Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?

[hawkman]

John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).

In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer—as a play in the mind of a playwright—or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed— as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed as the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fullness of time was come, God put His plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. As John Miller says, the Logos is “God uttering Himself.”1 In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, “The Word was God Himself.” Flanders and Cresson say, “The Word was God’s means of self disclosure.” This thought is further brought out by verse 14, which says the incarnate Word had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, and by verse 18, which says that the Son has declared the Father.

In Greek philosophy, the Logos came to mean reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe. In John’s day, some Greek philosophers and theologians influenced by Greek thought (especially by the Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria) regarded the Logos as an inferior, secondary deity or as an emanation from God in time.3 Some Christian heresies, including an emerging form of Gnosticism, were already incorporating these theories into their doctrines and therefore relegating Jesus to an inferior role. John deliberately used their own terminology to refute these doctrines and to declare the truth. The Word was not inferior to God; it was God (John 1:1). The Word did not emanate from God over a period of time; it was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was none other than the Word, or God, revealed in flesh. Note also that the Greek word pros, translated “with” in verse 1, is the same word translated “pertaining to” in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: “The Word pertained to God and the Word was God,” or “The Word belonged to God and was God.”

Is this your writing or is there a source you are quoting ? My Rock

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Luke 1:35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Doesn't say He is called, but shall be called, future tense.

Good morning, Thank you My Rock.

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Free]

John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).

In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer—as a play in the mind of a playwright—or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed— as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed as the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fullness of time was come, God put His plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. As John Miller says, the Logos is “God uttering Himself.”1 In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, “The Word was God Himself.” Flanders and Cresson say, “The Word was God’s means of self disclosure.” This thought is further brought out by verse 14, which says the incarnate Word had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, and by verse 18, which says that the Son has declared the Father.

In Greek philosophy, the Logos came to mean reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe. In John’s day, some Greek philosophers and theologians influenced by Greek thought (especially by the Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria) regarded the Logos as an inferior, secondary deity or as an emanation from God in time.3 Some Christian heresies, including an emerging form of Gnosticism, were already incorporating these theories into their doctrines and therefore relegating Jesus to an inferior role. John deliberately used their own terminology to refute these doctrines and to declare the truth. The Word was not inferior to God; it was God (John 1:1). The Word did not emanate from God over a period of time; it was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was none other than the Word, or God, revealed in flesh. Note also that the Greek word pros, translated “with” in verse 1, is the same word translated “pertaining to” in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: “The Word pertained to God and the Word was God,” or “The Word belonged to God and was God.”

How about addressing some of the points I raised which are problematic for your position rather than just repeating your assertions?

Luke 1:35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Doesn't say He is called, but shall be called, future tense.

Yes, that is what people shall call him, but that doesn't mean the Son of God didn't already exist. Many of the passages I gave support that he did.

 

[Free]

The Word wasn't a "son" until He was born of woman.

Not necessarily. The incarnation reveals the eternal relationships among the three persons of the Trinity. The Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son. Otherwise, the Father wasn't the Father until the Word became the Son, and we don't really know who the Father was. That means we also don't really know who either the Word or the Holy Spirit were. Removing the eternal Sonship of Christ can lead to unitarianism.

Also, we are the analogues to God, since we are created in his image. God chose to reveal himself as Father and Son in a way that we could understand, because we know what the relationship of a father and son is. If there is no Father and Son relationship within the Godhead, then it really doesn't communicate anything to us about the Trinity. However, since God chose to reveal himself, in part, as Father and Son, it tells us something about the relationships within the Trinity and helps us understand that the Son is God.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This verse is particularly important, as it is the Son who is mentioned, not the Word. According to M. R. Vincent:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Mat_3:11); εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Act_2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Rom_6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him. Eἰς, into, is the preposition commonly used with baptize. See Act_8:16; Act_19:3, Act_19:5; 1Co_1:13, 1Co_1:15; 1Co_10:2; Gal_3:27. In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."


Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
(Not Jesus, per se, since that is the name of the Son in the flesh, but rather the Son.)

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
...
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

"Appeared" is phaneroō, and means "to make visible, make clear: — appear (1), appeared (6), appears (3), become visible (1), becomes visible (1), disclose (1), disclosed (1), displayed (1), made...evident (2), made known (1), made manifest (2), make...clear (1), manifested (18), manifests (1), revealed (7), show (1), shown (1)." (New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance)

Used also here of the second coming:

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

(All ESV.)

It was the Son who preexisted with the Father and was sent by the Father to be made manifest in human flesh for our salvation and the redemption of creation.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Scripture, please.

Love, Walter

Doesn't a child need to be conceived before it is a son or daughter ?
It's common sense.
The Word became Jesus at Jesus' conception in a woman.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Doesn't a child need to be conceived before it is a son or daughter ?
It's common sense.
The Word became Jesus at Jesus' conception in a woman.

Your statement is your way of thinking.

 

[My Rock]

Is this your writing or is there a source you are quoting ? My Rock

Comes from studying intensely the Word of God, years of teaching and preaching from pastors and Some Historical facts I looked up.

 

[My Rock]

The Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son. Otherwise, the Father wasn't the Father until the Word became the Son

There are multiple OT Scriptures that refer to God as a Father.

Deuteronomy 32:6, "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

Psalm 68:5, "A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation."

Isaiah 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."

Isaiah 64:8,"But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

Jeremiah 3:19,"But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me."

Exodus 4:22-23, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

2 Samuel 7:14 (also referenced in 1 Chronicles 17:13), "I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men."

That means we also don't really know who either the Word or the Holy Spirit were. Removing the eternal Sonship of Christ can lead to unitarianism.

The "Word" (John 1:1) refers to God's divine eternal self-expression, which was made flesh (Son) in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). This Word, or Logos, was God's singular divine essence in human form. The Sonship of Christ refers to His incarnation—God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the Sonship is not eternal but began at the moment of the incarnation, when the Forever Eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Son is eternal in the sense that He is the manifestation of the eternal God in time, but the role or office of "Son" began with the incarnation when the Word was made flesh. Therefore, while Jesus Christ as God is eternal, the specific role of the Son is understood to have a beginning in time, corresponding to His birth from Mary.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, active in creation, in the lives of believers, and in the incarnation of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit that was in Christ, as Paul explains in Romans 8:9, where he refers to the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably.

Understanding the Word and the Holy Spirit within this framework preserves the indivisible oneness of God. It acknowledges that God revealed Himself through the Word in Christ and through His Spirit in the church—without dividing His essence. The danger of Unitarianism is not in rejecting eternal Sonship but in failing to recognize the full deity of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit as expressions of the one true God. (This is not me) These manifestations are fully understood in the light of God's singular, unified nature, with Jesus Christ being the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

 

[Free]

There are multiple OT Scriptures that refer to God as a Father.

Deuteronomy 32:6, "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

Psalm 68:5, "A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation."

Isaiah 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."

Isaiah 64:8,"But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

Jeremiah 3:19,"But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me."

Exodus 4:22-23, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

2 Samuel 7:14 (also referenced in 1 Chronicles 17:13), "I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men."

Yes, and they all speak of God as being a father in protecting and providing those whom he created and called to be his people. None of them speak of the Father in relation to the Son; none are either inherently Trinitarian or unitarian.

The "Word" (John 1:1) refers to God's divine eternal self-expression, which was made flesh (Son) in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). This Word, or Logos, was God's singular divine essence in human form. The Sonship of Christ refers to His incarnation—God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the Sonship is not eternal but began at the moment of the incarnation, when the Forever Eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Son is eternal in the sense that He is the manifestation of the eternal God in time, but the role or office of "Son" began with the incarnation when the Word was made flesh. Therefore, while Jesus Christ as God is eternal, the specific role of the Son is understood to have a beginning in time, corresponding to His birth from Mary.

Except that Jesus himself said multiple times that he preexisted or that he preexisted with the Father, which is why both Paul and John do, multiple times.

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
...
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

(All ESV.)

It is not rational to believe that the Son didn't preexist as a distinct person from the Father if he said that he was with the Father "before the world existed" and that he had "come from God and was going back to God." Continually throughout the NT the language of Father and Son is that of distinctness, that they have always been distinct. If the Son is really the Father, then such distinction is pointless at best and purposely deceitful and misleading at worst.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, active in creation, in the lives of believers, and in the incarnation of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit that was in Christ, as Paul explains in Romans 8:9, where he refers to the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably.

Of course. It simply shows the closeness in relationship of the persons of the Trinity.

Understanding the Word and the Holy Spirit within this framework preserves the indivisible oneness of God. It acknowledges that God revealed Himself through the Word in Christ and through His Spirit in the church—without dividing His essence.

The Trinity does not divide the essence; it acknowledges the clear distinctness of the three eternal, divine, persons.

The danger of Unitarianism is not in rejecting eternal Sonship but in failing to recognize the full deity of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit as expressions of the one true God. (This is not me) These manifestations are fully understood in the light of God's singular, unified nature, with Jesus Christ being the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

But it makes God deficient and, therefore, not the God of Scripture. That is the danger in unitarianism. God cannot be love as John says he is in 1 John 4:8, 16. God can only be said to be loving, after he created beings to love. But, what does Jesus say?

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

"God is love" is an expression of His essential nature and not merely the idea that He is loving. It's the same as God is light (1 Joh 1:5) and God is spirit (Joh 4:24). To say that “God is love” raises the question of what love is, what the highest and greatest view of love is. Firstly, "love" here is the Greek word agape, and means "love," "brotherly love," "affection," "goodwill," "benevolence." In other words, it is an action towards another. Even apart from that, we know that at its fullest, love is an outward expression towards others which is reciprocated. Those who only love themselves we call narcissists and we wouldn't say they are loving.

For God to be love, to be agape, His love necessarily must have been towards at least one other person which was then reciprocated in loving relationship, prior to the creation of all time and space, for eternity past. And that is what we see in John 17:24--that the Father loved the Son, even before creation. It is also what we see in John 1:1--"the Word was with God." These fully support what John says in 1 John 4:8 and 16. It is impossible that God could be love itself, as John states, without anyone else to love prior to creation.

However, if God is unitarian (Islam, Arianism, Modalism, Oneness, Unitarianism), that is, he is ontologically one person, an absolute unity, then to say “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love,” as it leaves His love incomplete and deficient, meaning that he cannot be the true God of the Bible.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for eternity past. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.

Ultimately, the evidence overwhelmingly shows the triune nature of God and refutes unitarianism with its deficient view of God.

 

[My Rock]

Yes, and they all speak of God as being a father in protecting and providing those whom he created and called to be his people. None of them speak of the Father in relation to the Son; none are either inherently Trinitarian or unitarian.

I hope you are not implying I am unitarian. If so, I stated Clearly not me. Praise God!

 

[Free]

I hope you are not implying I am unitarian. If so, I stated Clearly not me. Praise God!

Not Unitarian, but you are UPC, correct? Oneness, just a new form of Modalism, has a unitarian view of God.

 

[My Rock]

Not Unitarian, but you are UPC, correct? Oneness, just a new form of Modalism, has a unitarian view of God.

The term "Unitarian" is often associated with a specific historical and theological movement that denies the deity of Christ and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, typically emphasizing the oneness of God to the exclusion of any concept of divine plurality. However, Oneness Pentecostalism (which I believe matches Scripture), while affirming the absolute oneness of God, differs significantly from classical Unitarianism and is not simply a new form of Modalism.

Oneness theology asserts that God is absolutely one, but this oneness encompasses the fullness of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Oneness believers hold that the titles "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" describe different manifestations or roles or expressions of the one God.

While Oneness Pentecostalism shares the emphasis on the oneness of God with Unitarianism, it strongly affirms the deity of Christ and the operation of the Holy Spirit as the same one God manifesting Himself in different ways. Therefore, it is distinct from both Unitarianism and classical Modalism, with its own unique theological framework centered on the belief in one God who has revealed Himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Free]

The term "Unitarian" is often associated with a specific historical and theological movement that denies the deity of Christ and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, typically emphasizing the oneness of God to the exclusion of any concept of divine plurality. However, Oneness Pentecostalism (which I believe matches Scripture), while affirming the absolute oneness of God, differs significantly from classical Unitarianism and is not simply a new form of Modalism.

Yes, I know all that, which is why I made the point of using it with and without a capitalized first letter. The Modalism/Oneness view of God is unitarian as opposed to trinitarian, but that isn’t to say they’re Unitarians.

Oneness theology asserts that God is absolutely one, but this oneness encompasses the fullness of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Oneness believers hold that the titles "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" describe different manifestations or roles or expressions of the one God.

Which is Modalism.

While Oneness Pentecostalism shares the emphasis on the oneness of God with Unitarianism, it strongly affirms the deity of Christ and the operation of the Holy Spirit as the same one God manifesting Himself in different ways. Therefore, it is distinct from both Unitarianism and classical Modalism, with its own unique theological framework centered on the belief in one God who has revealed Himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

Oneness is just a modern form of Modalism which I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. It’s trying to separate itself from the heresy of Modalism by acknowledging three (faux) coexisting divine persons, but being that it is unitarian and they’re all essentially the same person, it remains in the realm of Modalism.

If you would care to address my previous arguments about the deficiency of a unitarian view of God, that would be great.

 

[My Rock]

Yes, I know all that, which is why I made the point of using it with and without a capitalized first letter. The Modalism/Oneness view of God is unitarian as opposed to trinitarian, but that isn’t to say they’re Unitarians.


Which is Modalism.


Oneness is just a modern form of Modalism which I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. It’s trying to separate itself from the heresy of Modalism by acknowledging three (faux) coexisting divine persons, but being that it is unitarian and they’re all essentially the same person, it remains in the realm of Modalism.

If you would care to address my previous arguments about the deficiency of a unitarian view of God, that would be great.

Bold face type and color are to separate differences or to highlight points, Never at anytime do I want anyone to think I am yelling or in anger.

Oneness Pentecostal theology does share shares similarities with classic Modalism but has distinct differences. Classic Modalism, which emerged in the early Christian church, taught that God is a single person who revealed Himself in different modes or forms (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) at different times. This view was eventually rejected by the early church as heretical.

Oneness theology emphasizes that God is indeed one being who has revealed Himself as Father in creation , as Son (in His mediatorial, redemptive, and priestly role), and as Holy Spirit indwelling believers, but not merely as different modes or manifestations at different times. Instead, these are simultaneous roles or relationships of the one God. For example, while God was incarnate as Jesus (the Son), He remained omnipresent as the Father and active as the Holy Spirit.

The term "Son" refers specifically to God's manifestation in the flesh—Jesus Christ. This differs from classic Modalism, which might have implied that God temporarily ceased to be the Father or the Holy Spirit when He became the Son.


I will get to the other in a bit.

 

[JLB]

In a Trinity of Persons of God, who do you pray to. If Jesus do you ignore the Father and Holy Ghost.

All the Fullness of the Godhead is in Christ bodily Colossians 2:9 I pray to Jesus because He is the fullest representation of God.

I pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus.


But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Matthew 6:6-10


I worship Jesus.

When you worship Jesus, you are worshipping the Godhead.




JLB

 

[Free]

Bold face type and color are to separate differences or to highlight points, Never at anytime do I want anyone to think I am yelling or in anger.

Oneness Pentecostal theology does share shares similarities with classic Modalism but has distinct differences. Classic Modalism, which emerged in the early Christian church, taught that God is a single person who revealed Himself in different modes or forms (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) at different times. This view was eventually rejected by the early church as heretical.

Oneness theology emphasizes that God is indeed one being who has revealed Himself as Father in creation , as Son (in His mediatorial, redemptive, and priestly role), and as Holy Spirit indwelling believers, but not merely as different modes or manifestations at different times. Instead, these are simultaneous roles or relationships of the one God. For example, while God was incarnate as Jesus (the Son), He remained omnipresent as the Father and active as the Holy Spirit.

The term "Son" refers specifically to God's manifestation in the flesh—Jesus Christ. This differs from classic Modalism, which might have implied that God temporarily ceased to be the Father or the Holy Spirit when He became the Son.


I will get to the other in a bit.

Yes, I know all of that, as indicated in my post. Hence why I refer to the Oneness view of God as Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. The core issue is that there is only one divine person who manifests in three different modes. Whether one at a time in succession or all three at once, it’s still Modalism.

The biblical view is that there are three coexistent, coeternal persons within the one being that is God. Nowhere in Scripture is the Father said to have become the Son, and it shouldn’t, because we all know that it is nonsense to say that a father can be his own son or that a son is his own father. There is a distinction there.

Being that we are the analogues of God and that God communicates with us in ways we can understand, and since he revealed himself, in part, using a Father and Son relationship, we can then understand that they are distinct and of the same nature. Otherwise the Father and Son relationship is meaningless to us; it communicates nothing to us about who God is.

 

[My Rock]

The biblical view is that there are three coexistent, coeternal persons within the one being that is God. Nowhere in Scripture is the Father said to have become the Son, and it shouldn’t, because we all know that it is nonsense to say that a father can be his own son or that a son is his own father. There is a distinction there.

Being that we are the analogues of God and that God communicates with us in ways we can understand, and since he revealed himself, in part, using a Father and Son relationship, we can then understand that they are distinct and of the same nature. Otherwise the Father and Son relationship is meaningless to us; it communicates nothing to us about who God is.

Many verses of Scripture distinguish between the Father and Son in power, greatness, and knowledge. However, it is a great mistake to use them to show two persons in the Godhead. If a distinction exists between Father and Son as persons in the Godhead, then the Son is subordinate or inferior to the Father in deity. This would mean the Son is not fully God, because by definition God is subject to no one. By definition, God has all power (omnipotence) and all knowledge (omniscience). The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinction between the deity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son). As a man, Christ was subordinate to the Spirit of God that dwelt in Him.

Passages which speak of Jesus praying are either, Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not coequal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and deity, not between God and God.

 

[Free]

Many verses of Scripture distinguish between the Father and Son in power, greatness, and knowledge. However, it is a great mistake to use them to show two persons in the Godhead.

The mistake is to say that they are one and the same person. I find it interesting that you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I have made regarding the Father and Son relationship and how that communicates something to us. If they are essentially one and the same person, then such a revelation is meaningless. We know without a doubt that it is nonsense to say that a father is his own son or a son is his own father. To make them the same makes God unknowable--he says he is a Father, but we have no idea what that could mean; Jesus claims to be the Son of God, but we have no idea what that could mean.

All biblical understanding is grounded in the revelation that God is triune, that there has always existed a Father and Son (and the Spirit) in an intimate, loving relationship.

If a distinction exists between Father and Son as persons in the Godhead, then the Son is subordinate or inferior to the Father in deity. This would mean the Son is not fully God, because by definition God is subject to no one.

No. Your conclusion doesn't follow. As James White says, "Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature." The Son, begotten from all eternity, cannot cease to be God, because God cannot cease to be God. I discuss this below.

By definition, God has all power (omnipotence) and all knowledge (omniscience). The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinction between the deity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son). As a man, Christ was subordinate to the Spirit of God that dwelt in Him.

Yet, Scripture adequately shows that the Son has always existed, that he was the agent of creation, as I discuss below.

Passages which speak of Jesus praying are either, Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not coequal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists.

This is confusing the difference in how the three persons have always existed as God in and of himself, in unity, and the relationship of the three persons for the purposes of creation and redemption. The Father begat or generated the Son, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, from all eternity. As such, they are all coequal in power, glory, and being. This is what passages such as John 1:1-3 state. The Father sends the Son for the purpose of our redemption, the Son is willingly sent to acquire our redemption, and the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and works in and helps believers in various ways by applying Christ's redemption.

When looking at the plan of redemption, the Son willingly submits to the Father (Phil 2:6-8) when he becomes human, but that does not make him less than the Father.

The only distinction is between humanity and deity, not between God and God.

Jesus, John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews say otherwise:

First, in verse 5, Paul dismisses the idea of any other actual god or lord, supporting the monotheism he had just stated in verse 4:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Second, notice that at the end of verse 4, Paul says "there is no God but one." That is, at least in part, from Deut 6:4:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

Third, now look at what Paul writes in verse 6: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." Note that verse 6 is a continuing argument from verse 4. Putting the argument together then, without the aside in verse 5, we see: "we know . . . that there is no God but one yet for us there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." This strongly suggests that Paul was expanding on the Shema.

Fourth, if a person wants the verse to say that "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as 1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Fifth, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father and has never not existed. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God.

I have yet to have you or any other anti-Trinitarian provide any sort of rebuttal to those two arguments. Not a single one has even tried; it just gets ignored. If my arguments are wrong, it should be easy to show where.


Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Paul clearly states that it is the Son who was the agent of creation, by whom "all things were created" and who "is before all things." If the Son did not preexist for all eternity, then Paul has lied here. The logic is, again, simple. The Son had to be in existence prior to all creation in order to be the agent of all creation.


Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

But, that is a quote of Psalms 102:25-27:

Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

The writer of Hebrews has the Father attributing to the Son the work of creation by using a passage that speaks of Yahweh. Again, it necessarily follows that the Son had to be in existence prior to all creation.

Note that all of the above fully supports John 1:1-3, 10. It also is worth point out Jesus's name in Revelation:

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

It is also worth noting that this is John writing, the very one who referred to the Son as the Word in the prologue to his gospel.

 

[My Rock]

The mistake is to say that they are one and the same person. I find it interesting that you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I have made regarding the Father and Son relationship and how that communicates something to us. If they are essentially one and the same person, then such a revelation is meaningless. We know without a doubt that it is nonsense to say that a father is his own son or a son is his own father. To make them the same makes God unknowable--he says he is a Father, but we have no idea what that could mean; Jesus claims to be the Son of God, but we have no idea what that could mean.

All biblical understanding is grounded in the revelation that God is triune, that there has always existed a Father and Son (and the Spirit) in an intimate, loving relationship.

To assert unequivocally that Jesus is not the Father incarnate, regardless of any interpretive nuances or rationalizations, fundamentally disrupts the unity of God as revealed in Scripture. In Oneness theology, God is understood to be a singular, indivisible entity, and the incarnation of Jesus is seen as a profound manifestation of this one God. According to this perspective, Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead in human form, as stated in Colossians 2:9, which asserts that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This theological view emphasizes that there is no division in the nature of God; rather, Jesus is the visible expression of the one true God.

The concept of Jesus as God incarnate means that while He assumed a fully human nature, including all its limitations and experiences, this does not imply a division in the divine essence. Rather, it illustrates the remarkable condescension of the divine to enter into human experience fully. Jesus' human limitations, such as His knowledge and physical constraints, were part of His voluntary self-limitation in the incarnation, not a reduction of His divine nature. This perspective maintains that God, in His fullness, chose to reveal Himself through Jesus, experiencing human life in all its dimensions while remaining fundamentally one in essence and purpose.

Therefore, the distinction between Jesus’ humanity and divinity is not a matter of dividing God into separate persons or entities but is about understanding how the one true God chose to manifest His presence and work within the confines of human experience. This unity underscores the Oneness belief that God has revealed Himself as both transcendent and immanent, operating fully as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the singular, undivided essence of the divine.

 

[NoahK]

Let us delve into scripture, engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold different views, and prayerfully consider the implications of these concepts for our worship and daily lives. Whether Jesus is described as "begotten" or "eternal," the core message remains: He is the divine Son of God, who bridges the gap between humanity and God, offering us salvation and a restored relationship with the Creator. Through an active pursuit of understanding, we can deepen our faith and more effectively share the love of Christ with the world.

The answer to your question is: Yes.