What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

We plunge into this issue with some reservations. This is one of those doctrinal issues that has nothing of benefit for the average Christian. The eternal status of Jesus, whether as the Son or as the Word became flesh, is completely irrelevant to living a life of faith and obedience, bearing fruit, being generous, sharing the gospel, and loving one another. It appears here because we felt the need to point out the inadequacies of gotquestions.org's presentation.

In addition, we need to understand that the triune God exists above and beyond time. As such, it is almost fruitless to ascertain what and when God did things at a point in time. So these efforts to establish if and when the status of the Son changed almost become irrelevant. 

Is Jesus' status as the Son an eternal status? Yes. Did He become the Son at His incarnation? Yes. The coexistence of two seemingly contradictory things make up a paradox, which the western mind is compelled to attempt to resolve. See our discussion of Bible paradoxes here.

We should mention that we really don't have a dog in this fight, although we would tend to lean toward incarational sonship. Jesus' eternal status may indeed be the Son. This would not exclude the idea that He was known as the Word, became flesh (Jn. 1:14). Either way, He is savior of the world, the lamb of God, and the lion of the tribe of Judah, the uncreated creator.

Lastly, the author will make summary statements based solely on inference at least five times, for which we have added emphasis. This is a notably weak way of ascertaining doctrine. Also, the author uses the word "simply" six times in this article, as if the matter is not complex. If it is simple, then we shouldn't have to infer so much.

----------------------

The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God. (We hope the authors will demonstrate this with the Bible.)

Yes, the eternal Sonship is biblical and is a view that is widely held among Christians and has been throughout church history. It is important, however, to remember when discussing the doctrine of eternal Sonship that there are evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate. This is not to say that this is not an important doctrine, because it is; (Why is the doctrine important? The author presumes it but never explain why.)

it simply acknowledges the fact that there are orthodox or evangelical Christians that hold or have held both views. Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship are not denying the triune nature of God or the deity or eternality of Christ, and those that embrace the eternal Sonship of Christ are not inferring that Jesus Christ was anything less than fully God.

Throughout church history the doctrine of eternal Sonship has been widely held, with most Christians believing that Jesus existed as God’s eternal Son before creation. (Appeal to History, which is not the biblical case.)

It is affirmed in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." It was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed.

There is considerable biblical evidence to support the eternal Sonship of Christ. First of all, there are many passages that clearly identify that it was “the Son” who created all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2), (Let's quote the verses:

Col. 1:13-16 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

He. 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

thereby strongly implying [emphasis added] that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation. ("Strongly implied" is not a feature of determining doctrine. It's a bit of a stretch to consider these doctrinal proof texts. There are multiple topics contained in these verses, including salvation, the kingdom, deity, creation, authority, and prophecy. Because of the mixing of topics, it would be difficult to deduce how or when the Son comes into the picture and in what context.

The Hebrews passage is interesting, in that the previous verse describes God's operation through the prophets of old, with the cited verse contrasting this by Him speaking via His Son. So previous to the incarnation, God spoke one way, then changed to speaking through His Son. We would rightly ask, what else, if anything, changed in this process?)

When one considers these passages, it seems clear that the most normal and natural meaning of the passages is that at the time of creation Jesus was the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune Godhead, thus supporting the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

Second, there are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied [emphasis added] in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, (Let's quote the passage:

Ga. 4:4-6 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. (Again we find an ambiguous statement in that we don't know when Jesus is labeled the Son. Notice Paul clarifies his point by saying "born of a woman." This is an indicator that Jesus' human person is under discussion. But again, the ambiguity is stark.)

Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation. (This is an odd argument. Who has suggested that the Holy Spirit changed somehow?)

All three Persons of the Triune Godhead have existed for all eternity, and their names reveal who they are, not simply what their title or function is.

Third, 1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden. (The Greek word phaneroó means to unveil or show forth. We tend to think that this would be the showing forth is as the Son at His incarnation.)

The idea communicated in this verse is not that the second Person of the trinity became the Son of God, but that the already existing Son of God was made manifest or appeared in order to fulfill God’s predetermined purpose. This idea is also seen in other verses such as John 11:27 and 1 John 5:20.

Fourth, Hebrews 13:8 teaches that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” This verse again seems to support the doctrine of eternal Sonship. (This verse does not mean that God never changes His methods or activities. All sorts of doctrinal error could come from such an idea imposed upon this verse, which for examples charismatics do when defending prophecy.

For example, the author previously cited He. 1:2:

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

If we were to assert that God never changes in any way, then this verse would be invalid, because He certainly changed how He was going to speak to us.)

The fact that Jesus’ divine nature is unchanging would seem to indicate that He was always the Son of God because that is an essential part of His Person. ("Seem to indicate" is not an adequate basis for determining doctrine.)

At the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, but His divine nature did not change, nor did His relationship with the Father. This same truth is also implied [emphasis added] in John 20:31, where we see John’s purpose in writing his gospel was so that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” It does not say that He became the Son of God but that He is the Son of God. The fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God is an essential aspect of Who He is and His work in redemption.

Finally, one of the strongest evidences for the eternal Sonship of Christ is the triune nature of God and the eternal relationship that exists among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Particularly important is the unique Father/Son relationship that can only be understood from the aspect of Christ’s eternal Sonship. (The exclusive nature of this eludes us. Heretical beliefs understand this relationship differently, where the Son is viewed as a created being. There is more than one way of understanding a variety of doctrines, so the author's summary statement is false.)

This relationship is key to understanding the full measure of God’s love for those whom He redeems through the blood of Christ. The fact that God the Father took His Son, the very Son He loved from before the foundation of the world, and sent Him to be a sacrifice for our sins is an amazing act of grace and love that is best understood from the doctrine of eternal Sonship. (Another summary statement. We would think that those who view Jesus as a created being have no less regard for His saving grace.)

One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied [emphasis added] in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. 

At His incarnation the Son “came from the Father” in the same sense as upon His resurrection He returned “to the Father.” Implied [emphasis added] in this verse is the fact that if Jesus was the Son after the resurrection, then He was also the Son prior to His incarnation. (In a couple of paragraphs the author will write, "throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel." So the Father's eternal status as father is irrespective of His "one and only Son." Yahweh was already "father.")

Other verses that support the eternal Sonship of Christ would include John 17:5 and John 17:24, which speak of the Father’s love for the Son from “before the foundation of the world.” (Let's quote the verses:

Jn. 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jn. 17:24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

These verse would apply whether or not the Son is eternally the Son. They are both part of a prayer Jesus prayed as the incarnate Son.)

After one considers the many arguments for the doctrine of eternal Sonship, it should become clear that this is indeed a biblical doctrine that finds much support in Scripture. However, that is not to imply that arguments cannot be made against the doctrine as well, or that all Christians will agree to this doctrine. While it has been the view of the majority of Christian commentators throughout history, there have been several prominent Christians on the other side of the issue as well.

Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship (Notice how those who believe differently are deniers.)

would instead hold to a view that is often referred to as the Incarnational Sonship, which teaches that while Christ preexisted, He was not always the Son of God. Those that hold this view believe Christ became the Son of God at some point in history, with the most common view being that Christ became the Son at His incarnation. However, there are others who believe Christ did not become the Son until sometime after His incarnation, such as at His baptism, His resurrection, or His exaltation. It is important to realize that those who deny the eternal Sonship of Christ still recognize and affirm His deity and His eternality.

Those who hold this view see the Sonship of Christ as not being an essential part of Who He is, (This is an unjustified conclusion, and suggests a conscious attempt to diminish other views.)

but instead see it as simply being a role or a title or function that Christ assumed at His incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation. Throughout history many conservative Christians have denied the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Some examples would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Finis J. Dake, Walter Martin, and at one time John MacArthur. It is important to note, however, that several years ago John MacArthur changed his position on this doctrine and he now affirms the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

One of the verses commonly used to support Incarnational Sonship is Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of God the Father’s begetting of God the Son as an event that takes place at a specific point in time: “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. And again. I will be a Father to Him. And He shall be a Son to Me.” Those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship point out two important aspects of this verse. 1—that “begetting” normally speaks of a person’s origin, and 2—that a Son is normally subordinate to his father. (The author previously quoted the Nicene Creed: "...eternally begotten of the Father... Is the author now rejecting the concept of "begotten?")

They reject the doctrine of eternal Sonship (Again note the pejorative language - "Reject.")

in an attempt to preserve the perfect equality and eternality of the Persons of the Triune Godhead. In order to do so, they must conclude that “Son” is simply a title or function that Christ took on at His incarnation (Why must they conclude this?)

and that “Sonship” refers to the voluntary submission that Christ took to the Father at His incarnation (Philippians 2:5-8; John 5:19).

Some of the problems with the Incarnational Sonship of Christ are that this teaching confuses or destroys the internal relationships that exist within the Trinity, because if the Son is not eternally begotten by the Father, (So the author does accept the idea that Jesus was begotten, with the modifier "eternally." This is confusing and illogical. "Begotten" means there was a beginning. It isn't possible to be "eternally begotten." It is the equivalent of saying, “Christ had an eternal beginning.” Can something  both begin and not have been begun?)

then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. (He repeats his earlier statement, again without documentation or discussion.)

Also, if there is no Son prior to the incarnation, then there is no Father either; and yet throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel. (The author refutes himself. If God was the father of Israel, He is father, regardless of the eternal nature of Jesus.)

Instead of having a triune God eternally existing in three distinct Persons with three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship end up with a nameless Trinity prior to the incarnation, (The trinity is definitely suggested in the OT, but not revealed. Why should we feel a burden to name the persons of the trinity in the OT when God does not do so?)

and we would be forced to say that God has chosen not to reveal Himself as He truly is, but only as He was to become. In other words, instead of actually revealing who He is, the Triune God instead chose to reveal Himself by the titles He would assume or the roles that He would take on and not who He really is. (No, because God did not "become" something He wasn't before. The author does not appear to understand the idea of progressive revelation. Just because God didn't tell us something in one place does not mean it wasn't so. The author himself discussed this. He wrote, The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden.)

This is dangerously close to modalism (No, it's not. Modalism postulates one person manifesting in three ways. It is an entirely different concept. Incarnational sonship, as the author previously wrote, is not heretical.)

and could easily lead to false teachings about the nature of God. One of the weaknesses of the doctrine of incarnational Sonship is that the basic relationships existing among the members of the Trinity are confused and diminished. Taken to its logical conclusion, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ reduces the Trinity from the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to simply Number One, Number Two and Number Three Persons—with the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation, destroying the God-given order and relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.

(Some final thoughts. 

The author did not discuss any verses that might support incarnational sonship: 

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Lk. 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.

Lk. 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Is. 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Ps. 89:27 I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

Ac. 13:33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."

These and other passages need to be addressed by advocates for "eternal sonship."

Lastly, we need to deal with the idea of "only begotten." The phrase is found in Jn. 1:14, Jn. 1:18, Jn. 3:16, and Jn. 3:18. We believe this is a misleading translation. The word is monogenés: From monos and ginomai; only-born, i.e. Sole -- only (begotten, child).

Ginomai means to come into being, to happen, to become... We know that Jesus did not come into being at any time, let alone at the incarnation, but the Son certainly did.

Overall, the author's presentation is problematic. Incomplete at best, misleading at worst.