Is Jesus Christ Eternally begotten or Divinely begotten?

 

Initially posted here on February 24, 2013.
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/4489908761294

Sing F Lau

The eternal Word of God, and

The begotten Son of God

After reading the belief statements of some brethren, I begin to wonder if the Scriptures they read from reads like this:

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was with God, and the Jesus Christ was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God... 14 And the Son of God 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.

I find it quite strange that people refuse to accept these obvious truths:

The Word is the one-natured Divine Being of the Holy Trinity. And this Word remained one-natured Divine Person until the Word was made flesh at the incarnation.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God is the dual-natured Divine-human Being; fully divine and fully human as the result of the Word was made flesh at the incarnation.

Would any one disagree and reject the above two plain and obvious statements of truth? If so, please explain. Thanks.

Isn't there a distinction between the eternal Word and the Son of God; isn't there a clear distinction between a Divine Being and a Divine/Human Being? Or are they synonymous?

======

Charles Page
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- "one-natured Divine Being of the Holy Trinity"

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.
- at the incarnation - God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming "flesh" in time (physical space).

Charles Page

At a point in time, the WORD became flesh. The WORD is a person, all things were created by Him, the second person of the trinity. He became the Son of God/son of man at the incarnation. He had flesh and blood. As creator, he was not the Son but was spirit as His father is spirit. He was not physical before the incarnation but was eternal -100% God/100% with God! He was the eternal WORD, LOGOS of God.

Charles Page

Since he became flesh and dwelt among us our trinitarian statement is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We knew nothing about the Son and Holy Spirit until the incarnation. Jesus is the generation of the Father and the Holy Spirit follows the Son and the Father.

Charles Page

This a very complicated issue with centuries of varying views. My experience with old fashion uneducated statements influenced by Dake, Ellen White, Armstrongism, etc make it embarrassing to even discuss this vital subject. Plain truth magazine, Clarence Larkins, dispy charts etc are all shameful and unsound - yet so much of my early background was tied up in all this junk!

Sing F Lau
Thanks, Brother Abraham. [Abraham has deleted all his comments!]

Apostle John wrote:

"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."

You have told us what it is not, and what it is distinct from. Please proceed to tell us what is it when the Word was made flesh, and what are some distinct effects stated by John?

Thanks.

Sing F Lau

"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."

========

Simple questions...

- what is the nature of the Word that was made flesh?

- what is the nature of the One that dwelt among us?

- what is the nature of the One whose glory we beheld?

- what is the nature of the only begotten of the Father?

Charles Page

Bible calls him everlasting Father but not eternal Son.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:

We have eternal Father but not eternal Son. Jesus is mighty God, everlasting Father, counselor, prince of peace, WORD of God, King of Kings, Lord of lords, King of kings.

Sing F Lau
Charles Page, A son is born first... then you have a son to be given/sent!

The Word was made flesh first... then we have the begotten Son of God, and then later the Son was sent/given ... when the Father declared, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Sing F Lau

Thanks Abraham...

So the Word is 100% divine... and remains 100% divine when He (the Word) took upon Himself 100% flesh....

In that nature of being 100% divine and 100% human, he is described as the only begotten of the Father. The Word made flesh is the only begotten of the Father - is that true, or a fiction?

So being made flesh, He was capable of dwelling among men...

The Word was made flesh, i.e. like unto His brethren. "This was so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

Do I make sense to you?

Charles Page

I remember hearing that preached about Christ at his baptism. I never fully understood it!

Charles Page

theology via assumption! "yesterday, today and forever" "consecrated for evermore!"

Sing F Lau

Order of Melchizedek... therefore eternal priest!!! No, no, no! Order of Melchizedek, therefore not of the order of Aaron!

Consecrated forever points FORWARD; not backward to eternity! That's a nice try!

His divine person, eternally divine WITHOUT humanity.

His priesthood is not POSSIBLE without humanity!!!

Sing F Lau

The MAN Jesus is begotten, and He was begotten of God... the only begotten of God. There isn't another like Him.

Some insist Jesus is eternally begotten.

Scriptures plainly described the timely begetting of Jesus, begotten of God, i.e. the Son of God.

This Son of God is Jesus inseparably joined to the eternal Word in one person, "without conversion, composition, or confusion."

The Son of God is the eternal Word made flesh!!!

Charles Page

This Son of God is Jesus inseparably joined to the eternal Word in one person, "without conversion, composition, or confusion." I see this from the WSC is this a statement from the 1689 BCF?

Sing F Lau

I quoted it from the 1689 BCF... I think a much superior confession than the WCF.

Charles Page

I'm scratching an itch! all the theology is confusing. I must have been a very perceptive child (I have suffered from great spouts of low self-esteem) and did not know it! So much I heard preached was dealing with this issue. I heard sermons advocating eternal sonship and sermons denying ES! It has ramifications in Pentecostal/charismatic circles. It seems that the denial of ES has contributed to pentecostal/charismatic theology. Affirmation of ES seems to have a contribution to AE theology! your thoughts!

Sing F Lau

I don't have any insight to answer your question.

A great analyst like elder Hulan might be able to help... but he speaks in a PB slang that I can hardly understand!

I believe 'divinely begotten son', others believe 'eternally begotten Son.' A world of difference.

Dallas Eaton II

Anything Eternal is without beginning nor ending, both front and back. Before Abraham was I AM is enough to declare His person in Eternity past, it was well enough understood by the Jews for which they sought to stone Him and finally did fulfill that which was written of Him (His Eternal Person).

As simple as it gets.

Sing F Lau

The Person who said, "Before Abraham was I AM" is BOTH divine and human! I do hope you remember that! But if you wish to make both eternal, that's ok. Jesus could only refer to the eternity of His divinity as the eternal Word!

And yes, the Word was eternal, the begotten Jesus the Son of God can't possibly eternal! The begotten Son is the Word made flesh.

Yes, it gets as simple as that... differentiate the Word the one-natured divine Being from the Son of God the dual-natured divine human being.

Sing F Lau

Isn't the incarnation, the Word was made flesh a momentous watershed event in the redemptive purpose of God?

It seems to me that in the understanding of many, it is just a little blip... of little significance!

God took upon Himself humanity in order to execute eternal redemption for His people.... just a blip!!!

Dallas Eaton II

The word is personified throughout scripture. That is simply stated.

Charles Page

The Jews wanted to stone Christ because he being a man, made himself God.

Dallas Eaton II

Because He was Eternal God-Man; and no one has stated his incarnation is a mere blip.

He is the root and seed of David. He is from eternity, it is the most simplistic view of His Eternal nature.

I fail to see how anyone could not easily see this.

Dallas Eaton II
To personify the word is to make His Eternal Sonship sure.

Dallas Eaton II
Clear, no cloudy mountaintop there.

Sing F Lau
Eternal God-Man? Is the Man part eternal as well????????

Charles Page
When the clouds disappeared they saw "Jesus only"

Sing F Lau
The One who is from eternity is the eternal Word... the Personal Being who is 100% divine!

I consider them blind who can't see simple truth!

Sing F Lau
The eternal Word is ALREADY a Person... therefore the Word needs no personification.

We speak of the personification of Wisdom, i.e. portraying Wisdom as a Lady!

The Bible declared the INCARNATION of the Word... the Word was made flesh, the divine Being taking humanity upon Himself permanent!

Dallas Eaton II
I do too Brother Sing. I do too. The Word would not be personified if He was not from Eternity. There I will stand even if all men flee from me.

Charles Page

I see, I see said the blind man to the deaf policeman!

Dallas Eaton II
This Wisdom is likewise Him by whom God created all things and without Him was no thing made that was made and all things were made for Him.

If you wish to complicate it that suits me, but there is no complication in it.

Dallas Eaton II
Charles, some see but do not hear and some hear and do not see.

Charles Page
vital truth can be lost in oversimplification!

Dallas Eaton II
vital means living, the living Word was, is and always will be the Man Christ Jesus, likewise, vital truth can be lost in complicating the matter, but I guess when you are right, you are right, so be it.

If this is a vital truth, then no man, woman nor child can live in Him without the knowing of it.

I reject that notion, if you wish to walk that way you will find yourself to be a judge of men's hearts have at it Brother, if that is your religion.

Sing F Lau

We may use and understand the word 'personification' differently. One who is already a person needs no personification! It is that simple!

Personification is the attribution of a personal nature or characteristics to something non-person, or the representation of an abstract quality in personal form.

Charles Page
maybe the PBs need some centralized cemetary training! Seminary does not always teach correctly but it does train one how to seek truth!

Sing F Lau
Good night! I'm a free man in Christ... and He teaches how to read, and understand the Scriptures... the PBs do help some! They are a great sounding board!

If I had been a PB, I would have been condemned as a heretic for what I believe as of now. O I thank the Lord Jesus Christ to be a free man in Him!

Dallas Eaton II

Yes Brother Sing, and that use extends to Eternity Past a word does not have a personal nature, but that nature is attributed to that word (as you know the LOGOS) being the Eternal Son of God.

Charles the very word for logic is derived from the word LOGOS. I know not what you mean regarding either, cemetery nor seminary training, I am neither dead nor educated by man.

But this should be elementary if it is a vital (living) truth.

Since the only vital truth is whether the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. Of that no man can confirm nor make void.

Dallas Eaton II

Good night Brother.

Dallas Eaton II

I agree with your being a free man in Christ, that he teaches how to read, how to understand Scripture.

I too am made free from the Law of sin and death by the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus and sat at his feet long before I ever knew any PB or any other form of Baptist, as do all His blood bought children.

Charles Page Dallas, using your line of logic I see no relevant evidence for eternal sonship. I see the eternality of the second person of the trinity, the logos, word. If Christ is not the son of man he is not the Son of God. He became the Son of God at the incarnation!

Dallas Eaton II

Then HE is not the root of David? What else must I clip from my Bible? Pray tell.

Dallas Eaton II

I am satisfied in my belief Charles and I am also satisfied in your unbelief.

Charles Page

You may have already clipped more than you should have clipped! You need to stick with the KJV in its fullness! You cannot simplify the KJV by human wisdom!

Dallas Eaton II

yes sir, I am sticking with the KJV unadulterated by the thoughts of men's doubts and fears. Been with the same since I was a young boy here in Ky. As I said, I am satisfied with what the Lord has taught to me from that same KJV.

Charles Page

Pickles have souls - Adrian Rogers preached that from a KJV (NKJV) What is true for one person may not be true for another! It all boils down to money. We put our money where our mouth is. "We tell you what to teach in our seminaries and if we say pickles have souls then you teach pickles have souls" He was refering to their salaries which was the bottom line of their professorship.

I don't believe for one moment what is true for you, Dallas can be agreeably untrue for me. Pickles don't have souls, absolutely not!

Charles Page
If what is true for me is not true for you then the Lord did not teach us both! Let's not play Fullerism here!

Dallas Eaton II

I am sure he didn't teach you that he was not the Son until His baptism by John, but you desire to believe that He was not the Son until His manifestation, I do not agree with that, you know this, but you insist on the maintenance of your eyes which have no sight.

Don't flatter yourself that I am agreeing to disagree.

Charles Page
where and when have I referred to the baptism of Christ by John and when did I use the word 'manifestation'?

Write in large letters so I can see!! lol

Dallas Eaton II

Do you believe as I do? Or do you believe Jesus the man became the Son of God upon the moment of His incarnation? If you believe the former but not the latter, then your own writing speaks.

Charles Page
I believe the WORD of God became Son of God. In the beginning was the WORD of God and not the son of God but the word became flesh! The Word of God is the root of David. The son of God generates from the seed of David.

Sing F Lau

When I lay down to sleep last night, one question nagged at me...

Who died....

- the eternal Son of God, or

- the incarnated Son of God?

Believe what you want, and live with the implications of your belief.

So, as very many believe, there was the eternal Son before incarnation, and that eternal Son died!

Charles Page
if it was the eternal Son of God then his death would only appear as a death, not an actual death. His humanity would have been robbed. His death had to be a real death and not a hoax. He did not feign death.

Sing F Lau

I have not come across a shred of evidence of the existence of the Son of God before the Word was made flesh. There were prophecies concerning the coming Son of God in the gospel age, i.e. POST incarnation.

Any evidence to the contrary? And please don't waste time quoting Pro 30:4. It has nothing to do with God having a son! Read again. Thanks.

Sing F Lau
John 1 says that THE WORD made the worlds

Hebrews 1 says that THE SON made the worlds

Therefore THE WORD = THE SON.

=======

What do you think of this logic?

Is that rightly dividing the word of truth?

Charles Page
Doesn't John 1:1 imply a change to take place? "In the beginning WAS the Word..." doesn't that lead into the statement "the word was made flesh.." Something that did not have prior existence? The Word has eternal significance, ie. no beginning and takes on a form of something with a beginning ie. without ending.

Charles Page

Didn't Christ, the living soul, die and the spirit returned to the Father? The soul that sins shall surely die?

Charles Page
Vaughn, would William Rushton, "In Defense of particular Redemption" disagree with your statement?

Charles Page

I am mistaken, I thought you were Primitive Baptist. I assume every PB knows of William Rushton.

Sing F Lau
I am not a PB... and I have no PRIOR line to toe. I'm not bound to believe eternal sonship.

If one is a PB and does not believe the eternal sonship, that would spell the RUIN of him.

While a RB, I was expected to toe the 'reformed line.' When I followed the teaching of the Bible, I was denounced a heretic!

So no, I read the Scriptures, and believe what seems most consistent, and non-contradictory to me. Eternal sonship present a whole lots of inconsistencies and contradiction in my mind

Saying that the Son of God is eternal, and that the same son of God DIED is just plain dishonest and inconsistent!

Saying that the Son of God is begotten and incarnated, and He died as true sinless man in the place of real men just make plain honest sense!

It is the begotten Son that REALLY DIED, and that was RAISED.

Jesus is the Son of God... begotten in time by the supernatural activity of God WHEN the eternal Word, the second Person of the eternal Godhead took upon humanity!

Charles Page
I was referring to Vaughn Winslett who said Christ died only in body - he has removed his comment. I was stating to him Rushton would disagree with him!

Charles Page
Sing, I see a direct correlation between this subject and Penal substitutionary atonement. The affirmation of eternal Sonship necessitates a compromised atonement.

Charles Page Sing,
What is the "black pit of error" to be avoided here?

Sing F Lau
Thanks, Abraham. You are a good brother.

You believe in an eternally begotten Son.

I believe in an INCARNATED Son.

You believe in the eternally begotten Son who died...

I believe in the INCARNATED Son.

You begin with eternally begotten Son and understand everything else through that premise.

I read the Scriptures and don't see any trace of the Son until the second Person of the eternal Godhead, the Word was made flesh.

It is ok... you are convinced what you believe to be the truth.

I'm persuaded to believe what is truth at the present time.

Thanks... none of us will lose or eternal salvation even if we are both wrong!!!

Thanks. good Brother!

Sing F Lau

"Black pig of error" - seriously erroneous swine, I suppose!

No, no idea. Ask the author!

Adam Wells

I thought you may be interested in a quote by John Gill: Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mahometans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion.

Charles Page

black pit of error!!! your words, Sing, from your blog!

Charles Page

I read that also Adam and thought that maybe Gill didn't deny the eternal son of God.

Sing F Lau

Thanks, Adam Wells.

I have read Gill's take on the eternal sonship. Studied through it... Appealing to the ancient does not settle the truth.

It is like appealing to the reformers that justification before God is by faith alone in Christ alone! That's a great error.

Appealing to the plain reading of the Scriptures is safer.

It would be interesting to understand the term "eternal generation." What does that mean?

Is the Son eternal, or is the Son generated? Or is the son both? Eternally begotten!!! Only sophisticated juggling and somersault could make sense of that to common folks like me!!!

I very much doubt the Scriptures bear testimony to the eternal Sonship of Christ. The whole concept of sonship became known when the Word was made flesh... stated so plainly in John 1:14. There were prophecies about the seed of the woman... born of the woman.

The Son of God died... Either we have the

- ETERNAL Son of God who died, or

- INCARNATED Son of God who died.

I believe the latter, for now.

Sing F Lau

black pit of error!!! your words, Sing, from your blog!

=======

Thanks. Which article... I'll take a look.

Charles Page

It could be a reply to those who argue that if Christ is God how could he have died on the cross! How the Father could take pleasure in the death of his own son! How Christ would commend his spirit to the father's hands.

Jonathan Tan Lee Seng

Good discourse!

Sing F Lau

Concerning the quote from Gill:

It seems Gill was making the distinction between those who do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who deny it.

Gill is not dealing with the subject at hand, i.e. whether Jesus Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, or the timely incarnated Son of God.

Following the crowd, he just assumed that eternal generation is the truth! It seems that way to me!

Jonathan Tan Lee Seng

Hi Sing, I believe Jesus is the eternal Word of God, and at one time in history He interjected into the human history in order to carry out the Saving plan of God the Father. But all the time He remains one of the Trinity.

Charles Page

black pit of error

On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:13 PM, sing wrote:

Dear Brother Edie,

What do I think?

I think thou art a great brother - you save me from falling into a black pit of error.

Thank you for the light of Acts 14:33-34.

<< SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2008

Sons musing on Jesus' Sonship

Julius Stewart

Just for argument sake. Wouldnt ruling out the eternal sonship of Christ also necessitate the removal of the role of "Father" in connection with the Word until after the incarnation? I may be misunderstanding the point. I do not see a point in diminishing Jesus to less or more than a son for time or eternity.....before or after the incarnation is irrelevant to me. He was always the Son and he was and is always the Word. No amount of what ifs will move me from this position.

Sing F Lau

Jonathan, Thanks.

The second Person of the Trinity is the Word before incarnation; and remain the second person of the Trinity after incarnation.

When the eternal Word was made flesh, i.e. "interjected into the human history", the Son of God was begotten. Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

Jesus, being the Word made flesh, is God/man, therefore still a member of the Trinity.

So, yes all time the divine Word and the Son of God (Word made flesh, remains on of the Trinity.

Sing F Lau

Charles, in light of Acts 13:33-34, the begotten in Ps 2 is prophesying the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Sing F Lau

I do read OTHERWISE in the Scriptures. Only people with prior conception can read these PLAIN Scriptures and dismiss the fact that the Word was made flesh is intimately related to the begetting of the man Jesus, the Son of God. Sophistry will explain the obvious away!!!

I won't bother quoting the relevant Scriptures because you have chosen not to see them.

Just stating what I see... not being rude Brother Vaughn.

Julius Stewart

Great point Bro Vaughn.

Sing F Lau

Julius said, "...before or after the incarnation is irrelevant to me."

=====

Why waste time here if it is relevant????

Of course, it is relevant to you... which is why you are blowing off your point

Sing F Lau

HE has always been the SON. FATHER return unto me the glory that I had with thee before the world was. How could HE be the FATHER, and not have a SON?

+++++++++++

When Jesus spoke those words, he was already in the incarnated state... God/man, already the Son of God. How else do you expect him to speak??? In terms of the eternal Word, as though he has not been incarnated?

We use that manner of speech and it is always understood... "my wife painted that drawing" even though the drawing was done by a girl of 12 years old... long before she was the wife of any man!!! One might as well conclude that she was the wife of someone at 12!!!

Before the incarnation, there was no reference to the Son except in prophecy to the time when the Word would be made flesh!!! And the PBs boast in rightly dividing the word of truth!

PJ Walters "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" Proverbs 30:4

Julius Stewart

Sing ...It is not a matter of rightly dividing. To me, it is a matter of dividing between the son and the word where there needs to be no division. Certainly, there are two different words but those two words are speaking of one eternal person. Claiming that another group does not rightly divide because they do not agree with you is your opinion. I have never heard anyone of any Christian order over-dividing between the son and the word as you have here. The pbs have rightly divided. You have over divided.

Sing F Lau

Pj, is there such a man? if there is, what is his name, and what is his son's name??? v4 need to be understood in the context of what Agur said in verse 2-3!!!

2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Has any man learned wisdom, and have knowledge of the holy? If there is, name him, and give us his son's name!!!

Sing F Lau
The Word is Divine.

The Son is Divine/Human

And Julius insists there is no need of distinction!!!

And both are speaking of ONE eternal Person!!!

Divine = Divine/Human

Oh how prejudice can blind an intelligent man!!!

You have never heard??? That's because you are in the PB's well!

A good well, I believe! .

Have some fun as we talk and discuss!

Julius Stewart

The son has always been a son and the word. The son and word was not always human. You are adding words and over dividing. Over dividing is wrongly dividing. Putting words into others' mouths and misquoting them is wrong too. But again that is only my opinion.

Sing F Lau

Repeating the statement doesn't make it true!

You have descended to the pit so fast!

Who puts words into your mouth?

I did draw some conclusions of what you stated as your belief. If my conclusion is wrong, you have the liberty to correct me.

Is the subject still irrelevant?

Why are you still insisting otherwise if the point is irrelevant!!!

Julius Stewart

Sing. Your argument is simple. I could state you position with one sentence. Here goes. Sings position as I understand it; before JESUS was born into this world he was never a Son, he was only referred to as the Word.... IS this correct Sing? YES or No?

Sing F Lau Luke 1

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 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:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 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.

Sophistry is needed to dismiss the begetting and beginning of the Son of God through divine act... the eternal Word made flesh!

Sing F Lau
No, you are wrong!!!

I never said "he was only referred to as the Word."

That's your figment of imagination... as though the name by which the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity is called is the issue!!!

Julius Stewart
Yes or no. Simple answer SING. which will it be?

Sing F Lau

What's the matter with you?

Isn't my answer simple enough?

Julius Stewart
You say he was not a son...only that he was the pre incarnate word. Was this Word a son?

Julius Stewart
Google the word waffle or flounder in context with point and counter point discussion. Through 95 or so posts made to your discussion there has been no waffling or floundering on the part of any pb that I have seen thus far.

Sing F Lau
Read the Luke 1 passage again.

I did say the Word was not the Son.

I did say the Word incarnated is the Son of God. I did say before the Word was made flesh, they was no begotten Son of God!

The Word is divine.

The Son of God is both divine and human.

No, the Word was not a Son at all until He was made flesh!

I DID NOT say the Word "was only referred to as the Word." Your points deals with the naming of the second Person of the Trinity.

Enjoy yourself. I'm off to give some lessons!

Julius Stewart
John macarthor grace to you website has a good article on his position on the eternal sonship of christ. It seems he has waffled between opinions and has now settled. He gives arguments for both views.

Robert Cook Sr.

iron sharpens iron but don't get burned by the sparks brethren. Good discussion not essential to our eternal destiny (our understanding) but understanding allows further knowledge. thanks for the stimulation this is the second time this discussion has come up this month for me, I just do not know enough yet! and I have been around the word for twenty years so I a bit more slothful I guess.

Robert Cook Sr.

I know what our PB brethren, which I am, believe, but I wait for the Lord to teach me then I'll know!

Sing F Lau

When you need to run to JM, you have lost your plot!

Robert Cook Sr.

JM?

Julius Stewart

Ok. I lost. You win. I give up. You are my uncle. Have a good day. God bless.

Robert Cook Sr.

I see JM is JS comment no Caps

Julius Stewart

To help those interested in broadening their understanding. Google "incarnational sonship" macarthor as rotten as he is many areas has at least left this doctrine ....at least has recanted it for now.

Sing F Lau

For every JM, I can refer you to a Adam Clarke! So, who is right JM or AC?

JS is wasting his time on a subject which he dismissed as irrelevant from the start!!! Then he appeals to a great theologian JM!!!

Charles Page

Vaughn Winslett, apparently has blocked me so that he cannot see my comments nor can I see his comments. Why??? I would like to read his comments.

Sing F Lau

Sorry to hear that. You have probably heard all he has to say on the particular subject.

Julius Stewart

JM is hardly a great theologian. Another assumption by Sing. The proof of that is the many years he openly taught this false doctrine. A doctrine that denies the eternal sonship of CHRIST. the only way i connected him to this is by googling. The words "eternal sonship". there is nothing new under the sun. This topic has a doctrinal name. It is "incarnational sonship" . You are right Sing. I dismissed it as false doctrine from the start. It is not only false it is foreign to anything I have ever heard.

Julius Stewart

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

I guess the forth man in the fiery furnace only looked like the Son of God! Hardly! This was the eternal son!

Sing F Lau

Dan 3:25.

Should I believe Julius Steward or should I believe Nebuchadnezzar?

He said he saw an ANGEL!!!

Da 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

Angelic beings are known as son of God... originated from God... not man. Elementary JS!!!

Sing F Lau

Julius, you dismiss the distinction between eternal sonship and incarnated sonship as irrelevant. And you have proven yourself a liar that the distinction is not one bit irrelevant to you.

Charles Page

Sing, what is the significance of "became a living soul" and "made a quickening spirit" in reference to Adam and Christ?

Julius Stewart

SING. any bible student can see that many times "the angel of the Lord" is not a created being. The word angel means messenger. JESUS appeared many times in the old testament and new testament. Many times the word angel is used. ANGEL OR MESSENGER can mean preacher. Look at the angel who led the children of israel in the wilderness. This was also christ. The Lord shall descend with a shout with the Voice of the Archangel. It is the lords voice not gabriels. Jacob wrestled with the angel of the lord.....of whom it was said that he had seen the lord face to face. SING. YOUR doctrine of incarnate sonship fails to take into account the appearances of christ in the old testament. By taking this position you deny the son. That is a dangerous position.

Charles Page J
Jacob wrestling with the angel is one of my favorite OT narratives but i can't ever recall entertaining the thought that the angel was Jesus. I read speculations that it was Jesus but dismissed that thought as mere speculation. Same with Jesus leading the children of Israel out of Egypt.

Sing F Lau
Julius, Nebuchadnezzar said he saw an angel. if you want to twist his testimony, you are free to do so. He is not around!

Julius Stewart
Apparently old Neb and Jacob entertained the notion. They were around well before Adam Clarke. You have to admit that your position denies any manifestation of christ in the ot.

Julius Stewart

Any doctrine that is introduced has a domino effect. This one forces some pretty substantial babies being thrown out with the bathwater.

Charles Page
substantial babies!! that would imply the consideration of aborting non-substantial babies! Babies are babies.

Now there are hypothetical, figurative babies that need to be aborted! They need to be flushed down the toilet! The Jesus of Adrian Rogers needs to be aborted for a good start. JM's baby needs to be aborted!

And perhaps (though it makes a lot of good people angry) there are PB Jesuses that need aborting!

Sing F Lau
There was no Jesus before He was begotten by the divine power of God.

The eternal Word, who covenanted and was appointed to be the Christ (an office) of God's people, did manifest Himself in the OT, but Jesus the Christ did not exist until the incarnation.

The office of Christ existed since the covenant of redemption among the three persons of the Godhead.

That's my understanding.

You are free to believe what you want.

No need to waste your time raving here, Julius!!!

Robert Cook Sr. 

I think the verse in Proverbs and Daniel are weak to prove eternal son ship, the eternal Word is much more acceptable and provable from the scripture, That is where I stand right now and I am a PB.

Sing F Lau

If one has to run to those two passages to prove eternal sonship, it is a sign of desperation... to me any way!

Julius Stewart

It wouldn't matter how many passages we use. When your opposition has their minds made up. A man convinced outside of his will is of the same opinion still. Yall may wash your babies in mud if you wish.

Sing F Lau

That applies neatly to a PB like you, Julius!

Sing F Lau

In Ephesians 3:9, Jesus Christ is the one by whom God created all things. To deny that the eternal Word has always been Jesus Christ is a denial that God created all things by Jesus Christ. – “…God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

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

Abraham, I really think the argument is really stupid... no offence.

The Word, Christ and Jesus - they need to be distinguished!

The eternal Word is the second Person of the Triune God. In the eternal counsel of redemption, the Second Person of the Triune God agreed to the office of Christ/Messiah, whose work is to redeem His people. To fulfill that office the Word must be made flesh. And Jesus is the eternal Word made flesh.

There was just no Jesus when the eternal Word made the world. There was the office of Christ... to be FULFILLED by Jesus when the Word would be made flesh!

There was no Jesus before the Word was made flesh!!! God didn't create all things by Jesus. All things were already created before Jesus was ever born!!!

It is as simple as that!!!

It is true, sometimes the person Jesus is known by His office, the Christ! Like we refer to a man "Doc" - which is a title a man carries, indicating his office and work!!!

It is true to say that Jesus Christ made the world... that is true only in the common usage of language... since Jesus is the Word made flesh, and it was the Word who made created all things.

It is like a man said, "My wife went to that play school" and every one knows what he is saying! But factually the man is wrong - the little girl who went to that playschool WAS NOT the man's wife; she was the daughter of her parents!!! But that's the manner of speaking.

To insist otherwise, to conclude that the little girl who went to that playschool was really the wife of the man based on the words of the man, is just PLAIN STUPIDITY!!! And the whole argument of eternal sonship is based on that, contrary to plain Scriptural facts.

Sing F Lau

Also, our own election resides "in him", of which cannot be true if Christ himself was not always Jesus.

===========

David Ardito,

The eternal Word, the Second Person of the Godhead, was appointed to be Christ in the eternal counsel of redemption... To fulfill this office, the Word must be made flesh, the Son of God must be begotten. "Thou art Christ (referring to Jesus' office as the appointed Messiah), the Son of the living God."

Yes, our election was in the eternal Word who was promised Christ.... LONG LONG before there was a Jesus!!!

Learn to distinguish Christ, the office of Jesus, from the man Jesus Himself.... and you will begin to see better!

There was NO Jesus before the eternal Word was made flesh.... that is an undeniable fact of Scriptures. If you don't believe that, we are reading different Bible

Charles Page

Reading JM recanting incarnational sonship seems to be based more on not being able to face a few critics. doctrine by majority agreement seems to suggest we care more about what people may think than what truth actually is! "Pickles have souls"

Sing F Lau

Soldier, you have nailed it!!! Popularity and acceptance are so often the reason!

Peer pressure... I have received in private PBs who believe incarnated sonship... but careful not to say it publicly... because it would be very costly for them!!! Peer pressure and ecclesiastical tyranny is still alive

Read and consider my last two comments.

PJ Walters

"Denunciation is the last resort of a defeated opponent."

Denunciation, in the case here, is the insinuation that our conclusion is "PLAIN STUPIDITY".
[stupidity is simply lacking common sense!]

Sing F Lau

Pj, to insist that there was this man Jesus before the incarnation/birth of Jesus is indeed PLAIN STUPIDITY, no matter how that stupidity may be explained away by theological sophistry!!!

I have just repeated that!

And that is a declaration, not a denunciation!

Charles Page

SBC BF&M says "Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary."

Sing F Lau
Thanks, Abraham. Keep talking.

First, it is "the Second Person of the Triune God agreed to the office of Christ/Messiah, whose work is to redeem His people. To fulfill that office the Word must be made flesh. And Jesus is the eternal Word made flesh."

And if you think WITHOUT being made like one of His brethren... the eternal Word (who appointed Christ) can be a priest to his people, then you have not read Hebrews properly yet!!!

Second, "a priest continually" points forward, and not backward. The priests of the Aaronic order became priests at some definite time and then KAPUT and need to be replaced by the living priests again and again but not so with the priesthood of Jesus, who once became a priest, REMAINED a living priest continually. You extended the word 'continually" backward into ETERNITY when there wasn't even Jesus yet!!! Gravely mistaken, a delusion, in fact!

Also, when it says, "For this Melchisedec...... made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually" (Heb 7:1-3), apostle Paul was pointing to this man Melchizedek, whose biblical record under divine inspiration specifically left out the genealogy of this great man... thus "BUT WAS MADE LIKE UNTO THE Son of God."

Melchizedek, a real man, BUT WAS MADE LIKE UNTO the Son of God - in that his genealogical account was in such a way as to make him appear as a type of Jesus' priesthood... not of Aaron, and continually.

Third, concerning your twisting of my statement into "My wife Jane went to that playschool and everyone knows that there was no Jane when she went there." That's probably the silliest statement I have heard! Don't you even think before making such a contradictory statement! You might as well say, "Before Jane became my wife, there was no Jane," I speak as a fool so that you know the foolishness of your twisting. You completely miss the point of the illustration, and you think you are smart in twisting it into a nonsensical statement!

Fourth, you object to the fact the Word must be made flesh before the office of a priest can be fulfilled... @ "From this, you reason that to "fulfill that office the Word must be made flesh..."

Heb 2:

14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;... 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Fifth, your argument from Eph 3:9.... my simple reply: post incarnation, all the works of the eternal Word (in His capacity as the promised Christ) are spoken of as the work of Jesus the Christ; post incarnation, all the works of the eternal Word (as the promised Christ) before Jesus even existed are spoken of as the works of Jesus, the Christ. Even so, post-marriage, all the deeds of Jane (your wife) are spoken of as the deeds of Abraham's wife... because that's here new status!

I say the same thing to you, "Preach the word" and not "enticing words of man's wisdom."

Blessed by your engagement. Thanks.

Sing F Lau
Thanks, Abraham. Keep talking, we will get nearer to the truth.

Re: your first point:

Let me remind you of this obvious truth: " and without shedding of blood is no remission." The Word was made flesh, i.e. incarnation of the eternal Word was absolutely necessary to make the shedding of blood possible. The incarnation of the Word was absolutely necessary to being a priest, and the shedding of blood... laying down life as a substitute. Why would anyone dispute this OBVIOUS truth!!!

The forgiveness of the sins of the saints of God BEFORE the work of redemption at the cross was based PROSPECTIVELY and WHOLLY upon the faithfulness of the eternal Word fulfilling His covenanted office as the Christ... i.e. to be made flesh, and fulfill the office of priest, to redeem His people.

Re: your second point:

You make right observation BUT wrong conclusion.

The whole point of Apostle Paul in mentioning Melchizedek is that Christ's priesthood is not of the order of Aaron, therefore a superior priesthood, a priesthood that made Aaronic priesthood obsolete, as well as a priesthood that needs no successors, i.e. a priesthood that ABIDES forever! You worked the whole point BACKWARD to come up with the fiction of eternal priesthood!!!

To construe "abideth a priest continually" to deny the fact that there must be a beginning as a priest is to ignore the plainest facts of Scriptures. One must be a man in order to enter the priesthood... Jesus not excepted! The Word must be made flesh, then took up the office, and because Jesus lives forever, His priesthood is forever, unlike the Aaronic priests who died after a few years of service!!!

You missed the whole point of what Paul was saying.

Please find a better passage to defend your eternal /sonship priesthood idea. I don't mean any disrespect!!!

You also quoted this scripture: "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Jesus the Christ... the generation of Jesus the Christ... the begetting of the man Jesus who fulfilled the office of Christ.

The Scriptures declare the GENERATION of Jesus Christ.... you insist on the ETERNITY of Jesus Christ. Of course many believe in the fiction of eternal generation and use sophistry to reconcile the irreconcilable self-contradicting term!

Re: your 4th point:

You said, "I object to your conclusion that "there was just no Jesus when the eternal Word made the world.

Very simple: show us that the man Jesus existed before he was conceived by the power from above in the virgin womb of Mary. If Jesus existed when the Word made the Word, it would be VERY SIMPLE task for you to show its truth.

Thanks for talking... I only have simple answers for you.

Charles Page

Lawd ha murcy! You be preeeching, brother! shivers down my spine!!!

Sing F Lau

Charles, do you understand what I have written? I do want to make sure I'm understood. I'm not concerned about whether people agree, but I want to be understood.

Charles Page

I understand! But I can't speak for everybody!

It is like penal substitutionary atonement...I understand it, but most people don't or won't understand it.

People seem to like the complications of figurative, hypothetical speech (sophistry)

Charles Page

The belief in eternal Sonship would complicate "the image of the invisible" and the three persons of the Trinity in creation. The eternal Word, the image of the invisible God, was the agent of the creator and in creating man in "our image". If Christ was the Son of God then it would be in his image and his likeness. That image comes with redemption and not creation!

Adam bore the image of triune God. Christ was begotten in our image, sinful man, as mediator and priest. Adam was born good and we are regenerated in righteousness from Christ.

Charles Page

Do you think I understand it?

Charles Page

John 1:1-14 suffices as proof of incarnational Son and destroys "eternal Son"! Eternal Word became flesh

Sing F Lau

Those who hold to eternal sonship would equate the eternal Word with Jesus the Christ... insisting that elsewhere the Scriptures state that Jesus Christ created the world... completely ignoring the simple explanation that post incarnation, all the works of the eternal Word (in His capacity as the promised Christ) are spoken of as the work of Jesus the Christ.

To me, John 1:1-14, as well as Lk 1:31-35 completely rules out eternal sonship... but sophistry will make the passages say otherwise!

Get any mind that has not been prejudiced and read this passage they will come to these conclusions:

- the Word is eternal...

- the begotten son of God is the eternal Word made flesh i.e. incarnated.

- PERIOD.

Charles Page

the person that plants biases into innocent and sincere minds!

Sing F Lau

Your point, "that image comes with redemption and not creation" is astute! I like that! Thanks.

For redemption, the eternal Word was made flesh; the eternal Word was made like unto them who were given to Him covenanted to be the Christ of His people.

Creation is in the image of the Triune God; redemption conforms the elect to the image of God's Son, the man Jesus Christ!

Jesus is BOTH Son of God and Son of man - divine and human, two distinct natures in one person.

Thanks...

Charles Page

"For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:14). Wouldn't this verse contradict the view of Vaughn Winslett that Christ's death was restricted to bodily death. However, He received his flesh and blood from his mother via the incarnation. The old Baptist seem to hold to the view that the blood carries the sin nature and that Christ did not carry the sin corrupted blood!