KJV Only movement?

Interesting article.

I also noticed that the following might rub some extreme KJVOist wrong:


Section 1: The Bible

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God (Matt 5:18; 2Tim 3:16-17). We hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, infallible, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2Tim 3:16-17). The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Scripture (2Pet 1:21). While still using the individual personalities of the human authors, the Spirit superintended them to insure that they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission.

Also for those KJVOist who deny the Eternal Sonship:

Section 2: God *notice eternally existing in 3 Persons a.k.a supporting the Eternal Sonship!

We believe in one Triune God, who is Creator of all (Deu 6:4; Col 1:16), eternally existing in three distinct Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (2Cor 13:14), yet one in being, essence, power and glory, having the same attributes and perfections (John 10:30). God is our creator (Gen 1:1), is eternal (Psa 90:2), infinite (1Tim 1:17), sovereign (Psa 93:1) and unsearchable (Rom 11:33-34). God is omniscient (Psa 139:1-6), omnipresent (Psa 139:7-13), omnipotent (Rev 19:6), and unchanging (Mal 3:6). God is holy (Isa 6:3), just (Deut 32:4), and righteous (Exo 9:27). God is love (1John 4:8), gracious (Eph 2:8), merciful (1Pet 1:3), and good (Rom 8:28).



Section 3: Jesus Christ

We believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is fully God, the expressed image of the Father, who, without ceasing to be God, became man in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful man (Matt 1:21; John 1:18; Col 1:15).

We believe that God the Son became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ; that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and was born of the virgin Mary; that He is truly God and truly man; that He lived a perfect, sinless life; that all His teachings are true (Isa 14; Matt 1:23). We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind (1John 2:2) as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice (Isa 53:5-6). We hold that His death is efficacious for all who believe (John 1:12; Acts 16:31); that our justification is grounded in the shedding of His blood (Rom 5:9; Eph 1:17); and that it is attested by His literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Matt 28:6; 1Pet 1:3).

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven in His glorified body (Acts 1:9-10) and is now seated at the right hand of God as our High Priest and Advocate (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25).


Yeap those KJVOist who deny Jesus His Eternal Sonship will not like this site!

 

Just curious who the KJVo are that deny the eternal "Sonship" of Christ? Quotes?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I, for one do not accept that the doctrine of the "Eternal Sonship" of Jesus Christ is Biblical. We are clearly told in Scripture, that Christ's "Sonship" relates to His Incarnation. Read, for example, Luke 1:35;

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

The Greek, "klethestai" (shall be called), is in the future tense. If He was already the "Son of God", Then, we would have expected it to read: "is the Son of God"

We also have: "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee. And, again, I shall be (future tense) to Him for Father, and He shall be (future tense) to me for Son" (Hebrews 1:5)

These words were spoken as part of a prophesy for Jesus Christ. (Psalm 2:7, and (2 Samual 7:14)

The doctrine of the "Eternal Sonship" is part of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as set forth by Origen, together with the "Eternal Generation" of the Son "out of the Father". This was done to show that the Father alone is "unbegetton", while the Son is "begotten out of the Father". Origen's Christology made Jesus in to a "second god", inferior to the Father.

I reject both these doctrines as being heretical.

 

I'm confused.

1) Is the doctrine of Eternal Sonship that Jesus the Son existed before his incarnation?

2) Is Origen's doctrine different from this?

3) Isn't the doctrine based on John 1:1?

4) Which KJVOs deny the Eternal Sonship and why? Is it because they believe the Divine Logos is the bible and not Christ?

 

I, for one do not accept that the doctrine of the "Eternal Sonship" of Jesus Christ is Biblical. We are clearly told in Scripture, that Christ's "Sonship" relates to His Incarnation. Read, for example, Luke 1:35;

Then what was the Father of if the Son was not the Son before the incarnation? God does not change He has always been the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Rev. 13:8,"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." KJV

Who is the lamb slain from the foundation of the World?

Hebrews 13:7-14 (NASB)
7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp.
12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

Jesus deity has never changed. To deny the Eternal Sonship is to merit a change therefore that is a false belief that goes against the scriptures when the scriptures are taken as a whole.

Daniel 3:25,"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." KJV

OT referring to the Son of God!

The Incarnation is simply God the Son becoming man to die for our sins. Jesus was no less the Son prior to the Incarnation.


This is a from a local KJVO church. Pastor Crosby and I had a friendly debate about the Eternal Sonship. To deny the Eternal Sonship is to deny the never changing Trinity.

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/pdf/sonship-of-christ.pdf

I'll pull up some more quotes later.

 

The doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, means that Jesus was always "The Son of God", and this "role" was not limited to the Incarnation and there after.

To deny this does NOT deny the eternal existence of "The Word", as one Member of the Holy Trinity. In the Old Testament, especially in Genesis to Judges, we have Jesus Christ as "The Angel (lit. Messenger) of the Lord". In Passages like Genesis 16, 22, and Exodus 3, "The Angel" is clearly identified as "Yahweh". Jesus, is eternal as much as the Father and Holy Spirit are.

Origen, who rejected that Jesus was of the same "nature" as the Father, actually taught that He was the first to be begotten by the Father, and then Jesus created the Holy Spirit. His teachings on Jesus and the Holy Spirit, are clearly heretical.

Origen's commentary on John's Gospel, especially 1:1-4, clearly shows that he rejected the Holy Trinity.

 

David J Says:

"To deny the Eternal Sonship is to deny the never changing Trinity"

Not it is not. How can the Titles "Father", "Son", etc, be taken to confirm the Holy Trinity? Our basis for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is from the teachings of both Testaments, where we have Three Persons Who have the attributes of Deity, equally. As I have just shown. In the Old Testament, Jesus was NOT known as "the Son of God", but rather "the Angel of the Lord", Who was indeed very God, as Yahweh. Since we have One Member of the Trinity as "the Angel", Who is said to be "from Yahweh", this makes Two Persons Who are equally God.

You simply cannot argue form the passage in Daniel, that "THE Son of God" is meant, as the Hebrew literally means: "a son of the gods"

If you accept the doctrine of the "Eternal Sonship" of Jesus Christ. Then do you also accept the "Eternal Generation"?

 

Thanks. Now can you explain why it is so important to you and those KJVO folks who deny this doctrine that it be denied?

I'll check out his commentary.

This is some interesting ideas but I don't think Origen is denying the Trinity here.

 

Of the Holy Spirit, Origen says:

"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same thee we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." On John 1:3

"So far from teaching the Nicene doctrine of the homoousion he (Origen) taught that the essence of the Father and of the Son was not there same, but that there was a difference of essence (heterotes tes ousias), thus paving the way for Arianism...He says that the eternal generation of the Logos proves that he has an hypostasis of his own; but in granting the personality of the Son, Origen makes him inferior to the Father, and even goes as far as to suggest that he is a creature (kitsma), in so far as he is theopoioumenos" (Dr F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church to A.D.461, pp.163,165)

Gold Dragon, what do you mean by: "Thanks. Now can you explain why it is so important to you and those KJVO folks who deny this doctrine that it be denied?"

 

Why do you deny the Eternal Sonship?

 

Why do you deny the Eternal Sonship? </font>[/QUOTE]a. because it is unbiblical
b. because it makes Jesus inferior, not in status, but Person to the Father.

I believe that all Three Persons in the Godhead are: co-equal, co-eternal, and co-essential.

 

I think this discussion is in the wrong place

 

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

 

Because some misinterpret Origen's teaching to support their non-Trinitarian views does not make Origen's view non-Trinitarian.

 

Can you elaborate on this? What does being inferior in Person mean and why is this wrong?

I think it is easy to show that Christ submitted himself to God the Father and God the Spirit many times in scripture.

Where is the scripture that supports this co-equal quality? I'm not saying it isn't there. I'm just wondering where the support is for it. This whole topic is new to me.

 

Then how do you deal with Jn 1:1 and Gen. 1:1?

 

Because some misinterpret Origen's teaching to support their non-Trinitarian views does not make Origen's view non-Trinitarian. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, Origen,s views on Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as from his own writings, are clearly heretical. They are far too many to go into here. But, if you check out Dr Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. II, you will see much documented evidence. Schaff's works are available at www.biblecentre.net under "history".

 

I don't deny that Origen taught some strange theology that we would now consider unorthodox.

I would say your denial of the Eternal Sonship is comparable but I am willing to be proven wrong.

I have heard many claims of Origen being non-Trinitarian that have never been substantiated by Origen's own writings. I would prefer not to have an anti-Origen "historian" interpret for me what Origen wrote.

 

Then how do you deal with Jn 1:1 and Gen. 1:1? </font>[/QUOTE]What is your point here. John 1:1 says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

NOTE: Jesus is not called "Son" here.

I am NOT denying that Christ is eternal, if thats what you are getting at. I do however deny that His "Sonship" is eternal, (eternal past). Even the Scripture from Proverb's 30.4 that has been posted here does not prove that God has a Son, as this only shows someone as the question, it is not showing this to be a fact.