Featured When did Christ embrace Sonship?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

that would be nice

 

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.