ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 85958
Dec 16 06 10:14 AM
Administrator
Quote:THE GREAT SEMANTIC BAMBOOZLE(The Begotten God versus Eternal Sonship)By Herb Evans No Man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which IS in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -- John 1:18 "If Wescott and Hort's reading, 'the only BEGOTTEN GOD,' is correct, we have a new proof of Christ's ETERNAL SONSHIP."-- Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 341 [caps mine] Calvin waves aside ETERNAL GENERATION as an 'absurd fiction'" -- quoting Allen, Jonathan Edwards p. 353, 354, Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 341 [caps mine] "The Greek text of John 1:18 refers to Him as the 'ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD.' Note that it says 'God' not 'Son' - the only begotten God." -- Bob Ross, Biblical Evangelist, July 1991, (Bob Sumner also sponsored Bob Ross statement in his Eternal Sonship tract) [caps mine] To what Greek text, does this Bible Corruptor refer? To the TR (any edition)? No! The majority text? No! The Byzantine text (any edition)? No? Well, does he refer to any English type set Bible before the KJB? No? To what does Bob Ross refer? The Greek Text, which Ross refers to, is the sort found in papal libraries in Mount Sinai waste baskets or in eclectic texts. You see Bob Ross' roots are Alexandrian. He is a link chain descendant of Tischedorf, Tregelles, Wescott, and Hort. Actually, Bob applauds Hort as "F. J. A. Hort, of Hort and Wescott fame "a noted scholar" and "eminent linguistic master." (ECCLESIA, by Bob Ross, p. 5, 10) We are not talking about only a challenge to the English Bible, but we are also talking about a challenge to the Greek TR and majority texts, which have the "begotten Son" and not the begotten God of Ross, Augustus Strong, and the Jehovahs Witnesses. There is absolutely no other passage, where such terminology is used in any bible. To oppose Bob Ross' perversion is not to oppose some aspect of the Son of God's deity or His Beings eternal preexistence as God as Ross charges King James Onlys. The mere availability of some higher or nobler word or concept in some obscure text does not demand its automatic insertion in our English Bible nor its authenticity nor correctness. In his tract, Bob Ross cites A. T. Robertson, B.B. Warfield (father of the Bible being inspired in only the originals), W.G.T Shedd, A.H. Strong, Henry Alford, Alan Hovey, and John Gill to prove either the Begotten God or eternal generation. Strange it is that these folks are now linked to the Jehovah Witness bible, Wescott/Hort, and modern versions of the Bible. Evidently, they were fed a hook and grabbed it.The Intimidation Trap Bob Ross and Andrew the Apostate Sandlin play theology with their Calvinist toy per Catholic standard operating procedure. They intimidate folks by branding them as "heretics," if they attack or refuse to bow down to their "ancient creeds" and "confessions" and church councils (traditions of men and canned belief systems). They seek to obligate believers to extra-scriptural language, which is not even FOUND in the scriptures. Not to say that some creeds and confessions are inaccurate nor that there is not some place for them. A pastor friend raises dogs and sometimes has a need to cover the floor with something. Well, one spoiler plus one apostate still equal two losers! Bob Ross and Andrew the Apostate Sandlin had been doing their best to get certain Bible believers (King James Onlys) to deny the preexistent deity and eternality of our Saviour. Make no mistake about it; this issue is not about the deity of the Son of God. This is about King James Onlys, whom Ross would like to destroy along with their KJB. In a letter to Dallas Bunch (5/11/96), Ross quotes Herb Evans as once saying in the BBB: "He (Evans) once slipped-up and asserted that 'only begotten Son' referred to the 'same essence as His Father, even God,' (BBB Jan. '92, p. 10) . . ." Always check out Ross when he quotes you, for he takes tiny excerpts and adds "Dan Rather" spins to your quotations. The truth of the matter is that the article to which my comment refers, was an article about Bob Ross' perversion of John 1:18 (in Bob Sumner's paper, The Biblical Evangelist). Ross changed the "only begotten Son" to the "only begotten God" without any justification from the English or any trustworthy Greek (the corrupt Alexandrian Greek or Wescott/Hort eclectic Greek notwithstanding). Evans was simply allowing Bob Ross' terminology about Christ's deity to stand. No slip! No assertion! No big deal! Notice what Evans actually said: It is most noble to defend any aspect of the deity of Christ. How can you find fault with an apologetic, which contends that Jesus Christ was the same essence as the Father, EVEN GOD. -- Herb Evans Herb Evans was endorsing Christ's "deity" (and still does) by the words "the same essence as the Father," adding the careful adjunct "even God." The Son of God must need be God (deity) just as the Son of man must be man (humanity). Herb Evans meant nothing more than this nor was he belaboring a spin on the word "begotten" as do Ross and other Calvinists. Nor did Evans come by some new found view as Ross suggests. (Don't put words in our mouths, Bobby, unless that is the only way that you can snooker folks.) Still, for the record, the Word (in order to be God) must be eternal without beginning and end (John 1:1,14). When the Word is MADE flesh, He becomes the Son of God or the God/Man. Herb Evans has no objection to the terms eternal Son, eternal Christ, eternal King, eternal Lamb, eternal Saviour, eternal Word, eternal High Priest, eternal order of Melchisedec, eternal God, eternal trinity, if we are talking about His eternal Being or Person or Deity. Nevertheless, we do have objections, if the function of the title is said to be eternal in order to satisfy some inner craving for Calvinist predestination and election support. God the Word, who was with God, had the same preexistent essence in the sense of GOD IS SPIRIT. However, something in that GOD IS SPIRIT essence changed, when God the Son was born and CAME IN THE FLESH as the God/man, denial of which makes one an antichrist. Calvinists must inject their philosophy into the Bible by inventing extra-scriptural terminology, i.e., effectual calling, irresistible grace, unconditional election, eternal day, same essence, eternal Sonship, eternal generation, and so forth. Nevertheless, is the logical outcome of their "same essence (Father and Son)" premise the "eternal generation of the Father" or an "eternally begotten Father? -- If they are the same essence in the sense that eternal Sonship advocates mean it, then they are both begotten. No? (Gets hairy, doesnt it?) Still, such phrases as "eternal generation" and "eternally begotten" are contradictions of terms and scripture in that an eternal birth is ridiculous (oxymoron). These are phrases invented or theologically interpolated by certain Calvinists, who would bind and/or impose on others ancient "creeds" and "confessions (mostly Protestant and Catholic)," which do not even agree with each other. We ain't buying their theological semantic bamboozle! This is all doctrine by inference and/or innuendo.Why all the Eternal Sonship Fuss? For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee? And again I WILL be to him a FATHER, and he SHALL be to me a SON. -- Heb 1:5 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN THEE. -- Psa. 2:7 "The dispute concerning the eternal filiation of our Lord betrays more of presumptuous curiosity than of reverent faith. It is an attempt to explain where it is far better to adore. We could give rival expositions of this verse, but we forbear. The controversy is one of the most unprofitable which ever engaged the pens of theologians. -- C.H. Spurgeon, TREASURIES OF DAVID, p. 19 Further proof that the Spirit is NOT HERE TREATING OF THE ESSENTIAL DEITY OR ETERNAL SONSHIP of Christ is seen by a glance at the passage from which these words are taken . . . The reference (Heb. 1:5) is to the second Psalm . . . -- An Exposition of Hebrews by Arthur Pink, p. 50 Spurgeon tells us that it is not worth the fuss. Still, the noise, which certain "loose canons" have made over the "Sonship" issue, has nothing to do with Herb Evans, Gail Riplinger, nor Dr. Peter Ruckman believing in the eternality and deity of the "Person" of our Lord (whether under the Name of the "Son of God," the "Word," the "Messiah," or "Jesus Christ" , for they all believe that the preexistent Word was deity or God and that the God/man, the Son of God is also deity or God. This straw-man issue is merely a semantics exploitation of the Title rather than the Being or Person of our Lord. The contention is over whether His Title as the "Son of God" (rather than that of His Being) originated and functioned in eternity or time. We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before being begotten. He was BEGOTTEN or BORN on earth, yet His Person as God existed before He was so begotten. The Bible tells us that God the Word was MADE flesh and dwelt among us; it does not say that God the Son was made flesh (John 1:1,14). Arthur Pink tells us that this does not refer to Eternal Sonship nor Christs essential deity. One must make a difference between the Lord's Eternal Being and the God/mans earthly titles, Christ, Lamb, Servant, Son, King, and so forth. One must make a difference between the preexistent Word and the God/Man's birth as the Son of God, MADE of a woman and MADE of the Seed of David. (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3)Chronology God sent forth his Son, MADE of a woman made under the law . . . -- Gal. 4:4 . . . Jesus Christ our Lord . . . was MADE of the SEED OF DAVID according to the FLESH . . . -- Rom. 1:3 He . . . SHALL be called the SON OF THE HIGHEST . . . -- Luke 1:32 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost SHALL come upon thee, and the power of the Highest SHALL overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which SHALL be born of thee SHALL be called the SON OF GOD. -- Luke 1:35 . . . every man that cometh into the world . . . -- John 1:9 . . . A man is born into the world . . . -- John 16:21 . . . that prophet that should come into the world . . . -- John 6:14 . . . Christ Jesus came into the world . . . 1 Tim 1:15 . . . he that CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, even the SON OF MAN . . . -- John 3:13 Eternal Sonship advocates emphasize several passages chronologically, regarding the "Son of God" being SENT or coming into the world in order to take a sophist advantage of a nuance of language to prove Sonship prior to the Lord's incarnation. If you do not agree with this, you are branded a heretic. Yet what about "Jesus Christ" coming into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15)? Was "Jesus Christ" functioning under this "eternal Sonship" title (Christ) in eternity or did it originate in "time?" And what about "Prophet" Jesus coming into the world (John 6:14)? Was Jesus functioning as the "eternal" prophet before He came into the world? And what about a "MAN" being born (begotten) into the world (John 16:21) BEFORE starting as a baby? Do deceivers enter the world as deceivers (2 John 1:7)? Was Jesus the eternal God, eternal man, or the eternal God/Man? Still, is the title "Christ/Messiah" an eternal term or a term of time, synonymous with the Son of God (John 11:27 with John 7:42)? Do you see the implications of such dogmatic, misapplied, exaggerated terminology and semantics? Even Adam was the son of God without being eternally the son of God (Luke 1:3 or being eternally begotten. Abraham also had an ONLY BEGOTTEN SON that was neither eternally begotten (Heb. 11:17) nor eternally his son. The holy thing, the Son of God, was born and made of a woman (seed of the woman) made under the law (in time) of the Seed of David. Saying that eternal Sonship existed before the foundation of the world because it was in the mind of God and was so purposed and ordained is one thing. This would not be unlike the "Lamb of God" being slain from the foundation of the world. So, if eternal Sonship advocates want to shift the argument (a cop out) to Gods foreordained plan, we can all quit and go home, all believing that we were eternally saved as well as eternal Sonship, eternal Lamb-ship, eternal Christ-ship, eternal servant-ship, eternal Son of man-ship, eternal Kingship, and whatever else they can factor into Gods foreordained plan. Yet, that is not what they are saying. Nevertheless, the reality is that the Lamb was slain in "time" and not in"eternity and the Word became the Son in time as well." We welcome those, who want to make "theological hay" of such things to also insist on the eternality of His "Lamb-ship" or Christ-ship or Kingship or Servant-ship or Son of man-ship -- if they so choose.Apostate Andrew versus Arthur Pink on THIS DAY Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. --John 8:56 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the FIRST BEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. -- Heb. 1:5-8 This latter expression (V. 5) has occasioned not a little difficulty to some of the commentators, and, in the past, has been made the battleground of fierce theological fights. The issue raised was 'the eternal SONSHIP of Christ.' Those affirming understood 'this day (or 'to-day')the Greek is the same as Luke 23:43to be TIMELESS, and 'this day have I begotten Thee' to refer to the ETERNAL GENERATION of the Son by the Father. Much of the fighting was merely a strife 'about words,' which was to no profit. Though Scripture teaches the Godhead and absolute Deity of the Son (Heb. 1:8, etc.) and affirms His eternality (John 1:1, etc., it NOWHERE speaks of His ETERNAL 'SONSHIP,' and where scripture is silent it behooves us to be silent too. Certainly this verse DOES NOT TEACH the ETERNAL SONSHIP of Jesus Christ, for if we allow the apostle to define his own terms, we read in Heb. 4:7, He limiteth a CERTAIN day, saying in David, To-day,' etc. This, it appears to us, illustrates the Spirit's foresight in thus PREVENTING 'to-day' in 1:5 being understood as a TIMELESS, LIMITLESS 'day' -- eternity." -- An Exposition of Hebrews, Pink, p. 49 "Now it is the 2nd Psalm that the Father is heard saying to the MESSIAH, 'Thou art My SON, this day have I begotten Thee" (v.7). The whole context shows that it is the Father addressing the Son IN TIME, NOT ETERNITY; ON EARTH, NOT IN HEAVEN; in His MEDIATORIAL character, NOT HIS ESSENTIAL BEING . . . If further proof is needed that 'THIS DAY have I begotten Thee' refers to the INCARNATION of Christ, Luke 2:11 supplies it, 'unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord'--could so much be said of any but the only-begotten Son of God? Thus 'THIS DAY' is here, by an angel's voice expressly referred to the day of the Saviour's BIRTH. 'This day I have begotten Thee.' This, then, is another verse which teaches the VIRGIN-BIRTH of Christ! His humanity was 'begotten' by God the Father. Though the Son of man, He was not begotten by man. Because His very humanity was begotten by the Father it was said unto His mother, 'That holy thing which shall be BORN of thee SHALL be called the SON OF GOD' (Luke 1:35). An Exposition of Hebrews, Pink, Ibid. p. 50, 51 Sandlin says that it was an eternal day, but God says that it was on THIS DAY (a CERTAIN day). Andrew the Apostate suggests from John 8:56-59 (in order to explain away Heb. 1:5) that Abraham saw the filiation of the eternal day." Yet, just how long did it take Abraham to see this extra scriptural "eternal day?" Hmmmm? (Sandlin letter - May 10, 1996). Obviously, Arthur Pink believes that day was not timeless but the incarnation of Christ in time, namely, the VIRGIN-BIRTH, telling us that the woman-birthed God/man would be called the Son of God, which does not refer to eternal Sonship.Sandlin Versus Pink on the Father "And again, I WILL be to Him a Father, and HE SHALL be to ME a Son (v. 5). The opening 'and' connects the second quotation with the first; what follows clearly and conclusively fixes the scope of the first part of the verse. Here is indubitable proof that the Holy Spirit is speaking of Christ NOT ACCORDING TO HIS ESSENTIAL GLORY, but in His MEDIATORIAL character, as INCARNATE. Had the first part of V. 5 referred to the ETERNAL relationship of the Son of the Father as practically all of the older (Calvinistic) commentators insist, it would certainly be meaningless to add the quotation which follows 'I WILL BE' does NOT take us to the TIMELESS PAST! Nor was there any occasion for the first Person of the Trinity to assure the Second that He would be a 'Father unto Him.' Clearly, it is the Father accepting and owning as His Son the One whom the world had cast out." -- An Exposition of Hebrews by Arthur Pink, p. 51 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, even the Son of man which is in heaven -- John 3:13 Denying Christs eternal Sonship, now Evans must logically deny Gods essential Fatherhood--God became a father at Christs incarnation. --5/10, 96 Andrew Sandlin. Sandlin suggests that the logical outcome of denying the eternality of Jesuss Sonship is to deny God's essential Fatherhood and that it must logically follow that God became the Father at Christ's incarnation. Yet, God was the Father of O.T. Israel apart from the Son in both time and eternity (1 Chron. 29:10; Isa. 63:16; and 64: before the incarnation and the also the Father of the human race (Acts 17:26). He was also the O.T. heavenly Father (Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:29, 32, 33, 35, 37) before the cross. Since Jesus had to be related to us as our kinsman redeemer, why not take the position of an obedient Son of the FATHER from birth (the incarnation), a position already in use? Calling God the O.T. Father as such was not unusual for the Lord nor was encouraging His disciples to do so. Obviously, Pink did not think the Father Son relationship was eternal nor timeless nor did he think His essential glory was in view. The Son of MAN cometh down from heaven Does this mean eternal manship or that the Father is an eternal MAN? The extra-scriptural Calvinistic term "essence" is not found in any Bible passage. If Calvinists really want to deal with Father/Son Essence, let them deal with the fact that Jesus is to be called the everlasting Father. Do they believe in the Eternal Fathership of Jesus? God is a Spirit, do they want to deal with the eternal spirit-ship of Jesus or will they agree that He came in the flesh to avoid being branded an antichrist. We have no problem, yea we endorse the concept that Jesus has the same attributes as the Father, except where He voluntarily sets them aside. Now, relying on a nuance of language as an argument (Sophistry 101) to prove the Son of God was the Son of God in heaven (by emphasizing the Son of God being sent to us to prove he had to be called the Son of God in Heaven) is demolished by John 3:13. Unless you believe in the eternal SON OF MAN-SHIP of Jesus. What about the eternal Spirit-ship? Does the essence change, when the eternal Word becomes flesh as the God/man or Son of God? Was God the Father eternally begotten, being of the same essence as the Son? Adam was His son ( Luke 3:3 . Do you believe in the eternal sonship of Adam? Or the eternal nation-ship of Israel? Or the Eternal offspring-ship of the human race? Calvinists have been preaching to each other in the Choir too long. They know what all the older Calvinists wrote, but when someone comes along with original challenges that they have never heard of before and cannot find the answers in any creeds, council decisions, or old Calvinist writings, it frustrates them, as they attempt to find cracks in their non-calvinist opponents armour.Sandlin and the Resurrection God hath FULFILLED the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. -- Acts 13:33 God sent forth his Son, MADE of a woman, made under the law . . . -- Gal. 4:4 . . . Jesus Christ . . . MADE of the SEED OF DAVID according to the FLESH . . . --Rom. 1:3 He . . . SHALL be called the SON OF THE HIGHEST . . . -- Luke 1:32 "Heb. 1:5 is economical, not ontological statement, like Acts 13:33." [You can tell by their vocabulary, when a pointy headed intellectual is trying to dig his way out of a hole -- Herb Evans] "Will Evans and other heretics on the basis of the latter (Acts 13:33) now claim Christ did not 'become' the Son until his [sic] resurrection? (May 10, 1996 Sandlin ) Well, it is not very hard to answer a question, when the interrogator provides the proof-text. The answer is "NO!" The resurrection "declared" the Lord's "Sonship" (Rom. 1:3,4); it didn't begin it. Having said that, we may note that Acts 13:33 proves that Psalm 2 was a promise and a prophetic utterance that must be regarded as a prophecy in time which also had a fulfillment in time. The same can be said of other events (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17) in regard to the Lord's Sonship, which were not chronological beginnings but were declarations and a confirmation of His Sonship, which began at His incarnation. In the incarnation, the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest produced the God/Man, the Son of God. He was MADE of the WOMAN and the SEED OF DAVID at His incarnation and conception as the Son of God.Sonship and the Ascension Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if thou canst tell? -- Pro. 30:4 "Like the Father, He is sovereign, ever present and Almighty. He controls the waves, and, like His Father, He gathers the wind in His fists. (Prov. 30:4)" --Calvinist Eternal Sonship Tract Obviously, the passage is talking about creation and its maintenance thereafter. This is in time and not eternity. The primary subject of the passage, God, is performing these feats, although other passages demonstrate that the eternal Word, also as God and with God, was instrumental in creation (John 1:1) and by Him all things consists. Still, it is a stretch to get all that the writer gets out of a simple question, "and what is His Son's name?, reading Eternal Sonship into the passage. Unfortunately, for the writer, the verse establishes things done in time, rather than in eternity. More important, the reference is to the future time period between the incarnation (John 3:13) and the ascension (John 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; or to descending into the heart of the earth and ascending from it (Eph. 4:9-10). So, this future Son of man came down from heaven in time and also ascended in time, but He is also considered to be in heaven at the same time as he is on earth as the omnipresent God (John 1:1 .Well, What About Melchisedec? . . . Melchisedec . . . Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God . . . -- Heb. 7:1-4 Bobby Ross, in his eagerness to nail King James Onlys, made a curious statement in his same May 11, 1996-letter to Dallas Bunch. He says, "While they hoot and holler about the KJV, they reject the fundamental of doctrines which are taught in the KJV, especially the teaching that the Son had no 'beginning of days'(Heb 7:3)." Well, what have we here? Is Bob Ross saying here that Melchisedec (the primary subject of the passage), who was "made" like unto the Son of God (the secondary subject of passage), is eternally begotten? Moreover is he saying that the Son of God had no "Father or mother?" Perhaps, we have uncovered another new heresy??? We believe that the Person or Being of the Lord had no beginning of days, being eternal. His title is another matter. We believe the eternal Word did not have a Father, but the Son of God did have a Father in time but not in eternity.The Coup de Grace After enduring years of Ross cartoons, complaining, blubbering, and charging KJB believers with not believing in "eternal sonship," we wrote two letters to a pastor. We used, in those letters, the Spurgeon quote and many enclosed direct excerpts from Pink's "Exposition of Hebrews (p. 49, 50, 51- included in this article), sprinkling them with Ross' and Sandlin's names for effect. We knew that snakes strike at almost anything, so copies of the letters were allowed to find their way into our enemies' hands. The enclosed resulting venom filled comments by Ross and Sandlin that were meant for Evans, supposing he had originated these comments, ended up really castigating Spurgeon and Arthur Pink. Andrew the Apostate Sandlin and Bookstore Bobby Ross, the Spoiler, unwittingly responded by snail mail (5/10/96 & 5/11/96), responding to what they thought of Arthur W. Pinks words (summarized as follows):Evans [really Arthur Pink], in his ineptitude, rejected and refused to affirm Christ's eternal Sonship, denying Christ's eternal Sonship, placing himself in the camp of heretical blasphemers. Evans is an Arian and a Sabellian, having the marks of a saved man but winding up in hell. What an unwitting condemnation to heap vicariously on Pink, their fellow Calvinist. Bob Ross tried to exercise damage control and intimate that Evans quoted Pink and Spurgeon out of context and that they really did not believe what Evans wrote. But they were had. If Evans took them out of their context and real belief system, why did Ross and Sandlin respond to their comments the way that they did, especially since Evans attached no commentary to these quotations? All the damage control in the world wont offset that. Of course, they cannot have it both ways. The reader may examine these enclosed comments by Pink and Spurgeon and decide what they are conveying to their readers. All the quotes in which Pink used the term eternal Son will not offset the fact that Pink is referring to His Person or Being and not to His title of Sonship. By the same token, we believe in the eternal Being of the Son, the Christ, the Word, and the trinity in eternity but not necessarily under those titles there. The eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No! One must decide whether or not the obedient servant Son was obedient to the Father in eternity as well as in time. Three questions from Dallas Bunch to Bob Ross and Andrew Sandlin remain unanswered: 1. Was there a time in eternity past, when God had no Son? 2. Was there a time in eternity past, when Christ was begotten by God the Father? 3. Is Christ continually being begotten of God (eternal generation)?CONCLUSION And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which SHALL proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I WILL be his father, and he SHALL be my son. according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. -- 2 Sam. 7:12-17 Here is a very pertinent passage in time in regard to the eternal Sonship question. It says that I WILL be his Father and he SHALL be my son. It also says that HE SHALL proceed out of my bowels. Obviously, the next thought is that He must not have been His Father, when this was spoken in time and must not have been His Son, when this was spoken in time. All is future when this was said to David, unless David is Eternal (eternal David-ship?). Do you wonder why we call this issue the Great Semantic Bamboozle?-- by Herb Evans May 23, 2002
Share This