Things New and Old

Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths.

Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.

Many things taught by the Apostles of Christ have been perverted or substituted over the centuries. Such fundamental doctrines like salvation by grace and justification have been hijacked and perverted and repudiated by sincere Christians. These doctrines need to be reclaimed and restored to God's people.

There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" 2Ti 2:7.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Sons musing on Jesus' Sonship - 2b

POST 41
On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Jon wrote:

Dear brother Sing,
My comments after each question.
Jon.

1. Would it be right to conclude that WITHOUT the divine activity of the Highest and the Holy Ghost, there would be no Son of God?
Brother, that is what we believe. When I read Psalm 89:27, I find a similar use of the future tense for the Lord Jesus Christ, indicating that He was not yet that firstborn son higher than the kings of the earth. Even the well known prophecies of Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6-7 are future tense. As your copied passage above indicates, Jesus was the prophesied Son of David, which means He had to come after David, but when? Your passage gives the answer. Neither David nor God had the prophesied Son until Jesus of Nazareth was born of the virgin Mary. Without the divine activity of the Highest and the Holy Ghost, there would only be the Word of God. For without His human nature and flesh, brought about by a supernatural birth, there would be no Son of God.

2. Without the eternal Word made flesh, there would be no begotten Son of the Father?
Amen! It was the visible, earthly, human Godman that John wrote about in John 1:14. It was not until men could behold God's glory expressed through the man Christ Jesus that they could witness the only begotten son of God. This very visible and touchable Man is the Son of God John declared in his gospel and his epistles (John 1:18; I John 1:1-3; 5:5).

3. Does 'shall be called' [future passive] indicate that the Son of God does not yet exist before the mysterious event in Luke 1:34 transpired?
That is what I believe, brother. Amen! Those who argue that the text only indicates a future calling and naming of the son of God are quibbling and scrapping to protect their heresy of eternal generation. Since the Son was made of a woman (Gal 4:4), who is his eternal mother? Should we also take Isaiah 7:14 and believe that Immanuel existed before, but he would be called such at some time in the future?

4. If the Son of God existed before the eternal Word was made flesh in time, what should it be instead of 'shall be called'?
Renamed? Jesus was "called" the Son of God ... BECAUSE OF HIS SUPERNATURAL BIRTH ... by virtue of the Spirit's use of "therefore." Since there had been no such birth before, there had been no other being to call the Son of God before (in the incarnational sense of that title). The Seed of the Woman had been a future event from Gen 3:15 to Luke 1:35, but in the fulness of time God finally sent His Son ... not from heaven where he had been from eternity ... but from Mary or Nazareth into Israel, just like God sent John and the disciples into the world (John 1:6). The Holy Spirit did not need to word each verse in the Bible in such a way as to preclude all heresies by every single verse, for the rest of the Bible is supposed to be our guide when interpreting any individual verse (II Pet 1:20; I Cor 2:13). The arguments I have heard from the word "called" only prove to me that God wrote it that way to provide them the rope to hang themselves, for the Bible plainly declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.

5. Did the Son of God exist at the point of the conversation in Luke 1:32-35?
Only if Jesus had been conceived at that point, but the angel declared the conception was still future (days or hours, most likely).

My understanding of this doctrine is this simple: Who is the Son of God? If you correctly answer, "Jesus of Nazareth," I will then ask, "When did Jesus of Nazareth begin to exist?" We all know when Jesus began to exist, because Matthew 1:20-23 and other places tell us very plainly.

The simple declaration that forms the basis of our religion, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God," answers the whole matter. The Word of God is not the Son of God, because without flesh the Word of God is God only, not the Godman or Mediator that Jesus Christ was and forever shall be.
--------------------------

POST 42
On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:12 AM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

You wrote: "A couple of brief observations regarding your reliance on Luke 1:35 and John 1:14. Luke 1:35 tells us what He shall be called, but it does not state that He became the Son at that time. That is the reason I raised Eve’s creation to you. She was woman before Adam called her woman. His calling her “woman” made no change in her being, her essential constitution. Grammatically or theologically, it appears to me that you are pouring more into this verse than it will support."

It is a good thing we can converse like this... it helps me to learn the Scriptures for myself. The ‘e-seminary’ is a helpful instrument in my further instruction in the things of God. Apart the forum, I have very few friends I could converse profitably.

I think you missed the significance of the parallel I was pointing out to you.

First there was no woman. But there was the existing man. Then woman was made out of the man. Because the woman was taken/made out of man, [and when the man behold her, he cried out, Wo, man! what a lovely creature, just like me! ;-)) ] THEREFORE, she shall be called Wo-MAN.

Even so, first there was no Son of God. But there was the eternal Word. The divine activity of begetting was announced. It shall happen. Then the Word was made flesh. Jesus was made out of the eternal Word, who was God. Because Jesus was God made in the likeness of sinful flesh, THEREFORE Jesus shall be called the Son of God, being truly God and truly man.

'Shall be called' cannot be used to prove son-ship PRIOR to the incarnation that is so plainly stated. Just doesn't make sense. Might as well use 'shall be called' to prove 'woman-hood' PRIOR to her being taken out of man.

'Shall be called' presupposes the bringing into being the thing to be called with the name that describes it true nature. It appears to me that to use 'shall be called' to prove prior existence of the thing to be named is simply non-sensical, and desperate. If that's the case, then it should be not be 'future passive,' it should be 'present indicative.' If the thing already exist, then it should simply be, IS CALLED.

I am only capable of common sense understanding.

sing
--------------


POST 43
On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

Thanks for the clarification. Increasingly I believe our difference primarily deals with our different definitions of the term “Son.” I do not disagree with any point you make regarding the “Word’s” eternality and equality within the Trinity. Interestingly that is the only point being made by those of us who have disagreed with you on forum. In fact that appears to be Gill’s point as well.

Personally I do not ever use the term “eternal generation” when preaching on the Second Person, including both names, Word and Son. I can’t speak for all of Gill’s writings on the question, but in the two excerpts I quoted from him, the only point he made was that “Son” is not a term to be used exclusively of Incarnation, but that it identifies the Second Person prior to Incarnation. Gill goes on to affirm what I’ve been trying to say, that the significance of “Son” in this context simply identifies equality, nothing more.

A simple observation. When discussing issues with folks with whom we disagree, good communications require us to look at their conclusions through their definitions, not through ours. If you import your definition of “Son” to my points and those of other FGF writers on the issue, I can fully appreciate the confusion that necessarily follows. However, if you accept our definition of “Son” as referring to equality, nothing more, we are effectively saying the same thing.

If we accept the term “Son” as identifying equality, all of the “Son of…” passages in the gospels take on a highly enlightening perspective. For example, your passage, Luke 1:35; in predicting the birth of a child one would expect the term “Son of man” to define equality with humanity, but the inspired author surprises us with “Son of God.” To assert that this child to be born would be equal with God would be an incredible claim, one that would demand acknowledgement of the whole concept of Incarnation, God becoming man. There are several passages where similar points seem to stand out particularly. Conversely, when Jesus is referred to as “Son of man,” the implication is that He in this context claims equality with man. He alone, of all beings who ever existed or could exist, can claim both titles and equality in both natures. This uniquely qualifies Him alone to serve as the true and full Mediator between God and man.

Consider this possibility. We find that both God the Father and the Second Person in the Trinity are referred to in Scripture by a variety of names. The various names do not identify so many different beings, but rather they emphasize various traits of God. If I approach the two terms in question in the same way, what are the consequences of my conclusion? When the Second Person in the Trinity is referred to as the “Word” of God, the divine “Logos,” the emphasis of the passage is on the fact that He uniquely serves as the divine “Communicator” of God to man, to His chosen people. Hebrews 1:1-3 clearly speaks to this truth. When a passage refers to Him as the “Son of God,” the emphasis is on His full equality with the Father, possessing all the essential and incommunicable attributes of God with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. That is what I believe the intent of these terms is intended to communicate to us.

Now tell me. Are we closer to agreement than you thought, or am I a heretic?

Love in Christ,
Jay
-------------------

POST 44
On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:36 AM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

Thanks for your further thoughts.
Are you a hair-tick? I would rather that I am a heretic instead of a venerable brother like you! Because if you are one, you would be in a very hot oven soon. Those PB biggies will roast you properly. So, I would rather that I be the heretic... no PB would roast a non-halal lad like me.

I am not sure if anything I have said that gave the slightest indication that I diminish or deny the Son's eternality and equality within the Trinity. The divinity of the Son is EXACTLY the same as the divinity of the eternal Word... this is taken for granted and explicitly affirmed in all my post. Why would someone even conclude that I say otherwise? So, this is the point which so many PBs find scruples with my present understanding. The scruple is only a red herring to distract from the main issue.

BUT the Word is God, and the Son is God-man. Before the Word was incarnated, they was no Son. This is the issue that is being discussed, and appears to me, it is strenuously AVOIDED, or vehemently REJECTED by the PBs. Is the Son of God generated/begooten in eternity or in time? This is a very simple question. The eternality and the equality of the Son's divinity are ENTIRELY BESIDE the point - that's not the issue.

I believe the whole issue is about the eternal generation of the second Person of the Trinity - that was the initial question I started off.

You said, “the only point he made was that “Son” is not a term to be used exclusively of Incarnation.” This statement probably puts the finger upon the whole discussion.
If "Son" is not a term to be used exclusively of Incarnation, then Incarnation is not excluded, i.e. it is included. Now, that's a compromise from your previous statement that "Son" has nothing to do with incarnation, to which I said I am very shocked to hear!

However, I do think Gill did EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE the idea of Incarnation... in the quotes that you gave. I would say that the whole idea behind Son is chiefly, if not exclusively Incarnation. The term "Son" is not used until incarnation. The eternality and equality in divinity is VERY WELL taken care of by the very idea of biblical incarnation... divinity taking onto itself humanity. Full divinity of the eternal Word did not just dissipated into thin air when the Word was made flesh at incarnation.

I am puzzled at the weird notion that the admission and acceptance of the fact that the Son of God is the eternal Word made flesh in time EQUALS to denying or diminishing the eternality and equality of the Son's divinity. How does that knee jerk reaction come about is a mystery I cannot fathom!

No, I am a hair-tick, a nuisance to many PBs.
Thank you for the learning process.

sing
----

Post 45
On Jan 17, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

One step at a time:

1. Gill’s simple point deserves consideration, and that point is that “Son” in the two verses referenced has to do with something that preceded Incarnation, and specifically with the consistent Biblical affirmation of equality.

2. Revisit my question; did the Word become the Son at Incarnation or later? Or both??? If you make your Luke 1:35 verse and some of your explanations the point, it is at Incarnation. However, you then must reconcile Psalm 2 and two separate explanations of this verse in Acts that specifically state that in the fulfillment of this prophecy, He became the “Son” at resurrection. Simple question; which is it, and how do you reconcile passages that indicate both times?

3. You are still imposing your definition onto our explanations. We define “sonship” as referring to the full and eternal equality of the Second Person in the Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. You define it as exclusively referring to Incarnation. If we were to impose our definition onto your explanations, we could make nonsense out of them. What does it help for either party to follow that tactic? Good communication requires each party to respect the other party’s definition within that party’s explanation.

4. You state that the term “Son” is never applied in Scripture prior to Incarnation; yet when questioned about some of the verses we’ve discussed, you impose a rather strained interpretation onto them to preserve your claim. If we accept the natural and ordinary meaning of language and syntax, many of these passages challenge your claim; the two verses that Gill explained as just two notable examples.

5. You state that no Scripture ever refers to “Son” prior to Incarnation. Aside from the various passages that we’ve discussed, Brother Bernard asked your explanation of Isaiah 9:6; at virgin birth the “Son” is given, not created and not beginning to exist. How could the “Son” be given in Incarnation if “Son” only came to exist at Incarnation? I mentioned another verse to you in our first FGF discussion of this subject. I will mention two of them to you here. Proverbs 30:4, “…and what is his son’s name; if thou canst tell?” You can wrest the words, but the simple reality is that an inspired writer questioned the reader’s knowledge regarding God’s “son” some eight hundred years before Incarnation. Do not overlook that the verb tense is present, not future. This is no hypothetical question, but rather a present tense question that requires a present tense answer. Second passage, Daniel 3:25, probably just over five hundred years before Incarnation; the Babylonian king saw an image in the furnace, an image that he described in these words, “…the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” What did he see? He saw something in the present tense, not a future or hypothetical vision. Both passages predate the Incarnation by five to eight hundred years. Both passages present a present tense scenario and include specific reference to “Son” in terms of God. If your view was the divine intent, why would the Holy Spirit so confuse and obscure the question by including these two verses in inspired Scripture? How do you reasonably reconcile these two verses with your view and preserve reasonable grammatical and logical integrity for the language?

Brother Sing, I have no desire to stir anger or hostility in you. Your post above seems to contain a significant amount of irritation. If we can discuss this question with grace and civility, I will gladly continue the discussion as long as you wish. If discussion of the question causes you to become irritated at me or at PBs in general, I have no interest in continuing it. You are my brother, I believe you have embraced a strained and errant view of this term, and I will gladly engage you in godly dialogue, but not in hostile exchanges of heated missiles.

Your choice,
Jay

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

POST 46
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

Thank you for your patience.
I will make some comments within your posts.

1. Gill's simple point deserves consideration, and that point is that "Son" in the two verses referenced has to do with something that preceded Incarnation, and specifically with the consistent Biblical affirmation of equality.

## I do see his simple point: the Son's equality and eternality within the Trinity.
He, and you (if I am not wrong) insisted that 'eternally begotten' Son is absolutely necessary to maintain and preserve the eternality and equality of the Son of God.

I believe that the eternality and equality of the Word is preserved wholly and completely in the Son of God begotten in time when the eternal Word was made flesh in time.

My view do not have the illogical and unscriptural notion of the 'eternally begotten' - a pagan philosophical notion so contrary to plain fact of Scriptures.

The issue is NOT the eternality and equality of the Son of God within the Trinity. Using 'eternally begotten' to defend that is a grave mistake. We don't need such pagan philosophical notion to preserve the full divinity of the incarnated Son.

My understanding DOES NOT diminish nor detract from the eternality and equality of the Son of God with the Trinity. My view AFFIRMS that, PLUS my view gives full recognition to the facts and implication of the momentous event of Incarnation, God become God/man.


2. Revisit my question; did the Word become the Son at Incarnation or later? Or both??? If you make your Luke 1:35 verse and some of your explanations the point, it is at Incarnation. However, you then must reconcile Psalm 2 and two separate explanations of this verse in Acts that specifically state that in the fulfillment of this prophecy, He became the "Son" at resurrection. Simple question; which is it, and how do you reconcile passages that indicate both times?

## Why is there need of reconciliation when the two passages do not contradict? I am very puzzled.
One passage speaks of the eternal Word was made flesh... Incarnation. The other passage speaks of the resurrection: the raising up of the Son of God who laid down His life for Hs people; it speaks of God vindicating His Son, of declaring Him the Messianic King, unto whom He gave all power in heaven and in earth' Mt 28:18.

The text DOESN'T say He became the "Son" at resurrection. At resurrection He was VINDICATED that He was indeed the BEGOTTEN Son of God... "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Rom 1:4.

3. You are still imposing your definition onto our explanations. We define "sonship" as referring to the full and eternal equality of the Second Person in the Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. You define it as exclusively referring to Incarnation. If we were to impose our definition onto your explanations, we could make nonsense out of them. What does it help for either party to follow that tactic? Good communication requires each party to respect the other party's definition within that party's explanation.

## If you think I am imposing my definition onto your explanation, that is a sad misunderstanding. I am defining 'sonship' in term of what the Scriptures say, and conclude that your definition of sonship fall short of what the Scriptures say.

I do respect your definition, but I am saying that your definition is deficient... even though its intention to protect the eternality and equality of the Son of God within the Trinity is praise-worthy: bad means for a good cause. The eternal Word was NO Son of God, even though He was very bit as divine as the other two person of the Trinity. When the Word was made flesh and became the Son of God in time, He remained as divine as before, but He is now human as well. The second person of the Trinity was eternally divine, but now He is both eternally divine and fully human for all eternity.

4. You state that the term "Son" is never applied in Scripture prior to Incarnation; yet when questioned about some of the verses we've discussed, you impose a rather strained interpretation onto them to preserve your claim. If we accept the natural and ordinary meaning of language and syntax, many of these passages challenge your claim; the two verses that Gill explained as just two notable examples.

## There is a little misunderstanding. I did say these words and here are the quotes.
- "In the OT, before the Incarnation, the second Person of the Trinity is consistently referred to as "Jehovah" and not 'Son".
- "The term 'Son' is not used [as a reference to the second person of the Trinity] until incarnation."

The OT prophecies concerning the sending of the Son must be understood in light of the fulfillment at incarnation, when the eternal Word was made flesh and became the Son of God.

The two passages mentioned by Gill were written post Incarnation... when the second Person of the Trinity has become the Son of God. After Incarnation, the new term of reference for the Second Person of the Trinity is the Son of God... even when referring to the activities of the Word before incarnation. This is the more natural and ordinary understanding of language that DOES not contradict the simple fact that the Son of God was begotten in time.

5. You state that no Scripture ever refers to "Son" prior to Incarnation. Aside from the various passages that we've discussed, Brother Berm asked your explanation of Isaiah 9:6; at virgin birth the "Son" is given, not created and not beginning to exist. How could the "Son" be given in Incarnation if "Son" only came to exist at Incarnation? I mentioned another verse to you in our first FGF discussion of this subject. I will mention two of them to you here. Proverbs 30:4, "… And what is his son's name; if thou canst tell?" You can wrest the words, but the simple reality is that an inspired writer questioned the reader's knowledge regarding God's "son" some eight hundred years before Incarnation. Do not overlook that the verb tense is present, not future. This is no hypothetical question, but rather a present tense question that requires a present tense answer. Second passage, Daniel 3:25, probably just over five hundred years before Incarnation; the Babylonian king saw an image in the furnace, an image that he described in these words, ".the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." What did he see? He saw something in the present tense, not a future or hypothetical vision. Both passages predate the Incarnation by five to eight hundred years. Both passages present a present tense scenario and include specific reference to "Son" in terms of God. If your view was the divine intent, why would the Holy Spirit so confuse and obscure the question by including these two verses in inspired Scripture?
How do you reasonably reconcile these two verses with your view and preserve reasonable grammatical and logical integrity for the language?

## The prophetic passages in Isaiah are in the FUTURE TENSE. They do not prove the eternal sonship. The Son shall be born. The Son was conceived when the eternal Word was made flesh.

You may not accept my simple explanation of the two passages in Proverbs and Daniel.

You would use these two passages to prove that the Son of God is eternally begotten - even though the NT begin by stating the glorious fact that the Word was made flesh, and the Son of God was begotten in the days of Caesar Augustus in the womb of virgin Mary. I would not to want to interpret that passage to contradict that plain fact.

The Proverbs passage is not an easy passage to me. I may not comprehend this passage much but I WOULD NOT use these rhetorical questions that were intended to magnify the brutishness and ignorance of man WITHOUT divine revelation to establish eternal sonship. The point of the passage is that wisdom and knowledge of the holy is by divine revelation. If you take the rhetorical question 'what is his son's name' as the basis of eternal sonship, one might as well conclude that before incarnation the Son has ascended up into heaven, and descended. [Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.], or that the question implies that someone has ascended up into heaven, and descended. At best, even if the Son of God is indeed referred to, then the point is that it is not possible to know because He has NOT been begotten, and His name has not been revealed.

The Daniel's passage is much simpler to explain. Here is Nebu... angry and furious (Dan 3:19) and to his astonishment saw a fourth figure in the fire, and in his raving anger exclaimed what he saw, "the form of the fourth is like the son of God.' It is not uncommon for the term 'son of God' used as a general term to refer to spiritual being, see Job 1:6.

Later when he came to his sense and sober, he declared in his imperial edict before all the dignitaries that he saw AN ANGEL - a spiritual being. "Blessed be the God ... who hath sent his angel..." Well, if you want to build eternal sonship based on Nebu's word... I am sorry. You would also have to make Nebu's 'Son of God' an angel - that's honesty. Why good sincere people keep quoting this text to support eternal generation of the Son is quite a mystery.

You wrote: Brother Sing, I have no desire to stir anger or hostility in you. Your post below seems to contain a significant amount of irritation. If we can discuss this question with grace and civility, I will gladly continue the discussion as long as you wish. If discussion of the question causes you to become irritated at me or at PBs in general, I have no interest in continuing it. You are my brother, I believe you have embraced a strained and errant view of this term, and I will gladly engage you in godly dialogue, but not in hostile exchanges of heated missiles.

## I apologize for getting a little annoyed, not at you at all, but at the way some PB folk argue irrationally.

Never mind, whether it is eternal sonship or incarnational sonship, let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind. I understood your view, and you mine, I hope.
If you remember nothing what I said, please remember just this - incarnational sonship UPHOLDS no less strongly the eternality and equality of the Son of God as your eternal sonship. That's not the issue. The issue is: He is begotten in TIME, not in eternity. The eternal Word is NEVER begotten. The Word was made flesh is enough to preserve and guarantee the eternality and the equality of the Son within the Trinity.

THANK YOU for your kindness and patience in tolerating the 'nonsense' of a non-PB lad.

love you,
sing
------

POST 47
On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:18 AM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

I will make comments with your post. I speak as a bold ignoramus in order to learn.
So, have patience with me. Don't think I am stiffnecked or anything.
When I see something consistent with Scriptures, I can readily embrace.

You wrote: “A central observation; as I recall, Gill does not mention "eternal generation" in either of the quotes I copied to you. He simply made the comment that “Son” must refer to something prior to Incarnation. I specifically stated to you that I never use the term when discussing or preaching on the Second Person in the Trinity. From my perspective, eternal "sonship" does not require any form of "generation." It means that the Second Person in the Trinity is fully equal, sharing all the essential and incommunicable attributes of deity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The fact that He will subsequently take onto Himself humanity in the Incarnation does not make Him any less God than Father and Holy Spirit. You may use the problem of the term "eternal generation" with folks who use the term, but in dialogue with me that term becomes a "straw man" logical fallacy, because I do not use it, nor does my view require its concept to be considered. Straw man arguments are not valid arguments. Interact with what I am advocating, not with what other people may be advocating.”

## Gill may not use the term 'eternal generation.' But to affirm that Son must be prior to Incarnation is as good as affirming the teaching of eternal generation without using the term. If my conclusion is wrong, please tell me so.

I do believe that raw biblical data evidences that the very concept of Son is bound up with the idea of Incarnation/generation/begotten - the Luke 1 and John 1 passages put that beyond any shadow of doubt. The Scriptures uses every day language of common man, not pagan philosophy. Pagan philosophy can separate the concept of sonship from generation. The biblical usage of 'son' and 'beget' and 'generation' are never separated, with the equality of essence between him who begets and the begotten one taken for granted.

It is the eternal Word, not the Son, who will subsequently take unto Himself humanity in Incarnation. The Word became flesh is the Son of God.

I am interacting with what you are advocating: Sonship before incarnation, Sonship detached and removed and severed from Incarnation. I do heartily agree with you the eternality and equality of the 2nd Person's divinity with the 1st and 3rd Persons of the Trinity.

You wrote: “I must ask a question that your comments regarding the Son sharing fully and equally in all the attributes of deity. Are you saying--or do you believe--that the physical body of Jesus, the Son of God, was eternal? Does His human body possess all the attributes of deity? From birth to crucifixion and then resurrection, do you believe that His human body was immutable, physically immutable? Your comments imply this conclusion, but it doesn’t make sense to me.”

## Now you are asking me the similar question I asked you or Brother Edie earlier, i.e.,
Since it is insisted that the eternal Word and the Son is the same person, do you believe that there was humanity in the Triune God before Incarnation?

I am very sorry that my teacher has so misconstrue his student's comments. To answer your question, only the divinity of the Son of God shares fully and equally in all the attributes of deity - nothing more and nothing less. The humanity of the Son of God shares fully and equally in all the attributes of humanity. (Sin was not part of humanity that came from the hand of God.) No, my comment imply no such conclusion... it is a mistake to see such implication. Jesus, the Son of God, possesses all the attributes of divinity, and humanity in one person. I hope it make sense to you now. I am glad you ask for clarification - good teacher does that. Bad teacher just knock me on the head!

You wrote: “Another question; on what basis do you consider the question in Proverbs 30 to be "rhetorical"? I have studied ancient rhetoric and dialectical argumentation. I see nothing in this context that indicates that the question is rhetorical. It is a very literal question that demands a literal answer, and, as I observed in my last post, the question uses present tense verbs, not future tense verbs. Thus it demands a present tense answer. Rhetoric is a highly structured and defined form of questions and answers. I see no indication of rhetoric in the question or the context. If you claim that it is rhetorical, you must offer some proof, some evidence. I do not accept the idea simply because you need to categorize it as such to avoid an obvious difficulty for your view.”

1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

There are 5 questions. I said they are rhetorical questions in that they were not meant to be answered. They were asked to bring home the point of man's brutishness and ignorance apart from divine revelation through prophecy. A man who have not learned wisdom nor have the knowledge of the holy things through divine prophecy would have absolutely no answers to those questions. Even God's children, without revelation through divine prophecy would have no wisdom or knowledge of the holy.

These questions mock at men who claim to have wisdom and understanding. To use ONE of them to prove Sonship of the 2nd Person of the Trinity before Incarnation is not a little brutish, I think.

Who HAS ascended up into heaven or descended, if thou can tell? You said it is meant to be answered!

You wrote: “Sorry to repeat the point, but your interpretation of the Son given does not stand up logically nor grammatically. The "son given" defines what was given in Incarnation, not what the gift became at Incarnation.”

The 'Word was made flesh' defines what took place in Incarnation.
The Son must be begotten first before there is a Son to be given.
The only begotten Son was given, John 3:16. The Word was not given. The Word was made flesh, incarnated. This is not only logical but common sense understanding of the data of Scriptures.


You wrote: “You did not interact with my questions regarding sonship related to both virgin birth/Incarnation and resurrection. The prophecy of Jesus' resurrection in Psalm 2 specifically states, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee..." The Holy Spirit, not Joe, affirmed that Jesus was "begotten" in some logical sense at His resurrection. My question to you specifically acknowledged your view that He became the Son at Incarnation, and I suggested that you need to reconcile your view with the prophetic language of Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is quite specific regarding His being begotten. We have no disagreement on the verses from the opening of the first chapter of Romans. Yes, He was declared to be the Son...with power by the resurrection. But Psalm 2 specifically and quite clearly declares that He is "begotten" "this day," not thirty three or so years earlier. You need to address the language of Psalm 2, not Joe's language. Psalm 2 does not say that He was "declared" to be something; it categorically says, "This day have I begotten thee."

## May be the way I interacted is not acceptable to you. I don't ever knowingly ignore any objection raised. Ignoring them do not help me in understanding the Scriptures. In any case this is what I have said:
- "Why is there need of reconciliation when the two passages do not contradict? I am very puzzled. One passage speaks of the eternal Word was made flesh... Incarnation. The other passage speaks of the resurrection: the raising up of the Son of God who laid down His life for Hs people; it speaks of God vindicating His Son, of declaring Him the Messianic King, unto whom He gave all power in heaven and in earth' Mt 28:18."

One passage speaks of 'the begetting' of the Son from the dead. The existing Son, through Incarnation who is dead was resurrected, was brought to life again.
The other passage speaks of Incarnation, the making of the eternal Word flesh, the begetting of the Son into being.

The 'this day' of conceiving the Son of God in the virgin's womb, and 'this day' of bringing forth the dead Son of God from the wombs of the grave are different days altogether.
I know I am a bit simple, never one to speak and write like a scholar like you. What else do you expect me to say in order to interact? I am a little confused.
Have I addressed the language of Ps 2 now? If not, tell me how. I am willing to learn.

willing and ready to learn,
sing
----

POST 48
On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

Your post indeed answers some of my questions. In your response regarding eternal generation you are still playing a bit of the straw man fallacy. If I specifically state that my view of “Son” does not include “eternal generation” in any way, agree or not, you should accept my statement, not force a straw man view onto me that I do not hold. If my view of “Son” simply and solely affirms eternal sameness, and thus eternal equality, agree with my definition or not, you should accept that I believe it and interact with what I believe, not with straw men that I do not believe any more than you.

You explain why you interpret Proverbs 30 as you do, but you offered no evidence that indicates that the questions are rhetorical. Assertions are not proof. Your belief that they are asked without any expectation on the author’s of an answer, I simply do not accept. On the surface it appears to me that the questions are asked with every intent that the person interrogated must answer the questions. In all likelihood you are correct in your description of the character of the people asked, but the question requires an answer.

Your question regarding the “eternal Son” possession humanity is an example of imposing your definition onto my belief, as opposed to accepting my definition in conjunction with my belief. It is an absurd question—I certainly hope so on both our parts—to presume that the Second Person possessed a human body from eternity. The human body began to exist at conception, at Incarnation, but the Word, God’s chosen and appointed “Communicator” of His eternal purpose and truth to His people, and the Son, God’s co-eternal and in-every-way co-equal Second Person in the Trinity has eternally existed as His equal. That is all—ALL—that I attribute to the term “Son.” That is all that the Jews attributed to it in John 5:18, and Jesus didn’t correct them. That is all that the Jews attributed to the term in John 10:33, a passage that Brother Gene raised during the FGF discussion—you didn’t address his post on FGF. This is the same truth that Paul affirmed in Philippians 2:6-11, a passage that does not use either the term “Word” or “Son,” but a perfect location for Paul to have split the terminology hair if he had held to the position that you are asserting as so necessary to a correct understanding of God.

I do appreciate your clarification regarding Psalm 2, though I suggest that it still creates something of a problem for your view. You have consistently asserted that “Son” ALWAYS refers to the inception of Incarnation. Now you must acknowledge that in at least one passage it also refers to Jesus’ resurrection. My belief is that the term has various meanings, always specified in the context in which the word appears. For example, in Psalm 2 the word refers to Jesus’ resurrection. Similarly in Scripture “Word” conveys different meanings. In some passages it refers to the “word of the gospel.” In others it likely refers to the inspired writings of Scripture. And, of course, in still other passages it refers to the Second Person in the Trinity. Your acknowledgement that the terms “begotten” and “son” in Psalm 2 refer to Jesus’ resurrection compromises your prior allegations that “Son” always refers to Incarnation and never to anything else.

I feel compelled to raise two points. First point. If we are devoted to dialogue and productive growth in our mutual understanding, I am most happy to continue our discussion. If we are falling into an endless “ping-pong” exchange, our dialogue serves no beneficial purpose. Second point. In my candid efforts to deal with points I have tried carefully and sincerely to avoid any “ad hominem” attack or insult to you. I do not feel that spirit, and I certainly do not wish to say or do anything that might appear to be of that low character. Are we making progress, or are we playing “ping-pong”? Do you understand my views better, agree with them or not? Do you really understand that my view has no relationship whatever to “eternal generation”? It emphasizes only eternal equality. Although I am obviously and admittedly nudging you on some points, I do believe I understand your view more than I did in the beginning. For that I am thankful. If you accepted my definition of the term “Son,” you have not made any substantive allegation that I would not comfortably accept. We are substantively agreed on some major points, despite a significant disagreement on the meaning and application of the term “Son” as used in Scripture, particularly in certain passages. Can we work through this issue to some kind of deeper agreement? I hope so. If I thought otherwise, I’d end the dialogue immediately. However, I am not interested in senseless and endless “ping-pong.”

Blessings,
Jay

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

POST 49
On Jan 19, 2008, at 10:05 AM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

I am smiling as I type. I prefer base-ball more than anything else.

You wrote: “Your post indeed answers some of my questions. In your response regarding eternal generation you are still playing a bit of the straw man fallacy. If I specifically state that my view of “Son” does not include “eternal generation” in any way, agree or not, you should accept my statement, not force a straw man view onto me that I do not hold. If my view of “Son” simply and solely affirms eternal sameness, and thus eternal equality, agree with my definition or not, you should accept that I believe it and interact with what I believe, not with straw men that I do not believe any more than you.”

Alright, I will burn the straw man to cook a meal of porridge. Then let me ask a simple question, when was the Son of God begotten, according to the Bible? I do understand your definition. But I don't agree with the idea of Sonship dichotomized from Incarnation. It is not scriptural. I have never read in the Scripture the strange and bizarre idea of sonship that is detached from the idea of birth, begetting or generating. I believe in the Scriptures, sonship are inseparably joined to them. I am all the more bewildered.

You wrote: “You explain why you interpret Proverbs 30 as you do, but you offered no evidence that indicates that the questions are rhetorical. Assertions are not proof. Your belief that they are asked without any expectation on the author’s of an answer, I simply do not accept. On the surface it appears to me that the questions are asked with every intent that the person interrogated must answer the questions. In all likelihood you are correct in your description of the character of the people asked, but the question requires an answer.”

I believe the questions were meant to confound. Thanks for reminding that assertions are not proof. The simple proof is that the Scriptures declared man have no answers to such questions without divine revelation. The name 'Jesus' was never revealed until the angel announced it to Joseph.

If I am likely correct about the character of the people asked, then the purpose of the questions is equally likely established. You don't ask such questions to such people and expect answers from such people. It would be like expecting answers from a ignoramus on questions dealing with rocket science!!!

You wrote: “Your question regarding the “eternal Son” possession humanity is an example of imposing your definition onto my belief, as opposed to accepting my definition in conjunction with my belief. It is an absurd question—I certainly hope so on both our parts—to presume that the Second Person possessed a human body from eternity. The human body began to exist at conception, at Incarnation, but the Word, God’s chosen and appointed “Communicator” of His eternal purpose and truth to His people, and the Son, God’s co-eternal and in-every-way co-equal Second Person in the Trinity has eternally existed as His equal. That is all—ALL—that I attribute to the term “Son.” That is all that the Jews attributed to it in John 5:18, and Jesus didn’t correct them. That is all that the Jews attributed to the term in John 10:33, a passage that Brother Genie raised during the forum discussion—you didn’t address his post on forum. This is the same truth that Paul affirmed in Philippians 2:6-11, a passage that does not use either the term “Word” or “Son,” but a perfect location for Paul to have split the terminology hair if he had held to the position that you are asserting as so necessary to a correct understanding of God.”

The question may sounds absurd but a reasonable one when the idea of Sonship is detached from Incarnation.

I don't see what is the problem with John 5:18 and John 10:33. I don't knowingly ignore difficulties... they are opportunities to study Scriptures, to help me learn the truth and unlearn my error. May be you see the problems because you don't see from my understanding of sonship. Jesus, being God/man, being the Son of God, being begotten by God, being eternal Word made flesh, is EQUAL with God who begot Him, possessing the same divinity. "Making himself [Jesus the God/man] equal with God" - without due consideration of the fact of incarnation, a man could legitimately conclude that Jesus is teaching that God is God/man too. They have problem with Jesus' claim because they rejected the whole idea of God incarnated.

Philippians passage may not use either the term 'Word' or 'Son', it surely does declare loudly the name of the Son, even JESUS the Christ, the Son begotten by God in the womb of the virgin Mary. Jesus was the product of the eternal Word "made in the likeness of men." And though Jesus, being fully God and fully man, "being in the form of God" - didn't insist on doing what he had every right to do, but humbled himself, took upon himself the form of a servant. This whole mind-set is laid before us believers for our imitation.

"Who, being in the form of God" CANNOT possibly refer to the eternal Word, but to Jesus, the God/man. Jesus was true man, but truly and fully God too, with the exact full deity of the eternal Word. Jesus is eternal God "being found in fashion as a man." The eternal Word cannot became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. It is the Son, the man Christ Jesus who died in the place. You know all these far better than I do...

You wrote: “I do appreciate your clarification regarding Psalm 2, though I suggest that it still creates something of a problem for your view. You have consistently asserted that “Son” ALWAYS refers to the inception of Incarnation. Now you must acknowledge that in at least one passage it also refers to Jesus’ resurrection. My belief is that the term has various meanings, always specified in the context in which the word appears. For example, in Psalm 2 the word refers to Jesus’ resurrection. Similarly in Scripture “Word” conveys different meanings. In some passages it refers to the “word of the gospel.” In others it likely refers to the inspired writings of Scripture. And, of course, in still other passages it refers to the Second Person in the Trinity. Your acknowledgement that the terms “begotten” and “son” in Psalm 2 refer to Jesus’ resurrection compromises your prior allegations that “Son” always refers to Incarnation and never to anything else.”

Let me see if I can understand the 'problem' you see.
OK, I am obviously wrong, IF I have "consistently asserted that "Son" ALWAYS refers to the inception of Incarnation."
I did say these words, and I quote,
- "In the OT, before the Incarnation, the second Person of the Trinity is consistently referred to as "Jehovah" and not 'Son".
- "The term 'Son' is not used [as a reference to the second person of the Trinity] until incarnation."

I said this also in the last post:
“I do believe that raw biblical data evidences that the very concept of Son is bound up with the idea of Incarnation/generation/begotten - the Luke 1 and John 1 passages put that beyond any shadow of doubt. The Scriptures uses every day language of common man, not pagan philosophy. Pagan philosophy can separate the concept of sonship from generation. The biblical usage of 'son' and 'beget' and 'generation' are never separated, with the equality of essence between him who begets and the begotten one taken for granted.”

May be what you are saying is an inaccurate rephrasing of what I say: "the very concept of Son is bound up with the idea of Incarnation/generation/begotten." This obvious fact is strenuously denied and rejected throughout this sonship discussion. So, you may like to substantiate your statement that I say such thing. I might have... I am not incapable to making such statement - like the VERY opposite you stated earlier: "the term "Son" has no reference to Incarnation." There are innumerable usage of "son" that has nothing to do with the inception of Incarnation.

I also believe that the term 'begotten' has various meanings as stated earlier - in the last paragraph of the last post... read it again. Whatever, 'Son' when used in reference to the 2nd Person of the Trinity presupposes the eternal "Word was made (PAST PASSIVE) flesh," "made in the likeness of men."

You wrote: “I feel compelled to raise two points. First point. If we are devoted to dialogue and productive growth in our mutual understanding, I am most happy to continue our discussion. If we are falling into an endless “ping-pong” exchange, our dialogue serves no beneficial purpose. Second point. In my candid efforts to deal with points I have tried carefully and sincerely to avoid any “ad hominem” attack or insult to you. I do not feel that spirit, and I certainly do not wish to say or do anything that might appear to be of that low character. Are we making progress, or are we playing “ping-pong”? Do you understand my views better, agree with them or not? Do you really understand that my view has no relationship whatever to “eternal generation”? It emphasizes only eternal equality. Although I am obviously and admittedly nudging you on some points, I do believe I understand your view more than I did in the beginning. For that I am thankful. If you accepted my definition of the term “Son,” you have not made any substantive allegation that I would not comfortably accept. We are substantively agreed on some major points, despite a significant disagreement on the meaning and application of the term “Son” as used in Scripture, particularly in certain passages. Can we work through this issue to some kind of deeper agreement? I hope so. If I thought otherwise, I’d end the dialogue immediately. However, I am not interested in senseless and endless “ping-pong.” “

I am devoted to learning and productive growth. I do want to consider all the difficulties related to any view that I am studying to embrace. It has been productive.

I can heartily agree with your conclusion : “We are substantively agreed on some major points, despite a significant disagreement on the meaning and application of the term “Son” as used in Scripture, particularly in certain passages."

You keep my mind ticking. I am thankful for your kindness in taking me along this walk...

blessed,
sing
---------------


POST 50
On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:16 PM, sing wrote:
Subject: Why were the Jews so incensed with Jesus' claim?


Dear Brother Jay,

I was out for a walk with my eldest son Jo-siah and were thinking about the passages in John, why the Jews were incensed by Jesus claim to His Sonship of God, "making himself equal with God."

John 5:
17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

We were talking and thinking about the Jews' vehement fury at Jesus'claim to be the Son of God.
Some thoughts came to mind.
- Why were the Jews so incensed by the claim of Jesus?
- Did the Jews, in all the history of their nation, ever heard of such thing that they were hearing from the mouth of Jesus - their God is Father and has a Son?
- Why was Jesus' claim so jarring in their ears?
- Is there any indication from the OT Scriptures that God has a Son before Incarnation?
- If there were, how did the Jews receive such divine revelation?
- Is Jesus' claim as the Son of God something entirely new, but something prophesied in the OT?
- Is Jesus' claim of equality with God valid ground that He was eternal with God?

To the question, Why was Jesus' claim so jarring in their ears - Josiah gave the simple answer: 'Probably they have never heard such thing before, and there was no such thing before incarnation.'

What saith the Scriptures?

sing
----

POST 51
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:28 AM, Jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

This will be my last post on this question for a while. Ping-pong is not profitable. In summary here are points that I’ve made and continue to ask for your consideration:

1. In both John 5 and John 10 Jesus referred to God as His “Father,” and the Jews interpreted His use of the term to mean one thing, equality with God. They didn’t indicate any consideration of “sonship” apart from birth. Equality with God was their only stated conclusion. I accept this Biblical account as affirming the points that I’ve made regarding eternal—not generated—equality of the Word and Son, two names that refer to two distinct works uniquely and eternally assigned to the Second Person in the Trinity.

2. You continue to disregard basic grammar in your description of the Word becoming the Son. You claim common sense and reason as your allies, but neither common sense nor reason justify your conclusions. The CD player didn’t become a CD player when it was placed in your hands. It was a CD player before it was given to you. Isaiah 9:6 grammatically, logically, and reasonably identifies what was given, not how one thing morphed into something else at the point of the gift. Until you are willing to observe basic grammatical structure, my words will fall on deaf ears. I urge you to follow the weight of Scripture, not pour extra meaning into the Scriptures.

3. You still offer nothing more than personal assertions regarding the questions in Proverbs 30. Only if the fools who were asked the questions actually attempted to answer the questions would they come to realize their own folly. A rhetorical non-answer serves no functional or logical purpose here. There is no evidence of “rhetorical” questions in this context, but your view requires this idea to survive this passage that appears some eight hundred years before the Incarnation. If I held to your view, I can think of any number of answers that would serve your position better than the one you offered. However, I’d rather accept the literal point of the passage.

4. Your statement below is rather incredible. “…"Who, being in the form of God" CANNOT possibly refer to the eternal Word, but to Jesus, the God/man. “Being in the form of God” in this passage refers to His pre-existent state prior to Incarnation. Only with the addition of “…but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant…” describes the Incarnation. “…being in the form of God…” describes His existence and true nature prior to the Incarnation. Your allegation doesn’t make sense, and it further neither adds to nor detracts from your view. It simply fails to follow the passage’s development of the amazing truth of God choosing to take on Himself humanity in the Incarnation. I am utterly confused!

I am thankful that we have learned a bit more about our beliefs and that we do find agreement on some points. I pray that the time will come when we can expand this agreement more fully. Until then, you have my…

Respectful and loving blessings to you in my prayers,
Jay

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

POST 52
On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:50 PM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Jay,

Thanks for this last post.
Just one note: I believe each one reads the thoughts of others through the grid of his own beliefs and perspective, and often construe things that are not true and seeing 'difficulties'- imagined or otherwise.

The Word (the eternal divine Being) become Son (the divine/human Being) through the Incarnation. I believe this. If I understand you correctly, you reject this. What was given came through the Incarnation - that's quite plain... but incredible to you. Beyond that we are agreed on many things.

Before the CD player was made, there was no CD player to be sent. So naive... but...
Saying more would be repeating.

Thank you, Brother Joe.

always learning from teachers like you,
sing
----

POST 53
On Jan 19, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Jon wrote:

Dear Sing, my comments in your post, Jon.

John 5:
17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

We were talking and thinking about the Jews' vehement fury at Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. Some thoughts came to mind.
- Why were the Jews so incensed by the claim of Jesus?
**These Jews were reprobate, unregenerate children of the devil, thus their hatred for the Son of God (John 8:44). Elect Jews delighted in Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:34,49; Matt 14:33; 16:16; etc.). But the Jews also understood the scriptures that were read every Sabbath Day, which declared that the coming Son of God was God Himself in the flesh (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7; etc.). This latter point is very important.**

- Did the Jews, in all the history of their nation, ever heard of such thing that they were hearing from the mouth of Jesus - their God is Father and has a Son?
**As mentioned above, the Jews knew this from the prophecies of scripture, which foretold the Son of a virgin coming, who would be God in the flesh (Immanuel) and the Mighty God and Everlasting Father (Is 7:14; 9:6-7; etc.).**

- Why was Jesus' claim so jarring in their ears?
** They despised Jesus because He did not fit their idea of the Deliverer and Saviour that they had fantasized about ... to deliver them from Greek and Roman oppression and restore their nation to its luster under David and Solomon. There was nothing comely about Jesus of Nazareth, except to a born again man with a discerning spirit like Simeon, Anna, etc. Compare Isaiah 53:1-3.**

- Is there any indication from the OT Scriptures that God has a Son before Incarnation?
** There are only verses that men use when trying to prove eternal generation ... such as Nebuchadnezzar seeing an angel in the fiery furncace that he called the Son of God (Dan 3:25,28) ... such as Solomon's personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 ... such as Agur's rhetorical questions about the origin and source of wisdom (Pr 30:4). Old Testament references to a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead are prophetic and in the future tense ... Gen 3:15 ... Gen 49:10 ... Deut 18:15 ... Ps 89:27ff ... Is 7:14 ... Is 9:6 ...**

- If there were, how did the Jews receive such divine revelation?
**The Jews were expectantly looking for the Messiah, the anointed Son of God ... there is nothing I know of that they believed God already had a Son (Ps 110:1-5; etc.).**

- Is Jesus' claim as the Son of God something entirely new, but something prophesied in the OT?
**Yes. The Jews, who knew the scriptures well, would have certainly known about Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 and others.**

- Is Jesus' claim of equality with God valid ground that He was eternal with God?
**No, it simply reflects the prophecies that declared the Son of God would be God Himself in the flesh (Is 7:14) and the Mighty God Himself (Is 9:6). In His divine nature as the Word of God, Jesus the Godman was eternal with God. While His divine nature was eternal God, His sonship was a result of the incarnation of the Godman in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.**


To the question, Why was Jesus' claim so jarring in their ears - Josiah gave the simple answer: 'Probably they have never heard such thing before, and there was no such thing before incarnation.' It is very true there was no such thing before the incarnation, but the learned ones knew the prophecies of a coming Son Who would be God Himself on earth.

(Brother Jay did not respond to the same post.)

--------
POST 54
On Jan 26, 2008, at 11:59 PM, sing wrote:

Dear Genie,

I was preparing the messages for the coming Lord's day... and a comment by John Brown (2 Peter) reminded me of the passage you quoted below in your post. It was the passage from Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever."

You quoted a part of Dr Gill's commentary on this verse"
" Moreover, these words may regard the immutability of Christ; who is unchangeable in his person, perfections, and essence, as God; and in his love to his people; and in the fulness of his grace, and in the efficacy of his blood, and in the virtue of his sacrifice and righteousness: it may be observed, that o autov, translated "the same", answers to awh, "he", a name of God, Ps 102:27 and which is used in Jewish writings {x} for a name of God; and so it is among the Turks {y}: and it is expressive of his eternity, immutability, and independence; and well agrees with Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever."

Concerning "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" - some thoughts cross my mind. Tell me what you think:

Like Dr Gill, I do believe the statement declares the immutability of Jesus Christ... for as long as He is the God/man Jesus Christ. The statement is concerning Jesus Christ the God/man.

Concerning the past (yesterday) and the present (today) and the future (for ever), I observe that the past (yesterday) has a definite beginning point, whereas the future (for ever) has no ending point. It is interesting that it does not say 'tomorrow' but 'forever', and 'yesterday' but not 'eternally.'

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I was thinking, if we move back in time, there was a yesterday when the man Christ Jesus was not. The eternal Word was not yet made flesh. Jesus the Christ most certainly has a beginning - unless I am extremely deluded.

Of course, Jesus Christ being God/man, the eternal Word made flesh, naturally possesses all the divine attributes of the eternal Word. So incarnational sonship does not in any remotest way diminish the full and complete divinity of Jesus Christ.

I believe the second Person of the Trinity was not spoken of as the Son of God before incarnation. OT has many references to the second Person as LORD... 'Son' is used in prophetic passages. It is only after incarnation that the second Person is known as the Son of God... a new term which accurately describe the new relationship in the divine purpose of redemption.

You said, “If God is recognized as the Eternal Father, it would seem reasonable to recognize Jesus as the Eternal Son----at any rate "I and my Father are ONE."”

I am a little puzzle here. I know the term everlasting Father is used to describe the son that is prophesied in Isaiah. How does the term 'Eternal Father' come about? Does the statement "I and my Father are ONE" necessarily imply the eternity of this Father/Son relationship, or is Jesus the God/man saying that He has the same divine nature with the eternal Divine being that begotten Him, there His Father?

I believe before the 1st Person of the Trinity acted and made the eternal Word flesh, there was no Father and no Son, even though all the three Persons of the Godhead existed eternally, but they were not Father and Son.

I am just trying to understand and make sense of those Father and Son term in light of the incarnation.

Thanks for your fatherly patience with me.

a little lad trying to learn,
sing
-------

POST 55
On Jan 27, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Genie wrote:

Dear Brother Sing,

I certainly do not count the words of the 1689 LCof F to be superior to the Bible. However, I do believe the framers of the LCof F believed that the Bible was the background for their wording. Following is Section 3 of Chapter Two:

In this Divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole Divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar, relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and our comfortable dependence on Him.

There are scriptural references which are given but I am not listing those here. While the framers did not here use the phrase "three persons", they do use the phrase "three subsistencies". I would consider the term "subsistencies" as meaning the same as "persons". It appears that these framers considered the Word (or Son) to be one of these "subsistencies" or "persons". The term, Word, and the term, Son, embrace just one subsistency or person and seem to be considered as equivalent or the same. (making use of two terms to still mean the same subsistency) Would you also accept the idea that the term "person" may be used interchangeably with the term, "subsistency"?

Then later this section states that the "Son is eternally begotten" etc. "without beginning, therefore but one God" etc. Did the framers make a distinction or difference between the Word and the Son? Look carefully at this single sentence that makes up the entire 3rd section of Chapter Two of the LC of F and take a particular note of the word "eternity" which occurs early in the sentence. (I have enlarged the word, eternity, in the quotation above for emphasis.)
In taking your present positions, are you not denying the teaching of the framers of the LCof F in this section of Chapter Two?

Brother Sing, I will put in some remarks in blue print-- or maybe questions--- within the body of your post.

sing: *Of course, Jesus Christ being God/man, the eternal Word made flesh, naturally possesses all the divine attributes of the eternal Word. So incarnational sonship does not in any remotest way diminish the full and complete divinity of Jesus Christ.*
(Does it deprive the second person from being denoted as the eternal Son of God?)

sing: *I believe the second Person of the Trinity was not spoken of as the Son of God before incarnation. OT has many reference to the second Person as LORD... 'Son' is used in prophetic passages. It is only after incarnation that the second Person is known as the Son of God... a new term which accurately describe the new relationship in the divine purpose of redemption.*
(Was not the Son of God involved in the eternal counsel of God---was the Son of God not privy to provisions of the eternal counsel of God involving such things as Eternal Election---since the election involved the very subsistence of the Son (Word) as being the depository of the elect?) (Is Jesus Christ not a name of the Son of God?)


sing: *I am a little puzzle here. I know the term everlasting Father is used to describe the son that is prophesied in Isaiah. How does the term 'Eternal Father' come about?*
(Does not the Father occupy the position of the First Person in the Trinity and thereby qualify as being eternal in existence?)

sing: *Does the statement "I and my Father are ONE" necessarily imply the eternity of this Father/Son relationship, or is Jesus the God/man saying that He has the same divine nature with the eternal Divine being that begotten Him, therefore His Father?*
(What is wrong with saying that the Father and Son have an eternal relationship and that this eternal relationship is manifested in a special earthly time in the form of the God-man?)

sing: *I believe before the 1st Person of the Trinity acted and made the eternal Word flesh, there was no Father and no Son, even though all the three Persons of the Godhead existed eternally, but they were not Father and Son.*
(Are you aware that you are denying the simple wording of Section 3 of Article Two? My home association records their first Article of Faith in these words: "1. We believe in one true and living God and there is a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and yet there are not three Gods but One only.")


sing: *I am just trying to understand and make sense of those Father and Son term in light of the incarnation.*
( I believe that use of the word, manifest, would be helpful to our understanding.)

sing: *Thanks for your fatherly patience with me.*
( It has always been easier to ask questions than to supply answers. My feeble mind cannot fathom even the elementary and most simple explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity and I have never been able to fully satisfy my own mind. Even if I cannot explain it, I do believe in the eternal existence of the second person in the God-head, and the second person is both the Eternal Word and the Eternal Son )


I will be happy to remain
Your little brother,
Genie


POST 55
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:24 AM, sing wrote:

Dear Genie

Thanks for your thoughts on the 1689 LCoF.

You asked: "In taking your present positions, are you not denying the teaching of the framers of the LCof F in this section of Chapter Two?"

Most likely, I am not. There might be a wee possibility. I have not rule that out yet.

I am only bringing out what is actually said in the later part of this section which read, "BUT...BUT...BUT distinguished by several peculiar, relative properties and personal relations;..." - especially between the Father and Son (which is the matter under consideration.)

I do believe that the 1st and 2nd Persons of the Trinity are spoken of in term of 'Father' and 'Son' only after the Incarnation. All the divine revelation POST-incarnation concerning the 1st and 2nd Persons of the Trinity naturally speaks of the 1st Person of the Trinity in term of 'Father' and the 2nd Person of the Trinity in term of 'Son' - because that is accurately distinguishing their "several peculiar, relative properties and personal relations."

I think my present understanding gives full account of what is said there in the latter part of the section. That's what I have been doing all along - but I refrained from referring to the Confession because doing so would offend some anti-1689 Elders on the list. Reading the former part without giving equal consideration to the latter part, we will end up with deficient and contradictory view.

'The Father is of none' is ONLY true in one peculiar sense, in the sense that He was not begotten like the Son. The Son is of the Father... NOT in the eternal sense, but ONLY in the incarnational sense. In the eternal sense, the 2nd Person of the Trinity is ALSO of none, even so, the 3rd Person of the Trinity is ALSO of none.

It is in light of the redemptive economy that the Father is of none, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Otherwise, each and every Person of the Trinity is OF NONE, each is eternal and equal in EVERY possible sense.

It is interesting to note that the 2nd Person of the Trinity is given two descriptions - "The Word (or Son)." If we pay attention to these double descriptions of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, we would speak of the 2nd Person of the Trinity with more biblically and consistently. The 2nd Person of the Trinity is 'the Word' before incarnation, and 'the Son' when the eternal Word was made flesh.

Who would say that the eternal Word is begotten of the Father? The eternal Word is surely OF NONE. But the Son is divinely begotten of the Father ['divinely' is an accurate alternative to 'eternally' I think]. Why would the eternal Word need to be eternally begotten? The Son is divinely begotten because the eternal Word needed to be made flesh for the execution of the Triune God's purpose of redemption.

No, except for the word 'eternally' [if substituted by 'divinely'], I don't think my present view deny in any way the proper understanding of the Confessional statement in this section. I would say that I give proper account to the whole statement about the Sonship of the 2nd Person of the Trinity.


For the following, I will add my ## comments in red after your comments in yellow.
I am only expressing my present understanding. I am NOT arguing or disagreeing. I am trying to see things consistently. I thank you for asking your thought provoking questions. I would be most grateful if would tell me where I have gone off into the ditch. This way you would lead me nearer to the truth.

sing: *Of course, Jesus Christ being God/man, the eternal Word made flesh, naturally possesses all the divine attributes of the eternal Word. So incarnational sonship does not in any remotest way diminish the full and complete divinity of Jesus Christ.*
(Does it deprive the second person from being denoted as the eternal Son of God?)
## No deprivation is involved here. Deprivation implies dispossessing what rightly belongs to a person. Jesus is the Son of God. He was never the eternal Son of God. Jesus Christ, as the eternal Word made flesh, possesses all the divine attributes of the eternal Word.

sing: *I believe the second Person of the Trinity was not spoken of as the Son of God before incarnation. OT has many reference to the second Person as LORD... 'Son' is used in prophetic passages. It is only after incarnation that the second Person is known as the Son of God... a new term which accurately describe the new relationship in the divine purpose of redemption.*
(Was not the Son of God involved in the eternal counsel of God---was the Son of God not privy to provisions of the eternal counsel of God involving such things as Eternal Election---since the election involved the very subsistence of the Son (Word) as being the depository of the elect?) (Is Jesus Christ not a name of the Son of God?)
## In the beginning was the Word... Anything beyond the beginning, the 2nd Person of the Trinity acted in the capacity as the eternal Word. The eternal Word was involved in the eternal counsel of the Triune God; the eternal Word was privy to all the provisions of the eternal counsel of God involving all the decrees of God, including such things as Election, Creation, Redemption, etc. Election involved the very Person of the eternal Word entering as a party to the eternal covenant of redemption, to be MADE FLESH in the fulness of time, to be born as the Son of God. It was in the context of the covenant of redemption that the eternal Word was appointed as the Son of God, the depository of the elect.

 Jesus is the Christ (His title), the Son of the living and ETERNAL God. Yes, Jesus is name of the Son of the living God.


sing: *I am a little puzzle here. I know the term everlasting Father is used to describe the son that is prophesied in Isaiah. How does the term 'Eternal Father' come about?*
(Does not the Father occupy the position of the First Person in the Trinity and thereby qualify as being eternal in existence?)
## It is ONLY in the outworking of the redemptive purposes that the 1st Person of the Trinity, in His office as the Father, occupies the position of the First Person in the Trinity. The fact that the Father occupies the position of the First Person of the Trinity prove only one thing: His priority over the other two Persons of the Trinity in the out working of the covenant of redemption.

sing: *Does the statement "I and my Father are ONE" necessarily imply the eternity of this Father/Son relationship, or is Jesus the God/man saying that He has the same divine nature with the eternal Divine being that begotten Him, therefore His Father?*
(What is wrong with saying that the Father and Son have an eternal relationship and that this eternal relationship is manifested in a special earthly time in the form of the God-man?)
## The 1st and the 2nd Persons of the Trinity have an eternal relationship, that is true indeed. The 3 Persons of the Trinity enjoys the most blessed and perfect relationship from eternity. But that relationship was NOT always in term of Father and Son. It was in term of Father and Son ONLY WHEN the eternal Word was made flesh by the power of the Highest. In the execution of the redemptive purpose, the Son is SUBORDINATED to the Father in the Father-Son relationship. It was not so from eternity.

sing: *I believe before the 1st Person of the Trinity acted and made the eternal Word flesh, there was no Father and no Son, even though all the three Persons of the Godhead existed eternally, but they were not Father and Son.*
(Are you aware that you are denying the simple wording of Section 3 of Article Two? My home association records their first Article of Faith in these words: "1. We believe in one true and living God and there is a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and yet there are not three Gods but One only.")
## As I explained above, POST-incarnation, the 1st person of the Trinity is frequently referred to as 'Father' since it is by His power that the eternal Word was made flesh. Even so, POST-incarnation, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the eternal word is most frequently referred to as the 'Son'. Before that the 2nd Person of the Trinity is most frequently referred as 'LORD.'

 No, I am not denying the simple wording of Section 3. I am understanding the wording in the context of the entire section. 'Father' and 'Son' speak of "several peculiar, relative properties and personal relations" between the 1st Person and the 2nd Person of the Trinity. I am getting at the SENSE of those wordings, not just the SOUND of them.

sing: *I am just trying to understand and make sense of those Father and Son term in light of the incarnation.*
( I believe that use of the word, manifest, would be helpful to our understanding.)
## You mean, as in 'God manifests in the flesh'?

sing: *Thanks for your fatherly patience with me.*
( It has always been easier to ask questions than to supply answers. My feeble mind cannot fathom even the elementary and most simple explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity and I have never been able to fully satisfy my own mind. Even if I cannot explain it, I do believe in the eternal existence of the second person in the God-head, and the second person is both the Eternal Word and the Eternal Son )
## You taught me to the art of asking questions. It is a good means of self-learning... asking questions help find the answers. I don't expect to fathom much with this puny mind (no false humility here), but I sure want to strive to fathom as much of what God has revealed in the inspired Scriptures.

Like you, I also believe in the eternal existence of the second person in the God-head.
Before incarnation, He is the eternal Word. When the Word was made flesh, i.e. God was manifest in the flesh, the Word made flesh is the Son of God, One who is fully divine and fully man.

Just my understanding of the matter. Tell me frankly where you think I have gone to the ditch. I would be most grateful.

thanks for your kindness and patience,
sing
---

And the musings of the sons stopped here.
Posted by at