Begotten or Eternal? — The Controversy of the Sonship in Time and Eternity

[The_Omega]

Thank you for taking the time to lay that out. Seriously — I appreciate when someone is willing to slow down and walk through Scripture instead of just throwing labels around. Let me share my thoughts just as humbly and slowly.

I don’t disagree with any of the verses you quoted.
Psalm 110, Psalm 45, Hebrews 1 — I treasure all of them.

Where our perspectives differ isn’t in what the verses say, but how we understand the distinction they describe.

Let me explain what I mean:

1. The “two voices” in Scripture do not automatically equal two eternal divine persons.

In Scripture, God can speak in different ways, through different modes, and even through the humanity He took on — without implying multiple divine persons.

Examples:

• God speaks through angels as His own voice (Ex. 3:2–6).

• God speaks through prophets in the first-person as “I, the LORD” (Isa. 48:17–18).

• God speaks through the Messiah, who is both man and God in one person (Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:21).

So the mere fact that God speaks to “my Lord,” or that the Father speaks to the Son, doesn’t automatically settle the nature of their distinction. The Bible simply doesn’t use the later categories of “two divine persons” or “three Someones.”

2. Psalm 45 is a coronation psalm — and Hebrews applies it to the incarnate Son.

This part is huge.

Psalm 45 calls the king “God” in a representational sense, then immediately says:

“Therefore God, YOUR God, has anointed you…”

If the king is called “God” in the psalm, and the king has a God over him, it doesn’t mean the king is an eternal divine person. It means:

• he rules by God’s authority

• he bears God’s name

• he represents God to the people

Then Hebrews applies this coronation text to Jesus as the exalted Son after He was made lower than the angels (Heb. 1:4; 2:9).

So the context is not pre-incarnation divinity interacting with another divine person.
It is God exalting the Messiah as both God and King after the incarnation.

In other words:
the passage is about the enthroned God-Man — not about two eternal divine persons having a conversation in eternity past.

3. “Your God” is covenant language, not a declaration of ontological inferiority.

Throughout the Old Testament, God calls His servants “gods” in various contexts (Ex. 7:1; Ps. 82:6), yet these men still have God as “their God.”

That doesn’t imply multiple divine persons.
It reflects functional authority — not an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

In Jesus’s case, Hebrews explains exactly why He calls the Father “My God”:

• because He became human (Heb. 2:14)

• because He was made like His brethren (Heb. 2:17)

• because He suffered and died (Heb. 2:9)

• because God exalted Him (Heb. 1:4; 2:9–10)

So Scripture itself anchors this relational language in the incarnation, not in eternity past.

4. You’re reading eternal categories into texts that speak of the incarnate Messiah.

When you say:

“This didn’t happen only after Jesus became human… those two voices are already there eternally…”

I want to respond gently:

Where does Scripture actually say that?
Which verse says these dialogues were happening before Bethlehem?

Every text you quoted takes place:

• either in prophecy (Psalm 110, Psalm 45)

• or in the incarnation and exaltation (Hebrews 1)

None of them describe an eternal “Someone speaking to Someone else” within the Godhead.

That part is being supplied by theological deduction — not by the text itself.

5. The Bible never uses “One Being, three Someones.”

That language is philosophical, not biblical.

The Shema says:

“YHWH is one.”
Not “one Being with three Someones.”

Jesus says:
“He that has seen Me has seen the Father.”
Not “one divine person reveals another divine person.”

Paul says:
“God was in Christ.”
Not “one divine center of consciousness indwells another.”

When Scripture describes Father and Son, it does so in the context of the incarnation, where God is fully God and fully man in the same person.

6. My position is simple and doesn’t deny any verse:

• The Father is God.

• Jesus is God.

• The only distinction Scripture ever gives us within God is the distinction between the Humanity He manifested into (which is now glorified and eternal) and the fully indwelling, omnipresent God who fills all in all and yet dwells in Christ bodily at the same time. That distinction is rooted in the incarnation, not in multiple eternal persons within the Godhead.

Jesus is God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).
He prays, loves, obeys, is anointed, and receives a kingdom because He is fully human.
He rules, forgives sins, receives worship, and is called God because He is fully divine.

One God.
One Person.
Two natures.
God in flesh.

Everything Scripture reveals fits that beautifully without needing extra categories like “three Someones,” “one Being,” or “eternal relationships.”

Again, I’m not debating your sincerity or devotion. I respect both.
I just believe the biblical distinctions arise from the incarnation, not from an eternal Trinity.
And I’m trying to stick only with what the inspired text actually says — nothing more, nothing less.

Grace and peace.

[TheologyNerd]

Let’s look at something you said here shall we?

1. The “two voices” in Scripture do not automatically equal two eternal divine persons.

In Scripture, God can speak in different ways, through different modes, and even through the humanity He took on — without implying multiple divine persons.

With all due respect, this comes across as recognizing the evidence for what it is, and then handwaving it away.

Which, from where I sit, invalidates whatever rebuttal you may want to offer. You go on to argue
”The Bible simply doesn’t use the later categories of “two divine persons” or “three Someones”. But will, with nearly the same breath, say

One God.
One Person.
Two natures.
God in flesh.

Of course Scripture never says “one Person” or “two natures”; and yet you have on multiple occasions taken issue with Trinitarians not using explicit and verbatim biblical wording.

Which makes this come across as “rules for thee, not for me”.

At this juncture the whole comes across as hand-waving, dismissing, and hypocritical. This isn’t a value judgment on you as a person. But it does suggest that you are more interested in propagating your pet doctrine than meaningful theological and biblical conversation.

Perhaps establish some universal ground rules? Are we permitted to use extra-biblical language in order to articulate what we believe the Bible to mean and say; or are we restricting ourselves to explicit and verbatim biblical statements?

I’m fine with you using extra-biblical statements and wording to articulate what you believe–but you ought to extend the same courtesy toward others. Attempting to dismiss the words of others for doing what you yourself do is blatantly hypocritical.

[Johann]

J.

[The_Omega]

Thank you for your honesty. I really do appreciate when someone is willing to speak directly but respectfully. Let me respond in the same spirit.

I completely understand why it looks like I’m creating a double standard. That truly isn’t my intention. My concern has never been with people using any extra-biblical words at all—Christians have always used terms to summarize biblical ideas.

My concern is specifically when extra-biblical terms become the foundation of a doctrine, rather than Scripture itself.

For example:

• “Two natures” is a summary phrase describing what Scripture explicitly affirms:
  Jesus is fully God and fully man (John 1:1,14; Phil 2:6–8; Col 2:9).
  It simply pulls together what the text already states in plain language.

• But phrases like “three eternal persons,” “eternal generation,” “one Being, three Someones,” or “God the Son” are not summary phrases of explicit biblical teaching. They introduce entire categories that Scripture never gives and then place those categories back into the text.

So my concern hasn’t been the use of non-biblical words in general—but the use of non-biblical concepts that reshape how the Bible is read.

If you ever felt like I was dismissing you or holding you to a rule I wasn’t willing to follow myself, please accept my apology. That isn’t my heart at all.

I’m very open to extra-biblical explanations as long as the concepts come from Scripture, not the other way around. If we’re both committed to letting the text dictate the categories—and not forcing categories back into the text—then I’m more than happy to meet in the middle with terminology.

I want the conversation to remain meaningful, charitable, and grounded in the Word.
And I appreciate you calling this out kindly rather than letting frustration build.

Thanks again for the dialogue and for holding me accountable to clarity and fairness.
I truly respect that.

[Johann]

178,748 views Oct 8, 2016
Join us at: http://www.inspiringphilosophy.org

To help support this ministry click here: https://www.patreon.com/inspiringphil…

Many Jewish thinkers have recognized there is Trinitarian evidence in the old testament and this video goes over these facts.

J.

[The_Omega]

One thing that often gets overlooked in these discussions is this:
If a rigid commitment to plurality inside God were truly necessary to understand Christ, then the people who knew the Old Testament best should have recognized Him instantly.

But Scripture shows the opposite.

The very people who had the Shema on their lips every day—
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4)—
stumbled over the idea that the one, invisible, omnipresent God could take on genuine human flesh.

That was the offense.

Not that God had “another eternal person beside Him.”
But that the same God who stretched out the heavens could enter His own creation as a man.

Paul says exactly this:

• “Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” (1 Cor. 2:8)

• They stumbled at the idea that “God was manifest in the flesh.” (1 Tim. 3:16)

• They could not accept that the One who said “I am the LORD, and beside Me there is no Savior” (Isa. 43:11)
  was now standing before them as their Savior in human form.

It wasn’t a lack of belief in multiple persons.
It was a refusal to believe in God’s incarnation.

They could not fathom that the God who fills heaven and earth could also fully dwell in a real human body.

And that’s why I often say:

The problem was never that they lacked a doctrine of eternal “persons.”
The stumbling-block was always the idea of the one true God becoming man.

Anything beyond that—eternal persons, co-equal centers of divine consciousness, eternal Sonship, etc.—does not come from the Old Testament or from the preaching of the apostles. Those categories arose later as attempts to explain the incarnation, not as the foundation for recognizing Christ.

The apostles preached something far simpler and far more shocking:

• The Father Himself was in Christ. (2 Cor. 5:19)

• The Word was God… and the Word became flesh. (John 1:1,14)

• In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)

If anything, the New Testament shows that a plurality-of-persons paradigm actually makes it easier to avoid the scandal of the incarnation.
Because if “one divine person” sends “another divine person,” then God never truly becomes man—He simply delegates.

But the gospel is far more radical:

The one true God—who is Spirit, omnipresent, and invisible—took on real human flesh and walked among us.

This is what the religious leaders of Jesus’ day could not accept.
They could not imagine that the Holy One of Israel would actually become human.

And if they couldn’t accept Christ as God why would they ever believe in a Plurality of Persons.

Some Jewish thinkers may be changing their minds about what they believe, but no True Devout jew (not talking about Modern Jews, but those steeped in Old Testament Traditions) would ever believe in a Plurality.

That was—and still is—the dividing line.

[PeterC]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing Johann

Peter

[TheologyNerd]

I completely understand why it looks like I’m creating a double standard. That truly isn’t my intention. My concern has never been with people using any extra-biblical words at all—Christians have always used terms to summarize biblical ideas.

My concern is specifically when extra-biblical terms become the foundation of a doctrine, rather than Scripture itself.

For example:

• “Two natures” is a summary phrase describing what Scripture explicitly affirms:
  Jesus is fully God and fully man (John 1:1,14; Phil 2:6–8; Col 2:9).
  It simply pulls together what the text already states in plain language.

• But phrases like “three eternal persons,” “eternal generation,” “one Being, three Someones,” or “God the Son” are not summary phrases of explicit biblical teaching. They introduce entire categories that Scripture never gives and then place those categories back into the text.

So my concern hasn’t been the use of non-biblical words in general—but the use of non-biblical concepts that reshape how the Bible is read.

I’m very open to extra-biblical explanations as long as the concepts come from Scripture, not the other way around. If we’re both committed to letting the text dictate the categories—and not forcing categories back into the text—then I’m more than happy to meet in the middle with terminology.

The problem: You are using your particular doctrinal position to determine what is an acceptable use of extra-biblical explanations and language.

When I summarize biblical teaching on the Trinity and use “Trinity” or “One God and three Persons” or “three Someones” etc from where I stand, theologically, I’m doing only what you claim you yourself are doing. I’m summarizing what Scripture says, using extra-biblical language to explain what Scripture itself says and reveals.

I get that you don’t see yourself as applying a double standard, but you are. In essence you are saying, “I’m just summarizing what I believe the Bible to say” and simultaneously “You aren’t summarizing what the Bible says, you are adding your own ideas to the Bible”–of course as far as I’m concerned all I’m doing is summarizing what the Bible says, and you are the one adding your own ideas to the Bible.

To put it another way: You are providing a subjective standard, and in so doing justifying your use of extra-biblical language and criticizing others for doing the same.

Either we both get to summarize what we believe what Scripture says, or neither of us does.

Because, again, as far as I’m concerned you’re the one adding to Scripture, you’re the one introducing new ideas foreign from the Bible, and so what you call summary or explanation is simply non-biblical heretical dogma. You view my Trinitarianism the same way–as non-biblical and contrary to true doctrine.

Your intent may not have been “rules for thee, not for me”, but regardless of intent, that is the outcome.

[TheologyNerd]

I’d like to present a simple argument:

Is the Son of God God?

If the term “Son” refers explicitly and uniquely to the incarnate humanity of Jesus, then the answer to the above question must, categorically, be no. Human beings aren’t divine. And as I understand the Oneness position Jesus is God and human, and it His being human that is identified as being “the Son”. Therefore “the Son” is human, but not God; thus Jesus is both God and the Son of God, according to His Deity and humanity respectively. If this is the case, then as I have argued here we cannot say “the Son is God”, rather the Son is human, but not God.

If there is at this juncture any point of objection, I’d like to hear it. If I am building a straw man argument, I want to know–because I’m about to address it directly:

The Scriptures say, “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne O God is forever and ever’” It is the Son that is called “God”. So Scripture explicitly calls the Son “God”. Yet, if “the Son” is only the humanity, and if this Sonship began at conception and ends at some point in the future, then the Son cannot be God. Jesus can be God, but not “the Son”; as Sonship becomes a mantle Jesus wears for a time, and thus cannot be called “God”, nor can the Son (and what the Son has, e.g. His throne) be forever if it comes to an end.

If Jesus’ Sonship is His humanity; and if His Sonship ends, then the Son can never be called God, nor can the Son’s throne be forever. Rather the Son can be called man and the Son’s throne can be called temporary.

I am, here, using only 1) Oneness theology as it has been presented to me and I understand it thus far and 2) the strict words of the Bible.

Where does my argument fail?

[Johann]

The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs

Jesus is Yahweh

This alone will refute all Oneness theology from a brilliant apologist, Sam Shamoun.

J.

[Bruce_Leiter]

What do you think of the following thoughts, @The_Omega?

1. The three Persons of God have existed for all eternity as one God.

2. The first Person, the Father, sent the second Person to add a fully-human nature to his fully-divine nature by being conceived in Mary, thus becoming the Son of God.

3. Being fully-human, he died to accomplish our salvation.

4. Being fully-God, he was raised from the dead to rejoin his Father in heaven taking his human body there.

5. As that amazing God-man, he will come back to perfect the universe and us.

[The_Omega]

Those are thoughtful points, and I appreciate the clarity with which you laid them out. Let me respond to them from the angle of someone who believes in one God who fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ—not as multiple divine persons, but as the one eternal Spirit manifesting Himself in different ways across redemptive history.

1. “Three persons existing eternally as one God.”
I think the biggest tension here is the word persons. Scripture consistently affirms that God is one in being, one in essence, and one in selfhood. The Old Testament never gives the slightest hint of multiple divine persons relating within the Godhead. What it does reveal is a God who speaks, appears, dwells, and manifests—but always as the One (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10–11; 44:6–8).

Even the New Testament never uses the word persons in the later philosophical sense. What we see is the Father as God in His eternal transcendence, and Jesus as God manifested in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). That’s a distinction of mode of being, not a distinction of divine individuals.

2. “The Father sent the second person to add a human nature.”
From a Biblical perspective, “sent” speaks to mission, not pre-incarnate personal separation. God sent prophets too—without implying they existed in heaven before birth. Galatians 4:4 says God sent forth His Son, made of a woman—meaning the Sonship originates in the incarnation. The Word was eternal, but the Son is the Word made flesh, not a second person waiting in heaven for incarnation.

3. “Being fully human, He died.”
Absolutely—Christ’s humanity was real and complete. But that humanity belonged to the one God manifested in flesh, not to a second divine person distinct from the Father. Peter says plainly, “God purchased the Church with His own blood.” (Acts 20:28). God didn’t send someone else to bleed—He manifested Himself to redeem.

4. “Being fully God, He was raised and rejoined the Father.”
Here again, I think the framework shapes the interpretation. Scripture never says the Son “rejoined” the Father. Instead, it says He was received up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16). Not back into a separate person, but back into the eternal glory that belonged to the one God who was manifested in flesh (John 17:5—“the glory I had with You’re own Self”). The humanity is glorified, but the deity never left heaven to begin with—He filled heaven and earth even while incarnate (Jer. 23:24).

5. “He will return as the God-man.”
Amen. And Scripture says He returns as the one throne-sitting Lord (Rev. 4; 22:3–4). There is never a scene in heaven with two divine persons enthroned. The Lamb is the manifestation; the One on the throne is the eternal Spirit; and John says, “the throne of God and of the Lamb”—singular throne, singular face.

---

In short: everything you affirm about Jesus—His deity, His humanity, His saving work, His resurrection, His return—I affirm wholeheartedly.
Where we differ is not in who Jesus is, but how many divine persons are required to explain Him.

For me, Scripture is most natural, coherent, and beautiful when understood this way:

The Father = God as invisible, eternal Spirit.
The Son = that same God manifested in genuine humanity for our salvation.
Not two persons—but one God revealed in two ways.

Always glad to continue the discussion if you want to go deeper.

[Johann]

@The_Omega

Those are thoughtful points, and I appreciate the clarity with which you laid them out. Let me respond to them from the angle of someone who believes in one God who fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ—not as multiple divine persons, but as the one eternal Spirit manifesting Himself in different ways across redemptive history.

What you are teaching here, on this forum, is heresy.

The belief that the Father Himself became incarnate is the core claim of Oneness Pentecostalism, historically called Modalism, also known as Sabellianism or Patripassianism, and the Church has rejected it from the second century onward because it collapses the Father, Son, and Spirit into one Person wearing different masks rather than three eternal Persons in communion.

In one long flowing paragraph, here is the full picture @The_Omega ..Oneness teaching asserts that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not distinct eternal Persons but are simply different modes or manifestations of the one divine Person, so when Jesus prays in ~John 17 they argue God is praying to His own humanity, and when the voice from heaven speaks at the baptism they say God is projecting Himself in different ways, and when they say the Father became incarnate they land in classic Patripassianism which literally means the Father suffered, an idea refuted by early Christians such as Tertullian and Hippolytus long before Augustine, and nowhere is this in Scripture because Scripture consistently uses interpersonal verbs between Father and Son, such as agapaō meaning the Father loves the Son in ~John 3, didōmi meaning the Father gives the Son in ~John 5, pempō meaning the Father sends the Son in ~John 7, laleō meaning the Son speaks what He hears from the Father in ~John 8, and doxazō meaning the Father glorifies the Son in ~John 17, all of which require two distinct personal agents not one divine self talking to His own human role.
When someone says the Father became incarnate they are holding the very doctrine the early church called Modalism and every interpersonal verb in the New Testament crushes it, because a sender and a sent one cannot be one Person acting in two roles any more than a speaker and a hearer in the same event can be the same personal subject, and the cross makes this even clearer since the Son offers Himself to the Father in obedient love while the Father accepts the offering, revealing eternal relational distinction that Modalism has no category for.

J.

[TheologyNerd]

@The_Omega

1. “Three persons existing eternally as one God.”
I think the biggest tension here is the word persons. Scripture consistently affirms that God is one in being, one in essence, and one in selfhood. The Old Testament never gives the slightest hint of multiple divine persons relating within the Godhead. What it does reveal is a God who speaks, appears, dwells, and manifests—but always as the One (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10–11; 44:6–8).

Except when it doesn’t, such as has been pointed out, “YHWH said to my Lord…” “Your throne O God is forever and ever … therefore God, Your God…” or when we read that YHWH came to visit Abraham, and when Abraham looked up he saw three visitors. Or where YHWH sends YHWH such as we see in the Christophanies known as the Malakh YHWH, the “Angel of the LORD”.

If we entirely ignore the many ways the Old Testament uses a plurality when talking about the one God YHWH–often in ways which seem confusing and cryptic, but only come to make sense after Christ comes, the New Testament shining a light upon the Old–then sure you can make that claim. But Scripture consistently shows us the One God as One, He is Himself; and yet God acts and speaks at many times in ways which indicate something more is going on.

This reality was something many ancient Jews recognized and tried to wrestle with. Jewish debates, especially in the 2nd Temple Period, involving the idea of “Two Powers in Heaven” are present, especially in Jewish philosophical and mystical literature. In Christianity this tension is resolved, it’s right there in the opening paragraph of John’s Gospel, that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning.

God and His Logos (who is also God). That’s Two. The New Testament also makes clear that there is a Third, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you Another Advocate, who will never leave you–the Spirit of truth.”

We can’t just ignore these things. They’re staring us right in the face.

@The_Omega

From a Biblical perspective, “sent” speaks to mission, not pre-incarnate personal separation. God sent prophets too—without implying they existed in heaven before birth. Galatians 4:4 says God sent forth His Son, made of a woman—meaning the Sonship originates in the incarnation. The Word was eternal, but the Son is the Word made flesh, not a second person waiting in heaven for incarnation.

One doesn’t send what doesn’t exist. God sent prophets, people, who were distinct from Himself. God sent angels, distinct from Himself. The Father sends His Son, who pre-exists His Incarnation, to be born of a woman. God sends forth His Son–the Son was sent, and born. The Son became incarnate through Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Father (that’s 1) sent forh His Son (that’s 2) who became flesh by the power of the Spirit (that’s 3).

Again, the evidence is staring us right in the face. Yes, Trinitarianism isn’t easy, it’s hard, it forces us to deal with the reality that God is so radically and fundamentally Other that to talk about Him faithfully and biblically we are saying things which are not intuitive. One could not arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity through mere reason, but only through divine revelation. It is the Divine Revelation of the Incarnate Word that shows us we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.

[Bruce_Leiter]

Very well said, @Johann!

[Bruce_Leiter]

Very true, @TheologyNerd!

[The_Omega]

I appreciate the passion you bring to this, but I think the real issue here is that you’re reading later theological categories back into the biblical text and then judging my view by standards the apostles themselves never used. The moment you say, “Scripture consistently uses interpersonal verbs, therefore eternal divine persons,” you’ve already assumed what must be proven. Scripture also uses interpersonal verbs between Wisdom and God in Proverbs 8, between Spirit and God in the prophets, and even between God and His own arm in Isaiah—none of which imply multiple divine persons. The language of “sent,” “loved,” “gave,” and “glorified” does not require a second divine individual; it simply reflects the relationship between God as transcendent Spirit and God as incarnate Son. The New Testament nowhere teaches that the Son existed eternally as a separate person alongside the Father; it teaches that the Logos existed eternally and the Son is what the Logos becomes in the incarnation—“made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), “seen,” “handled,” “manifested” (1 John 1:1–2). That’s why Jesus can say “the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works” (John 14:10) without ever suggesting two divine selves inside one body. The charge of “Patripassianism” only applies if I claimed the Father suffered as the Father, which I do not; Scripture is clear that the suffering occurred in the flesh He assumed (1 Pet. 3:18), not in His eternal deity. And while you appeal to Tertullian and Hippolytus, they were arguing against philosophical extremes of their day, not against the biblical claim that “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16) and that the one God purchased the church “with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The early labels don’t settle this—the inspired text does. And the inspired text never presents three co-eternal divine centers of consciousness; it presents one God who speaks, sends, loves, indwells, and ultimately saves through the genuine humanity He assumed. That’s not one Person wearing masks; that’s the mystery of the incarnation: the eternal God revealed in the Son without dividing Him into multiple divine beings.