Is the Son eternal?
 

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.

God has dealt with and spoken to His people over the centuries via many vessels & manifestations.

He was manifest in the burning bush.
He was manifest in the cloud by day.
He was manifest in the fire by night.
He was manifest in the flesh by the begotten man Jesus Christ.

None of these manifestations are eternal yet all of them are manifestations of the eternal God.

God... the eternal, invisible God... was IN Christ... the begotten vessel who was born (had a beginning) and experienced death (Had an end)...

The vessel was not eternal but the eternal was in the vessel.

But is it as the Son that Jesus is divine or is it as the logos (memra, word, divine expression) that Jesus is divine. The Son was begotten and that, in itself, necessitates that there was a beginning. Let us not do what so many of the Nicene fathers and subsequent church fathers did: confuse Jesus' humanity with His being God. What I mean by this is their kind of argument where since Jesus is divine and being divine necessitates being eternal, then he must be eternally begotten since Jesus is divine.

I've explained this to you dozens and dozens of times and you either don't get it or just don't WANT to get it. You don't have to agree with me, but at least be honest about what we believe.

So let me ask you here a rhetorical question in order to address this issue...
Has George Bush ALWAYS been the President of the United States? The honest intelligent answer is no. Does that mean the PERSON George Bush did not exist until he became president? Of course not. That is a logical impossibility. The PERSON George Bush must exist in order to become the President

So to, in Oneness, Yahweh the God that created everything has always existed. HE became the Son at the incarnation when He united a Human nature to His own Person. Thus the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF (person) who has the Divine nature, hypostatically united with a Human nature. The Son then is not a mere man, someone other than God, in whom God was.

The Son is Yahweh Himself taking on a human form, adding a human nature. The Son therefore is not another person from God

You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.

God HIMSELF did not change by becoming the Son. He remained the same. His person and Divine nature was unchanged. Additionally you are misusing this verse, which you know full well already because you have agreed with me before. This verse is about changing His word or promises. Read the context and you will see His not changing has to do with his Promises to Israel. God can not lie....that is what this is about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taking on a different form, or nature.

Otherwise this was violated with all the theophanies

Digging thanks for yoru reply, but you've avoided my question which was specifically this - IS THE SON ETERNAL? I'd be grateful if you've tell me if you affirm that the Son is etenral and that as the Son he had no beginning, or do you claim that either God became the Son or that God indwelt a man who was created at Bethlehem or some other viewpoint.

My question is speecificaly focused upon the SON and not upon the Father. So if you should believe that Jesus is God the Father, then telling me that Jesus (by which you mean God the Father) is eternal, then that would really be an avoidance of my question.

Digging has quoted 2nd Corinthians 5:19, I'd like to reply to this specific verse if I might please.

Concerning 2nd Corinthians 5:19, the KJV translation is inaccurate here and the actual Greek text reads completely differently namely; “That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sin against them” 2nd Corinthians 5:19, NIV. So this verse is simply stating, that the Father has reconciled us to himself, through Christ’s redemptive work upon the cross. So the Son is certainly the propitiation for our sins, and he is also our advocate to God the Father (1st John 2:1-2). But this verse does not make the Father the propitiation for sin, together with the Son. So Jesus Christ, who is the Son (2nd John 3), is alone the propitiation for sin (see also Galatians 2:20). Now because the Son and not the Father died for sins, the Son now intercedes to the Father, on our behalf (Hebrews 7:25).

I don't think that it is wise to base an entire doctrine upon one faulty KJV rendering, as some have done with 2nd Corinthians 5:19. Our doctrine should be based upon clear and obvious translations, please consider 2nd Corinthians 5:19 in the following other translations:

“That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,” NIV.
“Our message is that God was making friends of all men through Christ.” TEV.
“That is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” RSV.
“All this is God's doing, for he has reconciled himself to us through Christ.” Phillips.
“To whit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” KJV.

So my point to digging for truth would be that we should never base any doctrine upon one verse, and certainly never upon one single verse, which is dubiously translated in a single version such as the King James Version. I certainly do concede that the Father does indeed indwell the Son, from passages such as Hebrews 1:3, John 14:9 and 10. But to argue that God’s indwelling of Christ logically implies that Christ is other than the one who indwells him, namely God is fallacious. So the argument that “God was in Christ,” makes Christ out to be non-deity, in whom deity then chooses to indwell is false. Possibly digging coukld address this accusation of mine.

If he or anyone else here in thsi forum should beleive this, and I don't know yet, which is why I'm asking this qquestion, then that would be an outright denial of Christ’s (the Son’s deity). However, it is an extremely popular argument, often used by some Oneness people, who would claim that the “Sonship” is the flesh of Jesus, and that the Father is the deity of Jesus. I would argue in response to this claim, that the Father does indeed indwell Jesus (Son), but I would not say that “God” indwells Jesus, because this claim consequently implies that because God cannot indwell himself, therefore the Son has to be someone or something other than God in whom God then chooses to reside.

You misunderstand the Trinitarian creeds, which state that Christ (Son) took on flesh, to my knowledge, no Trinitarian creed or scholar claims that he became flesh for if he did then he changed which is why we don't bevlei that. His deity always remained completely unchanged when he took on flesh, amd as god is not flesh, taking on a blody of flesh in the hypostatic union didn't affect his deity.

The son was not eternal.

The eternal was IN the Son. (To wit, God was IN Christ...)

I do not believe that Jesus was God the Father.

I believe that God the Father was IN Christ.

God was in the vessel.

The vessel was not God.

God indwelt a man who was begotten of a woman.

There was no attempt to avoid your question. I was answering what I saw your post to be asking whether than answer the subject line.

I hope this answers your questions as to where I stand.

But what do you mean by "the Son"? Do you mean some sort of divine entity that is someone other than the one God, the Father that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan says we believe in? Do you mean the man Christ Jesus? Do you mean the logos of John 1 (the memra or divine expression)?

Consider the following excerpt from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

You misunderstand Oneness. WE don't teach God changed. HE remains the same. He only TOOK on flesh.

Let me ask you...has Christ been the Great High Priest eternally? Or did he become that?

1. Adding humanity isn't change or an addition to God, for being infinite God (in his deity) is separate from humanity and that despite the hypostatic union between the Son's two natures. Furthermore, you can't add to an infinite being, so God taking on flesh, doesn't affect or alter his deity.

2. Yes you do teach that God changed, for you believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit arn't God but are mere manifestations of God, some Oneness folk though not the majority would make these manifestations impersonal. Malachi 3:6 teaches; 'For I am God I change NOT.' But you claim that God changes into various manifestions and that as the Son, this manifestation of God is without any divine attributes. So the Son in Oneness is created at his birth, therefore he isn't immutible, Omnipresent or Omnipotent etc in Oneness being mutible and a part of the creation as in Unitarianism, Mormonism and the Watchtower cults.

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

Look Robert, that is exactly what WE believe. We believe God's Infinite being did NOT change. His deity was not altered, therefore your argument is a false argument. it is a strawman argument which you so typically resort to

If you keep telling me I don't believe something I do believe or I believe something I do not believe, i am going to boot your ironbladder right out of here. If you do that with others I am going to boot you out of here. This is not your forum. You can get your own forum and lie about what others say all you want, but you will not do it here like you did on NFCF.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God. God IS Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God DID not change when He was hypostatically united with the Human nature. You are equivocating. You say God did not change when you believe there was a hypostatic union, but when a Oneness person says the same thing you lie about what they believe.

First of all, God being manifested does not mean he changes. When a Onenes person says manifested he or she very well refers to what you said in the first sentence about the hypostatic untion. When a Oneness person speaks of manifestations he or she does NOT mean God's Deity was altered in any way.

Second, you once again totally ignored my argument AND the context of Mal 3. What you are doing is isolating Mal 3:6 from the context. The verse refers to his promises to israel and is reinterated in hebrews where the author declares the immutabilty of God's counsel

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

Exactly! yet you don't say God changed. You do believe Christ is God right?

We believe God became the Son....God did NOT change He only ADDED a human nature. He was hypostatically united with a Human nature.

Robert, did God become a man? Is the Son a man? Did the Son become a man?

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh. As for you, your position is classic subordinationism, for you belevie that Christ is the flesh! This is why Oneness folk refer to God as the 'Almighty God IN Christ' you see Oneness denies the truth that Christ IS the ALmighty God and instead makes him the spirit/deity inside the flesh/Christ/humanity. This is classic subordinationism.

Nestorius accused Cyril (that spawn of Satan) and the Church of mixing, commingling, etc. the two natures. The Church was referring to Mary as the mother of God (theotokos) and Nestorius objected, saying that Mary was the mother of Christ (christokos) but not the mother of God, since Jesus did not derive any of His divinity from Mary.

While there is, indeed, hypostatic union between Jesus' two natures, the Church's position was one of error because it intermixed, commingled, etc. the two natures (thus, they had God dying on the cross, God suffering, etc.). Cyril, after being challenged on this by Nestorius, falsely accused him of saying Jesus was two persons (hypostases), which Nestorius denied. As for oneness folks referring to "Almighty God IN Christ," the Bible refers to God in Christ on more than one occasion and even says that all the fullness of deity dwelled bodily in Christ.

A more correct view is expressed in the following Christological statement:

But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies* of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving - in regard to the union of the parsopa^ of our Savior - the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486).

*I don't agree with the use of "copies" here and it is not clear what is meant by it.

^Aramaic for the Greek word prosopa, which is the plural of prosopon - the word used by the Church for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually until Cyril (that spawn of Satan) insisted that the Church must use the term "hypostasis" individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Cyril claimed that using prosopon was too close to Sabellianism). The English equivalent of prosopon is "persona" (which is the same as the Latin equivalent of the Greek prosopon) while one English equivalent of hypostasis is "person." (Note that Hebrews 1:3 uses for God's "person").

Right and that is what OPs believe happened with God HIMSELF was Hypostatically united with a Human nature. HE and HIS Deity were unchanged. All that happened is the Human nature was united to His Person. He was genuinely a man, while His deity remained the same.

Some of your criticism of my use of Malachi 3:6 are valid. I revised my Malachi 3:6 post last night, however for some strange reason i can't find it on my memory stick! I agree that the primary meaning of this verse is that God's promises to Israel (sons of Judah) are permanent. I would still see this imutibility as reflecting his own divine immutuibility, but I'll try to post my revised post as asap.

That's still beside the point. In Oneness we do not see His Deity having made a change. We ONLY see Humanity being added to Him. He, as the Son, has two natures now. He in His Deity did not change

You use the word 'God' in a duplicitious manner just as a JW, Mormon or Christadelphian uses the word. So you say that the Son is God, but then you deny that he's an eternal Son, you deny that the Son is imutible but beleive that he becasme the Son, and also deny that the Son is creator, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The above mentioned three cults do much the same thing, in that like you they'll call the Son God, but then deny that as the Son he possesses divine attributes and apply these divine attributes to the only God they (like you believe in) namely God the Father.

So a Mormon will say that Jesus is God, but then admit if cornered that jesus is a created man whose not become a God. JW's will admit that Jesus is the 'mighty God' but this is a meaningless term, as it's really the Almighty God (Jehovah) who possesses divine attributes in JW theology.

For you Praxeas, the only real God who possesses divine attributes is the Father who indwells the flesh or Son, therfore the term; the Almighty God in Christ. You see you do call the Son .... God, but he isn't deity at all in yoru theology, I can prove this as you deny that the Son is an eternal Son, creator, omnipresent and omnipotent (as the Son). It's the Father whom you call 'Jesus' or 'Holy Spirit' who is the real God and who possesses divine attributes in your theology.

One day you'll answer for this denial of the Son's deity, at your judgement.

What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.

Divine and human!

OK, so what do you call jesus' divine side and what do you call his human side?

Here is that revised post on Malachi 3:6, which I changed after Praxeas pointed out a mistake.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6, KJV).

This chapter deals from verse one, with God's specific prophecy concerning the messenger (John the Baptist) who will precede himself; the Messiah. It’s a message to Israel which is why verse six is addressed to the ‘Sons of Jacob.’ He then goes onto explain his future judgements upon the wicked in verses two to five. Nevertheless, this statement about his not changing in verse six, must to some extent refer to his own essential being and not just specifically to his covenantal promises with Israel. For although these covenantal promises with Israel are certainly the main focus of the unchangeableness of Malachi 3:6, this steadfastness of his promises comes from the immutability of his own nature.

So God’s assurance to us at Malachi 3:5 is that because he is an immutable being, who cannot change, learn or grow in wisdom and understanding just as we do. Therefore his promise of a Messiah (verse 1), and future punishment of the wicked (verses 2-5), is absolutely assured, because the actions and prophecies of such an immutable being would always be completely secure and trustworthy. So God is telling us at Malachi 3:6, that we can trust him and rely upon his promises, because an unchanging God’s words and prophecies (re verses 1-5), will always come to pass exactly as he states them. So God’s word, which in this case is his covenantal promises with Israel are unchanging, because he himself is an immutable God.

Humanity and Deity.

Jesus' divinity is divinity and His humanity is humanity. Since I believe in hypostatic union, I call the One in whom the two natures are in union "Jesus."

Trust me Chancellor, this does not get any better. He will be like this all the way through to the end of the story

OK what do you call the Humanity and what do you call the deity? Is one the Father and the other the Son or are they both the Father or are neither of them the Father and the Son.

You are still missing the point we are making as evidenced by the way you are asking this question.

Deity is part and parcel with the PERSON for eternity. But the person did not take to Himself humanity until the incarnation. Deity was not taken upon the Person of God since His person always possessed deity. But He did take upon Himself humanity when He BECAME SON in the incarnation, indicating the Son is not eternal. We do not CALL the humanity the Son, but the humanity is something the SON possesses.

Like I said, an apple has the nature of being red. Do we call "red" an apple?

We call the humanity the quality that God took upon Himself in incarnation. One cannot call the humanity anything such as "Son" or "Father" because the issue of natures does not relate at all to such a thought in that manner at all. Your error in thinking is found in a comparison, so you get my point, in saying something absurd such as "My dog has the nature of Rover." That makes no sense. Similarly it makes no sense to ask whether we call the deity or the humanity by either Son or Father. We do not call natures by ttiels. The person with the title POSSESSES a certain nature in the confines of that title. That nature which one possesses is not something that can be CALLED by the title.

Since humanity is a nature that both you and I both possess, to say that we call the humanity either Son or Father is ridiculous, since you and I are not "the Son" nor "the Father". As I said elsewhere, only One possesses the nature of deity -- God -- , but MANY, including the person of God only since the incarnation, possesses the nature of humanity. And here is where some people go into another error and think that HUMAN NATURE implies weakness and imperfection, when in actuality only FALLEN human nature possesses that. Christ now possesses PERFECT humanity since He is glorified as per His humanity. He still possesses the nature of humanity! And we will also possess that in the resurrection. Imperfect Human nature is only a result of the fall. What would humanity have been like had the fall never occurred?

They're both called "Jesus."

My point is that you Oneness types (as I used to be) deny that the Son is truly divine, by denying his divine attributes as the Son. Like most cults you do claim that 'Jesus is God,' Mormons do claim this but imply that he's just a man who'se been elevated to Godhood. JW's a more subtle now and will claim that Jesus is the might God, however they still deny that he's the Almighty God. Oneness is really just another form of subordinationism, for only the father who indwlls the Son is truly God in Oneness, the Son is eternal, isn't creator, isn't omnipresent and so isn't truly Yahweh God, which is why you need ot discover to be saved.

You are just saying the same thing over and over Robert. You are not saying anything new and obviously you are NOT really reading or understanding what others are posting...as evidenced by the fact that you just repeat yourself over and over

OK, I agree Chan, the Son is both divine and human. As a man the Son is created, begotten, not eternal, not omnipotent and not the creator, but as God the Son is created, eternal, omnipotent and the creator. So you've agreed with me, I've proven that as YHWH God the Son (as the Son) is eternal.

Look Chan, your post has concluded with Hebrews 1:3 which in my opinion states that the Son (in his deity) is composed of the very same substance as that which the Father is made of. So would you agree with me that on the basis of this verse the Son is therefore eternal - an eternal Son.

No, I don't agree because Jesus' status as the Son doesn't apply to His divinity. The SON was begotten; divinity cannot be begotten because it is, by its very nature eternal. As the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed indicates, Jesus (in terms of His divinity) is the same substance as the Father.

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

If you used to be onenesss, then according to the things you are saying about oneness, you NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONENESS properly at all. You were not alone. MANY oneness people do not understand oneness properly.

I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine. The person of the Son ius the same person of the Father. AS FATHER he created all things. So since He is the same person as SON, then the Son is divine. If that messes up your accusations, then admit it, but do not be so proud that you continue claiming you are correct when you have this thing totally upsidedown. That is the same thing as lying.

Anyone who says our belief makes the Son not divine while we claim the PERSON of the Son is the same person of the Father, and is the ONLY divinity that exists, and who created all things, is completely off their bean. :(

Now, why will you not answer me??? Is RED an apple?

Apparently Mary didn't believe in the eternal sonship doctrine.
And the angel answered and said to her ,The Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the Highest will overshadow you ;therefore also ,that Holy One who is to borned will be called the Son Of God. LUKE 1:35 NKJV
Notice the verse says The Holy One who is to be borned ,not eternally existant will be called The Son Of God. Prior to the virgin birth ,the Son only existed in the mind or foreknowledge of God.

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.