The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation

The Word became flesh (vs 14). So whatever the Word is, it does not include the human nature. Sorry, Pilgrim, I couldn't leave this hangin'. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Ron

what? Do you believe it to be the second person of the trinity?

No, he shall perish everlastingly. From the Athanasian Creed,

Yes. I believe him to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. However, he did not assume the human nature until the incarnation, at which time the eternal Son became the Godman. God and man is now on the throne in the one person of Christ who has two natures, human and divine. What an amazing reality!

In his grace,

Ron

Blessings.

Ron

that I caused you some confusion. There are so many things I could say to you right now, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll just make known to you what I know concerning "the word" (logos) of John 1:1.

The "Word" is the eternally begotten SON of God; the second person of the Trinity, Who took upon Himself human flesh (Jh 1:14; Phil 2:5-8; 1Tim 3:16; et al) and in so doing, became Jesus (the)Christ, aka: God-man.

Does that help?

In His Grace,

YAY! im not ignorant!
Sorry for the confusion. Yes pilgrim that helps, I agree with you totally.
I thought you were saying "the word"(logos) was not the son. My mistake.

Whew.........!! Glad that's cleared up.

As you are now privy to, my contention is with those who insist that the "Word" was "Jesus", rather than the pre-incarnate Christ, Who is eternal. (aka: the SON). You might be amazed at how many actually believe that. But most, at least those who I have had the privilege to discuss this issue with, were either taught wrongly or they were working under a misconception, or their Christology was a bit "weak". When they truth is grasped, doubtless the Gospel of John takes on a depth never before realized, much to one's joy.

In His Grace,

(Fred) I do find it interesting that we never received one of those moderator "off topic" rebukes seeing that the name of this thread is Lordship Salvation and the eternal sonship of Christ is unrelated. But I digress.

Just some final thoughts on this because I think the discussion is winding down. John did not deny the sonship of Jesus Christ. If you read his retraction statement and the section in the Hebrews commentary where he addressed this, the issue for John is the "when" did Jesus take on the role as a son. Was Christ always "the son" even before God decreed to redeem a sinful people unto himself? Or was that role entered into by the second person of the Trinity when the decree to redeem a people was set into divine motion, so to speak? John specifically stated that the word "begotten" is a difficult term to grasp. What excatly does it mean that Christ was "the only begotten son?" Obviously, from the entire testimony of scripture it does not mean that Christ was created, so it must have some other designation connected to it. In John's mind, at the time of teaching through Hebrews, his understanding was that it had incarnational connotations. Thus, the title of the "begotten son" was an incarnational title, not one that the Second person of the Godhead held BEFORE the decree to redeem and Christ was appointed to step into humanity.

Some other posters have mentioned the divine word of John 1:1. Was the second member of the trinity eternally thought of as the Godman Jesus? Or was that a role he entered into at the incarnation. The decree to die for sinners had always been in place, but God became man (as you pointed out in another post) happened at a point in time. When was that point? At Christ's incarnation.

That being said, we must keep in mind that John has changed his position, however, those who do hold to incarnational sonship I do not believe are heretical, nor are they fundamentally denying the ontological relationship of the son to the father. Many of them may be just confused and ignorant of all the language, but those who are not are simply trying to deal honestly with the language of scripture as it describes our saviour's life here on earth as he related to the father.

Fred

Fred,

Your post is smoke. I’m sorry. Let’s define our terms. Those who hold to the “incarnational sonship”, as did John, deny the eternal sonship. Accordingly, they deny the eternal-ontological Son-Father relationship.


Unless titles are meaningless, when John affirmed that “begotten” referred strictly to the incarnation, he by necessary consequence denied the eternal-begotten Son-Father relationship which is a denial of the ontological Trinity since the Persons of the Trinity are who they are by the relationship they hold to the other persons of the Trinity.

Did John deny the eternal sonship of the Second Person? Yes, by saying that the Son was begotten in time and became the Son.

Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes

Therefore, John denied an essential property of the eternal Son and the eternal ontological, Trinity.

Was this heresy? Of course it was. If you wish to deny John's former heresy, please interact with the specifics of the case. It's not germane that John believed in the eternal Second Person or that he affirmed Jesus' sonship. Those points are not in dispute.

Ron

Fred,

As one of the "Moderators" of this Board, I take responsibility for allowing this thread to go off-topic. When it began going down this road, I did consider moving the "offending" post with its then relatively few replies to its own thread, but I guess I got distracted and didn't bother to do so..... yes, I should have. Please accept my apologies for not doing so and even more for contributing to it.

I'll take the deserved stripes!

Pilgrim,

But you're not just any ole moderator, you're the Head Honcho! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Pilgrim is always starting trouble!

Thanks Pilgrim You made that simple and clear enough even I understood. I hope you never tire of repeating yourself, because their maybe someone who needs to hear.

neicey

(Fred) I disagree bud. John denied the eternal aspect of Christ's sonship, but not his sonship. Again, I would point out that the ontological aspect of the Eternal son is only relevant to Covenant Theology, because the Covenant of Redemption that the CT system is built upon is dependent upon the eternal sonship doctrine. Those who disagree with CT and the theology's definition of terms are not heretical. First, the CTer must demonstrate an actual Covenant of Redemption being outlined in scripture. I would agree there was a decreed purpose of redemption, but I do not equate that with a "Covenant." The two are distinct.


(Fred) Did John deny the eternal sonship of the 2nd person as CT argues for that distinction? yes. Did he deny Christ's sonship? no.
I would also add that you are still in need of defining the word "begotten" or at least describing the concept as far as it is taught in scripture. What exactly does it mean that God "begot" the Son? Keep in mind that I am not arguing for begotten to mean Christ was created.


(Fred) That is where I believe you are dead wrong. In fact, some one wrote me and told me tha James White was asked in his chat channel if the eternal sonship doctrine is necessary to maintaining the Trinity and he stated that it is not. Thus, denying the eternal sonship of Christ does not equate to denying the Trinity, and I would add, or the ontological relationship between the Father and Son.


(Fred) It is only heresy for the CTer and his system. Is it biblical heresy? No it is not. Further, I do believe I have interacted with the specifics of the case, and as I wrote in a previous post, the specifics of the case as they pertain to John are no longer relevant seeing that John changed his position. My point of contention is that incarnational sonship is not heretical, even though I do not agree with it.

Fred