Is the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ a damnable heresy?

A good article regarding the eternal Sonship of Christ and it's application to a Christian. It was published in the "Gospel Standard" in 1885 in answer to the following question.

To the Editor of the “Gospel Standard.”

Sir, As there is a belief held here and elsewhere by some who profess to love the truths advocated in the “G. S.,” that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Eternal Son of God is not vital or essential to the salvation of the elect, I would be glad to have your mind as to whether such belief is in accordance with the Spirit of Truth.

J. P.
April 11th, 1885.

Answer:

The above question is one of deep interest to the church of the living God, and embodies a doctrine, the belief of which is essential to salvation and eternal life.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to give faith to all the elect of God, which enables them to believe that Christ is God and that he was the Eternal Son of God from everlasting.

There are many ways of believing, but only one right way; there are many kinds of faith, so called, but only one true vital faith, which is the faith of God’s elect.

This faith never denies that Christ ever was and is now the Son of God, and that he took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. He says, “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

There was nothing difficult in believing that Christ was the Son of David after the flesh, for his mother, Mary, and his supposed father, Joseph, were of the house and lineage of David. This the Jews knew, and said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?”

But they knew him not as the Son of God; therefore, through the blindness of their minds and the hardness of their hearts, they could not believe.

Even so is it with those who deny his Eternal Sonship, for they only believe in him after the flesh: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”

He that denieth that Jesus is the Son of God is destitute of vital, saving faith.

Who is he that is not Antichrist but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

But before a man can rightly believe this sweet and essential doctrine he must be born again, and he that believes in this Christ as the Son of the Father before all worlds is born again; as the Word declares: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”

As there is base coin that much resembles pure coin, so there is a false faith that may appear like true faith. There is such a thing as heart experience and a living vital faith which unites the soul to Christ, and enables it to say, “Thou art the Son of God.”

There is also a faith which believes that Christ was not the Son of God until he was born of the virgin, which is only dead faith, and is a faith which will leave the soul at last to die in sin; whilst heart faith in Christ, however small, will be owned and honoured of God and the soul that possesses it will live with Christ for ever and ever. It is a deadly error to deny that Jesus Christ ever was the Eternal Son of God:

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?…Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.”

In the erection of buildings scaffolding is used, but it is not part of the building; so there are many preachers and hearers amongst the true church of God who are not living stones in the building.

As belief in Christ is essential to eternal salvation, we must say that all who do not believe in him as the everlasting Son of the everlasting Father do not believe in the truth as set forth in this magazine, nor do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scripture which says, “I was set up from everlasting;” and again: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onlybegotten
of the Father), full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

No man who denies that Christ is the Eternal Son of God and lives and dies in that error can go to heaven. The Scripture calls such men liars, and we read: “There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that denieth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Rev. xxi. 27.)

This lie, we believe, has special reference to the lying doctrines of men, which the children of God reject as unscriptural and contrary to the Spirit of truth and the faith which he has wrought in their hearts; but this doctrine, which is of the world and which the world heareth, the saints overcome:

“Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? (I John 5:5)

Hundreds of years before Christ was born of the virgin, Agur asked this question, which none of the deniers of the eternity of the Son of God have ever been able to answer:

“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his Name, and what is his Son’s Name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4)

We cannot conceive how those who hold the doctrine that Christ is the Eternal Son of God and those who deny it can dwell together in union and peace.

By James Dennett (Gospel Standard Editor – 1885)

Further reading here.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonsh05.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/sonship.htm

As long as the person strongly defends the Deity of Christ and the Triunity of the One GOD - no, it is not a 'damnable' heresy.

Many scholars believed that The Word of GOD became The Son at conception and provide substantial scriptural backing for their belief. I haven't listed all the Scriptures that they use and have no plans to, but had someone posted where I had asked for clarification with Scripture - I would have appreciated it - as I had mentioned, "Grateful!"

As Creator GOD from the O.T. to The New, it is indeed difficult to seperate the absolute co-equality of the Three in One.

Isaac Watts and many other great men struggled with the GODHead and many believed in the Conception-Sonship thought, though they all remained trinitarian and defenders of Christ's Deity.

So more importantly than what your motives are - for their defense ... had this thread been titled "heresy" and not included the term "damnable" - I wouldn't have responded.

Hi WhiteStone. These that I spoke of DO believe that Christ came as The Son of GOD, The Son of David. You've only taken a partial quote from my post.

The man who wrote that article did not use pertinent Scripture to condemn those that believe that The Word of GOD was begotten as the firstborn Son of GOD at conception. He merely stated that those who believe that The Word of GOD became The Son of GOD at conception are not saved.

The word/title "trinity" is not in our Bible neither, yet we still believe in the trinity.
Triunity is just another term used for the co-equality of the Three-in-One.

Judging people's salvation is just as dangerous - especially when every man here has been judged as not being "Brothers".
Which is the worst sin? Believing that The Word of GOD became The Son at conception, or judging everyone's salvation and feeling that you're the only one on this forum that's saved? I'd say that it would be just as impossible to "dwell together in union and peace" with someone that would set themselves up as the only Brother here.

To judge the salvation of that many that have looked into the Scriptures and pondered and have searched out what "..'this day' I have 'begotten' Thee" and "He 'shall be' a son to me and I 'shall be' a father unto Him." means - is not a reason to damn them to hell - but damning to hell the entire male population of this website is far more dangerous - as is - Not Loving one another and having a party spirit.

Mutual Regards, Sister.

As Creator GOD from the O.T. to The New, it is indeed difficult to seperate the absolute co-equality of the Three in One.

It is not at all difficult, it is just that your understanding of the Bible has been restricted to commandments and the do's/don'ts which anyone who reads the Bible can understand, the higher truths available to the child of God have been hidden from you. The article explains why.

OJ

If you could do a thread with just Scripture and not another judgmentalists, that uses his own words and judgements as you have - as I had asked for Scriptures proving otherwise - it could have been a fruitful discussion and the Scriptures shared from the Old Testament and New about how the LORD's Words through-out the O.T. are the One we now know as "Jesus", is a very indepth study and increases one's reverence for Who He is. Definitely increases one's reverence for Him and we can call Him The One True GOD just as well as we call The Father The One True GOD. The Words that we read in the O.T. that were spoken, are The Word of GOD / Jesus.

As you've judged everyone's salvation here and mine - I'll stay in the company of those you deem not Brethren and maybe one of those Brothers will prove out pre-conception Sonship via Scripture only, as I've asked for clarification on this controversy between scholars because I am still open to The Truth - but not this way.

Pilgrim, I have nothing contrary in my beliefs to what you've posted.

The only controversy that I've looked into and have all the Scriptures to consider besides the ones that you've posted, is whether The Word of GOD was The Son before He was conceived / begotten as the "firstborn" of many sons - and not whether or not He was and is GOD or whether The Word of GOD was preexistent and eternal and sent by the GOD, The Father.

He submitted Himself as a man to The Father and emptied Himself of His authority to act autonomously while in the flesh - but the O.T. has Him as The One GOD all the way through.

He was/is The Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the earth. He and the Father are One. If they had seen Him, they had seen The Father. Thomas called Him my LORD and my GOD.

In Rev 21:1-7, we see Who is speaking from The Throne. In verse 3 - Who is this speaking of - "God himself shall be with them, and be their God."
Who will wipe the tears from our eyes - and says, I will be his God, and he shall be My son - as the Red Letter edition has those words in red? In Isaiah, He is called "the mighty GOD and everlasting father."

This shows the co-equality of the Three in one and most especially before His conception, before He subjected Himself to dependence on the Father, taking our form and after the millenial reign, where He is on the throne, calling Himself GOD with us, wiping our tears - as The One True GOD again that walked and talked in the Garden with Adam.

This is just a part of how we prove that He and The Father are One and yet are not "oneness doctrine" thinkers.

Thank you for posting a Scriptural reply.
Grateful!

...the O.T. has Him as The One GOD all the way through.

Interesting statement that one is. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue.

Gen 17:1 who did Abraham see, Father, Son, Holy Spirit? John 1:18 and others (John 5:37 et al) say no man hath seen the the Father at any time All that is left is that Abraham saw none other than the Son of God and He it is who is LORD.

You seem to like the red-letter NT versions, did you ever see a red-letter OT version? All the words of the LORD-Jehovah (God the Son-Christ) are in red, it is quite the sight. God the Son is eternal and didn't just happen on the scene 2000 years ago. All things were created by the Son (Read Col 1:13-19 over and over until you see it).

BTW the other two links go more in depth with the explanation, but the problem is that no explanation will suffice if your heart is not prepared to receive it.

OJ

Pilgrim

Background:

The difference is between 'incarnational' and 'eternal' Sonship of Christ. Incarnational Sonship denies the person of Christ as Son for all eternity, and only has the son of God coming on the scene at some point around the incarnation. The entire work of the Son of God in creation must be denied, as well as the rest of the work of the Son of God thoughout the OT at least.

Damnable heresies deny either the person or the work of Christ, incarnational Sonship denies both.

JIG isn't going to hear from me so I will leave it in your hands for a bit, and see where it goes.

OJ

Damnable heresies deny either the person or the work of Christ, incarnational Sonship denies both.

That is not true in the slightest. There is virtually no difference between "the work of Christ" with conception-Sonship. HE is still The WORD of GOD, Creator GOD, The Lamb of GOD, our Savior, The Word of GOD that returns to earth in Rev 19.
Your own words again. Read my signature & sign-on name - they've been there long enough.
I have nothing more to say to you Joe, because as I've said - if there is no man here that you considered a Brother - why should I not expect you to behave any differently toward a sister that you've targeted to add to your list of the unsaved. You cannot undo what Christ has done in their lives nor mine.

--------------------------

Pilgrim, I 'asked' to be corrected on another thread and not as a challenge, but asked for Scriptural reasons why I should not see what many other scholars have seen.

Thank you for correcting my error in typing out my words - Amen!, He did Not act autonomously while in our form - to be our example of how to walk with GOD.

This is from that post, though not the exhaustive list of what I've studied by myself ...

Quote: I'm stuck on the tenses of these verses -

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, "this day have I begotten thee."

Heb 1:5,6 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, "this day" have I begotten thee? And again, I "will be" to Him a Father, and He "shall be" to me a Son? And again, "when" He bringeth in the "firstbegotten" into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, "to day" have I begotten thee.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; "this day" have I begotten thee.

Psa 89:26,27 He "shall" cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also "I 'will' make" him [my] "firstborn", higher than the kings of the earth.

Also these two, for Who I believe He is, in Eternity past and Eternity future -

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

I could very well discuss this with my Pastor - a very scholarly man down south - but I 'thought' since OJ brought it up and no one else had corrected me - that he could - with Scripture.

Thank you again for doing this the right way. Grateful!

That is not true in the slightest. There is virtually no difference between "the work of Christ" with conception-Sonship. HE is still The WORD of GOD, Creator GOD, The Lamb of GOD, our Savior, The Word of GOD that returns to earth in Rev 19.

"VIRTUALLY" is a really big word there. You will have Christ to be anything BUT the Son of God. The problem is right here:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

You deny the Son as being the Son. This comes not from the Holy Spirit.

OJ

ETA - I wrote this before I saw Joe and Pilgrim's new posts above - that they posted 'while' I was typing this ...

I'd like to add, Pilgrim, or any others that have studied this out from Scripture -

I was studying the Scriptures above and through-out the O.T. to 'know' Him and understand The Three-in-One and could not find the One Who we call the second person of the GODHEAD in the same submissive role that He took upon Himself while in the flesh as Immanuel - but found, as the Shema states, The LORD our GOD, He is One LORD - though we know from Genesis one - that GOD is Tripartite... Let "us" make man in our image, etc..
That's why it was difficult to witness to the Jewish people and I needed to explain ONE GOD versus how we explain 'the trinity' in our Christian language - but from the Old Testament. Isaiah 53 is great for beginning a conversation with Jewish folks - but the questions continue after that opener.

The Theophanies, I believe were Who we know as Christ Jesus or Immanuel since His conception - but to sit with a Jewish person and go through the O.T. and prove out Who Jesus is and refute "the 3 Gods" belief that they think that we hold to ... it takes a lot of Old Testament knowledge to explain the Co-Equality - because as they also do believe Messiah 'will' come and rule the earth - the see it as The GOD of the O.T. - and we know that HE IS, but ... well --- someone here may know what they'd ask from there, from their Book.

In Peter, we read that it was the "Spirit of Christ within them" that gave the O.T. prophets the words that they spoke.

In the Garden, as I asked, Who walked and talked with Adam?

When reading the Old Testament from cover to cover - Where do we differeniate with the 'equality' of the Three-in-One?
That was my search through-out when desiring to see all of His Fulness.
I see One GOD - Co-Equal - GOD Who is Spirit, His Word and His Spirit and find that The Word of GOD, that is GOD and was 'with' GOD and yet did all things AS GOD in the O.T. - unlike when He emptied Himself and became man and subservient to Him that sent Him.

As an example of what O.T. verses - though I'm truly considering the Entire O.T. - I asked myself - WHO is "speaking" in just this one verse ... Psa 99:7 He spake unto them in the cloudy pillar: they kept His testimonies, and the ordinance that He gave them.

I believe whenever HE speaks, it is The Three in One and equally included in that is The Word of GOD Who was later made flesh and dwelt among His Creation in the flesh.

Besides the tenses in those few verses above and others - the O.T. descriptions of GOD are all equal - except in the sense where the 'future tense' comes in, as in where HE [the Three-in-One] states that "My Servant 'shall' ..." - stated in the future tense - when His Servant 'shall be' 'sent' ... Isaiah 52 & 53. As well as when Christ is called "the Branch" in the O.T.. When GOD [future tense in the O.T.] becomes man.

"GOD our Saviour" in N.T. verses.

Just needed to add these thoughts, because my study began with the Old Testament - looking for the One we know now as "Jesus", that will return in Rev 19 with a New Name.

The Triune GODHead cannot contradict the Shema, when we're witnessing to Israel and we should be doing just that.

Thanks again all, for bearing with this.

Joe wrote: """Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

You deny the Son as being the Son. This comes not from the Holy Spirit."""

Either you like lying, false accusations or you truly do not know what you are saying.

The Son of GOD is our Savior.

I can't talk with the irrational or false accusers anymore.

Oh Pilgrim. How could you ask any of those questions. My GOD, they are blasphemous and anyone that's known me since I first came to SI could have answered that question for you.

No more. I won't have The Word of GOD dragged through the dirt like this.

I asked the wrong person to "staighten me out" last night, if he felt I was in that degree of error that he claimed made me unfit to be saved. I've never regretted asking for help before in my life, but so painfully do now.
I see what this is turning into and it's degrading HIM "The WORD of GOD, not me.

Have a great time today as well, Pilgrim.

You'd have to ask Joe.

This thread that I started in 2005 explains 'everything' that I believe about "JESUS" ....

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic_pdf.php?topic_id=7346&forum=36

It will save us all a lot of talk and misunderstanding about Who He is, as many beautiful Saints contributed to that thread.

Shalom!

PrimaDogma (love that one :). Thank you for the smile. We almost had an another unhappy ending of another thread.

Bless you.

I went searching after I posted the link to that thread on the previous page and looky what I just found in my search, following that last post of mine - someone that expresses himself better than I, regarding what I've pondered for all of these years.

Though I did express my full beliefs on the thread I linked to on the previous page - I believe it was 16 pages long and may be difficult to wade through it all.
Trinitarian - yes.
Jesus/The WORD of GOD is the Great "I AM" - yes.

This is the link that I just found in my search ...

http://www.eternal-sonship-or-incarnational-sonship.co.uk/Eternal%20Sonship.html
I'm sure you won't/don't have any problems reading English, as I have with Latin.

Bless you and await your verdict on my eternal destination.

In Christ,

Ann

Oh my. It's a good thing that John MacArthur recanted under pressure - as he stood to lose his salvation. Is that correct?

from the historical part of that link -

"..Martyred Ignatius (35-107), Bishop of Antioch, wrote of Christ: “In His pre-existent being ‘ingenerate’… His divine Sonship dates from the incarnation.”

Ignatius is toast as well.

No Sis, I was only upset with Joe for what he claimed about all the other brothers here, being too quick to judge many [or most] of us on our salvation.

Whether I ponder Scriptures has nothing to do with why this thread is here. The second to the last page of the "women teaching" thread is why this thread is here.

The LORD Bless you!!

PrimaDogma, where are you? I have a question.

I couldn't find where Reeves said anything about being an antiChrist if you don't believe him. Could you show me where.
I did see the part about "hearing well done" and "rewards" but not of losing salvation.

Thanks!!

Oh No - not another 'mind or spirit reader'.

Normally, only those who hold to osas use the terms that he did - "rewards" and "well dones".

The non-osas folks just blurt out 'Hell' as quick as a stick and so do some mind or spirit readers. :D
I really liked your 1st post though. Maybe you're just getting tired like most of us today.

The LORD Bless and bring you rest & Joy!

Thank you again!!

PD, you do know why I laughed at your sign-on name, but maybe others didn't.

From "the urbandictionary" .com

"Prima Dogma" - The highest religious officials
The Pope is the prima dogma of Catholicism
Mohammed is the prima dogma of Islam
Buddha is the prima dogma of Buddhism

I could add a few more. :)

Thanks again for any light heartedness you've attempted to bring here today.

ADios.

Thanks for cutting some slack, Wayneman. I know folks that are struggling with all facets of the Trinity, yet I know that they Love Him, and others.
He'll help us all, I'm sure.

Thanks to the posting of the alter-ego of another poster for taking on the heavy load of moonlighting our hip-hopping scene today.
Sure it's not moonshining? :)

GOD Bless us, everyone.

Done

David

What you wrote is all true, but since it is a revealed doctrine do not expect JIG or her new "friend" to see it. The new friend is also a proponent of justification by works since it too 'appears' to be presented in scripture and has also been disputed throughout time.

Fools always mock at the high things of God because they cannot reach them. Best just to let JIG and her new friend play, this will be sorted out for them both at the end.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

OJ

David, I Do appreciate you posting Scripture. I always appreciate that - and every Scripture that you posted is TRUE 100%.

Those that have merely differed on "when" The Word of GOD was "made The Son" - as in "this day have I begotten Thee" - seems to have time and date. That one verses is written 4 times, Old and New testament.
As I posted a few verses with 'tenses' earlier, Hebrews says, "I 'will be' a Father and He 'shall be' My Son".

And they look to find Who Jesus was through-out the Old Testament - and see wherever the Messiah is mentioned, it's 'future tense'.

They believe He is The Son of GOD as much as any of us here do... it's just a question of when He became subservient "to The Father" ... it was at a certain date and time ... "Today" other verses include.

We may not agree with those who have looked into when that "time" was that they see that implies "a day" - but they agree with every Scripture verse that you or probably anyone else would post - but no man has yet to explain fully what the 'tenses' of those verses indicate - as they do indeed point to "a time".

I'm not challenging anyone's belief or have ever asked that anyone believe incarnational-sonship, but to damn those who have either researched it to understand the 'time' factor in those verses and The Word of GOD's role through-out the Old Testament - and again, probably would have just sat back and at the most - Thank anyone that would take the time to give Scripture to this question - but to question anyone's Salvation over this - when they are in full agreement that He is The Son of GOD - that's why I've responded, only.

In my searches on the Net and on other forums, I've found some that insist "the time" was at His Baptism and then another group believe that it was at His Resurrection.... but other than those two quirkie beliefs - I find no fault in their other foundational doctrines. Strange. Those are the three camps that I've found on the Net - though there may be another that believes "the time" was on the Mount of transfiguration. Regardless - they all certainly DO "believe in The Father and The Son".

All believing He 'is' The Son of GOD that did nothing without The Father while here on earth as Immanuel.
And believe every other N.T. Scripture just as you or any one of us would on Soteriology, etc.. Salvation by faith in The Son - etc..

I'll stick my neck out again and say that I've even met a few "Oneness doctrine" folks that I could never judge their Salvation, though on the thread I posted earlier on this thread - you'll see where I tried very hard to dissuade his thinking with a mile long post+ proving out the Three-in-One on pg 5 of that thread and further on to almost the end of that thread. I believe some of that persuasion, are merely confused by those who taught them but if they'd look for themselves, they'd see The Three-in-One, sure enough.

I'm not one to quickly judge anyone's Salvation and plan to never-ever be. I fear that more than any other transactions that I have with humans.

Only those that are dead - like Hitler - I can say - Yes, they're in Hell.
Death bed repentence is open to just about everyone.

This is one doctrine - "incarnational or eternal" that I do not feel is a Salvation issue. But do feel and fear in my own heart that, judging other's Salvation can be. Judging doctrine or manifestations - yes, we're told to do so - but judging Salvation - I can't and will not.

Otherwise - 'Thank you' again for coming to the call for the Scriptural replies I had hoped to receive.

In Christ,

Ann

More problems with person of the Son of God are displayed here.

it's just a question of when He became subservient "to The Father" ... it was at a certain date and time

None of us believe that, that is the heresy of subordinationism defined below.

"The heresy of Subordinationism originated in the first century and teaches that son of God (Christ) and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal with God the Father, but are subordinate to Him, with some also holding to the subordination of the Holy Spirit to Christ. This in essence destroys the unity of the singular Godhead making lesser gods of the Son and the Holy Spirit."

The Son of God is co-equal and co-eternal with both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

OJ

Only those that are dead - like Hitler - I can say - Yes, they're in Hell.

BTW have you ever read "War and Grace"? Three of Hitler's highest ranking officers are in heaven. Food for thought....

OJ

More problems with person of the Son of God are displayed here.

it's just a question of when He became subservient "to The Father" ... it was at a certain date and time

None of us believe that, that is the heresy of subordinationism defined below.

"The heresy of Subordinationism originated in the first century and teaches that son of God (Christ) and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal with God the Father, but are subordinate to Him, with some also holding to the subordination of the Holy Spirit to Christ. This in essence destroys the unity of the singular Godhead making lesser gods of the Son and the Holy Spirit."

The Son of God is co-equal and co-eternal with both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

OJ

Joe, How many times, since I've been here, have I stressed Co-Equality? Even on my recent reply to White_Stone, on pg 1 of this thread.

He emptied Himself and became wholly dependent on The Father - though He is also called Immanuel.

You are trying so hard to "damn" a Sister in Christ - that you aren't even reading posts, or hoping that others haven't.

Many here have read that thread I linked to this thread - because they were here back then and are seeing and knowing that with you - it's just a personal agenda behind the attacks.

We got along fine last year until I began to quote the N.T. Commandments and you didn't agree - so from that day on - I've been your target. Since last year, Joe - it's been sad.

Joe, if you click on my 'profile' - what is written there - has been there since early 2009.

{eta} the thread I mentioned again, is the last post on pg 2, in case you've missed it.
Everything I believe about Christ is in that one thread.

Love ya, Joe.

Hello again, White_Stone.

Joe brought this topic up 'at' me, on the Women Teaching thread - I have never wanted to push this belief on anyone - I merely asked him that, since he originally was the one to bring this topic up on The Women Teaching thread and condemned me to Hell for my bringing the Incarnational belief up back around 2009 - then why doesn't he try to help me 'with Scripture' because as I said on this thread as well - I'm open.

I understand your bias from our former conversations - but it's important that you judge the words written here and not according to favoritism, as that type judgment is blind-sided and is just that - judgmentalism and shows by the false accusations in your post and the posts of the one you admire.

I admire those that can quote other's post verbatim and give Scripture and not pull things off the Net that don't relate in the slightest to what the person that is in question is asking.

From Page Two of This Thread And also on The Women Teaching thread. ...

Quote: I'm stuck on the tenses of these verses -

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, "this day have I begotten thee."

Heb 1:5,6 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, "this day" have I begotten thee? And again, I "will be" to Him a Father, and He "shall be" to me a Son? And again, "when" He bringeth in the "firstbegotten" into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, "to day" have I begotten thee.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; "this day" have I begotten thee.

Psa 89:26,27 He "shall" cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also "I 'will' make" him [my] "firstborn", higher than the kings of the earth.

Unless you are a Bible Scholar - please be careful what you accuse others of - because the search for Doctrinal TRUTH is NOT a SIN.

BTW - Joe deleted his post to write the second "done" reply.
I have no problem with that.... except that he was by no means "done" - as his next post that I quoted in mine shows.

Party spirit, Sis.

P.S. - I don't know who PrimaDogma is - but how dare you call either of us "play-mates".
You are only helping to make this a personal thing with you and Joe but I wouldn't stoop to calling you his "play-mate".
Partiality in "love" is showing it's head here and you do know what I mean, Sister. I found the loss of your fellowship when/the same day I lost Joe's very sad and I missed you.

I do believe in honest discussion, between 'hearts'.

Tell me where you get subservient out of co-equal? It doesn't work that way.

FYI this is a new heresy you brought up, we are DONE with the other.

BTW this is love ma'am, it doesn't flatter or pretend things are OK when they clearly are not! Once you started talking some more it became obvious that you could reach no higher than commandments. The rest of your abherent beliefs are either cause or effect, in either case it doesn't look good. So I can leave you in that condition if you prefer, or I can give it a go to help you see higher than a commandment to the eternal Son of God.

You choose!!

OJ

Jesus said, The words that I speak are not mind but the Father's. The same credit was given to His works. He also repeatedly pointed toward submission By His Own submission to The Father, For our example... lastly by saying in the Garden - "Not My will but Thine" and willfully going to the cross.

He learned obedience through/by what He suffered.

That was the submission of Son to Father through-out His earthly Life - most especially as He taught the Commandments to Love as being essential for salvation.
Again, type Love into a New Testament Search engine and see if you can find all of the verses on "love". Or all the N.T. verses that mention "commandments" and study them all.

Have you found any man here as yet, that you can call "Brother"?

--- or "Sister"?

Saved by Grace through Faith,

Ann

I wondered if John MacArthur went through this when he taught this belief.

I listen to him on the radio and have for yrs, but wasn't aware that he believed this until sometime after he changed his belief.

I wonder if anyone else familiar with his teachings and his controversial time - know 'who' or what Scripture changed his thinking.

Did anyone say that MacArthur wasn't saved, when his belief was revealed?

What Scripture was given to him to change his view to what it is now?

Sincerely would like to hear from those that are knowledgable about the whole MacArthur story.

Thanks in advance!

Submission isn't subservience. Try again.

OJ

Thanks PD. I don't know who you are or were here - probably don't need to know - but the replies here have taught me a lesson.

Anyhow - Good news today - I now have a fellowship to be with locally. Praise The LORD!! Waited and prayed fervently for this day, to be able say - Yes, I have a place to go and a Sister in The LORD to get me there. Alleluia.

It's been worth the two year wait to meet such a precious Sister and know that she's from a fellowship that sounds like all that I believe I'd be comfortable in and have been looking for. I'm truly excited because I've prayed for some time whether to except her invitation and asked GOD for a sign that He wants me to go with her and it just happened tonight, just as I had asked when I ran into her in the stair-well. :)

I am grateful today. All it takes is one person to turn the tide, both here and here at home, where I met this Sister.

GOD Bless you both. Will stay in my prayers!
His mercies endure forever. Amen!

Did anyone say that MacArthur wasn't saved, when his belief was revealed?

OJ

Thanks PD - but after missing the love at my Church where I moved from 2 yrs ago, to having met this sister some months ago and seeing the genuine again, in person - I doubt that I'd want to share anything more over a keyboard with the unseen and quite unknown.

I had asked the LORD for "face to face" interaction again - and when she invited me and offered to pick me up - that's when I truly began to pray for confirmation that this is where He wanted me to go and that I'd run into her again and we'd have time to talk.

She said they had a wonderful whole week there. They had some Jewish Christian guy visiting that told them that we need to get back to The Word and The Book of Acts type Christianity. Well, I felt and posted the same last week and felt that, not only running into her head on in the stair well [neither of us take the elavator] and her saying that when I've had this burden to reach out to my Jewish neighbors [part of what I also mentioned on this thread] - it all seemed to come together that it was the answer I had asked for.
It's not a Messianic Church, but they are very Israel minded - they believe and operate in the gifts and promote missions and other Bible based outreaching.

I haven't been yet, of course. She only visits her parents here and watches over them, but has 4 children and we've talked since her parents moved here.

Isn't much to tell just yet except that from all that she's been saying and how I asked GOD for enough confirmations - because I was tired of church hopping/searching - I needed to sort of put out a fleece instead and He honored it.

Thank you for asking and caring.

I was just reading over at a mixed crowd [saved & unsaved] News forum and one of the many Moderators put up a thread saying that we need to get back to The Word. The daily study, reading and memorizing of it this year. He felt it was what The LORD told him to post for 2012. All the replies were very refreshing.

Thank you for reaching out a hand of fellowship, Brother/Sister (?).

Do you have a face-to-face fellowship that you meet with?

{eta} I can't see!

I just read your posts on the POLL. Why do people's eyes tears when they laugh?

Here is some dogma food for you PrimaDogma AKA "Wayneman", right off your own keyboard.

Sound doctrine is essential to the life of the church.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. 2 John 9-10

It is not like the discussion is about the weather, it as about the very person of Christ. Now from your antics thus far, I know you deem that as not important, but the reality is if you worship a different Jesus than the one revealed in scripture and made known by the Holy Spirit, it is indeed damnable heresy. It clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has no part in revealing Christ to the person.

So I recommend you stop comforting her in this and try to help her out of it.

I am done with both of you, it is now in YOUR capable hands!!!

.....and grow up!!!!

OJ

No need for PD to "help me out".

A few folks "helped me out" this month.

Out the exit door of this forum. :)

I can still read the Good posts, get blessed and easily keep silent. :)

In Christ,

Jesus_Is_GOD.

Agreed in part Pilgrim,

The problem in this case is that when a person is born again, the Holy Spirit testifies to that person of Christ (John 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME. And again in John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself….

So that leaves us with a problem, does the Holy Spirit testify of opposing natures of Christ to believers? I am sure you will agree that the answer is a resounding no!!

1 John 5:11 States he that hat the Son hath life… John 3:3-9 shows that he that has the Son has the Spirit.

Ignorance of the doctrine of eternal Sonship is one thing, but opposition to or denial of it is another matter altogether. Likewise, if the doctrine of eternal Sonship be not true, to hold to it shows that the Holy Spirit is not testifying to one of Christ. One or the other is not being testified to by the Spirit, which leads to the conclusion that one or the other has not been born again.

If we went further out on the limb with invalid views of the Son of God that JW’s Mormons, Rastifarians, Dualists, Modalists, Subordinationists, or what have you, have of the person of Christ, it is the evidence to be used that they are not children of God. 1 Cor 11:19, no matter what profession of love of Christ they proclaim.

Regarding the person and work of Christ (not necessarily other things):
Right doctrine doesn’t a salvation make, but wrong doctrine does a salvation take.

OJ

If everything depended on us being 'able to understand' these things of our own accord, all would perish, but as it is we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, specifically about the Son!!

OJ

"The fruit of the Spirit is correct Christological formulations."

If only you knew what the Spirit of God does....

Grow up Wayneman....

OJ

Well - I can stay "silent with Good posts" - but when WHO Jesus is is being misrepresented - I really need to say that you, Joe are discussing something about Incarnational-Sonship that you don't truly understand or are merely intentionally misrepresenting.

WHO was in the burning bush that Moses had been talking to and had all of those experiences with on the mountain and spoke and wrote the words on the tablet?
Easy question, I would hope - because HE gives His Name - "I AM".

Jesus called Himself "I AM" while on earth.

Some people believe that the one we know now as Jesus, was back up in Heaven, waiting for GOD to come back from that mountain and burning bush.

The One we know as Jesus IS INDEED ETERNAL.

It's the ABSOLUTE CO-EQUALITY that most can't grasp.

The LORD our GOD is ONE GOD.

The greatest of the greatest scholars have their time of explaining the Triune GODHead as well.

No where in Scripture is Jesus called The Eternal Son - but He IS The Eternal GOD - The Word of GOD from eternity past till Eternity Future {Rev 19} and The ONE GOD that HE was in the O.T. from Rev 21 on.

WE do not deny the incarnate Son.

To prove a belief wrong - you need to understand what they believe - and not make it up as you go along - just to be able to call them unsaved.

Very biased and unfair scholarship.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Tripartite as we are body, soul and spirit - made in His Image - three equal independent yet working in conjunction [in His Case] - not ours.
He walked the walk that He did while on earth so that we'd learn how to walk as body, soul and spirit - the same way He walked. GOD became a man. The Son of GOD & Son of man.

He walked in dependence on GOD in Heaven [first time He was seperated from being in the bosom of The Father] as He never needed to before His Incarnation as man - because HE is The same I AM that Moses talked to and saw in the bush and hind parts.

It is so much more than what you are presenting.
Honoring "The One True GOD".

IF He were the Son as we know He was on earth, "Man/flesh/as we" - BEFORE the incarnation - He'd have been 'under' The Father but any "Word" that came from GOD is The Word of GOD ... such as from Genesis - "Let US make man in OUR Image" is The Word of GOD speaking that we know now as The One that came in human form and repeatedly the Word says that it was on a specific day that He became the Sone of man [in our human form].

Many are posting Scriptures that do not reflect how anyone believing that HE is The Same GOD that spoke and did all those works in the O.T. is still the One that took on Human flesh and was named "Ieous" Yehoshua at His conception.

It's amazing that GOD would take our form to be the sacrifice for our sins, send us HIS Spirit and be the compassionate high Priest that has tasted all that we have and now intercedes for us ... until All things come to completetion from Revelation 21 on .......

Every description and Name of GOD in the Old Testament is and always be the same Name and description of The One we know now as "Jesus".

If we can't see that HE 'is' the Same GOD of the entire O.T. and that those words are HIS Words and actions - then we have two Gods.

That's the only and main point of contention.

We don't have three Gods - and because we can't properly explain The Three in One to the Jewish people - we can't witness properly to them.

The majority do not see the words and acts of GOD through-out the entire Old Testament as being Jesus.

They've unknowingly made the trinity - tri-theism... if even ever so slightly.

We are taking away from He Who said - "I AM" in the O.T. & New.

The Eternal "I AM" became flesh and died to purchase our salvation.

He did not take on the form of human flesh until the Incarnation. He was the firstborn of many brethren/sons.
The second born - the last Adam - the "''begotten'' Son".

HE is The Same GOD - eternity past and future. The Whole of what we call our Bible speaks of Him - as The Almighty GOD.

WHO was in the the burning bush that Moses had been talking to and had all of those experiences with on the mountain and spoke and wrote the words on the tablet?

It was the Son of God.

Who did Abraham see in Gen 17:1?

Same answer.

No man hath seen the Father at any time.

OJ

And ... so ... was HE any less equally GOD on the Mount with Moses or the fire by night and the cloud by day or His Shekinah over the temple, or The Presence of GOD in the Temple, etc etc etc. as The Only True GOD calling Himself "I AM". Of course not.

Was He always the Son of man? made flesh? Not acting autonomously but in complete human-type dependence on The One we call Father?

Is Jesus not in Isaiah 9:6? He is NOT 'the everlasting Father? Do we call Him "The Mighty GOD" but Not "the everlasting Father".

Would border on Tri-theism if we can't get a handle on Is 9:6.

These are simple thoughts - and I don't believe that anyone that disagrees with what others that believe in INCARNATIONAL Sonship are misrepresenting the Son of God/ Son of Man and are damned - as you believe the Incarnational believers are damned - and the Scriptures posted - and not just by you - are not denied by anyone that just has the 'timing' of His being 'begotten as Son' - born in flesh - the Firstborn of many - the firstborn of many sons - the ONLY "begotten" of The Father believe.

Talk about straining over knats and sending folks to Hell over it.

I'm sure you never read the whole [if any] of the link that I've posted twice to this thread.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Or again in 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.... The JW's use these verses to deny that Jesus is God because Jesus was seen. However when confronted with Gen 17:1 ...the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God....they have no answer.

God HAS been seen!!

It clears up when one reads further..

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

It was not God the Father that Abram saw, but it was still Almighty God, so who was it? Clearly the person of God the Father has been strictly removed from being able to be seen and I take it there will be no argument that no one has seen the person of God the Holy Spirit either, so all that one is left with is that Abram saw the second person of the Trinity, God the Son.

In the end verses used to attempt to disprove the person of the eternal Son of God, end up proving Him.

One God, three co-equal, co-eternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You cannot have it any other way!!

OJ

Joe quoted: "No man hath seen the Father at any time."

And Jesus also said to Philip:

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:

and from henceforth ye know him, and have 'seen' him.

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

he that hath seen me hath 'seen the Father'; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Those are some of the verses that the Oneness folks get hung-up on. They do see The One True GOD side - but fail to read or understand the verses that refer to GOD's essence/nature as Tripartite.

That's what happens when the 'Entire' New Testament is not gone over with a fine tooth comb and what causes all the divisions between us.

I still sort of wish that no one had divided up The Word by Chpt and Verse numbers.

I'm not quoting Scripture to change anyone's mind as far as the "timing" issue - but only to raise Him up to WHOM He truly is. The Co-EQUALity and TriUnity of The tripartite Creator GOD.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth me:
and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,
and I will love him, and Will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him,
and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him.

Hey JiG,

Thanks for posting your beliefs. Question though...

You said, "He did not take on the form of human flesh until the Incarnation. He was the firstborn of many brethren/sons."

Who was it that called down saying, "This is My son, in whom I am well pleased?"

Did God call down to Himself? Why would He talk about Himself in the third person?

Thanks for your input. :-)

Same question I asked of the Oneness [Jesus Only] folks.
Also asked them, Who was Jesus praying to in John 17?
Spent much time proving the Triune nature of GOD on that thread I posted twice to this thread.

Bless you!

Oh my, being stetched for time is right there, Brother. "Humor" you all you want, with all that you two have going on there :)
The thread was about 16 pages long - titled "Who is JESUS?" but this is the PDF version that I found. Couldn't find the whole of the thread in regular format.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic_pdf.php?topic_id=7346&forum=36

TWIN GIRLS! :o) Congratulations you two!!

"Children are a gift from GOD." You're Blessed!

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

he that hath seen me hath 'seen the Father'; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

I have combed it ma'am. That verse plainly teaches co-equality, not subservience, and neither that the Father specifically has been seen, but only that all the fulness of the Father is seen in the Son.

I know you believe it is a lesser authoritative portion of the Word, but you have to comb the Old Testament too.

Ex 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (the Father)

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
(the Son)

OJ

I know you believe it is a lesser authoritative portion of the Word, but you have to comb the Old Testament too.

Ex 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (the Father)

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
(the Son)

OJ

But Joe, when I asked Whom did Moses speak with and see His hind-parts, etc, etc between what went on, on the mountain between GOD and Moses - and you said "Jesus" - so now in vs 30 you've changed it to The Father.

I don't believe you are thinking co-EQUALity in the same way that I'm reading it.

But that doesn't send any of us to Hell because Much-much-much greater men than us have admitted that it's not that easy.

My view of the Tripartite nature of GOD - is that GOD created us in His Image - tripartite - body, soul and spirit and that's the closest that I can come for an analogy of what I picture of the trinity.

Our body, soul and spirit 'can' work independently of one another - UNLESS we're are totally 100% "led by His Spirit" that indwells ours ... as Jesus did - in order to be our only example of what walking in "childlike/son-like" obedience or "one with the Father and The Son"... His ultimate aim - "In His Image".

To be "One" - as He and The Father are One.

I don't believe you are thinking co-EQUALity in the same way that I'm reading it.

It's not that easy

Correction. It is impossible for these truths to be made real to anyone without the Spirit of God.

OJ

Miccah

Summarizing in two sentences. JIG believes the Son of God did not become the Son of God until the incarnation. Another belief she has presented here is that the Son of God is subservient to God the Father.

OJ

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

he that hath seen me hath 'seen the Father'; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

That verse plainly teaches co-equality, not subservience, and neither that the Father specifically has been seen, but only that all the fulness of the Father is seen in the Son.

Jesus was 'subservient' while in the flesh to 'The Father' - but co-equality means that even though He was The "Servant" mentioned in the O.T., [while in the flesh], subservient - He was still 100% GOD - the "co-EQUALity" part - so why would it not include Philip and company "seeing the father" when seeing Him, as Is 9:6 says ... Is that not EQUALITY?

While in the flesh - He 'became' 100% man yet was still 100% GOD.

[Caps, not yelling - just emphasis]

----

Why exactly are you having trouble with that part or that word, 'subservient'?

He claimed to be Only doing 'the Father's' will and nothing of Himself, through-out.

Looking at Webster's - what do you find in that word that bothers you?

Miccah

Summarizing in two sentences. JIG believes the Son of God did not become the Son of God until the incarnation. Another belief she has presented here is that the Son of God is subservient to God the Father.

OJ

Joe, I'd sure appreciate that you cease answering for me to others, as in "this is what she believes" - because every time that you have on this thread - you have not expressed what I believe.

Sure would make any discussions we have, much more fair, easy and save me the time of having to counter those type incorrect posts.
If you want to discuss this topic with me - I'm open to answer any and all questions - as I've been trying to - in my own words.

{eta}

I know you believe it is a lesser authoritative portion of the Word, but you have to comb the Old Testament too.

Another false statement, Joe. "lesser authoritative".

Earlier in this thread I stated clearly that I went on a search through-out the O.T. for "Jesus" so that I also could better witness WHO He is, to my Jewish friends/neighbors - and answer their questions on TriTheism.

I hold both books as One Book.

I have pushed the N.T. in other threads because the majority out there in Christian world, only quote the same verses over and over again - and leave off 1/2 to 3/4 of the Whole.

If we don't understand the New first, about Jesus - how can we find Him or His Words in the Old?

More time wasted because of you misquoting me.

I don't have this problem with any other Brother here.

Please, don't read into other's posts what they've never said.

Thanks!!!

I can't sleep. I tossed and turned with something really bothering me and it has bothered me for a long time.

Paul said in Phil 3 [of all people] --- "that I might KNOW Him ..." and that's Paul saying that, Joe. You say that you know Him and fully in that you 'understand the trinity' - yet Paul cries out "to KNOW Him".

You claim His Spirit has taught you the trinity.

I say, it was the teachings of the men that some call the Early Church Fathers that taught us what we teach as the doctrine of the trinity.

For instance -- Where in the Bible did they get off calling the Three-in-ONE by these names ....

The "1st" person of the trinity - the "2nd" person of the trinity - the "3rd" person of the trinity ...

Where do we find that in The WORD? Is that Perfect Equality?

Secondly - "the creeds" that they came up with, hundreds of years after He rose....

quote: "I believe in God The Father creator of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son......."

In the Gospel of John and Colossians - Who does it say, "created all things" in so many different wordings?

Does John and Colossians take away from Genesis 1? NO!

And had they said, also, 'His only "Begotten" Son' ... I'd have no problem with that 2nd part of the first sentence of that creed.

The 'subtlety' of wording in the words of men, diminish the Absolute Equal-ness of The Three in ONE, as found in The WORD by itself.

I understand, to a degree, calling Jesus [post incarnate] a "person" - but the Word translated as "person" is προσωπον and here is the defintion and where and how προσωπον is used in the N.T. ...

G4383
πρόσωπον
prosōpon
Thayer Definition:
1) the face
1a) the front of the human head
1b) countenance, look
1b1) the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
1c) the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
1c1) outward circumstances, external condition
1c2) used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of men
2) the outward appearance of inanimate things
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number:
"""from G4314 and ops (the visage, from G3700)"""

G4383
προσωπον
prosopon
Total KJV Occurrences: 81

face, 51
Mat_6:17, Mat_11:10, Mat_16:3, Mat_17:2, Mat_17:6, Mat_18:10, Mat_26:39, Mat_26:67, Mar_1:2, Mar_14:65, Luk_1:76, Luk_2:31, Luk_5:12, Luk_7:27, Luk_9:51-53 (3), Luk_10:1, Luk_12:56, Luk_17:16, Luk_21:35, Luk_22:64, Act_6:15 (2), Act_7:45, Act_17:26, Act_20:25, Act_20:38, Act_25:16 (2), 1Co_13:12 (2), 1Co_14:25, 2Co_3:7, 2Co_3:13, 2Co_3:18, 2Co_4:6, 2Co_11:20, Gal_1:22, Gal_2:11, Col_2:1, 1Th_2:17, 1Th_3:10, Jam_1:23, 1Pe_3:12, Rev_4:7, Rev_6:16, Rev_10:1, Rev_12:14, Rev_20:11, Rev_22:4

presence, 7
Act_3:13, Act_3:19, Act_5:41, 2Co_10:1, 1Th_2:17, 2Th_1:9, Heb_9:24

faces, 6
Mat_6:16, Luk_24:5, Rev_7:11, Rev_9:7 (2), Rev_11:16

person, 5
Mat_22:16 (2), Mar_12:14, Luk_20:21, 2Co_2:10, Gal_2:6

countenance, 3
Luk_9:29, Act_2:28, 2Co_3:7

appearance, 2
2Co_5:12, 2Co_10:7

before, 2
Act_13:24, 2Co_8:24

persons, 2
2Co_1:11, Jud_1:16

fashion, 1
Jam_1:11

men’s, 1
Jud_1:16

outward, 1
2Co_10:7

I understand we use the word "person" because each of The Three-in-One can be seen individually, at times - but to label them #1, 2 and 3 runs the risk of taking away from the Absolure Equality of the Three-in-One. It almost sounds like a form of 'ranks' of authority.

As with "The Holy Spirit". He is called "The Spirit of GOD" - "His Spirit" and "The Spirit of Christ Jesus".

Jesus is called The Creator.
GOD is called The Creator.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.

.... No Other "person" created the heavens - GOD "Himself" formed the earth, etc "THERE IS NONE ELSE" ... ie, no other "person" but HIM. No "2nd Person" but "GOD Himself".

Again back to John and Colossians - The Word of GOD that was begotten and called Jesus, is said to have done the same in creating all things - but if He's the "2nd person" ... why did GOD say "and there is None else".

Phew. Not only do we need to compare the Old with the New Testaments but we need also to do a very careful study of the words of those called the ECF and their creeds, that were written and formulated hundreds of yrs after Christ rose and look at their declarations and compare them to The Word of GOD alone.

This is what I've struggled with because I want to KNOW Him, as Paul cried out to, and as John did.

If Paul, of all people, cried out to KNOW Him - than who are we to say that we've grasped the Absolute Equal-ness and full nature of The Three in One - when I have found that what the Church has really been taught is what men have made written dogma, that contradicts or waters down The very Word of GOD about Who GOD is, in His Fullness.

Co-Equality means Absolute Equal-ness of The Three in One .... thus fulfilling the very Shema that Jesus spoke, as well, while He was here on earth ....

Mar 12:28,29 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The First of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is One Lord" ....

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly,
he said unto him, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God."...

-

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Not just by His Word, but also He includes, by His Spirit and by His Hand.
So - All of The Three in One created jointly because they are One GOD - Elohim - not seperate 'persons that are numbered as if by some order of authority but Perfectly in union.

His Spirit 'belongs' to Him - It's His Spirit - His Spirit is also The Spirit of Christ, which is The Spirit of GOD. The Three are ONE. Creator GOD - tripartite - yet One Person created all things, The Word states.

The GOD of The Word is GOD.
The Spirit of GOD is GOD.
The Word of GOD that became Jesus is equally GOD.

One GOD taking part in Creation and all things created - not seperately but as One Creator GOD.

Bless The One True GOD, creator of Heaven and earth - "GOD our Saviour"!

I can't sleep. I tossed and turned with something really bothering me and it has bothered me for a long time.

Paul said in Phil 3 [of all people] --- "that I might KNOW Him ..." and that's Paul saying that, Joe. You say that you know Him and fully in that you 'understand the trinity' - yet Paul cries out "to KNOW Him".

This is excellent news ma'am, almost gives me the shivers. Been praying for you since our last encounter that "you might know Him". Up last night praying again....

He (the Spirit of God) is the only one who is going to make this real to you, I am just some dumb schmuck that He is trying to use in spite of all the stumbles I make along the way.

Back to business.

Have you ever heard that all things come 'from' the Father, 'through' the Son, 'by' the Holy Spirit?

Do some searches.

From the Father

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Through the Son
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Phil 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

By the Spirit
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The Son is our Bridge to the Father who is the source, all quickened (brought to life) by the Spirit.

Creation, and salvation came the same way in the Old Testament (From the Father who is the source, through the Son, who is the bridge, by the Holy Spirit who is the 'for lack of a better word' doer). If the Son wasn't always the Son none of it could have happened, because the bridge was incomplete.

OJ

Joe, your reply ...........

I tossed and turned because I needed to put into writing the thoughts that I have had "for years" ... as the post said ....

and by "years" - I mean "many" - [especially with Phil 3 which PastorFrin posted much on] and am not "pondering", but stated plainly in my post my disagreement with how some men, named by some as the ECF ....... how they have explained the Trinity as "fact" but in their own words and made it into creeds and doctrines that contradict Scripture.

These thoughts and ponderings and searching and work put into the search on this issue that I posted are all before I knew even SI.

I'd ask folks to please, if you do bother with this thread at all - please read what the poster has Actually said themselves and not another poster's interpretation of what that poster has said ... [reminds me of mainstream media :]

But we should always pray for each other and it's been mutual.

HE is the Only Good One.

If the Son wasn't always the Son none of it could have happened, because the bridge was incomplete.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

HE was Always "The Word of GOD" - in the O.T. He is LORD, GOD, The Almighty, the everlasting father, the prince of Peace and the one that "shall be" called the Son of the Father - future tense in the O.T..

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, "the firstborn" of every creature: [post incarnation]

Col 1:16,17 [pre-incarnation] 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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,

I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF"

WHO is speaking here in Is 44:24? ... just for one sentence of the many that speak of One GOD, out of the Entire O.T..

Who did those that wrote these words, known as our Old Testament see this Creator GOD as?

Did they write or read in their Old Testament that a "son" WILL/Shall [future tense] Come?

Did they, the O.T. Saints that wrote the O.T. ever mention knowing a Son in their time or one that would come future tense, that would be born of a virgin?

Did they see any reference to any other GOD or LORD but One GOD & LORD?

Looking at the prophecies that they wrote, about the coming of this "righteous Servant", "Branch", "child is born", "son of David" etc - Did they see this child to be born as a Son, to be future tense?

Looking through the eyes of the true Saints and Prophets of the Old Testament - how and where did they see a Son?

btw - Innocent questions from those that only read what we know as the Old Testament.

"The form of God."

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

"A perfect example of Jehovah manifesting the Trinity."

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!"

So, if the scriptures are truth, and declare Jesus as being in the Form of God, and indeed the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit is indeed God, then Who could have a Son, but the Father?......or was it all hazy?...and Divine ventriloquism was invoked???

"THE WORLD MADE BY JESUS AS GOD."

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Born again by the Spirit by God.

"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.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"The same was in the beginning with God."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made!"...

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

It is abundantly clear that the scriptures declare God as a Spirit, the Holy Spirit, A Son, as God, and a Father, as God, and yet it also declares that this God, Yahweh, is ONE!.

This cannot be understood by means of the intellect, but must be received by Faith, and as we grow, we will intuitively grow to see Jesus in the Father, and yet by His side to intercede for us...while yet being One with Him..as Creator and Savior....and His Spirit as Lord also in limitless Power.

None of us have absorbed this totally, but to deny it as Truth is unbelief, and dangerous as I see it, and an open door to heresy.

"ONE UPON THE THRONE!"

"And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and ONE sat on the throne.

"And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

"And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold."

This is Yahweh as the Lord as Yahweh the Son Jesus God, Yahweh the Father God, and Yahweh the
Spirit God......Lord, Savior and Creator.

Hebrews 7:24-26
King James Version (KJV)

GOD THE SON, AND YET A PRIEST

" But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens."
HEBREWS 7

Thanks Brother Tom.

He that The Son sets free is Free Indeed.

Blessings!

I found my first pocket N.T.. It looks older than me. It's the NT with all of the OT prophecies in it.

Thank You Jesus!

Shalom!

Dear PrimaDogma, I've hesitated on posting a reply but feel I must now.

Now that we're on page 11 and few will ever read back 10 pages -- this was merely a question of 'when' The Word of GOD became "the Son" - as some scholars use several verses to say that it was at 'conception' and that's called "Incarnational Sonship".

One person that believes that The Word of GOD is the "eternal" Son, claims that those that believe in Incarnational Sonship are damned to Hell.

That sums up this thread, but what I wanted to just say to you is ....

Hey - Thanks for the comic relief sprinkled through-out.
I don't believe that either camp is in any danger of hell based upon either belief that they see from His Word - but this thread would have been like that place without a few jokes - because - no one understands the questions I asked and most gave apples for oranges or was it oranges for apples as answers?

I do hope you'll stay the Sentry on this thread because I'm done with it.

:o)

Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Thee: because he trusteth in Thee.

- here I stand.

GOD shed His Grace on all of us.

Thanks again.

Well, since it was my thread that so many wanted to destroy, it is probably too much to ask but I do hope you all will at least allow me the courtesy of closing it with a quote from the original article.

We cannot conceive how those who hold the doctrine that Christ is the Eternal Son of God and those who deny it can dwell together in union and peace.

The evidence is that it cannot be done.

Adios,
OJ

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Joh 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

Re: "Is the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ a damnable heresy?" ....OldJoe said;

"Well, since it was my thread that so many wanted to destroy, it is probably too much to ask but I do hope you all will at least allow me the courtesy of closing it with a quote from the original article."

"We cannot conceive how those who hold the doctrine that Christ is the Eternal Son of God and those who deny it can dwell together in union and peace."

"The evidence is that it cannot be done!"

I agree; because without faith, it is impossible to please God....and those who cannot receive this eternal Truth must wrestle the theology away from the Word to justify their unbelief.

Yet, There must be a place to contend for the faith.

Jude 1:2-4
King James Version (KJV)

"Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and .....

.....exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and

......... denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ....

Denying the Eternal Sonship of Jesus is the one and same as denying God.....they are inseparable.

So, OJ, for what it is worth, A hearty Amen from me!..TY

I thought it would be too much to ask....

The answer is found in this verse

Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Is the Father eternal? Yes! Is the Father to be honored as eternal? Yes! Did the Father become the Father at the incarnation? No!! He was always the Father, and is to be honored as such. Likewise the Son. That is why it is written, "I the Lord change not"

OJ

"I agree; because without faith, it is impossible to please God....and those who cannot receive this eternal Truth must wrestle the theology away from the Word to justify their unbelief."

Agreed!!

Thanks BT!!

OJ

Brother Tom wrote:

and

......... denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ....

Denying the Eternal Sonship of Jesus is the one and same as denying God.....they are inseparable.

Who has "denied the only LORD GOD, 'and' our LORD Jesus Christ"?

Oh my.

What I do is download whole threads when I see that they're going to get heated. This way I can slowly read what each person is saying and take the time to understand where people are coming from. It's also best to look at all of the person's earlier posts since they've been a member, to fully understand what they believe.
I posted an old thread onto this thread twice as well.
We need to 'know' who we're dealing with - so please be careful who you 'damn', for your own sake, Brother.

See you when we See Him.

Philip wrote: "To not believe that the Son is eternal God, is heresy."

Amen!

To not believe in The Three in One would also be heresy - I agree and always have.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Blessings of His Peace & the JOY of your salvation to you as well, Brother.

a-servant, your caring is a Brotherly reaction.
I love Art. I know he was saved and I'd say it goes beyond just 'knowing' he was saved and is resting from his labors and enjoying the company of those that went before him, that labored just as well. You and the others that post his messages are blessed and I'm grateful that I found Art right here on SI yrs back. Extremely Grateful - also beyond words.

Thank you from my heart.

To not believe that the Son is eternal God, is heresy.

We need to tighten down the terminology on this one Philip.

To fail to believe that Jesus Christ is the ETERNAL Son of God is heresy. It is proper to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God eternally. This JIG will not agree with. She will place Him as God but not the SON of God for all eternity past. She believes He became the Son of God at some point around His incarnation. Likewise with this belief she cannot believe that God the Father is the Father eternally. He could only have become God the Father at some point in time.

These beliefs are heresy because they have persons of the Godhead changing attributes, taking on a new character at some point in time, that prior to that time did not exist in them. It clearly opposes the scripture which states, "I the Lord change not". To be consistent with this verse, God the Father, and God the Son must be either ALWAYS the Father and the Son or NEVER be the Father and the Son. From the rest of scripture it is clear that the former is the case.

OJ

One cannot deny the eternal Sonship of Christ without at the same time denying the eternal Fathership of God the Father. This is why it is damnable heresy.

1 John 2:22-23

OJ

More untruths from you, Lee.

Those that do believe in the incarnational sonship belief do not deny the "everlasting father" nor do they deny the Father and His/The Son.

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

The Son - Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

They don't reject John 3:16 neither.

Goodness, even gotanswers.org doesn't damn them - though whomever defined the belief did not do a very scholarly job on it neither.

Back to the apologetic forums, where people can get into the original languages and the grammar and have debates with Scripture only.

Keep damning me in your heart, Lee and I'll keep praying for you. In His Love. Ann

Eta: If only you could show me from the Old Testament more of what you're trying to prove on what we 'all' believe is The Trinity / Elohim - it would answer more of the questions I've had, since you can't answer my original question to you on the tenses of those verses that puzzled me. Wish you had tried to answer this in a more Biblical fashion rather than just claiming what I believe and damning me for what you're claiming I believe. Sad thread.

Those that do believe in the incarnational sonship belief do not deny the "everlasting father" nor do they deny the Father and His/The Son.

By denying that Christ is the eternal everlasting Son you automatically must deny the everlasting Father. For to whom is He the everlasting Father if it is not the everlasting Son?

OJ

Taco

Let's look at the verse again.

  Isaiah 9:6   For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

'His name shall be called' is very different than 'He shall be'

If Jesus Christ is 'King of kings' how then may he be relegated to being only the 'PRINCE of peace'? This would be a complete contradiction of titles if we took them both as being who/what He is.

The reality is that He is 'called' by these names because of who/what He represents. Just like the plumb line in Amos. I could start up a whole carpenter's religion that centrally worships Christ as a physical plumbline based on a false understanding of this concept. That would be something for Wayneman to explore elsewhere.

OJ

More that state that Origen was the origin ...

Trinitarian author: Walter R. Martin - From his book, The Kingdom of the Cults, in his chapter on the “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower” (chapter 4, 1977 rev. ed.), we read:

Arius derived many of his ideas from his teacher, Lucian of Antioch, who in turn borrowed them from Origen, who himself introduced the term “eternal generation” or the concept that God from all eternity generates a second person like Himself, ergo the “eternal Son.” Arius of course rejected this as illogical and unreasonable, which it is, and taking the other horn of dilemma squarely between his teeth reduced the eternal Word of God to the rank of a creation! It is a significant fact, however, that in the earliest writings of the church fathers doting from the first century to the year 230 the term “eternal generation” was never used, but it has been this dogma later adopted by Roman Catholic theology, which has fed the Arian heresy through the centuries and today continues to feed the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses."

(pp. 101, 102—1977; pp. 115, 116—1985 rev. ed.; p. 168—1997 rev., updated, expanded anniversary ed., Hank Hanegraaff, general editor; pp. 137, 138—2003 rev., updated, expanded ed., Ravi Zacharias, general editor.)

"The Bible clearly teaches, then, that Jesus Christ before His incarnation was the eternal Word, Wisdom, or Logos, of God…and further, that Jesus Christ is not called by Scripture the “eternal Son,” the error passed on from Origen under the title “eternal generation,” but rather He is the Living Word of God…Let us fix these things in our minds then: (a) the doctrine of “eternal generation” or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in A.D. 230, is a theory which opened the door theologically to the Arian and Sabellian heresies which today still plague the Christian Church in the realms of Christology.

(b) The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament…

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical “eternal Sonship” or “eternal generation” theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology."

(pp. 102, 103—1977; pp. 116, 117—1985; pp. 169, 170—1997 rev., updated, expanded anniversary ed., Hank Hanegraaff, general editor [with minor additions and deletions]; pp. 138, 139—2003 rev., updated, expanded ed., Ravi Zacharias, general editor [with minor additions and deletions].)

------------------------------------------------------------

Taco - I believe you'll find the answer to your question in Rev 21:1-'7' for "the father of who?"

------------------------------------------------------------

eta - Re: at the time of Rev 21 ...

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

From Adam Clarke:

1Co 15:28
The Son also himself be subject - When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all: there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the one infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal. And yet, as there appears to be a personality essentially in the infinite Godhead, that personality must exist eternally; but how this shall be we can neither tell nor know till that time comes in which we shall See Him as He Is. 1Jo_3:2.

John Wesley - 1Co 15:28 The Son also shall be subject - Shall deliver up the mediatorial kingdom. That the three - one God may be all in all - All things, (consequently all persons,) without any interruption, without the intervention of any creature, without the opposition of any enemy, shall be subordinate to God. All shall say, "My God, and my all." This is the end. Even an inspired apostle can see nothing beyond this.

There is no safety in numbers ma'am, but good news, after being so sure that it wasn't true Walter Martin sure seems to have changed his mind as seen below. And we are thankful for that.

Wesley plainly declares Christ as the eternal Son of God as well. Adam Clarke, well, he has other issues....

http://www.waltermartin.com/sof.html

"The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. The Scriptures declare:
His virgin birth (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:31, 35)
His sinless life (Heb. 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22)
His miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38)
His substitutionary work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21)
His bodily resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:6; Luke 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4)
His exaltation to the right hand of God (Acts 1:9, 11; 2:33; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1-3)"

And again

http://www.waltermartin.com/articles.html#doctrine

" 6. Creation. Although the Bible does not explain to us how the three persons are the one God, it tells us most emphatically that the Spirit of God created the world (Gen. 1:2), the Father created the world (Heb. 1:2), and the Son created the world (Col. 1:16). If you check the creation references in the New Testament, you will see that these particular references are bolstered by several others teaching the same things. "

After earlier mayhem, he ended preaching eternal sonship, that's an awesome repentance (change of mind)!

How about you??

OJ

from the very bottom of your link ....

"Copyright 1999-2003 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God."

The book that I quoted from is still on that site for sale.

In what year did Walter Martin go Home to the LORD? I truly don't remember.

I've been reading some of these verses and still "thinking" ...

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD 'appeared' to Abram, and said unto him, 'I am the Almighty God'; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Exodus Chpt 3 and

Exo 6:2,3 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: and I 'appeared' unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Etc Theophanies.

Also was reading the O.T. Prophets - how they only saw One GOD on the Throne and what they saw was much of what John did, as only One on the Throne in the Rev.

I need to 'study' lots more out of the O.T., as I said - I have neighbors to explain things to.

[eta]Yes, I know what John Wesley believed and I love that man but what you don't understand is what he was saying about 1Co 15:28 - the same as what Clarke was saying of what will be "when all things shall be subdued unto Him"... ie Rev 21.

How about you - have you met any "Brothers" here as yet? :)

Take Care.

"Independent Fundamentalist KJV-only Biblical-Separation Baptists are the only True Christians. Anyone who disagrees is causing division in the Body of Christ."
PrimaDogma

A summary, by geographical area and type of publication, of the number of different languages and dialects in which publication of at least one book of the Bible has been registered as of December 31, 2002.

2,287....http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/19/

That of course, is world-wide, and it is 10 years old. These are all non-King James of course, translated into languages like Swahili, and Mandarin.

The Baptists [ Anabaptist's ] got going in about 1525, with their belief system retracting to the roots of the reformation...[ 1516 ]..long before the KJV edition was first written. I hope that some of these believers were saved.

Anabaptist history:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1985/issue5/520.html

Before then, of course, were 1500 years of Christianity evident on every continent...with many different flavors, and devotional fervor among the believers. Their creed was to love Jesus, the family of God and the World, and to live a holy life in the Holy Spirit following Jesus as Lord.

There were, of course heresies, which actually means division, or dividers, who demanded that their belief systems were the only ones to be obeyed. Sometimes they even murdered other believers who disagreed. This can be called cultish; just like your faith statement.

Also, as it is today in some places, people are illiterate, and must believe the preached Word solely.

If you are born again, and possess His Holy Spirit, I suggest you "get out of the box", so to speak, and see the body of Christ as God does...because by cutting off as many souls as you do, you may be found to be cutting off Christ Himself.

One body, One faith, One Baptism, One Lord...unto all in the World.

from the very bottom of your link ....

"Copyright 1999-2003 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God."

The book that I quoted from is still on that site for sale.

In what year did Walter Martin go Home to the LORD? I truly don't remember.

I didn't come here to defend the man ma'am. I endeavor not to defend the reputation of any man, especially my own, at the expense of Christ, who says of us at this time, "thou sayest thou art rich and knowest not...."

You may defend men, but I must only defend Christ, and Him alone, at the expense of what any other may think of myself.

OJ

Old Joe,

I approve of this Middletown Bible Church. Independent Fundamentalist KJV-only Biblical-Separation Baptists are the only True Christians. Anyone who disagrees is causing division in the Body of Christ.

Here is a quote for you from my site

"There may be some of Christ's Bride still amongst the various visible churches and denominations, but there will not be many of His Bride in any particular church or denomination."

OJ

That said:

The title "Son of Man" deals with the temporal incarnational nature of Christ, the title "Son of God" deals with the eternal sonship nature of Christ.

To deny the eternal sonship of Christ is to deny the Son, period. Doesn't matter if Walter Martin did it, or if anyone else does it, in doing so, they deny the Son of God.

This is kind of like arguing that Jesus Christ is God with a JW, they have all kinds of arguments, supporters and "proof texts' to go with their denial of His true nature, but as stated before, this is a revealed doctrine to which no amount of 'proof' will suffice to those who refuse to believe it. There has NEVER been enough proof for unbelief, so it will now be up to you to deal with the eternal Son of God on this matter....

OJ

To deny the eternal sonship of Christ is to deny the Son, period.

This is not true and coming from the man that said that he cannot call or consider any man here "Brother" - I have to consider the source and have turned this over to those that are Brothers and that do 'love' in sincerity, so please see that you're not the final authority, for once.
Lee, you need to get over yourself and love everyone here and stop judging everyone's salvation.
Joh 8:36 If the 'Son' therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
He does Love you, Lee, but you've got to know that you're not the only man here that He loves & has saved.

Have a Nice weekend in Him.
Sincerely.

Hello David.

I haven't been 'helped' by the way in which this was presented and then discussed.
I do have a Pastor and I do have many other Brothers that care about me and that do have a more scholarly handle on His Word and the verses I've presented that I see in the O.T. - besides, His Spirit of Truth, so I'm in Good hands.

Thank you for any concern that you may have.

This is not a question of whether the son of man was also The Son of GOD.

John 1 to me is my favorite chpt and describes Him to a tee.

Before this goes any further - I have been asking for the tenses of certain N.T. verses that are cross-referenced to the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus The Christ, Whom is also called GOD our Saviour, in the N.T..

What I have asked for also - is for an Old Testament Scholar that LOVES THE JEWS to expound on where they see "the Son" clearly mentioned in other than a future tense appearing, from the Old Testament.

I have a burden for the Jewish people that I know and some are also in my family.

I have to be able to explain that we do not believe in Three Gods because we are believing in The Son of GOD that GOD had Mary name "Jesus".

To truly love the Jewish people, would be a tremendous asset in anyone that would go verse by verse with me, through the Old Testament - all of which I have not posted here because of the motive for the original post and the misunderstanding of what I have been posting all alone.

By "love the Jewish people" - I mean the type of love that is like that of Corrie ten Boom or Art Katz, etc ... the kind of love that almost actually feels like physical pain and an even much greater love for the One True GOD, so that they've fine-tooth-combed His Word, Old and New Testaments, in order to fully know Him and be able to present His Messiah, the Son of David to 'anyone', of any belief.

Grieviously, I feel that I haven't found that here, as yet.

This scripture below, proves both the Eternal Sonship, and the manifest Son of Man within the Incarnation, Crucifiction, and Resurrection are indeed one and the same.
The understanding of this is at the core of Apostolic faith.

Hebrews 1
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

It seems odd to me that a person could be regenerated never knowing or contemplating the "Eternal Sonship" and then come to hear that their salvation is counterfeit because this is a prerequisite for salvation.

As stated earlier "ignorance of" this truth is very different from "denial of" this truth.

There a lot of things that someone who comes to Christ will not know, however when confronted with these truths it is the work of the Holy Spirit to make these truths real to the person. If essential qualities of Christ are deviated from it is evidence that the Holy Spirit is not testifying to the person of Christ as Christ plainly stated He would do.

 John 15:26   But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

  Romans 8:9   But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Simple math at that point.

OJ

ETA that is why this is such an important question.

 Matthew 22:42....What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?....

by Jesus-is-GOD on 2012/1/21 17:46:10

This is not a question of whether the son of man was also The Son of GOD.

John 1 to me is my favorite chpt and describes Him to a tee.

Before this goes any further - I have been asking for the tenses of certain N.T. verses that are cross-referenced to the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus The Christ, Whom is also called GOD our Saviour, in the N.T..

What I have asked for also - is for an Old Testament Scholar that LOVES THE JEWS to expound on where they see "the Son" clearly mentioned in other than a future tense appearing, from the Old Testament.

I have a burden for the Jewish people that I know and some are also in my family.

I have to be able to explain that we do not believe in Three Gods because we are believing in The Son of GOD that GOD had Mary name "Jesus".

To truly love the Jewish people, would be a tremendous asset in anyone that would go verse by verse with me, through the Old Testament - all of which I have not posted here because of the motive for the original post and the misunderstanding of what I have been posting all alone.

By "love the Jewish people" - I mean the type of love that is like that of Corrie ten Boom or Art Katz, etc ... the kind of love that almost actually feels like physical pain and an even much greater love for the One True GOD, so that they've fine-tooth-combed His Word, Old and New Testaments, in order to fully know Him and be able to present His Messiah, the Son of David to 'anyone', of any belief.

Grieviously, I feel that I haven't found that here, as yet.

I have to be able to explain that we do not believe in Three Gods because we are believing in The Son of GOD that GOD had Mary name "Jesus".

First off, you are in a position of "physician, heal thyself" on this one. Once that is done then you can expect power from on High to do the needed work.

Explanations of the persons of God only work for Deists. These things can only be revealed by th Holy Spirit.

BTW With the Jewish people, if Isaiah 53 doesn't get their attention not much will.

OJ

Sigh. If you don't 'consider' any man here to be called Brother - I can't take anything you post seriously but from my heart, am feeling a deep & sincere sorrow for you to this day. Also for comparing yourself to the persecuted Church mentioned in The Voice of the Martyrs was a grievious statement as well.

To add to my last post - I've found the answer I've needed.

Thanks to those that posted out of Brotherly caring.

GOD Bless you indeed!

Closing out 'again' from the original article.

"We cannot conceive how those who hold the doctrine that Christ is the Eternal Son of God and those who deny it can dwell together in union and peace."

OJ

"Brothertom, I would agree, it is the strongest and most concise verse for the Son before incarnation. It is not the questioning of the verse. It is the question of salvation, that is being hinged upon it, that concerns me. It seems odd to me that a person could be regenerated never knowing or contemplating the "Eternal Sonship" and then come to hear that their salvation is counterfeit because this is a prerequisite for salvation.

Not that one doesn't believe in the Son of God or Christ as eternal deity before incarnation, but that they must confess the Sonship, prior to the incarnation, to be saved. If it is prerequisite, then I would ask all who would draw this line in the sand, "Do you make a point of telling people you evangelize that they must accept this before God saves them?" ....Lylewise.....

Very good point, Lylewise. Thank you so much, for bringing this to light. Let me share my testimony.

I seemed to be saved by accident. I was born again by a mighty baptism of the Holy Spirit under the sun; outside, as I knelt on a street corner....reciting the 4 spiritual laws. Surrounding me, were 4 or 5 bright evangelists, ministering those 4 spiritual laws to me, and they laid hands on me.

I knew nothing, or believed almost nothing about "Eternal Sonship"...and maybe did not understand the basic foundations of the Lordship of Christ....Yet, I knew that I was a sinner, and that Jesus was right, and that I needed Him. I prayed, nearly by rote, and by surprise, He entered me!

As I knelt, I experienced a holy churning deep within, and the Baptism came, like rolling thunder, filling me over and over with love and oil. He is yet with me, and I know Him, as He lives within. This was 40 years ago.

The doctrine came much later, and the "fine points". I read the Word every day, devouring the Bible. Learning to love Him, and walk with Him,and this trumps doctrine I believe.

Yet, in this case, let us realize that folks like the Jehovah Witness have received another spirit; a demon spirit that mimics God, as a disciple of one of his.

It is good that we address such things, and do not shirk at Sovereignty and Choosing because they may not fit into our pet sacks. Remember Joseph.

Lylewise

First of all, salvation cannot be lost, that is the everlasting part of everlasting life that a believer 'hath'. 

Secondly, nice straw man. But it is the same one used when a man makes a profession of Christ, goes to Bible school, becomes a preacher, has lots to say from the Bible, and later denies Christ. One group will say that he 'lost' everlasting life, but the reality is like King Saul, though he appeared to have sought it, and no matter how much he cried out, he never had it. 

The Holy Spirit testifies to the believer of the person of Christ, He does not testify of a different Christ to different believers. Though other things may differ, it is this work of the Holy Spirit that is present in every believer. 

Mormons take Jesus as God, by your definition they would appear saved. Modalists take Jesus as God (part-time), dualists and adoptionists take Jesus as God of NT only, subordinationists take Jesus as God just not co-equal with the Father, and on and on ....each one is lost in a damnable heresy. 

These heresies are actually gifts to the child of God to help him determine who his brethren actually are. If people want to be fruit inspectors, this is the ultimate inspection tool available, purely because it is objective, most other things that people look for are subjective. 

 1 Corinthians 11:19   For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 

OJ

Just a few of the men that are either already in Hell or on their way ...

Ignatius (35-107) wrote of Christ: “In His pre-existent being ‘ingenerate’… His divine Sonship dates from the incarnation.”

No one has been able to address the quotes of Origen (185-254), being the first to bring "eternal generation" into the church.

Walter Martin - his quotes from the historical viewpoint are on pg 13 of this thread.

Bernard A Reeves - http://www.21st-century-reformation-of-trinity-doctrine.co.uk/List%20of%20papers.html

Wayne Jackson - http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1359-was-jesus-the-son-of-god-eternally

Luke 1:32 and 35

32 - He 'shall be' great, and 'shall be called' the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David

Albert Barnes - "Shall be called" - ""This is the same as to say he “shall be” the Son, etc.""

35 ..................... Therefore also that holy thing (or one) - 'shall be' called the Son of God -

Quote - Adam Clarke -

""We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing, το ἁγιον, which was to be born of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Spirit. The Divine nature could not be born of the virgin; the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning; it was God manifested in the flesh, 1Ti_3:16; it was that Word which being in the beginning (from eternity) with God, Joh_1:2, was afterwards made flesh, (became manifest in human nature), and tabernacled among us, Joh_1:14. Of this Divine nature the angel does not particularly speak here, but of the tabernacle or shrine which God was now preparing for it, viz. the holy thing that was to be born of the virgin. Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, Mar_13:32; Joh_5:19; Joh_14:28, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God, Joh_1:1; Joh_10:30; Rom_9:5; Col_1:16-18. It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: -
1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.

4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.
The enemies of Christ’s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen!"" [end quote]

Thank you for bringing this topic up to me. I had never searched it out on the Internet until this thread - only from the Scriptures alone, for the last 7 yrs.

Shalom ~ Jesus 'Is' GOD!

Hmm. It was up last night. I can only get the homepage.
I downloaded the article but it has this at the bottom ...
© 1997-2012 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235.

Does that mean that we can't post his articles?

I haven't checked out any of his other articles - but just found it interesting to do a Search on this topic since this topic came up. I didn't even know what these two teachings were called - as one could see at the beginning of this thread. I called it "conception-sonship".
Learn something everyday.

I know when you post a link to a website, that the owners normally check out who's quoting them. There's other articles like those online. Maybe if we do a search on the title ... "Was Jesus the “Son of God” Eternally?" by this author, it may come up elsewhere?

Ah, just did the search and found the "cached" link by that title & author.
The link doesn't work when I post it. Need to get it off of the search. I did the search with yahoo.

Hope the first line of my post didn't scare the man.

I don't believe those men are going or are in Hell. I figured you guys knew that. Wasn't thinking of how outsiders would take it.
My point was not to 'convince' anyone to see things "my" way - but just to put out a caution of being too quick to assign believers to hell without doing some SERIOUS background through the ECF, Etc..

Thank you for the heads-up, Brother Lyle.

Hi Brother Miccah, whenever I did find articles on this, since this thread started - they seem to all go back to the ECFs and than finally to Rome and what happened under Constantine's involvement in the church and the creed written during his reign.

I didn't know any of what others believed about this until this thread, except the little of the John MacArthur part - I heard maybe a year ago. I figured it was just me.
It began with me when I was studying Revelation 21.
That's when I began to just cross-reference all the prophecies in the New to the Old Testament's and searching the Old Testament for all the Scripture on the coming Messiah. His First and Second Advents.

I don't feel it's a sin to search out a matter. I don't watch TV etc so I love doing studies with the Bible Computer Programs and doing word-studies and all.

I believe we can study and 'search' until He comes and He surely wouldn't say that we can find better things to do with our time - in between evangelism.

Blessings to you and yours. How's the twins?

Hi Brother Miccah, whenever I did find articles on this, since this thread started - they seem to all go back to the ECFs and than finally to Rome and what happened under Constantine's involvement in the church and the creed written during his reign.

Do any go back to the Holy Spirit, or should we just default to Google as our ultimate guide?

OJ

**They are a blessing from the Lord. It actually is easier then I thought it would be, but I guess when you have 4 other children as well, it kind of makes it easier.**

Six??? Easier? Wow, GOD Has Blessed you two.

Praise The LORD!
Will keep ya'll on my prayer list even the more now. \\o/