Is this a heresy?

[food4thought]

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

Point taken... it still is hard for me to reject the teaching of the Nicene Creed!

 

[AvgJoe]

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.

You're welcome Anastasia. Always glad to help.

 

[Saint Beloved]

Point taken... it still is hard for me to reject the teaching of the Nicene Creed!

Faith in God not men if we lost the Bible and all the written doctrines in our own languages again atleast we'd still have God.

 

[AvgJoe]

Thank you for such a thorough response, AvgJoe.

You're welcome.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[GingerBeer]

Well, technically I reject Adoptionism.

The first chapter of the gospel according to John asserts that the Word was with God from the beginning and that He is God the Son.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, 'This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me."') From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.
John 1:1-18
​

The underlined portions of the passage imply that the Word was God the Son from the beginning. This appears to be a sharp contrast with theories teaching adoption as son at some time in earthly history.

 

[AvgJoe]

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.

Eternal Sonship seems to have much more biblical support than Incarnational Sonship.

 

[AvgJoe]

I might hold onto the idea if it didn't contradict the Nicene Creed... I hold those early universal church councils in high esteem.

That phrase in the Nicene Creed, "eternally begotten of the Father," is an affirmation of Eternal Sonship, not a denial of it.

 

[food4thought]

That phrase in the Nicene Creed, "eternally begotten of the Father," is an affirmation of Eternal Sonship, not a denial of it.

It is that fact which prevents me from holding onto the concept of Incarnational Sonship. Sorry for the confusion.

I was conflicted, because Incarnational Sonship makes better sense to me theoretically, and it seems to line up better with Hebrews 1:5 (which is part of the passage I was teaching on last Thursday). Yet you have posted a host of other passages that imply (at least) Eternal Sonship, and the Nicene Creed explicitly endorses Eternal Sonship, so I am now constrained to go with Eternal Sonship; trusting the bulk of Scripture and the wisdom of the Nicene bishops.

 

[food4thought]

The first chapter of the gospel according to John asserts that the Word was with God from the beginning and that He is God the Son.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, 'This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me."') From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.
John 1:1-18
​

The underlined portions of the passage imply that the Word was God the Son from the beginning. This appears to be a sharp contrast with theories teaching adoption as son at some time in earthly history.

I understand. The difference is mainly that I did not view Christ as being "adopted" at any time, but that He was "begotten" as Son at the Incarnation (even though He was co-eternal with the Father as the Word of God). It's all a moot point now, since I have been corrected in my thinking.

 

[food4thought]

Can someone help me understand Hebrews 1:5 in light of Eternal Sonship? That verse seems to imply Incarnational Sonship... I can't get the thought out of my mind.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

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?

. Nope it's not 1 Timothy 3:16 16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Can someone help me understand Hebrews 1:5 in light of Eternal Sonship? That verse seems to imply Incarnational Sonship... I can't get the thought out of my mind.

For one, it's a quote from the Psalms, is it not? The Holy Trinity was not perfectly understood at that time ...

I'd have to research to be sure of what I think I know in more depth. But don't let an OT reference disturb a NT understanding.

 

[Anguspure]

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?

The title Son of God is an analogy that breaks at some point, like so many of the names of God that fail to describe Him completely.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

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.

Wrong. Nicea I in 325 IS the earliest Ecumenical Council.

Christ is risen!

 

[Jack Isaacks]

The title Son of God is an analogy that breaks at some point, like so many of the names of God that fail to describe Him completely.

No, Son of God is NOT analogy that breaks down. It's what St. Peter replied to the question, "Who do you that that I am," and Jesus approved of it.

Christ is risen!

 

[JingshenBianxi]

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?

He became the Son of MAN...at His Incarnation...but has always been the Son of God.

 

[AvgJoe]

It is that fact which prevents me from holding onto the concept of Incarnational Sonship. Sorry for the confusion.

I was conflicted, because Incarnational Sonship makes better sense to me theoretically, and it seems to line up better with Hebrews 1:5 (which is part of the passage I was teaching on last Thursday). Yet you have posted a host of other passages that imply (at least) Eternal Sonship, and the Nicene Creed explicitly endorses Eternal Sonship, so I am now constrained to go with Eternal Sonship; trusting the bulk of Scripture and the wisdom of the Nicene bishops.

Oh, ok, guess I got confused somewhere along the way, as I thought you were saying the opposite. All good.

 

[food4thought]

Wrong. Nicea I in 325 IS the earliest Ecumenical Council.

Christ is risen!

I stand corrected.

Christ is risen indeed!

 

[food4thought]

For one, it's a quote from the Psalms, is it not? The Holy Trinity was not perfectly understood at that time ...

I'd have to research to be sure of what I think I know in more depth. But don't let an OT reference disturb a NT understanding.

Thanks for the thought... anything further you could add would be appreciated if you have the time. My commentaries are useless on this verse.