The Word of God advises us to “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Interestingly enough, there are multitudes of people who profess to be Christians but pay little or no regard to the above-said piece of timely advice. […]
Most people believe the sea of forgetfulness is in scripture..just saying
9 out of 10 Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the ETERNAL Son of God
Very good point, Tony Conger. They also believe that ‘cleanliness is next to godliness’ is Scripture as well! It’s not what the majority think, but rather what the Scriptures teach.#SolaScriptura
William Lance Huget
The Deity of Christ is biblical, historical, orthodox, essential, salvific truth.
Christ’s eternal preexistence isnt the discussion. its whether or not the sonship was prior to the incarnation
Lots of minutia comments here but no real arguments as far Pentecostal theology proper is concerned. Nicene creed answers all
“Christians…here present…are desirous to be free from all men made creeds and traditions, and are willing to take the New Testament, or law of Christ, for your only rule of faith and practice” – R. G. Spurling Barney Creek Meeting House August 19, 1886
Pentecostals have been against Creeds from the start.
Not really true today Hunter McLain Our AG has always had its Statement of 16 fundamental truths and the Church of God has had its fundamental creed declaration since 1948. Both of them recognize the eternal sonship of Christ as far as Pentecostal Theology is concerned
All depends how u define the applicability/practicality of the term “eternal”. It is a multifaceted thing.
No sir, Troy Day Day! No creed answers it all!#SolaScriptura
Eternal means having no beginning or end. One cannot be an ‘eternal son’.
These who dont confess the eternal generation of the Son fall under the Arian heresy – as simple as that. The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian heresy, whose leader, Arius, was a member of the clergy of Alexandria. “Arius objected to Alexander’s (the bishop of the time) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation”.
Alexander rightfully accused Arius of denying the divinity of the Son and also of being too “Jewish” and “Greek” in his thought. Both Arius and Alexander rejected Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Sabellian formulae. The Nicene Creed was created as a result of the extensive adoption of the doctrine of Arius far outside Alexandria, in order to clarify the key tenets of the Christian faith.
So, whoever does not agree with you is a heretic? Since you associate Arianism with Incarnational Sonship, it’s very clear that you need to do some research. Arianism maintains that Christ was created and we maintain that He is eternal as well as the Creator.
Whoa Troy. I’m believe in Oneness. I am very far from arianism.
6:1 from the poll – Let’s just leave it there shall we?
If the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father, then how can he also be born of Mary?
In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?
The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both “the Son of Man” (Mt 12:8) and “the Son of God” (Mt 8:29).
These dual events are precipitated by who Jesus is: true God and true Man. The events are of a different order. The first took place hidden in God’s own being, apart from time, eternally. It was the act of God alone. The other took place in plain view, as a sign to all of us, at a specific time and place, within God’s creation. And while it was surely the work of God, the act of giving birth to the Son was the act of a woman, a human being.
So the Son is not “begotten twice.” He is begotten (“caused to be”) after the manner of his Father. And he is born, brought forth as a unique human being, after the manner of his mother. They are two different, but complimentary, acts.
Sounds like you are saying jesus was created
Ahaha what a cheap shot you are indeed 🙂
At the heart of the Nicene Creed is the answer to your question with these words:
“And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father … .”
Again what does son mean. Its not a cheat shot. You are the one talking about events in the bosom of the father.
The Father and the son are the same thing. “Son” is just one of the three forms God uses to relate to The World. It is symbolic language. There was no “Son” manifestation before the birth. There is no difference between the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are manifestations of God.
If the father and son are the same, then how did jesus not know the date of his return?
I respectfully disagree with Hunter McLain and Troy Day. The Father and the Son and not simply two manifestations, but are distinct. Secondly, the term ‘Son of Man’ refers to The fact that the Living Word took upon Himself humanity and Son of God refers to the fact that the Living Word is divine, unique, one of a kind. He is in fact, God manifested in the flesh.
The only thing we know about God’s nature is what He reveals. He chose to reveal Himself to us in terms we can relate to and in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ. If we insist on understanding the terms like “son” and “begotten” in biological concepts then we are prone to misunderstand God. The biblical emphasis of terms like son and begotten have to do with relationship and inheritance, not biological questions of how someone came to be.
The point of it all it that Jesus is God in the flesh and in a son type of relationship to the Father so that it makes sense that the Father will give all things to the Son. He is the heir. That is what scripture concerns itself with. Questions of how someone came to be are modern questions because we are science oriented. Ancients were relationship oriented.
I disagree. It’s about language. Either words mean something or they do not. Now, in relationship to the Living Word taking upon Himself the role of “son of God’ for the purpose of redeeming fallen man, I agree with you. However, the concept of ‘Eternal Sonship’ is unscriptural. There are no Scriptures to back it up. Rather, this doctrine is refuted very easily with Scripture.
Of course words do mean something. The challenge is what do the Greek words mean. Here is an excellent article that gives the historical and biblical background to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
I refer you to the Biblical perspective presented by the late Christian Apologist, Dr. Walter Martin who authored the classic, “The Kingdom of the Cults”. Also you might want to Google the writings of Adam Clarke from his classic Commentary.
Jon Sellers back with a very timely and appropriate comment.
Joseph Kidwell What else do we have to go on except the language of the written Word?
Are you suggesting extra-Biblical revelation here?
Do you believe GOD had more than One Son?
Ricky Grimsley The ratio as of this morning is 17:2 in favor of the ETERNAL Sonship of Christ taught in the BIBLE