Son of God -Versus- Trinity

[o2bwise]

Hi,

Someone on another board, who as far as I can tell, is a very decent man and who seems to know a lot about the Trinity told me the following.

Oh, (I'm editing this right here), I should say that the person I refer to is a staunch believer, supporter of the Trinity.

The formal Trinitarian creed uses the term "person" in a way not equivalent to how we would use the term in everyday language. It is meant to denote DISTINCTION. He also told me that Father and Son had the SAME PERSONALITY before the incarnation, but that due to the incarnation, Christ probably had a different personality. Again, DUE to the incarnation.

While confessing the finiteness of my human mind and imperfection in discernment, the more I probe this subject, the more I come away convicted that Trinity smashes apart any semblance of what it means to be "the Son of God." I further come away convicted that this is the one thing I must confess.

Anyway, this topic is to discuss the extent to which the Son IS a Son in the way we humans understand sons to be. And to discuss the extent to which the Son is NOT a Son in the way we humans understand sons to be.

Such pertinent issues I have are:

1. Was the Son of God the Son of God before the incarnation?

2. In what ways was the Son of God the Son of God? (Please qualify.)

To God Be The Glory,

Tony (o2)

[yxboom]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110069#post110069)
o2bwise:

Such pertinent issues I have are:

1. Was the Son of God the Son of God before the incarnation?

He was the logos, pre-incarnate Word according to John 1:1.

2. In what ways was the Son of God the Son of God? (Please qualify.)

He was born of a virgin, Mary. Grew up among men and was in submission to his Father's will.
Matthew 26:39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

[Reasonable]

Nice questions O2bwise. I look forward to seeing what others have to say.

YXBoom-
Do I understand you to mean Jesus was not the Son of God before he came to the earth?

[o2bwise]

Hi Reasonable,

Thanks!

And the question you asked Yxboom, was gonna be MY question. You beat me to it!

I always believed that as long as Christ existed (and if He didn't have the name "Christ" before the incarnation, I apologise for my inaccuracy), that He was the Son of God.

Regardless, with Yxboom's position, Christ was not a son in the sense of having the same attributes of His Parent by virtue of that Sonship.

This, of course, is a dramatic exception to this world.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[e4e]

Sense I am a man and was not present at creation or before creation. Sense God did not ask my advise but only told me what He had done. I cannot speak outside of what my understanding is, right or wrong.

The question of weather Jesus was the Son of God before His human existance is an openion and not an absolute as we like to think.It really depends on on our understanding of reviled knowledge. Having said that my openion right now is no h\He was not the Son Of God before Jesus . He existed before His physical form and was every part as much God as is the Father. He sumitted Himself and all his authority to the Father and became the Son. The theology behind all this is quite extensive and involved so I will not go into it in any debth. I look forware to shearing your openion on the matter.

Thanks
e4e:cool:

[o2bwise]

Hi e4e,

Micah 5:2 says the Messiah "proceeded forth" a very long time ago. The Greek word, in its grammatical form, always means "to give birth."

Yeah, just one text, but it's most apparent rendering is of One who was literally born of God, well before the incarnation.

There are other texts, of course.

Question: Do Trinitarians believe "God the Father" and "God the Son" are one personality?

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

QUESTION:
DO TRINITARIANS BELIEVE GOD THE FATHER AND GOD THE SON ARE ONE PERSONALITY?

[Piebald]

No, two distinct personalities (centers of personhood)

[RevSteve45]

o2bwise,

I would like to say, that I am a Trinitarian, who does NOT believe that the Son of God was "the Son" before the incarnation.

The reason why is this: We know that the Son was the Logos, the Word of God, from John 1:1. We know that through Him, God created everything that was made. John tells us this, and so does Colossians.

In the OT passages in which God appears to men on earth, however, it is always in the form of the "Angel of the Lord." Three angels came to speak with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom, but one angel remained to speak with Abraham:

Gen 18:2, And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, (KJV)

Gen 18:22, And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.(KJV)

So there were 3 angels, but one stays to talk with Abraham, and he is called the LORD (Yahweh).

Later on, Jacob wrestles with an angel all night long. Yet this angel was able to BLESS Jacob, whom he renames as Israel. When Jacob asks the Angel's name, he refuses to give it:

Gen 32:29-30, And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (KJV)

This forms a pattern, for NEVER do we hear of the Angel of the Lord giving His name. The only exception is in Exodus, where the Angel of the Lord tells Moses, "I am what I am."

However, when God sends His Angel to go before the Israelites, He has the authority to forgive sins, yet He will not:

Exod 23:20-21, Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. (KJV)

Once again, we see that no name is given. Rather, tyhe name of the LORD (Yahweh) is in Him. This pattern is repeated before the birth of Samson:

Judg 13:18-20, And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
19 So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. (KJV)

Note, that not only does this Angel of the Lord refuse to give His name, but He ALSO accepts worship. This is something no ordinary angel would do.

I believe the reason the Angel of The Lord refused to give His name, is because that Name was yet FUTURE. It would be JESUS.

The Son of God BECAME the Son, by virtue of His birth at Bethlehem. Before that time, I find NO evidence that would lead me to believe that He was called the Son.

In His Service,
Steve

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123954#post123954)
RevSteve45:

So there were 3 angels, but one stays to talk with Abraham, and he is called the LORD (Yahweh).

Actually, it is important to keep in mind that the other two are also called ADONIA, or actually, if you investigate the history behind Gen 19:18, you will find that the other two angels are actually called Jehovah.

This forms a pattern, for NEVER do we hear of the Angel of the Lord giving His name. The only exception is in Exodus, where the Angel of the Lord tells Moses, "I am what I am."

Just of note is that Ex 3:14 more accurately translates to I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE, not I am...


Note, that not only does this Angel of the Lord refuse to give His name, but He ALSO accepts worship. This is something no ordinary angel would do.

Both angels and men in the OT recieve a form of worship. In the LXX this is proskuneo, the same that Jesus recieves.

I believe the reason the Angel of The Lord refused to give His name, is because that Name was yet FUTURE. It would be JESUS.

The problem with the theory of saying that only Jesus is the angel of the Lord is that the angel of the Lord appears after Mary is already pregnant, in Matthew 1. So we know that while it may many times be Jesus, it is not only Jesus that carres this name.

The Son of God BECAME the Son, by virtue of His birth at Bethlehem. Before that time, I find NO evidence that would lead me to believe that He was called the Son.

However, if you connect Proverbs 8's Wisdom with Jesus, as many 2nd and 3rd century writers did, you find he is spoken of as being birthed as the first of God's creative works, thus making him the Son before anythng was created.

-Tony

[o2bwise]

Hi RevSteve45,

I wouldn't say there is NO evidence.

Micah 5:2 clearly refers to Christ and it is written that He was brought forth in ancient times. The literal Hebrew in this grammatical form ALWAYS means "to be born."

So, to say "no evidence" is a reach.

As Tony mentioned, Proverbs 8 supports the idea that the Son of God was born.

So also is the idea that God had a SON to give, when He gave Him.

Moreover, is Romans 1 where it is said we can understand the things of God via creation. In this world, all offspring have the nature of their parents. This is a fundamental thought. This idea does not find a parallel to the Sonship of Christ IF Christ became the Son of God via the birth that gave Him a nature, not divine, but human.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi Tony,

you find he is spoken of as being birthed as the first of God's creative works,

According to Genesis, creation was finished during creation week. Thus, not one creature was created when born. In fact, the fact that I was born is not sufficient evidence that I was ultimately created. What else is needed, is to trace my lineage back to the original and to identify how he came to be.

We trace our human lineage back to Adam and find that he was created. Thus, I was created, in Adam.

If we trace the Son of God's lineage back, it goes back to God. As God was not created, it follows that the literal born of God was not created as well.

A second consideration is the "stuff" of which Jesus was (is?) by virtue of being born of God. Essence of divine essence proceeded from the Father. This being parallel to essence of human essence proceeding from a mother.

This stands in contrast to creation. When God creates something, it is not composed of divine essence, rather something is made where before there was nothing. Not so with the only begotten Son of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124572#post124572)
o2bwise:

If we trace the Son of God's lineage back, it goes back to God. As God was not created, it follows that the literal born of God was not created as well.

You show an error in logic. A son, by definition, is one who is procreated by a parent and comes forth at a time after. This one being of the male gender. To say that because one is the actual son of God that he is also eternal destroyes the definition of son.

Jesus is called the "firstborn of all creation" )Col 1:15) In Greek grammar, this is called a partitive genitive, showing that the one who is firstborn belongs to the group of creation. Thus, if one belongs to the group of creation, they are thusly created.

Further, in Proverbs 8:22, the LXX actually uses the word EKTISEN, meaning created, showing this one that is spoken of as being born is also spoken of as being created.

A second consideration is the "stuff" of which Jesus was (is?) by virtue of being born of God. Essence of divine essence proceeded from the Father. This being parallel to essence of human essence proceeding from a mother.

And just as a mother and child are not equal in time (the Mother comes before the Child) so God and the Son are not equal in time, as where the Father is eternal, the Son, by definition, came later.

This stands in contrast to creation. When God creates something, it is not composed of divine essence, rather something is made where before there was nothing. Not so with the only begotten Son of God.

You have no scriptural basis for this statement

-Tony

[o2bwise]

Hi Tony,

You show an error in logic. A son, by definition, is one who is procreated by a parent and comes forth at a time after. This one being of the male gender. To say that because one is the actual son of God that he is also eternal destroyes the definition of son.

But, you are then circumventing scripture.

Was creation finished by the end of creation week or wasn't it?

Did God create all? Or do parents create as well?

I have no problem disagreeing when the force used is contrary to scripture. God is known as the One who created all. I'll keep myself within those parameters.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125407#post125407)
o2bwise:

Hi Tony,



But, you are then circumventing scripture.

Was creation finished by the end of creation week or wasn't it?

Did God create all? Or do parents create as well?

I have no problem disagreeing when the force used is contrary to scripture. God is known as the One who created all. I'll keep myself within those parameters.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)


Maybe I'm forgetting something we discussed, but at this point I really don't see what you are getting at. The account in Genesis details entirely with the creation of the physical universe and Genesis 1:1 when directly compared to Job 38:4,7 show us this. So anything in the spirit realm has any bearing on the issue.

-Tony

[o2bwise]

My point is that if scripture says this entire physical world was created in 6 days, my birth is not creation. It was finished! Your use of "procreation" is extra-scriptural.

If I stick to the earthly analogy, I cannot require that the birth of Christ, by God, is an act of creating.

I am simply applying one concept of birth to another where scripture is available for the one.

[markporter]

"The problem with the theory of saying that only Jesus is the angel of the Lord is that the angel of the Lord appears after Mary is already pregnant, in Matthew 1. So we know that while it may many times be Jesus, it is not only Jesus that carres this name."

well in the NIV it says an angel of the Lord, not the....but perhaps that's just the NIV.

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125664#post125664)
markporter:

"The problem with the theory of saying that only Jesus is the angel of the Lord is that the angel of the Lord appears after Mary is already pregnant, in Matthew 1. So we know that while it may many times be Jesus, it is not only Jesus that carres this name."

well in the NIV it says an angel of the Lord, not the....but perhaps that's just the NIV.

It depends on the verse, some have the definite article and some do not. However, in the Greek at at least one point I can assure it literally translates to "THE angel of the Lord."

[markporter]

Today @ 12:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125850#post125850)
Tsmith:



It depends on the verse, some have the definite article and some do not. However, in the Greek at at least one point I can assure it literally translates to "THE angel of the Lord."

Right, I suppose that the way in which I would interpret it is that if it is originally referred to as an angel of the Lord that after this it is appropriate to refer to this as the angel....so as long as the initial statement is an...

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 06:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125615#post125615)
o2bwise:

My point is that if scripture says this entire physical world was created in 6 days, my birth is not creation. It was finished! Your use of "procreation" is extra-scriptural.

If I stick to the earthly analogy, I cannot require that the birth of Christ, by God, is an act of creating.

I am simply applying one concept of birth to another where scripture is available for the one.

I think you are missing my point. It is that this creation took place way before the physical universe was created. I'm not talking about when he was born flesh, but when the Son originally came into being.

[o2bwise]

I think you are missing my point. It is that this creation took place way before the physical universe was created. I'm not talking about when he was born flesh, but when the Son originally came into being.

I know what you are talking about though I acquiesce your understanding of details appears to "smoke" my own! (Seriously.)

But, I believe I am using logic here.

Premise 1:
Creation was complete on creation week.

Premise 2:
Humans were born AFTER creation week.

Conclusion 1:
Therefore birth is not creation, for this case.

Premise 3:
Something that is not proved to be universally true, cannot be asserted to be true for a specific case, without further evidence.

Conclusion 2:
Therefore, it cannot be asserted that Christ was created of God when born of God, without further evidence to support such as allegation.


Please show me the error of my logic.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126280#post126280)
o2bwise:



I know what you are talking about though I acquiesce your understanding of details appears to "smoke" my own! (Seriously.)

But, I believe I am using logic here.

Premise 1:
Creation was complete on creation week.

Premise 2:
Humans were born AFTER creation week.

Conclusion 1:
Therefore birth is not creation, for this case.

Premise 3:
Something that is not proved to be universally true, cannot be asserted to be true for a specific case, without further evidence.

Conclusion 2:
Therefore, it cannot be asserted that Christ was created of God when born of God, without further evidence to support such as allegation.


Please show me the error of my logic.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

So you are saying that creation and birth cannot be the say thing in dealing with the Son? Scripturally I do not agree with this, as in Proverbs 8 the LXX uses EKTISHN, which literally translates to created, in the same context where Wisdom personified is spoken of as being birthed.

I understand what you mean about us not being created, which is logical, but this reasoning does not apply to the Son. So it is not your logic that is in error, but your application of it to one who came before men.

-Tony

[o2bwise]

OK, Tony, I am glad you understand my logic. You acquiesce that the fact that Christ was begotten (born of God) is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to REQUIRE that this was a creation event.

Therefore, I appreciate that you have brought what you consider to be supporting evidence to the table, evidence that allegedly demonstrates that for this specific case, the birth event also happens to be a creation event.


It would take much for me to believe Christ is both a created being and a begotten Son. Paradigms are not traversed easily, especially when one feels trepidation. I hope you can understand this for all people, wherever they may be theologically. As for me, I walked away from Trinitariaism, but it wasn't easy and it wasn't so largely because of the cords of orthodoxy, including their threats.

I thought Christ created all that ever was created. Obviously, He did not, should He have been created.

Anyway, this one requires substantial care, thought, study, and prayer.


May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126306#post126306)
o2bwise:

OK, Tony, I am glad you understand my logic. You acquiesce that the fact that Christ was begotten (born of God) is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to REQUIRE that this was a creation event.

Therefore, I appreciate that you have brought what you consider to be supporting evidence to the table, evidence that allegedly demonstrates that for this specific case, the birth event also happens to be a creation event.


It would take much for me to believe Christ is both a created being and a begotten Son. Paradigms are not traversed easily, especially when one feels trepidation. I hope you can understand this for all people, wherever they may be theologically. As for me, I walked away from Trinitariaism, but it wasn't easy and it wasn't so largely because of the cords of orthodoxy, including their threats.

I thought Christ created all that ever was created. Obviously, He did not, should He have been created.

Anyway, this one requires substantial care, thought, study, and prayer.


May God Bless,

Tony (o2)



As I pointed out in my Col 1:15 thread, the partitive genitive at Col 1:15 has Christ being first*born* and of (belonging to) the group of creation, thus being created himself.

That said, if you would like to discuss Christ's role in creation with regards to Col 1:16 and John 1:3, we can make a close study of these verses to see if they actually remove Christ from the realm of creation, but I believe this would be better to do in a new thread dedicated to that topic.

-Tony

[o2bwise]

Tony,

I was wondering if Christ became a part of creation not by being "firstborn" but via the incarnation and submitting to taking a human nature (which of course is a created nature).

Tony (o2)

[markporter]

"I was wondering if Christ became a part of creation not by being "firstborn" but via the incarnation and submitting to taking a human nature (which of course is a created nature)."

or perhaps firstborn from the grave?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126345#post126345)
o2bwise:

Tony,

I was wondering if Christ became a part of creation not by being "firstborn" but via the incarnation and submitting to taking a human nature (which of course is a created nature).

Tony (o2)


According to Phil 2:6,7 this would not be true. He emptied himself and took the form of man, he wasn't recreated as such.

-Tony