|
Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Ryrie has this
to say:
I agree with Buswell (A
Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, pp. 105-12) that
generation is not an exegetically based doctrine. The concept it tries to
convey, however, is not unscriptural, and certainly the doctrine of sonship
is scriptural. The phrase “eternal generation” is simply an attempt to
describe the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity and, by using the word
“eternal,” protect it from any idea of inequality or temporality. But whether
or not one chooses to use the idea of eternal generation, the personal and
eternal and coequal relation of the Father and Son must be affirmed. Least of
all should eternal generation be based on Psalm 2:7 (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton,
IL, 1987, electronic media).
Psalm 2:7 reads, “I will surely tell of the decree of
the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.” The
Psalmist’s reference to “My Son” referred to the legitimate Davidic king (2
Sam. 7:14) who one day would reign in the person of Messiah, who, of course,
is the Lord Jesus. The words “Today I have begotten You” speak of the day of
coronation or the anointing of the King to be fulfilled in the Millennium.
But in the New Testament, this is related to Christ’s resurrection (Acts
13:33-34; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). Many theologians or Bible students see
Acts 13:33 to refer to Christ’s exaltation via the resurrection because it
clearly validated Jesus’ claims and marked Him out as the Son of God as Paul
demonstrates in Romans 1:4.
Becoming flesh made Jesus Mary’s son, but not God’s.
This would suggest He had not been the Son of God and true deity prior to
birth. Christ’s title as Son of God is a strong affirmation of the deity of
Christ. Also from Ryrie’s Theology is the following:
Son of God. Our
Lord used this designation of Himself (though rarely, John 10:36), and He acknowledged
its truthfulness when it was used by others of Him (Matt. 26:63-64). What
does it mean? Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also
carries the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the
prophets” meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the
singers” meant of the order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son
of God” when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and
clear claim to full Deity. “In Jewish usage the term Son of . . . did not
generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of
nature. Thus Bar Kokba, who led the Jewish revolt 135-132 B.C. in the reign
of Hadrian, was called by a name which means ‘Son of the Star.’ It was
supposed that he took this name to identify himself as the very Star
predicted in Numbers 24:17. The name ‘Son of Encouragement’ (Acts 4:36)
doubtless means, ‘The Encourager.’ ‘Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17) probably
means ‘Thunderous Men.’ ‘Son of man,’ especially as applied to Christ in
Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament, essentially means ‘The
Representative Man.’ Thus for Christ to say, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John
10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God,
equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense” (J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], 1:105).
There are many other ways and passages to support the
deity of Christ, but the point here is that this title clearly does that. It
does not and cannot, as it is used in the Bible, refer to Him as a son by the
incarnation. The incarnation did not make Him Son of God, it was the means
that the Son of God became man that He might die for our sin.
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=57&qa_id=170
|
