Talk Jesus Statement of Faith

[B-A-C]

The doctrine says they are coequal. Here's the doctrine codified in the Athanasian Creed.

Never heard of it. I've attended two Seminaries, one is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, the other is the largest denomination in the US.
Neither of them believes Jesus is equal to the Father in every way. There is a hierarchy in the trinity. The first five websites that pop up in Google on this subject confirm this.

Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity?

It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity. For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus: John 14:26 (NIV) But the

christianity.stackexchange.com

Is There Hierarchy In The Trinity? A Series On A Contemporary Evangelical Controversy

Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? Part 1 One of the many controversies among evangelical theologians and biblical scholars surrounds the question of the

www.patheos.com

The Trinity: A Hierarchy? - Holy Trinity

Read about The Trinity: A Hierarchy? - Holy Trinity. Grow in your understanding of Christianity and faith.

www.christianity.com

How can there be subordination / hierarchy in the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org

How can there be subordination in the Trinity? What is subordinationism? Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? If the Father, Son, and Spirit are equal, how can there be submission amongst the Trinity?

www.gotquestions.org

John 15:15; "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
John 12:49; "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
John 8:28; So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

 

[Butch5]

Heb 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

What part of this scripture do you say is not true?

I didn't say it wasn't true. My point was that you're misunderstanding it. Jesus had a father and a mother. The one in this passage did not. How can this be Jesus?

 

[Butch5]

You said the word "God" is always singular. I was showing you that's not correct.

"God" in Gen. 1:1 is "Elohim" and is plural. there's much controversy over what that means.

Some say it is introducing the Trinity in the very first verse of the Scripture.

I agree elohim is plural. But we were discussing the English word god. That's singular.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree elohim is plural. But we were discussing the English word god. That's singular.

The author of Hebrews is proving the priesthood of Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood of Aaron.

He uses Melchizedek as a type of Christ.

"No mother of father" does not mean Melchizedek didn't have a mother or father. It means there was no record made at that time of his mother and father.

This is significant because in order to be a priest of the Levitical order, one must have record of their ancestry to prove they were from the family of Aaron, the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek had no such records but was respected by Israel's father Abraham by giving 1/10th of all he had.

Then the author goes on to say how great Melchizedek was, using him as a type of Christ and superior to the Levitical priesthood.

The purpose was to prove to the Hebrews that Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest.

 

[Curtis]

The divine nature resident in Christ is Not God the Father. Is that what you are saying? I thought all the fullness of God dwells in Him.

There were not two sons—a divine son and a human son—but there were two natures—deity and humanity—joined in one person. The divine Spirit could not be separated from the human nature and life continue. But in His agonizing process of dying, Jesus suffered the pains of our sins. Dying became death when He yielded His Spirit.

Even though God the Father dwells in Jesus in his fullness that does not make Jesus the Father neither does Jesus dwelling in God his Father make the Father Jesus.

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The divine nature of each of the members of the Godhead is not the same even though they are all eternal. Each person's nature can be seen in how each member “relates” to each other.

God the “Father” relates to Jesus the Son of God as a Father. The Father tells (not ask) him what to do and because the Son loves His Father he does it. Jesus the Son of God asks (not tell) his Father for things and because the Father loves his Son he gives it to him.
The Holy Spirit is the one who manifests God's presence as he chooses.

Even though Jesus is NOT the Father, the Father can be seen in Jesus.

Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Jesus said the Father was dwelling in him and he Jesus dwells in his Father. If his disciples did not believe Jesus's words he just told them to believe him because of the works his Father was performing through him. Jesus's divine nature is his own, not his Fathers or the Holy Spirit. They each have their own divine eternal nature based on how they each relate to each other.

 

[Butch5]

Never heard of it. I've attended two Seminaries, one is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, the other is the largest denomination in the US.
Neither of them believes Jesus is equal to the Father in every way. There is a hierarchy in the trinity. The first five websites that pop up in Google on this subject confirm this.

Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity?

It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity. For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus: John 14:26 (NIV) But the

christianity.stackexchange.com

Is There Hierarchy In The Trinity? A Series On A Contemporary Evangelical Controversy

Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? Part 1 One of the many controversies among evangelical theologians and biblical scholars surrounds the question of the

www.patheos.com

The Trinity: A Hierarchy? - Holy Trinity

Read about The Trinity: A Hierarchy? - Holy Trinity. Grow in your understanding of Christianity and faith.

www.christianity.com

How can there be subordination / hierarchy in the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org

How can there be subordination in the Trinity? What is subordinationism? Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? If the Father, Son, and Spirit are equal, how can there be submission amongst the Trinity?

www.gotquestions.org

John 15:15; "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
John 12:49; "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
John 8:28; So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

You're making my point. I gave you the creed where the doctrine was codifed. As you point out the top five sites on Google disagree. What does that prove? It proves that people have changed the doctrine over time.

That's the point I've been making all along. The first Christians didn't beleive what was in the Athanasian Creed. Now you've posted links showing that today these groups don't believe what was in the Athanasian Creed. It keeps changing. That's the point. The only way to know the truth is to go back to the beginning. It's not to interpet the Scriptures through our way of thinking. This constantly changing doctrine is proof that interpreting Scripture through our way of thinking doesn't lead to truth. All it does is keep reforming the truth into something it's not.

That's why repeatedly posting passages of Scriputre in this thread doesn't move it forward. All everyone is doing is putting forth "their own" interpretation of those passages. Everyone's interpretation is subject to many things. One's education, intellect, life experience, and so on. These all affect how we interpret Scripture. That's why I said in another post that the discussion of this doctrine is based in reason.

Everyone has their own interpretation and they're all subjective. The only thing that is not subjective is logic and reason. If something defies logic and reason it has to be wrong. There is no other possibilty. A glass cannot be both full and empty at the same time. That's the law of non contradiction. Anything that deifes that is wrong. It's not that it may be wrong or we dont understand it. It's just wrong. We can argue all day long. I think the glass is this or I think the glass is that or maybe the glass is this. It does t matter. If it disagrees with the law it's just wrong. No matter how much we may like or dislike that, it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

So, in the end we need to look at what was first taught. That's the truth.

 

[First and the Last]

Even though God the Father dwells in Jesus in his fullness that does not make Jesus the Father neither does Jesus dwelling in God his Father make the Father Jesus.

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The divine nature of each of the members of the Godhead is not the same even though they are all eternal. Each person's nature can be seen in how each member “relates” to each other.

God the “Father” relates to Jesus the Son of God as a Father. The Father tells (not ask) him what to do and because the Son loves His Father he does it. Jesus the Son of God asks (not tell) his Father for things and because the Father loves his Son he gives it to him.
The Holy Spirit is the one who manifests God's presence as he chooses.

Even though Jesus is NOT the Father, the Father can be seen in Jesus.

Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Jesus said the Father was dwelling in him and he Jesus dwells in his Father. If his disciples did not believe Jesus's words he just told them to believe him because of the works his Father was performing through him. Jesus's divine nature is his own, not his Fathers or the Holy Spirit. They each have their own divine eternal nature based on how they each relate to each other.

I have to highly stress the fact that Christ Had to Natures (Full Divinity - ie Fullness of the Godhead and Fully Human in every way, ) Jesus is God's Son only according to the human body. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

Without the human element He is God the Father in all His Deity.

 

[Curtis]

I have to highly stress the fact that Christ Had to Natures (Full Divinity - ie Fullness of the Godhead and Fully Human in every way, ) Jesus is God's Son only according to the human body. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

Without the human element He is God the Father in all His Deity.

Of corse Jesus had a human nature because if he didn’t he could not have been tempted as God can not be tempted.

 

[First and the Last]

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of eternal existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

The Beginning of the Son​

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” The Son came in the fullness of time—not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman—not begotten eternally. The Son was made under the law—not before the law. (See also Hebrews 7:28.) The term begotten refers to the conception of Jesus described in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. The Son of God was begotten when the Spirit of God miraculously caused conception to take place in the womb of Mary. This is evident from the very meaning of the word begotten and also from Luke 1:35, which explains that because the Holy Ghost would overshadow Mary, therefore her child would be the Son of God. We should notice the future tense in this verse: the child to be born “shall be called the Son of God.”

Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time: “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 the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” We can deduce the following points from these verses: the Son was begotten on a specific day in time; there was a time when the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence (“will be”); and God brought the Son into the world way after creation.

Other verses of Scripture emphasize that the Son was begotten on a certain day in time—“this day” (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). All the Old Testament verses that mention the Son are clearly prophetic, looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten (Psalm 2:7, 12; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). (Daniel 3:25 refers to an angel. Even if it describes a theophany of God, it could not mean the then-nonexistent body of Jesus Christ.)

From all of these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal but was begotten by God almost two thousand years ago. Many theologians who have not fully accepted the great truth of the oneness of God have still rejected the doctrine of the “eternal Son” as self-contradictory, unscriptural, and false. Examples are Tertullian (father of trinitarian doctrine in early church history), Adam Clarke (the well-known Bible commentator), and Finis Dake (trinitarian Pentecostal Bible annotator who is essentially tritheistic).

 

[Charlie24]

I have to highly stress the fact that Christ Had to Natures (Full Divinity - ie Fullness of the Godhead and Fully Human in every way, ) Jesus is God's Son only according to the human body. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

Without the human element He is God the Father in all His Deity.

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of eternal existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

The Beginning of the Son​

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” The Son came in the fullness of time—not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman—not begotten eternally. The Son was made under the law—not before the law. (See also Hebrews 7:28.) The term begotten refers to the conception of Jesus described in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. The Son of God was begotten when the Spirit of God miraculously caused conception to take place in the womb of Mary. This is evident from the very meaning of the word begotten and also from Luke 1:35, which explains that because the Holy Ghost would overshadow Mary, therefore her child would be the Son of God. We should notice the future tense in this verse: the child to be born “shall be called the Son of God.”

Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time: “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 the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” We can deduce the following points from these verses: the Son was begotten on a specific day in time; there was a time when the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence (“will be”); and God brought the Son into the world way after creation.

Other verses of Scripture emphasize that the Son was begotten on a certain day in time—“this day” (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). All the Old Testament verses that mention the Son are clearly prophetic, looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten (Psalm 2:7, 12; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). (Daniel 3:25 refers to an angel. Even if it describes a theophany of God, it could not mean the then-nonexistent body of Jesus Christ.)

From all of these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal but was begotten by God almost two thousand years ago. Many theologians who have not fully accepted the great truth of the oneness of God have still rejected the doctrine of the “eternal Son” as self-contradictory, unscriptural, and false. Examples are Tertullian (father of trinitarian doctrine in early church history), Adam Clarke (the well-known Bible commentator), and Finis Dake (trinitarian Pentecostal Bible annotator who is essentially tritheistic).

He was eternal before He became the Son. He is God with no beginning or end, and He became the Son at a certain time in history.

He is God and Son, God The Son. His deity stands forever and so will His Sonship.

 

[First and the Last]

The Ending of the Sonship​

Not only did the Sonship have a beginning, but it will, in at least one sense, have an ending. This is evident from I Corinthians 15:23-28. In particular, verse 24 says, “Then cometh the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” Verse 28 says, “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.” This passage of Scripture is impossible to explain if one thinks of a “God the Son” who is coequal and coeternal with God the Father. But it is easily explained if we realize that “Son of God” refers to a specific role that God temporarily assumed for the purpose of redemption.

When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship will return the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Father, Creator, and Ruler of all. Ephesians 5:27 describes this same scene in different terms: “That he [Christ] might present it to himself a glorious church.” Jesus will present the church to Himself! How can this be, in light of I Corinthians 15:24, which describes the Son presenting the kingdom to the Father? The answer is clear: Jesus in His role as Son, and as His final act as Son, will present the church to Himself in His role as God the Father.

We find another indication that the Sonship has an ending. In Acts 2:34-35, Peter quoted David in Psalm 110:1: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool.” We should note the word until. This passage describes the dual nature of Christ, with the Spirit of God (the LORD) speaking prophetically to the human manifestation of Christ (the Lord). The right hand of God represents God’s power and authority. Making foes a footstool means utterly defeating the enemy and making an open show of their defeat. In ancient times, the victor sometimes did this literally, placing his foot on his enemies’ heads or necks (Joshua 10:24).

So the prophecy in Psalm 110 is this: The Spirit of God will give all power and authority to the man Christ Jesus, the Son of God, until the Son has completely vanquished the enemies of sin and the devil. The Son will have all power until He does this. What happens to the Son after this? Does this mean an eternal person of a trinity will stop sitting on the right hand of God or lose all power? No. It simply means that the role of the Son as ruler will cease. God will use His role as Son—God manifest in flesh—to conquer Satan, thereby fulfilling Genesis 3:15, in which God said the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the devil. After that, God will no longer need the human role to rule.

After Satan is cast into the lake of fire and all sin is judged at the last judgment (Revelation 20), there will be no further need for the Son to exercise the throne of power. Jesus Christ will cease acting in His Sonship role and will be God forever.

Does this mean that God will cease using the resurrected and glorified body of Christ? We believe that Jesus will continue to use His glorified body throughout eternity. This is indicated by Revelation 22:3-4, which describes a visible God even after the last judgment and after the creation of the new heaven and earth: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.”

Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:21), even though He will cease acting in His role as priest after the last judgment. The Lord’s glorified human body is immortal just like ours will be (I John 3:2; I Corinthians 15:50-54). Although the glorified body of Christ will continue to exist, all the reasons for the reign of the Son will be gone and all the roles played by the Son will be over. Even the Son will be placed under subjection so that God may be all in all. It is in this sense that the Sonship will end.

 

[First and the Last]

He was eternal before He became the Son. He is God with no beginning or end, and He became the Son at a certain time in history.

He is God and Son, God The Son. His deity stands forever and so will His Sonship.

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

The term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

 

[B-A-C]

You're making my point. I gave you the creed where the doctrine was codifed. As you point out the top five sites on Google disagree. What does that prove? It proves that people have changed the doctrine over time.

This is the creed I do know. It has been around since at least the 3rd century and it hasn't changed.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Charlie24]

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

The term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

"God" is His deity, "Son" is His humanity. God the Son.

What you're saying makes no sense.

 

[Charlie24]

"God" is His deity, "Son" is His humanity. God the Son.

What you're saying makes no sense.

First and the Last, Paul said that all things were created by Him and for Him (Jesus).

Who is the Creator/God in Gen. 1:1?

 

[First and the Last]

"God" is His deity, "Son" is His humanity. God the Son.

What you're saying makes no sense.

John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase “eternal Son.” Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it, and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means “to procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time—the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of external existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

 

[First and the Last]

must realize that in New Testament times God has chosen to reveal Himself fully through Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). There is no possibility of separating God and Jesus, and there is no God visible outside of Jesus.

 

[Charlie24]

John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase “eternal Son.” Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it, and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means “to procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time—the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of external existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

The point of the phrase "God the Son" is not infinity past, but infinity future.

He will forever be God the Son through His finished work for mankind.

 

[Curtis]

1Co 8:6 But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live.

This scripture is not true at all. It's all a lie because I have proof that Jesus Christ the Son of God did NOT exist until Mary his mother gave birth to him!!!!! Jesus Christ was NOT born yet on earth so there is no way he could have created all things.....no way. I have scriptures that prove Jesus the Son of God had not been born yet. He could not be the person who is upholding the entire universe it's all a sham fake theology from those who know nothing at all. They are antichrists trying to deceive us all into believing something not true. Everyone knows Jesus is not God, he is definitely not eternal, how could he be eternal he had a beginning. If Jesus has a father that means he had to have a beginning right? Jesus was the name his mother and father gave him at his birth so how in the world could he have created all things? Comon man get real. It makes no logical analytical sense in my brain!!!!

 

[First and the Last]

The point of the phrase "God the Son" is not infinity past, but infinity future.

He will forever be God the Son through His finished work for mankind

That is good except there will be a time when He ceases His role as Son and resume His role as the Eternal Spirit of God.

After Satan is cast into the lake of fire and all sin is judged at the last judgment (Revelation 20), there will be no further need for the Son to exercise the throne of power. Jesus Christ will cease acting in His Sonship role and will be God forever.

Does this mean that God will cease using the resurrected and glorified body of Christ? We believe that Jesus will continue to use His glorified body throughout eternity. This is indicated by Revelation 22:3-4, which describes a visible God even after the last judgment and after the creation of the new heaven and earth: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.”

Even the Son will be placed under subjection so that God may be all in all. It is in this sense that the Sonship will end.