1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus the Son

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by freeatlast, Jan 19, 2011.

Top Posters
  1. freeatlast

    freeatlast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no question that what we call the Trinity is outside our understanding. God is simply above our comprehension. However I would like to ask a question. Jesus is the Son of God. Is He the eternal Son? Was He the Son before the incarnation or is the term Son what He became when becoming a man? I am not suggesting that there was no second person of the Trinity. I am asking if the title Son was always His designation?
    I ask this because of some scriptures.

    John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

    The scripture says that the Word became flesh, not the Son became flesh and also in Luke "Shall be called" is future tense.

    So in relating to the Lord Jesus is it accurate to speak of Him as always being the Son even in His pre-incarnate time?
     
    #1 freeatlast, Jan 19, 2011
  2. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    29
    Scripture says He was the Word before incarnation, but Isaiah called Him Son in Is 9:6 but this was prophetic looking forward into time. Gal 4:4 says be was the Son born of a woman. I He became the Son in name at His conception.
     
    #2 SolaSaint, Jan 19, 2011
  3. luke1616

    luke1616 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Revelation 13 is a description of Jesus the son "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." That means to me that not only was He the son, but was slain also, in the context of God looking forward knowing how to bring man back. I think He became the Son that would come to earth right after the fall of Adam. Just my opinion....
     
    #3 luke1616, Jan 20, 2011
  4. freeatlast

    freeatlast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is also my understanding that the person we call Lord, Jesus was not the Son in eternity past. He was the Word. In some circles that is considered heresy. In fact John Macarthur used to hold that the second person of the trinity was not always the Son but became the son at incarnation. he really got a lot of criticism on that and has since changed his stance.
     
    #4 freeatlast, Jan 20, 2011
  5. MNJacob

    MNJacob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    2
    A little church history may be in order here. The very first ecumenical church council, the Council of Nicea was convened to address this specific issue.

    Check out this portion of the Nicene Creed.

    "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"

    The council of Constantinople further clarified it as follows:

    "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

    Now while the wonder of the incarnation is a bit tough, I personally believe that Jesus in the flesh appeared several times in the OT. I mean, who was Melchizidek anyway? King of Salem, (whether you believe that is king of Jerusalem or King of Peace, or both, I don't care), priest of God, and able to accept sacrifice from Abraham, oh well, I digress.

    I also believe that OP has a reasonable understanding of the Trinity.

    As to John 1:1, remember that it was written to address an audience that was fully familiar with Platonic/Greek philosophy, a philisophy that describes a LOGOS (or word that was also an intermediary between God and world, but the logos of Greek philisophpy is not God.

    That's why John makes the his two statements, not just about the the logos just being with God in the beginning but "and God the word was."
     
    #5 MNJacob, Jan 20, 2011
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...