Why I believe in the Eternal Son (Eternal Sonship)

That is Gill's theology!

 

like you?

 

Here is a very good text from the NT, which is clear that "Sonship" cannot have been before the Incarnation, which is seen from the language used.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35. KJV)

Note the words, "shall be called", for which is the Greek, "κληθησεται", and is in the FUTURE tense! Not, PAST, nor AORIST, nor PERFECT, but FUTURE. Why does the Holy Spirit Inspire Luke to use the FUTURE tense about the Birth of Jesus, that He SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD"? the fact that the language indicates something in the FUTURE, can only means that it is NOT at the PRESENT, or, the PAST! Only if you have a theological axe to grind, will you argue against the Word of Almighty God!

 

Let us take a look at one of the passages, which is used for the "Eternal Sonship", as proof texts.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?" (Hebrews 1:5)

I want to deal with just one word from this verse, "γεννάω" (γεγεννηκα), translated by "begotten". The verb literally means, "to give birth to". If, as it is argued, that "Thou are My Son", is to be taken with "begotten", and that the "this day", refers to the "eternal past", or "continual". Then we have to ask, does this refer to the "Eternal Generation" of the Being of the Son, from God the Father, an early Church heresy that was taught by Origen? If this is the case, then Jesus Christ is in His essential Being (Deity), eternally subordinate to God the Father, and therefore CANNOT be equally Deity with the Father, and opens the door to all sorts of heretical teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ! Of course, that means that when Jesus Christ is called Yahweh in the Bible, it cannot be understood in the same way that the Father is called Yahweh. Origen also taught that the "essence" of the Son was "different" to that of the Father, this "eternal begetting" makes this true! The "begetting" as spoken of in Psalm 2:7, does not, as some suppose, refer to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as Jesus was not "begotten" at this time, but RAISED from the dead!

 

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Did Son, the heir, have to undergo a change in order to inherit the kingdom of God?
If yes, a change of what?

And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.- Does that describe the birth of a man child with pain?

“[A. fn] But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the [B.fn] agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held [C.fn] in its power A. Literally: Whom God raised up. B. Literally: birth pains. C. Literally: by it
Did that describe the resurrection as a painless birth?
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Isa 66:7

V 8 - Our being born into the kingdom?
Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

 

SavedByGrace,

1. I thought I had provided solid biblical evidence, such as Hebrews 1:2, where the Second Person of the Trinity was called "Son" before the incarnation.

2. Next, I indicated "begotten" was not the best choice, with "Today I have engendered you."

 

I don't see any mention of the eternal Son in Hebrews 1:1-2, all it does say is, "On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son". God spoke through His Prophets in the OT, and in the New, through His Son, the Lord Jesus. The reference can only mean to Jesus after His Birth, as it says about God speaking through Him, with no reference to the OT.

"Today I have engendered you.", when does this "today" refer to?

 

μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭N B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona ValentiniansAccording to Irenaeus ValentiniansAccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) AriusAccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius SynesiusAccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM
ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭à2 33 pc copbo TheodotusAccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς] (see John 3:16; John 3:18; 1John 4:9) A C E F G H K Wsupp X Δ Θ Π Ψ 063 0141 f1 f13 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc ite itf itff2 itl vg syrc syrh syrpal arm eth geo1 slav TheodotusAccording to Clement(1/2) Theodotus Irenaeuslat(1/3) Clement1/3 Tertullian Hippolytus Origenlat(1/2) Letter of Hymenaeus Alexander Eustathius Eusebius4/7 Hegemonius Ambrosiaster Faustinus Serapion1/2 Victorinus-Rome Hilary5/7 Athanasius Titus-Bostra Basil1/2 Gregory-Nazianzus Gregory-Elvira Phoebadius Ambrose10/11 Chrysostom Synesius Jerome Theodore Augustine Nonnus Cyril1/4 Proclus Varimadum Theodoret Fulgentius Caesarius John-Damascus Ps-Priscillian ς NRmg CEI ND Riv Dio TILC

If you know much about textual criticism, you will see from the above evidence, that the far greater is the reading, "θεὸς"

 

John's Gospel, chapter 1, verses 1-2,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God"

This is speaking about eternity past, not the time of creation, which is in verse 3. Note that John does not say, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God".

 

Here is Hebrews 1:2 (NASB)
In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

The way I read this through His Son God also made the World. Thus the text refers to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity as "His Son."

I think the OT quotes referred initially to David being "anointed" King and thus obtaining a special status, like a son obtains a special status when he comes of age. Now, in the Hebrews application to the Second Person of the Trinity, I think when Jesus was "anointed" with the Holy Spirit and Power, He obtained His special status as the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One.

 

"Son", can be read, by some people.

You have said that you can not read it.

Like inspiration has to run in your set of foot tracks.

 

How many times, prior to Proverbs 2:14 and 8:22 does The Book of Proverbs refer to Jesus as "Wisdom"?

 

What happened to God calling Himself, "John Calvin"?

So, now, God's Words in systematic clarity, are "John Gill's Theology"?

Why not admit to denying The Bible Passages?

You do, right?

And, are proud of it?

Step up and give them the Proper Authorship.

The Bible was Authored by God whether you or I or John or John, had ever existed.

Are you copping out, again, provocatively?

Stand up and tell God He isn't Allowed to Have Jesus as His Eternal Son, UNLESS HE MEETS YOUR STANDARDS and PUTS IT EXACTLY IN THOSE WORDS, or SOME OTHER EQUALLY STIGENT CRITERIA.

 

Yes, it does.
It TAS a simple statement of fact that Father-Son is a very specific and distinct relationship between two beings. If the First Person of the Trinity (whatever you choose to call Him) and the Second Person of the Trinity (whatever you choose to call Him) have always existed, then they have always had SOME relationship to one another. If this relationship was NOT Father and Son before the incarnation but clearly is Father and Son after the incarnation, then there is no alternative to the fact that the relationship changed at the incarnation from WHATEVER it was before to Father-Son after. That is a change in the relationship among the Godhead while scripture claims God does not change and Jesus does not change.

The only way for the relationship to not change is for the Father-Son relationship to be eternal ... just as God is eternal. The fact that the Son is not called the Son in the OT and the Father is not called the Father in the OT is not proof that the relationship did not exist.

The fact that there was no Ten Commandments before Moses does not prove that those sins did not exist before Moses delivered the stone tablets giving them a name.

 

This is one of those subjects where everyone I respect stands for eternal sonship, yet I can't say I fully understand their arguments. But since it's so unanimous, I have to defer and assuming I'm just missing something.

MacArthur used to not believe in eternal sonship, and his arguments made sense to me. Then he changed.

But I have to say, I've never understood why the sonship has to be eternal, so long as the second person of the trinity (the Word) was eternal. I guess the best argument I've gleaned is that God said he sent his Son, which could imply he was sent from Heaven, which would imply he was already the Son in heaven.

Then again, God just could be saying he sent his Son from the time of the incarnation, which He knew prophetically he would do from eternity past.

 

NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NOWT. Now show just ONE verse in the entire Book of Proverbs, where Jesus is called Wisdom?