm praying for you.

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 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."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chan

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

...Which was speaking of the resurrection, long after the incarnation.

Act 13:33 KJV God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Originally Posted by mfblume

...Which was speaking of the resurrection, long after the incarnation.

Act 13:33 KJV God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Some scriptures interpret it as referring to the resurrection while others interpret it as referring to the Incarnation.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.

He is now...

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

He is now...

It's impossible for someody to become eternal or to as you put it; 'be eternal now.' Possibly yoru confusing the terms immortal with eternal, a mortal being can become immortal, but nobody can become eternal as eternity implies both no beginning and no ending, whilst immotal implies no ending.

Originally Posted by Chan

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

“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalm 2:7b).

With regard to Psalm 2:7 Chan, I believe that the ‘day’ refers to a point in time. We must use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, and this verse is quoted three times in the New Testament. Acts 13:33 and 34 clearly apply this quotation to the resurrection, Hebrews 5:5 quotes Psalm 2:7 with reference to his becoming a high Priest. This word ‘becoming’ proves that he was not born a high priest, Christ’s being of the wrong tribe (Judah) when only those of the tribe of Levi could hold the Levitical priesthood. Thus I believe that he became high Priest on the cross, and through his atonement for sin, effective by his resurrection from the dead, he then became high priest forever after the typology of Melchizedek’s order (verse 6).

So Hebrews 1:3-4 gives us the context for Hebrews 1:5 where Psalm 2:7 is here quoted. These verses speak of the Son ascending to heaven (Verse 3), to sit on the right hand of God (a figurative description of a position of authority and power). Verse 4 speaks of the Son becoming better than the angels, whilst verse 8 calls him God and Hebrews 2:6-7 states that Jesus was not only made but that he was made lower in position, rank and nature than the angels. This is difficult but only reconcilable if we understand that the Son of God has two natures. The Son has a divine nature (Hebrews 1:8) which is eternal (Hebrews 1:2) and is identical to that of the Father. Secondly he also has a human nature, which was created (Hebrews 2:6-7).

This human nature was resurrected from the dead, and so it was only as a human being, that he was exalted above the angels, and so as a (glorified) man, Christ then became on the day of his resurrection so much better than they. So Hebrews 1:4 applies to the resurrection, and consequently gives us the context for that ‘day’ which is mentioned at verse 5, specifically this has to be the day of the resurrection. Romans 1:4 and Colossians 1:18 each confirm this by indicating that the ‘begetting of the Son’ which at this instance is from the dead, and therefore cannot be from his birth at Bethlehem, which once again points us to the resurrection, when Christ arose from the dead with power and in his majesty and might.

So in conclusion Chan, I'd say that Christ is indeed begotten at his resurrection ‘from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18) according to Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Heb 1:5, 5:5. Now seeing that his divinity (divine Omnipresent Spirit) doesn't possess a human Spirit to separate from his human body, therefore God (Yahweh) cannot die and so the context for these quotations of Psalm 2:7 must be to his humanity and not to his deity. So as a man Christ was begotten at his resurrection (Colossians 1:18)! AWhilst at the very same time, as God Christ is unbegotten, although some Trinitarians I will admit do claim that he's eternally begotten in his deity.

Originally Posted by Chan

They're both called "Jesus."

OK so are you saying that Jesus is NOT the Son and NOT the Father? If he is the Son and he is the Father, then what do these two terms mean and how do they relate to Jesus? This question is perfectly honestly and no genuine Christian would ever be ashamed of answering it.