The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation

That your use of slightly was pretty far off. The mormons are a bit further than slightly and your grouping them together with anything orthodox shows the extent you are willing to go to distort.

You need to stop making my words mean things I simply do not state. This is a form of dishonesty and I do not appreciate it.


God bless,

william

You are begging the question of whether tampering with the relationship the Son has with the Father is heretical or within the bounds of orthodoxy. If MacArthur’s former belief was heretical, then it may be grouped with all other heresies. Was I expected to rate heresies by degree?


I did nothing of the sort. Your statement was cryptic, so I asked you to explain your vaguer remark. I, also, said “who knows what you mean”, but “if I had to guess…”

“Are you so often cryptic in order to avoid interaction with your beliefs? Please string some premises together and conclude something based upon those premises. If I had to guess what this vague remarks means, I'd conclude that you think that Mormons are way off, so they're heretics; whereas one may deny the eternal sonship of Christ and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. But who knows what you mean.”

Tell me William, can one deny the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father and be orthodox in his trinitarian theology? If not, then MacArthur's doctrine was heretical and, therefore, should be grouped with all other heresies.

Ron

(Fred) Yes, that is his claim, as well as mine. There is nothing inherently heretical in the incarnational sonship view. Perhaps in your world, it is heretical, but thankfully, you are not the keeper of the oracles of truth, the Bible is.



(Fred) Please, come on now, your comparrison is silly. In fact it is so silly that it echoes through the halls of absurdity.


(Fred) There is no ranting and raving, I am simply correcting distortions of what John had believed.


(Fred) Nope, and neither did John, because the incarnational viewpoint doesn't deny that the father and the son are eternal in their nature. The position teaches that the term "son" speaks to Christ in his humanity. In the mind of the eternal God, the second member of the Trinity purposed to take on flesh and take the roll of a son to die in the place of sinners.
Now, I disagree with that, as I disagreed with John when he held this position, but I know what he was talking about and he wasn't advocating heresy as you claim.


(fred) I would agree with you, but again, the terms son and father are designations meant to convey what the Godhead had purposed to do from eternity past and what the Godhead did in the securing of the elect to salvation.

Fred

What do you disagree with, merely that John denied that the name "Son" applied to the Second Person in eternity? Is that what you think this was all about, a mere designation without a theology behind the word? What does it mean that the Second Person is the Son? John denied that the the Second Person of the Trinity was the Son in eternity. What does this mean? Does it merely mean that the Son wasn't yet incarnated? No, because that would presuppose the Son, whom John denied; he affirmed the Person but not the sonship, which is essential to his person.

Ron

Did you even bother to read the statement I linked you to? John explains why he believed what he did.


(Fred) It simply means that Christ had not yet taken on the title of son in his humanity. It was in eternity past, something decreed to happen with the second person of the Trinity.
Keep in mind that I am agreeing with your general flow of thought; my debate is with your misrepresenting what John believed and taught.

Fred

Fred,

Please hear me out.

John MacArthur:
John wanted to argue against JW’s and the like, no doubt. John embraced the Second Person of the Trinity as God. However, for MacArthur sonship derived not from the ontological relationship with the Father but from the virgin birth. This cannot be disputed. Again, John affirmed the Second Person’s eternality, but denied his sonship. If John’s former doctrine was indeed true, the relationship of Son to Father would not have been begotten but made! (NOTE: I am not saying that Second Person would be made, but the relationship.) The relationship of Son to Father would be temporal and would require a beginning. However, Scripture teaches and the creeds confirm that the Son is differentiated from the Father by being begotten; but if there is no eternal sonship then there can be no distinction of persons since the Second Person’s nature is predicated upon his eternal, ontological relationship within the Trinity. This you have not dealt with and quite frankly neither has John. God alone with his Logos is not the same as God alone with his Son. I’ll let you decide how significant this relationship is with respect to Christianity. Briefly, we would eclipse the love-relationship that is only understood in the orbit of Father to Son if the Second person were not eternally the Son. Is God eternally Abba to the Son, or not? How important is this? Is the eternal Spirit the Spirit of the eternal Son, or just the eternal Logos? What about the works of the economic Trinity? Were we eternally chosen in the Son of the Father, or just chosen in the Second Person apart from any eternal sonship?

You claim to have disagreed with John’s theology and I of course believe you. Maybe you should consider the ramifications of John's train of thought. What would Christianity lose if the Second Person was not an eternal Son, and how significant would this loss be for the faith? I would argue that without the relationship of Son to Father, we would be left with three Gods and not the ontological Trinity. For the ontological Trinity requires sonship by its very nature.

That's all I care to say on the matter.

Blessings,

Ron

I have been following this discussion with quite a bit of interest. I must say that I am not completely sure what to make of this matter.
For that reason, I would like to hear from others on the matter (i.e. Pilgrim, Joe, etc...), in hopes of resolving the matter, in my mind anyway.

Tom

Maybe we should begin by asking whether the relationship of the Son to the Father is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously it is essential. The only question that remains is can we deny this essential relationship and remain with the bounds of orthodoxy? Put another way, can one remain orthodox and deny that the Second Person is the Second Person apart from being the Son of the Father?

Ron

Would you show me where I mentioned anything concerning such? The only thing I addressed is your tone.


God bless,

william

Let me throw a wrinkle in here, just for fun, by introducing a very popular error on the other side of the incarnation, re: Jesus Christ. It is held by MANY professing Christians today, and I believe simply out of ignorance for most, that the "Logos" of John 1:1 was Jesus (of Nazareth). Further, they would hold that Col. 1:16 is speaking of Jesus (of Nazareth), i.e., Jesus, the son of Mary created all things. What they are asserting is the eternality of Jesus, which goes far beyond the necessary affirmation that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity was and is eternal, both in His essence and in His person, that being eternally begotten of the Father.

Some, in defense of this error, will stand upon the Chalcedon formula, i.e., you cannot separate the two natures of Christ. But what they will not do is to also apply the equally true statement that we cannot confuse the two natures of Christ. There was a time . . . notice time, that Jesus (of Nazareth) did not exist. To deny such is to essentially deny the incarnation. In fact the entire purpose of the apostle John writing his Gospel and three Epistles is effectively destroyed.

Anway..... since we are having so much fun in this thread now, I thought I'd join in the fray and bring my own "party favors"!

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Whew, that's almost as bad as what Jonny Mac. held to prior to getting it right! Talk about denying the incarnation, and the first creation for that matter!

Blessings,

Ron

Fred,

I want you to know that John MacArthur Jr. is a great man in my opinion. His ministry has been blessed by God like very few others, even internationally. I am indebted to his service beyond measure. (BTW, he even baptized my wife...)

Blessings,

Ron

Perhaps you have missed the several times over the years in here that I've had to bring up this point and correct this error? Most all of the individuals held to this view out of sheer ignorance (not stupidity). In 99% of the cases, it was in regard to John 1:1 and the identification of the "Word" (Logos), which they believed to be Jesus (of Nazareth). My way of dealing with the error is to simply have them apply this thought; that the "Word" is Jesus to verse 14 and substituting the name "Jesus" for "the Word". The result is most enlightening, for the text would then read:

"And the Word Jesus became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."

The next question asked is all too apparent, "What is the identity of the 'flesh' in this text if "the Word" was Jesus (of Nazareth)? The "flesh", according to John's Gospel and all of Scripture is Jesus of Nazareth. So, again substituting what is now acknowledged, that "flesh" is Jesus, the text would therefore read:

"And the Word Jesus became flesh Jesus, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."

Oh vey.....!!! In 99.99% of the cases, the proverbial lights go on and the person suddenly realizes that the "Son" is eternal and "Jesus" is temporal, yet consisting of both the eternal God and finite man in the one person, aka: the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God.

In His Grace,

I'm hesitant to ask. Have any continued to embrace the eternal humanity of Jesus after being shown the light? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ugh.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Pilgrim, your confusing me. What do you think "the word"(logos) is in john 1?