Does the Bible ever Use term God the Son?
- Thread starter Dachaser
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
The phrase "God the Son" is not used in Scripture if that is what you are asking. Referring to Jesus as God the Son in theological discourse is common.
He was, is, and always will be God the Son. He that was born Jesus was not an independent human being, as if what was assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity was an actual person.
Worth a read:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become
Worth remembering:
Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.
One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.
The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:
1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called persons) (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.
Unless you can affirm each of the statements above, your understanding of Christology is deficient.
was just asking if before he was born as Jesus, that he existed as the Word, as God the Son, and became Son of God when he assumed on human flesh, as the humanity of him historical started at his conception by the Holy Spirit?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
David,
What exactly do you see as distinctions between God the Son and Son of God? You seem to be implying that upon assumption of human flesh a paternal event occurred. What then of the eternal generation of the Son?
I think that the Son is eternal, as He has always been begotten of/by the Father, but that He assumed and took on Humanity when born as Jesus, so before that Incarnation, he was just God the Son...
LaurenC
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't know if there's any special meaning or maybe I should say any distinction between these two terms Son of God and God the son I just haven't thought about it or seen writings on it so I'm not sure if there is a different particular meaning
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Asserting 'God the Son' is a very specific way of predicating divine properties to Jesus while avoiding confusion. It allows us to make the difference between 'merely human' and 'fully human.' Logos's assumption of essential human properties made him fully human, but not merely human.
Also, asserting 'God the Son' avoids the confusion that people sometimes think that if Father is God, HS is God, and Jesus is God, how are there not three gods? Saying God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit avoids a lot of that confusion while keeping the main idea.
Thomas McCall's book Introduction to Christian Analytic Philosophy is really good on this point.
Also, asserting 'God the Son' avoids the confusion that people sometimes think that if Father is God, HS is God, and Jesus is God, how are there not three gods? Saying God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit avoids a lot of that confusion while keeping the main idea.
Thomas McCall's book Introduction to Christian Analytic Philosophy is really good on this point.
Jesus in regards to His humanity did not exist til conceived by the Holy spirit, correct? So IF the Second person of the trinity came to earth in say OT, was not Jesus, bit God the Son at that point in time?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Right. Jesus' human nature is anhypostatic. As to the scond question, He wasn't revealed as "Jesus" then, but it wasn't a different Person.
So would that mean Jesus has 2 Natures/Wills then? And while here on earth, as per the kenosis theory, just what did he divest Himself of?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Jesus has two natures/wills right now, if that is what you are asking. As per kenosis, he divested himself of things like omnipresence
LaurenC
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a really good explanation thank you that does make sense now or I mean I see the difference
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Can you explain this statement related to divestiture of omnipresence? Are you implying that while Our Lord walked among us the Second Person of the Trinity was geographically confined to various locales within Israel?
That was some of the limitations that he agreed to in the Incarnation, as he was then localized in just His body, correct? That is why better for Him to ascend again, as the Spirit could be everywhere, while he could not in that body while on the earth?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I meant his flesh wasn't omnipresent. Sorry.
So he was then stuck in a single location at a time while here on earth. correct?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
His human nature has the properties of "being human," which means spatial extension. And that means not two or three Jesuses wandering around Palestine.
But after His ascension, now fully back to no longer bound to being just single place, as he is now everywhere again?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Our Lord's physical, and now glorified body was and is now always spacially constrained.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Does his human nature still have the properties of being human?
Of course, his glorified body can walk through doors and disappear, so there are some differences. But he is still spatially located. Now, I have no idea what that would entail living in the heavenly dimension.
He would not be able to be elsewhere then? Is that a permanent self imposed limitation than?
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
According to His humanity yes, but not according to His divinity. We are allowed to speak of the one person Jesus according to either nature depending on the context of the conversation.
It could only be self-imposed in the sense that He voluntarily chose to become man, but once He took on Him the nature of a man the limitations of human properties were bound to Him. What it means to be glorified humanity still awaits to be revealed, but the human nature itself imposes the limitations entailed in human properties.
- Status
