Is this a heresy?

[Bible Highlighter]

​

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.

Well, while I find Modern Translations helpful in updating the KJV in what it says, I do not make Modern Translations my final word of authority. For a person can make the Word of God say almost anything if they do not have a nailed down one Word of God to rely upon like the KJV. For how do you know that the Modern Translations that say, "son of the Gods" got it right?

I believe the KJV is divinely inspired for several Biblical reasons.

1. Biblical Numerics.
2. Comparing the KJV vs. Modern Translations.
3. God's Word says that His Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations.​

Anyways, "son of the gods" sounds like a perversion because Jesus is not the "Son of the Gods" but He is the Son of God like the KJV says. For the devil would like nothing more than to bring the name of God down to his level. Also, the KJV has shown itself to be superior in many different ways Biblically. While I use Modern Translations to update the KJV language, the Modern Translations are not always 100% reliable. For the devil's name has been placed in many of them and many important truths in God's Word have been watered down or nuetered. But believers have a choice to draw from one vine or the other as their final Word of authority.

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?

While Jesus was not the Son of Man in the sense of taking on the flesh of Adam yet, Jesus could be called this still because angels have been referred to as men in the Bible and Jesus had made many pre-incarnate appearances under the title of: "The Messenger of the Lord" or the "Angel of the Lord" (KJV). Granted, please do not misunderstand me here. Jesus is not an angel. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or Trinity and Jesus is God Almighty and He has always existed as God. What I am meaning to say is that angels have bodies. Spiritual bodies. These are similar to physical bodies because they were able to eat food and drink that Abraham served to them. In the Incarnation Jesus took on a physical body of a man from the flesh of Adam. Think of it more as like God putting on a man suit. An empty shell of a body covered or housed the Living Word. For Jesus referred to His body as a temple. Yes, I believe Jesus suppressed His power of Omniscience during the Incarnation (or in the beginning) so as to be like a man in order to be our substitute. Anyways, what I am trying to say is that Jesus took on the flesh of angels or put on an angel suit or covering during the Old Testament. Jesus did not possess an angel already in existence that had it's own soul. No, no. Jesus merely had a spiritual empty shell of a body made to house His glory as GOD (So as not to kill people or to shock them by His holiness). Think of it like the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of smoke by day as a covering for GOD. That is the same thing I am talking about here in reference to Jesus making pre-incarnate appearances in the OT.

Anyways, to see verses on Christ being the "Messenger of the Lord." see this thread here:

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.

Ahhhh... I see now.

Sometimes GOD sees things as already done in His mind long before it actually happens.

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isaiah 46:10).

For Revelation 13:8 says that, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."


...

 

[~Anastasia~]

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

Wow, interesting.

I recognize some ancient heresies in there as well. I guess they DO keep cropping up.

I appreciate that info. My plate is pretty full right now, but I will definitely keep that in mind.

The mention of John MacArthur is of particular interest to me, because of family members. Should inspire some interesting discussion.

I appreciate the info.

 

[food4thought]

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

Thank you for such a thorough response, AvgJoe.

 

[Saint Beloved]

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?

Why would you think it heretical? Who ir what disturbed your spirit?

 

[food4thought]

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

Thank you again, AvgJoe. I have been reading the commentaries of both Clarke and Barnes, which is probably where the idea originated for me (though I was unaware of the source, TBH). It still seems to make more sense to me their way, but I acknowledge that your previous post seems very convincing.

 

[food4thought]

Why would you think it heretical? Who ir what disturbed your spirit?

IDK... maybe my subconscious remembered the phrase "eternally begotten of the Father" (still trying to figure out where I heard that), or maybe it was the Holy Spirit. Whichever it was, it happened as I was teaching on the subject in a small group Bible study at my church.

 

[food4thought]

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

sorry for the confusion, it's on me.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

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?

Yes, it is, though in fairness to you, I think you're simply being imprecise.

The Logos is eternally begotten of the Father, as we say in the Nicene Creed, hence was always the Son of God Who took on human nature at His incarnation in the womb of the Virgin.

 

[Saint Beloved]

IDK... maybe my subconscious remembered the phrase "eternally begotten of the Father" (still trying to figure out where I heard that), or maybe it was the Holy Spirit. Whichever it was, it happened as I was teaching on the subject in a small group Bible study at my church.

Only Begotten Son any of these?

[VERSE=Psalms 2:7,KJV_APOCRYPHA]I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.[/VERSE]

[VERSE=Isaiah 49:21,KJV_APOCRYPHA]Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been?[/VERSE]

[VERSE=John 1:14,KJV_APOCRYPHA]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.[/VERSE]

[VERSE=1 Corinthians 4:15,KJV_APOCRYPHA]For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.[/VERSE]

[VERSE=1 Peter 1:3,KJV_APOCRYPHA]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,[/VERSE]

[VERSE=1 John 5:1,KJV_APOCRYPHA]Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.[/VERSE]

 

[food4thought]

AHA! Found it... in the Catholic church's catechism, under Nicene Creed... so it was from the Nicene Creed, just a different English translation than the one that the Wiki page used.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Credo Chart

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," (Galatians 4:4).

God sends forth His Son made of a woman, made under the Law. How can God send forth His Son if He was not the Son yet?

Ephesians 3:17 says,
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love."

Jesus can live in our hearts.
Does He do this with His physical body?
No. Jesus lives inside our hearts spiritually.
Jesus can literally live inside of us on a spiritual level.
For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). Does the Son have to be physical to be inside of you? No. This is very important because you cannot have life without abiding in the Son. Paul says prove that Christ be in you unless you be reprobate.

Now, onto 1 John 4. It says,

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2).

Jesus Christ can live in our hearts. Jesus existed as spirit as the Living Word before He took on the flesh of a body. Jesus came into the flesh of a man.

1 John 3:8 talks about how the Son of God was manifested.

It is clear. The Son of God existed before His incarnation. It is why Jesus made such a big deal out of Peter saying that He was the Son of God.


...

 

[food4thought]

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.)

yep, I found it in the Nicene Creed, just a different English translation than the one Wikipedia used. So I seriously need to correct myself next Thursday at the Bible study! It's not like I am contradicting some midieval Catholic council or something... this is one of the earliest universal church councils! Ouch. Time to eat a little crow.

 

[food4thought]

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," (Galatians 4:4).

God sends forth His Son made of a woman, made under the Law. How can God send forth His Son if He was not the Son yet?

Ephesians 3:17 says,
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love."

Jesus can live in our hearts.
Does He do this with His physical body?
No. Jesus lives inside our hearts spiritually.
Jesus can literally live inside of us on a spiritual level.
For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). Does the Son have to be physical to be inside of you? No. This is very important because you cannot have life without abiding in the Son. Paul says prove that Christ be in you unless you be reprobate.

Now, onto 1 John 4. It says,

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2).

Jesus Christ can live in our hearts. Jesus existed as spirit as the Living Word before He took on the flesh of a body. Jesus came into the flesh of a man.

1 John 3:8 talks about how the Son of God was manifested.

It is clear. The Son of God existed before His incarnation. It is why Jesus made such a big deal out of Peter saying that He was the Son of God.


...

Yep. I don't think it's all that cut and dry from the Scriptures that you and AvgJoe posted, although, as you both indicated, it is implied. I might hold onto the idea if it didn't contradict the Nicene Creed... I hold those early universal church councils in high esteem.

 

[Saint Beloved]

Yep. I don't think it's all that cut and dry from the Scriptures that you and AvgJoe posted, although, as you both indicated, it is implied. I might hold onto the idea if it didn't contradict the Nicene Creed... I hold those early universal church councils in high esteem.

Howcome?

 

[~Anastasia~]

yep, I found it in the Nicene Creed, just a different English translation than the one Wikipedia used. So I seriously need to correct myself next Thursday at the Bible study! It's not like I am contradicting some midieval Catholic council or something... this is one of the earliest universal church councils! Ouch. Time to eat a little crow.

Ah, no fun to have to do so.

However ... it can be a great spiritual benefit to you to embrace the humility of the situation. And at the same time, you can present a good lesson to your class of being cautious about how things creep in to our (mis)understanding and how to find solid information by contrast, as well as an opportunity to praise God for nudging your spirit in the right direction.

Win, win, win.

 

[Albion]

Yep. I don't think it's all that cut and dry from the Scriptures that you and AvgJoe posted....

I agree. Those verses don't seem at all to say that the Son didn't exist as the Son before the Incarnation.

 

[food4thought]

Howcome?

Because at the earliest councils the bishops were almost universally godly men, some of whom had been persecuted under the Romans before Constantine. We're not talking about the bishops who came later who were hungry for money and power, not godliness. I believe the Holy Spirit was at work in those men at the earliest councils... doesn't mean they're infallible, just that I believe they were filled with the Spirit.

 

[GingerBeer]

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?

Yes. The name for the heresy is adoptionism.

 

[Saint Beloved]

Because at the earliest councils the bishops were almost universally godly men, some of whom had been persecuted under the Romans before Constantine. We're not talking about the bishops who came later who were hungry for money and power, not godliness. I believe the Holy Spirit was at work in those men at the earliest councils... doesn't mean they're infallible, just that I believe they were filled with the Spirit.

We weren't there who knows what they were like take it all with a pinch of salt!

 

[food4thought]

Yes. The name for the heresy is adoptionism.

Well, technically I reject Adoptionism. AvgJoe posted this earlier, and it accurately sums up what I was thinking:

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).

God bless;
Mike