The Eternal Son.

[37818]

What I think needs to be pointed out, while typically all the references to the Son of God as the Son can be arguably said to only refer to the post incarnate Son of God. None of them, by the way, can be use to prove the pre-incarnate Sonship of the Son of God cannot be true. There are these two sides here.

John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18 refers to the Son at the side of the Father as the one who appears visibly for the inisible God. The implication can be interpretated that it was as the Son in Genesis 12:7 being the LORD God. Showing the Son to be the preincarnate Son of God and the LORD God too. The reading "only begotten God" disallows this.

 

[37818]

and therefore all may understand one of the controversies which overtook Christendom to this very day.
hopefully that is what is achieved here at the BB - understanding - of our differing views and not condemnation, calumniation and insults.

Insults? The fact that the written word of God nowhere explicitly teaches in any way (except the incarnation) the Son becoming the Son through being "begotten." What is explicity a false teaching, "begotten from the Father before all ages." It has no explicit Biblical basis what so ever. And for this lie Bible Christians have been called unorthodox, apostate and even banned on Christian forums as Christians. Insults?

 

[37818]

Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." This is explicitly a post incarnation, post resurrection statement. And goes with the yet future 1 Corinthians 15:28, ". . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." And the Son stepping down does not mean He ever had stop from always being God too, John 1:1-3; John 1:9-10; Hebrews 1:2-3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17.

 

[37818]

I believe in the eternal Sonship, that the Son of God was always the Son of God.

I hate this false doctine of what is commonly used as a basis of Christian fellowship. ". . . begotten from the Father before all ages, . . . ."

 

[HankD]

Insults? The fact that the written word of God nowhere explicitly teaches in any way (except the incarnation) the Son becoming the Son through being "begotten." What is explicity a false teaching, "begotten from the Father before all ages." It has no explicit Biblical basis what so ever. And for this lie Bible Christians have been called unorthodox, apostate and even banned on Christian forums as Christians. Insults?

NOT YOU 37818 or Origen! you give strong and yes admirable explanations of your views and I know you feel strongly - as I and others do. But we must learn from the past. people killed each over these issues from the 4th century onward. not good.

 

[37818]

We got to find out how to be part of the solution, and not be part of the problem. We need to love our brothers and sisters in Christ even when we think they are in error.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Biblical reference that teaches it, please. The whole point of this thread.

very interesting read here!
Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ

 

[Yeshua1]

No, most of the world holds that Jesus was just a man, never the Son of God.

True, but I was speaking to the view held by Christians!

 

[Yeshua1]

According to what you have explained thus far, the Athanasian view either holds that the Logos never had a human nature or always had a human nature or temporarily had a human nature. Which is it?

Non of the above, as the Eternal God the Son assumed Human flesh and sinless humanity on in the Incarnation, and thus is forever now that state of fully God and fully man!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is an interpretation of those texts. None of those references prove the pre-incarate Sonship of Christ. Yes, the Person who is now the man the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole creator of all created things, Ephesians 3:9.

For the record the words, ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." in Colossians 1:15 refers to the bodily resurrection of the incarnate Christ who by way of His incaration is part of His creation.

Jesus is now back above and beyond his creation though, as he regained the fullness of his prior glory!

 

[Yeshua1]

Insults? The fact that the written word of God nowhere explicitly teaches in any way (except the incarnation) the Son becoming the Son through being "begotten." What is explicity a false teaching, "begotten from the Father before all ages." It has no explicit Biblical basis what so ever. And for this lie Bible Christians have been called unorthodox, apostate and even banned on Christian forums as Christians. Insults?

Only Begotten demotes that Jesus is unique, as He is Only Son of God by His very essence/nature!

 

[HankD]

There was a HUGE controversy around the 4th - 6th centuries (and beyond somewhat) as to whether Jesus had a human soul.

Addendum RE: #247 it seems that MacArthur holds to Jesus having/being an eternal human soul.

Am i wrong?

 

[Yeshua1]

There was a HUGE controversy around the 4th - 6th centuries (and beyond somewhat) as to whether Jesus had a human soul.

How can he be seen as being fully human and not have one?

 

[37818]

very interesting read here!
Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ

It is bad theology, ". . . It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. . . ." Psalms 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5-6 refer to the post incarnate Son in regard to His bodily resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33. The word translated "this day" is not referring to eternity but the occurance of Christ's bodily resurrection. I fail to understand how Bible believers can be so blind.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is bad theology, ". . . It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. . . ." Psalms 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5-6 refer to the post incarnate Son in regard to His bodily resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33. The word translated "this day" is not referring to eternity but the occurance of Christ's bodily resurrection. I fail to understand how Bible believers can be so blind.

At least Dr Mac allowed scriptures to change his mind!

 

[HankD]

How can he be seen as being fully human and not have one?

you are seeing it by hindsight - easier.

 

[HankD]

It is bad theology, ". . . It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. . . ." Psalms 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5-6 refer to the post incarnate Son in regard to His bodily resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33. The word translated "this day" is not referring to eternity but the occurance of Christ's bodily resurrection. I fail to understand how Bible believers can be so blind.

it works both ways 37818. there are those who say "this day" speaks of the day that Jesus (i.e. the eternal Logos) and His human soul was conceived in Mary's womb. Interesting? Credulous? I think so. Yours too, in fact I like yours.

 

[Yeshua1]

it both ways 37818. there are those who say "this day" speaks of the day that Jesus (i.e. the eternal Logos) and His human soul was conceived in Mary's womb. Interesting? Credulous? I think so. Yours too, in fact I like yours.

Just thought interesting how Dr Mac changed his mind regarding this doctrine, as his mind is pretty much set like a rock!

 

[HankD]

Just thought interesting how Dr Mac changed his mind regarding this doctrine, as his mind is pretty much set like a rock!

and he is willing to make it public... I'm sure he takes a lot of flak every time he publishes a work. any teacher does.

 

[HankD]

What I think needs to be pointed out, while typically all the references to the Son of God as the Son can be arguably said to only refer to the post incarnate Son of God. None of them, by the way, can be use to prove the pre-incarnate Sonship of the Son of God cannot be true. There are these two sides here.

John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18 refers to the Son at the side of the Father as the one who appears visibly for the inisible God. The implication can be interpretated that it was as the Son in Genesis 12:7 being the LORD God. Showing the Son to be the preincarnate Son of God and the LORD God too. The reading "only begotten God" disallows this.

interesting

What does "which is in the bosom of the Father" mean? My take on it is bosom is a metaphor for the inner being of the Father.
I have often wondered why the Spirit inspired John to include the phrase "which is in the bosom of the Father".