Why I believe in the Eternal Son (Eternal Sonship)

[Yeshua1]

Here is a very good text from the NT, which is clear that "Sonship" cannot have been before the Incarnation, which is seen from the language used.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35. KJV)

Note the words, "shall be called", for which is the Greek, "κληθησεται", and is in the FUTURE tense! Not, PAST, nor AORIST, nor PERFECT, but FUTURE. Why does the Holy Spirit Inspire Luke to use the FUTURE tense about the Birth of Jesus, that He SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD"? the fact that the language indicates something in the FUTURE, can only means that it is NOT at the PRESENT, or, the PAST! Only if you have a theological axe to grind, will you argue against the Word of Almighty God!

true, as it refers to something/someone being called that at a definite point in time!

 

[Yeshua1]

Let us take a look at one of the passages, which is used for the "Eternal Sonship", as proof texts.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?" (Hebrews 1:5)

I want to deal with just one word from this verse, "γεννάω" (γεγεννηκα), translated by "begotten". The verb literally means, "to give birth to". If, as it is argued, that "Thou are My Son", is to be taken with "begotten", and that the "this day", refers to the "eternal past", or "continual". Then we have to ask, does this refer to the "Eternal Generation" of the Being of the Son, from God the Father, an early Church heresy that was taught by Origen? If this is the case, then Jesus Christ is in His essential Being (Deity), eternally subordinate to God the Father, and therefore CANNOT be equally Deity with the Father, and opens the door to all sorts of heretical teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ! Of course, that means that when Jesus Christ is called Yahweh in the Bible, it cannot be understood in the same way that the Father is called Yahweh. Origen also taught that the "essence" of the Son was "different" to that of the Father, this "eternal begetting" makes this true! The "begetting" as spoken of in Psalm 2:7, does not, as some suppose, refer to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as Jesus was not "begotten" at this time, but RAISED from the dead!

The Nicean Creed and other Creeds seem to be implying that Jesus was eternally begotten, but that seems to be assuming that His existence is dependent upon God the father!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin!

 

[SavedByGrace]

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.

John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word) speaks of "the eternal sonship" in that the Word was never "not the Word". "Sonship" and λόγος are the same in regards to the doctrine of "eternal sonship" (as opposed to the Incarnation or the Resurrection, the latter being the reference of "today I have begotten you" as Christ became the Firstborn as stated in Acts 13:33).

notice that John did not write, "in the beginning (eternity past) was the Son...Son...Son". IF, the eternal sonship were true, then we would have expected this to be the reading here. Also, as I have said elsewhere, there is no God-Son realtionship mentioned in any part of the OT. Don't you think that it is rather strange that such an important teaching, as some suppose, would be not in the OT?

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Nicean Creed and other Creeds seem to be implying that Jesus was eternally begotten, but that seems to be assuming that His existence is dependent upon God the father!

in places these "creeds" are heretical, like in, "God from God", "Light from Light", True God from True God", where in each case the Greek preposition used for "from", is "ek", denoting the Son is "out of" the essense of the Father! This makes Jesus in His essential Deity, in the Trinity, to be "subordinate" to the Father, and therefore cannot be God in the fullest sense of the word. Such was the heresy of Origen, which sadly some of the orthodox adopted!

 

[Yeshua1]

Now this may be an argument that drives the opposition, and I can se why. I don't think the hierarchal relationship has ever changed in the Trinity and don't see evidence of this.

Jesus while on earth had submitted to the limitations of the human flesh, so was temp subordinate , but once ascended and back in glory, no longer!

 

[Calminian]

Jesus while on earth had submitted to the limitations of the human flesh, so was temp subordinate , but once ascended and back in glory, no longer!

I thought this went against the sonship argument.

 

[Calminian]

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin!

That's the point Mac is making. It's not the blood per se, but the shedding of blood (death) that atones for us.

IOWs, he could not have saved us by merely donating a few pints.

 

[Yeshua1]

in places these "creeds" are heretical, like in, "God from God", "Light from Light", True God from True God", where in each case the Greek preposition used for "from", is "ek", denoting the Son is "out of" the essense of the Father! This makes Jesus in His essential Deity, in the Trinity, to be "subordinate" to the Father, and therefore cannot be God in the fullest sense of the word. Such was the heresy of Origen, which sadly some of the orthodox adopted!

John Calvin did not agree with the chosen language of the Creeds, as he thought that they affirmed Jesus somehow being less than true God!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's the point Mac is making. It's not the blood per se, but the shedding of blood (death) that atones for us.

IOWs, he could not have saved us by merely donating a few pints.

he needed to shed blood, if he had a stroke or heart attack on the Cross would not have worked!

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought this went against the sonship argument.

it does, as Jesus was not eternally subordinate....

 

[Calminian]

he needed to shed blood, if he had a stroke or heart attack on the Cross would not have worked!

I'm sure that's true, in fact, prophecy had to be fulfilled that he would shed blood. But you would you agree that blood apart from death would also not save us?

That's the only point MacArthur clarified. Otherwise he has years of preaching about the blood of Jesus.

 

[Calminian]

it does, as Jesus was not eternally subordinate....

But if God sent the Word to become flesh, doesn't that mean the Word had to comply prior to becoming flesh? And doesn't that imply subordination?

I don't think subordination and equality are mutually exclusive.

 

[JonC]

notice that John did not write, "in the beginning (eternity past) was the Son...Son...Son". IF, the eternal sonship were true, then we would have expected this to be the reading here. Also, as I have said elsewhere, there is no God-Son realtionship mentioned in any part of the OT. Don't you think that it is rather strange that such an important teaching, as some suppose, would be not in the OT?

When do you believe the Second Person if the Trinity became the Word?

 

[JonC]

it does, as Jesus was not eternally subordinate....

What is the difference, in your view, between "eternal sonship" and the Reformed view that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father?

 

[SavedByGrace]

became the Word

As John 1:1 speaks of "eternity past", there is no "becoming" involved, as Jesus Christ IS always THE WORD, but it very clearly does not say "the Son"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

John Calvin did not agree with the chosen language of the Creeds, as he thought that they affirmed Jesus somehow being less than true God!

nice to hear that of Calvin, at least he got this one right, though his understanding of the Greek in John 10:30, is way off!

 

[percho]

When do you believe the Second Person if the Trinity became the Word?

'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; Deut 6:4
A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' Psalms 110:1

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Ex 3:14 KJV
I am that I am - אהיה אשר אהיה Eheyeh asher Eheyeh
John Calvin commentary - .I am that I am. The verb in the Hebrew is in the future tense, “I will be what I will be;
Adam Clarke - As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be,

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Not sure about your question but mine would be; Did the Word, I will be what I will be, become flesh, when the Son of the Highest was conceived in and brought forth from, the seed of the virgin woman, Mary?

 

[JonC]

As John 1:1 speaks of "eternity past", there is no "becoming" involved, as Jesus Christ IS always THE WORD, but it very clearly does not say "the Son"!

What do you believe "the Word" means?

 

[SavedByGrace]

What do you believe "the Word" means?

The Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, also known in the OT as The Angel (Messenger) of the Lord", Who is Himself also YAHWEH, and 100% equal to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.