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

[First and the Last]

Few discussions strike at the very heart of Christian identity like the question of the Son — Was He eternally existent as the Son, or was the Sonship a manifestation in time?

For centuries, this question has divided the church into two camps: those who proclaim an Eternal Son, co-existent and co-equal with the Father, and those who uphold a Begotten Son, revealed in time as the visible manifestation of the invisible God.

The phrase “the only begotten Son” (John 3:16) raises a fundamental question — can One be begotten and yet eternal in Sonship? The very word “begotten” speaks of origin, of a moment when that which was invisible became visible, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Yet others argue that “begotten” points not to a beginning, but to a relationship within the Godhead that transcends time itself.

Here the tension becomes fierce:
If the Son is eternal, was He always subordinate to the Father — or does that imply a hierarchy within Deity? But if the Son is begotten in time, was there ever a moment when God existed without His Son — and if so, what was revealed at Bethlehem that had not existed before?

This debate is not merely theological—it reaches into the essence of salvation itself.
For if the Son was eternally distinct, then the Cross becomes an act between two divine persons.
But if the Son was begotten in time, the Cross becomes the moment when the invisible God robed Himself in flesh to redeem His creation personally.

The implications ripple through every doctrine — the incarnation, the atonement, the name of Jesus, and the nature of God Himself.

So, what do we really mean when we say “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son”?
Was this Son already existent from eternity, or was He the Word manifest — God revealed in human form for a redemptive purpose?

Let the discussion begin.

• Can the Son be eternal and begotten at the same time?
• Is “Son” a title of relationship within time, or a person within eternity?
• And does understanding this distinction determine how we view Jesus — as God the Son, or as God Himself made flesh?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Good questions @First and the Last
I believe the only way to reconcile what we find in Scripture is that a hierarchy exists in God.
To delve deeper than that, in the belief that we'll know for a surety, is something only eternity will provide us the answer to. We carry too much baggage and have external forces against us besides our own sin, which can confuse the matter, to allow us clarity of reason to understand past a certain level of knowing at this time, and so it becomes conjecture/argumentative. Thankfully, that is what God wants us to understand, which is to know Him and for believers, an eternity means that all the obstacles we face will one day be completely removed, giving us the opportunity to fully embrace Him for who He is as God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The above is never a satisfying answer for those wanting to fully know Him, but I can only speak for myself and not for others in coming to terms with God. That is why humanity continues to be divided, but thankfully it won't always be so.

When it comes to "salvation," if we trust the words of Jesus, nothing can ultimately take it away. God's grace and mercy, through His obedience, have reconciled us in a way nothing else ever could.

Although many threads have covered the topic, I really appreciate the way you presented it here. It’s always intriguing for any believer!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[First and the Last]

I believe the only way to reconcile what we find in Scripture is that a hierarchy exists in God.

That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think Scripture supports a hierarchy within God Himself. Hierarchy implies inequality—someone greater, someone lesser, someone subject—and that idea breaks down when applied to the One who declares, “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” What we often mistake for hierarchy in Scripture is really the distinction between God’s transcendent Spirit and His manifest work in flesh. When God took on humanity in Christ, the human nature naturally submitted to the divine—not because of rank, but because of role. It was the relationship between Creator and creation, not superior and inferior persons. To call that a hierarchy in God risks dividing what Scripture consistently reveals as perfectly one in essence, will, and purpose.

 

[Christ4Ever]

That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think Scripture supports a hierarchy within God Himself. Hierarchy implies inequality—someone greater, someone lesser, someone subject—and that idea breaks down when applied to the One who declares, “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” What we often mistake for hierarchy in Scripture is really the distinction between God’s transcendent Spirit and His manifest work in flesh. When God took on humanity in Christ, the human nature naturally submitted to the divine—not because of rank, but because of role. It was the relationship between Creator and creation, not superior and inferior persons. To call that a hierarchy in God risks dividing what Scripture consistently reveals as perfectly one in essence, will, and purpose.

If the Son is eternal, was He always subordinate to the Father — or does that imply a hierarchy within Deity?

I see the hierarchy as being Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not that I'm looking for a debate but just letting you know how I see the need of a hierarchy as it pertains to God (Title).

Now God is seen as the Father and He is eternal, then the Son must also be, otherwise, if the Son did not exist eternally, then there can no Father, though God would still exist, otherwise who is God the Father of which is implied by the use of that word? You see the conundrum here? No Son, No Father. Unless of course they are eternal, and in essence this is so.

My conjecture which is all it can be at the moment, has been that if you think of an amoeba and then it splits which one is the original if you can't tell, what differentiates one from the other which is nothing? What have you?

Hierarchy in the Godhead, implies as you say inequality, but not when talking about God (Philippians 2:6-8), for that is a man concept that does not apply to God who is perfect. Since they, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are of the same essence and the one thing we do know about the Son, is that He is obedient (willingly), and that He is in total agreement "always" with the Father. What exactly is the inequality that we as man bring up? That somehow God the Father would not do as the Son would ask or vice versa? Only our faulty reasoning has difficulty grasping the fullness of God.

Now when we start talking about the manifestation of God, as Jesus. We'll that speaks to another ball of wax as well. lol We know that the divine of Jesus to become man limited himself. I won't name the verses that show this, but it is used by many to show that Jesus in the flesh is not all knowing etc. Anyway, this is why we came up with a word of hypostatic union to describe Jesus as one Person with two distinct natures: fully God and fully man.

As I said, this is just my understanding for now, and I have no intention of convincing you or anyone else about God. After all, knowing God is knowing eternity. I'm not there yet!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. By the by. Are you male or female? I'd like to make the change to your bio to reflect the appropriate gender. Thanks in advance. K

 

[B-A-C]

In the Bible, the word "begotten" is most famously used in verses like John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..." This term has deep theological significance, especially in Christian doctrine.

Meaning of "Begotten" in the Bible​

"Begotten" generally means "brought into existence by birth" or "generated." In biblical usage, especially in reference to Jesus, it emphasizes a unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son. It implies that Jesus is not a created being, but rather uniquely generated by God — sharing the same divine nature.

Greek Word for "Begotten"​

The Greek word translated as "begotten" in John 3:16 is μονογενής (monogenēs).

Meaning of​

• Mono = "only" or "one"
• Genēs = related to "kind," "type," or "origin"

So monogenēs is often translated as:

• "Only begotten"
• "One and only"
• "Unique"

In modern scholarship, many argue that monogenēs is better understood as "unique" or "one-of-a-kind" rather than strictly "begotten" in the biological sense. This interpretation highlights Jesus' unique status and relationship with God, rather than implying a literal birth.

 

[B-A-C]

Begotten vs. Created — Why Jesus Must Be God


One of the most important distinctions in Christian theology is the difference between begotten and created, especially when it comes to understanding who Jesus is.


Colossians 1:15 says:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

At first glance, “firstborn” might sound like Jesus was the first created being. But the Greek word used here is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos), which often means preeminent or supreme in rank, not first in time. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” David wasn’t the first king, but he was given the highest status.


Contrast this with John 3:16, which calls Jesus the “only begotten Son” — using the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), meaning unique or one-of-a-kind, not created. This term emphasizes Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, not a beginning in time.


Now consider the logic:

• Genesis 1:1 — "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
• John 1:3 — "Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
• Colossians 1:16 — "For by him all things were created... all things have been created through him and for him."

If God created everything, and Jesus created everything, then Jesus must be God. He cannot be a created being if He created all things. Otherwise, He would have had to create Himself — which is a logical impossibility.


Conclusion:
Jesus is begotten, not created. He is eternally existent, the agent of creation, and fully divine. Scripture presents Him not as a creature, but as the Creator — co-equal with the Father.

 

[First and the Last]

I see the hierarchy as being Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not that I'm looking for a debate but just letting you know how I see the need of a hierarchy as it pertains to God (Title).

Now God is seen as the Father and He is eternal, then the Son must also be, otherwise, if the Son did not exist eternally, then there can no Father, though God would still exist, otherwise who is God the Father of which is implied by the use of that word? You see the conundrum here? No Son, No Father. Unless of course they are eternal, and in essence this is so.

My conjecture which is all it can be at the moment, has been that if you think of an amoeba and then it splits which one is the original if you can't tell, what differentiates one from the other which is nothing? What have you?

Hierarchy in the Godhead, implies as you say inequality, but not when talking about God (Philippians 2:6-8), for that is a man concept that does not apply to God who is perfect. Since they, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are of the same essence and the one thing we do know about the Son, is that He is obedient (willingly), and that He is in total agreement "always" with the Father. What exactly is the inequality that we as man bring up? That somehow God the Father would not do as the Son would ask or vice versa? Only our faulty reasoning has difficulty grasping the fullness of God.

Now when we start talking about the manifestation of God, as Jesus. We'll that speaks to another ball of wax as well. lol We know that the divine of Jesus to become man limited himself. I won't name the verses that show this, but it is used by many to show that Jesus in the flesh is not all knowing etc. Anyway, this is why we came up with a word of hypostatic union to describe Jesus as one Person with two distinct natures: fully God and fully man.

I really appreciate the way you’re thinking through this—it’s clear you’re trying to preserve the eternal nature of God without diminishing His unity. Where I’d approach it a little differently is in how we understand those relational titles. “Father” and “Son” aren’t eternal designations that exist apart from the incarnation—they’re revelatory roles through which the one God made Himself known in time. Before creation, God was not “Father” in relation to a “Son” the way we understand those words; He was simply the eternal Spirit—self-existent, complete, needing nothing.


When He chose to enter time and take on flesh, He revealed Himself as the Father in Spirit and as the Son in humanity. That’s why Isaiah could say, “Unto us a child is born… and His name shall be called… the everlasting Father.” The relationship we see between Father and Son in Scripture is the interaction between God’s invisible, omnipresent Spirit and His visible, incarnate manifestation—Creator communing with His own creation.


So, when Philippians 2 speaks of Christ humbling Himself, it’s not describing an eternal subordinate relationship within the Godhead, but the humility of God taking the form of a servant. The obedience of the Son was the obedience of the man Christ Jesus submitting to the will of the indwelling Spirit—the same way our humanity must yield to the Spirit of God within us.


In that sense, the beauty of Christ’s example isn’t found in hierarchy, but in perfect harmony—the divine and human working as one. The Son didn’t exist eternally as a separate person beside the Father; He existed eternally as the Word, the self-expression of God, who “was made flesh and dwelt among us.”


So while I understand the desire to describe order or distinction, I think Scripture points us more toward manifestation and relationship than hierarchy or division. God remains eternally one in essence, will, and being—revealed to us as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.

 

[First and the Last]

Begotten vs. Created — Why Jesus Must Be God


One of the most important distinctions in Christian theology is the difference between begotten and created, especially when it comes to understanding who Jesus is.


Colossians 1:15 says:




At first glance, “firstborn” might sound like Jesus was the first created being. But the Greek word used here is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos), which often means preeminent or supreme in rank, not first in time. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” David wasn’t the first king, but he was given the highest status.


Contrast this with John 3:16, which calls Jesus the “only begotten Son” — using the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), meaning unique or one-of-a-kind, not created. This term emphasizes Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, not a beginning in time.


Now consider the logic:

• Genesis 1:1 — "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
• John 1:3 — "Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
• Colossians 1:16 — "For by him all things were created... all things have been created through him and for him."

If God created everything, and Jesus created everything, then Jesus must be God. He cannot be a created being if He created all things. Otherwise, He would have had to create Himself — which is a logical impossibility.


Conclusion:
Jesus is begotten, not created. He is eternally existent, the agent of creation, and fully divine. Scripture presents Him not as a creature, but as the Creator — co-equal with the Father.

That’s a great breakdown, and I fully agree that Jesus was not created. Creation began in Genesis 1:1, but the Word already was (John 1:1). Where I’d offer a different perspective is in how we understand the term begotten. The word doesn’t describe an eternal generation within God, but rather the moment when the eternal Word was made flesh—when the invisible God took on visible humanity.


The term monogenēs—“only begotten”—beautifully expresses the uniqueness of that manifestation. There had never been another like Him: fully divine, yet fully human. The Son was “begotten” in the sense that God’s eternal Word came forth in time, clothed in flesh, conceived by the Spirit. Luke 1:35 makes that clear when the angel says, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” His Sonship, then, began not in eternity past but in the incarnation—when the Spirit overshadowed Mary and God’s Word took on humanity.


So when Scripture says, “the Word was made flesh,” it’s not describing the birth of another divine person but the self-revelation of the one true God in human form. The same God who said, “Let there be light,” now shone in the face of Jesus Christ.


That’s why Jesus could say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). He wasn’t a second divine being showing us another side of God—He was God revealed. The “begotten” Son shows us the invisible Father in a form we can see, touch, and know.


So yes—Jesus is begotten, not created. But that begetting points to manifestation, not a secondary existence within deity. The one eternal Spirit stepped into time, took on flesh, and walked among His creation as the Redeemer. He is not a God beside God; He is the God who came to save us.

 

[newnature]

This teaching was a big help for my understanding of this subject matter.

 

[BroTan]

This statement was made by one of Jesus disciples named Thomas. The power of this statement blows by the average Christian like a jumbo jet. It was made after Jesus had been raised from the grave after his death on the cross. (John 20:19-28) (v.19)" Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, peace be unto you. (v.20) And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. (v.24) But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Did-y-mus, was not with them when Jesus came. (v.25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord. But he saith unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and trust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Now that's a reasonable statement Thomas made, saying he'll believe it when he sees it. (v.26) "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you. (v.27) Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Then Thomas made one of the most over looked statements in the bible, when he said unto Jesus (v.28) "MY LORD AND MY GOD". Jesus after his resurrection from the dead was returning to his former glory, God. (John 17:5) "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Yes, with thee before the world was. That's why after Jesus was raised from the dead he made this statement. (Mat. 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." It's hard for some people to understand that Jesus came through the Virgin Mary in the flesh, but he has always existed as a spirit being.

Let’ dig in some prophesy and take a look at this in Isaiah 7: 10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. We going to come back in Isaiah but keep in mind that a sign means to identify something, and if a virgin conceive, and bear a son without a man, then we now have that sign.

But let’s go take a look at this in the future from this scripture in Matthew 1: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Because keep in mind Mary is that virgin that Isaiah spoke about, but Joseph didn't know it.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

This is the part that people struggle to believe, no man touch Mary or should I say had sex with her. Why is this hard to understand, this is a spiritual act.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Only if people really understood how factual this is.

Now let’s go back to Isaiah 9: 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Pay attention to all these titles and what’s being said here concerning this child. The government and kingdom this child will rule, even upon the throne of David.

Let’s go and take a look at this child in Luke 1: 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

All of this prophecy was written before time in the days of Jesus, and a lot people like the scribes and Pharisees didn’t recognize Jesus, even today the God head have to be explain, because people don’t believe the book.

 

[First and the Last]

Does the Son Remain Forever — or Is the Sonship Role Complete?
Here’s a question that cuts to the very heart of how we understand Jesus Christ after His ascension:
Does the Son of God continue as a distinct, eternal Person beside the Father forever — or was the Sonship a temporary manifestation that will one day be concluded when redemption is complete?

Trinitarians teach that Jesus eternally retains His identity as the Son — that His distinct Personhood did not begin at Bethlehem nor end at Calvary. They argue that the Son has always existed in fellowship with the Father and will continue as such through eternity, reigning at the right hand of God as the glorified, coeternal Son.

Oneness believers, however, see it differently. They affirm that the Sonship — the role of God as manifest in flesh — served a divine purpose for redemption, but that purpose will one day be fulfilled. They point to 1 Corinthians 15:28: “Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” To them, this reveals that the Sonship is a mediatorial role, not an eternal second Person. When redemption’s work is finished, the humanity (the Son) will no longer stand in distinction from the deity (the Father), for God Himself will fill all in all.

So here’s the challenge to both sides:
If Jesus remains a distinct Person forever, does that not establish an eternal duality within the Godhead — two divine Persons in perpetual relationship?
But if the Sonship ends, does that diminish Christ’s glory or deny His eternal identity as God?

When we look into eternity, will we see the Son beside the Father, or the one God who once took on flesh now reigning visibly as the glorified Christ, the fullness of the Godhead embodied?

What do you think — is the Son eternal as a separate Person, or is the Sonship the temporary means by which the eternal Spirit accomplished redemption?

 

[First and the Last]

This is where the real heart of the issue lies — whether we truly believe in one God or in two divine centers of being existing side by side for eternity. Scripture makes it clear that the Sonship was a redemptive manifestation, not an eternal relationship between divine Persons.


The Son was begotten in time, not existing as an eternal second being. Galatians 4:4 says plainly, “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.” The Son was made, born, sent forth — all time-bound terms describing God’s entry into human history through the incarnation. That’s not eternal co-existence — that’s divine manifestation.


The entire purpose of the Sonship was to bridge the gap between God and man. Hebrews 2:14 says, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.” Why? To destroy the power of death. Once that redemptive purpose is complete, there’s no longer a need for mediation — because the redeemed will dwell in perfect unity with the One who redeemed them.


Paul declares it powerfully in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 — when the end comes, the Son delivers the Kingdom to God the Father, and “then shall the Son also Himself be subject… that God may be all in all.” This doesn’t mean Jesus stops existing; it means the mediatorial role — the humanity through which God worked — is complete. The distinction between “Son” and “Father” dissolves into perfect unity as the eternal Spirit fills all things.


Think about it — if the Son were to remain a separate divine Person forever, then eternity would contain an everlasting hierarchy within the Godhead: one seated beside another, each self-aware, each conscious, each divine. That’s not biblical monotheism — that’s eternal duality.


Revelation 22:3–4 gives us a glimpse of eternity: “The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it… and His servants shall serve Him: and they shall see His face, and His name shall be in their foreheads.” Notice — one throne, one face, one name. Not “them,” but Him. The Lamb (the Son) and the Lord God (the Father) are one and the same when the story is complete.


The Sonship is not eternal — the God who became the Son is.
The Son does not continue forever — the Spirit who indwelt that Son does.
In the end, there is no eternal “second Person” beside the Father, only the one God who forever reigns as the glorified Christ.


So the question is not, “Does the Son exist forever?”
It’s this: Does the role of the Son continue when the purpose for which God became Son is fulfilled?


When redemption is finished and God’s people stand before Him face to face, we won’t see two divine Persons conversing across eternity — we’ll see Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God, and in Him, all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Does the Son Remain Forever — or Is the Sonship Role Complete?
Here’s a question that cuts to the very heart of how we understand Jesus Christ after His ascension:
Does the Son of God continue as a distinct, eternal Person beside the Father forever — or was the Sonship a temporary manifestation that will one day be concluded when redemption is complete?

Trinitarians teach that Jesus eternally retains His identity as the Son — that His distinct Personhood did not begin at Bethlehem nor end at Calvary. They argue that the Son has always existed in fellowship with the Father and will continue as such through eternity, reigning at the right hand of God as the glorified, coeternal Son.

Oneness believers, however, see it differently. They affirm that the Sonship — the role of God as manifest in flesh — served a divine purpose for redemption, but that purpose will one day be fulfilled. They point to 1 Corinthians 15:28: “Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” To them, this reveals that the Sonship is a mediatorial role, not an eternal second Person. When redemption’s work is finished, the humanity (the Son) will no longer stand in distinction from the deity (the Father), for God Himself will fill all in all.

So here’s the challenge to both sides:
If Jesus remains a distinct Person forever, does that not establish an eternal duality within the Godhead — two divine Persons in perpetual relationship?
But if the Sonship ends, does that diminish Christ’s glory or deny His eternal identity as God?

When we look into eternity, will we see the Son beside the Father, or the one God who once took on flesh now reigning visibly as the glorified Christ, the fullness of the Godhead embodied?

What do you think — is the Son eternal as a separate Person, or is the Sonship the temporary means by which the eternal Spirit accomplished redemption?

Dear First and Last,
I have to ask because I've been through this too many times and let it drag on for too long. It usually doesn't end well.
Since you mentioned it, do you believe in the Trinity or Oneness?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[First and the Last]

I have to ask because I've been through this too many times and let it drag on for too long. It usually doesn't end well.
Since you mentioned it, do you believe in the Trinity or Oneness?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator

I completely understand why you’re asking, and I truly respect everyone here who loves the Lord and studies His Word sincerely.


To answer your question honestly — I don’t reject the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. I believe in all three as fully revealed in Scripture. But I understand them not as three separate or distinct divine Persons, but as the one God manifesting Himself in different ways — as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.


In other words, I don’t see “three Gods” or even “three co-eternal Persons,” but one God who has revealed Himself to us in different manifestations or roles for His own redemptive purpose. To me, that keeps the focus on God’s absolute oneness, while still embracing the full revelation of Jesus Christ as God made visible.

If true monotheism means one divine consciousness, one will, one mind, and one divine Being — can three co-equal Persons, each with their own consciousness and will, still be called one God in any meaningful sense? Or has tradition redefined “one” into a kind of unity foreign to the original biblical revelation?

And really, is it so difficult to believe that the one invisible, omnipresent God — who fills heaven and earth, yet cannot be contained by either — chose to step into His own creation and live as a man? Not to play a role or send another being, but to personally experience our frailty, pain, and temptation; to feel what we feel, suffer what we suffer, and redeem us Himself. The Incarnation wasn’t God delegating — it was God descending. The Eternal Spirit became visible flesh so humanity could finally know the heart of the invisible God.


I say that with love and respect for all who hold a different view — I’m just sharing what I’ve come to believe from Scripture.


With love in Christ

 

[B-A-C]

modalism.

Modalistic Monarchianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[First and the Last]

modalism.

Modalistic Monarchianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1. Classical Modalism (Sabellianism / Monarchianism)

Definition: Classical Modalism, sometimes called Sabellianism, arose in the 3rd century through Sabellius (c. AD 215).
It taught that God is one Person who merely appears or acts in different modes or forms — like an actor playing different roles — rather than existing simultaneously as Father, Son, and Spirit.

Core Idea:

God is one Person who manifests Himself successively, not simultaneously:

In the Old Testament, He was the Father.

In the incarnation, He became the Son.

After the ascension, He became the Holy Spirit.

In Sabellius’ idea, these were chronological modes — phases in time — not concurrent manifestations.

Why It Was Rejected as Heresy:

It seemed to deny the reality of the Son’s relationship to the Father (e.g., Jesus praying, the Father speaking at His baptism).

It implied that the Father Himself suffered and died (patripassianism).

It failed to explain how the Father and the Son could exist and act distinctly at the same moment.

2. Dynamic (Adoptionist) Monarchianism

Definition: Another early form of “oneness” error was Dynamic Monarchianism, which said Jesus was merely a man upon whom the divine power (the “Logos”) came.
It emphasized the oneness of God by denying Jesus’ true deity before His baptism.

Core Idea:

Jesus began as a mere human being.

God’s Spirit “adopted” or empowered Him at baptism.

Why It Was Rejected as Heresy:

It denied the preexistence and deity of Jesus Christ.

It reduced Jesus to a Spirit-filled man, not the incarnate God.

3. Patripassianism (Father-Suffering View)

Definition: A misunderstanding that developed alongside modalism — the belief that the Father Himself literally suffered and died on the cross.

Core Idea:

Because God is one Person and Jesus is that Person, the Father directly endured the crucifixion.

Why It Was Rejected as Heresy:

It blurred the biblical distinction between the deity (which cannot die) and the humanity of Jesus (which did die).

It confused manifestation with identity of essence in suffering.

4. Modern “Modalistic Monarchianism” (as accused)

Definition: This is the modern term Trinitarians often apply to anyone who rejects the Trinity but still believes in Father, Son, and Spirit as expressions of one God.

Core Idea (as misrepresented):

God wears “different masks” at different times — never Father, Son, and Spirit at once.

Why It’s a Misrepresentation:

That description fits Sabellius, but not the biblical Oneness Pentecostal understanding.

5. The Oneness (Apostolic) View — How It Differs

Key Difference:

Oneness theology is not modalism, but manifestational monotheism rooted in the incarnation.

It affirms:

God is absolutely one — one divine Person, one divine Being, one Spirit.

Jesus Christ is the full manifestation of that one God in flesh.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not sequential roles but concurrent manifestations of the same divine Being — who can operate in different ways at once.

Oneness Theology Explains:

1. Distinctions are Real, Not Imaginary

When Jesus prays to the Father, it’s not “the same Person talking to Himself” — it’s the genuine relationship between the humanity of Christ and the indwelling deity.

The Son’s prayers are real, but they express the human will to the divine Spirit within, not one divine Person to another.

2. Simultaneity, Not Succession

Unlike Sabellianism, Oneness believers hold that the Father (deity), the Son (humanity), and the Holy Spirit (indwelling presence) exist and operate simultaneously.

The Father was still in heaven while also manifested in the Son on earth (John 14:10).

3. Distinction Between Deity and Humanity

Oneness theology distinguishes between who Jesus is (God and man) and what nature is acting in any given passage.

As God, He could still fill heaven and earth.
As man, He could pray, hunger, and die.
This preserves biblical realism without dividing God into multiple Persons.

4. Eternal God, Temporal Sonship

The Spirit (God) is eternal; the Sonship (incarnation) began in time.

“When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.” (Gal. 4:4)
This means the role of the Son is temporal and redemptive, not eternal and co-equal.

5. The Holy Spirit Is Not a Separate Person

Oneness believers identify the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

Not a third divine Person, but the one God working in spiritual regeneration.

 

[Christ4Ever]

I completely understand why you’re asking,

Dear First and the Last,
Actually, I do not believe you do.
Please review the site's Statement of Faith: Statement of Faith
There has been enough acrimony over the years, here on Talk Jesus on the subject of the Trinity and other beliefs as it pertains to the Godhead. What winds up happening is at first a theological discussion on each stating what they believe to be true, and then it devolves into a back and forth that accomplishes nothing. So, I as a moderator will nip it in the bud. Meaning that since Talk Jesus would be considered a site that supports the Trinity, any other doctrines contrary to it must be discontinued.

Many have found this unacceptable and chosen to leave, which is completely fine and, in my opinion, the best way to resolve conflicting beliefs. After all, by joining the site, one agrees to abide by its standards. Even if they try to avoid discussing the subject, deeply ingrained beliefs often resurface, especially when interacting with those who hold opposing views.

For this reason, I genuinely believe it’s a decision you need to make if you wish to keep posting on Talk Jesus. Either steer clear of the topic or find a site that aligns better with your beliefs about the Godhead.

Please let me know what you decide to do.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[First and the Last]

Dear First and the Last,
Actually, I do not believe you do.
Please review the site's Statement of Faith: Statement of Faith
There has been enough acrimony over the years, here on Talk Jesus on the subject of the Trinity and other beliefs as it pertains to the Godhead. What winds up happening is at first a theological discussion on each stating what they believe to be true, and then it devolves into a back and forth that accomplishes nothing. So, I as a moderator will nip it in the bud. Meaning that since Talk Jesus would be considered a site that supports the Trinity, any other doctrines contrary to it must be discontinued.

Many have found this unacceptable and chosen to leave, which is completely fine and, in my opinion, the best way to resolve conflicting beliefs. After all, by joining the site, one agrees to abide by its standards. Even if they try to avoid discussing the subject, deeply ingrained beliefs often resurface, especially when interacting with those who hold opposing views.

For this reason, I genuinely believe it’s a decision you need to make if you wish to keep posting on Talk Jesus. Either steer clear of the topic or find a site that aligns better with your beliefs about the Godhead.

Please let me know what you decide to do.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

That is fine but for the record I do not adhere to Modalistic Monarchianism or any of those other heretical views above.

 

[Christ4Ever]

That is fine but for the record I do not adhere to Modalistic Monarchianism or any of those other heretical views above.

I’m open to giving others the benefit of the doubt, as long as they’re upfront about their own positions. It would be helpful if you could clearly explain your belief, especially if it’s not Trinitarian. So far, it seems like you’re presenting views you don’t agree with and pointing out their flaws without sharing your own perspective for critique.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Gothedral]

Few discussions strike at the very heart of Christian identity like the question of the Son — Was He eternally existent as the Son, or was the Sonship a manifestation in time?

For centuries, this question has divided the church...

Even Japheth disagrees with this blasphemy. Christ has always existed. Israel is divided between the sanctified and the sinner who disengages with The Way, the Truth, and the Life. Christ is Eternally Present.

You are commanded and bound to not bear false witness, but to speak plainly about your testimony on the matter. Mind you, even Lucifer can honestly say that Christ is God above gods, the King of kings, the Redeemer and Savior of his faithful. I would love to read your testimony, FatL... No a.i. coding allowed Lol ️