No Pre-existing Son... Before Christ's Birth?

[Hoovie]

Many Oneness Pentecostals see the Father/Son distinction as being internal to Jesus Christ

[Hoovie]

I agree with this illustration from Dulle - showing the Father/Son distinction is EXTERNAL to Jesus Christ.



I should add, the diagram comes with this disclaimer from Dulle

This diagram of the Son should not be understood to mean that God merely dwelt in Christ like a person dwells in a house. While God was in Christ, the union of the divine and human natures surpasses that of mere indwelling. There was a metaphysical union of the divine and human natures to form one theandric existence; a union that preserved the properties of each nature, yet united them into one person. The metaphysical union is expressed in the diagram by the absence of the black line around the yellow circle (God).

[CC1]

Stephen Eureka,

Very interesting. I like the disclaimer from Dulle. Have just read it and not thought it completely through but I have struggled to clearly understand in my own mind the dual nature of Christ as man and God and this seems like one of the best explanations I have heard.

(By the way I thought of ou earlier tonight when my wife came in the room and informed me that our Hoover vacuum cleaner that is less than a year old just bit the dust. They don't make you like they used to. This replaced our expensive Dyson that only lasted a couple of years.)

[Hoovie]

Glad you enjoyed Jason's article. It helped me a lot as well. Warning! ... if one's goal, or measure of truth is to get as far as possible from those evil Trinitarians it is a BAD view!

About your vacuum... that sucks.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by JTTNMinistries

The Person of the Son is eternal because that Person is Supreme Eternal Jehovah, the Everlasting God. Jesus is exactly who God is.

Sonship primarily refers to God in time and humanity by humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of men. This is why the Son is the image of the invisible God. God is invisible and cannot be seen. The Son, the man Christ Jesus, had a real beginning in Bethlehem as to the humanity while as to His Divinity His "goings forth are from everlasting" (Micah 5:2). There was a literal day when the sonship came into existence, and that He was begotten by the Holy Ghost.

This is why the Son is never found in the O.T. with exception to prophetic references.

Very articulate and correct.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by JTTNMinistries

You see the problem with this goes back to understanding God's original design and purpose for man in Genesis 1:26. God designed man to have dominion, to have authority over God's creation. Adam failed and so the prophecy of Genesis 3:16 gives the promise that the seed of the woman (virgin birth) would come and crush satan, regaining the authority. God came as a man to accomplish this task Himself on our behalf and continue to reign presently, and was restored to the position of total authority (MT 28:18-19). Now God is continuing to rule and reign in this humanity on our behalf as the ultimate King. Jesus was a real man and not just some manifestation that disappeared when He ascended to Heaven. Some Oneness teach as though there were three consecutive manifestations of God and that the Father was the O.T. manifestation, the Son the N.T. and now the Holy Ghost and the Son and Father are gone. This is not accurate. God is remaining the Father, the Eternal Spirit in heaven and everywhere else while simultaneously manifesting Himself in all His fullness through the Son of God on earth. This is why the Son of Man is on earth and in heaven at the same time (John 3:13), because as to His humanity He was on earth and as to the Divinity He is everywhere present, together with millions gathered in His Name around the globe.

I congradulate you on your articulate posts on this subject.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

Orthodox OP catechizing and the occasional torture method to bring your crypto-trinitarian self around will be all the love you need.



No but seriously, now, as I stop playing inquisitioner... What is it that you're proposing Bro. Hoover? It seems to sound as if you are trying to make a separation of persons between the Father and the Son. Why would you not see the Son as simply a role, or manifestation, that the Father took on for 33 years while HE walked in a human body? What other explanation would you have?

-Bro. Alex

Alex, what's happened to you lately, Bro? I don't even know you anymore, man!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Glad you enjoyed Jason's article. It helped me a lot as well. Warning! ... if one's goal, or measure of truth is to get as far as possible from those evil Trinitarians it is a BAD view!

About your vacuum... that sucks.

[tbpew]

Jason's diagram disclaimer supplied by Steven and affirmed by CC1 states the following:

This diagram of the Son should not be understood to mean that God merely dwelt in Christ like a person dwells in a house. While God was in Christ, the union of the divine and human natures surpasses that of mere indwelling. There was a metaphysical union of the divine and human natures to form one theandric existence; a union that preserved the properties of each nature, yet united them into one person. The metaphysical union is expressed in the diagram by the absence of the black line around the yellow circle (God).

A breakdown of Jason's disclaimer seems to reveal that SILENCE is GOLDEN in the establishment of philosophical opinion.

This diagram of the Son should not be understood to mean that God merely dwelt in Christ like a person dwells in a house.

Jason's assertion that it was not MERELY an indwelling requires he extend his opinion without scriptural witness to help ward off those who would think in terms of either INDWELLING of a person OR INDWELLING of a flesh suit.

While God was in Christ, the union of the divine and human natures surpasses that of mere indwelling.
It's nice to say SURPASSES but when the statement is done, it is fully established by Jason's opinion in the surroundings of academia, not an assertion established in scripture.


There was a metaphysical union of the divine and human natures to form one theandric existence;
It's a thoughtful concept, a deep philosophical dig, but it is a postion established from the silence of a man's imagination not witness of scripture.


a union that preserved the properties of each nature, yet united them into one person.
Supposition at very best. So many scriptural departures from this "preserved properties of each nature" that the next thing his disclaimer really should add is "the divine nature was so perfectly hidden from the human nature that neither had any real idea about the other".....maybe he'll insert that personal opinion later as well.


The metaphysical union is expressed in the diagram by the absence of the black line around the yellow circle (God).

I'm happy for the present confidence in the metaphysical union position and the fully preserved dual nature position because to hold these as establishing one's confidence will also force the proponents of this opinion to ask "How is Jesus my example? my kinsman redeemer"

Our Lord and Saviour is the Son of God.
Quoting the testimony of the voice that on two occasions directly spoke:

This is my beloved Son, in whom, I am well pleased.

With the testimony of the voice speaking from the cloud to back me up.....I am feeling strangely confident to declare God's Son was a person with a will of his own, separate from his father which begat him. But I do accept that all I have is the simple reading of scripture to confirm this position.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by tbpew

A breakdown of Jason's disclaimer:
This diagram of the Son should not be understood to mean that God merely dwelt in Christ like a person dwells in a house.

Jason's assertion that it was not MERELY an indwelling requires he extend his opinion without scriptural witness to help ward off those who would think in terms of either INDWELLING of a person OR INDWELLING of a flesh suit.

While God was in Christ, the union of the divine and human natures surpasses that of mere indwelling.
It's nice to say SURPASSES but when the statement is done, it is fully established by Jason's opinion in the surroundings of academia, not an assertion established in scripture.


There was a metaphysical union of the divine and human natures to form one theandric existence;
It's a thoughtful concept, a deep philosophical dig, but it is a postion established from the silence of a man's imagination not witness of scripture.


a union that preserved the properties of each nature, yet united them into one person.
Supposition at very best. So many scriptural departures from this "preserved properties of each nature" that the next thing his disclaimer really should add is "the divine nature was so perfectly hidden from the human nature that neither had any real idea about the other".....maybe he'll insert that personal opinion later as well.


The metaphysical union is expressed in the diagram by the absence of the black line around the yellow circle (God).

I'm happy for the present confidence in the metaphysical union position and the fully preserved dual nature position because these force every one who is a proponent of such to ask "How is Jesus my example?"

God has a Son.

Some folks just like being wordy. Neck's Dad who was known as a great Godehead teacher( I had one exception with him but I won't go into that here) was teaching on the subject in depth at a meeting. An AG lady was present and he was trying to reach her. After a couple of hours of excellent teaching on the subject he finished. Standing on the steps with the Pastor as folks were leaving the AG lady shook their hands and said I just don't understand what you were saying. He replied "God who is Spirit that is everywhere made a body and climbed in it so He could die for our sins and we could see Him." She said take me to the water. Sometimes the simplicity is overlooked. Being a teacher is NOT making the simple complicated but making the complicated simple.