thistle93
Puritan Board Freshman
Is it theological heresy to say "the Word, Son of God or Second Person of the Trinity" is eternal but that the person of Jesus who was born in a particular point in history was a not eternal in that He was an infusion of the divine nature (eternal) and the flesh nature (non-eternal). He was God (eternal) and man (non-eternal). Obviously the God nature of "the Word, Son of God or Second Person of the Trinity" in Jesus is eternal but at the incarnation he gained a human nature, which was not His in eternity and made him to be the person of Jesus. And now for eternity future Jesus has both divine and human natures but did not have so in eternity past. Do you understand what I am trying to say and is this to much of a technicality?
Is it theological heresy to say that the wording "Son of God" to describe the second person of the Trinity: Jesus, is a metaphor (might not be right word) for some way we as humans can understand the relationship/unity of the different persons of the Trinity? Not that the second person of the Trinity is a metaphor (clearly heresy) but that the word "Son" is. Reason I ask is because we do not believe God the Father had sexual relations to have second person of the Trinity conceived but that the "Son of God" is eternal God. Or did the second person of the Trinity become Son of God: Jesus at incarnation? Again do you understand what I am trying to say and is this to much of a technicality?
Is this relying to much on human logic? Have any of these views been proposed in history and declared heretical? Know complicated but would like to hear thoughts.
Thank you!
For His Glory-
Matthew
Is it theological heresy to say that the wording "Son of God" to describe the second person of the Trinity: Jesus, is a metaphor (might not be right word) for some way we as humans can understand the relationship/unity of the different persons of the Trinity? Not that the second person of the Trinity is a metaphor (clearly heresy) but that the word "Son" is. Reason I ask is because we do not believe God the Father had sexual relations to have second person of the Trinity conceived but that the "Son of God" is eternal God. Or did the second person of the Trinity become Son of God: Jesus at incarnation? Again do you understand what I am trying to say and is this to much of a technicality?
Is this relying to much on human logic? Have any of these views been proposed in history and declared heretical? Know complicated but would like to hear thoughts.
Thank you!
For His Glory-
Matthew