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.

Firstly Chan, I'd cetainly agree with you that deity (GOD / YHWH) is unbegotten. However, if he Son possesses two natures of deity and flesh which are distinct and unmixed (unfused) then, the Son can therefore be begotten (in his flesh) and unbegotten (in his deity) at the very same time. So the term Son can refer to both natures (deity and humanity) and refer to his being as the Son both begotten and not begotten as well as his possessing every divine attribute (as the SON whio is God) and not possessing any divine attributes as the Son who is a mere man.

Secondly, you’ve really only claimed that like any Unitarian, JW or Christadelphian, you only ascribe deity to the Father, who alone is YHWH God and the possessor of divine attributes in your theology. The Son according to you isn’t an eternal Son (John 17:5), isn’t the creator of the universe (Hebrews 1:2), isn’t omnipresent (John 14:23) but is a creature made by the Father who’s just as much a part of the creation as you or I. You thus fail to honour the Son equally as the Father and so are rebuked at John 5:23; ‘That all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.’

Originally Posted by Chan

That's not what we're saying and you know it! You seem to be so focused on this phrase "as the Son" that you can't move beyond it to see the rest of Jesus. Jesus is not only "the Son." Jesus' divinity was not created (the Arian heresy said it was created). Jesus' divinity was not begotten (because it is divinity and, in fact, the same substance as the Father).

I understand perfectly well what you’re saying, which is that the deity of Jesus is the Father and the humanity of Jesus is the Son. Yes I know that you’re not saying the exact same thing as a JW or Unitarian, but my point is that your position is extremely close to these heretical views as you are rebuked at John 5:23; ‘That all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.’ You don’t do this, you honour Jesus the Father equal to the Father, but you reject completely to see the Son as Yahweh God himself.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine.

Yahweh God is eternal, creator, omnipresent etc and he cannot exist without possessing his own divine attributes. So when you say that the Son is divine, are you affirming that the SON is an eternal Son (John 17:5), is the Son the creator (Hebrews 1:2) and is the Son omnipresent (John 14:23)? I don’t think that you are, as you really claim that Jesus as the Father possesses divine attributes but that Jesus as the Son doesn’t. Like the Mormons and JWs you claim that Jesus is divine, but like them, you also use words to hide your true subordinationism.

So to a Mormon, Jesus (the Son) is divine, but all this means is that he is just a man who has now become a god. To a JW Jesus (the Son) is divine and JWs will openly admit to this if you quote Colossians 2:9 at them, but they redefine the word divine to mean that Jesus (the Son) is the mighty God but Not the almighty God – do you see how they deceive with their false definition of the term ‘divine’ which is less than a higher grade of Jehovah’s deity.

Finally, Oneness Pentecostals also claim that Jesus is divine, but to them it’s the Father part of Jesus which is divine and which possesses divine attributes (as the Father). Jesus the Father indwells Jesus the Son, you can genuinely say and genuinely believe say Jesus is divine, but this only ascribes divinity to the Father part of Jesus which indwells the Son. For like your subordinationists buddies you also claim that the Son isn’t eternal, isn’t omnipresent and isn’t YHWH …. He’s just a man in whom Yahweh (who is the Father) comes to indwell.

I can prove this, M F Blume has said (quote): 'I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine.' If he truly believes this then he won't deny that the Son being divine possessess Yahweh's divine attributes. So Mr Blume tell me please is the Son eternal (eternal Son - John 17:5 & 24), is the Son omnipresent (an omnipresent Son - John 14:23), is the Son creator (Hebrews 1:2). In your theology no, for you don't 'honour the Son equally to the Father' as John 5:23 commands you becasue to you the Son isn't Yahweh - your really just a subordinationst who only honours the Father alone as Yahweh God and so is the only possessor of divine attributes in your theology.

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.

Oneness Pentecostals such as Mr Blume claim that God assumes the three roles (or manifestations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in time from Jesus’ birth. But I would state here that both of these positions are problematic for the Oneness view, because before Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, Luke states that; ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ (Luke 1:35), indicating that God already existed as the Holy Spirit, before Jesus’ birth and even before his conception; (Mr Blume alludes to this in paraphrase in his post). But you can’t have a ‘Holy Ghost’ existing before the Father and Son in Oneness theology can you! Going back into the Old Testament we read of King David crying at Psalm 51:11 ‘take not thy Holy Spirit from me,’ which doesn’t make any sense when read in the light of the Oneness claim, that God hadn’t at that time yet become the Holy Spirit. Also consider Isaiah 63:10; ‘but they vexed his Holy Spirit,’ which again states that the Holy Spirit before Christ’s birth.

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 Iron_Bladder

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.

But the SON - AS THE SON - had a beginning. That beginning occurred when He was begotten. So, your notion of an eternal Son is not only heretical but an oxymoron.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chan

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

So we have to accept both.

Originally Posted by mfblume

So we have to accept both.

I do accept both.

For further reading...

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...1919509&sr=8-1

[mfblume]

I thought you were coming from the perspective that the Son is eternal. But I saw you contradicted that earlier.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I thought you were coming from the perspective that the Son is eternal. But I saw you contradicted that earlier.

"Eternal Son" is an oxymoron! I encourage you to read the book (no, I'm not interested in getting you to change your doctrine).