3 Divine Attributes applied to F + S

Why can't Oneness Pentecostals affirm that the Son possesses every divine attribute (as the Son)? It doesn't seem logical for them to claim that Yahweh is creator, omnipresent and eternal, but then after suggesting that the Son is Yahweh, like many other subordinationists, for them to then claim that the Son isn't eternal (as the Son), he isn't creator (as the Son), and he isn't Omnipresent as the Son.

I’ve heard Unitarians, Oneness, Branhamites, Mormons and Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses all calling Jesus the Son by the name; ‘God,’ however, these subordinationists after they've done this, then quality the word 'God' in slightly different ways to imply something less than deity when the word ‘God’ is applied to Jesus Christ the Son. So the Mormons make him out to be a man who’s now been elevated to Godhood. Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that Jesus is the mighty God but that he isn’t the Almighty God. Oneness Pentecostals will either claim that the Spirit which indwelt the Son is Yahweh God, but not the Son (flesh) himself, or else the Son is a created manifestation of Yahweh and therefore it’s Yahweh and not the manifestation of Yahweh who’s; eternal, creator or omnipresent etc.

Please look at each of the following three verses; for they each apply these three individual divine attributes of BOTH the Father and also to the Son.


The Father creates THROUGH (dia) the Son at Hebrews 1:2; ‘“God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2, NKJV).


The Father and the Son are both Omnipresent at John 14:23; ‘We will come to him and make our abode with him.’


The Father together with the Son both exist in eternity and from before the beginning of time at the creation, and yet both also possess another divine attribute of divine glory from before the creation of the universe John 17:5; ‘The glory which I had with you before the world was.’ The standard Oneness explanation that Jesus was then a ‘thought’ or a ‘plan’ in Yahweh’s mind is completely impossible, for thoughts or plans don’t possess the divine attribute of Yahweh's glory or be loved by the Father, because thoughts being an ‘it’ not a ‘He’ therefore can’t be Yahweh God itself (John 17:24). One ‘He’ can relate to another ‘He’ in eternity, but an eternal ‘it’ is an Oxymoron – something which is impossible, because only Yahweh is eternal, so any ‘it’ must consequently by a part of the creation.


Please do reply to these most important questions. For if the Son doesn’t possess any divine attributes in and of himself as the Son, then he can’t be Yahweh God in and of himself, but he’d instead be either a mere manifestation of Yahweh or a man in whom Yahweh’s spirit indwells.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Why can't Oneness Pentecostals affirm that the Son possesses every divine attribute (as the Son)? It doesn't seem logical for them to claim that Yahweh is creator, omnipresent and eternal, but then after suggesting that the Son is Yahweh, like many other subordinationists, for them to then claim that the Son isn't eternal (as the Son), he isn't creator (as the Son), and he isn't Omnipresent as the Son.

I’ve heard Unitarians, Oneness, Branhamites, Mormons and Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses all calling Jesus the Son by the name; ‘God,’ however, these subordinationists after they've done this, then quality the word 'God' in slightly different ways to imply something less than deity when the word ‘God’ is applied to Jesus Christ the Son. So the Mormons make him out to be a man who’s now been elevated to Godhood. Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that Jesus is the mighty God but that he isn’t the Almighty God. Oneness Pentecostals will either claim that the Spirit which indwelt the Son is Yahweh God, but not the Son (flesh) himself, or else the Son is a created manifestation of Yahweh and therefore it’s Yahweh and not the manifestation of Yahweh who’s; eternal, creator or omnipresent etc.

Please look at each of the following three verses; for they each apply these three individual divine attributes of BOTH the Father and also to the Son.


The Father creates THROUGH (dia) the Son at Hebrews 1:2; ‘“God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2, NKJV).


The Father and the Son are both Omnipresent at John 14:23; ‘We will come to him and make our abode with him.’


The Father together with the Son both exist in eternity and from before the beginning of time at the creation, and yet both also possess another divine attribute of divine glory from before the creation of the universe John 17:5; ‘The glory which I had with you before the world was.’ The standard Oneness explanation that Jesus was then a ‘thought’ or a ‘plan’ in Yahweh’s mind is completely impossible, for thoughts or plans don’t possess the divine attribute of Yahweh's glory or be loved by the Father, because thoughts being an ‘it’ not a ‘He’ therefore can’t be Yahweh God itself (John 17:24). One ‘He’ can relate to another ‘He’ in eternity, but an eternal ‘it’ is an Oxymoron – something which is impossible, because only Yahweh is eternal, so any ‘it’ must consequently by a part of the creation.


Please do reply to these most important questions. For if the Son doesn’t possess any divine attributes in and of himself as the Son, then he can’t be Yahweh God in and of himself, but he’d instead be either a mere manifestation of Yahweh or a man in whom Yahweh’s spirit indwells.

But is it as the Son that Jesus has the divine attributes?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

But is it as the Son that Jesus has the divine attributes?

That's the crux of the issue there brother.

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

That's the crux of the issue there brother.

I think both sides are guilty of being selectively vague in this regard.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

I think both sides are guilty of being selectively vague in this regard.

Yes sir... I do agree.

Originally Posted by Chan

But is it as the Son that Jesus has the divine attributes?

If the Son doesn't possess divine attributes then the Son in that theology would not be Yahweh God at all, for Yahweh cannot exist without his divine attributes. My point Chan is that Oneness is effectively not really very different from the Watchtower, Unitarian and other subordinationist theologies as you deny that the Son is eternal, creator, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent as the Son. Your God is he who indwells the SON< the Son himself as he doesn't possess divine attributes isn't Yahweh God in Oneness theology.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

If the Son doesn't possess divine attributes then the Son in that theology would not be Yahweh God at all, for Yahweh cannot exist without his divine attributes. My point Chan is that Oneness is effectively not really very different from the Watchtower, Unitarian and other subordinationist theologies as you deny that the Son is eternal, creator, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent as the Son. Your God is he who indwells the SON< the Son himself as he doesn't possess divine attributes isn't Yahweh God in Oneness theology.

You wrongly assume that I'm oneness and, no, it is not true that oneness is pretty much the same as the Watchtower (which teaches Arius' heresy), the Unitarian (which denies the deity of Christ) and other "subordinationist" theologies (it could be argued that such church fathers as Justin Martyr were subordinationists and Jesus did say "my Father is greater than I").

There is one very important thing that you must understand about the Son: the Bible says that the Son was begotten. The word is one that indicates a beginning point in time. The prophetic psalm says that this beginning point was when God said "this day have I begotten thee." John said that the logos (the divine expression, the memra) became flesh and dwelt among us and said that this was "the only begotten of the Father." John 3:16 tells us that God sent His "only begotten" or only-born Son. This necessitates a beginning point. Thus, Jesus' status as the Son is limited to His humanity. Also, the Nicene fathers made it a point to state that, with regard to His divinity, Jesus was homoousion (the same substance, of one essence) with the Father - and not a separate or distinct substance/essence.

Originally Posted by Chan

But is it as the Son that Jesus has the divine attributes?

The three verses which I quoted at verse one all apply divine attributes to both the Father and also to the Son.

Please address 1) John 14:23 where we read that the Father and Son both indwell us, which implies Omnipresence.

2) John 17:5; Father and Son (context is found at verse 1) exist together from before the creation and share divine glory, the words 'Father' and 'Son' are used at verse 1.

3) Hebrews 1:2; The Father and Son create the Universe.

Pleas edo answer these verses.

Originally Posted by Chan

There is one very important thing that you must understand about the Son: the Bible says that the Son was begotten. The word is one that indicates a beginning point in time. The prophetic psalm says that this beginning point was when God said "this day have I begotten thee." John said that the logos (the divine expression, the memra) became flesh and dwelt among us and said that this was "the only begotten of the Father." John 3:16 tells us that God sent His "only begotten" or only-born Son. This necessitates a beginning point. Thus, Jesus' status as the Son is limited to His humanity. Also, the Nicene fathers made it a point to state that, with regard to His divinity, Jesus was homoousion (the same substance, of one essence) with the Father - and not a separate or distinct substance/essence.

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


Chan with regard to Psalm 2:7, 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, Christ is begotten at his resurrection from the dead according to Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Heb 1:5, 5:5. Now seeing that his divinity doesn't have 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 is to his humanity and not to his deity. As a man Christ was begotten at his resurrection! As God Christ is unbegotten, although some Trinitarians I admit will claim that he's eternally begotten.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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


Chan with regard to Psalm 2:7, 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).

The New Testament does interpret the prophetic psalm in different ways but one of those is the Incarnation.

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).

Yes, I agree that Hebrews 1:3-4 gives at least part of the context for Hebrews 1:5 and it is here that the psalm is being interpreted as referring to the Incarnation. The fact that Jesus does have two complete natures is not particularly relevant to what the passage is telling us, i.e. that in these last days God spoke to us by the man who is God's begotten Son. And, no, the Son's divine nature is not merely identical to that of the Father, it is (according to the Nicene fathers) homoousion (the same substance/one essence) and not a separate, yet identical, divinity (though the heretic Arius seemed to be arguing in that direction).

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.

No, the prophetic psalm here is not being interpreted as a reference to the resurrection.

So in conclusion, Christ is begotten at his resurrection from the dead according to Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Heb 1:5, 5:5. Now seeing that his divinity doesn't have 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 is to his humanity and not to his deity. As a man Christ was begotten at his resurrection! As God Christ is unbegotten, although some Trinitarians I admit will claim that he's eternally begotten.

Yes, the references are specifically and only to Jesus' humanity, which was begotten at a point in time. The Roman Catholic/Protestant corruption of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says that Jesus was eternally begotten but that phrase is an oxymoron. Begetting necessitates a beginning point in time. Thus, what was begotten cannot be eternally begotten because eternally begotten would mean that not only from all of eternity past was Jesus in a continual process of being begotten, but will continue to be in that process of being begotten throughout all of eternity future (keeping in mind that "past" and "future" are time references that I'm using to denote what is occurring from our perspective within time; God exists outside of time and, thus, what we call past, present and future are really just one big eternal now).