Isaiah 9:6 clearly identifies the child born and son given as “the Mighty God” and as “the Eternal Father”. The Hebrew can be translated either as “Eternal Father” or “Everlasting Father” which essentially means the same thing. Some Trinitarian theologians have argued that the title Everlasting Father in and of itself proves that there has to be an eternal Son because they allege that we cannot have an Eternal Father without also having an Eternal Son. Thus they ask, “Is the Father eternal or did He become the Father later on in time?” Such a question can easily confuse most Oneness believers because most of us have not been taught how to reply to such a question.
Why This Argument Fails
1.) First of all, a Father cannot be a Father unless He begets or creates an offspring. That would make the child born and Son given a created person rather than an eternal person.
2.) Secondly, Yahweh is called our Heavenly Father because He is the Creator; yet just as an earthly father exists prior to becoming a parent, so our Heavenly Father could have always existed as the Self Existent One prior to becoming a Father. My children can call me Dad (a father), but I existed long before I actually became a father. Therefore God the Father could have always eternally existed as Yahweh before becoming a Father.
3.) Thirdly, since God “calls those things which do not exist as if they existed (Romans 4:17),” the All Knowing God likely always foreknew that He would create the angels and humanity throughout eternity past before the actual creation took place. In this light we can understand how the title “Everlasting Father” is applied to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is identified as having the Name of the Everlasting Father because He is the full incarnation of that only true God the Father. Hence, the omniscient God might have always foreknown that He would Father His future creation throughout eternity past. Wherefore, God could have always thought of Himself as the “Eternal Father” prior to the actual creation of all things.
4.) Fourthly, since 1 Peter 1:20 states that the Son was “FOREKNOWN before the creation of the world,” the Son could not have existed as a Son prior to being “FOREKNOW,” otherwise the language of “foreknowing” becomes meaningless. Wherefore, it is possible to believe that the Son was always eternally foreknown throughout eternity past before the Son was actually begotten. Hence, God could have always known and loved His Son and His future elect before they were actually begotten. In this light, God the Father could have always been a Father to the Son before the Son’s actual existence because the Son might have always been eternally “foreknown” by the Father before his actual begetting.
5.) Fifthly, John 5:26 (ESV) proves that no one granted life to the Father, but that the Father GRANTED LIFE to the Son: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself”. Since the Son was granted life by the Father, the Son could not have always existed as an alleged God the Son as Trinitarians suppose.
Even the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology (who was really an Arian) rebutted the Trinitarian idea that the Son has to be eternal (timeless) because the Father is eternal (timeless). Tertullian wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3 that God the Father “COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON”. Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son, but became a Father when the Son was begotten as a pre-incarnate Son (Arianism). Therefore Tertullian himself rebuts the Trinitarian assumption that the Son had to have always eternally existed as the eternal progeny (offspring) of the Father for the Father to have eternally existed as God.