Why I believe in the Eternal Son (Eternal Sonship)

MacArthur is well wrong here, as are his words that the blood of Jesus Christ does not save, but His death does, and other stuff!

 

Can you or ANYONE give just ONE verse from the OT, that speaks of the First and Second Person of the Trinity, as Father-Son? Just the ONE verse will suffice!

 

Did God change?
In some way or another, did the Triune Godhead change at the incarnation?
Scripture says that God does not change.

That is why it matters if the Son was always the Son and the Father was always the Father. It raises the question "Did God change?" If God changed, was he less "perfect" before or after the change?

 

Was GOD less "perfect" before or after He/They adopted the Father-Son relationship?
Perfection, by definition, means that any change makes it less perfect. So when was God "perfect", before or after the change in relationship to Father-Son?

 

Because you haven't read my replies, where I listed several, any more than you read The Bible verses, themselves.

 

no 'adopted' change in relationship.

 

your reasoning is MOOT!

 

I really don't know where you get your "theology" from? Jesus Christ IS eternally God, Yahweh. But, the Bible is very clear that He DID change! He became the God-Man at His Incarnation, and has TWO "natures", the Divine and the Human. This is Bible FACT!

 

This thread is getting real weird now, with some wacky posts!

 

did I even suggest this?

 

What have all those got to do with proving the eternal Sonship of our Lord?
That there were appearances of the angel of the Lord which were pre-incarnate appearances of the Word of God no one denies, but that's the Word of God then before he became flesh (Jn.1:14).
That Isaiah saw the Word of God is not proof that he was already the Son.
That there were prophecies of the Sonship of Christ is not proof that he was already the Son.

 

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us,

Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

are radical changes in the "relationship".

 

I am KJVO and my KJV teaches me the incarnational Sonship of my Saviour in every instance.

 

I don't understand what's so controversial about the incarnational Sonship of Christ. The terms are cross-defining. The Word of God becomes the Son of God precisely because of being born of a virgin by the Spirit. The verses are super clear and so is the very storyline.
Also, the eternal Sonship business is a slight to the deity of Christ, however hard that is denied.
Son = second and inferior, but Christ was only inferior to the Father in his humanity:
my Father is greater than I (Jn.14:28)

 

those who hold to the "eternal Sonship" theory, really have ZERO Bible verses to back up this theory. So then try to force the meanings of Scripture to "support" them, or quote from "theologians" like MacArthur, who was right on this, and then got himself deluded!

 

One question for those who argue for "eternal Sonship". Can you have this without accepting the hersey of "eternal generation"? I beleive that the two go together! Because we are here dealing with the the "eternal" relationship of the Father and Jesus Christ.

 

Well that's a different issue, but it's a lie that he believes the blood of Jesus does not save. He's preached it for years and years. He has years of audio to prove it and posts it for anyone who doubts.

The Blood of Christ

MacArthur rightly, however, attaches the necessary death of Christ to the blood. He's not like some who think there's something magical in the blood itself, implying that Christ's death was not necessary. It's this clarification that's gotten nut jobs upset, but MacArthur preaches the blood strongly.