Featured Is The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ Biblical? Part 3

Then what are you going to do with this verse?... Brother Glen

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?

 

This:
Proverbs 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the PROPHECY: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

 

sin excepted. Agreed,
however Rom 8:3 God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, - In order to - Isa 53:6 the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.& 2 Cor 5:21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, - Balance of Rom 8:3 condemned sin in the flesh: - therefore - Balance of Cor 5:21 that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

 

I agree. Also the son of David.

concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;

Would you agree with me, that in bold, is being Spirit begotten, on the day of resurrection, of the Son of God in power, as the firstborn from the dead?

so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam, for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:45,46

That the resurrection of Christ could be construed as some form ( I can't help it, Morphe ) of being born again.

John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.

In what form did Mary bring forth the Word?

 

Yes, parallel thing, good point.

 

"And again" is a reference to the number of times something is said in the OT. To paraphrase:

"Jesus wasn't one of the angels. It says in the Bible in the Psalms, 'Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.' To which of the angles was that written? None! Again, the Bible says in Samuel, 'I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son,' (which we recognize to be a metaphor of the relationship between the Persons in the Godhead). Was He talking to angles? NO! Again in Psalm 97:7, the Bible says 'let all the angels worship Him."
​

I will say here that your insistence that 1:6 refers to the Second Advent, and not the First is the aberrant reading.

The Incarnation did not give Christ His title as Son. Sonship is His Person, as the Father is that Person. To say that the Son was not always the Son, is the same as saying the Father has not always been the Father—both very serious errors.

 

What if Jesus was not eternally begotten of the father though?

 

Self and eternally existing

 

Who was He then?

 

Each verse to which the Apostle alluded was written at different times.

Your point?

 

The following paper by Kevin Giles is chiefly about the Trinity and is in opposition to Wayne Grudem's trinitarian view that is outside of Nicene theology. The eternal generation of the Son is dealt with by Mr. Giles. The link is below. Relevant quotes are provided in this post.

The Nicene and Reformed doctrine of the Trinity

Kevin Giles on the substance of his disagreement with Wayne Grudem:

"There can be no denying that we have starkly opposing doctrines of the Trinity. Dr Grudem and Dr Ware argue on the basis of creaturely analogies for a hierarchically ordered Trinity where the Father rules over the Son, claiming this is historical orthodoxy; what the church has believed since 325 AD. I argue just the opposite. On the basis of scripture, I argue that the Father and the Son are coequal God, the Father does not rule over the Son. This is what the church has believed since 325 AD. You could not have two more opposing positions. There is no middle ground."

On the subordinate position of Creeds:

"Be assured, I do not place this creed or any other creed or confession above Scripture in authority or on an equal basis with Scripture. For me, and for 2 billion Christians, this creed expresses what the church has agreed is the teaching of Scripture. I believe every single statement in this creed reflects what the Bible says or implies. In my view, we have in this creed the most authoritative interpretation of what Scripture teaches on the Father-Son relationship."

On the co-authority of the Father and Son:

"This first clause in the Nicene Creed immediately draws to our attention the logical impossibility of confessing Jesus as Lord and at the same time arguing he is set under God the Father and must obey him. If the Father and the Son are both rightly confessed as Lord, the supreme co-rulers over all, then they are not differentiated in authority. They are one in dominion, rule, power and authority."

On Grudem's departure from Nicene theology:

In arguing unambiguously and repeatedly that the Father and the Son are essentially and eternally differentiated in authority, Dr Grudem and Ware contradict the first clause of the Christological confession in the Nicene Creed

1. Second, the Nicene Creed says, “We [Christians] believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only (monogenēs) Son of God, …. Again, we all know that the word monogenēs means “only” in the sense of “unique”; “one of a kind”. The Greek church fathers of course as Greek speakers also knew it meant “only” in the sense of “unique”; “one of a kind”. None of them thought it meant “only begotten”. What is more, none of them appealed to this word or the texts in which it is found as the basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

On the relevance of the word "Son" and the role of the Son of God:

"In the New Testament Jesus Christ is called the Son/Son of God to speak of his kingly status, not his subordination. The Reformed theologian and “complementarian”, John Frame, says,

There is a considerable overlap between the concepts of Lord and Son. … Both [titles] indicate Jesus’ powers and prerogatives as God, especially over God’s people: in other words, [the title Son speaks of his] divine control, authority, and presence.

I agree completely with Dr Frame. I believe the NT calls Jesus Christ “the Son of God” to speak of his kingly status NOT his subordinate status."

Dr. Robert Letham:

“The Arian argument that human sons are subordinate to their fathers led to their contention that the Son is subordinate to the Father. The church rejected the conclusion as heretical and opposed the premise as mistaken. Rather, [it taught], the Son is equal with the Father in status, power and glory”.

I do not have the time to post every relevant quote. Suffice to say that Mr. Giles paper is a stinging rebuke of Wayne Grudem's anti-Nicene and semi-Arian theology.

 

So the Trinity was the Brother, the Brother and the Brother?

 

Eternally God

 

There are all 3 self existing , and not dependent on each other to exist, correct?

 

By having it as the Lord Jesus depends on the father to exist, and the Spirit relies upon the Father and Jesus to exist, it does seem to make the Father superior to the other 2!