Why I believe in the Eternal Son (Eternal Sonship)

[SavedByGrace]

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.

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!

 

[SavedByGrace]

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.

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!

 

[atpollard]

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.

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?

 

[atpollard]

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!

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?

 

[37818]

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

None.
Do you know how I come to that logical deduction?

 

[Alan Gross]

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

None.
Do you know how I come to that logical deduction?

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

 

[Alan Gross]

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?

no 'adopted' change in relationship.

 

[SavedByGrace]

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?

your reasoning is MOOT!

 

[SavedByGrace]

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?

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!

 

[SavedByGrace]

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

 

[37818]

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

A very none specific. Wisdom and Understand are sister spirits, Proverbs 7:4, ". . . Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman: . . ."

 

[37818]

. . . He DID change! He became the God-Man . . .

It is important to understand He aways existed being both "with the God" and "was God," As God He never changed. God as Father never changed! But how He was with the God is what did change. He never ceased to be God or with God.

 

[SavedByGrace]

He never ceased to be God or with God

did I even suggest this?

 

[George Antonios]

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."

Genesis 12:7, "And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . ."
Genesis 17:1, ". . . the LORD appeared to Abram, . . . ."
Genesis 18:1, "And the LORD appeared unto him . . . ."
John 8:56, ". . . Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

Isaiah 6:5, ". . . Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. . . ."
John 12:41, ". . . Esaias, . . . he saw his glory, and spake of him. . . ."

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.

 

[George Antonios]

[Gen 1:26 NASB] 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

• God was plural (triune) in the beginning.

[Mal 3:6 NASB] 6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

[Heb 13:8 NASB] 8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today and forever.

• God does not change, so for the “sonship” to be other than eternal would be to change the relationship within the Godhead.

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".

 

[George Antonios]

Corrupt because you don't like what it says? or because you are a KJVO person? The textual evidence speaks for itself, and cannot be denied by an honest person!

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

 

[George Antonios]

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)

 

[SavedByGrace]

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.

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!

 

[SavedByGrace]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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!

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.