----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 26, 2004 10:28
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] The Eternal
Son?
Bill wrote:
>> If there were a time when the Son was not, then
there must also have been a time when the Father was not:
>>
Are you willing to go this far, Judy?
Judy wrote:
> Scripture tells us that God is the Father of ALL spirits
(Heb 12:9b). Jesus being begotten at the incarnation does not >
> change this fact. He is a Father period.
Excellent point, Judy. The majority of theologians of the past
who held to the Eternal Sonship Doctrine were never answered this
way, or at least they didn't let us know that they were. They only make
the argument that Bill posed, and we never hear any rebuttal.
dm: Some on the forum are a little tired of me, so I hope you don't mind
if I address you.
jt: What a shame - where's the love, relationship,
and community? Of course I don't mind I am honored.
dm: I am interested in this particular topic, not as a point of
contention, but simply out of curiosity. It surprises me how some make
this doctrine a sacred issue, and, therefore, it raises my curiosity. I
find it hard to get stirred up by this topic, but the fact that some are so
stirred makes me all the more interested to try and figure out what must
be so important here that people get so emotional.
jt: I wondered about the 'sacred issue' myself;
especially since Jesus Himself viewed blaspheming the Holy Spirit a whole lot
more seriously than not speaking well of the Son of Man.
dm: I think that there are some important points we need to
consider.
1. Is Jesus the only son of God? No. The Bible speaks
of others. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN
son of God. What does this mean?
2. Our heavenly father is not just the father of Jesus Christ, nor
only the father of us, but he is the father of many, as you pointed out.
Even if Jesus Christ, the Logos, never existed as the only begotten son, the
heavenly father would still be the heavenly father. The fallacy of the
argument that he would cease being a father is the mistaken presumption that
he was father only to Jesus Christ.
3. Sons are not stuck in their role of only being a son. Sons
usually become fathers themselves. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not just
the Son of God. He is not just the Son of Man. He is also the
everlasting father. What does the theology of an "eternal sonship" do to
this understanding? It certainly creates difficulties.
Judy, have you read Adam Clarke's commentary on Luke 1:35? I
reproduce it here as I thought you might find it interesting.
jt: Thank you David, I will peruse it this
morning.
Luk 1:35 -
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee - This conception shall take place
suddenly, and the Holy Spirit himself shall be the grand operator. The power,
δυναμις, the miracle-working power, of the Most
High shall overshadow thee, to accomplish this purpose, and to protect thee
from danger. As there is a plain allusion to the Spirit of God brooding over
the face of the waters, to render them prolific, Gen_1:2, I am the more firmly established in
the opinion advanced on Mat_1:20, that the rudiments of the human
nature of Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy
of the Spirit of God.
Therefore also that holy thing (or person) - shall be called the Son of God
- We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the
appellation of Son of God to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy
person or thing, το ἁγιον, which was to be born of the virgin, by
the energy of the Holy Spirit. The Divine nature could not be born of the
virgin; the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning;
it was God manifested in the flesh, 1Ti_3:16; it was that Word which being in the
beginning (from eternity) with God, Joh_1:2, was afterwards made flesh, (became
manifest in human nature), and tabernacled among us, Joh_1:14. Of this Divine nature
the angel does not particularly speak here, but of the tabernacle or shrine
which God was now preparing for it, viz. the holy thing that was to be born of
the virgin. Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human
nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him,
Mar_13:32;
Joh_5:19;
Joh_14:28, and
the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God, Joh_1:1; Joh_10:30; Rom_9:5; Col_1:16-18. It is true, that to
Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine
nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction
between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures
in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of
God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those
who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in
my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for
the following reasons: -
1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures
concerning it.
2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot
be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son,
precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of
generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time
also antecedent to such generation.
3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father
is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it
must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a
period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord,
and robs him at once of his Godhead.
5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion,
absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity
is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time. Son
supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such
generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is
absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite
ideas.
The enemies of Christ�s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of
this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever
had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of
the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken
away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the
atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could
not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or
possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd
and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation
abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been
lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and
do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases,
has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and
their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen!
----------------------------
