What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Binyawmene]

More importantly, all the following comments you've posted about Revelation have to do with soteriology and eschatology, but you have failed to distinguish that fact from capital-T Theology (the nature of God). Jesus prior to creation being created is a much different Jesus than the one who surrendered his claim of equality with God and emptied himself (he did it - it was not to him or forced upon him in any way by another), took the form of a bondservant, being made in the likeness of men (Php 2).

I disagree. The Son didn't "surrendered his claim of equality with God." That's like applying "succession" to the Eternal Person.

I said: "This describes the 'state' of the Son-person as having a perpetual existence that continues in the past, continues into the present, and continues after it. He always has been and always will be the Son. That's why we imply "eternally" to "begotten" or eternally begotten Son. In other words, this denotes a state of being eternal of who he is continuously and on-going duration, timeless and perpetual, a universal truth is true for all time -- true in the past, true in the present, and true in the future."​

The Son "emptying himself" doesn't have its vantage point in "the form of God" which is in connection to the "equality with God." The form of God simply mean that the Divine Nature has a "inward quality and outward invisible appearance" in the sense of having a shape and a fashion -- the outwardness of a nature -- which should be distinguish between "essential quality" from the "form" but in complete harmony. I don't believe that God is a formless nature, in the same way, I don't believe humans are formless nature.

He didn't empty any of his divine attributes, equality or being God. Which the Son has a continuous state of existence in the form of God without change or alteration. Rather, the vantage point is what he is "taking on" which is "the form of the servant" which causes him to "humbled himself by becoming obedient." The human weakness of sufferings produces his obedience. Because the Son has appropriated all the human nature's laws, properties, and functions of the flesh that became his own. The Son who remains "equal to the Father" is also "equal with us" in the human nature which is lower than the angels and ontologically subordinate.

Now I do not know where you personally and specifically fall on my next point, but I am going to speak to it preemptively.

My position is quite simple. The Son-person is not restricted in the "hypostatic union" as a resting place but transcends the union by the logical conjunction (HE is both God and Man), which is the equivalent and presence of both simultaneously. He is equally present at all times and in all places according to the Divine Nature. Nothing is hidden in His sight but fully present everywhere and He is not hiding in gaps. (Hebrews 4:13, Proverbs 15:3) but transcends God-of-the-gaps. He can be worshipped on a mountain or in Jerusalem, even worship in any place (John 4:24, Acts 17:27). He would not be limited to an isolated space but eternally transcends all spatial locations and spatial dimensions. He is trans-spatial and fully present in every point and extremities. He cannot be partially underneath a rock on mars and partially underneath a rock on earth. There is no division in the Divine Nature but fully present in every place with His whole indivisible Divine Nature (Jeremiah 23:23-24, Psalms 139:7-10).

I would also submit Jesus' "human nature" is omnipresent but that is fodder for a separate post.

I disagree Scripturally. The Divine Nature always has a 'constant' and 'continuous' inseparable presence with the human nature in the union by the Son. And the underlying concept of the law of inseparable has only one operational functionality between the two natures. And this functionality can only go one way, from the Divine Nature to be 'present at hand' with the locally restricted human nature, like according to the human nature "Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee" (Matthew 4:18) and according to the Divine Nature "he is not far from any one of us" (Acts 17:27) and this functionality cannot go both ways since the human nature cannot be 'present at hand' with the omnipresent Divine Nature. For instance, Jesus Christ as 'walking' is according to the human nature, which is, a localized physical bodily movement (Matthew 4:18, 14:25-26, Luke 4:30, 24:15, etc.) and not everywhere present like the Divine Nature that is 'filling the whole universe' (Jeremiah 23:23-24, Psalms 139:7-10 i.e. Ephesians 4:10, 1:22-23, Colossians 3:11, Acts 17:27).

Because the human nature remains restricted locally and cannot itself be so immense to the point that it loses all its physicality, locally restrictiveness, and preserved properties to become ubiquitous. Then go for the ride so to speak with the omnipresent Divine Nature. Then simultaneously the human nature is physically present locally from where he was, like "Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee" by being fully intact without any diminishes. This means that the standpoint of "constant continuous inseparable presence" cannot be within the Divine Nature omnipresence because the human nature itself cannot surpass the bounds of being locally restricted to become ubiquitous to the omnipresent Divine Nature. For instance, according to the human nature, Jesus Christ's ascension was localized physical bodily movement (John 16:28, Luke 24:50-51, Acts 1:9-11, Hebrews 4:14) and visibly seen. The human nature is spatial locally and limited restrictively by being in one place at one time.

Again: look at what you just posted. Psalm 90:2 does not state his sonship is everlasting. Furthermore, the phrase "everlasting to everlasting" is not synonymous with "eternal."

Everlasting must certainly does imply eternal. It's a Biblical description for eternal. He is the everlasting God before creation and will be everlasting God after creation. Again, the eternity of God the Son is an Eternal Now for there is no succession in his Eternal Person. If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son.

The word "everlasting" is unidirectional (in this case the starting point is the creation of the world). Eternity is bi-directional, or omni-directional. Up, down, north, south, forward, backward, before, after are ALL created features of created creation. They do not exist in eternity.

But not when its applied to the Son, eternal now, implies eternally begotten. There is no succession in his Eternal Person.

There is no "yesterday" or "today" in eternity.

That's exactly my point of quoting Hebrews 1:5, 13:8. You are viewing the author of Hebrews' literacy device, "yesterday" and "today" and "your years will never end," from a starting point. I see the author speaking from eternal point of view.

In Hebrews 1:3 hos ôn or "Who being ["is" depending on which English translation]" (Subject + Verb), the word "being" is a verb ôn, a present active participle and in the nominative case. The verb ôn gives a description of a state of being. The idea of a present active participle tells us that in this "state of being" its continuous and perpetual, which carries a timeless or generic thought in a gnomic present tense. And this "state of being" is continuous duration through pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation.

That means the author of Hebrews is giving a summary from preexistence into exaltation without the amount of time it took to accomplish the action. The author is giving a 'punctiliar thought' by describing past events into a collective whole without placing distinctive time-markers on how long it took place over a period of time since it's an eternal now and no successions. He remains the Eternal Son through it all.

1). The Son is the radiance of God's glory
2). and the exact representation of his being
3). sustaining all things by his powerful word
4). he had provided purification for sins
5). he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven​

 

[Josheb]

The Father and the Son sitting on the same throne implies the Son is not eternally subordinate?

Yes. Is that not understood? If not then let's focus in this point alone and not get distracted by all the soteriological and eschatological content of the Old and New Testaments.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about Ontological Trinity or Economical Trinity.

I completely agree. Jesus, the Son of God who is God sitting on his Father's throne is an indication of equality and not subordination whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true or not.

However, given the fact, logically speaking, there cannot be two almighty Gods existing at the same time (do you follow that reasoning?) their sitting on the throne also indicates a cohesive unity rather than a subordinate separateness. They cannot both be Judges or each other or Rulers over each other.

The Son still receives glory regardless of if he is equal or subordinate. The Father and the Son are co-equal creator, even though, the Son was subordinate in the act of creating. For instance, worshiping the Son based upon one of his subordinate functional roles, like being the Creator, that doesn't mean the Father receives all the glory credit. Why? Because they subsist in the same Divine Nature. To worship the Father is to glorify the Son and the Holy Spirit. To worship the Son is to glorify the Father and the Holy Spirit. And to worship the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Father and the Son.



Except, I didn't say that the Lamb was sitting on the throne. The glorified Son was already described in Revelations 1:12-15 and the Lamb is a christophany Revelation 5:6.

I said: "And Revelations certainly does make the distinction between "one sitting" and "the Lamb" (Revelations 5:13, 6:16)." I also said: "So, based on this, I would say that the "present at hand" accordance to the throne in heaven, is a manifestation of theophany and the Lamb is a manifestation of christophany."​

So, based upon your line of reasoning, the Eternal Lamb or the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world is subordinate for us and our salvation cannot be worshipped because he is not co-equal? Foreknowledge and Christophany or not the Lamb was worshipped.

Revelations 5:11-13 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they were saying:

“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”​

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”​

The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.



I never said that the throne is omnipresent.

I said: "1. The Divine Nature is not bound to a spatial location (the throne in heaven) or confined to union of the human nature by the Son-person, then jump from point A to point B (Jeremiah 23:23-24, 2 Chronicles 2:6, 1 Kings 8:27). The Divine Nature is omnipresence and is equally present everywhere at all times and in all places. This means that the logical standpoint is "present at hand" accordance to the throne in heaven and "present at hand" according to the human nature and not vice versa. Because the throne and the human nature is not omnipresence."​

Now that is interesting Bible verses. The Hebrew doesn't say, "is" in Isaiah 66:1 and the Greek has the word "is" (the throne is of God) and not "throne is heaven." What I see from those Bible verses is God's immensity and transcendence. God's throne has a seat and one sat in it (Hebrews 1:3, 4:16, 8:1, 12:2). God has one throne and not another throne at the right side.

Again, most of that is irrelevant because it is al either soteriological or eschatological and both the soteriological and eschatological conditions are temporal, not eternal.


All Virginians like ham so you must also necessarily like ham, to.
But I'm Ohioan, not Virginian.
That does not matter I am making it apply to you any way.
Aaarrggh!

Soteriology and eschatology are temporal New Testament conditions.
I don't care I am going to make them apply to Jesus eternally anyway.
Aaarrggh!


Jesus is much more than the Lord and Savior of sinners. He exists whether or not a single sinner ever got judged or not. Jesus is extra-soteriological and extra-eschatological. Nothing I have posted should in any way be read to say I deny the salvific role Jesus plays in the Bible. The problem is soteriology and eschatology are not the only measures of Jesu and neither category is a whole measure. They speak toonly two of many roles Jesus plays in creation. They speak to only two very limited aspects of the Son's relationship with the Father. The fact is the language of Father and Son is largely a New Testament phenomenon and that fact should not be ignored. There are reasons why the OT did not use that language. Nothing temporal is eternal.

The "right hand" simply means power and authority or the one sitting on God's throne has overcome the world and exalted into that position.

No, that is incorrect. That statement would be correct if the word "simply" had been left out. The phrase or attribute of "right hand" does mean power and authority but that is not simply all that it means.

This should have been recognized the minute you read Jesus sitting on God's throne. Jesus, the right hand of God (when it comes to power and authority) is seated at the LORD's right hand (Ps. 110) on God's throne and God's throne is the heavens. In other words, these attributes are co-occurring, not mutually exclusive. Jesus is the power of God whether that be the right-hand power, the left-hand power, the little toe on the right foot power. The power of the LORD and that of the Lord are not mutually exclusive conditions. Before creation was created Jesus was the logos of God that is God. His being the logos and the right hand are not mutually exclusive conditions.

And, AGAIN, most of what you've cited is good and I am encouraged to read you using scripture, but the problem is that most of is about temporal conditions, not eternal ones. This is like when people take verses written about the saints and try applying them to atheists. Saints are not atheists. Treating them synonymously is a false equivalence (apples and oranges). The Bible very, very, very, very rarely has anything to say about atheists.

Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

Saints do not say, "There is no God." Saints are not fools. Saints are not atheists.

Soteriology and eschatology are not eternal. They are temporal. You cannot take scriptures that speak about temporal conditions and assume they apply to eternity. EVERYTHING about Jesus as Savior is necessarily temporal. When salvation from sin and wrath are finished so too will his role as Savior - so too will be his role in God's salvation. The LORD and the Lord will still be in relationship long after the purpose of salvation is finished. Do not take temporal conditions and use them as eternal measures.

The Father and the Son sitting on the same throne implies the Son is not eternally subordinate?

Yes.

Is that understood? Can you see how that is the case?

 

[Josheb]

1). The Son is the radiance of God's glory​

2). and the exact representation of his being​

3). sustaining all things by his powerful word​

4). he had provided purification for sins​

5). he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven​

With the possible exception of the third point, all of that is about created conditions inside creation. Not a single point has anything to do with pre-creation or eternal condition.

You're still falling prey to applying temporal conditions inappropriately to eternity. When the scriptural writer says Jesus is the radiance of God's glory he is writing to believers about believers and something believers understand. Jesus is not the radiance of God's glory to those facing destruction, and if he is a radiance of God's glory it is a completely different radiance than that which is experienced by the saints. For u he radiates God's love but for them he'll radiate egregious wrath. Not synonymous at all.

Prior to creating creation God (the Father, Son, and Separate Sacred Spirit) did not need to radiate anything to anyone and there was no one to whom they might radiate. Their glory was enjoyed in and of themselves. Think eternally, not temporally.

 

[Josheb]

Everlasting most certainly does imply eternal.

Prove it.

It's a Biblical description for eternal.

Prove it.

He is the everlasting God before creation and will be everlasting God after creation.

You just proved what I said.

Again, the eternity of God the Son is an Eternal Now

I completely agree. The problem is you keep taking created and temporal conditions and treat them as if they are eternal nows when they are not. Jesus was not always the Savior because sin has not always existed and it will not always exist. Eternally speaking, sin is a passing moment inside creation. It is temporal, NOT eternal. Does the relationship with God remain unchanged when the role of the Savior is completed and finished? If the answer is, "No," then you already know Jesus' subordinate role as Savior from sin is not eternal.

for there is no succession in his Eternal Person. If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son.

If you're trying to leverage divine aseity and immutability then I can applaud the principle but not the method by which it is leveraged. Eternally, God is immutable and self-existingly so. However, inside creation He is many things at many times in many ways and not all of them are eternal.

You cannot take temporal conditions and apply them to eternity. There is a reason the language of Father and Son are New Testament phenomena.

But not when its applied to the Son, eternal now, implies eternally begotten. There is no succession in his Eternal Person.

Scripture. I told you I am not interested in appeals to extra-biblical sources. I fully accept, embrace, believe, and stand firm on Jesus' eternal existence, not just his everlasting existence, but if you cannot make your case with just scripture and rightly rendered scripture, then I'll move on. You can argue that with someone else. Just let me know.

"Josh, I cannot make my case without appealing to the creeds."

It's okay. I take no offense. I'm just not interested and hope you learn to make your case without appeals to extra-biblical sources OR bend your understanding to what scripture says without the outside sources.





So, are we going to keep the conversation limited to scripture as the sole measure? Are you going to make an effort to discriminate between the scriptures explicitly about temporal conditions and those explicitly about eternal conditions and not conflate the two? Do I have you consent to point out lapses of conflation when they occur? Or shall I move on? Either way, I appreciate the patience and forbearance already in evidence and hope my bluntness was not taken to offend.

Just let me know.

 

[Arial]

What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)? This doctrine teaches that the Son is not ontologically subordinate but is relationally subordinate or a Father and Son relationship. The Son's eternal relationship to the Father has always been an eternal “authority” (on the part of the Father) and eternal “subordination” (on the part of the Son). If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son. And the authority over the Son is relational to the Father, and subordination to the Father is relational of the Son. I will demonstrate one example of this in respect to creation. The Scriptures says that "without him" there would be no creation and no subordination. So, the eternal subordination of the Son is done "for him" and his functional role is "for us and for our salvation."

Here is a basic subordinate framework: From the Father and through the Son

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.​

​

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.​

​

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.​

​

Hebrews 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.​

​

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.​

Now in Romans 11:36, the three "Hims" in the first sentence is one-person view in reference to the Son or two-person view in reference to both the Father and the Son? And who is receiving "glory?" Keep in mind that "without him" (John 1:3) there would be no creation. Which bring us to Revelations 4:11, who "the Lord and God of us" is receiving glory credit for creation? The Father or the Son? Or both who is Lord and God?

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”​

The Son is subordinate to the Father in His incarnation, and subordinate in this case does not mean less than, but rather, obedient to. Remember He came as one of us, to substitute Himself for us in the atonement, and as man He is obedient to God, just as we were created to be. For this same reason, as man, He calls God Father, and it is God who is Father to those in Christ. You might say that just as YHWH was the covenant name of God in the Old Covenant, Father is our covenant name for God in the New Covenant.

And we do not know that Jesus was known as Son before His incarnation. We are only told that He came as the Son of God and the Son of Man. But God in His very being as triune is not divided into "persons" that are subordinate or superior to Himself within Himself.

 

[grace2]

And we do not know that Jesus was known as Son before His incarnation.

Jesus was God's begotten Son—the firstborn of all creation.

God, the Father created all things. He, the God, the Father, is the source of all creation.

I know you guys believe Jesus created all things. but Jesus was given the power to create all things by His Father.

 

[Binyawmene]

The Son is subordinate to the Father in His incarnation, and subordinate in this case does not mean less than, but rather, obedient to. Remember He came as one of us, to substitute Himself for us in the atonement, and as man He is obedient to God, just as we were created to be. For this same reason, as man, He calls God Father, and it is God who is Father to those in Christ. You might say that just as YHWH was the covenant name of God in the Old Covenant, Father is our covenant name for God in the New Covenant.

And we do not know that Jesus was known as Son before His incarnation. We are only told that He came as the Son of God and the Son of Man. But God in His very being as triune is not divided into "persons" that are subordinate or superior to Himself within Himself.

There are two verses that comes to mind.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,​

He is known as the Son in preexistence, prior to the incarnation.

 

[Josheb]

There are two verses that comes to mind.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,​

​

Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,​

Yes. God sent His Son.

He is known as the Son in preexistence, prior to the incarnation.

That is not what either verse actually states. Why do you read either verse to say anything about eternal conditions?

Take, for example, the following text,

1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

This aspect about his being "foreknown" is an indication of what he was prior to his entrance into human history. As what was he foreknown? He was foreknown as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice. Jesus did not become perfect. Jesus did not become blemish-free. He most certainly did not become either thing because of his entrance into creation. His entrance did not cause his perfection. Neither can we say Jesus was at any time imperfect and blemished because any such case would instantly preclude him from being able to address the problem of sin on another's behalf. This is an example of a verse that speaks about the pre-existent state, his nature prior to creation being created and prior to his entrance into creation, prior to his being the logos of God that is God made flesh (monogenes sarx egentos).

Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4 state nothing about Jesus and his pre-existence. Those two verses are about God and God's sending, not about the Son's pre-existence. Neither verse actually states he was "Son" prior to his incarnation. The closest you're going to get is Psalm 2:7 and even that verse is a temporal statement about conditions and events pertaining to a post-disobedient world. There's no sin prior to creation. There's no need for God to send His Son to address sin. Yes, it is possible to infer Jesus was His Son before being sent, but that is not what either verse actually states and if you're going to form doctrine and going to persuade others then start first with what scripture states explicitly.

You do not find others' inferences effective (at least I hope you do not ). We do not , either.

Another example of a pre-creation scripture would be John 1:1. In the beginning Jesus was the logos of God that is God. That is an eternal statement about eternal conditions, not a statement solely about post-disobedient conditions, and we know that because there was no disobedience in the beginning.

Do not use temporal conditions to define eternity.

 

[Binyawmene]

Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4 state nothing about Jesus and his pre-existence.

Those verses clearly demonstrated the point. The sending is prior to the incarnation is known as preexistence of the Son.

 

[Josheb]

Those verses clearly demonstrated the point. The sending is prior to the incarnation is known as preexistence of the Son.

I disagree and your case must have more substance if you mean to persuade me.

 

[Binyawmene]

I disagree and your case must have more substance if you mean to persuade me.

Why do I want to persuade you for? And your point will be?

 

[Binyawmene]

Yes. Is that not understood?

No. Because it makes no sense according to the Trinity doctrine.

If not then let's focus in this point alone and not get distracted by all the soteriological and eschatological content of the Old and New Testaments.

Present your Scriptural case for "the Father and the Son sitting on the same throne implies the Son is not eternally subordinate." Then we can discuss it. No need for philosophy.

I completely agree. Jesus, the Son of God who is God sitting on his Father's throne is an indication of equality and not subordination whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true or not.

Of course, the Son is ontologically equal and relationally subordinate. Being subordinate doesn't suggest that the Son isn't God. What is the Scriptural qualification that the Son must be equal to sit on the throne?

Revelation 3:21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.​

Victorious means equality?

However, given the fact, logically speaking, there cannot be two almighty Gods existing at the same time (do you follow that reasoning?)

Do you reject Perichoresis? I don't follow your line of reasoning. There is only one God or Divine Nature. You think the Father-person sitting down is separate from the Divine Nature and from the other two persons?

their sitting on the throne also indicates a cohesive unity rather than a subordinate separateness. They cannot both be Judges or each other or Rulers over each other.

There is no separation in the Trinity. Subordination is relational and the functional role is for him and for us. It has nothing to do with one ruling over the other.

The fact is the language of Father and Son is largely a New Testament phenomenon and that fact should not be ignored. There are reasons why the OT did not use that language. Nothing temporal is eternal.

I can think of one in Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!

The rest of your post was more philosophical. You didn't deal with Hebrews 1:3, 5, 10-12, 13:8.

But I would assume you don't reject that the Son is eternal (Psalm 90:2, Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalm 102:25-27, Micah 5:2, Luke 3:38, Hebrews 7:3, 13:8, Revelations 1:8). You just have issues with eternal subordination. Right?

 

[CherubRam]

Yahwah says:
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

Psalm 89:6
For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like Yahwah among the heavenly beings?

Psalm 86:8
Among the gods of "The Living One" there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours.

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God of the living ones, and there is none like me.

2 Samuel 7:22
“How great you are, Sovereign Lord Yahwah! There is no one like you, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.

1 Chronicles 17:20
“There is no one like you, Yahwah, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.


Yahshua said:
John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, Jesus is His Father's faithful Servant. He says so Himself.

Moses also predicted Him and told us to listen to Him and obey Him as our Lord.

yes and amen. God has made this man, Jesus of Nazareth, both Lord and Christ. God anointed Jesus with the holy spirit and power at John's water baptism of repentance. Jesus went around doing good, healing, and performing miracles because God was with Jesus working through him. This is all sola scriptura. It's interesting so many people need to deny these things.

 

[Runningman]

Thus proving Jesus is not the Father, but Jesus is God in that the same Greek word for "Sovereign Lord" is used in equality to Jesus in Revelation 6:10 - see post 32.

Simple.

Thus proving Jesus is neither Father, Creator, or God. Case closed. God will honor the plain language of Acts 4:24,27.

 

[Fred]

God will honor the plain language of Acts 4:24,27.

You dodged Revelation 6:10, which also has plain language.

Quite obvious.

Let me clue you in on something. It is still there.

 

[Binyawmene]

Prove it.

Prove it.

Okay. I accept the definition from Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology" p. 168 "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being." I'm not sure you would consider it as proof, but I'll demonstrate it Scripturally.

Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.​

You said that "everlasting to everlasting" doesn't mean eternal and want me to prove it. The thing is, you don't see and view the descriptive phrase "everlasting to everlasting" from an eternal viewpoint. But if you read further from the same chapter, we read in verse 4:

A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.​

Here is another descriptive phrase "a thousand years in your sight are like a day," its describing an eternal now. If a thousand years is like a day, then everlasting to everlasting is like a day too. Here are some more examples of descriptive phrases:

Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. (Hebrews 1:10-12).​

How long has the earth been around? The Son is a co-Creator of the earth, and his "years will never end." Eternally creating the earth was like yesterday to him, or in other words, an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrase:

Hebrews 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.​

The Son is an eternally priest, "without beginning of days or end of life." Being a priest to him was like yesterday or an eternal now.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.​

There is no succession in his Eternal Person of the Son. He has been the same eternally, the "yesterday and today and forever" is an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrase:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?​

The Father and the Son has always been eternally a relationship. It doesn't matter if there is without beginning, everlasting, yesterday, even today. According to the Eternal Son, his relationship with the Father is an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrases:

Revelations 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelations 22:12-13 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.​

The Son when he comes in his second coming will also be the judgement. But the Eternal Son remains the same from the beginning to the ending. That is like yesterday to him or an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrase:

Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’​

We as humans are not eternal in our essential nature or "known the end from the beginning." But God is an eternal now, the ending is like the beginning to him, who is without beginning and ending. God created time and is LORD over time. He can see all events equally and vividly simultaneously, and act within our timeframe. But all of that is just an eternal now according to God. Are you still willing to reject the doctrine of "Eternally Begotten Son"? Maybe you are still stuck on Creedal and need me to demonstrate that scripturally.

What I am pointing out that the Person of the Son according to the Divine Nature maintain an eternal infinite duration without past, present, and future. A continuous duration without beginning and will have no end. Which is not a momentary existence but continuous perpetual existence. And he is not limited by a period of time itself in any way; for he supersedes and transcends it. For he is existing beyond the bounds of time and dimensions of his creation. Because essentially, he cannot be measured by eternal future which is infinitely without end and the eternal past which is infinitely without beginning. The eternity of God the Son is an Eternal Now for there is no succession in his Eternal Person.

 

[Arial]

Jesus was God's begotten Son—the firstborn of all creation.

God, the Father created all things. He, the God, the Father, is the source of all creation.

I know you guys believe Jesus created all things. but Jesus was given the power to create all things by His Father.

When "we guys" say that Christ created all things, we are repeating what the Bible says. Col 1
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

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

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[grace2]

When "we guys" say that Christ created all things, we are repeating what the Bible says. Col 1
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

It says "through Him" everything was created.

There is a big difference.

And we are also created in the image of an invisible God.

 

[Arial]

There are two verses that comes to mind.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,​

​

Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,​

He is known as the Son in preexistence, prior to the incarnation.

Those verses do not say He was Son in pre-existence. In fact in John 1, where it is speaking of His pre-existence, He is identified as the Word. And in the OT, before the incarnation, He is evident but not called the Son. In prophecy ---Messiah.