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.
I see several problems with this. First, the covenant of redemption aspect, to which you refer, John has always embraced being a Calvinist! Consequently, John thought that the First Person of the Trinity gave the elect to the Second Person of the Trinity without the elect being given to the Son!
Secondly, the eternals sonship is pre-Reformation doctrine, so obviously it has significance apart from the doctrines of the divine decree that became more apparent at the time of the Reformation.
Now a question: Since John (and presumably you) believes that the Second Person was given the elect by the First Person in eternity, how can this be without the Second Person being the Son? If it can’t be, then the eternal sonship is essential with respect to a doctrine John held to, predestination in Christ. So I’ll ask you, a Calvinist, could the First Person have given the elect to the Second Person without the relationship of Father-Son? Yes or No. This has nothing to do with the distinctions between dispensationalism and covenant theology.
Finally, by not distinguishing between Father-Son, then for all eternity there would have been no eternal distinction of persons or ontological role of Father-Son within the Godhead. If the relationship were to have evolved into Father-Son at the incarnation, then there would be evolution within the Godhead with respect to the relationship within the Godhead, which would undermine the immutability of God. Again, you seem to think that the relationship of Persons does not go into defining the Godhead. You would like to think that the First and Second Person’s relationship could be non-Son and non-Father without destroying the essence of the ontological Trinity.
Quote
Those who disagree with CT and the theology's definition of terms are not heretical.
While John held this aberrant view he was embracing the covenant of redemption yet in a way that was in violation of the doctrine of the eternally begotten Son of the Father, which was held by all of Christendom prior to the full development of covenant theology.
I stated: “Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes”
You Replied:
Quote
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.
Let me see if I have this.
Premise 1: James White says that eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology Conclusion: Eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology
Let me state right up front that I have no desire to cause any friction or to cast any stones, as it were, upon MacArthur; a man I highly admire. What I would like, however is some clarification of what he used to believe and has since left behind him.
QUESTION: What would John MacArthur have called the second person of the Trinity if He was not the "Son"? If the second person of the Trinity acquired "sonship" in time; i.e., at the time of the incarnation, what or who was He before that event in regard to the economic relationship within the Trinity? As you can probably surmise, I'm just a tad confused as to what exactly MacArthur once held on this matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />
No clarification is needed. MacArthur stated, "The 'incarnational sonship' view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy."
Of course, incarnational sonship is rank heresy. It is also blasphemy and idolatry. It is worshipping a false Christ who saves no one. Those who deny the Christ begotten of the Father before the worlds shall perish everlastingly.
The clarification needed is whether the Reformed agree with scripture and the Ecumenical Creeds or with MacArthur.
TAKE A PILL! My question was posed to "fredman" and it wasn't whether he thought MacArthur's now non-existent view(s) were heretical. Your response was inflammatory and at least disrespectful, not to mention, anything but helpful in providing an answer to my specific question.
Although I appreciate your zeal for the truth, I think we need to allow God to save those who deny truths (for a season). One can truly embrace Christ to the saving of his soul while professing heresies, even rank heresies. The Scriptures are replete with warnings to those who were following after false teachings. God's grace is pretty amazing.
Although I appreciate your zeal for the truth, I think we need to allow God to save those who deny truths (for a season). One can truly embrace Christ to the saving of his soul while professing heresies, even rank heresies. The Scriptures are replete with warnings to those who were following after false teachings. God's grace is pretty amazing.
Blessings,
Ron
Yes, I agree completely. A man should not be considered a heretic until after the stages of admonition. Titus 3:10, 11.
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.
Quote
QUESTION: What would John MacArthur have called the second person of the Trinity if He was not the "Son"? If the second person of the Trinity acquired "sonship" in time; i.e., at the time of the incarnation, what or who was He before that event in regard to the economic relationship within the Trinity? As you can probably surmise, I'm just a tad confused as to what exactly MacArthur once held on this matter.
(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
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
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.
Hi Fred,
If you wish to conclude by this passage that the Second Person was begotten in time, at the incarnation, I would think that you would similarly have to affirm that he received his glory at the incarnation as well. After all, “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father…”
No one reading carefully would conclude that this passage is saying that the second member of the trinity was begotten. The Word = the Second member of the trinity. He was begotten in flesh, meaning that he took on the role in time as the redeemer of mankind, the only begotten son. Obviously, this was in the mind of the Godhead in eternity past as to the divine purpose to save. The word "begotten," however, has to mean something, correct? When did this begetting take place? That is the issue incarnationalists are attempting to clarify.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Again you just ignored my post. If you wish to apply begotten to the flesh then you must apply "glory" to the flesh as well. Given your most recent post, I think it's time to deal with Pilgrim's post: https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1
fredman said: 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
J. C. Philpot, in his book "The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Only Begotten Son of God", refutes this argument of the incarnational sonship advocates:
Quote
You say, "I cannot receive the doctrine that Jesus is the eternal Son of God because it denies His co-eternity and co-equality with Him, for a father is necessarily prior to a son, and a father is necessarily superior to a son." Certainly, if we carry earthly reasonings into the courts of heaven, and measure the being and nature of God by the being and nature of man. But the very idea of eternity excludes priority and posteriority of time, and the very nature of God excludes superiority and inferiority. When, then, we say that Jesus is the eternal Son of God we declare His co-eternity, and when we say that He is the Son of God, as God the Son, we declare His co-equality with the Father and the Holy Ghost. But you and the Socinian really stand on the same ground—the ground of natural reason and carnal argument. He draws a natural conclusion that three cannot be one, and therefore rejects the Trinity; you draw a natural conclusion that a father must Exist before, and be superior to, his son, and as you believe the Lord Jesus to be a Person in the Godhead, you therefore reject on that ground the eternity of His Sonship. Thus, neither he nor you submit your mind to the Scriptures. You both really stand upon infidel ground, for both of you prefer your own reasonings and your preconceived notions to the truth as revealed in the Word of God. That speaks again and again of "the only-begotten Son of God," which, as we shall by-and-by show, refers to His divine nature, as in the following passage: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John i. 14).
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
My question was posed to "fredman" and it wasn't whether he thought MacArthur's now non-existent view(s) were heretical. Your response was inflammatory and at least disrespectful, not to mention, anything but helpful in providing an answer to my specific question. 
