Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.

The same truth is taught under a different analogy in John 1:1,14 where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly,
a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.

Of special interest among the following passages are those in which the early Christians wrote of God as Father prior to the incarnation. Such passages imply the role of the second person as Son before the incarnation, since as we have noted, without a Son there is no Father.

Ignatius of Antioch: “Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed” (Letter to the Magnesians 6 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr: 

“Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to his will, he taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race” (First Apology 23 [A.D. 151]).

“God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son
. . . sometimes Lord and Word. . . . We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus “[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . . In what manner, then, would the Word of God—indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word—differ from the word of men?” (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian “The Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: ‘My heart has poured forth my finest Word’ [Ps. 45:1–2]” (Against Praxeas7:1 [A.D. 216]).

Hippolytus “Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word—not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Origen “So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God” (Commentary on Hebrews [A.D. 237]).

Gregory the Wonderworker “There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Lactantius “When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of ‘Father’ cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. . . . [T]hey both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [the Father] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [the Son] as a stream flowing forth from it. The former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [of light] extended from the sun” (Divine Institutes 4:28–29 [A.D. 307]).

Council of Nicaea I “We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made . . .” (The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Cyril of Jerusalem “Believe also in the Son of God, the one and only, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God begotten of God, who is life begotten of life, who is light begotten of light, who is in all things like unto the begetter, and who did not come to exist in time but was before all the ages, eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father. He is the Wisdom of God” (Catechetical Lectures 4:7 [A.D. 350]).

The Long Ignatius “[O]ur God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the Virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14]” (Letter to the Ephesians 7 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius “When these points have been demonstrated, then they [the Arians] speak even more impudently: ‘If there never was a time when the Son was not, and if he is eternal and coexists with the Father, then you are saying that he is not a Son at all, but the Father’s brother.’ O dull and contentious men! Indeed, if we said only that he coexisted eternally and had not called him Son, their pretended difficulty would have some plausibility. But if while saying that he is eternal, we confess him as Son of the Father, how were it possible for him that is begotten to be called a brother of him that begets? . . . For the Father and the Son were not generated from some preexisting source, so that they might be accounted as brothers. Rather, the Father is the source and begetter of the Son. . . . It is proper for men to beget in time, because of the imperfections of their nature; but the offspring of God is eternal because God’s nature is ever perfect” (Discourses Against the Arians1:14 [A.D. 360]).

Basil The Great “What was in the beginning? ‘The Word,’ he says.
. . . Why the Word? So that we might know that he proceeded from the mind. Why the Word? Because he was begotten without passion. Why the Word? Because he is image of the Father who begets him, showing forth the Father fully, in no way separated from him, and subsisting perfectly in himself, just as our word entirely befits our thought” (Eulogies and Sermons 16:3 [A.D. 368]).

Ambrose of Milan “[The Arians] think that they must posit the objection of his [Christ] having said, ‘I live on account of the Father.’ Certainly if they refer the saying to his divinity, the Son lives on account of the Father, because the Son is from the Father; on account of the Father, because he is of one substance with the Father; on account of the Father, because he is the Word given forth from the heart of the Father; because he proceeds from the Father” (The Faith 4:10:132 [A.D. 379]).

Gregory of Nazianz “He is called Son because he is identical to the Father in essence; and not only this, but also because he is of him. He is called only-begotten not because he is a unique Son . . . but because he is Son in a unique fashion and not in a corporeal way. He is called Word because he is to the Father what a word is to the mind” (Orations 30:20 [A.D. 380]).

Council of Constantinople I “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” (The Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]) .

Council of Rome “If anyone does not say that the Son was begotten of the Father, that is, of the divine substance of him himself, he is a heretic” (Tome of Damasus, canon 11 [A.D. 382]).

 The Athanasian Creed “The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made or created, but begotten. . . . Let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation. . . . He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time.” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

St. Augustine “In the way that you speak a word that you have in your heart and it is with you . . . that is how God issued the Word, that is to say, how he begot the Son. And you, indeed, beget a word too in your heart, without temporal preparation; God begot the Son outside of time, the Son through whom he created all things” (Homilies on John 14:7 [A.D. 416]).

St. Patrick of Ireland “Jesus Christ, whom we . . . confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning, spiritually and ineffably [he was] begotten of the Father before all beginning” (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).

Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).

I understand, Paul Hughes. I didn’t think that you did. I’m just amazed that preachers of the gospel would quote the Patristics with such a reverence when quite a bit of their theology is not consistent with the New Testament.

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

I didn’t say I agreed with Tertullian, just sayin’. If you read my comment closely, it is possible to hear my tongue in cheek.

Walter Polasik, excellent points! I could not have expressed it any better.

Joseph Kidwell, Paul Hughes: Keep in mind that Tertullian was a fan of allegorical interpretation whose champion became Origen. The Proverbs 8 theory has been going around for a while and ended up handy in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. They use it to teach that Jesus had a beginning (exactly the issue we were just discussing with Angel Ruiz and Troy Day). The problem is that (as has been handily pointed out by the late and great Dr. Walter Martin of “Kingdom of the Cults” fame), Proverbs 8 has “wisdom” personified as a FEMALE not as MALE. And it’s also illogical to suppose that God existed before He had his wisdom. Kind of silly, actually. Wisdom was “brought forth” in all that God did. That is, it was DISPLAYED in his handiwork. Wisdom says, “My delight was with the sons of men”. (8:31). It’s interesting to note that in rejecting God (and hence, true wisdom) man “became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened”. (Rom. 1:21). Without God, they PROFESSED themselves to be wise but became FOOLS. Anyway, you have to be careful how you read the Church Fathers. Just because they were closer in time to the apostles doesn’t mean their thought and writing were infallible or without problems. The very reason the Roman Catholic church arose in the first place at the outset of the 5th century was because by then the “fathers” had strayed from a strictly biblical theology and began adding stipulations to Scripture, caveats, that simply did not hold to the text. The history of cults teaches us that almost ANYTHING can be “explained away” as “scriptural” if enough caveats and spin is put on it. Sadly, some of our church theology, (including women preachers, notoriously in Pentecostalism) has developed along the same lines. Tertullian can be forgiven for teaching 2 “logoi”. Benny Hinn received “revelation’ that there are, in fact, 9 parts to the God head as each of the three members “has his own spirit, soul, and body”. When I was @ Evangel University I saw that Assemblies of God Theological Seminary had named a large classroom in honor of Hinn. Good one. 😉

That’s nuts as well as not being Biblical.

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

I was just reading Tertullian, who in Against Praxeas said that God was alone, but then not alone, because he had his Reason, which is Wisdom in Prov. 8, so that thereafter he was two. But Reason (Logos) then became the “inner” Logos, logos endiathetos, and not yet the “outer” Logos, logos prophorikos, the inner one relating to God and the outer one relating to the World through Creation. The inner Logos is the Reason that produces the thought, but the outer Logos does not exist until the thought is spoken.

But then, these are terms and concepts borrowed from Stoicism and Philonic Platonism, and ultimately originated with Plato and Aristotle.

If you are wondering why Tert. does not say this makes three — well, he just doesn’t. I don’t yet see how the inner & outer Logoi relate to one another, either, unless it is in a kind of Neoplatonist bridge between man and God, in which Man approaches the outer Logos, who then approaches the inner Logos, who then approaches God the Father. (Which approach, according to Neoplatonists, would be done through “contemplation.”)

Another implication, more pertinent to this thread, is that the Son, if he were the outer Logos, was only created when the inner Logos spoke the actual words of Creation. If you are wondering if Tert. then considers that there are 2 Sons — well, he just doesn’t.

And finally, if you are wondering where the Holy Spirit comes in, Tert. says that God is like a stream, or a plant, wherein the Father is the main branch, the Son is a branch off the main branch, then the HS is another branch off the Son’s branch. And then there were three!

I think Tert. said that the HS was created — but the dogmatically correct term for the origination of the HS from the Son is “proceeds,” not “created,” according to the eventual majority consensus of the Church Fathers.

To deny the eternal sonship of Christ is to deny that there was a time the three Persons of the Godhead were not Father, Son, and Spirit but only became Father and Son at the Incarnation. The church has never taught that. The patristics are not in disagreement with the apostles–they are the protectors of their teaching.

The patristics are not creating new dogma at Nicea; they are defending and explaining the faith “once delivered unto the saints” by the apostles.

We do not read our time-bound understanding of begetting and sonship back into the Trinity; we understand that our human begetting and sonship were designed to reflect and image an ETERNAL REALITY–one who has always been Father and has never been without His Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

Am I missing something Dale M. Coulter?

Once again, there can be no such thing as an ‘eternal son’ for eternity means no beginning and no end while the term ‘son’ implies a beginning. Secondly, if ‘Eternal Sonship’ is true, then the there persons of the godhead are not co[equal and co-eternal. Thirdly, the Patristic’s theology was certainly not perfect and there were a number of areas where their teaching strayed from that of the Apostles.

Henry Volk Henry Volk says:

Dude, you literally have it completely backwards 😂

Troy Day Troy Day says:

You are getting there Joseph Kidwell Hebrews 7:3 ► Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Henry Volk, if you have a Biblical response I would like to hear it. When one ridicules it’s because he has no argument.

Troy Day, once again, you are grasping at straws. Incarnational Sonship does not deny that Christ is eternal as the Word. We deny a supposed ‘Father/Son relationship prior to the Incarnation. Regarding Melchizedek, he had no RECORDED father or mother as he is but a type and the anti-type always greater than the type.

Joseph Kidwell , sonship does not imply a temporal beginning, it implies an origin. It defines a relationship not an act.

Why do we have to have an explanation for the relationship between the one who took the role of Father and the one who took the role of Son for the purpose of redeeming fallen man, prior to the Incarnation? Isn’t it enough to know that both are divine and in conjunction with the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) existed eternally?

It’s not a matter of what we need, but what is revealed to us.

“In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things and through whom He made the universe. He is the radiance of His glory, the exact expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:2-3). God made the universe THROUGH THE SON; he was the Son before creation.

John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” He was the “only begotten” (monogenes) even when He was “in the bosom of the Father” before the Incarnation. Your “begotten” is your “son”.

Troy Day, as I said earlier, I’m more concerned with Apostolic Theology than Patristic Theology. That is the Pentecostal way.#TheWholeBibleRightlyDivided

Walter Polasik, you made some of the same points that I made, plus some others. This is really good stuff that you are sharing and my prayer is that those who are arguing for the other viewpoint will simply take some time and study it out.

Pitiful theology. Right up there with Benny Hinn’s ‘There’s nine of ’em” (commenting on his opinion that each person of the Godhead has a spirit, soul and body, on TBN).

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.”

The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden.

The idea communicated in this verse is not that the second Person of the trinity became the Son of God, but that the already existing Son of God was made manifest or appeared in order to fulfill God’s predetermined purpose.

This idea is also seen in other verses such as John 11:27 and 1 John 5:20.

Ay Carramba, muchas kabuchas! Angel, WHEN IN ETERNITY PAST DID JESUS BECOME THE SON? the Father says, “This Day have I begotten thee” in the Psalms. WHEN WAS THAT DAY IF NOT ON EARTH? I wish I knew Spanish properly (I’m teasing above) to properly lament this. (I plead ignorance of that language, I took French in school). But really, there is NOT A SINGLE VERSE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE THAT SAYS JESUS WAS THE SON IN ETERNITY PAST. He was the LAMB slain from the foundation of the world. He was “express image of God’s glory”. He was the “Captain of the Hosts” in the book of Joshua. He BECAME the priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (See Hebrews and Pslams. The “begotten” verse in Psalms is related to this.) BUT HE WAS NEVER “THE SON” in eternity past. He SAYS so. What was He “before Abraham was?” “i AM”. That’s GOD . (John 8:58) *on floor pounding the hardwood” (I’ve torn my clothes already and put on ashes). GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18)

“Had the Father no bosom till the Babe was born in Bethlehem?”

Angel Ruiz: I swear I’m going to throw the chalk at you. John the Evangelist was speaking of the Risen Christ who had gone BACK to his Father to reunite with the tri-unity as God. One God. He speaks of “the bosom of the Father” because that’s how close the three persons are. You remember that In Luke Jesus mentions “Abraham’s bosom” where Lazarus had gone. That was a euphemism for heaven where God’s righteous dwell with Him. Now, amazingly your verse (1:18) also mentions the phrase “only begotten Son”. So AGAIN (I’m going to keep asking this until you answer me, because you still haven’t) I ask: Jesus was begotten (1:18) but WHEN? You have not answered that Angel. You’re gonna get a “D” in theology today if you don’t learn proper hermeneutics. 😉

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

The Greek construction of John 1:18 is significant with respect to the doctrine of Eternal Sonship…

the present tense of the verb preceded by the article “the One being” or “the One ever existing” expresses permanent being; He who is, was, and ever shall be, in the bosom of the Father…. most intimately united with Him.

The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,” expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead, and the ineffable intimacy and love between Them, the Son sharing all the Father’s counsels and enjoying all His affections. “The bosom of the Father” ever has been and ever will be the Son’s dwelling place…

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

The unmistakable teaching of John 1:18 is that the Son of God is perfectly qualified to be the Revealer of the Invisible Father because from all eternity He has existed in the Father’s bosom. He is the One ever being and ever existing in the bosom of the Father….

One other point that occurred to me: The whole notion of the “Eternal sonship” is problematic in another way. God, by definition is not ETERNAL but INFINITE. Why? In mathematics eternality is symbolized by a ray. It has a point of origin but continues indefinitely. Endlessly. INIFNITY is symbolized by either a circle or a figure 8. There is no point of origin. A SON has origin. A son is the EFFECT of the CAUSE, the Father. A son is GENERATED. There could be no distinction between “Father” and “Son” if both were CO-EQUAL in existence and substance. ….But on EARTH, Jesus was definitely generated, definitely brought about, and definitely subordinate. Here, there was a distinction. So, it makes sense to say the Son of God was born HERE and had status as such. It makes no sense to continue such a relationship in heaven where the Godhead is NOT distinct (I Cor.15:28). And definitely doesn’t make sense to posit it pre-incarnately.

Angel Ruiz From all eternity the WORD has existed with God (John 1:1) but AGAIN, it is nowhere stated that the WORD was then known as the SON. This is illogical and you STILL haven’t answered my question. Sheesh!

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

So when did God become the Father?

Good question. “Father” is a term that is used FOR OUR SAKES. God is Father of spirits (Num. 27:16; Heb. 12:9), Father of the nation of Israel (Mal. 1:6): Father from whom all of the family of the Earth is named (Eph. 3:14), Father of glory (Eph. 1:17). He is the origin of everything, thus the progenitor. But so is Jesus. The Word. At any rate, The Father calls the Son “God” in Heb. 1:8. What’s interesting is, again, when God actually makes Jesus “son”. Read Hebrews 1:6 please. Unmistakable.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

So its a relational title, expression a relationship… ?

Yup. You got it. God is more than the concepts of Himself He has given us. In fact, from Genesis 1 we can tell God is more than “He”. (Both male AND female were created “in his image”) Yet He chooses to be identified as “He” in the Scripture. Of course, your liberal critics will come along and tell you “that’s only because the text reflects a male-dominant culture”. Or, it could be that a male -dominant societal structure is what God intended? (See Deut. 30 and I Cor. 11) Anyways……

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

So Is Son is a relational title… Expression of relationship

Angel Ruiz: Yes! “Son” is a relational title expressing God’s relationship to the Word (John 1:1) as it was incarnated. When we look at I Cor. 15:28 we see that this relationship doesn’t hold for all of eternity but, in fact, “the son” reverts back to being part and parcel of the tri-une Godhead (Col. 2:9). He will also have a “new name” (Rev. 3:11). Again, “Son” is a GENERATIVE term. It implies a proceeding froth FROM a father and a subservience TO a superior, the father. This was all true of the incarnation. Jesus did, indeed, come FROM the Father (from heaven to earth). He was “sent” to do a mission. He was BORN physically here and proved true here on earth that “the Father is greater than I”. (John 14:28). You will notice that Jesus, in this verse actually talks about proceeding FROM the Father and going back TO the Father. He says, having not yet ascended, that the Father IS greater than He. Now, if that were true AT ALL TIMES (No matter whether in heaven or on earth) then could Jesus really have claimed to be the I AM in John 8:58? If He had a beginning and was always inferior to the Father, His claim to the divine name would be false.
Many make much ado about Jesus’ calling His Father, “my God” in Rev. 3:11. But this is only the same as when the Father calls Him “God” in Heb. 1:8. This brings up the yet other thorny issue of whether “tri-theism” is really true (since both the Father and the Son refer to each other as “O God”. But Paul never understood it as such. He said there is ONE God. Deut. 6:4 also affirms this, even while using the Hebrew word for compound unity, “Echad” (not “Yachid” for singularity).

the PLAIN ANSWER is YES. Why? Jesus is NOT A SEPARATE GOD. Also he WAS NOT A SON IN HEAVEN. So if he BECAME a son here (via the virgin birth and fulfillment of Isa. 7:14) then YES, he NEEDED MARY. Hebrews says: “A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME”. He didn’t just pop out of thin air one day Troy. AY yay yay yay…..*shakes head*.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

There is considerable biblical evidence to support the eternal Sonship of Christ.

There are many passages that clearly identify that it was “the Son” who created all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2), thereby stating that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation.

When one considers these passages, it is clear that the most normal and natural meaning of the passages is that at the time of creation Jesus was the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune Godhead, thus supporting the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

Angel Ruiz: A Dios mio! You’re citing Colossians 1:13-16 as evidence of ETERNAL SONSHIP? It says “By Him”…by who? Jesus Christ, the Word, the Creator…were all things made. There is not ONE verse that says Jesus was the SON in heaven. Jesus was ONE with the Father and the Spirit. In fact, even the Father is called “Father” not because he’s eternally begetting spirit-babies (again, Mormonism) but because “from Him the whole FAMILY OF EARTH is named” (Ephesians). Yahweh Elohim is Father of the SPIRITS He made. Jesus is His co-equal and only BECAME the son ON EARTH. This is so LOGICAL. How else can I explain it? And guess what? Jesus does not have the role of “the son” in heaven either! The Father refers to him as “God” in Hebrews 1:8. He will come back to earth as Judge, King and Sovereign Lord. He is no Mary’s human offspring anymore. He has a glorified body and is back to being co-equal with the Father. Lest you take hold of the terms “Father” and “Son” so fiercely, remember that there are not THREE GODS but ONE. Three distinct but equal persons, ON GOD. A SON always has secondary status to a father. Kapish? That is not how God’s Word describes the Godhead. (Col. 2:9).

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

note that all the 15 pronouns in Colossians 1 verses 15 to 20 inclusive are in apposition with the noun, Son (v.13).

Therefore, in Colossians 1:16 we are told that it was by the Son that all things were created. All things were created by the Son. The Son of God, therefore, must have existed as the Son at the time of creation, long before He became incarnate.

You insist that Christ did not become the Son of God until the incarnation you put a strained interpretation on the clear statement of this verse.

Angel Ruiz: I’m getting the dunce cap for ya. You’re killin’ me here. I’ve had a Mormon understand things quicker. Ok, once again. 1. To wit, in verse 13 the word “Son” is mentioned, verse 14 begins “in whom” and refers back to the second person of the Godhead. Now, from verse 15-20, which you cite, there is not ONE mention of the word “Son”. I’m still asking you, if Jesus is the “image of the invisible God”, when you imply He HAD A BEGINNING IN ETERNITY PAST, this means, at some point, Jesus, the second person of the Godhead, did NOT exist and could NOT at that point represent the Godhead. And can it possibly mean for the FULLNESS of the Godhead to dwell in Christ (Col. 2;9) if is not infinite in status as the Father is? the “Eternal Sonship” doctrine more than implies that Jesus became the son in eternity past (not “always was” as you claim). Why? Because you have those verses that explicitly state God BECOMING a Father to Him, BEGETTING Him. So, to further muddy the waters, would you then say that, according to Colossians 1:3 only the FATHER is God, because he is mentioned FIRST and called God, as distinct from Jesus who is merely called “Lord”?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Walter Polasik Good response but you never answered: Do you believe Jesus needed Mary or any other human agent to become the Son of God? Plain answer is NO – just think about it…

Troy, that first paragraph is so inane, so nonsensical that I wonder how you can even claim theological training. 1. What do you mean “to my earthly humanistic standard” —Do you see things from God’s viewpoint? You’re omniscient now? 2. “In the beginning was the WORD…and the WORD was GOD”. Period He became the SON when he was born on earth. “This day have I begotten you” refers to that and Paul also refers it to the RESURRECTION. Never, ever, ever, to a pre-incarnate beginning. If you believe Jesus had a PRE-INCARNATE BEGINNING you’re right up there with the Mormons. and JW’s. Troy, please don’t embarrass yourself. No knowledgeable Evangelical Christian or even Pentecostal accepts the “Eternal Sonship” doctrine. Ask any reputable theologian. I’m surprised this was even posted on the Pentecostal Theology page. And as to whether Jesus will CONTINUE to be “the son” in the future….did you not read that He won’t even be called “Jesus” in eternity? He will have a NEW NAME. So, please. And as far as “patristic theology” is concerned, do you agree with say, Origen and his theology? (If you’re even familiar with it).

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Walter Polasik Asked and answered to many before you. You are bringing Christ’s sonship to your earthly humanistic understanding as subject to mother Marry. Perhaps you believe without Mary there would have been no Son of God. This makes you a Mary worshiper

But the right question to be asked here is about t he definition of “Son of God” which is being discussed in OP. The Church fathers give plain answer. Have you not read it yet?

The Eternal Sonship doctrine is completely unbiblical. I can prove that in 2 minutes. That someone would spend a whole book on it amazes me but….that’s why we’ve got the Mormons.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Who are you ordained with again?

Doesn’t matter Troy. I could be ordained with the Easter Bunnies of America and still be right. Answer me one simple question: when was Jesus born in heaven?

You haven’t answered my question. Was Jesus born in heaven or not?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Are you asking if Christ’s sonship was subject to an earthly mother Mary? Do you make difference between sonship and birth in flesh / incarantion ?

Troy: What is the definition of “son”. Simple question.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Walter Polasik you are looking st it the wrong way… Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of a human father and a son. God did not get married and have a son. God did not mate with Mary and, together with her, produce a son.

During His trial before the Jewish leaders, the High Priest demanded of Jesus, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). “Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (Matthew 26:64). The Jewish leaders responded by accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66). Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7)

Why would His claiming to be the Son of God be considered blasphemy and be worthy of a death sentence? When Jesus said he was the Son of God what did they understand that to mean… ???

In John 5 Jesus says that God is his Father making the bold declaration that he is “THE SON OF GOD”; the Pharisees decided to stone him because Jesus was making Himself equal with God.

Some one equal with God has the same characteristics, same attributes, same divinity, and same origin…

When Jesus made the claim to be the son of God they did not ask who is your mother. The claim Son of God has nothing to do with being born.

Angel Ruiz: I have no problem with Jesus being the Son. I Do have a problem with the claim for ETERNAL sonship. and YES, I DO have my definition of “son” right. God the Father never “mated” with Mary (as in old Mormon lore) but His Holy Spirit caused her body to produce a human. What she then gave birth to is, by all normal definitions, a SON. Jesus Christ was God’s SON ON EARTH. He was part of the tri-une GODHEAD, Co-equal, co-eternal, without beginning IN HEAVEN. Please, please PLEASE let’s get that through our heads.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24).

As we can see here Jesus is praying to God “the Father” and relates to him as the Son in speaking about his glory he had with the Father before the world was made.

In The Old Testament in Psalm 2:7, the pre-incarnate Christ is called the Son.

In Colossians 1:13, 17 the Son is before all things.

These verses demonstrate that there is a relationship between the Father and the Son that has existed from before the foundation of the universe.

Angel Ruiz: So help me ….well, the very person we’re talking about….if you don’t get this I’ll send a pie in your face. Ok, Psalm 2:7, referring to the SON in CONTEXT (you’re not a Jehovah’s Witness by any chance, are you? They ALWAYS skip the context) is referring to “the anointed” (Ps. 2:2), the Messiah. This is echoed again in Isa. 9:6. It’s a MESSIANIC prophecy that a SON WILL come. And 2:7 is what I was talking about. WHEN IS THAT DAY? NIV has “Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER” Again, WHEN did God ever BECOME Father to the Word in eternity past?
Your Colossians passage says just what you say it does: That Jesus is “before all things”. He is the HEAD (Gk. “arche”, the SOURCE) of all things. He is the FIRSTBORN but not, as the Witnesses say, “first one born” but the PREEMINENT ONE. The FIRSTBORN had all of the rights and power in the household but you and I know Jacob and Joseph were never born first, but had the PRE-EMINENCE given by God anyway.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2 and John 1:14 clearly seems to be something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb.

Angel Ruiz: THANK YOU! You’ve finally said the magic word that allows me to understand why you insist on this. “FIGURATIVE”. No, the reference is to “the anointed”, Messiah and that is LITERAL. The WORD LITERALLY became the Son of God in Mary’s womb. Liberals and cults (and Origen, remember?) like to do “figurative” interpretation.
Now, Senor, if you INSIST that “the begetting in Psalm 2 and John 1:14 clearly seems to be something more than the conception of Christ’s HUMANITY…then you, my friend, at a Mormon. …I’m not kidding. I’m really not. Mormon doctrine declares that “Elohim”, “Heavenly Father” BEGOT Jesus in heaven. Since Lucifer is also called a “son of God” (bene Elohim) Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. Well, that’s what figurative interpretations get you. Tell me I have it wrong here. Come on.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

The plain implication of the pre-existent Sonship of Christ given in John 1 verse 14 is confirmed in verse 18 by the description of the Son as the One Who is “in the bosom of the Father.”

The phraseology employed is that of the definite article with the present participle of the verb “to be,” lit., “the (one) being in the bosom…”

This form of phrase provides what is virtually a titular description, and is to be distinguished from the use of the relative pronoun with the present tense of the verb to be (“who is”). Had it been the intention of the writer to state that the Son is at the present time in the bosom of the Father, in contrast to a time in the past when He was not in that position and relationship, the relative clause, that is to say, the relative pronoun with the present tense, would have been used (hos esti, “who is”). The participial construction (the definite article with the present participle “being”) is not thus limited in point of time. Here the construction conveys a timeless description, expressing a condition and relationship characteristic, essential and unoriginal/eternal.

Angel Ruiz: Even if that is the case with the Greek, the ONLY thing that says is that the SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY always existed WITH THE FIRST and THIRD. They, by nature, co-equal, co-eternal. Of COURSE the Greek would indicate this. HOWEVER, ALL of the verses mentioning “begetting” and being a “son” denote 1. A point of origin in time and 2. A duration of role. Why? Because of the temporal, earthly, factual birth that took place on earth. Every verse that mentions a “begetting” has to do with this. I submit, Angel, that if Jesus as “born in heaven”…he CANNOT be equal with the Father and CANNOT, by definition by God. (And the cults are then right).

Angel, a VALIANT fight from you, touche. But let’s please respect what God’s Word ACTUALLY says and of course, logic and common sense.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Your argument goes against the clear Greek expression… The what you are saying it that the Greek is wrong…

*sound of nails on a chalkboard* Angel Ruiz: Then, mi amigo, you are saying that Jesus HAD A BEGINNING and (AGAIN) is not equal to God. You are saying that somehow, the Greek is contradicting Colossians 2:9 Hmmm. No, that can’t be. The correct answer is: That teoria is loco. 😉

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

You are denying what the Greek is expressing…. Your interpretation is contradicting the Greek

Angel Ruiz: If it were contradicting the Greek, don’t you think this debate would have been settled ages ago? It’s quite old, actually so no, the Greek isn’t contravened. The same has been said concerning the Pentecostal-Cessationist debate referencing I Cor. 12:13. The Greek preposition “en” can be here translated as “in” or “by”.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

It was… Settled ages ago…

Angel Ruiz: Well, the “Eternal Sonship” doctrine, as far as the universal Church is concerned WAS settled ages ago. It was settled when believers decided to do biblical hermeneutics right and dispensed with half-baked notions that were still rooted in Roman Catholicism and the teachings of the Church Fathers as opposed to sound exegesis.

Henry Volk Henry Volk says:

Haha! Oh please. Hardly. This is patristic theology at its best. The RCC is a beneficiary of it, not the creator of it.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Joseph Kidwell called it Roman Catholic at best. Would this be your assumption too?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Welcome back Henry Volk What do you think about the church fathers cited here and their eternal Sonship generation doctrine?

That Scripture fit into a Biblical case that I was making and does not stand alone. Minds are not going to be changed here, so what’s the point? There are those who hold to the same position that I hold and others who don’t. Hopefully, those who have never heard of Incarnational Sonship will be spurred to study further. Be blessed.

No sir, it was laid out in this thread. No special attention is required. You were not able to answer my points and I understand why. You simply are wrong.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

If you have posted it and tagged me I have read it. If you have not tagged me I have no way to read all you write everywhere on the internet. If you still like to debate a passage pls. post in a separate post. I have read all 50+ comments in this current discussion without finding substantial evidence to support your position. Was it in another discussion? Again pls post separately if you require special attention. Thanks!

Troy Day, you have not read what I’ve written in this thread. I said that I’m a Trinitarian as was Walter Marrin ansd Adam Clarke. Furthermore, I have cited several passages of Scrpture. May I suggest that you read what I have written? Blessings.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Joseph Kidwell I’d be happy to review your so called exegesis when I get a chance if you post it as a separate topic so this one is not hi-jacked. However, if your whole theory rests on one text only I may as well just rest my case. Also, you never answered if you are Pentecostal oneness believer which is crucial for the continuation of the discussion on this topic. Thanks!

We must remember that what God intends to do in the future is a completed act even though it has not yet happened. redemption was already a completed act in the mind of God before Adam even sinned. Now, I don’t know what translation you are quting from, but that is not how other translations read. “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born uner the law.” ( Gal. 4:4 ) NKJV That translation is consistent with the NASB and the ESV. Secondly, in 1 Jn. 4:2, John was dealing with the Gnostic heresy which denied the Incarnation of Christ. This passage does not teach or in any way imply some kind of eternal Sonship. I will say that you have made an admirable attempt to defend the indefensible. There can be no such thing as an ‘eternal Son’ for eternity has not beginning and the term ‘son’ presupposes a beginning. Also, a ‘son’ can never be considered ‘co-equal’ to his father. If eternal sonship is true, then Jesus is not God and we are still in our sins for there was no atonement.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Not too sure if Ricky Grimsley would quite agree with that now that he is 1 year older (and wiser) ?

I think anyone who believes that God planned and completed the atonement before the world began, needs to be prepared to answer why God created in the first place and why he isnt responsible for sin and all human suffering.

It’s called foreknowledge.

Whatever you call it, calvinists and most arminians are left with the same problem…..a God that knew all the people that would go to hell a chose, either by decree or by creation, to send them there.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Galatians 4:4 But when the right time came, God sent his Son [into the world]. A woman gave birth to him, and he came under the control of God’s laws.

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,


Not simply His Messianic work, but more importantly, His redemptive mission. In other words, the purpose of the Father/Son relationship has been fulfilled and is finished as a result of the fact that Christ has accomplished the mission. He will no longer be submitted to God. Please note the above quote from Adam Clarke regarding the fact that the rational conjunction of the terms eternal and son is absolutely contradictory. You simply cannot have an ‘eternal son’.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

His messianic work is his redemptive mission…

But his role as Son has begging or end… you must remember that we are made in the image of God. And Mankind has a need for relationship. So our needed for relationship and communion is based on the relationship of the son the father and the Holy Spirit.

His Messianic work is related to Israel. His redemptive work is related to all mankind.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Jesus’ first role as Messiah was to rescue the world from spiritual bondage, and that he will return to rescue the world from physical oppression and establish his unending Kingdom

God’s promise to Abraham refers to the fact that the Messiah, the Savior of all humankind, would come into the world through God’s Chosen People. Scriptures referring to this include:

“Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.” (Genesis 18:18)

“I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” (Isaiah 42:6-7)

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Joseph Kidwell
Regarding 1 cor 15:24-28….

Paul’s argument in this section has many details but its thrust is clear and powerful.

The Corinthians must understand that the Resurrection is not an isolated event with limited repercussions. It is rather an integrating and culminating event in God’s sovereign rule over history.

Redemption is not complete “until he has put all his enemies under his feet” v.25, a clear reference to Psalms 110:1, and since death is “the last enemy” v.26, Christ’s work is not done until death is destroyed.

Paul’s statement that the Son “will also be subjected” to the Father in v.28 does not mean that the Son is inferior in dignity and being. Rather, in His messianic work the Son subjects Himself to the will of the Father “when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” as we see in v.24.

The climax of Christ’s submissive, messianic work is this total conquest over His enemies, “that God may be all in all,” when His absolute rule is universally acknowledged.

Troy Day, unless you can answer that or exegete the passages that I have cited in defense of Incarnational Sonship and totally obliterating and destroying the false notion of ‘Eternal Sonship’, I am done. I rest my case.

I am in full agreemet with the words of Adam Clarke when he wrote the following, “The Eternal Sonship of Christ is irreconcilable to reason and contradictory to itself. Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time; Son presupposes time, generation and a father; and time also antecedent to such generation; therefore, the rational conjunction of the two terms, son and eternity, is absolutely contradictory, and as they imply essentially different & opposite ideas. if His (Christ’s) divine nature be in any way derived, His eternity & by consequence His godhead is destroyed; & if His godhead, then His atonement.”

Troy Day, I’m glad to respond although you STILL have not answered any Scripture that I have cited. If I am engaged in eisgesis, then you should do me the honor of correctly exegeting1 Co.15: 24-28. I truly am more interested in what the Apostle John had to say rather than Wesley, Calvin & Luther for nothing that they wrote even approaches the level of the Apostle John for he wrote under direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Adam Clarke was not “exposed” by Wesley. To this day he is regarded as one of the greatest Methodist theologians in history even though the Methodist Church stuck with the RCC dogma on eternal sonship. Finally, I will do what you REFUSE to do with the Scriptures that I have cited and deal with you’re references one by one. Jn. 1:14 says “the Word became flesh”. It does not say that the Son became flesh. Paul Hughes exegeted Jn. 1:18 accurately in the post above. Jn. 3:16 says nothing about sonship before the Incarnation & neither does Jn. 3:18. Finally 1 Jn. 4:9 does not imply that the Father/Son relationship always was but rather speaks to the purpose of said relationship. That is, to redeem fallen man. I will say it again, you do not have one single Scripture that teaches a so called ‘eternal sonship’. You asked what kind of Christian I am? I am a Holy Ghost filled and anointed Christian who holds to “Sola Scriptura”. The Lord be with you.

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

MONOGENES does not really mean “divine sonship” but the idea of uniqueness. It is similar to the use of PROTOTOKOS, “firstborn,” and is sometimes interchanged, but PR. itself is not absolute, since Isaac was called “firstborn,” not Ishmael. Ishmael was technically firsborn, but not special. Also, Jacob’s firstborn Reuben was demoted due to an indiscretion, and Joseph accorded position of firstborn.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Monogenes could also be “special son” or “only one of its kind within a specific relationship”

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However Isaac was not the only-son of Abraham, but was the special-son, having unique virtue.

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

I think I said that.

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

This subject was a can of worms in the 3rd thru 8th centuries, & remains a can of worms now. Arius got in trouble for thinking that because Christ was “only-begotten,” then he must have been “begotten” before the world was made, but was not eternal. Origen got in trouble by concocting the idea of “eternal generation,” which includes the idea that Christ keeps on getting “generated,” and which diminishes the concept of the once-for-all Incarnation, moreover was 1 of 4 doctrines that got him anathematized later. Nicaea did not settle Incarnation questions, which actually got worse, but was an act of arm-twisting by Constantine with veiled threats to the churches to keep the peace. Chalcedon did more to establish a consensus statement (i.e., creed), but it had the dimensions of the proverbial “horse designed by a committee” (that is, a camel), utilizing purposely ambiguous terms like HOMOOUSIOS which could be interpreted differently in Antioch, Alexandria, and the West. Finally, these questions became moot, for centuries, the Church being preoccupied by the Muslim Conquests and the Crusades.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Actually Joseph Kidwell the posts cited early church father as we all know there was no Western Roman Catholic Church until 10th century, but we will leave this to your own education in church history to determine. The view in my post is clearly Protestant (Luther and Calvin), Evangelical and Wesleyan Pentecostal as all these theological schools drew their Biblical doctrine on the Eternal Sonship of Christ from the church fathers and early church councils.

Eternal Sonship of the second person in the Trinity is described in Scripture by the term monogenes, “only begotten.” This description of divine Sonship occurs in John’s Gospel and First Epistle (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and the writings of the apostle Paul. Eternal Sonship cannot be limited to Christ’s incarnational (mediatorial) Sonship. John speaks of the Father’s sending His only begotten Son into the world. Only begotten describes His eternal, intra-trinitarian relation with the Father, not the office He assumed as Mediator.

Marthin Luther was repelled by speculation into the mystery of eternal generation (aka Eternal Sonship). He says: “We should, like little children, stammer out what the Scriptures teach: that Christ is truly God, that the Holy Ghost is truly God, and yet there are not three Gods, or three Beings, as there are three Men, three Angels, three Suns, or three Windows. No, God is not thus divided in his essence; but there is one only divine Being or substance” (Works, 13:1510)

Calvin also rejected all attempts to penetrate the mystery of the divine begetting. After quoting Augustine’s admirable summary of the trinitarian relations of the Father and the Son (see Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series, 8:301), he states, “It is safer to stop with that relation which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations” (Institutes, 1:13.19).

John Wesley in his time fully exposed and warned Adam Clarke’s denial of Christ’s Eternal Sonship

So if you are not Nicene, Post Nicen, Protestant (Luther and Calvin) or Wesleyan in your view of the Eternal Sonship of Christ. What is it left there in true Christianity for you to be?

Paul Hughes Paul Hughes says:

But then, Luther was hung up on “ubiquity,” which fed into his sacramental view, but tends to diminish the uniqueness of the Incarnation.

Finally, those ‘church fathers’ did not believe in the Baptism in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues and they certainly were not infallible as many of them embraced some false doctrines. If you want infallibility, I suggest that you look to the inspired text.

Troy Day, you’re last post sounds Roman Catholic, not Protestant and certainly not Pentecostal. The theme of the Reformation was ‘Sola Scriptura’ or the Scriptures alone. It appears that the difference between us is that we look to the Scriptures as the final authority and you look to church tradition.

I’m no scholar but for my 2 cents I agree with Troy Day. Jesus was and is the eternal son even before the incarnation.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Ricky I have not made any claims. I am simply making you aware what church fathers, church councils and church history has told us about your invention thus far. It is not my claim to defend – it is the church’s claim already defended by virtually all church fathers, church councils and church history. I simply made you aware of their theological decisions as well as the Scripture they used to proof them and disproof the heresies out there. It is your personal choice to agree with virtually all church fathers, church councils and church history or disagree and be made anathema (not personally by any member of this group) but by virtually all church fathers, church councils and church history. Except if you think you have more sound theology than virtually all church fathers, church councils and church history. It’s for you to decide 🙂

Please explain “this day have i begotten thee”

Maybe you need to make a chart.

Im just messing with you because you keep making claims but dont provide evidence.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Basically your hypothesis disagree with every major church council out there. Happy Birthday!

Council of Nicaea I “We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made . . .” (The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Council of Constantinople I “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” (The Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]) .

Council of Rome “If anyone does not say that the Son was begotten of the Father, that is, of the divine substance of him himself, he is a heretic” (Tome of Damasus, canon 11 [A.D. 382]).

Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).

Sounds like they are the same person?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Finally, Revelation 22:13 Jesus announces, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Earlier in the book, God says the same thing, making specific reference to his eternality as the one who is and who was and who is to come (Rev. 1:8; 21:6). In whatever sense the Father is the beginning and the end, so is the Son. One cannot be more or less eternal than the other.

All you keep saying over and over is Jesus is the eternal son and yet no scripture has been provided to say that. No definition of son either that can be applied to Jesus to make that relationship be in eternal past. If we are talking about “begotten” the bible clearly states that part had a beginning

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship.

So are saying jesus is the father or the son?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

MORE Bible Philippians 2:5-11 places Christ Jesus right in the middle of the most exalted language of Isaiah 45-46. The prediction that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (v. 10-11), comes from Isaiah 45:23. Jesus is identified with the God who says “I am” and “there is no other” (Isa. 45:22), with the God who declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:9-10).

No one here is rejecting the deity of Jesus. Just asking for one single shred of proof that Jesus was a Son before incarnation. And why is Jesus called the Everlasting Father while we are waiting?

Unfortunate, that’s not what the text says. That’s what YOU say. There is NOTHING in this text regarding so called ‘eternal sonship’. Secondly, I’m STILL waiting for you to respond to my exegesis of the Scriptures that I have cited.#StillWaiting

Troy Day Troy Day says:

This is your private interpretation of the Bible not supported by no major denomination out there, church father or historical Church council. You can argue for it but it does not make it true for Christianity – just your own private interpretation Who else supports it? No one!

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Very simple and very plain – There never was when he was not. That was the bone of contention with Arianism, the fourth century heresy which rejected the full deity of the Son of God. The issue was not whether the Son was divine in some sense, but whether he shared the same essence (homoousia) as the Father. In particular, Arius held that sonship necessarily implied having a beginning.

Troy Day, would you please address the Scriptures I have addressed?#IfUWontImDone

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Hey I am just giving yall the Bible here. Taki it with its author Romans 1:3-4 (KJV)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Clearly his Son Jesus Christ who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God’s Son from all eternity.

Exactly right, Tony Conger.

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

Troy DayI’m sorry brother but you apparently don’t understand what we are saying. Christ was and is and is to come. He had no beginning. Sonship however was a title for a purpose that had a beginning and will one day end

Troy Day, you STILL don’t understand incarnational sonship. We believe in the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, ‘sonship’ has NOTHING to do with pre-existence. Rather, it was a role that the Living, eternal Word assumed for the purpose of redeeming fallen man.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Oh, not comical and not almost but heretical. You have turned your doctrinal divination way beyond ontological frontology into what the Church Fathers and Councils considered open heresy against the Eternal Sonship of the Christ. There never was when he was not. That was the bone of contention with Arianism, the fourth century heresy which rejected the full deity of the Son of God. The issue was not whether the Son was divine in some sense, but whether he shared the same essence (homoousia) as the Father. In particular, Arius held that sonship necessarily implied having a beginning.

Its almost comical now.

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

Again Troy Day proves pre existence not prior sonship

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Proves Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.

I think troy is upc and he wont admit it. John 17:5 KJVS
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Proves Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

You asked for Bible, I give you Bible. What’s the problem now? John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world.

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. Tony Conger

Please Troy Day. Just end the madness and explain how a person with no beginning, and =to can be the Son of anyone in the eternal past. No links, no personal attacks or avoidance. What meaningful definition of son applies to a pre-incarnate jesus and what in world does this day have i begotten thee if there was never a day because he was always the son?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

There never was when he was not. That was the bone of contention with Arianism, the fourth century heresy which rejected the full deity of the Son of God. The issue was not whether the Son was divine in some sense, but whether he shared the same essence (homoousia) as the Father. In particular, Arius held that sonship necessarily implied having a beginning.

Ok so can you explain what son means as it applies to jesus.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Are you saying Jesus could not be the Son of God without Mother Mary ?

Im asking you to explain what you believe b

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

Your basing an entire doctrine on your inferences from scripture. Not good practice

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Sonne, pls consider John 16:28 for your own interpretation — – Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God’s Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son.

Which son was jesus in the prodigal parable?

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Jesus not any of those… It a parable that speak about mankind especially the Pharisees…

Angel Ruiz obviously its an illustration

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

And the illustration is not about Jesus

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Here’s even more BIBLE: The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission.

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

Angel Ruiz you still have not answered my question even though I have answered yours. When was the son begotten?

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

So what does monogenes mean?

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

And a dodge again. I’m done.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Not dodging at all… We must be clear what begotten means…

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

It was the incarnation. It clearly says today I have begotten thee. If you believe in past sonship then when was he begotten? Why is it so hard to get you to simply answer a question?

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

To clearly understand when and how the word begotten needs to be defined… that is why I asked you what does MONOGENES mean

Tony Conger Tony Conger says:

Still not answering

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Ricky Grimsley when was Jesus the Lamb of God?

Jesus was the lamb from the katabole of the world. Personally i believe foundation means “the overthrow on the throwing down of the first world. There was a day when God decided that the cross was necessary and he planned it. He watched over his plan to perform it. Was that the original plan? I cant see why.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

so Jesus can be the LAMB of God before the event on the Cross… but he cant be the SON before the event of His incarnation….?????

Because he isnt actually a lamb just like he isnt actually a lion.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

But he is the Lamb of God before the event on the Cross right…

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature //most certainly NOT all after the incarnation

Thats ridiculous to believe that jesus was already born before humans were. It refers to resurrection. Paul tells you this.

Angel Ruiz Angel Ruiz says:

Ricky Grimsley the Incarnation bas born the Jesus was never born…

Again all after the incarnation. What about?Psalm 107:19-20 KJVS
[19] Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. [20] He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Dont back out on me now. Here’s more BIBLE Virtually every passage which speak of the Father SENDING the Son implys that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.).

Look Troy Day lol obviously jesus was eternal but not as a son.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

In John 8:58 Jesus says to his opponents, “before Abraham was, I am.” Not only does Jesus link himself to Yahweh’s great “I AM” statement of Exodus 3:14, he also makes allusion to the “I am” declarations in Isaiah 40-55 (e.g., “I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he” [Isa. 41:4]). Jesus considered himself as eternal as the God of the Old Testament was eternal.

John is writing that how many years after incarnation. Obviously he refers to him as the son. Just like. John 3:13 KJVS
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Is jesus saying he is omnipresent right then or is this John talking about Jesus from the future?

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Now we go back again to definition of Son? You dont remember doing that with Tony Conger and being refuted by the 1611 KJV John 3:16 “… his only begotten Sonne …” Come on – stop recycling your theology It was settled by virtually every and all church council in the early church that Jesus Christ is Eternal Son of the Father Eternally

What meaningful definition of son can be applied to a pre-incarnate christ.

Troy Day Troy Day says:

Come on Tony Conger Cant argue with virtually all CHURCH FATHERS on ETERNAL SONSHIP Ricky Grimsley