What is truly meant by the term "Son of God"?

[ToBeBlessed]

I would treat this important subject as a revealed - and glorious - fact in the Bible, and not something to speculate about. It's not something that supposedly becomes true or otherwise, because I presume to agree or not.

I agree.

When we realize the special, significant relationship between the Father and the Son, how they are One, than we better understand why it had to be Jesus and there was NO other substitute.

I think that is joyous too.

What love He has for us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would very much disagree. Begotten is the key word here. He was His Only Begotten Son.

Which is why He was the ONLY one who could die for our sins.

I don't see why we as Christians need to always put our own human terms into Christ. If God created all the world, the universe and all there is, why do we question that He could have only one begotten Son?

We read in the Word that Jesus was sent by the Father. When He was here on earth He did His Father's will.

It is easy for me to believe that Jesus was very special. Looking at the Word in a more complete way, we see that Jesus was the ONLY one who could have come. Why?

Because He is the Only Begotten Son.

I agree with you that this role was Christ's and His alone. He was, after all, the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world.

I'm not sure though (forgive me, I can't tell for your post, and please do forgive me if I am wrong) ... But the "only Begotten" does not refer to Christ's Incarnation, being born of the Virgin Mary. Because He was "begotten of the Father before all ages" (per the Nicene Creed that defines Christianity). It is His relationship with the Father that is being defined, not the Incarnation.

Again, please forgive me if I am misunderstanding your post. It could seem to imply that to some readers, so I wanted to point that out.

But yes, certainly, that was always His role, to redeem humanity, to defeat death, to make it possible to unite us to God through Himself.

 

[Marvin Knox]

We need to be careful of the words we use.

It is difficult to understand, perhaps. But then again, it shouldn't surprise us that the transcendent God is difficult (or in some ways impossible) for humans to understand.

Jesus WAS NOT CREATED by the Father.

If He were, that would make Him a creature, and He could not possibly be God.

He was begotten, in an eternal sense. Not at a moment in time. The Son and the Holy Spirit have always existed, but the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The Nicene Creed is clear on that point ... 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, by whom all things were made.

We need to be especially careful of making Christ into a created being who is not God with our human understanding of the words "son" or "begotten".

It is tempting to defend my post by saying that everyone here already knows that the Word of God is eternal. But most of us who have been around this forum for very long know that there is no telling what some here believe. I am constantly being amazed at the lack of correct doctrine that shows up in the most unexpected places.

For that reason Kylissa’s warning is well taken. Having said that - concerning the eternal nature of the Word – I’ll make the following observations.

The term “Son of God” is an anthropomorphic term used by God for our benefit. Obviously the “2nd member of the Trinity” is not a son in the human sense of the word - exactly.

Also note that the terms used for Him in His eternal state, and not use prophetically, are otherwise. He is called the Word, Wisdom, Knowledge and many such. When He enters the human condition He is then called the Son. Note: “You are my Son – today I have begotten you” and such.

Note also that the fact that there are pre existent constituent parts, as it were, that are used in a creation doesn’t mean that it cannot properly be called a creation. Examples could be a painting brought forth from paint and canvas; a stone creation of Michelangelo; or for that matter the creation of man himself in the beginning by God.

We call ourselves “new creations”. Just because “part” of us, the Holy Spirit of God, has always existed doesn’t mean that we are not creations of God. He says that we are.

Without claiming to understand fully the “hypostatic union” – I will say that there was a time when “Jesus”, the God-man did not exist as such. He was created in a very real sense by a union of God and man. Just because the nature of man existed before and the nature of God existed before doesn’t mean that the Father combining the two didn’t amount to a special “creation” in the real sense of the word. He knit Him together and He was fearfully and wonderfully made.

The reason I say this is because there may be an assumption here (as with the writers of the Nicene Creed) that the terms “son” and “begotten” have to refer to the Word in His pre-incarnate state. I disagree.

And by the way the Nicene Creed is not inspired. It has served us well to preserve the fact that the Word is eternal. But that doesn’t mean that they were right in their choice of words concerning eternally a “son” and “eternally begotten”.

I believe we would understand these things with less disagreement if we were to see those terms for what they are. They are not meant to be taken to convey God’s eternal state exactly. They are used to explain the state of the eternal Word of God after the instant of hypostatic union IMO.

That special creation of God used the exact substance of man and the exact substance of God.

He is the Son of Man in that He is of the exact substance as man. He was begotten in that He is of the exact substance of God.

He is the Son of God in that His was a special act of creation directly by an act of God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is tempting to defend my post by saying that everyone here already knows that the Word of God is eternal. But most of us who have been around this forum for very long know that there is no telling what some here believe. I am constantly being amazed at the lack of correct doctrine that shows up in the most unexpected places.

For that reason Kylissa’s warning is well taken. Having said that - concerning the eternal nature of the Word – I’ll make the following observations.

The term “Son of God” is an anthropomorphic term used by God for our benefit. Obviously the “2nd member of the Trinity” is not a son in the human sense of the word - exactly.

Also note that the terms used for Him in His eternal state, and not use prophetically, are otherwise. He is called the Word, Wisdom, Knowledge and many such. When He enters the human condition He is then called the Son. Note: “You are my Son – today I have begotten you” and such.

Note also that the fact that there are pre existent constituent parts, as it were, that are used in a creation doesn’t mean that it cannot properly be called a creation. Examples could be a painting brought forth from paint and canvas; a stone creation of Michelangelo; or for that matter the creation of man himself in the beginning by God.

We call ourselves “new creations”. Just because “part” of us, the Holy Spirit of God, has always existed doesn’t mean that we are not creations of God. He says that we are.

Without claiming to understand fully the “hypostatic union” – I will say that there was a time when “Jesus”, the God-man did not exist as such. He was created in a very real sense by a union of God and man. Just because the nature of man existed before and the nature of God existed before doesn’t mean that the Father combining the two didn’t amount to a special “creation” in the real sense of the word. He knit Him together and He was fearfully and wonderfully made.

The reason I say this is because there may be an assumption here (as with the writers of the Nicene Creed) that the terms “son” and “begotten” have to refer to the Word in His pre-incarnate state. I disagree.

And by the way the Nicene Creed is not inspired. It has served us well to preserve the fact that the Word is eternal. But that doesn’t mean that they were right in their choice of words concerning eternally a “son” and “eternally begotten”.

I believe we would understand these things with less disagreement if we were to see those terms for what they are. They are not meant to be taken to convey God’s eternal state exactly. They are used to explain the state of the eternal Word of God after the instant of hypostatic union IMO.

That special creation of God used the exact substance of man and the exact substance of God.

He is the Son of Man in that He is of the exact substance as man. He was begotten in that He is of the exact substance of God.

He is the Son of God in that His was a special act of creation directly by an act of God.

In a quick reading and re-reading (sorry I just have a moment and otherwise I may forget entirely) it seems it might be possible to take your post more than one way? Forgive me please if I missed anything, or if I unintentionally misrepresent your position.

I guess the simplest way to clear things up would be to ask ... Do you see the Trinity as being eternal? Was there Jesus Christ as a Person (not the human man of course, but the Person Who Is Divine) - do you see Him as existing distinct from God the Father before the Incarnation? And the Holy Spirit as pre-existing as well?

I want to make sure (again forgive me,I think I'm wrong) but I want to make sure we are not describing Christ as existing because God the Father took a part of His own Divine Essence and placed it within a human body.

And the Creed is not Scripture, but Christians of that time accepted the bishops as being divinely guided in their understanding. The framing was of course affected by the various heretics they spoke against, which might help us understand better exactly what was meant when we consider their words in light of that. But the Nicene Creed ought to be a truth we need not argue with - I think if we claim they were factually wrong about anything, then we place ourselves on slippery theological ground.

Not trying to argue, just very limited in time and there's a cat trying very hard to get my fingers off this tablet lol.

Peace

 

[ToBeBlessed]

I'm not sure though (forgive me, I can't tell for your post, and please do forgive me if I am wrong) ... But the "only Begotten" does not refer to Christ's Incarnation, being born of the Virgin Mary. Because He was "begotten of the Father before all ages" (per the Nicene Creed that defines Christianity). It is His relationship with the Father that is being defined, not the Incarnation.

Again, please forgive me if I am misunderstanding your post. It could seem to imply that to some readers, so I wanted to point that out.

But yes, certainly, that was always His role, to redeem humanity, to defeat death, to make it possible to unite us to God through Himself.

No.

One person said that 'only' was an indicator of Jesus being unique. Like Jesus is the 'unique' son of God.

I said that I felt that the word 'begotten' carried more value in the meaning than 'only'. Being that begotten is not created but existing.
http://www.christianforums.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[~Anastasia~]

No.

One person said that 'only' was an indicator of Jesus being unique. Like Jesus is the 'unique' son of God.

I said that I felt that the word 'begotten' carried more value in the meaning than 'only'. Being that begotten is not created but existing.
http://www.christianforums.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

For me at least, is in indeed the eternal nature of the "begotten-ness" of the Son, and the eternal nature of the "proceeding" of the Holy Spirit that finally helped me wrap my mind around "one God" and yet "three Persons" (because it never really made mathematical sense to me before that) And I agree that the "begotten" part is very important.

Thanks again.

 

[Marvin Knox]

In a quick reading and re-reading (sorry I just have a moment and otherwise I may forget entirely) it seems it might be possible to take your post more than one way? Forgive me please if I missed anything, or if I unintentionally misrepresent your position.

I guess the simplest way to clear things up would be to ask ... Do you see the Trinity as being eternal? Was there Jesus Christ as a Person (not the human man of course, but the Person Who Is Divine) - do you see Him as existing distinct from God the Father before the Incarnation? And the Holy Spirit as pre-existing as well?

I want to make sure (again forgive me,I think I'm wrong) but I want to make sure we are not describing Christ as existing because God the Father took a part of His own Divine Essence and placed it within a human body.

And the Creed is not Scripture, but Christians of that time accepted the bishops as being divinely guided in their understanding. The framing was of course affected by the various heretics they spoke against, which might help us understand better exactly what was meant when we consider their words in light of that. But the Nicene Creed ought to be a truth we need not argue with - I think if we claim they were factually wrong about anything, then we place ourselves on slippery theological ground.

Not trying to argue, just very limited in time and there's a cat trying very hard to get my fingers off this tablet lol.

Peace

In light of my prefacing my remarks with a statement upholding and seconding your warning against someone possibly mistaking the eternal nature of the Word of God (the 2nd member of the Trinity as I clearly labeled Him) - I don't see how the words that followed could be mistaken for anything other than the way I meant them.

But yes, if it need be said more clearly, I believe in the eternal nature of the Trinity.

In light of the many Catholic and Orthodox ones here - I will not pass judgment on whether or not the Bishops were inspired. But, as I clearly said, the Nicene Creed has served all true Christians well in it's present formulation.

That doesn't necessarily limit us to their particular formulation though in our present discussion concerning the way God meant "Son" and "begotten" in the Scriptures.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In light of my prefacing my remarks with a statement upholding and seconding your warning against someone possibly mistaking the eternal nature of the Word of God (the 2nd member of the Trinity as I clearly labeled Him) - I don't see how the words that followed could be mistaken for anything other than the way I meant them.

But yes, if it need be said more clearly, I believe in the eternal nature of the Trinity.

In light of the many Catholic and Orthodox ones here - I will not pass judgment on whether or not the Bishops were inspired. But, as I clearly said, the Nicene Creed has served all true Christians well in it's present formulation.

That doesn't necessarily limit us to their particular formulation though in our present discussion concerning the way God meant "Son" and "begotten" in the Scriptures.

Thank you for clarifying. I do apologize for misunderstanding you, and it was your agreement with my warning that had me wondering why I had that take-away from your post.

Discussion of the Creed would be off-topic anyway, I suppose. I'm a little surprised - in a way - that you equate it with Catholic/Orthodox ... as back then it was simply "The Church" but you are correct that we are closely connected to it - indeed, a continuation of it.

Just so that perhaps you might understand ... this was what I was unsure of your intent ...

Without claiming to understand fully the “hypostatic union” – I will say that there was a time when “Jesus”, the God-man did not exist as such. He was created in a very real sense by a union of God and man. Just because the nature of man existed before and the nature of God existed before doesn’t mean that the Father combining the two didn’t amount to a special “creation” in the real sense of the word. He knit Him together and He was fearfully and wonderfully made.

<snip>


He is the Son of God in that His was a special act of creation directly by an act of God.

I think it was particularly your description of the Father "combining" the two, and saying that Jesus was "made" and calling it an act of creation that really led to my concerns of what might be taken from your post. I didn't think you were really saying that Christ was a creation, but it would seem to be possible to understand the post in that way.

Forgive me that I misunderstood you. I thought that might not be what you meant, given your introduction. But I hope you can see that it can at least be confusing.

Since we seem to disagree on the eternal nature of Christ's begotten-ness, I won't go into that with you. Such a discussion could get the thread locked or moved to "unorthodox theology".

 

[hedrick]

Also note that the terms used for Him in His eternal state, and not use prophetically, are otherwise. He is called the Word, Wisdom, Knowledge and many such. When He enters the human condition He is then called the Son. Note: “You are my Son – today I have begotten you” and such.

I agree that Ps 2:7 is quoted in a context referring to the human state. Indeed the 3 quotations seem to be associated with his crucifixion and resurrection, thus leading to an observation that in some sense the cross is seen as his coronation.

However the term Son is used in parts of the NT of the eternal form. Heb 1 connects these. It seems to see continuity between the Word in creating the heavens and in being present on earth.

We call ourselves “new creations”. Just because “part” of us, the Holy Spirit of God, has always existed doesn’t mean that we are not creations of God. He says that we are.

I see the point of this. Indeed classically it could be said that Christ was begotten twice, once in eternity and once in Bethlehem. However the preexistence passages see a continuity. The child in Bethlehem is in some sense the same thing as the Word that was part of creation. Hence speaking of the incarnation as a new creation would almost certainly be regarded as Arian. It's more a new form of the Word than a completely new thing.

Without claiming to understand fully the “hypostatic union” – I will say that there was a time when “Jesus”, the God-man did not exist as such. He was created in a very real sense by a union of God and man. Just because the nature of man existed before and the nature of God existed before doesn’t mean that the Father combining the two didn’t amount to a special “creation” in the real sense of the word. He knit Him together and He was fearfully and wonderfully made.

Again, I'm sympathetic. But I think the point of the preexistence passages is that the God-man did exist in some sense. Perhaps in God's mind, but with sufficient reality that God was always incarnate, even if it hadn't happened yet -- to push words perhaps beyond their breaking point. (If God isn't limited by time, the idea that something hadn't happened yet to God may not even make sense.)

In my opinion the Trinity is a consequence of the Incarnation. A Muslim God can't be incarnate, because it's a different kind of God. A God who could become incarnate was always Son and Holy Spirit, as well as Father.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Since we seem to disagree on the eternal nature of Christ's begotten-ness, I won't go into that with you. Such a discussion could get the thread locked or moved to "unorthodox theology".

I will not continue either.

But I really don't think that we differ at all when all is said and done.
Some of this has to do with the words we are used to using in our own traditions.

I, for instance, am used to using the term generated when referring to the eternal existence of the Trinity. For instance I would say something like, "The Son is eternally generated by the Father and the Holy Spirit is eternally generated by both the Father and the Son."

I use the term begotten in a different way than the way you seem to use it. Likewise I tend to use the term "Word of God" when referring to the Son in eternity past.

The differences are really inconsequential except when nit picking concerning things like this. Sometimes these things remind me of the old saw about arguing about how many angels can sit on the point of a pin.

I doubt if either of us really care much about these in house "arguments". It's just that theology is interesting to most of us here.

 

[Marvin Knox]

......................The child in Bethlehem is in some sense the same thing as the Word that was part of creation. Hence speaking of the incarnation as a new creation would almost certainly be regarded as Arian. It's more a new form of the Word than a completely new thing.....................................................I think the point of the preexistence passages is that the God-man did exist in some sense. Perhaps in God's mind, but with sufficient reality that God was always incarnate, even if it hadn't happened yet -- to push words perhaps beyond their breaking point. (If God isn't limited by time, the idea that something hadn't happened yet to God may not even make sense.).............................................In my opinion the Trinity is a consequence of the incarnation.....................................

I certainly agree that Jesus was the Word made flesh.

You say that speaking of the incarnation as a new creation is Arian and I disagree.

This disagreement no doubt stems from the fact that I totally disagree that the incarnation did not occur at a specific point in time. (The "fullness" of time as a matter of fact.)

There was a time when the incarnate Son did not exist and there was then a time when He did exist.

Arianism would require a belief that God brought the Word of God into existence at a point in time. While He became flesh at a point in time, He did not become the person we know as the Word who has always existed.

Hence I see Jesus (the God/man) as a new thing in God's creation - a thing that did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit "overshadowing" the young woman Mary.

I'm sure, mystery though it is, God has always known everything that has happened, could happen, and will happen with equal clarity. Non the less - God is the one who talks about things actually happening at a point in time. I don't think we need to go beyond that in this case or in any other.

I'm not sure how you meant that last sentence. But I would say that the incarnation was something He has always "planned" to do. In that sense it may be said, I suppose, to be a forgone conclusion in the mind of God. But I would disagree as to it's being a necessary "consequence" of the Trinitarian existence of God.

It was and is part of a plan. It was not necessarily the only plan He could have executed as I see it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I will not continue either.

But I really don't think that we differ at all when all is said and done.
Some of this has to do with the words we are used to using in our own traditions.

I, for instance, am used to using the term generated when referring to the eternal existence of the Trinity. For instance I would say something like, "The Son is eternally generated by the Father and the Holy Spirit is eternally generated by both the Father and the Son."

I use the term begotten in a different way than the way you seem to use it. Likewise I tend to use the term "Word of God" when referring to the Son in eternity past.

The differences are really inconsequential except when nit picking concerning things like this. Sometimes these things remind me of the old saw about arguing about how many angels can sit on the point of a pin.

I doubt if either of us really care much about these in house "arguments". It's just that theology is interesting to most of us here.

Your reply to Hedrick actually made more sense to me of your position. We are perhaps not far apart on certain things then, as you say.

While actually the more I learn, the more I become less interested in theology. Not that it doesn't interest me, but it becomes secondary to living the Christian life.

BUT ... These particular points are in fact intensely important to me. They have to do with Who God Is, and if we get that part wrong, then we might be worshipping a god of our own making. So this core of our Faith is very important to me. (Though I'm not much interested in arguing, that is also true. )

Your statement does recognize the Father as the Source, and that is the most important part. But of course I don't agree with the Filioque. That was something else I needed to investigate deeply, and I find that I agree that it has the effect of creating a three-tier hierarchy in the Trinity when combined with the Father being the source of the Son. It subjugates the Holy Spirit. Without it, the Father is the source (necessarily) but the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source in the Father, as I firmly believe it should be.

That is likely outside the scope of this thread as well. And I recognize that virtually every tradition that arose out of the Catholic Church retains the Filioque, along with certain other distinctions opposed to the Orthodox Church.

The Word (Logos) is a perfectly acceptable name for the Son. The only problem is that Protestants often tend to confuse Christ as the Logos with the Holy Scriptures in certain ways. I love the Name "Logos" for Christ, but for the sake of avoiding confusion, I tend to use it less these days on CF. But there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

I think I see your point overall though. God becoming man was certainly a "new thing" and the Incarnation is the beginning of the hypostatic union. Many would probably react strongly against any suggestion where the use of the word "creation" implies some kind of beginning point in time for the Son/Logos/Jesus Himself though. It's tricky to talk about.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Many would probably react strongly against any suggestion where the use of the word "creation" implies some kind of beginning point in time for the Son/Logos/Jesus Himself though. It's tricky to talk about.

If I were to write my original post again I would try to use a word like "fashioned" instead of created. I use created for the act of the incarnation because that is the way we use the word in everyday language.

When one uses one or more preexistent things to fashion something that heretofore did not exist in it's present form - we say that it was created. That is exactly as it was with the incarnation. Deity and humanity were fashioned together in such a way that a new thing came into being.

It is indeed tricky to talk about theology in general. That's the reason that theologians coin special words (like Trinity) so as to alleviate the necessity of cobbling together several paragraphs of explanation when a certain concept is being discussed.

If there is a common word used for those explanations, it can be used as a sort of short cut.

Of course the rub is that not everyone agrees on the explanations that the word is meant to short cut.

As long as I'm on a role - here is a definition for the Trinity:

"I believe in the one true God beside whom there is no other. The one true God exists eternally as 3 distinct persons - each person possessing within Himself all of the attributes necessary that He might be correctly referred to as the one true God."

You and I might think that a fairly good statement describing the Trinity in general. If we agreed with that statement we could hold a conversation and use that short hand word "Trinity" without misunderstandings.

But if I have a conversation with a Mormon or a J.W. or a Moslem or even a "oneness" Pentecostal (like T.D. Jakes) - and I said Trinity - we would eventually find ourselves arguing about what that meant.

I've found out to my dismay here in the forum that theological words used here don't mean the same things to each and every person on these threads.

Without opening a can of worms - discussions about Calvinism and Arminianism and Protestantism and Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy come to mind most readily.

And of course there seems to be views of what it takes to be "saved" that are often divergent. When that happens it is almost impossible to have a civil conversation for long.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If I were to write my original post again I would try to use a word like "fashioned" instead of created. I use created for the act of the incarnation because that is the way we use the word in everyday language.

When one uses one or more preexistent things to fashion something that heretofore did not exist in it's present form - we say that it was created. That is exactly as it was with the incarnation. Deity and humanity were fashioned together in such a way that a new thing came into being.

It is indeed tricky to talk about theology in general. That's the reason that theologians coin special words (like Trinity) so as to alleviate the necessity of cobbling together several paragraphs of explanation when a certain concept is being discussed.

If there is a common word used for those explanations, it can be used as a sort of short cut.

Of course the rub is that not everyone agrees on the explanations that the word is meant to short cut.

As long as I'm on a role - here is a definition for the Trinity:

"I believe in the one true God beside whom there is no other. The one true God exists eternally as 3 distinct persons - each person possessing within Himself all of the attributes necessary that He might be correctly referred to as the one true God."

You and I might think that a fairly good statement describing the Trinity in general. If we agreed with that statement we could hold a conversation and use that short hand word "Trinity" without misunderstandings.

But if I have a conversation with a Mormon or a J.W. or a Moslem or even a "oneness" Pentecostal (like T.D. Jakes) - and I said Trinity - we would eventually find ourselves arguing about what that meant.

I've found out to my dismay here in the forum that theological words used here don't mean the same things to each and every person on these threads.

Without opening a can of worms - discussions about Calvinism and Arminianism and Protestantism and Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy come to mind most readily.

And of course there seems to be views of what it takes to be "saved" that are often divergent. When that happens it is almost impossible to have a civil conversation for long.

That is something I spent a fair amount of time exploring when I first came to CF - the different things meant by this theological term or that when put to various people. It was very instructive, though sometimes takes a while to tease out what is meant (and sometimes I feel I never quite get to an understanding).

It is possible to have civil conversation, but that depends on the people involved. I understand when people are passionate and zealous for their faith, even when we disagree. It does get a little tiresome when they don't seem to read what others say to them and just keep repeating their assertions, and even more tiresome when they resort to sarcastic insults as if truth was determined by "whoever zings the best". But it is possible to be civil, when everyone treats each other with respect. It's true that that often gets swept aside though.

But if done with consideration, it can lead to a lot of learning.

BTW, I didn't realize T.D. Jakes was Oneness. Not that it's overly important to me, but I listened to him on several occasions and never realized that. If I hear him again, I'll have to pay closer attention on that count, at least. I have other things I associate with him though.

Thanks for the discussion. Again, I am sorry that I misunderstood your position.

 

[Marvin Knox]

BTW, I didn't realize T.D. Jakes was Oneness. Not that it's overly important to me, but I listened to him on several occasions and never realized that. If I hear him again, I'll have to pay closer attention on that count, at least. I have other things I associate with him though.

Jakes is an interesting case. His background is definately oneness (read non-trinitarian "modalism").

He has never repudiated it since becoming famous or before. He has been challenged many time on it and there have been articles in Christianity Today etc.

He parses his words very carefully so as to not out and out spell things out. That's the problem. When someone has that background and will not repudiate it and parses words carefully so that they could be taken a number of ways - there will always be questions.

Although there may be misunderstandings and questions (as with you and I) if one is not "hiding" something by parsing words the truth will eventually be understood. That's as it should be IMO.

When a person is dishonest about something like that (and that's what I consider double speak to be) I want nothing to do with him.

He seems very popular and even seems to have done much good. But straight is straight and he is not straight IMO.

It has (for me) nothing to do with Pentecostalism for which I have theological sympathies so to speak. Nor does it have to do with so called word of faith which I also understand pretty well and also have sympathies for - as it were.

My objections with Jakes have to do with his not being completely forthright concerning a basic doctrine of the faith.

I might even have some understanding of his position (we'd have to see). But when you hide your position (as he seems to do) because it would effect your fame or fortune (or even effectiveness of ministry) it isn't the best way to be IMO.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jakes is an interesting case. His background is definately oneness (read non-trinitarian "modalism").

He has never repudiated it since becoming famous or before. He has been challenged many time on it and there have been articles in Christianity Today etc.

He parses his words very carefully so as to not out and out spell things out. That's the problem. When someone has that background and will not repudiate it and parses words carefully so that they could be taken a number of ways - there will always be questions.

Although there may be misunderstandings and questions (as with you and I) if one is not "hiding" something by parsing words the truth will eventually be understood. That's as it should be IMO.

When a person is dishonest about something like that (and that's what I consider double speak to be) I want nothing to do with him.

He seems very popular and even seems to have done much good. But straight is straight and he is not straight IMO.

It has (for me) nothing to do with Pentecostalism for which I have theological sympathies so to speak. Nor does it have to do with so called word of faith which I also understand pretty well and also have sympathies for - as it were.

My objections with Jakes have to do with his not being completely forthright concerning a basic doctrine of the faith.

I might even have some understanding of his position (we'd have to see). But when you hide your position (as he seems to do) because it would effect your fame or fortune (or even effectiveness of ministry) it isn't the best way to be IMO.

From the way it sounds, I'd have to agree with you. It's difficult to have respect for the leader of a congregation who hides his position in an effort to remain popular with his followers, if that's the case.

I guess that explains why I didn't pick up on it in casual listening. Most folks I know who are modalists don't let you wonder what they believe.

(Which reminds me of an old friend I ought to visit soon.)

 

[hedrick]

There was a time when the incarnate Son did not exist and there was then a time when He did exist.
...
Hence I see Jesus (the God/man) as a new thing in God's creation - a thing that did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit "overshadowing" the young woman Mary.

Of course there was a time when the *incarnate* Son didn’t exist. I was objecting to a statement that the Son was created. I wouldn’t object to a statement that incarnate form of the Son was created.

If you avoid saying that the Son is eternal, then you’ve got a problem with the Trinity: Is God eternally Father? It’s hard to see how he can be Father without Son. I’m open to non-traditional theology. But even in my fairly modern theological system, Christ shows us what God is really like, and to me that implies that the Father/Son relationship is inherent in God, meaning eternal. However the Word didn’t become flesh until a specific time.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Of course there was a time when the *incarnate* Son didn&#8217;t exist. I was objecting to a statement that the Son was created. I wouldn&#8217;t object to a statement that incarnate form of the Son was created.

If you avoid saying that the Son is eternal, then you&#8217;ve got a problem with the Trinity: Is God eternally Father? It&#8217;s hard to see how he can be Father without Son. I&#8217;m open to non-traditional theology. But even in my fairly modern theological system, Christ shows us what God is really like, and to me that implies that the Father/Son relationship is inherent in God, meaning eternal. However the Word didn&#8217;t become flesh until a specific time.

We are in agreement as to the personal relationship within the "Godhead".

But obviously any reference to the Word as Son in eternity past must be taken in something of an anthropomorphic context. Obviously we are, for the most part, not Mormons here.

I have always been talking about that point in time when the Word became flesh. The OP asked the question as to why Jesus is called the "Son of God." Note that the question pertained specifically to Jesus the offspring of Mary - even referencing her part in the incarnation. My answer was the following:

"The Bible appears to use the term "son" to indicate any person created by a direct act of God.

Adam was a son of God. His offspring are not.

The angels are sons of God. Even fallen angels like Lucifer are sons of God.

All us born again, new creations by the Spirit of God, are sons of God.

Jesus is a son of God.

The fact that He is "begotten not made" seems to indicate his special creation. This particular direct creation is not a case of a person being simply directly fashioned by God or even that they are created in the "image" of God. It seems to indicate that He is of the exact nature and substance as God as well as that He was created directly through an act of God. He is very God of very God - one of a kind."

The question concerning the eternal Word being "created" was quickly fielded by Kylissa. I have alleviated any misunderstanding in that regard with many statements concerning the eternal nature of God as Trinity. I have even gone so far as to say that I would use another term other than created, such as fashioned, if I was starting the series of posts again.

There isn't a whole lot more I can do.

Luke 1:35 (NIV) says concerning why Jesus is called the Son of God.

&#8220;...The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Note that, according to God, it is the act of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary that gives rise to Jesus being called the "Son of God". The incarnation is what is in view when God ascribes to Him the title Son of God.

In view of this fact . it has, appropriately, always been the act of incarnation in the person of Jesus the "Son of Man" (His favorite title for Himself) which I have referred to in these posts.

I can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if I used that term, Son of Man, as many times as did Jesus.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

We are in agreement as to the personal relationship within the "Godhead".

But obviously any reference to the Word as Son in eternity past must be taken in something of an anthropomorphic context. Obviously we are, for the most part, not Mormons here.

I have always been talking about that point in time when the Word became flesh. The OP asked the question as to why Jesus is called the "Son of God." Note that the question pertained specifically to Jesus the offspring of Mary - even referencing her part in the incarnation. My answer was the following:

"The Bible appears to use the term "son" to indicate any person created by a direct act of God.

Adam was a son of God. His offspring are not.

The angels are sons of God. Even fallen angels like Lucifer are sons of God.

All us born again, new creations by the Spirit of God, are sons of God.

Jesus is a son of God.

The fact that He is "begotten not made" seems to indicate his special creation. This particular direct creation is not a case of a person being simply directly fashioned by God or even that they are created in the "image" of God. It seems to indicate that He is of the exact nature and substance as God as well as that He was created directly through an act of God. He is very God of very God - one of a kind."

The question concerning the eternal Word being "created" was quickly fielded by Kylissa. I have alleviated any misunderstanding in that regard with many statements concerning the eternal nature of God as Trinity. I have even gone so far as to say that I would use another term other than created, such as fashioned, if I was starting the series of posts again.

There isn't a whole lot more I can do.

Luke 1:35 (NIV) says concerning why Jesus is called the Son of God.

“...The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

It has always been the act of incarnation in the person of Jesus the "Son of Man" (His favorite title for Himself) which I have referred to in these posts.

I can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if I used that term, Son of Man, as many times as did Jesus.

Ummm... You do not have it entirely correct.

In the Bible, when you see 'son' lowercase it indicates that it is not God/diety, however when you see 'Son' uppercase it does indicate God/diety.

Now notice above (in blue) what is uppercase? Holy Spirit = Yes, part of the trinity. Most High = Yes, another term for the Father. Son of God = Yes, part of the trinity.

Jesus was called the Son of God because Jesus was both God and man. Because He was still God, He retained His title of the Son of God.

That's the way I see it.

 

[ebia]

Ummm... You do not have it entirely correct.

In the Bible, when you see 'son' lowercase it indicates that it is not God/diety, however when you see 'Son' uppercase it does indicate God/diety.

Now notice above (in blue) what is uppercase? Holy Spirit = Yes, part of the trinity. Most High = Yes, another term for the Father. Son of God = Yes, part of the trinity.

Do you realise that's something modern translators put in? It's not a distinction that exists in the original language manuscripts where there were no lowercase letters.