Sonship of Jesus Christ

Thread starter #1
This is an interesting topic on the views of Eternal Sonship vs the Incarnate Sonship;

  • Eternal Sonship holds the Son of God, as God, was begotten mysteriously in eternity by the Father.
    1. The Divine Nature of Jesus, His Deity, His Godhead, was eternally generated by God the Father.
    2. By means of eternal generation, God the Father begat, fathered, the Second Person of the Trinity.
    3. By means of eternal procession, God the Holy Spirit mystically proceeds from Father and Son.
    4. This wild doctrine is almost universally maintained by all "Christian" religious denominations.
    5. It is expressed plainly in the formal creeds and confessions, which venerate the Council of Nicea.
    6. The obvious and certain conclusion is a begotten god, which reduces Jesus to a begotten god.
    7. The NASV, in agreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, affirms this lie in John 1:18.
  • Incarnate Sonship holds the Son of God, Who is Jesus of Nazareth, was begotten in Mary's womb.
    1. The human nature of Jesus, or the body tabernacle for His divine nature, was born of the virgin.
    2. God's power came upon Mary in such a way that she conceived God's Son without use of a man.
    3. Jesus is fully Jehovah in His divine nature; He is the Word made flesh, Immanuel, God with us!
    4. Incarnation is a theological term to describe the infinite God taking on a human nature in time.
    5. Sonship is a simple term describing a male child or person in relation to one or both parents.
    6. Held by some faithful Baptists and others through the centuries, it has been despised by most.
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/christ/sonship-of-christ.php

We are Baptists, like John the Baptist, our Lord, His apostles, and many martyrs. We believe God chose to save some of rebellious mankind before the world began for the praise of His glorious grace and to leave the rest under condemnation for the praise of His wrath and power. Jesus died only for the elect, and the Spirit regenerates only them.

We want our assemblies to copy the apostolic churches. We find no evidence for Sunday Schools, pianos, statues, flags, plays, or other inventions.

We have similarities with the Primitive Baptists, the Particular Baptists, the Sovereign Grace Baptists, and the Reformed Baptists, among others.
 

hummerpoo

Senior Member
Art, did you really look at any of this.
I am WIDE OPEN to correction, but having spent only 10 or 15 min. with a document that I couldn't analyze in 6 mos. of hard work my reaction is "What a mess."
 
Thread starter #3
Art, did you really look at any of this.
I am WIDE OPEN to correction, but having spent only 10 or 15 min. with a document that I couldn't analyze in 6 mos. of hard work my reaction is "What a mess."
I've read through it twice. Not that I agree with it all but I didn't find it that hard to comprehend. It could be you were wearing your Eternal Sonship goggles which kept you from testing the spirits properly.

Did you look through this Church's "Articles of Faith"? When you come across a Church's views on a topic like Sonship that you don't agree with, what does it say about their other beliefs? Can you overlook their beliefs on Sonship but accept their beliefs on Election or works?

If they got so much right about everything else, how did they totally miss it on Sonship?
 

hummerpoo

Senior Member
I've read through it twice. Not that I agree with it all but I didn't find it that hard to comprehend. It could be you were wearing your Eternal Sonship goggles which kept you from testing the spirits properly.
We all have goggles, I can only trust in my goggles. I have no choice but to believe the inscription on the temple, "Scripture and Spirit".

Did you look through this Church's "Articles of Faith"?
No.

When you come across a Church's views on a topic like Sonship that you don't agree with, what does it say about their other beliefs? Can you overlook their beliefs on Sonship but accept their beliefs on Election or works?
Yes, to do otherwise is ad hominem fallacy. However, one doctrine many times is dependent upon, or reflected in another (Systematic Theology), to hold to two conflicting doctrines is erroneous. To put a patch on the ill-fitting parts is eisegesis, to find a working adaptor is theology.

If they got so much right about everything else, how did they totally miss it on Sonship?
Without a thorough examination, and likely with such an examination, an answer to the "how" question, >>edit—which is really a "why" question<<, could only be an attempt to read minds and hearts; I will pass.

How is God cloning Himself in time a superior understanding to God revealing Himself in time?
 
Last edited:
Top