Something I’ve been thinking about lately is how Scripture describes the Sonship of Christ — not just who He is, but what that title means in God’s plan.
We know the Bible says, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father… and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject… that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:24–28).
That makes me wonder — does the Sonship continue forever, or does it change in purpose once redemption is complete? In other words, when the mediating work is finished and God is “all in all,” is the relationship of Son and Father still the same as it was during the Incarnation?
Some see Sonship as an eternal identity — others see it as the manifestation of God in flesh for the work of redemption, which, once completed, transitions back into the fullness of divine glory.
So what do you think?
Does “Sonship” describe an eternal relationship, or a temporary redemptive role?
When the Bible says “the Son shall be subject,” is that symbolic of the end of mediation?
And how does that tie in with Colossians 2:9 — “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”?
I’d love to hear how others see it — does the Sonship end, continue, or transform when all things are restored to God?
I am not sure we can extract from the bible anything definitive about what happens to Jesus in eternity. However, using the human model there is a point where a son becomes a father himself.
The lack of information about the mechanics of the celestial realm may be more a reflection of our lack of context and inability to understand.
He is the Eternal Son of the Father; so no His Sonship will never end, just as it never began. It always is. He is the Son. An immutable divine reality that is at the heart of the inter-personal truth of God’s own Eternal Being.
There are Three Eternal Divine Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As it always was, is, and ever shall be.
This is why the Trinity is not theological opinion; but lay at the foundational bedrock of the whole Christian confession. A Jesus who is not the Eternal Son of the Father is, frankly, another (and false) Jesus.
That’s a thoughtful reply, and I can see where you’re coming from. But if we take that line of reasoning consistently, it raises a serious question: if the Sonship is eternal in the sense of His humanity, then wouldn’t that also require His mother to be eternal? Because Scripture defines the Son as the child born of Mary — “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The title “Son” is tied directly to the Incarnation, not to a pre-existent human nature.
If the humanity of Jesus is what makes Him the Son, then that Sonship had a definite beginning in time — when “the Word was made flesh.” The Spirit is eternal, yes, but flesh and blood were not. To call the human Son eternal would mean the human nature itself had no beginning, which would make Mary eternal and the Incarnation unnecessary.
That’s why I see the Sonship not as an eternal second person beside the Father, but as God’s redemptive manifestation in time. The eternal God took on humanity to redeem humanity. The Sonship began with the birth of that humanity and continues until the purpose of redemption is fulfilled — when the mediating work is complete and “God may be all in all.”
So, to me, affirming the eternal Spirit of Christ is not the same as saying the Sonship is eternal. The Spirit is without beginning or end; the humanity had both. The beauty of it all is that the eternal God chose to step into time and be born — not that flesh became eternal, but that eternity stepped into flesh.
@The_Omega
What you are espousing is heresy, known as Adoptionism, also called Dynamic Monarchianism, later expressed in Socinianism and modern Unitarianism, all of which deny the eternal deity of the Son and the personal divinity of the Holy Spirit.
The early Church condemned it because it strikes at the very center of the Gospel and the person of Christ.
To deny that the Logos is an eternal divine Person is to deny that God Himself entered human flesh. If the Logos were only a concept in the mind of God, then the incarnation would not be God becoming man, but merely a man infused with divine reason. That is not the Word made flesh, but flesh aspiring toward divinity.
The Church confronted this in the second and third centuries under what was called Dynamic Monarchianism and Adoptionism. Both were rejected as false.
The Nicene Creed was later written to affirm what Scripture clearly teaches, that the Son is fully God, eternally begotten, and of one essence with the Father, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” The Council declared that the Logos is not an idea within God, but the personal self-expression of God who was with God and is God as written in ~John 1:1. The Holy Spirit is likewise fully divine, proceeding from the Father and revealed as personal, not impersonal.
If the Son or Spirit are reduced to attributes or powers, the triune reality of God collapses into a single-person deity, which is Unitarianism.
Scripture, however, shows the Son as pre-existent in ~John 17:5, Creator in ~Colossians 1:16, and fully divine in ~Hebrews 1:3. To make Him an adopted man or a mere concept removes the divine power of the cross, for only the eternal Word made flesh could bear sin and reconcile humanity to God.
The Church’s history is filled with debates on this. Tertullian opposed the Monarchians, Athanasius battled the Arians, and later Trinitarian theologians faced the Socinians and Unitarians. Today, the same debate continues between Trinitarians and modern biblical Unitarians, especially over ~John 1:1, ~Philippians 2:6-11, and ~Colossians 1:15-20.
if the Sonship is eternal in the sense of His humanity,
Deity. He’s the Son of the Father because He’s God.
Mary’s Child is called the Son of God because He is, from all eternity, the Son of the Father. In the Incarnation He became the Child of Mary. Mary became the mother of God.
If the humanity of Jesus is what makes Him the Son
It’s not. His Deity is what makes Him the Son.
The matter is His Sonship, not His humanity.
Those are two entirely different matters. He is the Son because He is God. He’s human because He was conceived and born of Mary.
His Sonship is Eternal because He’s God.
Now if the question is will Christ’s humanity ever end. The answer to that question is also no.
He is ever and always the Incarnate God-Man.
Jesus Christ is the Same yesterday, today, and forever.
I appreciate the depth of your reply and the historical context you’ve shared. I completely agree that Jesus Christ is fully divine and that God Himself entered human flesh — not a man infused with divinity, but God manifest in the flesh, as 1 Timothy 3:16 declares.
Where I differ isn’t in denying the eternal deity of Christ, but in understanding how that deity was revealed. I don’t believe the “Son” refers to a separate eternal divine person alongside the Father; rather, I believe the eternal Logos — God’s own self-expression — became flesh. The distinction is important: the Word is eternal, but the Son came into being when the Word took on humanity.
Luke 1:35 ties the Sonship directly to the incarnation: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” If Sonship is eternal in the same way as the Spirit, then His humanity — and by extension, Mary’s role — would also have to be eternal. That can’t be, because Scripture shows a clear beginning to His human life.
So I’m not saying a mere man was adopted or that divinity was “added” later. Quite the opposite — I’m saying the one true God, who was always Spirit and eternal, took on flesh in time to redeem us. That’s not dynamic monarchianism; that’s the mystery of godliness Paul spoke of: “God was manifest in the flesh.”
The Word didn’t send another being to die for us. He Himself came. The eternal God stepped into time, not to create another eternal person, but to reveal Himself in a way humanity could see, touch, and know. That’s the heart of my belief — not denial of the deity of Christ, but affirmation that all the fullness of God dwelt bodily in Him (Col. 2:9).
@The_Omega I am indeed aware of where you are coming from. I am familiar with Oneness theology.
My problem(s) with Oneness theology are myriad. For all the reasons the ancient fathers gave for their problems with the doctrine(s) of Sabellius, Noetus, and Praxus.
The Oneness explanation for the Incarnation simply does not comport with biblical revelation, and its answers to the natural questions that get raised ultimately results in further problems.
If when Jesus is spoken of as distinct from the Father–both when Jesus Himself speaks to and about the Father; as well as when the rest of the New Testament speaks of Jesus as distinct from the Father–this only refers to Jesus’ humanity, what we are left with is, ultimately, a form of Nestorianism. Perhaps even a form of Hyper-Nestorianism. Wherein there is a human person (Jesus’ human nature is itself hypostasized and in some way fundamentally other than His Eternal Hypostasis); rather than there being a singular, undivided God-Man; there is instead the Deity and the humanity each as a distinct and fundamentally other Hypostases or Persons. Thus there is a human Jesus, the Jesus who prays in Gethsemane for example; but ultimately this is the human Jesus talking to Himself; or His Divine Self. Two Selves; a human self and a divine self that interact.
This, by necessity, requires that we then ask the question: Who died on the cross?
If there are two “Who’s”–one Divine and one human, cooperating and comingling but fundamentally separate, which is required if we postulate a manhood speaking to the Godhead and vice versa; then Who died on the cross? Did only one Someone die on the cross, or were there two Someone’s that died on the cross.
This is, of course, merely only one small sliver example of why I simply do not believe that a Christian should take the Oneness doctrine seriously. I do not mean that to be rude; but I must be honest and faithful to the Faith of Christ’s Holy Church, revealed in Holy Scripture and received down through the ages in the Creeds and Confessions of God’s precious saints.
Let’s break down these heresies along with what I actually believe.
1. Adoptionism
What it taught:
Adoptionism said Jesus was a mere man who was “adopted” by God and became divine at some point (usually at His baptism or resurrection). God’s Spirit empowered Him, but He was not God Himself — just a specially anointed man whom God used.
My view differs because:
I do not believe Jesus became God — I believe He was God manifested in flesh from conception. The Oneness understanding rejects the idea of a “mere man adopted by God.”
I affirm Luke 1:35 — the child born of Mary was already divine because the Holy Ghost overshadowed her.
In my view, the humanity was real, but the indwelling Spirit was the one true God Himself.
In short: Adoptionism says “man became divine.”
I say, “God became man.”
2. Dynamic Monarchianism
What it taught:
Dynamic Monarchianism (also called “Dynamistic Monarchianism”) was similar to Adoptionism — it emphasized the unity (“monarchy”) of God’s rule but claimed Jesus was a powerful man filled with divine energy (dynamis) rather than God Himself.
My view differs because:
I believe Jesus’ divine nature wasn’t just power given to Him — it was God’s own nature. The “Word was God,” and that Word “became flesh.”
I reject the idea of divine influence or power only.
I affirm divine indwelling: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”
In short: Dynamic Monarchianism says “God worked through a man.”
I say, “God was that man.”
3. Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism)
Why this one gets mixed up with Oneness:
This view taught that God is one person who reveals Himself in different modes or roles — sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Spirit — but not all at once. Early Sabellians were accused of saying God merely acted like different persons rather than truly indwelling human flesh.
My view differs because:
Modern Oneness believers don’t say God simply appeared as the Son like an actor changing masks. I believe He actually became human — that the Father didn’t stop being Father when He manifested as the Son. The Spirit remained omnipresent even while God’s fullness dwelt bodily in Christ.
In short: Sabellianism says “God changed forms.”
I say, “The eternal God added humanity — without ceasing to be who He always was.”
4. Socinianism
What it taught:
The Socinians (1500s–1600s) were rationalists. They denied Christ’s preexistence and deity entirely. Jesus, in their view, was only a great moral teacher and prophet — no incarnation, no divine Spirit indwelling Him.
My view differs because:
I affirm Christ’s deity and preexistence as the eternal Spirit, the Word who was with God and was God. The only thing that began was the humanity.
Socinians: “Jesus never existed before birth.”
I say: “The Spirit of Christ was eternal; His human Sonship began in time.”
In short: Socinianism denies deity.
I proclaim deity manifest in flesh.
5. Unitarianism (Classical and Modern)
What it teaches:
Unitarianism claims that God is one person and Jesus is not God, only a divinely inspired human. The Holy Spirit is seen as a power, not a person or divine presence.
My view differs because:
I affirm that Jesus is that one God in flesh — not a separate being or mere prophet. I also affirm the Spirit’s divinity — it’s not an impersonal force, but the living presence of God Himself.
In short:
Unitarians say “God is one, but Jesus is not God.”
I say “God is one, and Jesus is that one God manifested in human form.”
In essence
I don’t deny the deity of Christ — I intensify it.
I don’t divide God into persons — I see one indivisible (No Internal or External division) Spirit who manifested Himself in flesh for redemption, was called “Son” through that humanity, and continues to dwell in believers as the Holy Spirit.
My belief isn’t Adoptionism, Socinianism, or Unitarianism — it’s Incarnational Monotheism:
“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” (2 Cor 5:19)
… what you call Incarnational Monotheism is a modern articulation of that historic Oneness conviction, emphasizing that the fullness of God did not delegate redemption to another divine person but took on flesh Himself, fulfilling the truth of ~2 Corinthians 5:19 that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”
I appreciate that, Johann — that’s exactly how I see it. The eternal Spirit didn’t send someone else to redeem us but stepped into time Himself. That’s what makes the gospel so personal to me: the very God who created us also became our Redeemer.
Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”
Isaiah 44:24: “Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself”.
I think sometimes the term “Oneness” gets misunderstood as if it denies the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit, but really it’s about the source of that relationship. From my view, the relationship is between God’s own Spirit and His manifested humanity — not between multiple divine persons. It’s the mystery of the invisible God revealed in visible form.
So yes, I’d agree with your wording — Incarnational Monotheism expresses the same conviction in a clearer way. God didn’t just send a representative; He came Himself, wore our flesh, felt our pain, and shed His own blood. That’s why the cross has such power — it was the Creator Himself bearing the cost of creation’s redemption.
Which stands in direct contradiction to the clear testimony of Scripture.
… the key question is whether the Son existed eternally with the Father, or only began as the Father’s manifestation in flesh. Scripture, in both Testaments, anchors the Son’s preexistence and personal distinction within the one divine essence.
In ~Genesis 1:26, naʿaseh (“let Us make”) uses the cohortative plural of ʿasah (to make, fashion). This is not a royal plural, because it’s immediately followed by baraʾ (He created) in the singular (~v.27), showing plurality of persons within singularity of being. The Hebrew text is precise: naʿaseh reveals deliberation within the Godhead, while baraʾ preserves unity of act. The one God works through more than one divine Person.
Move to ~Isaiah 48:16, where the Servant declares, “The Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” The Hebrew verb shalachani (He has sent Me) is perfect, meaning completed divine action in history, and the direct object suffix -ni (“Me”) indicates a speaker distinct from the sender. If Yahweh sends and the one sent speaks as divine, then within Yahweh’s own being there is personal distinction without division. Correct?
The Septuagint carries this forward: apesteilen me Kyrios Kyrios kai to pneuma autou, “the Lord, the Lord, and His Spirit has sent Me.” The Greek apesteilen is aorist active, denoting an action from one subject toward another, never reflexive. God does not send Himself in this construction.
Now in ~John 1:1, En archē ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn ho Logos. The verb ēn (imperfect of eimi, “was being”) marks continuous preincarnate existence. Pros ton Theon expresses face-to-face relation, pros here denotes personal orientation, not abstract unity. The Word was with God and was God. Both are true: distinction of relation, unity of essence.
In ~Philippians 2:6–8, Paul writes that Christ Jesus, en morphē theou huparchōn (“being in the form of God”), ouk harpagmon hēgēsato to einai isa Theō (“did not consider equality with God something to grasp”), alla heauton ekenōsen (“but emptied Himself”). The participle huparchōn denotes continuing state, He already existed in the form of God before taking flesh. Ekenōsen (He emptied Himself) is aorist active, pointing to a deliberate, once-for-all act of incarnation, not a shift of modes.
At the baptism (~Matthew 3:16–17), three distinct persons are active: the Son baptizomenou (being baptized, present passive), the Spirit katabainon (descending, present active), and the Father legōn (speaking, present active). All verbs are simultaneous; the scene cannot be modal.
When Jesus prays in ~John 17:5, doxason me su, pater, para seautō tē doxē hē eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi- “Glorify Me with Yourself, Father, with the glory I had with You before the world was.” The verb eichon (I had) is imperfect, denoting continuous possession of shared glory before creation. The phrase para soi (with You) carries relational proximity, not identity of person.
Hebrews opens with the same truth: ho huios ōn apaugasma tēs doxēs kai charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou (~Hebrews 1:3). The participle ōn (“being”) is present active, expressing timeless existence. The Son is not a temporal manifestation but the eternal radiance (apaugasma) of divine glory.
Even Isaiah foresaw this tri-personal reality. In ~Isaiah 63:9–10, the prophet says, “The Angel of His Presence saved them,” and “They rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit.” The Hebrew malʾakh panaw (Messenger of His Face) speaks of divine presence acting personally yet distinct from Yahweh Himself, while hemah maru et-ruach qodsho (they rebelled against His Holy Spirit) again implies relational distinction.
The same oneness of being, yet interpersonal communion, appears in ~Zechariah 2:9–11, where Yahweh says, “You shall know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me to you.” The Hebrew shlachani YHWH tseva’ot cannot mean self-sending. Yahweh sends Yahweh- plurality within unity.
So when we come to the cross, it was not the Father wearing a mask of flesh, but the eternal Son egeneto sarx (~John 1:14, “became flesh”) through whom the Father katallassōn ēn ton kosmon (~2 Corinthians 5:19, “was reconciling the world”). The Greek construction shows two subjects acting in concert, not identity of person. The Father was in the Son, not as the Son.
I can give you many more examples from the Hebrew OT.
@TheologyNerd, is it possible that when the second Person of God added human flesh to himself in Mary’s womb that he became the first Person’s Son, who will remain fully God and fully human forever, though his Godhood was eternal in the past? Thus, the fully-divine second Person is eternal, while his fully-human nature remains the Father’s Son eternally as his Agent.
Not according to 1 Corinthians 15:28 “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
When Paul says “the Son also himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him,” he isn’t describing an eternal hierarchy inside God. He’s describing the completion of Christ’s messianic mission in His role as the Son—the incarnate, human mediator.
In other words, Paul is talking about what Jesus does as the Son, not who God is in His eternal nature.
Here’s the picture Paul is painting:
The Son is the role, office, and relationship God took on when He came in flesh to redeem humanity.
As long as redemption history is unfolding, Christ functions in that role: King, Mediator, High Priest, Intercessor.
When the last enemy (death) is finally destroyed and the redemptive work is completely finished, that messianic role is brought to its intended conclusion.
So the “Son being subject” does not mean Jesus becomes lesser; it means the incarnate mission is completed and placed back into the hands of God who authored it.
Paul clarifies the reason: “…that God may be all in all.”
Meaning:
All things return to the full, unrestricted rule of God without the need for the temporary mediatorial structure that existed for the sake of saving us.
To say it simply for the forum:
1 Corinthians 15:28 isn’t teaching an eternal subordination within God; it’s describing the end of Christ’s redemptive assignment as the “Son.”
The submission is functional, not ontological.
It’s the humanity of Christ concluding the work that the Spirit of God accomplished through Him.
This keeps the passage in harmony with all the Old Testament declarations that there is one God, and with the New Testament truth that God was in Christ, not beside Him.
He’s not the Father’s Son through His Incarnation. He’s the Son of Mary, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of Man through His Incarnation.
He’s the Father’s Son because He is Eternally Begotten of the Father. He’s the Son of God because He’s God. He’s the Son of Man because He’s human.
But yes, He remains the God-Man forever. The Scriptures speak of the Beatific Vision, when we will see God. Such as we read in Job. This Beatific Vision when we shall actually see and behold God, in one sense, only makes sense in the context of the Incarnation.
Thank you for taking the time to share that. I truly appreciate the thought you put into your explanation.
If I may, let me share where I sometimes struggle—not to argue, but simply to understand.
When you speak of things like “eternal begetting,” “eternal Sonship,” or the “Beatific Vision,” I notice these are important theological concepts, but I don’t actually find those phrases or descriptions in Scripture itself. They seem to be terms that developed later as the church tried to describe mysteries that Scripture doesn’t spell out in that way.
When I read the Bible, the language of “Son” is consistently connected to things like:
being born of Mary
taking on flesh
being the seed of David
being begotten
being sent in the fullness of time
suffering, dying, and rising again
All of that happens in time, not in eternity.
The Bible speaks of the Word being eternal (John 1:1), but I don’t see the Scriptures describe the Son as eternal before the incarnation. That’s where my question comes from—not disagreement, but honest searching.
John says: “The Word became flesh.”
He doesn’t say, “The eternal Son became flesh.”
So the question I’m quietly wrestling with is simply this:
Where does the Bible ever describe the Son as existing eternally as the Son before the incarnation?
If such a truth is essential to the faith, I would expect at least one prophet or apostle to say it directly. I’m not questioning Christ’s deity at all—I fully believe Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. I’m only trying to stay close to the language God Himself chose to reveal.
Scripture says we will behold God in Christ, and that makes perfect sense to me:
He is the image of the invisible God
In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily
He is God manifest in the flesh
So when you mention “seeing God” in the future, my heart agrees—we see God in Christ. The incarnation is God making Himself visible and approachable.
I say all this gently and respectfully:
If you know of a verse that speaks of the Son as eternal before Bethlehem, I would sincerely want to study it. I’m here to learn, not debate.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." - Hebrews 1:1-2
Did you catch that? God (the Father) made all things through His Son. Compare also with the prologue of John’s Gospel,
“All things were made through Him”, Him being the Word.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” - John 1:1-2
While we have John 1:1-2 open, notice that first verse,
“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”
This Word is equally ancient with God, He is with God and is also God.
Here we have One and Another; God and His Word. Trinitarians correctly note that this is the Father and His Word–His Son.
For John will write later on,
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.“ - John 1:14
and
“No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known.“ - John 1:18
Who is the Word? He’s the Son. He’s God, Son, only-begotten of the Father, who makes the Father known. In the Incarnation? Most certainly. But He is always the One who makes the Father known, as it is written,
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea, and all at the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” - Romans 10:1-4
So here the only-begotten Son, Christ, was with Israel in the desert–He was the Rock that followed them. What is the implication? The implication is that Theophany –> Christophany. It is Christ (always Christ) who makes His Father known. Who walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden? Who spoke from the Burning Bush to Moses?
Let’s return to Hebrews:
But of the Son He says,
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ - Hebrews 1:8-9
The Father speaks to His Son and says “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”.
We are seeing a pattern, right? This Son/Word of the Father, He’s God. He’s not the Father, He’s with the Father, He’s of the Father, but He isn’t the Father–but He’s very much God. Not a second god “Hear O Israel YHWH our God, YHWH is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), “I am YHWH there is no other, beside Me there is no god” (Isaiah 45:5). But there is, indeed a constant refrain: There is God and His Son; there is God and His Word. And His Son/Word are one and the same. In the beginning with God, is God, Eternal, uncreated, etc.
At this point I would confidently say I’ve provided sufficient biblical material to make my point. The witness of Scripture present the Son not as coming at a point in time, thus turning Christ’s Sonship to His incarnate flesh; but that the Son is Himself a distinct Someone, fully Divine, who knows the Father, loves the Father, is of and from the Father. We could go so far as to say: one only-begotten Son and Word, begotten of the Father before all ages, begotten not made, of the Father’s Being–truly God of truly God.
You also don’t find any mention in Scripture of a defined Canon of sacred books called “The Holy Bible”, because that came later. But we certainly can find faithful witness to the divine inspiration of Scripture in Scripture itself, as St. Paul has said, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and Jesus, the Apostles, all made appeal to Scripture (as they had it at the time).
So it is that sure, you won’t find the precise phrasing I’ve used. But what those phrases mean–that’s very much right in Scripture.
If we want to get pedantic, then we shouldn’t be using English at all when talking about what the Bible says. The Bible wasn’t written in English, and as the Italian proverb goes, “The translator is a traitor”–all translation is by necessity interpretation. So we are, simply by using English, looking at English translations of Scripture, technically using extra-biblical language. All the time. That’s if, of course, we want to get pedantic about this. Far more reasonable would be to recognize that there is always the necessity, when communicating with other people, to phrase concepts in ways to make them comprehensible to them–and so theological language always involves a level of refining in order to articulate the truth–and this becomes especially important when major theological controversy occurs. After all, if my interlocutor tells me that that since Jesus is “the Son of God” He cannot be God Himself, he certainly uses biblical language “Son of God” to make that argument; and if we come back that Jesus’ Sonship is His Eternal generation from the Father, and He is truly God of the Father–those precise flow of words are not taken verbatim from the Bible; but they clearly communicate what the Bible says.
In brief: It’s more important that we are getting our interpretation and understanding of Scripture correct, rather than simply repeating the exact phrasing but misunderstanding the meaning. So I would again, emphasize and proclaim: The Eternal Sonship of Christ.
You would say that even in light of this passage: 1 Corinthians 15:28 “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
How do you interpret, other than the Role of Sonship ending.