When did Christ embrace Sonship?

[evangelist6589]

Reading a interesting book on Christology (one used in seminaries) and so I have a quiz question for you.

When did Christ embrace the sonship?

1. The incarnation
2. Baptism- Mt 3:17
3. Resurrection- Rm 1:4
4. By means of exaltation to the right hand of God- Heb 1:3
5. The theory of sonship by means of title or office-Phil 2:9
6. The theory of sonship by means of covenant relation
7. The eternal sonship of Christ

 

[JonC]

Before the Incarnation Jesus as glorified in the presence of the Father. But Jesus emptied himself of “equality with God”, humbled himself, and became obedient. After the Resurrection Jesus was once again glorified as he was before he became flesh. So I would say that in Christ the divine nature was expressed in terms of self-sacrificial love as Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to God the Father. This would be “sonship” at the incarnation. That does not mean, however, that the Word did not eternally proceed from the Father. It means that I do not think that ‘sonship” is necessarily appropriate for this relationship.

Here is an interesting argument unfolding:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/evangelical-misunderstandings-of-the-person-of-christ.97571/

 

[JamesL]

I would have to ask - what do you mean by "embrace" ??
That might greatly affect any answer I could muster.

Here's what I mean:
If embrace means to initially be on board with, I would say He never embraced Sonship. It's simply a matter of reality, not some issue of recognizance.

Note when He was a boy in the temple. When his mother came looking for Him, He said He must be about His Father's business, not that He chose to be about it.

However, if embracing relates to the outworking of events, maybe something different

If embrace means to willingly delve into the inauguration of a plan, I would have to think on that and search the scriptures more. I would imagine I could see this at His baptism. But perhaps even in the temple when He read from Isaiah and said it was fulfilled in their hearing that day.

If embrace means to run headlong into the events leading into the culmination, I could possibly see when He rode on a donkey, or even in the garden when He prayed that this cup might pass.

If embrace means going through with the final aspect, possibly when He gave up the cried out to the Father then breathed His last.

I guess the short of it is that I really don't care for the use of "embrace" as it relates to Christ the Son.


And further, concerning the 7 choices listed, #s 4-7 display a lack of understanding of just what it means that He is the Son of God

 

[evangelist6589]

Before the Incarnation Jesus as glorified in the presence of the Father. But Jesus emptied himself of “equality with God”, humbled himself, and became obedient. After the Resurrection Jesus was once again glorified as he was before he became flesh. So I would say that in Christ the divine nature was expressed in terms of self-sacrificial love as Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to God the Father. This would be “sonship” at the incarnation. That does not mean, however, that the Word did not eternally proceed from the Father. It means that I do not think that ‘sonship” is necessarily appropriate for this relationship.

Here is an interesting argument unfolding:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/evangelical-misunderstandings-of-the-person-of-christ.97571/

Christ held the sonship eternally and long before the incarnation. The answer given in the book is the last one in the list meaning that Christ eternally held sonship.

 

[evangelist6589]

I would have to ask - what do you mean by "embrace" ??
That might greatly affect any answer I could muster.

Here's what I mean:
If embrace means to initially be on board with, I would say He never embraced Sonship. It's simply a matter of reality, not some issue of recognizance.

Note when He was a boy in the temple. When his mother came looking for Him, He said He must be about His Father's business, not that He chose to be about it.

However, if embracing relates to the outworking of events, maybe something different

If embrace means to willingly delve into the inauguration of a plan, I would have to think on that and search the scriptures more. I would imagine I could see this at His baptism. But perhaps even in the temple when He read from Isaiah and said it was fulfilled in their hearing that day.

If embrace means to run headlong into the events leading into the culmination, I could possibly see when He rode on a donkey, or even in the garden when He prayed that this cup might pass.

If embrace means going through with the final aspect, possibly when He gave up the cried out to the Father then breathed His last.

I guess the short of it is that I really don't care for the use of "embrace" as it relates to Christ the Son.


And further, concerning the 7 choices listed, #s 4-7 display a lack of understanding of just what it means that He is the Son of God

Actually #7 is the correct answer so do not know how you can conclude it as a lack of understanding. This is a Christology text used at the seminary level.

 

[JamesL]

It's simple, really. Wickety-wack building blocks in the starting paradigm leads to lack of understanding once the structure is built.

Here's a decent little snippet from MacArthur...

http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A235/reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ

He displays what I'm talking about when he lays out what led to his previous and current positions.

MacArthur assumed/assumes that "son" speaks of a subordination, just like most everyone else. But is that correct?

If that one building block is not right, then the final position is wrong.

And the whole premise of subordination flies counter to the notion of 3 co-equal co-eternal Persons, which is another building block

All these elaborate building blocks derived from outside of scripture, then imposed upon scripture

Enough people do that and throw their conclusions into the ring, it can be dangerous

 

[JonC]

Christ held the sonship eternally and long before the incarnation. The answer given in the book is the last one in the list meaning that Christ eternally held sonship.

I misunderstood the OP, brother. I thought it was discussing the topic of "sonship" rather than the conclusions of a specific book. (Perhaps my answer is right, except you are looking for the book answer which may be wrong).

Now, if this is just going to be truth by commentary, then I am not interested. I have a strong concern with the teaching of doctrine in the form of “giving the answers.” This method has destroyed doctrine in our churches and it is nothing less than Roman Catholicism in method. When you end up with is a doctrine that its adherents cannot defend. You end up with people holding beliefs that are not truly their own. They have answers without understanding. They can pass the test but never comprehend the topic.

Anyway, what book are you talking about and what seminary uses the book?

 

[evangelist6589]

I misunderstood the OP, brother. I thought it was discussing the topic of "sonship" rather than the conclusions of a specific book. (Perhaps my answer is right, except you are looking for the book answer which may be wrong).

Now, if this is just going to be truth by commentary, then I am not interested. I have a strong concern with the teaching of doctrine in the form of “giving the answers.” This method has destroyed doctrine in our churches and it is nothing less than Roman Catholicism in method. When you end up with is a doctrine that its adherents cannot defend. You end up with people holding beliefs that are not truly their own. They have answers without understanding. They can pass the test but never comprehend the topic.

Anyway, what book are you talking about and what seminary uses the book?

Have you written a book on Christology? Why listen to you over the author?

 

[JonC]

Have you written a book on Christology? Why listen to you over the author?

Why not? Kenneth Copeland wrote books.....why listen to you over him?

Scripture is our authority, brother, not human authors. I am not asking for you to listen to me over anyone, but I am rejecting the idea that just because you found it in a book it is correct (regardless of who uses that book). I doubt a reputable seminary would operate in that manner (by providing #7 as "the correct answer"). I am saying that you need to stop reading books to provide answers.

So again, what book and what seminary?

 

[evangelist6589]

Why not? Kenneth Copeland wrote books.....why listen to you over him?

Scripture is our authority, brother, not human authors. I am not asking for you to listen to me over anyone, but I am rejecting the idea that just because you found it in a book it is correct (regardless of who uses that book). I doubt a reputable seminary would operate in that manner (by providing #7 as "the correct answer"). I am saying that you need to stop reading books to provide answers.

So again, what book and what seminary?

We are getting off topic. But regardless the book is filled with scripture on every page. I do not know what seminaries as amazon reviews do not mention those details. Why do you think #7 is not the correct answer?

 

[evangelist6589]

Oh and you need to stop ASSUMING that I am reading more into human authors than I am scripture. Scripture is the authority plain and simple but God provided teachers to teach us and scholars write books.

 

[evangelist6589]

Also I am not providing the name of the book for two reasons.

1. People will judge the author and his views on the CAL vs. Armin debate, and or his eschatology views.--- But this is a book on Christology not CAL vs. Armin or Eschatology.
2. People will focus on a name rather than on the substance of the book.

 

[JonC]

We are getting off topic. But regardless the book is filled with scripture on every page. I do not know what seminaries as amazon reviews do not mention those details. Why do you think #7 is not the correct answer?

I never disagreed with the book. You are expecting us to respond to your interpretation of another's theology, and we cannot. Integrity demands we provide our source when dealing with the work of another.

But I am addressing sonship as putting aside ones own glory to reflect that of another and to submit in obedience. This happened at the incarnation (per the passages I provided). I don't know what definition the book used.

 

[blessedwife318]

Oh and you need to stop ASSUMING that I am reading more into human authors than I am scripture. Scripture is the authority plain and simple but God provided teachers to teach us and scholars write books.

Maybe when you actions and post back up you not reading more into human authors then you are scripture we will stop "assuming" that.

 

[blessedwife318]

Also I am not providing the name of the book for two reasons.

1. People will judge the author and his views on the CAL vs. Armin debate, and or his eschatology views.--- But this is a book on Christology not CAL vs. Armin or Eschatology.
2. People will focus on a name rather than on the substance of the book.

Your the one that makes everything into a CAL vs Armin debate. Not to mention how can people have an intelligent discussion about a book, when you won't tell us what the book is.

 

[JamesL]

But I am addressing sonship as putting aside ones own glory to reflect that of another and to submit in obedience. This happened at the incarnation (per the passages I provided). I don't know what definition the book used.

Do you believe "Son" denotes substance, essence, office, hierarchical position, attributes, role, or other?

do you believe Sonship is a distinctive, apart from Son?

Like perhaps the Son voluntarily stepped into the office of Sonship at the incarnation?

 

[JamesL]

Your the one that makes everything into a CAL vs Armin debate. Not to mention how can people have an intelligent discussion about a book, when you won't tell us what the book is.

We can just forget there ever was a book, and have an intelligent discussion

 

[blessedwife318]

We can just forget there ever was a book, and have an intelligent conversation

that would be nice

 

[JonC]

Do you believe "Son" denotes substance, essence, office, hierarchical position, attributes, role, or other?

do you believe Sonship is a distinctive, apart from Son?

Like perhaps the Son voluntarily stepped into the office of Sonship at the incarnation?

I was using the term to denote a specific role (a role of obedience as in Jesus becoming obedient, setting aside his glory). At the same time I believe that Jesus is eternally Logos. So there remained different relational aspects within Trinity. "Sonship" I suppose is dependent on how it is used.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Oh and you need to stop ASSUMING that I am reading more into human authors than I am scripture. Scripture is the authority plain and simple but God provided teachers to teach us and scholars write books.

I agree with you here. The notion that authors (orthodox) have destroyed doctrine in churches is idiocy, arrogance and such are not akin to RC doings. There is nothing in Scripture that says to make its teaching our own while being in contempt of others, note Eph. 4:11ff. Interesting enough persons that preach such nonsense most certainly want you to hear what THEY have to say.

That path is of a certainty most dangerous ground and carries the Diotrophes complex, and these types are frankly to be avoided. In the multitude of counselors there is safety, Prov.11:14 and especially among those who walk in the counsel of God's Word, Psalm 1, Eph. 4:11ff, 2 John etc. You do well to read good authors and heed their advice and counsel.

If you don't mind brother, I would ask you to send me the author or book title so I can read it. It sounds like a great read! Thanks.