What do we mean by Son of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Average_Joe17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
youd be suprise on how many muslims and more think that son of god means that god beggot jesus as some point
 
…the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38

Son of God can mean different things at different times.
 
This is how I understand it:
Jesus is the Son of God in the sense that He has the same nature of the Father, is sent by the Father as a submissive Son, and is loved by the Father as only a Father can love a son. First the nature part, when we are begotten by our fathers, we inherit their natures and qualities, i.e. our fathers are human therefore we are human. The same goes in the Son of God. Jesus is the only Son of God, or Unique Son of God in the sense that He has the same nature as the Father and the qualities of His Father. If Jesus has an identical nature of the Father, He would therefore be Deity as the Father is. Colossians 2:9 says that all the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily. If Jesus is fully deity, then He would be eternal as the Father is, for a true God has no beginning.
The second point is that Jesus was sent by the Father in taking on the role of the Submissive Son. Jesus as the divine Son God is not literally born in time like a human son would be, but He has taken the role the Son in what is called the Economic Trinity, or better said, how the Persons of the Trinity interact with each other. The Father is the paternal hierarchy, while the Son is the Submissive Servant, who listens to the will of the Father in all things, and the Son would therefore be the inheritor of all things in being the Son of God. And the last point is that the Son is loved by the Father in a unique way that only a father can love of a son. This unique love is something that we will never experience with God, it is a love that has existed for eternity. And this Love proceeds from the Father and the Son as a Person and is whom we call the Holy Spirit, the eternal Love of the Father and the Son.
Now on the topic of the Word of God, this is best understood to me as the very utterance of the Father is the Son in action. He is the Messenger of God, the Revelation of God, the Creative Aspect of God, for God spoke the universe into existence, therefore Jesus was the very Creator of the universe being the Word that created all things. And God’s Word has always existed, for God has always had His Word, therefore Jesus being the Word is eternal.
And one last thought on the Jesus being the Word and the Unique Son of God, is that who better to reveal and explain the Father than His own Son, for Jesus said to St. Phillip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus is the very revelation of God the Father in being God’s own Word and God’s One of a Kind Son.
Hope that helps, God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your contribution. I write the next part not to debate you, but to clarify the Catholic position (specifically for other Catholics).

Catholics reject the notion of subordinationism in the Trinity. This view requires that the Son have a different divine will than that of the Father and that he submits his divine will to another divine will. The Church teaches that the three are co-equal in all things, including in relation to each other in the Godhead, and they all share fully in God’s one divine will. Jesus Christ submits to his Father and to God through his human nature (and its human intellect and will), but not through his divine nature, which is God and equal to the Father. Jesus Christ is also first and foremost a divine person and as a person is equal to the Father, but through his human nature submits to the Father, as is proper for a human nature and an example to us.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry for the confusion, but I didn’t meant to come off as teaching subordinationism in the Trinity. In my post, I said that Jesus took on the role of the Submissive Son which is fulfilled in His Incarnation. This doesn’t show a difference in will for it was the eternal will of the Father and the Son that Christ take on the role of the Submissive Servant in the Incarnation. And since Christ is the eternal Son of God, He has been the Son of God, born of God before all ages, eternally. I am not saying that there is a division of will. I am saying what the Church has taught from the start that Jesus submits to God in the Incarnation. But I can see how my words may be misconstrued. But I wholeheartedly deny Subordinationism.

God Bless
 
THE SON OF GOD

WHEN IN FORMER TIMES
God spoke to our forefathers, he spoke in fragmentary and varied fashion through the prophets. But in this the final age he has spoken to us in the Son whom he has made heir to the whole universe, and through whom he created all orders of existence: the Son who is the effulgence (Brilliant Radiance) of God’s splendour (Glory) and the stamp of God’s very being, and sustains the universe by his word of power. When he had brought about the purgation of sins, he took his seat at the right hand of Majesty on high, raised as far above the angels, as the title he has inherited is superior to theirs.

_________________________________________________________

He {JESUS} is the image of the invisible God;
his is the primacy over all created things.

In him everything in heaven and on earth was created,
not only things visible but also the invisible orders of thrones, sovereignties, authorities, and powers: the whole universe has been created through him and for him.

And he exists before everything,
and all things are held together in him.

He is, moreover, the head of the body, the church.
He is its origin, the first to return from the dead, to be in all things alone supreme.

For in him the complete being of God, by God’s own choice, came to dwell.

Through him God chose to reconcile the whole universe to himself,
making peace through the shedding of his blood upon the cross—
to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, through him alone.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, “Son” is about relationship and nature. But for eternal beings it does not make much sense to talk about begetting since that is a process in time. The Father’s only son is just like the Father but a different person, always was and always will be.
 
So true, that’s why I have always preferred the translations of the term Monogenes as One and Only, or Only, instead of the traditional Only-Begotten. I think that the former terms are more accurate but also that the term only-begotten has led to too many heresies such as Arianism, Mormonism, Watchtower Theology and such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top