The empty name of a Christian god

In the trinitarian worldview, there are three gods.

That was blunt, wasn’t it? No polite warning. No wordy build-up. I’ve just cut to the chase. I’ll give a very brief explanation for my first sentence.

According to the trinitarian creed, the father is not the son, the son is not the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is not the father. They are three different and distinct entities. But the father is god, the son is god and the holy spirit is god. The trinitarian creed stipulates that the believer in the creed MUST say there is one god. But, as it is described, there are three different and distinct entities called “god.” That can only make three gods, regardless of the manmade stipulation.

So, in the trinitarian worldview, there are three gods.

Now, I’m going to focus on one of these gods, the one called “the son.”

This “son” is supposed to have the attributes of Deity, such as omniscience, omnipotence, all the attributes of Deity. The attribute of interest today is eternality. The “son” is said to be eternal. And I’m not only saying that his existence is eternal, but that he has eternally been the son. He is the eternal son, having eternal sonship.

In case you don’t believe me …

The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead.

What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? – https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html – accessed: 25 July 2023

The eternal generation of the Son, also known as the eternal begetting of the Son, is the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by the necessary will of the Father, but that the Son is not created or caused, and that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is dependent upon the Father or any other member of the Godhead for existence. The eternal generation of the Son is a statement on the relationship within the Trinity between the Father and the Son before the incarnation.

Slick, M., (2014). “What is the eternal generation of the Son?” Available at: https://carm.org/doctrine-and-theology/what-is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son/ Accessed: 25 July 2023

Now think of God the Father: has he always been the Father? Yes, he has (1 Jn.5:7). There never was a time when God the Father was not God the Father. Well then, if he is the eternal Father, Christ must be the eternal Son! An eternal Father must have an eternal Son; it cannot be otherwise. For one is not a father, unless one has a son; and as the Father was always the Father, so the Son was always the Son. There never was a time when the Son was not the Son … May God enable the reader to lay hold upon this blessed truth, and to praise and worship that great God, who gave his Son; and to praise and worship the eternal Son, Jesus Christ …

Bible Based Ministries – The Eternal Sonship Of Christ – https://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/pamphlets/god-father-son-and-holy-spirit/the-eternal-sonship-of-christ/ – Accessed: 25 July 2023 (emphasis in the original)

So, according to some christians, their second god, the “son,” was always the “son.” And the seeds of this idea can be found in the Athanasian Creed.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds;

Athanasian Creed – https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/athanasian-creed – Accessed: 25 July 2023 (emphasis mine)

Based on all this, in the trinity, there is the person who was eternally the son. He was eternally begotten or eternally generated. And this entity, this god is called “the son.”

So, what’s my issue? Why am I writing about this?

Well, it’s the word “son.” What meaning is there in that term when it’s used for an being with no beginning or end, who is called “the son?” What does the English term “son” mean? I’ll share what I see has the most comprehensive definition.

1. a male child or person in relation to his parents.

2. a male child or person adopted as a son.

3. a son-in-law.

4. a person related as if by ties of sonship.

5. a male person looked upon as the product or result of a particular agent, force, or influence: sons of the soil.

6. the Son, the second person of the Trinity; Jesus Christ.

son. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved July 25 2023 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/son

So I’ll go through the first five which gives meaning to the word, and then I’ll talk about the sixth.

The first definition refers to biology (as can be seen in how it is distinguished from the second meaning of adoption). So, in effect, it is the male offspring of biological parents. But the second person in the trinity, in “eternity past,” was never an offspring, never having been produced by parents. This term necessarily implies a beginning and derivation, words that have nothing to do with beings with no beginning, having no source (derivation necessitates source/origin). So the second person of the trinity is not a son in this sense.

The second definition is still the child of parents, but now it is adopted. So this child originated elsewhere but was brought into a family, under parents. But the trinity doctrine states that the father and son were always in this relationship, so there is no adoption. And since adopted children originate elsewhere, it can’t apply to entities with no origin or beginning. Eternal means “no beginning.” So the second person of the trinity is not a son in this sense.

There is nothing in the trinity that has the second person of the trinity as a son-in-law, so that definition is wholly irrelevant.

The fourth definition speaks of a relationship with ties akin to that of being a son. But the second person of the trinity has always existed with the other gods, the father and spirit. There is no derivation. There is no lesser or greater. As the Athanasian Creed states,

And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

Athanasian Creed – https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/athanasian-creed – Accessed: 25 July 2023

So there is nothing whatsoever in the “eternal relationship” that resembles a relationship akin to that of a son.

The fifth definition speaks about a male person looked upon as if he’s the product or result of some source. Again, the second person of the trinity is not looked upon as if he’s the product or result of anything since that again requires a source, necessitates that he derive some attribute from something else. God doesn’t derive attributes, since he is complete and perfect in himself, and trinitarians see the second person of the trinity as “God.” So the fifth definition does not apply.

So, after going through all the definitions that would give the term “son” substance and meaning, we come to the last definition, which is not a definition, but just an admission that trinitarians call one of their gods “the son.” But this begs the question, what does that label mean? None of the content that gives the word definition applies to the second person of the trinity. So that makes it an empty label. It is hollow, a sound that points to something, but has no meaning other than that.

So “the son” or “God the Son” is an empty and meaningless vacuity, nothing more. It’s like calling a dog, “Trigger,” and then, when asked for the reasoning behind the name, the response given is that there was no reason or basis for it, and it just sounded nice at the time. That is the value of the term “the son” when referring to the eternal sonship of the second person of the trinity.

Now some may argue that he’s the son because he is eternally begotten or eternally generated. But again, I hit upon the way trinitarians destroy the meaning of words for the sake of their incoherent faith. It’s the same as the fact that they have three distinct entities, each being called “god,” which linguistically necessarily means three gods, but the doctrine demands they must say one god. Just like how they keep pointing to allegedly plural terms in the Hebrew to point to plurality in God, but still saying they serve one God. Just like the words “I” and “me” are used when God refers to himself, yet trinitarians say it is the whole trinity talking, which is more than one. This is how they crap on language in such a blinded and devoted manner. In much the same way, they attach the word “eternal,” meaning having no beginning or end, with terms like “begotten” and “generation” (in the sense of being produced), words which necessitate beginning. So put that together: the son is eternally begotten, or, this entity is begun in a way that has no beginning.

That is called a contradiction, something that cannot exist.

Look at that phrase again in light of the meaninglessless of the term “son” when applied to the second person they call god: the son is eternally begotten.

For me, when I ponder that in terms of meaningful descriptions, all I see is an unholy abomination, a putrid vomit of folly.

To summarise, both for trinitarians and modalists or oneness doctrine adherents, the word “son,” as applied to some eternal son, or some being who is allegedly the eternal God himself, is an empty name for an equally empty god.