Stop Regurgitating, Start learning by asking intelligent questions

Stop regurgitating from yesterday,
Start learning by asking intelligent questions. 

 

April 28, 2016, at 8:13 PM ·

There's a lengthy discussion on the sonship of Christ on a friend's page. I left this brief note on the subject… and a few others with the responses. For the full exchanges, go here. 

It's here: https://www.facebook.com/willjkinney/posts/10154152822878841

====================

Let me say a few words...

John 1:1,14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 14 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."

If these passages do not tell you that the Word and the Son are distinct, then nothing else will.

The Word is the ONE-natured divine Being.

The Son is the dual-natured Divine-human Being, the Word made flesh

It is as simple as that.

There was no son before the incarnation.

Before the Word was made flesh, there was NO son.

The son is brought about by that divine act of begetting the Son, i.e. making the eternal Word flesh. The Son has a beginning... Luke 1 is plain about it. The Word has no beginning.

And here is one sanctified COMMON SENSE point that so many want to ignore, or reject. Post-incarnation, all the works of the pre-incarnated eternal Word (second person of the Trinity before he was made flesh) are spoken of as done by the Son. Prejudice proves stronger than sanctified common sense.

Just like men use to say, "My wife went to that preschool..." and everyone understands what he meant. Strictly the little girl who went to that preschool was not his wife, but the little sweet daughter of her father.

So also the Scriptures attributes all the works of the eternal Word as that of the Son, the eternal Word made flesh. This is basic and elementary but hardly anyone cares!!!

I take my leave now.

p/s The important thing is not to stop questioning, how could the one-natured divine Being and the dual-natured divine-human Being be one and the same?

=======

Will Kinney

Hi Sing F Lau. Well, that's one "theory", but I believe you are flat out wrong. The SON is the one who created all things.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds - Hebrews 1:2.

Colossians 1:13-16

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of HIS DEAR SON:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For BY HIM (the Son) WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The Bible tells us that the Father sent the Son into the world. Jesus addresses God as his Father in John 17 and says that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world.

The Father did not create the Son at the time of the incarnation.

You are quite free to misunderstand the Bible. None of us has it all figured out yet.

But I know all about your theory and reasoning to explain away these verses, and I just happen to disagree with you on this.

Eric Brelsford
Will, All the psudo- christian cults present Jesus Christ in some unscriptural way making their Jesus not the one we know --We know the biblical Jesus.

The next thing I see in the cults is that they have some sinful motivation for changing doctrine. What is your guess as to why people would want to believe in the Incarnational Sonship doctrine?

Eric Brelsford
To all, Hebrews 13:8,9

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

We know that Jesus never changes, otherwise the doctrine and attribute of the immutability of God would by untrue.

Sing F Lau

Eric Brelsford, "Yesterday" is just that "yesterday", not that long ago. "Yesterday" obviously had a beginning. Jesus had a beginning, i.e. at the time when the eternal Word was made flesh. (not that long ago when the epistle to the Hebrews was penned!)

But you wish to read it as, "Jesus Christ the same ETERNALLY, and to day, and for ever."

You are free to do that BUT reading one's own idea into the word of God is contrary to rightly dividing the word of truth.

Will Kinney

Sing F Lau. Sir, do you believe, like Jehovah Witnesses do, that the Christ, or who Trinitarians (I am one) refer to as the second Person of the Trinity, had a beginning or an origin and that he is not the eternal God and Jehovah?

Yes or No? Just tell us plainly what you believe about this. Thanks.

Sing F Lau

The second Person of the Trinity is the Word, the eternally divine Word, John 1:1; the Word has no beginning. The Word is the one-natured eternal Divine Being.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has a beginning, i.e. when the eternal Word was made flesh, when Divinity took upon itself humanity. Jesus Christ is the dual-natured Divine-human Being.

It is a fundamental error to EQUATE the eternal Word, the one-natured Divine Being as the two-natured Divine-human Being. It is that elementary. Jesus, the Son of God, is the eternal Word made flesh, the only begotten of God. 

Sing F Lau

Hi Will, I know a little about your theory too, just a little; even though you know ALL about mine.

Put Heb 1:2 alongside John 1:1-3.

"All things were made by Him...." it is quite plain that the pronoun "him " refers back to the Word of God, not the Son as your theory presumes. There was a Son in the LAST DAYS when the eternal Word was made flesh in the last days. (the last days of the old covenant earthly theocratic kingdom of Israel.)

Col 1:13-16

Jesus is the firstborn of the Father. In your theory, Jesus was the firstborn in eternity, I presume. People do believe in the oxymoronic idea of the "eternally begotten" when the Scriptures speak of the event in time. They confused "divinely begotten" as "eternally begotten."

The Bible instructs us that the eternal Word was made flesh, resulting in the birth of Jesus Christ, who lived in obscurity for the next 30 years. Then with a big bang, God sent Him unto the world, publicly thundering from heaven, owning Jesus Christ as "This is my beloved Son, in whom I'm well pleased.

The Son was first begotten and later sent. The Word was made flesh first, and then we beheld His glory, even the glory as of the only begotten Son of God WHEN He was made manifest to Israel, John 1:31. That's basic and elementary. The begetting of the Son and the sending of the begotten Son are two distinct Divine activities.

"The Father did not create the Son at the time of the incarnation."

I agree with that statement. The Son is the eternal Word made flesh, the Son is NOT created!

The Son was begotten at the time the Word was made flesh unless your theory said the Word was made flesh in eternity!

Read John 1:14 again.

No, nothing I said will likely change your mind. I was where you are.

Eric Brelsford

Sing F Lau, what is the benefit of this your doctrine that Jesus lacks the immutability of God his Father? This would make him not God, btw. Is your Incarnational sonship doctrine orthodox and if so does that make ours unorthodox, in your eyes?

Sing F Lau

Hi Eric, a whole lot of what was considered orthodox by the religious establishment during the days of Christ were denounced by Christ Himself. What is most orthodox by men may be condemned by the Scriptures.

If the Word of God is God, how could the Word of God made flesh be one iota less divine? Your objection is a fable invented by your own imagination.

Eric Brelsford

Wow, there is a lot of logical wire-crossing in this debate. I was claiming that in YOUR doctrine, "Jesus lacks the immutability of God" --for (in your teaching) A title that he never had was being added to him, namely, Son of God.

Then you answer by asking, "how could the Word of God made flesh be one iota less divine?" like it was ME who was believing, he was, "one iota less divine." I was NOT.

By the way, when I say orthodox belief or scriptural doctrines I mean that these two are synonymous. I'm a biblicist, Therefore, if any group in the past was unscriptural in their doctrine, then they were, perforce, unorthodox. I was not using traditional or orthodox "Church" teachings of Christendom to sure up my argument, like you PRESUMED. That was really sloppy of you, sir.

Again, I ask: What is the benefit of this your doctrine that Jesus was not the Son of the Father for eternity past?

Sing F Lau

Eric, you asked, "what is the benefit of this your doctrine that Jesus lacks the immutability of God his Father?"

============

First, you say incarnational sonship teaches that Jesus lacks the immutability of God. Do I get you right? If I do get you right, then that is just your puerile imagination. Jesus, the divine Word made flesh, is no less divinely immutable that the eternally divine Word

So what is the benefit of that imagination is a moot question.

Next, you may even think that your two questions are the same.

The first time you asked: "what is the benefit of this your doctrine that Jesus lacks the immutability of God his Father?"

Then you repeat your question in these words:

AGAIN, I ask: What is the benefit of this your doctrine that Jesus was not the Son of the Father for eternity past?

You pretend as though the second is the repeat of the first. Immutability and eternity past are distinct matters.

As the former, I have no answer for you because it involves a figment of your own imagination.

For the latter I could venture an answer:

1. The chief and foremost benefit are these:

it rightly represents the teaching of Scriptures. There was no Son until the eternal Word was made flesh in time. The Son was begotten when the eternal Word was made flesh. It is stated plainly in John1:1ff

2. It gives biblical attention to the greatest event in the redemptive history, the giving of the Son when the eternal Word was made flesh for the work of redemption.

- God took upon himself humanity in time.

- There was NO god-man in eternity. There was God-man at a very specific point in time.

3. It saves men from horrid lies and confusion of an "eternally begotten" Son of God, begetting of any sort takes place in time. To be saved from lies and fiction is a great benefit... it set us free from bondage to tradition.

Michael Lloyd Merichko
Blasphemous doctrine! All who deny the Deity of Messiah are damned by His own words!!

Peter Petersen

Incarnate Sonship doesn't deny the unbegotten divine nature of Jesus Christ.

[[Amen, and amen. The unbegotten divine nature is from the eternal Word who was made flesh. sing]

Sing F Lau

Michael, if you think the doctrine of incarnational sonship denies the deity of Christ Jesus the Messiah, then you are imagining things. When a Divine being takes upon Himself humanity, how is His divinity diminished in any way?

It is better to inquire till you understand instead of being so eager to burn strawman.

Peter Petersen

We read in Galatians, But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,...

So, before the fulness of time was come, how was the Son made?

Michael Lloyd Merichko

He CREATED all things. You need to repent perish

Peter Petersen

Are you sure it wasn't the Word?

Michael Lloyd Merichko

Yahushua is the Word sir

Micah 5:2 “But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Peter Petersen
Agreed. In his unbegotten divine nature that is.

Sing F Lau

Eric, who said Jesus lacks the immutability of God His Father. Kindly explain.

My late dad taught me one thing, "Son, if you can' t represent your opponent's view accurately, you have not earned the right to dispute. It is wise to inquire until you fully understand." Then, and only then, dispute.

I commend Mr. Will in that he knows ALL about my view. ;-)

Yesterday is not about immutability. You assume so. 

I affirm the immutability of Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God.

Wrong tree bark not at!