Roger,

You seem to be confusing the union of the two natures with the person of the Word/Son. Jesus speaks clearly of himself as the Son prior to creation. Jn 17:5

Consequently, the language of Sonship isn’t anthropomorphic or strictly speaking temporal language.

Steve,

An argument from silence may indeed be valid. However, when structure
begins to weigh on a foundation it had better be sure. Simply, I believe that
talking about Jesus’ co-equality in the Trinity or referring to His pre-eternal
existence in terms properly relevant to the Godman are fine provided that
it is made clear that we are talking about his Deity (Divine nature’s involvement.

What is not clear is why we should translate temporal terminology
(Father-Son) into a discussion about the dynamic of the Trinity. In other words,
using those terms puts us at risk of imposing anthropocentric relational ideas
and relational heiracrchy upon the Trinity without warrant.

Roger,

While I applaud your attempt at clarity I think I’d have to say that your approach causes more questions than it does answers. This is a mysterious subject – that can be said clearly. ;^)

Briefly:
You appeal to an argument from silence to make your points. And while you may find no reason, that does not mean there is none, nor does it necessitate your conclusions.

If you’re saying that Jesus was eternally co-equal in being _and_ function I dont know that you can support the latter with anything more than an argument from silence. Since much of the understanding of the Trinity has to be read back into the texts regardless of the view, there’s not much to work with when we want such detailed precision regarding the mystery of the Trinity. I think it is a harder case to make that He was co-equal in function prior to the incarnation, but that may just be me. I do believe he’s co-equal in being eternally.

But, while I may not agree with you, you have caused me to think about it more closely – thanks for that.

cheers,

-steve

All I’m saying is that recently I’ve been thinking about the way Christianity
describes the Trinity and I think it’s confusing.

It overlooks a load of important consideration to simply say that the second
person of the trinity is “Jesus”. Of course, in Christian circles people have a
sense that it means we believe that Jesus is God.

I do believe in a triune God, all three persons co-equal, co-existing eternally.

To say that Jesus, the individual possessing fully human and fully divine
natures, existed in pre-creation eternity violates Luke 1:35.

Secondly, to describe the pre-creation triune Being (God) in terms of
‘Father-Son’ reads a temporal (becoming eternal) relationship that BEGAN
WITH JESUS back into how the Being eternally is.

I find no reason to assume that one Person of God had a Father relationship
with another person of God as a pre-creation eternal Son.

Roger,

So, you seem to be taking great strides to make some subtle point that apparently I’m not seeing clearly yet.

What’s at stake here that causes such concern on your part by calling the second person of the trinity Jesus? Are you saying you don’t hold to a triune God, or something else? Are you saying that the second person of the trinity did not eternally co-exist with the Father and Holy Spirit?

Please clarify as simply as possible for the slow readers (me). The smaller the words the better. ;^)

-steve

Of course Jesus IS ETERNAL NOW. I mean to say that he had a created aspect to his individuality.

One of the three Persons of the Trinity (Philippians 2) became incarnate (Luke 1:35). Although constantly referred to as the Second Person
or the Son, I find no warrant for these designations. Mary was told that the One born from her “will” be called the Son of God. I believe that
the Son is Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man. I hate to hear someone say “God became a man”. God became united with a sinless humanity
miraculously created in the womb of Mary, the PRODUCT of a triune act (all htree Persons of the Divine Being involved)

When I say I find no warrant for the designation “Son” for the so-called second Person of the Trinity, I mean that I find it unScriptural.
A lot of problems have been introduced by using terminology INTRODUCED BY JESUS and reading it back into some pre-creation relational
dynamic in order to bring understanding about the Trinity. Next we have subordinationist heresies and all kinds of confusion. We have a
very natural psychological tendency to assign hiearchical relations using Father-Son descriptions for members of the Trinity. Further,
we have the same problem with 1-2-3 (1st Pers, 2nd Pers, 3rd Pers)

If you have one please tell me why Biblically I should call a Person of the Trinity (and that Person ALONE) ‘Son’.

Jesus is NOT eternal. The Person who is God integral with (but undiminished by) his humanity is eternal. Jesus had a temporal, a created
body (now glorified). Jesus was NOT with God in the beginning, the Word was with God and was/is God.

Roger,

I don’t believe you can separate Christ’s two natures – the divine and human – without damaging Christianity’s understanding of Christ’s nature and being and therefore possibly lessening the salvific work that took place on the cross.

ChadS

Roger,

Can you please elaborate in general, and clarify your use of the term “person”?

thanks,

-steve

It must be admitted that Jesus Christ is the Godman, the incarnation of a
Person of the Godhead, and as such (having a temporal aspect in his
humanity) was not always. His Deity, of course, is eternal but the person we
call the Son of God, that is, Jesus Christ is the PRODUCT of a triune act and
may only be described as eternal with regard to his Deity.