Richard, the short answer is yes. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and good commentaries on it should show that "God" is often used in Scripture precisely for the Father, and that "Lord" is often used precisely for the Son. That of course does not imply that the Father is not Lord, or that the Son is not God, or that often "God" is best understood by taking in all three persons of the Godhead without reference to their personal properties.
I think that usage could certainly be ancillary evidence that the Father is of none, neither begotten nor spirated; but I wouldn't lay the main weight of the argument on the recognition of the Father as
fons deitatis upon it.
Most titles and terms we can use of God and his relations to us are somewhat fluid and ambiguous; the realities we use this language to discuss exceed our apprehension, so it is no wonder that they also create difficulties for our expression. Consider the most difficult title for Christ in Isaiah 9:6, "everlasting Father". The very difficulty highlights the wonder of the person of Christ. As Spurgeon says,
How complex is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ! Almost in the same breath the prophet calls him a “child,” and a “counselor,” a “son,” and “the everlasting Father.” This is no contradiction, and to us scarcely a paradox, but it is a mighty marvel that he who was an infant should at the same time be infinite, he who was the Man of Sorrows should also be God over all, blessed for ever; and that he who is in the Divine Trinity always called the Son, should nevertheless be correctly called “the everlasting Father.”
Now this title does not mean that there is any confusion in the Godhead, or that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect. You may sometimes run across a modalist, such as a Oneness Pentecostal, arguing that the Son is the Father on the basis of this text. The idea is that God is one person, who has manifested himself in different ways: whereas the orthodox teaching is that it was the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit, who was incarnate and crucified. This is clearly established simply by thinking of Christ’s prayers: in John 17 he prays to his Father, making this request:
glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (John 17:5). Does one manifestation of a person pray to another manifestation of that person? But an even more pointed objection to the modalist doctrine is the nature of Christ’s request: he asks to be glorified with the Father’s own self with the glory he had with the Father before the world was. It is not the glory he had when he was the father, or as the father, as modalist doctrine would require; but the glory he had with the Father, when he was
with him as two distinct persons are together. The Son is not the Father, and the Son was not the Father before the world was. Many similar points could be made from the other petitions in John 17 and elsewhere, but this is sufficient to show that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is correct: we confess the unity of God, that there is only one God; and an equally fundamental part of our doctrine of God is that in the unity of godhead there are three distinct persons, who are coequal but not identical.
So what does it mean that Christ is called the
everlasting father in this text? The context provides direction: in Isaiah 8:18 we read,
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me – words which we know from their citation in Hebrews 2:13-15 relate to Christ and those he saves. Christ is not ashamed to call those sons whom God is bringing to glory his brethren and his children; and since the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also partook of flesh and blood that by dying he might destroy the devil and free the children from bondage. So Christ is called the everlasting father because he took on him the seed of Abraham, and died for the children whom God had given him. Being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him (Hebrews 5:8). Christ is called the everlasting father, then, because he everlastingly saves the children he has been given. A relationship was established when God gave a people to his Son, and thus the Son dies for them and bestows upon them an everlasting salvation. His assumption of our nature gives us the right to regard him as our brother (Hebrews 2:16,17); His coming as a child born for us gives us the right to regard him as our child (Isaiah 9:6); and the relationship of savior and saved gives us the right to regard him as our everlasting father, while at the same time we know that his Father is our Father through him (John 20:17).
.
