Jehovah’s Witnesses hold #adoptionism
Jehovah’s Witnesses hold #adoptionism: the view that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation. What do you believe?
Ricky Grimsley [09/22/2015 11:47 PM]
I grew up reading dakes commentary and teaching. I think its mostly right. Jesus was not the son in eternity past. Who was the mother if so?
John Kissinger [09/23/2015 12:15 AM]
Some say Holy Spirit 🙂 I disagree with your view and believe Christ was always the Son, but this should not stop us from having a good discussion. Author of the article rejects (1) Dake on God’s bodily parts and on (2) NOT eternal sonship. However, with such stand seems like author may have problem explaining the incarnation of Jesus. BTW did you mean commentary notes of DARB or his other books?
Gerald Creasy [09/23/2015 12:46 PM]
Jesus was always and will always be
Christopher Hart [09/23/2015 2:25 PM]
I affirm the eternal pre-existence and co-existence of Jesus both as and with God. Albeit, I do not affirm eternal Sonship as such. Sonship was literally assumed in the incarnation.
I’ve others say he be came the Son of God at his baptism
I think you need to clarify
1) Son of God
2) Son of man
Christ was both and functioned under both titles.
As far as if Jesus was God’s son in eternity past who was his mother. …
satan came to God in the book of Job as a son of God (due to the creation and God being the father to all that was created). I don’t see satan having a mother, or the other created beings – sons of God.
Let’s not forget John 1 and the way He describes creation, God, the Word, the way all things were made, the way He became flesh and dwelt among us,,, etc.
In addition, we are sons by adoption – salvation.
Mary is never called our mother.
As a matter of fact Jesus said his mother was (and brethren were)
Matthew 12:46-50
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
He is the only (begotten) son by “begetting”.
If the son was not the son until the incarnation when was the Spirit the 3rd person of the God-Head?
He was around in the Old Testament as well as the New.
So to clarify. You guys believe that jesus was the son of God before creation?
I will let John answer for me,,
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
He was the Son of God before creation in eternity past. (Rev 13:8)
He was the only begotten of God in practical existence at conception (the gospels).
He was begotten in shadows in Eden (Genesis chapter 3).
Let’s not forget all the prophecies of the Old Testament foretelling the event.
Acts 13:33 KJVS
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
So what are the implications in your opinion for those of us who believe that sonship started with incarnation?
Implications of believing christ’s sinship at the incarnation…
None really.
Salvation hinges on the redemptive work of Christ on the cross of Calvary.
You just lose a few of the benefits we get because we can apply Jesus all…lllllllll the way back to pre-creation in His sonship. All over the Old Testament. (Or do you doubt he was even there)….
Example (you have a problem with man being made in the image of who?).
As far as (this day have I begotten thee).
Yeah.
Go look up begotten.
John covered that in chapter 3 verses 15-18 after He explained it perfectly in chapter 1.
I am soooooo disappointed that you did not discuss my comment on the OP.
If satan showed up with the sons of God in the book of job,
Who was his mother?
((God I love this)).
Before the Incarnation ,Jesus was called the Word. And of course the Word was God. The Word took on flesh and it was after this He was known as the Son of God / Son of Man. I am Pentecostal Trinitarian but do not believe in Eternal Sonship. I do believe in the preexistence of Christ but He was known as the Word before the Incarnation.
Revelation of John 19:11-13
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
He is still known as The Word of God.
He was known as the son of God before the incarnation.
He is known additionally as the Son of Man afterward.
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
The angels didnt have mothers. Man was created in the triune image of God. Body soul spirit. Obviously Jesus is the express image of the invisible and every time God was seen it was jesus.
Exactly.
But if you argue Jesus not being the son of God before creation because of the lack of a mother being mentioned (as some people have), then it fails due to the same question concerning the son(s) of god as mentioned in the book of Job.
If one son could preexist without a mother, then other than being The Only Begotten Son through the incarnation – and being part of the God-Head
the same argument applies.
(Who is actually Jesus’ mother – at his own words – already discussed in a previous post).
Jesus is the image of the invisible God plain and simple. He is the way God expresses himself when he takes physical form. And yes he definitely existed before creation
That happens when you rewrite the Bible.
David Lavoie Terry Wiles TRINITY is a must #Pentecost101
Amen and amen
Acts 20:28
Spirit only. 🙂
Read it first.
It presents a pretty good case for both the Trinity and pneumatarinism 🙂
Spirit Only. 🙂
I believe that the word existed and in all the theophanies of the OT. I just dont see that he was a son then. He was the visible Jehovah. I
True Orthodoxy lies in the affirmation that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally inseparably together. God is eternally Father, eternally Son, and eternally Holy Spirit. “The Father beget His son without days or hours; and when He beget Him, His Father was not separated from Him.” Beyond time, God is the eternal One. That One is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No one of the three Persons is prior to the other two in time. “The One was not before the Other”, says the Anaphora, “and the Second was not before the Third.” But “we proclaim that the Father lived with His Son, and that the Son lived with His Father before creation, and before the heavens and the earth were made.”
In the one co-eternal and co-equal Trinity, the Father is the eternal source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is born of, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from, the Father. While affirming that the Son and the Holy Spirit derive each of them His respective being eternally from the Father, it is insisted that “the Father did not beget the Son to help Him in His work before the world was created and the existence of the Holy Spirit is not to contribute wisdom and work.” ~Orthodox Tewahedo
So on what “day” was jesus begotten and how can something that has no beginning have a “source”.
Eternally begotten. Before time and after time. Forever and forever.
How can you be eternally begotten. Begotten requires a beginning?
Ricky Grimsley in the beginning was God. John 1:1. That’s the mystery we can’t fully understand. Before anything God was. Before time. Before “day”.
I think “orthodoxy” is way more complicated than what the bible says about the Godhead.
Proclamation was formulated by the holy fathers of the Nicene Council in the following way:
. . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light. True God of True God. Begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father. Through whom all things were made . . .
How many bodies does the Godhead have?
One
God is Spirit. Three persons
Irrelevant to the early church and church fathers. Their stand was “one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light. True God of True God. Begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father. Through whom all things were made .” HOW were all things made through the Son if the Son is not Son from and through all eternity?
Because he was the word. “This day i have begotten thee”. His sonship had a beginning just like his role as priest or king will have a beginning b
Excellent Българска
We also now have a high priest that can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities but was he eternally the priest as well?
Ricky Grimsley
His flesh had a beginning with the creation of His body.
Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
It was not that He or His Sonship was created,,, but simply His fleshly human body was.
Ricky
My belief is yes he was priest in eternity past but was not needed as far as practical revelation and application until after the fall and most importantly His revealing to humanity as our sacrifice and also priest.
God head had a body before creation?
Unstated if definite substance of material as we think.
He though has some perty awsome appearences and forms
Ezekial
Isaiah
If the God head didnt have a body before creation does that mean it was three spirits? There is too much mumbo jumbo here. Essences and all that.
God is spirit, Father Word and Holy Spirit
And they used theophanies as their bodily revelations in the Old Testament.
Their “existence” was of a heavenly or more accurately celestial order than what we can understand as a “body”.
David Lewayne Porter at one time I would have believed that.
Sad Charles
So sad.
(Hey, where did your picture go).
I was told to pull it up and it was gone.
What happened?
?
1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Oh no no Ricky Grimsley The Bible does not say just the Word – Paul specifically calls on the SON Col. ch 1:13 ff => His beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
as 1st born obviously was the SON before the creation and then
16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. – as being the Son before all things He could not assume Sonship at the incarnation – He was the Son from and for all eternity
obviously
Him being the firstborn or all creation cant mean sonship otherwise you are saying he had a beginning. Firstborn of all creation has to either mean the resurrection or is talking about preeminence or something. Because he wasnt the first physically born. Unless you want to take the route that the whole role of man was for God to incarnate himself cleanse the universe of lucifer’s sin and so the first thought of creation was The incarnation?
vs13 – His beloved Son – obviously it does mean Sonship
just not eternal Sonship
No one is saying he never was the son or isnt the son now.
Sorry to interject any thought processes and stuff but how can a son not have a beginning. By definition a son come from a father or creator.
Begotten, flesh, human.
You are trying to merge the two Humanity and His Godly/Spiritual existence.
Lol i was gonna the same about you guys. It seems words lose their meaning when you apply them to the Godhead. How can a son not have a beginning. Im not arguing that the godhead didnt exist. But was of them a son or even named jesus? No. They were all Jehovah?
Ricky
If not, then what was the purpose of the God-Head and how do you think they were expressed within His parts.
The Godhead just is. The Godhead is like Body, soul and spirit to me. In perfect unity the Father leads or decides and accomplishes his will through the son or body by the power of the spirit. Like the Godhead We have three distinct but inseparable (by us) parts (for lack of a better term) but we arent in unity and aren’t omnipresent and all the other attributes.
So then you think God (Father is spirit, Son is body, and Spirit is soul)?
The only issue there is that Jesus said (John 4) God is (a) Spirit = God-Head. He did not say the Father [only] was Spirit. But He said GOD WAS Spirit.
The Bible also say Jesus is the “everlasting Father” but he isnt the Father.
Jesus also refers to himself as the holy spirit but we dont say jesus is the spirit.
John 14:17-18 KJVS
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Lol http://www.facebook.com/TheBabylonBee/posts/1846952198868012
If he and the father are one (could be).
Or do you question your scriptures now?
Did you ever answer my reply to your post on Jeremiah 32:35 question
Where did i question the scripture?
Babylon bee,
Don’t think so
I’ll flag it again on the OP
There was a point in time when the Word became flesh and lived among us. But he was in the beginning with God (whenever the beginning was). He (personal pronouns) is God.
Paul’s saying that if the Son is not eternally Son then the sacrifice of the Son cannot be for all eternity…
leap of faith there
Where is Paul saying that
Heb.
I would suggest some foundational theology text such as Theisen or Strongs. Strongs complete wired is a free download and is free of reality rights.
Berkhof
He is Very thorough
I posted link to Strongs on the main Pentecostal theology page
The position we take on the Trinity will also answer several questions of a practical nature. Whom are we to worship-Father only, Son, Holy Spirit, or the Triune God? To whom are we to pray? Is the work of each to be considered in isolation from the work of the others, or may we think of the atoning death of Jesus as somehow the work of the Father as well? Should the Son be thought of as the Father’s equal in essence, or should he be relegated to a somewhat lesser status?
+1 Christian Theology by Erickson [read online] http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF%20Books/00031%20Erickson%20Christian%20Theology%20Part%201.pdf
God created Adam first, Then Eve.
Whose Pattern is He in maternal necessity?…
Jesus in John 8 “before Abraham was, I Am.”. And again the jews took up stones to stone Him.
Ricky is not saying Christ was not at all before Abraham – he claims Christ was not the Son before He was born from Mary. Tertullian viewed three manifestations of the one God. Although they are numerically distinct, so that they can be counted, they are nonetheless manifestations of a single indivisible power. There is a distinction (distinctio) or distribution (dispositio), not a division or separation (sepmtio). As illustrations of the unity within the Godhead, Tertullian points to the unity between a root and its shoot, a source and its river, the sun and its light. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one identical substance; this substance has been extended into three manifestations, but not divided
Right. The Word is the Person The Father communicates Himself through, thay part of God which man can handle and touch.
That part of God Who relates His Person to us.
The communication of God in His entirity through God in the Person of His Son.
If
Interesting.
It would seem from John 17 and Jesus preistly prayer that he enjoyed the same relationship to his Father in heaven before the world was.
Tony Conger This is the discussion on Sonship started by Ricky Grimsley a.k.a. KJV proper #sonne
Lol looks like it was stayed by Troy Day. You guys are always picking on poor Ricky Grimsley
Just discussing proper sonship, sonne 🙂 ole Ricky is all right by me – a true Dake believer not like Charles Page who sold his Dake
Haha
Hey, I got $50 who said Dake’s was worthless. It did me good!
Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, p. 57, note d Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, He had no beginning; was not begotten or He would have had a beginning as God; and was not God’s Son. But as a man, He had a beginning, was begotten, and was God’s Son – now that I dont believe one little bit. Makes sense logically but it is hardly any Bible in it and it creates context for complete denial of the Trinity – Now let us reason… http://www.letusreason.org/Pent74.htm
This was read in the opening of our service yesterday.
“He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.”
The Holy Spirit had provided the sperm for the birth and the Father had served as SBA (skilled birth attendant) He was a mid-wife. He assisted her. As women were attended in Israel by midwives God saw to her deliverance. His hands reached between her knees and handled the infant giving encouragement to Mary. He washed and wrapped the infant and handed the child to the breast of the waiting mother.
I don’t know how you could read this as eternal Son without stretching the doctrine of incarnation to illogical limits. It is incarnational Sonship.
Yawn,
Dake was a man and fallible.
His interpretation is not equal to the Word of God, and is subject to question and examination.
There’s really just couple of things when you come to think about it. His interpretation of last days prophecies is simply impeccable!
Good thing I sold mine
Yawn
His interpretation of prophecy is just a fallible as everyone else’s. Maybe i need to read it again but it seems he missed Islam rising.
Maybe you do 🙂 It will be great to post for discussion…
Whats the point of discussion again ….in a settled future? Lol
the rapture will come before you can discuss it anyway. It is a settled future!
Doubtful. But ive been wring before. Lol
Ricky Grimsley thank goodness!
Ricky Grimsley Let us note Date teaches adoption-ism only as part of incarnation but does not deny eternal sonship of the Christ after the resurrection. It is there that true adoptionism has a major problem – in the claim that apart from the flesh Christ cannot be given birth and therefore cannot be Son eternally – before the incarnation and after the resurrection. It is the second part that Eastern Orthodoxy as Henry Volk may confirm bids it to be heresy. And when said and done Eastern Orthodoxy accepts “one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father” I kind of like the “eternally begotten” part and will have it no other way
Well It seems to me that jesus is eternally the son now because he lives forever in the resurrected body of his incarnation. I dont see he could be the son in the eternal past because (this day i have begotten thee) whatever meaning you put on it there was “a day” or a beginning of his sonship.
Again in that verse read properly “you are my son” is before “this day i have begotten thee” but even this is not strong enough evidence because E. Orthodoxy claims eternally begotten 🙂 Henry Volk
Why does the son ship have to be eternal? Perhaps the trinity exists and we have simply mislabeled it in our attempt to quantify it. Obviously there was both a day he was begotten and he will become subject again to the father. 1 cor. 15. Obviously who Jesus is has always been and will always be unchanging so they only aspect capable of change would be his office e.i. sonship
We have to make a distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity. But beyond this, we have to noticed the four evangelists have different Christilogies. Mark has an adoptionist Christology.
theories
According to Rahner, ‘the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity’. This thesis, some claim, can be construed in ways that imply modalism. This paper explores the validity of this claim by examining what Rahner himself meant to assert concerning the Trinity in comparison, on the one hand, with what the Church has traditionally considered ‘orthodox’, and the error of ‘modalism’ on the other
God who at various times and in diverse manners spoke in timrs past to the fathers through the prophets has in the last days spoken unto us in the person of son, by whom also he made the worlds.
Heb. 1:1,2.
He made the worlds by the one titled his son.
Later in heb. Melchesidic having neither beginning of days or end of life but made like unto thr Son of God.
Heb. 7:3
He is without father or mother or geneology, having neither Beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
Not to dissparage the faith of Mr. Grimsley.
So what is your understanding of being begotten or becoming subject to the father at the end time
I’ve been reading in this post about how we have to do infer whether or not Christ was the Son before He became incarnated and I see from these Scriptures it is a relationship He held that predates creation. ..
And that He is without beginning of that relationship but is eternally God the Son.
Anyhow,.. thats my belief based on the overwhelming bulk of scripture and these direct verses responding to the allegations that such did not exist.
Feel free to list some past eternal sonship scriptures.
I believe the answer that’s being sought is to be found more in looking at the word “begotten” as possibly referred to in John 3:16 than trying to disect the actual Sonship.
Ricky Grimsley Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me Thou art my Son; [BEFORE] this day have I begotten thee.
Ricky Grimsley Hebrews 5:5 But God said to him, “You are my Son; [BEFORE] to day I have become your Father
Ricky Grimsley Acts 13:33 As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; [BEFORE] today I have become your father.’
So was he not his father prior to that day?
Oneness people say He was not…
I don’t see how it has to be exclusive. Even If sonship is referring to the incarnation how does that negate the trinity? They each existed eternally whether or not their was a day specific that he became the son
Heb. 1:8 God the Father says to the Son ‘your throne O’ God is forever and ever”. and in vs.10 the Father still speaking to the Son “and you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the heavens are the work of your hands…” Who are we going to believe the Oneness reasoning or Gods clear proclamation?
My life is for ever and ever. I am with beginning but no ending.
Tony Conger Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“this day have I begotten thee”), 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.
this is the day the Lord hath made. We know that is not true.
Sounds to me like reading with a predetermined outcome.
so are you saying that the future is settled once and for all?
Lol indeed. Jehovah wins it all
The end is settled.
the end is an ending
ending begins at the final resurrection and judgement.
the end is near
the beginning of the end is near!
the end is without ending
so what does “alpha and omega” mean
The same thing as Isaiah 46:10 KJVS
[10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Jacob prophesied that the sceptre would not depart from Judah but in the meantime was saul from benjamin because israel rejected God’s kingship before he found a man after his own heart.
OK Tony Conger Ricky Grimsley if you put so much into the word begotten then WHO was the father of Jesus from the moment of his conception to His actual physical birth?
Matthew 1:18 KJVS
[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
So the Father was His Father before He was born? 🙂
Isn’t that your belief?
That’s what Orthodox Christianity is all about 🙂
everlasting Father
They were both already Fathers to the sons of god.
Waiting for your to go with Yahweh was one of the Sons of El Elyon according to What do think about contemporary Christian rap Theology? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/yahweh-was-one-of-the-sons-of-el-elyon-according-to-what-do-think-about-contemporary-and-christian-rap-and-pentecostal-theology/
“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2) Ricky Grimsley
The design in the stress on the word `Son’ in verse 2 is not to convey the idea that God has spoken to us in One Who became His Son, but that He has done so in One Whose relationship to Him as Son stands in antecedent existence both to creation and to His incarnation…The passage is itself a testimony to the pre-existent Sonship of Christ; for not only has God spoken to us in Him Who is His Son, but by Him…He `made the worlds’ (the ages). The plain implication is that He by Whom God made the worlds stood in relationship to Him in this respect as His Son.
I dont see your reasoning here. We can see that Paul is referring to the time period of the incarnation.
Hebrews 1:4 KJVS
[4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Unless you believe Jesus was “made” somewhere in eternal past?
“the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world…He loved us, and sent His Son…As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you…when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son” (1 John 4:14; 4:10; John 20:21; Galatians 4:4)
There are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation.
I still hold to the opinion that it simply refers to incarnation as it relates to taking on a physical body Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
As relates to the OP…..
Made
KJV
1096 ginomai ghin’-om-ahee
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be
(“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used
with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):–arise, be
assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be)
come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be
finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen,
have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass,
be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it
was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Noticed (used with great latitude)…..
ASV
Hebrews 1:4
having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.
Darby
Hebrews 1:4
taking a place by so much better than the angels, as he inherits a name more excellent than they.
ESVS
Hebrews 1:4
having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
NETfree
Hebrews 1:4
Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.
Tyndall
Hebrews 1:4
and is more excellent then the angels in as moche as he hath by inheritaunce obteyned an excellenter name then have they.
YLT
Hebrews 1:4
having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.
The doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ cannot be set aside or minimized for the following reasons: (1) it is a doctrine plainly taught in the Word of God; (2) the teaching that denies the eternal Sonship of Christ robs the body of Christ, the true church, of a vital and precious belief essential to a proper understanding and appreciation of His Person and work; (3) the truth of the gospel message and its presentation are affected because if we are not proclaiming Christ as the eternal Son of God, then we are preaching a Savior other than the Person who has been revealed in the Scriptures; (4) failure to understand the Persons of the Godhead as revealed by His Word limits one’s practical relationship to His triune Being; (5) the denial of eternal Sonship deprives us of the enjoyment of one of the most beautiful glories of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What? How? He is the same no matter if his sonship simply refers to his incarnation or not! Are you trying to say someone cannot be saved if they don’t believe the sonship is his eternal office?
Partial sonship is often used to attack the Biblical doctrine of Trinity
Denying past eternal sonship does none of things you describe. Thats just inflammatory language designed to get people to agree or be silent without any scriptural proof. You keep asserting these things but the scriptures references keep getting left out.
Heb. 7:3
Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
This scripture lends strong support to your argument, however most of the scriptures I’ve seen so far being used require reading it into the text
Scriptures are replete with indicators and actual assertions.
…
Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Ricky Grimsley In what way do you feel that eternal sonship of Christ is not Biblical? Plenty of Scriptures were quoted above with proper interpretation and exegesis to prove eternal sonship of Christ. It is one of the essential doctrines in Christian Orthodoxy and its denial has been considered heresy through church history by virtually all church fathers. It supports the Trinity and is supported by the Orthodox doctrine of Trinity – one Son eternally begotten not created. Your answer to all this have been simply “No, no. It is not like this or it is not so” Perhaps a little bit more elaboration on why do you feel this way would help?
How does that scripture lends any support to eternal sonship
And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance ( homoousion)with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. ~Nicene Creed. AD 325
I’m not even confident that the sonship is not eternal but I have to say almost every argument so far other than heb. 7,3 is either ideological or require a desire to see it in the text. Most of the scriptures used so far simply mention that Christ was the son of God, not that the position of sonship is eternal
And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. ~Constantinopolitan Creed AD 381
Do you believe in the eucharist also?
One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us ~Chalcedonian Creed
Prepare yourself you know it’s a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He’s gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
Gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
That’s where you’re gonna go when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You’re gonna go to the place that’s the best
Read more: Norman Greenbaum – Spirit In The Sky Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Whatever you believe about Hebrews 7 it says that melchizedek was a man. Jesus was made a priest after the order of melchizedek meaning they arent the same person b
And yet Melchisedec was made after the image/likeness of the Son of God (in the same set of Scriptures).
Are you saying that melchilzedek was jesus?
Ricky
I quoted a scripture that simply said, “He was made after the image/likeness of the Son of God”.
It does not matter in the scheme of things if they were the same or not.
I personally do not believe that they are the same. I do not believe that the Scriptures try to paint that picture.
With the role of Melchisedec in the OldTestament and the role of Jesus in the New Testament as well as throughout history and all Scriptures it does not change anything either way if they were or weren’t.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/first-3-parent-dna-baby-born-rare-disease/&ved=0ahUKEwi-hcXxubDPAhVP0GMKHSCkCPwQiJQBCBswAA&usg=AFQjCNGZls4ZmjJUo-z30AEy6cbPcWA3BA
This is probably more important imho
Well no doubt. We are in the “days of noah”.
No doubt. If that doesn’t anger God I don’t know what would
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. ~Athanasian Creed
Why do you keep posting creeds? They prove nothing and you dont accept other doctrines decreed in there anyway
God sending His own Son in the likeness of Human flesh
Rom. 8:3
Tony Conger The creeds show us the historic development of thought and doctrine in the Christian church i.e. why we historically believe what we believe and why do we interpret the Bible the way we do. You know they read the Bible too before forming the creeds right? And had much better and recent revelation of the words of Christ than we do today. Thus we conclude “The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. ~Athanasian Creed” and the rest is simply heresy… (according to the early church councils)
Yes bit if that’s true why do you reject the eucharist?
Isaiah 9:6.This sums it up for me ?.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Sons like he became the son at his birth to me.
Flesh, son of man, son after the flesh.
Does not mean He was born – as the son of God (for the first time, at that point in history).
I dont see how Son refers to anything before the incarnation. Otherwise Jesus had a beginning. Acts 13 seems to relate being begotten to the resurrection.
(Son had a beginning), only in a twisted interpretation.
I think the issue is that you maybe grouping verses strickly on wording.
No Jesus did not have a beginning (He was revealed in the flesh as the Son – only begotten Son) for the purpose of our Salvation as we beheld His Glory
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word, ever existing Word, God Word was made flesh – became flesh (not just simply made or became).
It is also put to us as taking on a form instead of simply becoming,
Philippians 2:5-8
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
I dont believe jesus had a beginning. I just think people try to make things to complicated. We cant just throw away the definition of “son” because we are applying it to God.
They don’t throw out the definition of son.
They just realize that we have partial and limited knowledge as though we are looking through a glass darkly so we don’t try to nail down the aspects and characteristics of God into strickly human understanding and limitations.
“Paul did see and hear things that was not lawful and that could not be disclosed”.
Word was made flesh
Jesus was born in time
I agree if we change “born in time” to “born into time”.
The question is not whether Jesus is eternal or not, but rather whether his status as son is eternal or simply refers to his incarnation
Remember that he has two natures subsumed under the unity of his person. He became man in time, but he was always the eternal Logos.
http://www.theopedia.com/communicatio-idiomatum
Is the Spirit ever refered to as The Spirit of His Son?
The Eternal Spirit. Maybe theirs corresponding tidbits alluding to the preeminent pre incarnate Son.
🙂
Could be
🙂
SDA early theology of eg white alluded to adoptionism specifically related to Micheal the ArchAngel .
Tony Conger we can go ahead and elaborate on why ETERNAL SONSHIP is so important in our tradition today and needs to be reclaimed from the Bible based creeds and catechisms but I will have to go into the whole NEW theory about Christ being YHWH of the Old Testament as on of the 70 (or 72) sons of El Elyon (the Ancient of Days). http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/yahweh-was-one-of-the-sons-of-el-elyon-according-to-what-do-think-about-contemporary-and-christian-rap-and-pentecostal-theology/
Do you believe that or is it just for education?
Which part? I believe in eternal sonship which rejects any prioritive or dualistic (even Jewish) tradition for the sons of God. I think John settles it in the prologue of the 4th Gospel especially where he calls Christ the mono-genic God
Charlie Robinthe 70-72 sons.
As explained above. We can discuss it under the proper OP if the group shows any further desire for that
Charlie Robin no stress if it’s too much of a side track?
Doesn’t make sense to me. Why would it be mutually exclusive? Believing that the sonship was referring to the incarnation in no way questions who he is as YHWH
Let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa prevail. —Athanasius, Letters, lxi to Maximus, A.D. 371.
How about we let the bible prevail
very poor choice of argument denying the historic development of doctrine and Bible interpretation – are you saying your interpretation is better and more pure than the Biblical beliefs of Fathers at Nicæa – yeah, I didnt think so… Where ignorance is king many would not profit by his abdication. ~ Walter M. Miller Jr.
Once again do you accept all their beliefs?
How else do you proposes we interpeet John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
How far would you like to go with the development of doctrine? Eucharist, bodily assumption of mary, praying to mary, priests forgiving sins, the pope as the vicar of christ etc.?
As far as Athanasius in his Defence of the Nicene Definition (ca. 353), pointing to the word μονογενής in John 1:14 as one Scriptural proof for the teaching: [quote]
It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this…. John in saying, “The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does “in the bosom” intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?
Charlie Robinthe word became flesh and we saw that flesh as the Son of God. They saw the express image of the invisible God in human form personified in flesh through the line of David.
At the time of the writing of John, Jesus had already ascended and therefore was in the bosom of the father. At least now you’re using scripture
Tony Conger Before we continue would you pls count above how many times I referred you to mono-genic? Ricky Grimsley and how did the OT people see the Son before the incarnation ? If today (back in the Psalms) he was the Son what flesh are we talking about here 🙂
Sorry but that’s in ideological argument I have no interest in.
But can and will we let it prevail?
not for the ones open for open revelations and open theisms who have recently and suddenly gained open knowledge about the “open” role of the Son in the Trinity
Seems like these are coming into play…
1 Timothy 4:6-7
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
And we over look…
2 Peter 1:19-20
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Yup
God Himself said that He would send strong delusion.
god of this world blinds the eyes of unbelievers
Not just unbelievers
(If it were possible the [very] elect would be deceived).
That is why we are to try the spirits. To examine ourselves.
So the idea of incarnate sonship is strong delusion? It amazes me how vitriolic and demeaning people on this christian supposedly Holy Ghost filled site can get when anyone even suggests something that is not a traditionally held pentecostal belief. The early church split almost immediately over the different ideas on the nature of christ. The idea that anyone has all understanding of the God of the universe is Ludacris and questioning whether the sonship is eternal or a temporary office doesn’t make anyone less covered by the blood. Novation wrote that Good darkens himself just so we can know him as light. Some people on this page need to examine how ripe the fruit of the spirit is in their lives
That is not what I said Tony, so save your feels and being upset.
Save our emotions. You took something personal that you should have just read through as part of the whole.
If one believes that the son (sonship of Christ). started at the begetting only, I wonder if that is something that the Father would want us putting forth as sound doctrine.
As such
Does that mean that God was not the Father before creation began?
No son at that time means no father,
Am I correct in saying that??
Never thought of it,
But the father did not exist until the son, only begotten Son was conceived. Or slightly just before.
(But then for it to be prophesied He would have had to pre-known and thus existed).
I apologize if I misunderstood you
And that’s an interesting thought but that raises the question of “how does the father/son dynamic not imply a time if brewing of that sonship”?
My (opinion)
If the Father existed in the beginning before the creation so must have the Son, no father without a son (the book of Job tells us that there where sons of god).
I doubt we will understand the how and why until we get there and knowing completely, unlike our knowing in part now.
Those are the things that I don’t speculate on.
Those are the things that sidetrack the unbelieving (and sone of the believing).
Without correct doctrine we have nothing. We cannot know God according to his essence, but we do and must know him according to his self-revelation. If we do not understand this self-revelation correctly, then we are heretics.
So you have all the answers and understand all mysteries? If you don’t and you preach then you’re a heretic. How can anyone look at Good and see anything other than our own ignorance and failures.
Once again the distinction: We cannot know God according to his essence, but only according to his self-revelation.
And where did he say that sonship was an eternal office?
Tony
I make a good point at God.
We have to realize our enability to understand all about Him and thus be content in the parts we can explain in a pretty little picture at this point in time, as humans.
David Lewayne Porter I agree completely. I get upset when people disqualify others from grace because of those differing views. I’m wiser than I used to be but hopefully not as wise as I will be. If God requires perfection then we are all doomed
Discussions like these are what solidifies my belief in open-theism. Whenever we come to anything that cant logically be possible some one says “well the creeds say this” or “orthodoxy says this” and you need to just have faith that things that contradict each other actually make sense because we are talking about God and normal rules rules dont apply.” Look, God’s name isnt father or son or spirit. God wasnt always a father. He became a father when he created sons. That doesnt change his essence or his nature. It only changes relationship to the things around him. God has always been but we can go back to when there was only God and nothing else.
Even in the Old Testament there is a reference to God as Father. Ricky Grimsley consistently has a very low opinion of written Scripture and the Teachings of the Apostles while at the same time leans toward subject realms such as modern day prophecies.
Isn’t he the father of creation? Jesus is also called the Father in the old testament. There’s no need for personal attack. Try praying for character
Tony Conger. Are you saying Jesus is the Father or that the Scripture says He is?
He is called the Father in scripture. My point is is not nice to degrade people for asking questions
Not degrading. Simply making an observation.
Is Jesus being called Father in the Old Testament or is this an OT reference to the God Head. It does make a theological difference that would fit into oneness theology.
Wisdom is justified by her children. If my wife squint and it’s dark I don’t look so fat either
I am not degrading but I am STRONGLY CAUTIONING that none of us push to get out of the text what we personally believe and want to see.
There is a reason that we are told,
“Romans 3:4-6
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?”.
Obviously God was the Father by the time the scriptures. He was the Father of creation. Saying that doesnt prove that he was a father before there was anything else which is what i was saying. I have the most high view of scriptures you can have. That doesnt mean i subscribe to every thing you believe.
My question is do we agree on anything?
🙂
David Lewayne Porter I bet we agree that in the beginning was the word and with and God and was God. That word became flesh and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the father. That He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless, life, died, rose again and made atonement for our sins, and now makes intercession for us, and will return soon to receive us unto himself and judge the world and rule it for eternity?
Wow,
This is Ricky that I am talking to is it not?
(Just kidding)
Yes my brother,
We agree.
You have previously indicated that written Scripture holds a lesser authority to modern revelations and/or prophecies.
You have said “God’s name isn’t father or son or spirit.”
The scriptures reveal otherwise.
I really wonder about some people on here. How many people on here thing that Father is God’s actual name.
Revelation 3:12 KJVS
[12] Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
What in the world are you talking about? That’s a lie. I don’t believe that and have never indicated that
Tony. Quote is from Ricky. Look at the thread.
And God’s name is Father? That’s just silly
One of the persons in the Godhead is the Father. Both the Old and New testaments affirm this. Jesus even said pray that way. The apostles taught it. The Church has continually affirmed it. For you to say “That’s just silly” is to have a lesser view of Scripture.
Only in your mind. I never said it was silly to pray to the father. I said your doctrine of title and name being the same is silly. I’m a father but that’s not my name. Do you have children? If so why does your profile say Terry?
I’m amazed at how those that claim holiness will intentionally misconstrue someone else argument because they don’t believe it.
Tony Conger Scripture indicates it is appropriate to use the title Father when referring to God.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Tony Conger my name is Terry but that’s not the name my children use.
It’s a title for the role you play in the relationship. Nothing more nothing less. If the called you pops would it change who you are as a person? Or their relationship to you? No it wouldn’t
https://books.google.com/books?id=3yaUcNINeK4C&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=god+in+his+essence+vs+revelation&source=bl&ots=3UYnwFqrC2&sig=PVpZJSgEw-0De3LXYtv3gg_uKpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQv_Kb17LPAhXG7yYKHfEOC4kQ6AEIJjAF
This is what I believe…..John 1:1-5 (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:14 (KJV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. …..Jesus is the Word made flesh thus He always was and always will be the Son of God
So does your quote prove or disprove adoptionism ?