When did Christ embrace Sonship?

[JonC]

He's banned

Stephen King's short story "Sometimes They Come Back" may be applicable. Barefoot

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Christ is God and always existed as God and with the father. Do not try and turn "eternal son-ship" into heresy.

 

[evangelist6589]

Stephen King's short story "Sometimes They Come Back" may be applicable. Barefoot

The mods should know

 

[JonC]

Christ is God and always existed as God and with the father. Do not try and turn "eternal son-ship" into heresy.

No one denied that Christ is eternally God. No one even denied a triune relationship within the Godhead.

Depending on your definition of "son-ship," your view may very well be heresy. No one here really knows because you have thus far refused to define your position and provide your source. So if you are saying that there never was a time when Christ became obedient and "not-equal" in some way to the Father, then you are putting forward a false doctrine. Brother - you have to define your terms and provide your source to ethically engage this discussion with any amount of integrity.

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

 

[JonC]

The mods should know

If you recall, Preacher4Truth was not known for his integrity. He got so bad that several members even questioned his salvation - one publically (and that to little if any objection). All he'd have to do is misrepresent himself, and I doubt any of us think it past him. Look at all the repeat and banned trolls we get.

 

[agedman]

Christ is God and always existed as God and with the father. Do not try and turn "eternal son-ship" into heresy.

Such a claim! Upon what authority do you make such a claim?

I am not "try(ing) and turn(ing) the 'eternal son-ship' into heresy." Such a claim is wrong on a number of levels.

You misunderstand, that the eternal PAST quality of the son DID NOT include the fleshly form that He, by putting off the glory of the Father to take as the only natural born son, was once adorned. This is consistent with the statement recorded in John 17:5:

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."​

What I AM claiming is the Scriptures present that the eternal Christ set aside the glory to become the one and only natural born son in flesh and as such the first fruits of those who raise from the dead to ascend. That is the presentation of Scriptures, some of the very Scriptures YOU listed.

Remember the prayer of the Lord Jesus about the Father restoring the glory they once both shared? So, the "son" (as stated in John) was "begotten" as the one and only natural born Son is in no dispute with the "Word became flesh" earlier in by the same author.

There are those who would make much of the separate "persons" of the trinity, as if one is a pan theist. "God in three persons" as the hymn is a single God IN three persons.

"Let US make man in our image" is in no dispute with "In the beginning God (Elohim) (PLURAL) created..." creating all things. AND there is no dipute with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

God is ONE, making attempts to place the son as some separate authority is not following the teaching of Scriptures: "The Lord your God is ONE Lord," "The Father and I are one," and "I AM."

Do not throw the word "heresy" so carelessly as some would.

Prove BY SCRIPTURE that I am in error, or need to modify my thinking. That is all I have EVER desired from those that would attempt to make some wild claim about what I have posted.

 

[JamesL]

If you recall, Preacher4Truth was not known for his integrity. He got so bad that several members even questioned his salvation - one publically (and that to little if any objection). All he'd have to do is misrepresent himself, and I doubt any of us think it past him. Look at all the repeat and banned trolls we get.

Only a week ago, someone quoted him and specifically addressed him something like "P4T do you...."
And he replied something like "yes I do"

 

[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. 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?

Jesus Christ Our Lord pp.38-39

Son of God

This title used in the scriptures of both angels and men, when used of Christ is designed to express His eternal relationship to the father.....The title refers to an eternal relationship of the son to the Father.

 

[Rolfe]

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

Try offering him a piece of hamburger.

*woof*

 

[JonC]

Jesus Christ Our Lord pp.38-39

Son of God

This title used in the scriptures of both angels and men, when used of Christ is designed to express His eternal relationship to the father.....The title refers to an eternal relationship of the son to the Father.

Ok, you’re reading Walvoord. I have this one in my library (although not from seminary).

So your objection to my view (taking that you are merely echoing Walvoord) is that I “leave unexplained the mystery of the relation of the first Person to the second Person” of the Godhead. But given my definition and passages, this is not true. I actually relied on John’s explanation of λόγος as the second Person of the Trinity and allowed “son-ship” to be defined as this λόγος becoming flesh.

In other words, we were working off different definitions. I had taken the title “Son of God” to refer to a specific relationship that is embodied in Christ’s earthly life, therefore it could not be an eternal title. There was a specific time when the λόγος became flesh. And Paul informs us that this was a time when the second Person of the Trinity set aside an “equality” with God in submission and obedience.

If, however, you take “Son of God” to be an OT title as well (an eternal title) then I’m fine with that as long as long as you can substantiate your claims. Are there any OT references of the second Person of the Godhead being called the “Son of God”? Also, what is the difference in roles between Christ’s glory (and state with the Father) pre-incarnation/post-resurrection and the time between becoming obedient/setting aside glory and it being regained?

In other words, how do you account for the "new" relationship as Christ sets aside this equality, this glory, and become obedient to the Father in terms of Incarnation within your "eternal son-ship" view? What exactly does "son-ship mean here, anyway (surely you are not just talking about a title)?

 

[evangelist6589]

Try offering him a piece of hamburger.

*woof*

Go chase a cat!

 

[JonC]

Good move changing that photo. The other kitten was cute but the photo itself was a bit awkward. Is this your cat?

 

[JonC]

Hey Evan, maybe this will help us move forward. In what ways to you view the role between the persons of the Trinity as changing in terms of kenosis? Or do you believer there was ever a change? Did Christ set aside "equality" with God, and did he become obedient?

 

[Rolfe]

Go chase a cat!View attachment 225

My comment was not an insult directed at you.

You do not understand humor. I would explain it to you, but I do not have any crayons.

 

[JonC]

Again, brother, it seems that the kenosis carries a specific and temporal implication in regards to Christ’s role in relation to the Father (as He became obedient, set aside “equality”, and put aside his own glory until given once again from the Father). How do you account for this in your theory of Son-ship, and what role does John’s explanation of λόγος play in your understanding?

 

[evangelist6589]

Again, brother, it seems that the kenosis carries a specific and temporal implication in regards to Christ’s role in relation to the Father (as He became obedient, set aside “equality”, and put aside his own glory until given once again from the Father). How do you account for this in your theory of Son-ship, and what role does John’s explanation of λόγος play in your understanding?

Well when he came to earth he set things aside and became obedient. This does not mean he became less than God, but he became obedient in terms of his "function" and submission to the father.

 

[JonC]

Well when he came to earth he set things aside and became obedient. This does not mean he became less than God, but he became obedient in terms of his "function" and submission to the father.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Jesus became less God, brother. How would you describe this relationship of "son-ship" before Jesus became man (apart from "becoming obedient")?

 

[JamesL]

Well when he came to earth he set things aside and became obedient. This does not mean he became less than God, but he became obedient in terms of his "function" and submission to the father.

What "things" do you believe He set aside?

On what, pray tell, do you base your development of this "function" and submission you speak of?

 

[evangelist6589]

What "things" do you believe He set aside?

On what, pray tell, do you base your development of this "function" and submission you speak of?

Some of his attributes. For example in the flesh He could not be everywhere at once.

He submitted to the father and this is shown by how he prayed. But still 100% God and 100% man.

 

[a SATS prof]

Some of his attributes. For example in the flesh He could not be everywhere at once.

He submitted to the father and this is shown by how he prayed. But still 100% God and 100% man.

---
The view that the Kenosis qualified Christ's use of divine attributes is commonly affirmed. I disagree. IMO,the Son, as God, lost nothing. This is arguable both by Theology (the eternality and immutability of God) and , IMO, by Phil 2:7.