The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation

OK guys, and especially Ron D. This is probably going to be my last post on this, because I believe I have stated all that needs to be stated. Moreover, I have some other interesting emails to address on a personal level and our good Arminian fellow, Michael, has returned and I find it more fun to engage the discussion of the inconsistency of Arminian philosophy with God's exhaustive knowledge. Perhaps if Ron D would bring his talents to that discussion there? Any how, I wanted to tie up any loose ends that I left dangling.

I appreciate Ron's remarks; he makes a worthy defense of eternal sonship, to which I would agree (and John agrees as well). However, I am not of the opinion that an incarnational viewpoint is heretical. It may not be the clearest way to look at the text, and it may be bad teaching like KJV onlyism and Progressive Creationism, but it is not heretical in the Arian sense of the the word. It is an attempt to deal honestly and exegetically with the "begotten" terminology found in scripture. How exactly is Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, "begotten?" That is the question the incarnational viewpoint is attempting to answer. For example, yesterday at Church, we read through John 1:1-14 as our scripture reading of the day. Note that verse 14 states that the word became flesh and that we beheld his glory, the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the father, full of grace and truth. When does John describe Jesus as the "only begotten?" When he became flesh and dwelt among men. The idea of Christ being begotten is in relation to him becoming flesh, the incarnation.


(Fred) To attempt to answer Pilgrim's question specifically, John's treatment on this is found in his commentary on Hebrews where he addresses 1:5. Let me summarize from selected quotations from his commentary:

"Though his sonship was anticipated in the OT (Prov. 30:4), He did not receive the title of Son until He was begotten into time. Prior to time and His incarnation He was eternal God with God. The term Son has only to do with Jesus Christ in His incarnation. It is only an analogy to say that God is Father and Jesus is Son - God's way of helping us understand the essential relationship between the first and second Persons of the Trinity....He is no "eternal son" always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God. Sonship is an analogy to help us understand Christ's essential relationship and willing submission to the Father for the sake of our redemption." Hebrews pp. 27, 28

So to answer the question, it seems as though he understood the terms "father" and "son" to be an analogy to convey the roles of the Trinity in the redemption of men.

Fred