"The Father" and "The Son"

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005
edited April 7 in Apologetics

Let me say at the outset, in the NT there are no such words as Trinity or trinitarian. There is much about God the Father, about Jesus who is called the Son, and about the Holy Spirit.

These terms, "The Father" and "The Son", are used in relations to God. To the chagrin of many, the terms are misunderstood. The terms of “Father” and “Son” in Western thinking carry with them the ideas of origin, dependence, and subordination. In the Semitic or Oriental mind, however, they emphasize sameness of nature. Thus, when the Scriptures speak of the “Son” of God, they assert his divinity.

At the baptism of Jesus, the Father called him “my beloved Son.” The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional. In the plan of salvation, each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role for the purpose of accomplishing a particular goal, not a change in essence or status. Millard J. Erickson explains it this way:

"The Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father’s will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are".

When one looks closely, Daniel 7:13, 14, 26, 27 and 8:14, 23-25 are parallel passages describing the same event.

  • Daniel 7 speaks of a judgment prior to the establishment of God’s kingdom (Daniel 7:27).
  • Daniel 8 speaks of the cleansing of the sanctuary, leading to the destruction of the little horn (Daniel 8:25). 
  • The scene in Daniel 7 describes the seating of the Ancient One in the heavenly court, the coming of the Son of Man, and the restoration of the Son’s “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Daniel 7:14, NIV). 

These are the powers Christ had in heaven and the powers Lucifer coveted. Satan would never acknowledge that Christ is coeternal, coequal, and co-powerful with God the Father—a point he contested powerfully and lost in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11).

Truth found truth shared. CM

SOURCE:

  • Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker, 1983), 1:338

PS Above, may be the answers to some questions you asked of me elsewhere in the forums.

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @C_M_ wrote

    These terms, "The Father" and "The Son", are used in relations to God.

    This is a somewhat misleading or inaccurate statement ---

    "Son" is NEVER used of God Himself. God is said to be the Father, the Almighty, the Creator, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, etc ... but God Himself is NEVERcalled "the Son" in Sripture. The reason is very simple => It is by definition IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE THE (OR A) SON!! ... if that were the case, God would have to have someone who was before Him, that is another God as a Father, a Mother

    Thus, all further ideas about "Holy Trinity" are of necessity beside the point and non-sense, because the premise "God is Son" is false.

  • @Wolfgang wrote: "Son" is NEVER used of God Himself.

    Please explain Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”

     New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 14:33.

    If Jesus is not God, then receiving worship from humans is sin against God (Exodus 20:3-6 & Deuteronomy 5:7-10) that would disqualify Jesus from being a sinless savior for the world. If Jesus is God, then receiving worship is sinless (& appropriate).

    Also please explain what the legion of demons inside a man called Jesus in Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.”

     New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Lk 8:28.

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    Please explain Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”

     New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 14:33.

    If Jesus is not God, then receiving worship from humans is sin against God (Exodus 20:3-6 & Deuteronomy 5:7-10) that would disqualify Jesus from being a sinless savior for the world. If Jesus is God, then receiving worship is sinless (& appropriate).

    there is nothing to explain ... correct reading and understanding what is said is the explanation. Does the text read: "You are certainly God" ??? If not, don't read it that into it.

    Also please explain what the legion of demons inside a man called Jesus in Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.”

     New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Lk 8:28.

    Same as above ... the sad story yhere is that the demons knew bett than you smiling fellow, because they knew that Jesus was the Son of the Most High God, whereas you seem to be of the opinion that Jesus wass the Most High God or 1 Most High God Person of 3 Most High God Persons

  • edited April 8

    @Wolfgang wrote: the sad story yhere is that the demons knew bett than you smiling fellow, because they knew that Jesus was the Son of the Most High God, whereas you seem to be of the opinion that Jesus wass the Most High God or 1 Most High God Person of 3 Most High God Persons

    My belief is Jesus (Yeshua) being 1 Person in Loving Community of 1 Most High God that has 3 Persons (Voices) intimately sharing 1 Heart, 1 Soul, & 1 Strength. Matthew 28:19 baptism command reflects the Loving Community of 1 Most High God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

    @Wolfgang wrote: the premise "God is Son" is false.

    Your explanation missed two verse examples showing Jesus is God's Son. The Word was eternally being God before the creation of the world, who became flesh (Son of Man) and dwelled among us whose name translation is Jesus. (John 1:1, 14, 18, 34)

    Also missing is how Jesus can be your savior. If Jesus is not God, then Jesus could not be the Holy sacrifice for your sins against the 1 Most High God since a man OR angel receiving worship for the Most High God is a sin against the Most High God.

    Keep Smiling 😀

    Post edited by Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote

    @Wolfgang wrote: the premise "God is Son" is false.

    Your explanation missed two verse examples showing Jesus is God's Son.

    I replied to the post with those two verses and commented on thme ... and you claim that I missed those verses ???? You better get your head together as you give the impression of having a severe problem ...

    Now, sine you insist that God is a Son, I am sure you can tell us who God's father (and perhals his mother?) is. All your iother words are irrelevant to the question of whther or not God can be a Son, and whose Son God would be.

  • @Wolfgang wrote: Now, sine you insist that God is a Son, I am sure you can tell us who God's father (and perhals his mother?) is. 

    Before creation, the Loving Community of 1 Most High God had 3 voices: Will, Word, Holy Spirit (intimately & intensely sharing 1 essence: heart, soul, strength). Before God spoke, "Let there be Light !" to begin creation out of nothing, God's design included The Word leaving Holy Heaven to become the sinless Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world while The Will continued to righteously rule. In Psalm 2:7 (today), King David prophesied The Will (God) becoming The Father (God) when The Word (God) became The Son (God within a single human embryo inside the virgin Mary that grew into Jesus).

    Holy Spirit (God) miracle inside Mary enabled The Word (God) to leave Holy Heaven for human birth, which did not change the fully human nature of Mary. Hence Mary is the human mother of Jesus (physical descendant from King David = Son of God). The Loving Community of 1 Most High God is the Father of Jesus (Son of Man).

    Keep Smiling 😀

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... are you able to read? are you able to understand what you read?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,268

    I know I have been rude on my days here, but I believe this post is out of line as well.

  • JanJan Posts: 249

    I agree. Would it be possible to refrain from personal attacks please, and respond to the arguments instead?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    how do you folks ask for clarification when something seems to be a certain way? When someone seemingly replies with totally unrelated statements to questions, I consider it a legitimate point to ask if they were able to read what had been written ..

    The person can easily clarfiy, for example by stating that they did read and did understand what they read,, but decided to answer with something unrelated, etc ... or that they read but did not understand what was written .... or that they were not interested in really answering and just wanted to write something .... or whatever etc

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,422

    @Wolfgang said:

    how do you folks ask for clarification when something seems to be a certain way? When someone seemingly replies with totally unrelated statements to questions, I consider it a legitimate point to ask if they were able to read what had been written ..

    The person can easily clarfiy, for example by stating that they did read and did understand what they read,, but decided to answer with something unrelated, etc ... or that they read but did not understand what was written .... or that they were not interested in really answering and just wanted to write something .... or whatever etc

    FWIW, Wolfgang, my approach to such a circumstance is to state my belief that the person's response did not address the issues/questions I raised, and to raise the issues/questions again. Something of this fashion: "I respect your point of view on the issues addressed in your response, but those aren't the issues I intended to raise in my last post. In my view, your response is about [INSERT ISSUE(S) HERE] but my post raised/asked about [INSERT ISSUE(S)/QUESTION(S) HERE]. Hence, I raise/ask my issue(s)/question(s) again: [INSERT ISSUE(S)/QUESTION(S) HERE]."

    The objective of such an approach is to comply with the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of these forums. As long as my posts focus on the content of others' posts and NOT the posters themselves, I expect my posts will satisfy that expectation.

    In my view, asking posters whether they are able to read or to comprehend/understand what they read is FAR more about posters than it is about the content of their posts. If you don't think a post responds to the issue(s) you've raised, say so, but say it in a way that is about the post, not the poster.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720
    edited April 10

    @Bill_Coley wrote:

    In my view, asking posters whether they are able to read or to comprehend/understand what they read is FAR more about posters than it is about the content of their posts. If you don't think a post responds to the issue(s) you've raised, say so, but say it in a way that is about the post, not the poster.

    Did the problem have to do with the post? or did it have to do with the poster and something related to the poster? Was my post to which he replied so complicate or formulated in a manner that one could not read it or understand it? Or was there a problem with the reader who then posted something totally unrelated? Since I had the impression that the problem was related to the reader/poster I asked whether he could read and understand what had been written ... to me, a normal approach of clarifying what is really going on. For example, he can easily answer. "Well, I could read but was unable to understand what you wrote; can you clarify what you are trying to say" .... if that was the case

    Is this kindergarten where folks are not able to deal with somewhat direct questions to the point, and instead one needs to "formulate politically correct even questions for clarification because when addressed without "velvet positivity gloves" they fall apart and feel it is not appropriate for their level or manner of talking?

    Note: I did NOT state that the @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus participant could not read or could not understand or was unwilling to read or understand and perhaps should take some reading and understanding classes.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    To whom it may concern, "An apple doesn't fall far from its tree." CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,422

    @Wolfgang said:

    Did the problem have to do with the post? or did it have to do with the poster and something related to the poster?

    In my view, compliance with these forums' expectation that participants will "criticize ideas, not people" requires that we post about problems with posts, not their posters.

    Was my post to which he replied so complicate or formulated in a manner that one could not read it or understand it? Or was there a problem with the reader who then posted something totally unrelated?

    If you believe the issue is with the substance of a post - whether your own or another's - then address the substance of that post. If you believe the issue is with a person - yourself or another poster - then address the substance of posts. It's that simple, in my view. [Unless you want to limit your personal comments to your personal role in creating the issue. Authentically confessional speech is often both effective and disarming.]

    Since I had the impression that the problem was related to the reader/poster I asked whether he could read and understand what had been written ... to me, a normal approach of clarifying what is really going on. For example, he can easily answer. "Well, I could read but was unable to understand what you wrote; can you clarify what you are trying to say" .... if that was the case.

    Notice the disparity between the tone and focus of your response to the other poster, Wolfgang, and the response you propose from the other poster to you:

    • You ask of him, "Can you read and understand written words?"
    • You have him reply to you, "Yes. Could you restate your point?"

    To maintain consistency of tone, why don't you have him ask of you, "What's wrong with you that you would ask whether I can read and understand words?"

    Is this kindergarten where folks are not able to deal with somewhat direct questions to the point, and instead one needs to "formulate politically correct even questions for clarification because when addressed without "velvet positivity gloves" they fall apart and feel it is not appropriate for their level or manner of talking?

    The guideline and expectation is that we will "criticize ideas, not people." How does "Can you read?" or "Can you understand what you read?" NOT violate that expectation?

    Note: I did NOT state that the @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus participant could not read or could not understand or was unwilling to read or understand and perhaps should take some reading and understanding classes.

    My point is that other posters' reading and comprehension abilities are NOT fair game in forums such as these, whose expectations include that posters will "criticize ideas, not people."

    I must also point out, Wolfgang, that IN THIS POST you suggested to him that he had "better get (his) head together as (he gave) the impression of having a severe problem...." How did that advice NOT violate the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,268

    Maybe it is a cultural thing....

  • @Wolfgang wrote: @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... are you able to read? are you able to understand what you read?

    Yes.

    Hypothesis: belief in what is impossible prevented understanding of my six sentence reply about God. Filtering out "impossible" beliefs left an unrelated mess (pieces of each sentence), which was not understood (so questioned "are you able to ...")

    The "rude" replies showed my theological ideas in six sentences were understood by others.

    For my personal Bible study, my desire is knowing my own belief bias. God's Truth continues to be True (God's Ways are higher than human ways). My human understanding has limitations so my approach to serious study is asking God to open my eyes to behold wonders in His Holy Word. For Bible treasure hunting, like using S.O.A.P.

    Scripture - Where is it at ?

    Observe - What jumps out ? (especially Truth in original context)

    Apply - What does God want me to do ?

    Pray - How to wisely proceed with God ?

    Keep Smiling 😀

Sign In or Register to comment.