Is this a heresy?

[food4thought]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

-----------------------------EDIT--------------------------------

I am in no way questioning the Trinity, nor the eternal and co-equal nature of Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit. Nor am I promoting any form of Adoptionism. The question I had (and have since found satisfactory answer in the wording of the Nicene Creed) was regarding whether the title "Son of God" has been eternally attributed to the Logos, or whether the Logos assumed the title "Son of God" at the Incarnation.

God bless;
Mike

 

[Albion]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

It's orthodox to believe that God took on human nature and became one of us at a certain point in time.

It would, however, be a heresy to believe/say that the Son is not the eternal God himself but only some extension of the Father.

 

[food4thought]

It's orthodox to believe that God took on human nature and became one of us at a certain point in time.

It would, however, be a heresy to believe/say that the Son is not the eternal God himself but only some extension of the Father.

Thanks for the response Albion. I do believe that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father, of one Being with Him and the Holy Spirit. I was wondering whether the title of Son of God was eternally attributed to Him and whether there was some historical council decision that would name what I think as heresy.

Thanks;
Mike

 

[Johndowling]

from what I understand Christ was in the beginning he did say he was the alpha and omega after all

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Father was always the Father, and so the Son was always the Son. (At least certainly in terms of created time.) And the Holy Spirit existed as well. The Holy Trinity was since before time.

The Incarnation is not what makes Christ the Son, if that's what you're asking (I think it is?). The Incarnation is what made Him man, as well as God.

I hope that helps.

(BTW, "heresy" is a technical term. Technically, at least, something must be named to be a heresy before it really is one. Just being wrong doesn't make it heresy. Technically. I'm not sure off the top of my head - sorry, a bit muddled still, post surgery - to recall if your question relates to a specific, named heresy. It probably does though. There were a number relating to the nature of the Son.)

ETA - I don't mean the last paragraph to sound condescending. I think you know all of that. Sometimes posting for general info, for completeness. Forgive me please if I offend.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the book of Daniel, we see that the fourth person who is in the fire with Daniel's friends is actually Jesus. For the king 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." (Daniel 3:25).​

Also, in the book of Daniel we learn that the Son of Man who comes before God the Father (i.e. the "Ancient of Days") is Jesus (See Daniel 7:9-14).

So Jesus holds both the titles as the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" before the Incarnation.

Note: Now, it is true, that in Daniel 7, this is a future vision of the Judgment, but this vision was GOD's way of declaring things before they happen. GOD was showing to Daniel a glimpse of what He was like (i.e. a partial reveal of the Trinity).


...

 

[~Anastasia~]

from what I understand Christ was in the beginning he did say he was the alpha and omega after all

and btw, welcome to CF, since I see you are new. We are glad you've joined us.

 

[food4thought]

from what I understand Christ was in the beginning he did say he was the alpha and omega after all

Welcome to the forums, John. I agree with your statement completely.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the response Albion. I do believe that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father, of one Being with Him and the Holy Spirit. I was wondering whether the title of Son of God was eternally attributed to Him and whether there was some historical council decision that would name what I think as heresy.

Thanks;
Mike

Yes, I understand the point better now. Offhand, however, I can't cite a council for you. There is the Athanasian Creed, which is one of the most widely accepted of Christian creeds, and it does everything but use the exact phrase "Son of God." I don't know if what it does say, which is very specific almost to the point of redundancy, helps you. However, this creed wasn't authored by any council.

 

[food4thought]

The Father was always the Father, and so the Son was always the Son. (At least certainly in terms of created time.) And the Holy Spirit existed as well. The Holy Trinity was since before time.

The Incarnation is not what makes Christ the Son, if that's what you're asking (I think it is?). The Incarnation is what made Him man, as well as God.

I hope that helps.

Yes that does help. It just seemed to make sense to me that way, but, I guess, I need to understand it better.

(BTW, "heresy" is a technical term. Technically, at least, something must be named to be a heresy before it really is one. Just being wrong doesn't make it heresy. Technically. I'm not sure off the top of my head - sorry, a bit muddled still, post surgery - to recall if your question relates to a specific, named heresy. It probably does though. There were a number relating to the nature of the Son.)

That is what I was afraid of... I taught this idea the other day in a Bible study, and even as I was teaching it I felt a check in my heart and a desire to find out if I was wrong.

ETA - I don't mean the last paragraph to sound condescending. I think you know all of that. Sometimes posting for general info, for completeness. Forgive me please if I offend.

No need to apologize, you were not condescending at all.

 

[food4thought]

In the book of Daniel, we see that the fourth person who is in the fire with Daniel's friends is actually Jesus. For the king 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." (Daniel 3:25).​

​

I agree that it was Jesus in the fire with them, but technically, the king said "like a son of the gods" (see the more modern translations), which proves nothing regarding the eternal Sonship of Christ.

Also, in the book of Daniel we learn that the Son of Man who comes before God the Father (i.e. the "Ancient of Days") is Jesus (See Daniel 7:9-14).

So Jesus holds both the titles as the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" before the Incarnation.

Once again, the newer translations reveal that it is more proper to place an "a" before "Son of Man", but there is no question that this reference is applied to Christ as He repeatedly called Himself the Son of Man. I must admit being a bit confused at this point... how could Jesus be called the Son of Man before His Incarnation?

Note: Now, it is true, that in Daniel 7, this is a future vision of the Judgment, but this vision was GOD's way of declaring things before they happen. GOD was showing to Daniel a glimpse of what He was like (i.e. the Trinity).

Ahhhh... I see now.

 

[food4thought]

Yes, I understand the point better now. Offhand, however, I can't cite a council for you. There is the Athanasian Creed, which is one of the most widely accepted of Christian creeds, and it does everything but use the exact phrase "Son of God." I don't know if what it does say, which is very specific almost to the point of redundancy, helps you. However, this creed wasn't authored by any council.

Thanks again Albion. I will look up the Athanasian Creed. I seem to remember a creed that said something along the lines of the Son being "eternally begotten of the Father" or something like that... anyone know which creed that is?

Thanks in advance;
Mike

 

[Albion]

Thanks again Albion. I will look up the Athanasian Creed. I seem to remember a creed that said something along the lines of the Son being "eternally begotten of the Father" or something like that... anyone know which creed that is?

Thanks in advance;
Mike

That's the Nicene Creed. It was created by a council and it does use the phrase 'Son of God.' I probably should have cited it in the first place except that I don't think it's as specific in describing the term's meaning as the Athanasian.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, the Nicene Creed is very specific in this point. It DOES say "begotten of the Father before all ages" but a very technical understanding of the timing of His "begottenness" is missed in the English translation. He is eternally begotten, not at a point in time. But we can also say with certainty that this means it does NOT refer to the Incarnation.

The missing words in the OT should not surprise us. It was a stumbling block for the Jews, that the full nature of the Holy Trinity was not revealed before the coming of Christ (in the Incarnation). It can't be found clearly articulated in the Old Testament, though with the understanding that came with Christ's teaching, we can look back now and see it hinted at.

 

[food4thought]

That's the Nicene Creed. It was created by a council and it does use the phrase 'Son of God.' I probably should have cited it in the first place except that I don't think it's as specific in describing the term's meaning as the Athanasian.

Actually, the Nicene Creed (325) does not say "eternally begotten of the Father", but the Creed of Constantinople (381) does say He was begotten "before all worlds (aeons)" (all of that according to Wikipedia). Still looking for the phrase "eternally begotten" even though the Creed of Constantinople does make my understanding heretical, or at least not in line with that council's creed.

Thanks again.
mike

 

[Albion]

Actually, the Nicene Creed (325) does not say "eternally begotten of the Father"....

What you put to us, however, and what I was working from was this:

I seem to remember a creed that said something along the lines of the Son being "eternally begotten of the Father"

 

[~Anastasia~]

Actually, the Nicene Creed (325) does not say "eternally begotten of the Father", but the Creed of Constantinople (381) does say He was begotten "before all worlds (aeons)" (all of that according to Wikipedia). Still looking for the phrase "eternally begotten" even though the Creed of Constantinople does make my understanding heretical, or at least not in line with that council's creed.

Thanks again.
mike

It is in the verb tense of "begotten" ... though you may need an expert (which I'm not) to explain it to you. There is both good and bad info online. Fortunately, I attend a Greek Church, and some of the people in our parish are native speakers who understand not only contemporary Greek but also Koine and internediate forms, have worked in translation and instructed at seminary level.

(LOL I get so amused by one person who gets frustrated with what seminarians think they know, but that's another topic.)

 

[AvgJoe]

I understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God thru whom God created the universe, and that He became the Son of God at His Incarnation. Is this heresy?

While there are Christians on both sides of this debate, 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), thereby strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation. 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 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, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

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 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 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. 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.”

www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

 

[~Anastasia~]

While there are Christians on both sides of this debate,

Hello.

I'm not looking to argue, but I am sincerely curious?

Are there indeed legitimate whole groups of Christians who question this? I'd be curious to know who ... I just have an interest in the development and changes of doctrine that happen.

I can understand those who reject the Holy Trinity would disagree but ... who else? I've not been aware of any?

Thank you.

 

[AvgJoe]

Hello.

I'm not looking to argue, but I am sincerely curious?

Are there indeed legitimate whole groups of Christians who question this? I'd be curious to know who ... I just have an interest in the development and changes of doctrine that happen.

I can understand those who reject the Holy Trinity would disagree but ... who else? I've not been aware of any?

Thank you.

Hi Anastasia,

While I don't, personally, know which group/s hold the doctrine of Incarnational Sonship, the referenced article gives the names of a few that held that view. From the article;

Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship 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, 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. They reject the doctrine of eternal Sonship 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 and that “Sonship” refers to the voluntary submission that Christ took to the Father at His incarnation (Philippians 2:5-8; John 5:19).

www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html