05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipI'm in full agreement with the above.
This is interesting. Let's go on. Let's keep it simple though.
And let's try to keep it as fellowship. I would try to speak of these things in an edifying and Christ exalting way.
If it causes us to love the Lord Jesus more, it is at least a safe discussion. That is two believers in Christ hopefully sharing their understanding of Chr ...[text shortened]... not sure whether I wrote this or you did. But it is true. Praise the Lord.
Shall I continue?
I think you missed my point though.
In a post further back you said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
Subsequently, to that quote, I replied that I can't find scriptural support for the inference that Jesus Christ is the "Firstborn Son of God".
The scriptures say that Jesus is God's "only begotten son". Not God's "firstborn son".
When Jesus was raised from the dead, then He was the "firstborn from the dead". Colossians 1:8
I see the scriptures as word specific. I endeavor to not depart from the narrative.
See my point?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @secondson
Subsequently, to that quote, I replied that I can't find scriptural support for the inference that Jesus Christ is the "Firstborn Son of God".
You would not consider "the Firstborn from the dead" to refer to the Son ?
I think the most obvious understanding is that it is a Son who is, in resurrection, "the Firstborn from the dead".
Romans 8:29 says that God's purpose is to conform us to "the image of His Son". And that so that the Son would be the Firstborn among many brothers.
"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated [i] to be[/] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)
The many brothers to follow the Firstborn, are of course "sons". So the First among them, being the Firstborn from the dead, is of course a Son.
It would not be an uncle, cousin, grandfather, or nephew.
Brothers are brothers of a Son. And in this case they are brothers of the FIrstborn from the dead - a Son.
But I would propose something even more direct below.
The scriptures say that Jesus is God's "only begotten son". Not God's "firstborn son".
Jesus was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3,4)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
2 edits
Earlier in my Christian life I was familiar with the pronouncement that Jesus was the Son of God at both His birth and His baptism (See Luke 1:35; Matthew 3:17) . I was also aware that on the Mount of Transfiguration the voice declared Him to be "My Son".
Latter, I came to see that in Romans He was declared the Son of God at His resurrection. This was not the declaration of Him being the only begotten Son of God. This was the declaration of Him being the Firstborn Son of God in resurrection. He is also "Son of God" in that critical aspect as well.
" ... the gospel of God ... concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (See Romans 1:1-4)
He was declared Son of God in power at His resurrection.
For Psalm 2:7 says -
"I will recount the decree of Jehovah; He said to Me: You are My Son; Today I have begotten You." (Psalm 2:7)
When the Apostle Paul referenced this passage he did so in relation to Christ's resurrection. "Today" or "This day" was applied to the day of the resurrection of Christ.
That God has fulfilled this promise to us their children in raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm,
"You are My Son, this day I have begotten You."
And as to His having raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to corruption ..."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
3 edits
I then enlarged my capacity of appreciation. I was convinced that Jesus was both the unique ONLY begotten Son of God by declared at His conception, baptism, and transfiguration but also the Firstborn Son of God in power at the day of His resurrection.
1.) On one hand He is the Only begotten to whom no other son is possible.
2.) On the other hand He is the Firstborn Son of God announced at His resurrection who has many brothers. They are also sons of God.
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26)
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14)
"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)
And just so no one gets the impression of sexism, let us not forget God has sons and daughters in His salvation.
"Therefore come out from their midst and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you;"
"And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons AND DAUGHTERS to Me, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:18 comp Hosea 1:10; Isaiah 43:6
Sons - emphasizes THE SAME LIFE rather than sex or gender.
His resurrection was the birth of the Firstborn Son of God (in resurrection).
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipYou make no sense.Subsequently, to that quote, I replied that I can't find scriptural support for the inference that Jesus Christ is the "Firstborn Son of God".
You would not consider [b]"the Firstborn from the dead" to refer to the Son ?
I think the most obvious understanding is that it is a Son who is, in resurrection, "the Firstborn f ...[text shortened]... ower according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead [b](Romans 1:3,4)[/b]
One minute YOU say Jesus is God
Next you say THE BIBLE SAYS Jesus is Gods only begotten son.
You proclaim yet another false doctrine
But you know the Bible says the correct doctrine.
Nothing you say makes sense.
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipYou said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
I then enlarged my capacity of appreciation. I was convinced that Jesus was both the unique ONLY begotten Son of God by declared at His conception, baptism, and transfiguration but also the Firstborn Son of God in power at the day of His resurrection.
[b]1.) On one hand He is the Only begotten to whom no other son is possible.
2.) On the ...[text shortened]... sex or gender.
His resurrection was the birth of the Firstborn Son of God (in resurrection).[/b]
I'm saying that nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is the "Firstborn Son of God". Jesus' resurrection made Him the "firstborn from the dead". That's what the scriptures say, but nowhere do the scriptures say that His resurrection was the "BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God".
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @rajk999Are you saying that Jesus isn't God and isn't God's only begotten son?
You make no sense.
One minute YOU say Jesus is God
Next you say THE BIBLE SAYS Jesus is Gods only begotten son.
You proclaim yet another false doctrine
But you know the Bible says the correct doctrine.
Nothing you say makes sense.
If so, then you are contradicting the Word of God. That would make you a teacher of heretical doctrine wouldn't it?
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @secondsonThe Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. That is what I believe. Nothing further.
Are you saying that Jesus isn't God and isn't God's only begotten son?
If so, then you are contradicting the Word of God. That would make you a teacher of heretical doctrine wouldn't it?
Im with Paul who said this:
But I would have you know,
that the head of every man is Christ; and
the head of the woman is the man; and
the head of Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV)
The Order is
God - above all
Jesus under God
Man under Jesus
Woman under Man
Just as man cannot be Jesus, Jesus [the Son of God] cannot be God [His Father]
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @secondsonIm in agreement here that nowhere does it say that Jesus is the firstborn Son of God.
You said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
I'm saying that nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is the [b]"Firstborn Son of God". Jesus' resurrection made Him the "firstborn from the dead". That's what the scriptures say, but nowhere do the scriptures say that His resurrection was the "BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God".[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @secondson
You said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
I'm saying that nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is the "Firstborn Son of God".
So "Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29) does not refer to the Son ?
" ... He also predestinated to be conformed to His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29b)
God's Son ... that He [the Son] ... the same Person, might be the Firstborn among many brothers.
Does Firstborn there refer to the Son ?
If yes is the answer then that amounts to " the Firstborn ... Son."
Why doesn't John 3:16 say God so loved the world that He gave His Firstborn Son rather than only-begotten Son?
The reason is that He died on the cross the only begotten Son. But He was raised the Firstborn Son.
Jesus' resurrection made Him the "firstborn from the dead". That's what the scriptures say, but nowhere do the scriptures say that His resurrection was the "BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God".
In John 16:21 Jesus explains that His resurrection is akin to the BIRTH of a newborn child:
" A woman when she gives birth, has sorrow because her hour has come; but when she brings forth the little child, she no longer remembers the affliction because of the joy that a man has been born into the world.
Therefore you also now have sorrow, and I will see you again [in resurrection] and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy away from you." (John 16:21,22)
I recorded a song to this verse, by the way:
Your Sorrow Will Be Turned Into Joy
https://soundcloud.com/jack-wilmore
Look down at the bottom album Weapons of Righteousness
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipOriginally posted by @sonshipYou said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
I'm saying that nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is the "Firstborn Son of God".
So [b]"Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29) does not refer to the Son ?
[quote] " ... He also predestina ...[text shortened]... s://soundcloud.com/jack-wilmore
Look down at the bottom album [b]Weapons of Righteousness[/b]
[b]"So "Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29) does not refer to the Son ?"[/b]
Of course! But it isn't saying that Jesus is the "Firstborn Son". Jesus was the first to be resurrected never to die again, just as we will be at our resurrection. That's all that verse is saying. I will not read into it any more than that.
" ... He also predestinated to be conformed to His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29b)
God's Son ... that He [the Son] ... the same Person, might be the Firstborn among many brothers.
Does Firstborn there refer to the Son ?
If yes is the answer then that amounts to "the Firstborn ... Son."
This is redundant. I won't say you're "wresting" with the scriptures, but you are definitely stretching them. You're projecting onto the verses you're quoting to have meaning that isn't there.
God doesn't have a "firstborn son". God has an "only begotten son". The verse simply doesn't say that Jesus is God's firstborn son because of His resurrection. The verse is only saying that Jesus is the "firstborn among many brothers".
"Why doesn't John 3:16 say God so loved the world that He gave His Firstborn Son rather than only-begotten Son?"
The question you should ask yourself is why is Jesus God's only begotten son and not His firstborn son. God doesn't have a son. God is the son. The son is God. "Begotten", monogenēs, one of a kind.
"The reason is that He died on the cross the only begotten Son. But He was raised the Firstborn Son".
Again, the scriptures know nothing about a "Firstborn Son" in connection with Jesus. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. His identity did not change after His resurrection. Ours did.
"In John 16:21 Jesus explains that His resurrection is akin to the BIRTH of a newborn child:"
" A woman when she gives birth, has sorrow because her hour has come; but when she brings forth the little child, she no longer remembers the affliction because of the joy that a man has been born into the world.
Therefore you also now have sorrow, and I will see you again [in resurrection] and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy away from you." (John 16:21,22)
Jesus' inference in the verses above is directly related to His disciples sorrow in relation to their forthcoming sorrow surrounding His death and subsequent resurrection. Again, you are projecting onto the verses a foreign meaning to support a theological viewpoint. I wish you could see that.
I recorded a song to this verse, by the way:
[b]Your Sorrow Will Be Turned Into Joy
https://soundcloud.com/jack-wilmore
Look down at the bottom album Weapons of Righteousness[/b]
I'll check it out.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @secondsonConcerning Romans 8:28
Of course! But it isn't saying that Jesus is the "Firstborn Son". Jesus was the first to be resurrected never to die again, just as we will be at our resurrection. That's all that verse is saying. I will not read into it any more than that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then do you think when Paul says the saved are to be "conformed to the image of His Son" that merely means they too will be resurrected?
I think conformation to the image of His Son, entails transformation of full sanctification. To take this conformation as merely physically resurrected to die no more would, I think, be too superfiscial.
Does Romans 8 suggest that all God needs to do is raise us physically to die no more, and His heart's desire is obtained? No.
The "revelation of the sons of God" (v.19) should be thought to be more than physical resurrection.
Being led by the Spirit of God in order to be a son of God (v.14) should entail more than merely being raised from the dead to die no more.
The obedience to leading, the groaning, the endurance, the interceding of the Spirit, the interceding of the Son, and other things mentioned throughout this chapter indicate that God's new testament economy after we are born again, involves much used by Him to CONFORM us. We are not automaticallty fully conformed just because He raises us.
I mention this to suggest that the Firstborn Son to whom we are to be LIKE means more than a LIKENESS in that we too are resurrected never to die again.
Let me catch up to all your comments.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117497
05 Mar 18
Originally posted by @secondsonOne of sonship’s charms is that he knows loads of scriptures, but still seems to have strange unscriptural beliefs.
You said, "What would you say if I said that the resurrection of Christ was also the BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God ?"
I'm saying that nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus is the [b]"Firstborn Son of God". Jesus' resurrection made Him the "firstborn from the dead". That's what the scriptures say, but nowhere do the scriptures say that His resurrection was the "BIRTH of the Firstborn Son of God".[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
2 edits
" ... He also predestinated to be conformed to His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29b)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
God's Son ... that He [the Son] ... the same Person, might be the Firstborn among many brothers.
Does Firstborn there refer to the Son ?
If yes is the answer then that amounts to "the Firstborn ... Son."
This is redundant.
--------------------------------
I thought to make it clear that the Firstborn Son of God is as biblical as Trinity or Rapture or Substitution. The phrase may not jump out at some but the facts are there.
I won't say you're "wresting" with the scriptures, but you are definitely stretching them.
-----------------------------------------------
I don't think I am adding something extra.
Perhaps you are a a bit constricted in your taking in the biblical facts revealed.
A shortage of much Protestant theology is that transformation, conformation, and subjective sanctification are ignored. Rather much attention is given to Justification.
Protestantism tends to read everything else in the New Testament as just another way of saying "Justification by Faith'.
Justification is of course a wonderful truth in Romans and other NT books. If we say "Because we are justified, we too will be resurrected to never die again" that of course is not wrong. But it is superfiscial in terms of God's plan to mold us, shape us, conform us, transform us into Christ likeness in our souls.
Appreciating this deepens our understanding of the Son of God. He not only gave the only begotten Son that we could be forgiven and raised. God intends that by the Spirit we be transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to the next, to the next, to the next until we are conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God.
God needs not just many resurrected.
God needs many conformed to the image of the Resurrected One in their mind, emotion, will plus the glorified transfigured body.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 18
So I would say saying "Jesus rose and the saved will be raised. That ALL it means for Jesus to be the Firstborn. why wrest any more out of it?" is shallow, I'd say.
It is not really wrong but it is shallow.
We should be careful what we believe, of course. But our caution should not be based merely on tradition but what the Bible reveals.
The Firstborn Son of God is leading many sons in glory.
He is not merely leading many sons into resurrection.
If I die still dominated by soul weighed down with the sins, weaknesses, problems of the old man inherited from Adam, transfiguration of the body and resurrection will not be all that I need in order to be "conformed to the image of His Son".
You're projecting onto the verses you're quoting to have meaning that isn't there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there is a problem with me believing something extra. I think there may be a problem with you not believing enough.
You never heard this before perhaps.
But the matter is there to be seen. I hope now is a good time to consider.