Is this a heresy?

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

This is because the word Elohim is in plural. That's why in the book of Genesis, God speaks in plural. It's also why the Hebrew version has the serpent telling Eve that if she eats of the fruit; 'you will become like God'. While the Greek Septuagint says, you will become like gods (Θεοι). The Daniel verse depends on whether it's a Hebrew or Greek translator.

Before I read this thread, the Fiery Furnace was my only argument for the Eternal Sonship, and I actually composed some doggerel on it. But I have to admit that much as I consider modern versions to be much in error compared with the KJV, it is possible for their translation of Daniel 3:25 to be neither linguistically nor doctrinally erroneous; the former, because that section of Daniel was written in Chaldee/Aramaic, in which language the word for God, Elah is, at least sometimes, singular, so a plural form could most accurately be translated "gods"; the latter, because although Nebuchadnezzar's words at that point are in the Word of God, they are there as a historical record of what he said, not as a doctrine that we are to receive, any more than "There is no God" is a doctrine we are to receive.

I have just, however, acquired another argument to add to the other excellent ones in this Discussion: Proverbs 30:3-4: "What is His Son's name, if thou canst tell" would be the height of impiety if He did not have a Son at the time Proverbs was written (It is tempting to identify "Word of God" in the next verse as the Son's name, but, unfortunately for that argument, it is preceded by the word "Every" - in the Hebrew as well as in translation).

In Hebrews 1:5 the tense of "this day I have begotten thee" is perfect, possibly denoting a state of having begotten belonging to that day, rather than the action of begetting belonging to it (This would not be possible if the tense had been aorist {narrative}, when the meaning would definitely be that the Father begat the Son on that day). So Hebrews 1:5 need not mean that Christ became son of God on the day denoted by "this day", but simply that He was already Son of God on the day in question. Which removes one supposed foundation for a postulated doctrine of Incarnational Generation.

 

[sparow]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

It is a heresy in that it is not an orthodox opinion; it is also not Biblical; the God who created everything was the Father of Jesus and as Jesus that God was his Father; at His baptism God said this is my son with whom I am well pleased. Jesus was mortal and died on the cross; after His resurrection Jesus is also referred to in Rev 2:18 as the son of God. The Father and the Son are two witnesses to many things.

 

[food4thought]

I have just, however, acquired another argument to add to the other excellent ones in this Discussion: Proverbs 30:3-4: "What is His Son's name, if thou canst tell" would be the height of impiety if He did not have a Son at the time Proverbs was written (It is tempting to identify "Word of God" in the next verse as the Son's name, but, unfortunately for that argument, it is preceded by the word "Every" - in the Hebrew as well as in translation).

That was helpful, John... thank you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It is a heresy in that it is not an orthodox opinion; it is also not Biblical; the God who created everything was the Father of Jesus and as Jesus that God was his Father; at His baptism God said this is my son with whom I am well pleased. Jesus was mortal and died on the cross; after His resurrection Jesus is also referred to in Rev 2:18 as the son of God. The Father and the Son are two witnesses to many things.

That was helpful, John... thank you.

If the thought expressed in a "class" was He is not called this or that "until", then am not sure what the heretical issue is since the OP already correctly states a belief in eternal co-existence of both the Father and the Son. We are talking about a title rather than His existence.

He is not called our "Redeemer" until poets (like David) prophets (like Isaiah) or righteous men (like Job) speak it (all foreshadowing), but am certain He exited before then as well. So He was, is and shall be forever more our Redeemer. Hope that helps.

 

[FrankDux]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

And the proof of the GRACE of GOD

Interesting

What I find also important, is that Jesus is God's son, even without the indwelling of the spirit of God, because the spirit of God is separate from the physical body of the man, Jesus Christ, just as the spirit is separate from all bodies, and merely a temporary indwelling that we call " life on Earth "

Yet, the Holy Spirit is what binds us all, as the go-between, between the body of the man, Jesus, and the body of the mankind, and then as God's own spirit that indwells Jesus, as Jesus is the mediator between God and all mankind

I've never found it difficult to address the question " is Jesus God ", simply for those reasons

He is both divine and human, and therefore neither answer of yes or no alone is insufficient

He is and he isn't at the same time

This also shows that mankind has limits to language and logic, and that language and logic don't always apply to the same questions, and cannot be used to answer a query that is a paradox

 

[sparow]

If the thought expressed in a "class" was He is not called this or that "until", then am not sure what the heretical issue is since the OP already correctly states a belief in eternal co-existence of both the Father and the Son. We are talking about a title rather than His existence.

He is not called our "Redeemer" until poets (like David) prophets (like Isaiah) or righteous men (like Job) speak it (all foreshadowing), but am certain He exited before then as well. So He was, is and shall be forever more our Redeemer. Hope that helps.[/QUOTE

Even though everything was determined before creation, even what the prophets would say, the redeemer did not exist until He was born; while I detect the Trinity doctrine in your post I never detected the doctrine of the Trinity in the OP

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Even though everything was determined before creation, even what the prophets would say, the redeemer did not exist until He was born; while I detect the Trinity doctrine in your post I never detected the doctrine of the Trinity in the OP

Ok, I see your point to an extent and more so in a anti-Trinity Doctrine concept of God/Jesus. The Man, the second Adam who was the needed Sacrifice did not exist until the Incarnation. That is not an issue for those Christians believing the Trinity Doctrine, which was my point to addressing the OP (who believes in the Trinity Doctrine). In that view Jesus as an individual and created man we could call by name is the same un-created Individual that the Father Created everything through (the Word was with God).

My point was expressing my doubting very much the message of the lesson material mentioned in the OP was denying the Son of God existence prior to the Incarnation (which would be heresy/unorthodox). Without reading the material referenced being taught, I still feel comfortable saying that because Methodist accept the Trinity Doctrine. I think more likely the lesson expresses that the Son of God was never a title officially given the Person we call Son until after the Incarnation, so the title "Son of God" was never used in the Bible to refer to the Son (as in Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Though many would suggest Ps 2 puts that claim in doubt:

"7 I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you."".​

And we certainly know people in the OT that were close to God were called sons of God. But, at least in the view of people holding the Trinity Doctrine true (like the OP) there is a clear distinction in that OT usage of that title for those men in the OT compared to the NT usage with the man Jesus.

​

Within the Trinity Doctrine in talking of an individual/personage there is no way to distinguish between the Son (God) and His Incarnation. The Unity there between two natures (Divine and human) is still One Individual - not two. So the man called Jesus is properly called the Son of God, but also the Son and also God. Becoming Man did not create a 4th Person or person in the Trinity. Even now, looking back and knowing what most of know/believe, the Son has always been the Son of God. That was my point.

It would be no different than talking about the long haired red head Jerome Howard's childhood and claiming we could not call him a Stooge then, because he was never given that title until his brother Samuel quit and they needed a replacement. Even with long red hair, he was and always will be remembered as Curly, the quintessential Stooge. So even though the title came to him as a young man, we could not look back on Curly's life and say the person we know as Curly did not exist until his brother Harry (Moe) invited him to join them in Hollywood. Same individual.

 

[food4thought]

If the thought expressed in a "class" was He is not called this or that "until", then am not sure what the heretical issue is since the OP already correctly states a belief in eternal co-existence of both the Father and the Son. We are talking about a title rather than His existence.

He is not called our "Redeemer" until poets (like David) prophets (like Isaiah) or righteous men (like Job) speak it (all foreshadowing), but am certain He exited before then as well. So He was, is and shall be forever more our Redeemer. Hope that helps.

Hi DrBubbaLove. We discovered that it was heretical in the sense that it contradicted the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son was "eternally begotten of the Father"... which means that Jesus has always been the Son of God from all eternity according to the Nicene Council. Given that they were the first ecumenical council, I am persuaded that I should abide by their decision to choose that wording.

Thanks for your input.
Mike

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubbaLove. We discovered that it was heretical in the sense that it contradicted the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son was "eternally begotten of the Father"... which means that Jesus has always been the Son of God from all eternity according to the Nicene Council. Given that they were the first ecumenical council, I am persuaded that I should abide by their decision to choose that wording.

Thanks for your input.
Mike

My bad, I guess I misunderstood why a group of Christians in a Bible study (Methodist in this case) who believe in the Trinity Doctrine would be confused by the use of a title and/or attempt to teach that Son was not always considered the Son of God. So I figured this had to be a misunderstanding about the proper use of a name/title.

FWIW the phrase "son of God", as used in the OT nearly 200 times (3x > than NT). In the OT it is typically understood as a someone close to God, and/or leaders in worshiping God, someone said to be after His Own Heart" ...etc. So even in the OT definition, in attempting to explain the relationship of the Father and Son, and both being God, it would never be incorrect to call the Son, the Son of God, in that no one knows the Father better than the Son.

Also keep in mind when citing Nicene councils and creeds what the first council faced, which was a claim against Jesus' Divinity. So the proclamation of that council was not really addressing whether Jesus as the "Son of God" had pre-existed, but whether or not He is same/equal to God. Even the Arians believed the Son was the "first" of creation, so He pre-existed the Man Jesus. By claiming the Son is created they are maintaining He is not equal to God, so a basically a lessor god if you will.

So when the Council responds by proclaiming a creed that says 1) Jesus is God, 2)begotten not made 3)one in Being with the Father, they were not directly addressing Jesus pre-existence as the Son of God because that was not part of the Arianism. Both sides agreed to pre-existance.

T

 

[food4thought]

My bad, I guess I misunderstood why a group of Christians in a Bible study (Methodist in this case) who believe in the Trinity Doctrine would be confused by the use of a title and/or attempt to teach that Son was not always considered the Son of God. So I figured this had to be a misunderstanding about the proper use of a name/title.

FWIW the phrase "son of God", as used in the OT nearly 200 times (3x > than NT). In the OT it is typically understood as a someone close to God, and/or leaders in worshiping God, someone said to be after His Own Heart" ...etc. So even in the OT definition, in attempting to explain the relationship of the Father and Son, and both being God, it would never be incorrect to call the Son, the Son of God, in that no one knows the Father better than the Son.

Also keep in mind when citing Nicene councils and creeds what the first council faced, which was a claim against Jesus' Divinity. So the proclamation of that council was not really addressing whether Jesus as the "Son of God" had pre-existed, but whether or not He is same/equal to God. Even the Arians believed the Son was the "first" of creation, so He pre-existed the Man Jesus. By claiming the Son is created they are maintaining He is not equal to God, so a basically a lessor god if you will.

So when the Council responds by proclaiming a creed that says 1) Jesus is God, 2)begotten not made 3)one in Being with the Father, they were not directly addressing Jesus pre-existence as the Son of God because that was not part of the Arianism. Both sides agreed to pre-existance.

T

Thanks for the response again, BubbaLove. I think we are on the same page, but just to be sure let me restate the reason for this thread. The question was not anything to do with Jesus being God. I was thinking that Christ eternally pre-existed as the Word of God (John 1:1-3, 14), as co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. The question was over the title "Son of God", when exactly the Word assumed that title. My thinking was that the Word assumed the title "Son of God" at the Incarnation. This position is properly known as Incarnational Sonship (I learned this from AveJoe, post #20). Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I never questioned Christ's eternal nature and equality with the Father and Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed, in stating that the Son was "eternally begotten of the Father", essentially contradicts the idea of Incarnational Sonship. He held the title Son of God from all eternity according to the wording in the creed. This position is called Eternal Sonship. So I, due mostly to the Nicene Creed, have abandoned the Incarnational Sonship position and adopted the Eternal Sonship position.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thanks for the response again, BubbaLove. I think we are on the same page, but just to be sure let me restate the reason for this thread. The question was not anything to do with Jesus being God. I was thinking that Christ eternally pre-existed as the Word of God (John 1:1-3, 14), as co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. The question was over the title "Son of God", when exactly the Word assumed that title. My thinking was that the Word assumed the title "Son of God" at the Incarnation. This position is properly known as Incarnational Sonship (I learned this from AveJoe, post #20). Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I never questioned Christ's eternal nature and equality with the Father and Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed, in stating that the Son was "eternally begotten of the Father", essentially contradicts the idea of Incarnational Sonship. He held the title Son of God from all eternity according to the wording in the creed. This position is called Eternal Sonship. So I, due mostly to the Nicene Creed, have abandoned the Incarnational Sonship position and adopted the Eternal Sonship position.

Got that the first time I think.
To me there is a distinction to me made between asking when a title is proper as opposed to asking whether the Son was always God's Son (eternally) or only after there Incarnation. BTW a very modern view this incarnation sonship, and not a Methodist one obviously.

Yes the Nicene Council and the Creed from it was defending the Divinity of Jesus, my only point was it was not a question back then of whether Jesus preexisted or not. It was sort of pre-existence. Arianism did not deny Jesus was divine, simply that He was not The Divine, not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. You were using that Creed as if it defended His Pre-existence - which it does but was not the purpose of that council since no one was questioning that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

-----------------------------EDIT--------------------------------

I am in no way questioning the Trinity, nor the eternal and co-equal nature of Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit. Nor am I promoting any form of Adoptionism. The question I had (and have since found satisfactory answer in the wording of the Nicene Creed) was regarding whether the title "Son of God" has been eternally attributed to the Logos, or whether the Logos assumed the title "Son of God" at the Incarnation.

God bless;
Mike

I think the Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son of God. Eternally.

But I think they may have chosen these terms to communicate with us. Because we understand that relationship

 

[food4thought]

Got that the first time I think.
To me there is a distinction to me made between asking when a title is proper as opposed to asking whether the Son was always God's Son (eternally) or only after there Incarnation. BTW a very modern view this incarnation sonship, and not a Methodist one obviously.

Yes, there is definitely a difference. Incarnational Sonship has been around a few centuries, but is relatively modern, yes. Adam Clarke, one of the famous commentators who held to this view, was a Methodist from what I understand... but it is definitely not the position of the Methodist church as a whole.

Yes the Nicene Council and the Creed from it was defending the Divinity of Jesus, my only point was it was not a question back then of whether Jesus preexisted or not. It was sort of pre-existence. Arianism did not deny Jesus was divine, simply that He was not The Divine, not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. You were using that Creed as if it defended His Pre-existence - which it does but was not the purpose of that council since no one was questioning that.

Right. I just was unsure of your reasoning for bringing that up. Sorry.

 

[food4thought]

I think the Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son of God. Eternally.

But I think they may have chosen these terms to communicate with us. Because we understand that relationship

Thanks, ToBeLoved. That makes sense.

 

[servantofyahshua]

Col 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Moreover in Rev 22:13 (KJV), it is written
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hence, Jesus has been existing since ever and therefore, BEFORE his physical birth on Earth 2000 years ago. Jesus is called Son of God because Jesus is a five dimensional representation (3 dim. space-time-spirit) of God. Every point in God has a many-to-one correspondence in Jesus.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

Col 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Moreover in Rev 22:13 (KJV), it is written
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hence, Jesus has been existing since ever and therefore, BEFORE his physical birth on Earth 2000 years ago. Jesus is called Son of God because Jesus is a five dimensional representation (3 dim. space-time-spirit) of God. Every point in God has a many-to-one correspondence in Jesus.

Jesus IS God Incarnate, in case you've not heard.

Christ is risen!

 

[food4thought]

Every point in God has a many-to-one correspondence in Jesus.

I followed the rest of your post, but this one isn't very clear as to what you mean... could you elaborate?

 

[food4thought]

Jesus IS God Incarnate, in case you've not heard.

Christ is risen!

Hi Jack. I didn't see anything that questioned that in servant's post... what struck you as contradictory to Jesus' Godhood?

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is a heresy in that it is not an orthodox opinion; it is also not Biblical; the God who created everything was the Father of Jesus and as Jesus that God was his Father; at His baptism God said this is my son with whom I am well pleased. Jesus was mortal and died on the cross; after His resurrection Jesus is also referred to in Rev 2:18 as the son of God. The Father and the Son are two witnesses to many things.

The Father did not create everything Jesus dead

 

[food4thought]

The Father did not create everything Jesus dead

Technically, the Bible teaches that the Father created "through Christ" and "by Christ". Somehow the Father had a part in it, too.

AND JESUS IS NOT DEAD!!! lol, that's what you get for speaking it instead of typing.