'God the Son' is unbiblical

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That said, fortunately the majority of Christians, and the five largest worldwide denominational groupings, which are the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed / Calvinists, are sacramental. Also the word Charismatic usually is used to refer to people who have Pentecostal-like practices albeit in existing denominations, so for example, there are some Charismatic Catholics and Charismatic Anglicans etc, and they are sacramental, so its not quite as bad as you suggest. Also I have heard that some Pentecostal churches do value the sacraments as a result of Presbyterian influence.

But I do share your lament about the spread of non-sacramental Christianity.

Over two years ago I found a wonderful new reason for belief in the forgiveness of sins, I gave it to my pastor found on the 1517 website. The pastor used in in the Divine service both before the invocation (as a reason for coming to worship) and as a confession/absolution. Here it is:

“YOU ARE FORGIVEN” are the words of the very heart of the Christian Faith. This announcement of forgiveness is good news for those who know they have fallen short, who know they are not the people they should be, who know they have hurt others. It is good news even for those who have done things and said things you thought God would never forgive. How could this be? Jesus. God in the flesh came into this world to forgive you and thereby set you free. Free from shame, free from guilt, and free from death. “YOU ARE FORGIVEN.”

This good word from Jesus, is for all who admit their need forgiveness, and trust that what Jesus did here on earth, in his living, his dying, and his rising from the dead actually provides that forgiveness….covering anyone and everyone who believes. Even you. This is the truth. YOU ARE FORGIVEN

I thought you might be interested in an contemporary absolution for your historical research.

 

[Paleouss]

Hi, my name is Paleouss and I am brand new to this site. It looks as though there have been some pretty good positions established in this thread. Just wanted to give my two cents. My primary goal of being on this site is the hope that God would use me as his vessel of truth and a desire that God will correct me through this site when my view is incorrect. That being said, I would like to respond to the original question.

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ...

I affirm this, Tellyontellyon. It is true this phrase "God the Son" is not found in the Bible.

Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.

I believe that the Scriptures are the inerrent word of God. Further, I believe that interpertations of scriptures are, and should be, self affirmed by other scripture. I am curious about your words "kept out", suggesting it was done purposefully (by God). You then support my understanding of what you said by saying "I don't think that is an accident". My question to you is, does your position rest on firm Biblical teaching or is it what you think?

I would like to present some examples of why I am very cautious in holding to a negative inference when interperting the Bible.

Example #1. A. John loves Mary
B. Bill is not Marry
C. Therefore, John does not love Bill.
In this example we can see that C might or might not be tue, we don't know. But to have confidence we need more information.

Example #2. A) All Orthodox Jews believe in Moses.
B) Smith is not an Orthodox Jew
C) Therefore, Smith does not believe in Moses.
Again, we need more information. We don't know it Smith believes in Moses or not.

Your agrument is something like...
A) The words in the Bible are inerrent
B) The words "God the Son" is not in the Bible.
C) Therefore the words "God the Son" is in error.

I hope that I have explained myself well enough that (C) cannot be known to be true or false. It might be, but then again it might not be. We don't know, we need more evidence and not simply more negative inferences. I also don't see the phrase "God the Son" being logically incorrect like, lets say, 'God is good' and 'good is God'. 'God is good' is true but clearly 'good is God' is false.

I think Daniel9v9 had a very good response on what is meant when people use the phrase, God the Son. I myself, see no reason for me to object when someone uses the phrase, God the Son. I do think that if some do not want to use the phrase out of some form of devotion to God, then I applaud that devotion. Anything that is sincerely and humblely given in devotion is comendable.

May God do a fruitful work through you.

 

[biblelesson]

Myself I don't agree with the phrase, "God the Son" because when the angel that came and announced Jesus birth to Mary, that angel didn't say her child would be God, but that he would be "God's Son.(Luke 1:35) Why is it that this angel said Jesus would be God's Son, if this angel wanted to teach Mary and us that Jesus would be God?

Maybe you might understand this way.

In the beginning there was God the Creator and God the Word, John 1:1 KJV.

God the Word was in the beginning with God the Creator, and it was God the Word Who made everything, John 1:2-3 KJV.

God the Creator said to God the Word, let us make man in “Our” image…, Genesis 1:26 KJV.

The man that they created and made sinned and could not be redeemed from their fall - unless!

Unless what! Unless One be sent to redeem man.

It was God the Word Who was sent down from heaven to earth to be born of flesh, 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.”

The Word who gave up His Authority to come down and save man, Philippians 2:6-7 KJV, was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3 KJV, through a Virgin, Mary, and God the Creator, through the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35 KJV.

Jesus was already God from the beginning. God the Word came from heaven, and was born of flesh to save sinful man, was named Jesus the man, and became the Son of God.

1 Peter 1:19-20 KJV
19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

[Hawkins]

MOD HAT ON

​

Statement of Faith​

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

MOD HAT OFF​

Apostles Creed:

Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born o...

www.usccb.org

Apostles' Creed

www.crcna.org

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.


Wikipedia as well, it includes the multiple versons of the Creed from the multiple institutions including,
- International Consultation on English Texts
- English Language Liturgical Consultation
- Catholic Church
- Church of England
- Lutheran Church
- United Methodist Church

Apostles' Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Hi, my name is Paleouss and I am brand new to this site. It looks as though there have been some pretty good positions established in this thread. Just wanted to give my two cents. My primary goal of being on this site is the hope that God would use me as his vessel of truth and a desire that God will correct me through this site when my view is incorrect. That being said, I would like to respond to the original question.



I affirm this, Tellyontellyon. It is true this phrase "God the Son" is not found in the Bible.



I believe that the Scriptures are the inerrent word of God. Further, I believe that interpertations of scriptures are, and should be, self affirmed by other scripture. I am curious about your words "kept out", suggesting it was done purposefully (by God). You then support my understanding of what you said by saying "I don't think that is an accident". My question to you is, does your position rest on firm Biblical teaching or is it what you think?

I would like to present some examples of why I am very cautious in holding to a negative inference when interperting the Bible.

Example #1. A. John loves Mary
B. Bill is not Marry
C. Therefore, John does not love Bill.
In this example we can see that C might or might not be tue, we don't know. But to have confidence we need more information.

Example #2. A) All Orthodox Jews believe in Moses.
B) Smith is not an Orthodox Jew
C) Therefore, Smith does not believe in Moses.
Again, we need more information. We don't know it Smith believes in Moses or not.

Your agrument is something like...
A) The words in the Bible are inerrent
B) The words "God the Son" is not in the Bible.
C) Therefore the words "God the Son" is in error.

I hope that I have explained myself well enough that (C) cannot be known to be true or false. It might be, but then again it might not be. We don't know, we need more evidence and not simply more negative inferences. I also don't see the phrase "God the Son" being logically incorrect like, lets say, 'God is good' and 'good is God'. 'God is good' is true but clearly 'good is God' is false.

I think Daniel9v9 had a very good response on what is meant when people use the phrase, God the Son. I myself, see no reason for me to object when someone uses the phrase, God the Son. I do think that if some do not want to use the phrase out of some form of devotion to God, then I applaud that devotion. Anything that is sincerely and humblely given in devotion is comendable.

May God do a fruitful work through you.

Thank you for replying and good use of logic. I have stated and restated throughout the thread that I'm not saying that Jesus isn't God, or that 'God the Son' would be theologically inaccurate...
What I am saying is that it would have been very easy and clear for God (through the Scriptures) to have used this phrase God the Son... but he didn't.
I don't think God didn't use the phrase because it would have been inaccurate.. As I said, this is not a critique of the Trinity... but it does seem unusual to me that the phrase wasn't used, when it IS such a precise and useful term to use.
I don't think God does things by accident, so I don't think it's an accident that the phrases Son of Man and Son of God are used instead.
Son of Man suggests that Jesus is indeed God and Messiah, But Son of God emphasise Sonship...
Some replies have explained this... but it still seems significant to me that God's incarnation came as a Son.
Thinking on it, I think it has a particularly emotional impact that a Son died for our sins.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for replying and good use of logic. I have stated and restated throughout the thread that I'm not saying that Jesus isn't God, or that 'God the Son' would be theologically inaccurate...
What I am saying is that it would have been very easy and clear for God (through the Scriptures) to have used this phrase God the Son... but he didn't.

Surely the paucity of that is evident.

How does anyone know what God would have done. . .or why?
It would have been very easy and clear for God to have used the phrase, "I am three divine persons in one divine being". . .but he didn't.
And those three persons are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Surely the paucity of that is evident.

How does anyone know what God would have done. . .or why?
It would have been very easy and clear for God to have used the phrase, "I am three divine persons in one divine being". . .but he didn't.
And those three persons are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but he didn't, did he. And that seems strange to me.
It's a subjective, feeling thing granted... I just have a feeling that it's important that Sonship is so emphasised.
Jesus is God, but hi is also and very specifically God's Son. And that is theologically important.. it must be.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but he didn't, did he. And that seems strange to me.

Do you find it strange he didn't state that he was three divine persons in one divine being, God?

It's a subjective, feeling thing granted... I just have a feeling that it's important that Sonship is so emphasised.
Jesus is God, but hi is also and very specifically God's Son. And that is theologically important.. it must be.

God the Son means sonship. Sonship is being emphasized.

 

[Paleouss]

Hi Tellyontellyon,

Hope your week has been a blessed one.

What I am saying is that it would have been very easy and clear for God (through the Scriptures) to have used this phrase God the Son... but he didn't.

I agree, he didn't use it. Regarding the easy and clear part, God reveals himself as he pleases when he pleases. The Trinity, as an example, is not easy or clear (at least in my view).

it does seem unusual to me that the phrase wasn't used, when it IS such a precise and useful term to use.

I, myself, don't see it as "unusual", what is unusual to one man is hard to prove unusual to another. But the fact remains, its not used in the Bible.

I don't think God does things by accident, so I don't think it's an accident that the phrases Son of Man and Son of God are used instead.

Here is where you lose me.

You say, "I don't think God does things by accident". This implies, to me, that God's actions have intention and purpose (and are without error). This seems to be part of what you mean. This part I agree with.

But you seem to want to assert more. You want to claim that the absense of something has purpose. But for this claim to be well founded it needs more than negative inference, it needs self afferming verses. We should always take what we think and go to the Scriptures for confirmation. Otherwise, the blind and lead the blind.

but it still seems significant to me that God's incarnation came as a Son.

He came to serve and be in submission to the Father... I agree. This can be backed up with verses. I'm short on time so I appologize for not providing some verses on this.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Do you find it strange he didn't state that he was three divine persons in one divine being, God?

God the Son means sonship. Sonship is being emphasized.

But why Son?
If the Trinity is timeless, has always been. Then the Son has always been.
There has always been this Father Son relationship between these two persons of God. Jesus was the Son before time began. Jesus is the Word, and the Word is the Son of God.
So this question is about the nature of God. What IS God..
In understanding the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit we are understanding something about God.

From the eternal perspective (irrespective of Jesus' human birth) what is it that makes the Father the Father, and the Son the Son?

 

[Clare73]

But why Son?
If the Trinity is timeless, has always been. Then the Son has always been.
There has always been this Father Son relationship between these two persons of God. Jesus was the Son before time began. Jesus is the Word, and the Word is the Son of God.
So this question is about the nature of God. What IS God..
In understanding the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit we are understanding something about God.
From the eternal perspective (irrespective of Jesus' human birth) what is it that makes the Father the Father, and the Son the Son?

The same in both the Trinity and in Mary.

From the eternal perspective, the Son proceeds from within the Father in the Trinity (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8),
and from the human birth perspective, the Son is begotten of the Holy Spirit by the Father in the womb of Mary (Lk 1:35).

 

[ViaCrucis]

But why Son?
If the Trinity is timeless, has always been. Then the Son has always been.
There has always been this Father Son relationship between these two persons of God. Jesus was the Son before time began. Jesus is the Word, and the Word is the Son of God.
So this question is about the nature of God. What IS God..
In understanding the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit we are understanding something about God.

From the eternal perspective (irrespective of Jesus' human birth) what is it that makes the Father the Father, and the Son the Son?

The Father is the Source, of and from which the Son eternally subsists as God of God, God from God--the Son has His Being from the Father.

The Father does not have His Being from the Son, but the Son has His Being from the Father. So that the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten.

In the 7th century a local council met in the city of Toledo of what is modern day Spain. In fact it was the 11th of these. What makes this 11th Council of Toledo special, however, is that it put forward an extremely good confession of faith about the Trinity. Here is what the council had to say when talking about God the Father:

"And we profess that the Father is not begotten, not created, but unbegotten. For He Himself, from whom the Son has received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession, has His origin from no one. He is therefore the Source and Origin of the whole Godhead. He Himself is the Father of His own Being, who in an ineffable way has begotten the Son from His ineffable Being. Yet He did not beget something other than from what He Himself is: God has begotten God, light has begotten light." - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/toledo.txt

The Father is Father because He is the Source, the Origin; from which the Son has His eternal generation and the Holy Spirit His eternal procession. Therefore the Father is Father because He is Father of the Son--the Son has His eternal birth from the Father as God of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

The Father is the Source, of and from which the Son eternally subsists as God of God, God from God--the Son has His Being from the Father.
The Father does not have His Being from the Son, but the Son has His Being from the Father. So that the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten.
In the 7th century a local council met in the city of Toledo of what is modern day Spain. In fact it was the 11th of these. What makes this 11th Council of Toledo special, however, is that it put forward an extremely good confession of faith about the Trinity. Here is what the council had to say when talking about God the Father:
"And we profess that the Father is not begotten, not created, but unbegotten. For He Himself, from whom the Son has received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession, has His origin from no one. He is therefore the Source and Origin of the whole Godhead. He Himself is the Father of His own Being, who in an ineffable way has begotten the Son from His ineffable Being. Yet He did not beget something other than from what He Himself is: God has begotten God, light has begotten light." - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/toledo.txt

The Father is Father because He is the Source, the Origin; from which the Son has His eternal generation and the Holy Spirit His eternal procession. Therefore the Father is Father because He is Father of the Son--the Son has His eternal birth from the Father as God of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Does not God the Son proceed from (out from within, exelthon) the Father, (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8), where exelthon is a form of erchomai and means "to proceed, to emanate (to flow out, to issue from a source, as light from the sun), to come out or go out of, to go forth," as in

[EDIT: text formerly presented Scripture of the procession of the God the Holy Spirit rather than God the Son. Correct Scriptures follow:]
1 Co 14:36 - "Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
Mt 2:6 - "Out of you will come forth a governor," where a different form (exeleusetai) of the same verb is used.
Mt 15:18 - "Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts," where a third form (exerchontai) of the same verb is used.
End of EDIT.

Both the divine Spirits, God the Son (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8) and God the Holy Spirit (Jn 15:26), proceed from the Father.

While the Son of God, the God-man Jesus of Nazareth, is generated (begotten) by the Father in the womb of Mary (Lk 1:35, Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 Jn 4:9).

God the Son and God the Holy Spirit proceed.
The Son of God is begotten (generated).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does not God the Son proceed from (out from within, ekporeuetai) the Father, (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8), where the meaning of ekporeuetai is seen in
Mk 7:19 - "For it goes into his stomach. . .and then goes out (from within, ekporeuetai) his body,"
Rev 9:17 - "Out of (from within, ekporeuetai) their mouths come fire and smoke and sulfur,"
Rev 11:5 - "fire comes out of (from within, ekporeuetai) their mouths"?

Both God the Son (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8) and God the Holy Spirit (Jn 15:26) proceed from the Father.

While the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is generated (begotten) by the Father in the womb of Mary (Lk 1:35, Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18,
1 Jn 4:9).

God the Son and God the Holy Spirit proceed.
The Son of God is begotten (generated).

The Nicene Creed says the Son is ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (ek tou Patros gennethenta pro panton ton aionon), "of the Father begotten before all ages". The Person of the Son is therefore begotten of the Father, that is what it means to speak of the Son as having His Origin in the Father.

The Nicene Creed says the Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον (ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon), "of the Father proceeding". The Latin version of the Creed would later have the Filioque added, so that in Latin it reads: ex Patre Filioque procedit ("of the Father and the Son proceeds").

This is simply the confessional language which the Church has accepted: The Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.

Where there is debate is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Aside from this, there's no debate: The Son is begotten (generation); the Spirit proceeds (spiration).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

The Nicene Creed says the Son is ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (ek tou Patros gennethenta pro panton ton aionon), "of the Father begotten before all ages". The Person of the Son is therefore begotten of the Father, that is what it means to speak of the Son as having His Origin in the Father.

Does that refer to the God-man, or to the divine Spirit of the Trinity.?

The Nicene Creed says the Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον (ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon), "of the Father proceeding". The Latin version of the Creed would later have the Filioque added, so that in Latin it reads: ex Patre Filioque procedit ("of the Father and the Son proceeds").

This is simply the confessional language which the Church has accepted: The Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.

Okay. . .I think it is a little more specific in Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8.

Where there is debate is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Aside from this, there's no debate: The Son is begotten (generation); the Spirit proceeds (spiration).

That depending on figurative prophecy of Rev 22:1.

Thanks.

 

[arrepto veritate]

Tellyontellyon I have been researching the sonship question because it peaked my interest. I was able to piece together some things that might help.
God does not change Mal 3:6 "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." To die, would be to change and God cannot do that.

Because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, Jewish law, there can only be one God Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

God could not come himself and be sacrificed so he sent a representative. Jesus came with the authority of God, but only doing what God his Father willed, sonship. Luke 22:42 "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done." There is a law in Deu 21:15-17 That speaks of first born and the double portion.

The Bible could never say God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit because that would make Christianity tritheistic removing it from Judaism and making it another god in the Roman pantheon.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does that refer to the God-man, or to the divine Spirit of the Trinity.?

The Person of the Son in relation to the Person of the Father.

In the Incarnation the Son is conceived and born of, united to human nature, the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,

"For us humans and for our salvation came down from heaven, and incarnated by the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, and was made human."

The Son was σαρκωθέντα (sarkothenta), incarnated, become-fleshed, by the power of the Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and as such was ἐνανθρωπήσαντα (enanthropesanta) in-human-ed, made human, became human.

The Son, the Divine Person, united with human nature by the power of the Holy Spirit by which the Son took on a human body, had a human soul, a human will--was really, truly, actually human in essence or nature without any lack or loss of His Eternal Deity. Thus was God-Man by His Eternal Deity and assumed humanity united together without confusion or separation in His one undivided Person and Hypostasis.

Okay. . .I think it is a little more specific in Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8.

Which is true; but for the sake of clarity of how we talk about the Trinity we historically speak of the way the Son is of the Father is His generation; whereas procession is used to refer to the Spirit.

We restrict our language in this way because of the theological controversies that erupted in later centuries. The use of procession to talk about the Holy Spirit was necessitated because of theological debates that erupted in the latter half of the 4th century.

The Macedonian controversy, named after a person named Macedonius who argued that while the Son was indeed God (in agreement with the Council of Nicea) nevertheless held to the Arian position on the Holy Spirit, where the Spirit is merely the impersonal divine power of God. The Macedonians were also known as the Pneumatomachi, literally "Those make war against the Spirit". It was viewed as a kind of Semi-Arianism, and is what was rejected at the Council of Constantinople in 381, which gave us the final form of the Nicene Creed in which we emphasize the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

So we speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding, to insist on the Eternal Deity of the Holy Spirit in His own distinct Person; and in distinction from the Son who begotten of the Father.

Thus the Son, we say, is generated and the Spirit is spirated; the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds. This emphasizes the distinction of the Son and the Spirit, and emphasizes the Deity of the Son and the Deity of the Spirit.

That depending on figurative prophecy of Rev 22:1.

Thanks.

Without getting into interpretive issues dealing with St. John's Revelation. The issue of the Fliioque is complicated.

History of the filioque controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Tellyontellyon I have been researching the sonship question because it peaked my interest. I was able to piece together some things that might help.
God does not change Mal 3:6 "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." To die, would be to change and God cannot do that.

Because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, Jewish law, there can only be one God Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

And there is only one God, in three distinct divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as shown in NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16), which presents three divine agents---with personal pronouns, personal titles, personal functions and acting as personal agents. . .thereby presenting the three divine agents in the one God as persons.
The Trinity, one God in three divine persons, is presented in NT apostolic teaching from the beginning.

1) We have three distinct persons (divine agents), Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
presented in the work of salvation:

a)--at its beginning (Luke 1:35),
----at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and
----in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14),

b) the Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2),

c) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father (salvation) is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15).

2) And Jesus shows the personhoods of three distinct divine agents:

The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends another who is distinct from oneself.

The Trinity--one God in three distinct divine persons--is presented in NT teaching from the beginning.

 

[arrepto veritate]

There is only one God, in three distinct divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as shown in NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16), which presents three divine agents---with personal pronouns, personal titles, personal functions and acting as personal agents. . .thereby presenting the three divine agents in the one God as persons.
The Trinity, one God in three divine persons, is presented in NT apostolic teaching from the beginning.

1) We have three distinct persons (divine agents), Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
presented in the work of salvation:

a)--at its beginning (Luke 1:35),
----at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and
----in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14),

b) the Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13;
1 Peter 1:2),

c) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father (salvation) is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15).

2) And Jesus shows the personhoods of three distinct divine agents:

The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends another who is distinct from oneself.

The Trinity--one God in three distinct divine persons--is presented in NT teaching from the beginning.

You are correct.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Maybe you might understand this way.

In the beginning there was God the Creator and God the Word, John 1:1 KJV.

God the Word was in the beginning with God the Creator, and it was God the Word Who made everything, John 1:2-3 KJV.

God the Creator said to God the Word, let us make man in “Our” image…, Genesis 1:26 KJV.

The man that they created and made sinned and could not be redeemed from their fall - unless!

Unless what! Unless One be sent to redeem man.

It was God the Word Who was sent down from heaven to earth to be born of flesh, 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.”

The Word who gave up His Authority to come down and save man, Philippians 2:6-7 KJV, was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3 KJV, through a Virgin, Mary, and God the Creator, through the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35 KJV.

Jesus was already God from the beginning. God the Word came from heaven, and was born of flesh to save sinful man, was named Jesus the man, and became the Son of God.

1 Peter 1:19-20 KJV
19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

I agree that John emphasizes the only begotten Son of God prehuman existence as "the Word" and explains that "the Word became flesh/human and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only begotton son from a father." But what I see in my reading and studying of these scriptures is that the Word who was in the beginning with God, is the only begotten Son of God.(John 1:1) So when the scriptures say the Word became flesh/human I understand it to mean the Word, who is only begotten Son of God, was the one who became flesh/human.(John 1:14)
I also believe it was the only begotten Son of God that the true God was speaking to when he said, "let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) I believe it was the only begotten Son of God that was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.(Romans 8:3) I believe this sonship didn't begin with his human birth, because I believe this is shown by Jesus own statements, when he said, "What things I have seen with my Father I speak" (John 8:38,42). Other scriptures at John 17:5,24; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; 1John 4:9-11 confirm to me that God didn't send himself but sent his Son. The only begotten Son of God is called God's son before his human birth.