When did Christ embrace Sonship?

[JonC]

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.

Here’s the problem, Evan.

When you start with someone telling you that the ink blot is a bat, it is exceedingly difficult to see anything but a bat. NEVER start with commentary.

Regardless of what Internet Theologian tells you, God does not choose contemporary human authors as his mouthpiece. These commentators are giving you their assessments and their conclusions. What you and IT are doing is putting yourselves over Scripture. You read something that you agree with, and then you determine that God somehow gave them the gift of correct interpretation above and beyond all other views. You and IT discern who to exempt from this special revelation. It is not that I disagree with those authors, I disagree with you assuming that role.

Think of it this way. If God gifted John MacArthur with this special revelation of supernatural discernment that Internet Theologian speaks of, and MacArthur is wrong just one time, then God is inconsistent. We never know when MacArthur is speaking as the vicar of Christ or just giving his view. And since MacArthur has disagreed with Metzger on covenant theology, and with Comfort on the focus of New Testament evangelism, then at least one of them is a false teacher. And so are you for advocating the teachings of all three.

Do you see how confused it gets when you place so much on the words, interpretations, and ideas of men? We start with Scripture, prayerfully engage the Word of God, come to a conclusion, and then move on to commentary.....never start there. We still may make a mistake because we are yet perfected. But at least we hold an understanding, and not just an answer; we have comprehension and not just definition. You are doing things backwards and you will never be able to discern scripture that way.

To reiterate - commentators....good commentators are excellent tools. But they do not "trump" the view of anyone else. By that logic, if my education level is above yours (and it is) then I have nothing to learn from you (which is not necessarily true). Men are fallible, imperfect creatures. Christians are moving towards perfection. But we ain't there yet. Stick to the Word of God, use commentators, but rest upon Scripture and you'll be far better off.

Why do you believe the doctrine of sonship to be eternal and how do you define sonship?

 

[evangelist6589]

Here’s the problem, Evan.

When you start with someone telling you that the ink blot is a bat, it is exceedingly difficult to see anything but a bat. NEVER start with commentary.

Regardless of what Internet Theologian tells you, God does not choose contemporary human authors as his mouthpiece. These commentators are giving you their assessments and their conclusions. What you and IT are doing is putting yourselves over Scripture. You read something that you agree with, and then you determine that God somehow gave them the gift of correct interpretation above and beyond all other views. You and IT discern who to exempt from this special revelation. It is not that I disagree with those authors, I disagree with you assuming that role.

Think of it this way. If God gifted John MacArthur with this special revelation of supernatural discernment that Internet Theologian speaks of, and MacArthur is wrong just one time, then God is inconsistent. We never know when MacArthur is speaking as the vicar of Christ or just giving his view. And since MacArthur has disagreed with Metzger on covenant theology, and with Comfort on the focus of New Testament evangelism, then at least one of them is a false teacher. And so are you for advocating the teachings of all three.

Do you see how confused it gets when you place so much on the words, interpretations, and ideas of men? We start with Scripture, prayerfully engage the Word of God, come to a conclusion, and then move on to commentary.....never start there. We still may make a mistake because we are yet perfected. But at least we hold an understanding, and not just an answer; we have comprehension and not just definition. You are doing things backwards and you will never be able to discern scripture that way.

To reiterate - commentators....good commentators are excellent tools. But they do not "trump" the view of anyone else. By that logic, if my education level is above yours (and it is) then I have nothing to learn from you (which is not necessarily true). Men are fallible, imperfect creatures. Christians are moving towards perfection. But we ain't there yet. Stick to the Word of God, use commentators, but rest upon Scripture and you'll be far better off.

Why do you believe the doctrine of sonship to be eternal and how do you define sonship?

By your logic I won't listen to you as you are a human author and not scripture.

 

[Internet Theologian]

By your logic I won't listen to you as you are a human author and not scripture.

Bro, the dudes on an agenda and has already pulled this on others here. It is OK to listen to him, but not others, Acts 20:28 like. He's on an unsustainable and precarious path.

I've given ample argument from Scripture that the usage of others in study is not only allowable, but is wise and Biblical yet am still attacked and belittled. This does not place us above the Word or Scriptures and I take that accusation gladly knowing it is a falsehood and bearing false witness. Again I've already provided a Biblical stance for my practice.

Good godly men are a good check and balance and are of God themselves, Eph. 4:11, yet these are not infallible accepting for the Scriptures which the Apostles have written, 2 Tim. 3:16. Nonetheless God has employed them throughout the church. If one were to take his advice then listening to them preach is also to be avoided.

I want you to take note of something that is of great interest evangelist6589. In joncs' argument he doesn't even use Scripture. It's all him. So when he opens and says 'Here's the problem Evan' he means that literally because he never uses Scripture. In fact in most of his arguments he never uses Scripture. It's 'him', what 'he' says, 'listen to him', then, when I quote Scripture as a rebuttal it is ridiculed. That's the big picture bro. Your response to him was insightful, concise, wise.

Nonetheless others are wrong have brought in dangerous doctrines, are to be avoided and when you read them you've placed yourself above the Word (except when you listen to jonc) and he and at least one other jamesl have come to straighten out the orthodox church. This is nothing but the same attitude Diotrophes had concerning others as well, 3 John.

 

[JamesL]

..... he and at least one other jamesl have come to straighten out the orthodox church.....

uhhh,
Wrong again, slick.

I don't see a while lot of hope for reforming you and your gang of repackaged Roman Catholics, with your works doctrine and traditions.

Warning others about you might be a more appropriate way of describing what I'm doing here.

 

[JonC]

By your logic I won't listen to you as you are a human author and not scripture.

If by listen you mean to hold in such regard as you do those books, then yes. We can discuss and explore doctrine, and this is all an author can do as well. Then we look at Scripture. As an example, even among Reformed scholars there is no single answer to the question in the OP. You are choosing men to follow, men to dictate your belief. When you read something you like, then you look back to Scripture to support that belief and take the author's interpretations with you. You should go to Scripture first, and then argue against your position to determine the validity of your belief. But instead both you and IT hold a cultic methodology of study. This is why it is so difficult to reason with you. You haven't reasoned out your belief and instead are dependent on answers from other people.

Why do you believe sonship eternal and how do you define sonship?

 

[evangelist6589]

Internet Theologian I tried to PM YOU but it said I could not

 

[JonC]

Another issue, however, is that no one here can ethically debate the question in the OP because we do not have the source. It would be arguing with the author through you (I'm surprised this is even allowed on this forum).

 

[evangelist6589]

The Eternal sonship of Christ

The scriptures represent Christ as eternally the son of God by eternal generation. Some very clear evidence for eternal sonship are presented in the following scriptures.

Jn 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; Isa 9:6; & Ps 2:7

I suggest you look up the following scriptures and then come to your conclusion that Christ was Eternally the son and held the sonship office. Christ is not only declared a son from eternity but begotten from eternity. Also to note that many of the great creeds of the church recognize the eternal sonship of Christ so your view that this is a false view does not hold water with scripture nor the great creeds. Not that the creeds take precedence over scripture.

The Incarnation view which you hold would logically be presented as Christ did exist before the incarnation but was not logically the son, but became the son at the incarnation. This does not hold water with scripture.

Source Jesus Christ Our Lord

Note if this turns into a CAL vs. Armin debate, or a debate on eschatology I am OUT OF HERE. We are debating Christology.

 

[JonC]

The Eternal sonship of Christ

The scriptures represent Christ as eternally the son of God by eternal generation. Some very clear evidence for eternal sonship are presented in the following scriptures.

Jn 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; Isa 9:6; & Ps 2:7

I suggest you look up the following scriptures and then come to your conclusion that Christ was Eternally the son and held the sonship office. Christ is not only declared a son from eternity but begotten from eternity. Also to note that many of the great creeds of the church recognize the eternal sonship of Christ so your view that this is a false view does not hold water with scripture nor the great creeds. Not that the creeds take precedence over scripture.

The Incarnation view which you hold would logically be presented as Christ did exist before the incarnation but was not logically the son, but became the son at the incarnation. This does not hold water with scripture,

Again, brother, your error is a failure to define "sonship" and provide a reference so that we can understand the author's intent. I don't think anyone here denies that Jesus is eternally God, or that God sent his only Son to the world.

I provided the definition I was using for sonship. Do you deny my answer based on the context I provided? If so, then how do you justify the Word becoming flesh, Christ setting aside his own glory for a time, him becoming obedient?

All you are doing here is playing "teacher" by refusing to provide context for your questions. I realize it is probably because you don't completely understand the issue, or how people who would actually agree appear in disagreement because of a variant of definition. I realize it is because you are looking for answers and not for understanding. If you ever decide to engage the subject, I think you would find it very interesting indeed. A couple of us showed up here to discuss with you this topic. This had the potential of being a good thread as we could have walked through various definitions of "sonship" and explored Scriptures and views. Instead we come to RCC type indoctrination in baptistic clothing. I mean this in love, Evan, you need to find a place where you can be discipled in the Word and not indoctrinated into a belief system. Your posts here reflect a severe lack of spiritual maturity (not because we disagree......I disagree with several who are mature in the faith....but because of your lack of discernment regarding disagreement).

 

[evangelist6589]

Again, brother, your error is a failure to define "sonship" and provide a reference so that we can understand the author's intent. I don't think anyone here denies that Jesus is eternally God, or that God sent his only Son to the world.

I provided the definition I was using for sonship. Do you deny my answer based on the context I provided? If so, then how do you justify the Word becoming flesh, Christ setting aside his own glory for a time, him becoming obedient?

All you are doing here is playing "teacher" by refusing to provide context for your questions. I realize it is probably because you don't completely understand the issue, or how people who would actually agree appear in disagreement because of a variant of definition. I realize it is because you are looking for answers and not for understanding. If you ever decide to engage the subject, I think you would find it very interesting indeed. A couple of us showed up here to discuss with you this topic. This had the potential of being a good thread as we could have walked through various definitions of "sonship" and explored Scriptures and views. Instead we come to RCC type indoctrination in baptistic clothing. I mean this in love, Evan, you need to find a place where you can be discipled in the Word and not indoctrinated into a belief system. Your posts here reflect a severe lack of spiritual maturity (not because we disagree......I disagree with several who are mature in the faith....but because of your lack of discernment regarding disagreement).

I disagree

 

[evangelist6589]

Again, brother, your error is a failure to define "sonship" and provide a reference so that we can understand the author's intent. I don't think anyone here denies that Jesus is eternally God, or that God sent his only Son to the world.

I provided the definition I was using for sonship. Do you deny my answer based on the context I provided? If so, then how do you justify the Word becoming flesh, Christ setting aside his own glory for a time, him becoming obedient?

All you are doing here is playing "teacher" by refusing to provide context for your questions. I realize it is probably because you don't completely understand the issue, or how people who would actually agree appear in disagreement because of a variant of definition. I realize it is because you are looking for answers and not for understanding. If you ever decide to engage the subject, I think you would find it very interesting indeed. A couple of us showed up here to discuss with you this topic. This had the potential of being a good thread as we could have walked through various definitions of "sonship" and explored Scriptures and views. Instead we come to RCC type indoctrination in baptistic clothing. I mean this in love, Evan, you need to find a place where you can be discipled in the Word and not indoctrinated into a belief system. Your posts here reflect a severe lack of spiritual maturity (not because we disagree......I disagree with several who are mature in the faith....but because of your lack of discernment regarding disagreement).

Hmm IT was right. Not a single scripture reference in your reply.

 

[JonC]

Hmm IT was right. Not a single scripture reference in your reply.

You are kidding....right? I already posted the scriptures in my first reply (those passages you ignored because I didn't answer #7). That was Philippians 2 and John 17 (sorry, I assumed you would recognize Scripture and failed to give you the reference.....hence my suggestion you study Scripture more and men less).

 

[evangelist6589]

You are kidding....right? I already posted the scriptures in my first reply (those passages you ignored because I didn't answer #7). That was Philippians 2 and John 17 (sorry, I assumed you would recognize Scripture and failed to give you the reference.....hence my suggestion you study Scripture more and men less).

I missed that post. So why do you deny that Christ was not the son prior to the incarnation?

 

[JonC]

I missed that post. So why do you deny that Christ was not the son prior to the incarnation?

That's OK. I don't know that I do.....it depends on definition. You need to provide a source and a definition of terms, brother. In the Old Testament times many have been described as sons of God (Israel, kings, righteous men) and these always describe a relationship to God. This relationship needs to be defined. If you mean sonship as the relationship implied in John's use of λόγος, then I agree that this is an eternal relationship.

If I define “sonship” as submissiveness through obedience, then my answer is that this began at the Incarnation. My proof text was John 17 and Philippians 2. In John 17 Jesus states that before becoming man he held a different state of glorification and indicated that he will once again be glorified with the Father. More important to this conclusion, however, is the fact that Jesus did not consider equality with God as something to hold onto but became obedient to the Father. So if “sonship” means submissive in obedience to the Father, or if it speaks of that difference in” equality” (Phil. 2:6) then “sonship” began at the Incarnation. There is no other answer.

But this answer depends on how you define “sonship.” We do not know what exactly it means that Christ set aside “equality” with God. I think that there has to be an eternal proceeding of the Son from the Father, but not necessarily because we use the word “son.” I think this is inherent in λόγος. Without a difference in function/role then it is difficult to consider God as Trinity (you end up with one Person or three Gods).

We may be saying the same thing, I don’t know because you refuse to provide a reference or a definition. How does λόγος play into your definition of sonship?

 

[evangelist6589]

That's OK. I don't know that I do.....it depends on definition. You need to provide a source and a definition of terms, brother.

If I define “sonship” as submissiveness through obedience, then my answer is that this began at the Incarnation. My proof text was John 17 and Philippians 2. In John 17 Jesus states that before becoming man he held a different state of glorification and indicated that he will once again be glorified with the Father. More important to this conclusion, however, is the fact that Jesus did not consider equality with God as something to hold onto but became obedient to the Father. So if “sonship” means submissive in obedience to the Father, or if it speaks of that difference in” equality” (Phil. 2:6) then “sonship” began at the Incarnation. There is no other answer.

But this answer depends on how you define “sonship.” We do not know what exactly it means that Christ set aside “equality” with God. I think that there has to be an eternal proceeding of the Son from the Father, but not necessarily because we use the word “son.” I think this is inherent in λόγος. Without a difference in function/role then it is difficult to consider God as Trinity (you end up with one Person or three Gods).

We may be saying the same thing, I don’t know because you refuse to provide a reference or a definition. How does λόγος play into your definition of sonship?

In church will reply to this later

 

[InTheLight]

Internet Theologian I tried to PM YOU but it said I could not

Did you try Preacher4Truth?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[JamesL]

Did you try Preacher4Truth?

Preacher4Fantasy is more like it

 

[evangelist6589]

Did you try Preacher4Truth?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

He's banned

 

[JamesL]

He's banned

there's a great likelihood that it's the same guy

 

[agedman]

The Eternal sonship of Christ

The scriptures represent Christ as eternally the son of God by eternal generation. Some very clear evidence for eternal sonship are presented in the following scriptures.

Jn 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; Isa 9:6; & Ps 2:7

I suggest you look up the following scriptures and then come to your conclusion that Christ was Eternally the son and held the sonship office. Christ is not only declared a son from eternity but begotten from eternity. Also to note that many of the great creeds of the church recognize the eternal sonship of Christ so your view that this is a false view does not hold water with scripture nor the great creeds. Not that the creeds take precedence over scripture.

The Incarnation view which you hold would logically be presented as Christ did exist before the incarnation but was not logically the son, but became the son at the incarnation. This does not hold water with scripture.

Source Jesus Christ Our Lord

Note if this turns into a CAL vs. Armin debate, or a debate on eschatology I am OUT OF HERE. We are debating Christology.

The basic problems with "eternal son-ship" thinking is when did God have a Son, and was God a Father to the Son, and even who did God mate with to have a son...

The Lord existed with the Father throughout eternity is expressed throughout Scripture and identified by John as the "Word" which became flesh. At THAT point, the point of flesh, is the WORD considered the "son given" as Isaiah states. and as Psalms indicates is "begotten."

Unfortunately, there are some theologians who would not see or dispute that the "Son" is the "Word as with God and WAS God." And make much of the positional son-ship as if Christ was some Peter Pan who never grew up. Such is neglecting the Scripture statements of the equality of the Word and the Father, and the setting aside the Glory on purpose to be found in human flesh.