Why does Jesus call the Father 'HIS God'?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Vlad_IL, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    To those of you who don't believe in the eternal Sonship view, how do you explain Jesus calling the Father, His God?

    John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

    I know, some will say that in His HUMANITy, on this earth Jesus called the Father HIS God. But how about in the book of Revelations 3

    Rev. 3:2'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

    Rev. 3:12'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
     
  2. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you explain in simple terms what "eternal Sonship" is?
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vlad_IL, you are completely wrong to assume that by showing Jesus referring to the Father after His Incarnation, as "My God", that this proves the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. I don't know how you come to this conclusion, but it does not hold good.

    You see, you forgot to mention one very important text, from Hebrews 1:8, where the Father refers to Jesus as "God". Where He says; "Thy throne, O God is forever". What do you make of this? In verse nine, according to correct Greek interpretation, it should read: "therefore, O God, Thy God"

    All of this is used after the Incarnation of Jesus, and does not by any means show the eternal relations within the Trinity.
     
  4. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eternal Sonship is a view, that holds that Christ has ALWAYS, from eternity past, been the Son of the Father. And that He, somehow, proceeds from the Father, just as the Word and/or Wisdom of God.

    Incarnational Sonship, which is held by most Protestants (except me :) says that the Son was NOT 'God the Son' from the eternity past, but BECAME the Son at the incarnation. John MacArthur held this exact view until recently, when he changed to the Eternal Sonship view.

    Hope this helps.

    In Christ,
    Vlad
     
  5. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't Jesus still in human body? What do you mean 'AFTER' the incarnation?

    Col. 2:9 (NET Bible) For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form

    Note: Lives or dwells is in present tense.

    Now, to your point, that's true that the Father calls Jesus 'GOD' in Heb. 1:8, but note in Heb. 1:9, Father is called Jesus' God again.

    Heb 1:8 (NET Bible) but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.”

    Which proves my point, btw, for your have a GOD, WHOSE God is the Father. Now, if there is no eternal generation/begetting, etc.. and since we only have ONE God, how can you explain this (to a Mormon, for example)? If the Persons are not interdependent, then we have MORE than ONE God at the very least.

    btw, my sermon is today, so keep me in your prayers if you could.

    In Christ,
    Vlad
     
  6. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vlad,

    I think that represents what I believe,

    In John 3:16 It mentions Jesus as being Begotten. As I understand it this means comes forth from the Father rather than Created by the Father.
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    By "after" Jesus' Incarnation means just that. That before this time, and even during the Incarnation, Jesus was on the one hand "subordinate" to the Father, which will continue to be the case, based on 1 Corinthians 15:29, till the New Age is brought in. My point is that you cannot make much of Jesus calling the Father "My God", since these words, like the references you quote from Revelation, refer to Jesus AFTER His becoming the God-Man.

    There is NO eternal "generation" of "begetting" in the Godhead, as supposed by the heretic Origen and others. Nor does the Greek "monogenes" mean "only begotten" as rendered in the KJV. The Greek is from "mono", that is, "only", "single", and "genos", "kind", more correctly, "of a single kind", or, "unique". The KJV's "only-begotten" is from the Latin of Jerome, who was influenced by the then Orthodox debate with the Arians, and wrongly rendered the Greek "monogenes" by the Latin "unigenitus", rather than what the Old Latin correctly has, "unicus". The correct Greek word for "only begotten", is "monogennetos"

    You cannot have a "subordiantion" within the Trinity, which any notion of "begetting" of either the Son from the Father, or Holy Spirit from either/both Father are Son, would mean. The Three Persons in the Godhead are coequal, coessential and coeternal, which removes aby doubt that the Three are equally Almighty God in every respect. Liberal theology would have us believe in a Godhead of subordinate Persons, but the Bible is very clearly against this.

    The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE God, but that there are also Three "Persons" Who are equally referred to as "God". This then brings us to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, from "Tri" (three Persons), and "(u)nity", as touching their essence, or nature. 1 John 5:7, as found in the KJV and NKJV, is a very clear teaching on this fundamential doctrine, where the language shows that there are Three distinct "Persons" ("these three", masculine plural), are "one", neuter singular, literally, "one thing". Like what Jesus says in John 10:30; "I and the Father (Two Persons), one (neuter singular) we are (masculine plural)". This can ONLY be taken to mean, that the Father and Son, though distinct Persons, are yet united by their "nature", since both are God. The interpretation that Jesus is only speaking of "unity of will, or purpose", is destroyed from what preceds, where Jesus shows in verses 28-29 His absolute power equally with the Father, which must show unity of "essence". Also, from the understanding of Jesus' words by the Jews, where they clearly understood Him to claim Deity from Himself (see ver.33).
     
  8. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I Cor. 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

    Now, this verse disproves what you are saying, for it shows that the Son WILL BE subject to the Father in the future.

    In the meantime, however, He is calling the Father, HIS God.

    Lets place our emotions aside. Tell me, then, if there is no functional subordintation within the Trinity, then how come the Holy Spirit does not speak on His own authority?

    John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

    How do you explain this?
     
  9. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and also

    John 8:42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

    and

    Heb. 1:3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature,...

    and others as well...

    Well, I've got to run to church, it's 9AM where I'm at.

    In Christ,

    Vlad
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    No where in the New Testament are we told that the Son "proceds from the Father", in the sense where the preposition would be used to denote, "out of". Jesus Himnself speaks of "coming from (para) the Father" (John 16:28), where the reading has been corrupted by some to have the preposition "ek" instead of "para". The former denotes a "deriving", whereas that latter, a "proceding from besides". The early Church used the "Creeds" of Lucian and Eusebius as their basis for the Nicene Creed. Both these men were "Arians" with their Christology. Even the Orthodox Cyril and Athanisus subsituted the preposition "ek" for "para" at John 15:26, when used for the Holy Spirit, which has no textual support.The Nicene Creed's language, like "God form God, Light from Light", etc, makes use of the preposition "ek", which in itself is not a problem, since this is what John 8:42 says. However, its the interpretation of these words that are nothing short of heretical. The phrase itself was taken from the Creed of Caesarea, which was adopted from another earlier Creed by the heretic Lucian. Even the Orthodox were in error to adopt the theology of the heretic Origen, and conclude from the words "God out of God", that "The preposition (ek) denotes origin and derivation from the Father as Fons Deitatis. The absolute possesion of life from another is the essential character of Sonship" (Dr T Herbert Bindley; The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, p.30).

    This language goes beyond that of Scripture, where the Father is shown as the only Person in the Godhead as having unoriginated Being, whereas both the Son and Holy Spirit have their origin in the Father. This is a heretical teaching of the Holy Trinity, and rightly needs to be condemned as such. I am not too interested whether many of the Protestants accept the doctrine of the "Eternal Generation" of the Son from the Father, and I will never do so, since there is not a shred of Biblical evidence for this doctrine which clearly makes Jesus in to a demi-god. To my mind, that is no advantage in any way to any of the Three Persons in the Trinity. They are equally Almighty God. Even though there is language in Scripture that "suggests" there is a subordination, which is clearly for the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Since both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Almighty God, they, like the Father can never at any time be said to be "less" than Almighty God. In which case there is no Biblical data for the Father being the "source" of either the Son or Holy Spirit.
     
  11. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was not aware that eternal Sonship was a liberal doctrine. :confused:

    Also, I don't think anyone who is supporting subordination within the Godhead is supporting the 3 Persons of the Trinity not being co-equal, co-essential, or co-eternal.

    Why can it not be that eternal Sonship shows a relationship within the Trinity? Since the 3 Persons are distinct from each other within the Godhead, then it makes sense that the Sonship of Jesus is a distinction and mark of a relationship within the Trinity.
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was not aware that eternal Sonship was a liberal doctrine. :confused:

    Also, I don't think anyone who is supporting subordination within the Godhead is supporting the 3 Persons of the Trinity not being co-equal, co-essential, or co-eternal.

    Why can it not be that eternal Sonship shows a relationship within the Trinity? Since the 3 Persons are distinct from each other within the Godhead, then it makes sense that the Sonship of Jesus is a distinction and mark of a relationship within the Trinity. [/QB][/QUOTE]

    Marcia, can you explain to me, how it is possible for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be "co-equal", and yet both the Son and Holy Spirit are "subordinate" to the Father? Where in Scripture do we read of any "subordination" of the Persons in the Godhead? This has led many to arrive at heretical conclusions, where they make the Father alone as "unoriginated", while both the Son and Holy Spirit have their "origin" from the Father. If, as Scripture teaches, that Three are Almighty God, then there can be no "subordination" , not even functional, within the Godhead. Just because the Son is "sent" by the Father, does not make the Father any "better" than the Son, or more important. Jesus' coming to this world was an act of His own free will, which was in agreement with the Father and Holy Spirit.

    In my understanding, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is not Biblical orthoxody, in which case it is liberal. This doctrine come with the Eternal Generation of the Son out of the "essence" of the Father, whereby the Father "generates" the being of the Son. It is the heresy of Origen and has no place in Evangelical theology, sine it is not Biblical.
     
  13. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ichtus,

    It is obvious that you want to ignore subordination of the Holy Spirit as you are not adressing it with your reply. You theology (though it sounds good) is not based on Scripture and borders on Tri-theism. I think you can get more than one Mormon to say 'AMEN' to your doctrine.

    Now, as to your question about co-equality and functional subordination, a perfect example is the family, where the husband is the head.

    A wife is not sub-human just because the husband is her head, or... is she?
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't really care what you label me. These is NO, thats right, NOT EVEN ONE VERSE in the entire Bible that teaches any form of "subordination" of the Son and/or Holy Spirit to the Father. This is blatant heresy, and must be so condemned.

    In case you do not understand what the Bible teaches about God, let me refresh you. There is only ONE God, Who is Tri-Personal, NOT Three God's, but Three distinct, yet equal Persons Who are at the same time 100% Almighty God. If they are Almighty God, this alone proves that neither One can be in any way "subordinate" to the other. You are teaching heresy when you suppose that the Son or Holy Spirit are "subordinate" to the Father. Why not the other way around? Would you ever say that the Father is "subject" in His Deity to the Son or Holy Spirit? Of course not. Then, on what authority do you say that the Second and Third Persons are "subject" to the First Person? I do NOT believe in Three Gods as you suppose I do, nor do I accept the doctrine of demons that teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit is anything less than the Father, which your position no doubt does make them.
     
  15. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't really care what you label me. These is NO, thats right, NOT EVEN ONE VERSE in the entire Bible that teaches any form of "subordination" of the Son and/or Holy Spirit to the Father. This is blatant heresy, and must be so condemned.

    In case you do not understand what the Bible teaches about God, let me refresh you. There is only ONE God, Who is Tri-Personal, NOT Three God's, but Three distinct, yet equal Persons Who are at the same time 100% Almighty God. If they are Almighty God, this alone proves that neither One can be in any way "subordinate" to the other. You are teaching heresy when you suppose that the Son or Holy Spirit are "subordinate" to the Father. Why not the other way around? Would you ever say that the Father is "subject" in His Deity to the Son or Holy Spirit? Of course not. Then, on what authority do you say that the Second and Third Persons are "subject" to the First Person? I do NOT believe in Three Gods as you suppose I do, nor do I accept the doctrine of demons that teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit is anything less than the Father, which your position no doubt does make them. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So lets see, you ignore John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

    You ignore Proverbs 8

    22"The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. 23"From everlasting I was established,From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. 24"When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water. ....


    And yet, I'm the heretic? Well, I'd rather be a Heretic basing my views on Scripture, then an 'Orthodox' person basing my views on what makes me feel better.

    Oh, and I would not be a heretic according to the Nicene Fathers...
     
  16. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vlad, instead of finding Scriptures to back up your theological bias, you should do a deep study on what the Bible actually says on the Holy Trinity.

    Your reference to the passage from Proverbs to show that it refers to Christ, is complete nonsense. There is no reason to apply the words to Jesus, even though the early Church fathers did so in error. It is very clear that it is a personification of "wisdom", as it is also elsewhere in the Proverbs. This passage is what the Jehovah's Witnesses love to us for their heresy, because they also do not know what it teaches.

    Your reference from John 16:13 does not mean that the Holy Spirit is in any way inferior to Jesus. What Jesus is here saying, that, when the Holy Spirit comes, He will agree with everything that Jesus Himself is saying, and teach nothing different. This is why Jesus rebukes Philip in John chapter 14, when he asks Jesus "to show us the Father", as if to say that this is more convincing for Him. Jesus replies, that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him, and He that has seen Him has seen the Father. Not because they are the same Person, but their authority is one and the same (see also John 10:28-30)

    The Nicene Creed in my view is closer to heresy than to what the Bible teaches. It is no wonder that the likes of Eusebius was happy to accept it, even though his Christology was more Arian.
     
  17. Vlad_IL

    Vlad_IL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ichtus, (btw, what's your real name?),

    I'm just curious, if the Nicene Father got the Trinity wrong, on what basis do you think they have got the Scriptures right? In other words, it was due to the Council at the Nicea that all 66 books of the Bible were cannonized.

    Now, on to the point at hand.

    Your statement
    is partially Scripture and partially YOUR OPINION, and your opinion is just as good as mine.

    Jesus did in fact say that those who have seen Him saw the Father. Now, based on Hebrews 1:3 and Col. 1:15, 2 Cor. 4:4 I can say that Jesus could say that because HE was visibly what God was invisibly. (now, that is MY opinion based on Scripture as I read it)

    Your opinion is that Jesus said because He had the same authority. I happened to agree with you here, but I believe this is only partially true. In my theology, I don't have three Gods, I don't have three separate Persons, I have ONE God, the Father, who is Invisible, and the Son, who is VISIBLY what/Who the Father is invisibly (because He is the IMAGE) and I have ONE Spirit, who is the Person that shows the Son and the Father (by showing the Son).

    Rev. 5:6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders...

    See? There is ONE throne. John (the Apostle) does NOT see the Father, but he sees the LAMB.

    Hope this helps. Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier. I don't mean to call you a heretic. You are wrong ;) but not a heretic, for you acknowledge the Deity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

    Take care,
    Vlad
     
  18. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vlad, your statement, "In my theology, I don't have three Gods, I don't have three separate Persons, I have ONE God, the Father, who is Invisible, and the Son, who is VISIBLY what/Who the Father is invisibly (because He is the IMAGE) and I have ONE Spirit, who is the Person that shows the Son and the Father (by showing the Son)", is blatant heresy. This is what the Church condemned, which is known as "Modalism", which denies the permanence of the Three Persons, and maintained that the distinction in the Godhead were only transitory. This heresy was taught by Praxeas, Neotus, and Sabellius. By denying that the Three Persons are "separate" or "distinct", you will also fall into the heresy called "Patripassianism", which means that the Father suffered as the Son. This was also taught by the heretic Sabellius. I see where you theology is coming from, and can now better understand your arguments. Are you a "Oneness" person? The heresy that is the modern version of what I have just described.

    From one Sccipture I can demolish your argument that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not "separate". Look at John 10:30 in the Greek: "ego kai ho Pater hen esmen", literally, "I and the Father, one thing (neuter singular) We are (masculine plural, impossible if both the Father and Son are the "same Person)". 1 John 5:7 has the same language, but also includes the Holy Spirit.
     
  19. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Wow. I never knew this was an issue! You mean there are folks other than Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that believe that Jesus was not always the Son?

    How about 1 Cor. 11:3.

    Of course there is rank in the Godhead.

    Excellent point! [​IMG]


    Don't be callin' St. Paul and heretic! ;)
     
  20. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron, what do you mean in my calling St Paul a heretic? Unless you too do not understand the Biblical teaching of the Holy Trinity, you can only conclude that an "order" within the Godhead, or "subordination", is against what the Bible teaches.

    By saying what Vald said: "A wife is not sub-human just because the husband is her head, or... is she?", an excellent point, further shows your lack of understanding of what Scripture says, and just agree for the sake of it. The wife might not be "sub-human", but she, and all women are "subordinate", that is "not equal" to the husband/man. This is NOT possible with the Persons in the Godhead, as I have already shown, since they are completely "co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal", and this means that they are each Almighty God. It is interesting to note the language used by Paul in Philippians 2:6, where he speaks of Jesus "being on an equality with God the Father", where the Greek for "equal" is "isos" (isa), where it is used adverbally, to denote, as Homer uses it: "on equal terms, without advantage to either side". This very clearly shows, that the Persons in the Godhead are eternally "coequal", neither is "better", or "greater" than the other. Unless you can fully grasp this, you will never understand God.

    Did you see my last post, where I question the Orthodoxy of Vald's doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where he rejects that the Three Persons are "separate"? If this is not heresy, then what would you call it, Orthodox?
     

Share This Page

Loading...