The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation

I've always put myself in the Lordship Salvation camp, but are there different forms of it?

I thought the argument was over whether someone can become a believer without submitting to Christ Jesus as Lord. Those arguiing against LS are saying that someone can become a believer without acknowleging Christ as Lord, just their Savior.

If LS is the proper way of understanding, why do some get jittery in thinking LS advocates a works rigtheousness path of salvation.

Are their LS proponenents taking it to far, or is my understanding of it faulty?

Wasn't the term more or less coin during the debate several years ago between MacArthur and Swindle with easy believism being at stake?

John,

Personally, I am uncomfortable with even the term, "Lordship Salvation", especially when it is described as someone making Christ Lord and Saviour. Why? Because one doesn't make the Lord Christ anything. He IS the LORD Jesus Christ, the Saviour of sinners. When someone comes to true faith in Him, it is a believing, trusting, taking hold, resting and taking hold of Him for who He is. One's acknowledgment of His lordship is no less a natural thing than one acknowledging that Bush is President, as far as the office that he occupies. You simply cannot bifurcate Christ from His person and work nor can one compartmentalize Him and then choose some things and leave others, as if you are shopping for groceries at the local food store.

Love and obedience are two sides of the same coin.

John 14:15 (KJV) "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

John 15:10 (KJV) "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

1 John 2:3 (KJV) "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

1 John 2:4 (KJV) "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

1 John 5:3 (KJV) "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."

Philippians 2:9-11 (ASV) "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things] under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

In His Grace,

Well said pilgrim!
John_C I agree essentially with what you said but I wouldn't even start to go down the road of lordship salvation.

You asked "Are their LS proponenents taking it to far, or is my understanding of it faulty?"
The answer is yes.
I would recommend staying away from antinomianism and lordship salvation.

John,

This debate never got into the Reformed community, which is quite telling I believe. Submitting to Christ is basic Reformed soteriology. It was novel within the evangelical community when MacArthur began to grow in his understanding of God's work in salvation. MacArthur was becoming Reformed in his soteriology, which is what caused the hoo ha within pop-evangelicalism. For the Arminian, one can believe in Christ with the mere help of the Holy Spirit, but repentance would be a "work" and, therefore, need not accompany biblical salvation -- so say Arminians. MacArthur, on the other hand, had a “revelation.” He became keenly aware that one could not even believe, let alone repent, without the monergistic work of the Spirit. I remember John saying that “we must not strip out what God is doing in salvation.” His point was, not only does God grant faith he also grants repentance to all who trust in Christ alone for their salvation.

The problem is, although those who are justified do submit to Christ upon first believing the gospel, the gospel message must not be changed. The Gospel is that Jesus died for his people and rose for their justification. However, I believe that John had a tendency to skew the message of the gospel into a message of works, though he was correct that those who embrace Christ will have works.

Fair enough?

Ron

I am not sure it is completely accurate to say that John had a "revelation" about the monergistic work of the spirit and thus began the debate between a NonLS position and a LS position. From what I understand from John in both his preaching and in private discussions around Grace Church, is that he was asked years ago, as a young minister, if he believed in "Lordship" salvation and his response was, "What other kind of salvation is there?" As his attention was drawn to the fact there was this insidious nonsense theology advocated by proponents of classic dispensationalism, John believed there needed to be a biblical response. Hence, the book, "The Gospel According to Jesus" arose out of that conviction. I have always understood that "Lordship Salvation" was coined by the opponents to the biblical doctrine. Similar in fashion to how the various points of Calvinism received negative titles, like "Limited Atonement." That is an Arminian gloss that places a negative spin upon the doctrine and does not correspond to what the Synod of Dort meant when highlighting the doctrine of Christ's atonement.

In some respects, it could be argued that John probably was not as clear as he could have been when he originally wrote against this false doctrine, and LS proponents, as well as NonLS proponents, accused him of promoting a works oriented salvation. However, any one even remotely familiar with John and his preaching and reading "The Gospel According to Jesus" in its entirety, realize that is not what he is advocating at all. Perhaps in his zeal to defend the truth he could have been clearer in his presentation (hence the reason for a revised and updated "TGATJ").

Fred

Fred,

One sermon in particular, “The Nature of Saving Faith” I believe, John stated how he had been gripped by this theology while preaching through Matthew’s gospel. It was clearly brand new to him. Hey, John had a pulpit ministry prior to embracing the eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity. He embraced heresy while in the pulpit in other words, so why the surprise that he had an illumination over Christ’s Lordship in salvation? We’re all evolving. I can’t wait for him to be knocked off his horse and to confess clearly and unambiguously the doctrines of particular redemption and covenant baptism! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

I talked to several members of his church when they visited my church several months ago, and they said they thought MacArthur now is a 5-pointer. We'll have to see for sure, as I have no specifics about it.

About the Eternal Sonship issue, how important of a doctrine is it? Would you call a denial of it heresy, aberrant teaching, or what?

Concerning eternal sonship, I'd call it a heresy. If the the Son is not eternal, then God is not the ontological Trinity.

Ron

I found this on the web. It looks like he's closed the loop on TULIP.

Ron

(Fred) I think what John means to say is that it gripped him as being totally undeniable. It is again being inaccurate to say that it was an illumination to him for the very first time when he was preaching through Matthew. I can ask him for you to make sure, at least run it by Phil Johnson, but I think it is a tad misleading to say he had never believed this before. My undestanding, and this comes from people who have known John when he was still in high school, is that he always held to LS, but was under no compulsion to defend it until he was challenged. Calvin was the same way with predestination. He had always believed the biblical view of predestination that would eventually bare his name, but he only began to comment upon it in the later editions of his institutes after Pighius made it an issue.


(Fred) This is a different issue all together, but John never denied the ontological trinity. Even when the less sophisticated fundies in the IFCA mistakenly made this an issue so that John was brought up on "heresy" charges and had to face an IFCA inquisition, he had never denied the trinity. For John, the sonship debate centered around the incarnational language. Christ had always been the second member of the trinity, however, John argued that he took on the unique role of the son at his incarnation. Granted, he has changed his position on this, but it is once again misleading to say that John was denying the eternal son in the sense of denying the second member of the trinity.

Fred

Fred,

What did John repent of if it wasn't heresy? He tampered with the second person of the Trinity in a way that was outside orthodoxy did he not? If the Second Person of the Trinity was not the eternal Son but became the Son, then the doctrine of the ontological Trinity would be tampered with beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. The Son's relationship to the Father in the covenant of redemption would too be in shambles. A quick test for heresy is that if the doctrine were true, Christianity would be false. Well, if the Son were not eternal in his relationship to the Father, then Christianity is lost. John misunderstood the eternal unity of the Godhead yet wanted to maintain the particulars; but the Trinity is unity and diversity, which a denial of the eternal Sonship undermines. There's a lot more to Trinitarian theology than affirming three persons. The eternal Sonship is just one example of orthodoxy.

Ron

(Fred) John did not "repent" of any heresy. That is your word, not his. If you read carefully John's statement about his doctrinal change, it is his coming to a different conviction with regards to the incarnational language. MacArthur's view on the Sonship of Christ


(Fred) No, he did not tamper with any aspect of the second person of the trinity; your definition of orthodoxy not withstanding. He specifically believed the disagreement came to how one understands the incarnational language concerning Christ. Read John's statement on the matter. In fact, I will quote the relevant portion of the text:


Ultimately, your quivel with the incarnational sonship view centers around the fact you hold to Covenant Theology as a system. As you point out the eternal sonship undergirds CT's covenant of grace and redemption. That is all fine and dandy if you choose to adhere to that theological system, however, to charge someone with heresy because he understands the Bible slightly different than what your favored theology dictates is a rather fallacious charge. It is as phoney a charge as calling someone an antinomian who doesn't necessarily view the Ten Commandments as binding law upon Christians today and rejects the CTers take on Mosiac law altogether - but that is a discussion for another post. The same would apply to believers baptism, how we understand the New Covenant, and a host of other biblical ideas that are impacted by our theological presuppositions.

Fred

Fred,

I said: "What did John repent of if it wasn't heresy?" John changed his mind about something didn't he? Of course he denies that he repented of heresy. His claim is that he repented of a something permissible but not correct.


Fred, I don’t think you appreciate what a fallacy is, from what you’ve said. If your paradigm for fallacy is correct, then it would be fallacious of you to charge Mormons of adhering to heresy. After all, they “understand the Bible slightly different than what your favored theology dictates.”

You couldn’t be more wrong about the covenant of redemption, but let’s stick with something really basic, which you'll find below in bold print.


Whether we baptize infants or not does not undermine the Christian faith. Again, a heresy if true would make Christianity false. Christianity does not stand or fall on water baptism. However, if the intra-Trinitarian relationship, which presupposes Son and Father, is not eternal, Christianity is false. Do you deny this? Yes or No. Keep in mind, there is unity and diversity in the Godhead. The unity is predicated upon the Son as Son and his relationship to the Father, etc. Is the eternal relationship as Son to Father essential to the Godhead? Could God exist apart from this relationship?

Just slightly?


God bless,

william

Are you so often cryptic in order to avoid interaction with your beliefs? Please string some premises together and conclude something based upon those premises. If I had to guess what this vague remarks means, I'd conclude that you think that Mormons are way off, so they're heretics; whereas one may deny the eternal sonship of Christ and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. But who knows what you mean.

Ron

That your use of slightly was pretty far off. The mormons are a bit further than slightly and your grouping them together with anything orthodox shows the extent you are willing to go to distort.

You need to stop making my words mean things I simply do not state. This is a form of dishonesty and I do not appreciate it.


God bless,

william

You are begging the question of whether tampering with the relationship the Son has with the Father is heretical or within the bounds of orthodoxy. If MacArthur’s former belief was heretical, then it may be grouped with all other heresies. Was I expected to rate heresies by degree?


I did nothing of the sort. Your statement was cryptic, so I asked you to explain your vaguer remark. I, also, said “who knows what you mean”, but “if I had to guess…”

“Are you so often cryptic in order to avoid interaction with your beliefs? Please string some premises together and conclude something based upon those premises. If I had to guess what this vague remarks means, I'd conclude that you think that Mormons are way off, so they're heretics; whereas one may deny the eternal sonship of Christ and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. But who knows what you mean.”

Tell me William, can one deny the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father and be orthodox in his trinitarian theology? If not, then MacArthur's doctrine was heretical and, therefore, should be grouped with all other heresies.

Ron

(Fred) Yes, that is his claim, as well as mine. There is nothing inherently heretical in the incarnational sonship view. Perhaps in your world, it is heretical, but thankfully, you are not the keeper of the oracles of truth, the Bible is.



(Fred) Please, come on now, your comparrison is silly. In fact it is so silly that it echoes through the halls of absurdity.


(Fred) There is no ranting and raving, I am simply correcting distortions of what John had believed.


(Fred) Nope, and neither did John, because the incarnational viewpoint doesn't deny that the father and the son are eternal in their nature. The position teaches that the term "son" speaks to Christ in his humanity. In the mind of the eternal God, the second member of the Trinity purposed to take on flesh and take the roll of a son to die in the place of sinners.
Now, I disagree with that, as I disagreed with John when he held this position, but I know what he was talking about and he wasn't advocating heresy as you claim.


(fred) I would agree with you, but again, the terms son and father are designations meant to convey what the Godhead had purposed to do from eternity past and what the Godhead did in the securing of the elect to salvation.

Fred

What do you disagree with, merely that John denied that the name "Son" applied to the Second Person in eternity? Is that what you think this was all about, a mere designation without a theology behind the word? What does it mean that the Second Person is the Son? John denied that the the Second Person of the Trinity was the Son in eternity. What does this mean? Does it merely mean that the Son wasn't yet incarnated? No, because that would presuppose the Son, whom John denied; he affirmed the Person but not the sonship, which is essential to his person.

Ron

Did you even bother to read the statement I linked you to? John explains why he believed what he did.


(Fred) It simply means that Christ had not yet taken on the title of son in his humanity. It was in eternity past, something decreed to happen with the second person of the Trinity.
Keep in mind that I am agreeing with your general flow of thought; my debate is with your misrepresenting what John believed and taught.

Fred

Fred,

Please hear me out.

John MacArthur:
John wanted to argue against JW’s and the like, no doubt. John embraced the Second Person of the Trinity as God. However, for MacArthur sonship derived not from the ontological relationship with the Father but from the virgin birth. This cannot be disputed. Again, John affirmed the Second Person’s eternality, but denied his sonship. If John’s former doctrine was indeed true, the relationship of Son to Father would not have been begotten but made! (NOTE: I am not saying that Second Person would be made, but the relationship.) The relationship of Son to Father would be temporal and would require a beginning. However, Scripture teaches and the creeds confirm that the Son is differentiated from the Father by being begotten; but if there is no eternal sonship then there can be no distinction of persons since the Second Person’s nature is predicated upon his eternal, ontological relationship within the Trinity. This you have not dealt with and quite frankly neither has John. God alone with his Logos is not the same as God alone with his Son. I’ll let you decide how significant this relationship is with respect to Christianity. Briefly, we would eclipse the love-relationship that is only understood in the orbit of Father to Son if the Second person were not eternally the Son. Is God eternally Abba to the Son, or not? How important is this? Is the eternal Spirit the Spirit of the eternal Son, or just the eternal Logos? What about the works of the economic Trinity? Were we eternally chosen in the Son of the Father, or just chosen in the Second Person apart from any eternal sonship?

You claim to have disagreed with John’s theology and I of course believe you. Maybe you should consider the ramifications of John's train of thought. What would Christianity lose if the Second Person was not an eternal Son, and how significant would this loss be for the faith? I would argue that without the relationship of Son to Father, we would be left with three Gods and not the ontological Trinity. For the ontological Trinity requires sonship by its very nature.

That's all I care to say on the matter.

Blessings,

Ron

I have been following this discussion with quite a bit of interest. I must say that I am not completely sure what to make of this matter.
For that reason, I would like to hear from others on the matter (i.e. Pilgrim, Joe, etc...), in hopes of resolving the matter, in my mind anyway.

Tom

Maybe we should begin by asking whether the relationship of the Son to the Father is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously it is essential. The only question that remains is can we deny this essential relationship and remain with the bounds of orthodoxy? Put another way, can one remain orthodox and deny that the Second Person is the Second Person apart from being the Son of the Father?

Ron

Would you show me where I mentioned anything concerning such? The only thing I addressed is your tone.


God bless,

william

Let me throw a wrinkle in here, just for fun, by introducing a very popular error on the other side of the incarnation, re: Jesus Christ. It is held by MANY professing Christians today, and I believe simply out of ignorance for most, that the "Logos" of John 1:1 was Jesus (of Nazareth). Further, they would hold that Col. 1:16 is speaking of Jesus (of Nazareth), i.e., Jesus, the son of Mary created all things. What they are asserting is the eternality of Jesus, which goes far beyond the necessary affirmation that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity was and is eternal, both in His essence and in His person, that being eternally begotten of the Father.

Some, in defense of this error, will stand upon the Chalcedon formula, i.e., you cannot separate the two natures of Christ. But what they will not do is to also apply the equally true statement that we cannot confuse the two natures of Christ. There was a time . . . notice time, that Jesus (of Nazareth) did not exist. To deny such is to essentially deny the incarnation. In fact the entire purpose of the apostle John writing his Gospel and three Epistles is effectively destroyed.

Anway..... since we are having so much fun in this thread now, I thought I'd join in the fray and bring my own "party favors"!

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Whew, that's almost as bad as what Jonny Mac. held to prior to getting it right! Talk about denying the incarnation, and the first creation for that matter!

Blessings,

Ron

Fred,

I want you to know that John MacArthur Jr. is a great man in my opinion. His ministry has been blessed by God like very few others, even internationally. I am indebted to his service beyond measure. (BTW, he even baptized my wife...)

Blessings,

Ron

Perhaps you have missed the several times over the years in here that I've had to bring up this point and correct this error? Most all of the individuals held to this view out of sheer ignorance (not stupidity). In 99% of the cases, it was in regard to John 1:1 and the identification of the "Word" (Logos), which they believed to be Jesus (of Nazareth). My way of dealing with the error is to simply have them apply this thought; that the "Word" is Jesus to verse 14 and substituting the name "Jesus" for "the Word". The result is most enlightening, for the text would then read:

"And the Word Jesus became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."

The next question asked is all too apparent, "What is the identity of the 'flesh' in this text if "the Word" was Jesus (of Nazareth)? The "flesh", according to John's Gospel and all of Scripture is Jesus of Nazareth. So, again substituting what is now acknowledged, that "flesh" is Jesus, the text would therefore read:

"And the Word Jesus became flesh Jesus, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."

Oh vey.....!!! In 99.99% of the cases, the proverbial lights go on and the person suddenly realizes that the "Son" is eternal and "Jesus" is temporal, yet consisting of both the eternal God and finite man in the one person, aka: the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God.

In His Grace,

I'm hesitant to ask. Have any continued to embrace the eternal humanity of Jesus after being shown the light? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ugh.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Pilgrim, your confusing me. What do you think "the word"(logos) is in john 1?

The Word became flesh (vs 14). So whatever the Word is, it does not include the human nature. Sorry, Pilgrim, I couldn't leave this hangin'. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Ron

what? Do you believe it to be the second person of the trinity?

No, he shall perish everlastingly. From the Athanasian Creed,

Yes. I believe him to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. However, he did not assume the human nature until the incarnation, at which time the eternal Son became the Godman. God and man is now on the throne in the one person of Christ who has two natures, human and divine. What an amazing reality!

In his grace,

Ron

Blessings.

Ron

that I caused you some confusion. There are so many things I could say to you right now, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll just make known to you what I know concerning "the word" (logos) of John 1:1.

The "Word" is the eternally begotten SON of God; the second person of the Trinity, Who took upon Himself human flesh (Jh 1:14; Phil 2:5-8; 1Tim 3:16; et al) and in so doing, became Jesus (the)Christ, aka: God-man.

Does that help?

In His Grace,

YAY! im not ignorant!
Sorry for the confusion. Yes pilgrim that helps, I agree with you totally.
I thought you were saying "the word"(logos) was not the son. My mistake.

Whew.........!! Glad that's cleared up.

As you are now privy to, my contention is with those who insist that the "Word" was "Jesus", rather than the pre-incarnate Christ, Who is eternal. (aka: the SON). You might be amazed at how many actually believe that. But most, at least those who I have had the privilege to discuss this issue with, were either taught wrongly or they were working under a misconception, or their Christology was a bit "weak". When they truth is grasped, doubtless the Gospel of John takes on a depth never before realized, much to one's joy.

In His Grace,

(Fred) I do find it interesting that we never received one of those moderator "off topic" rebukes seeing that the name of this thread is Lordship Salvation and the eternal sonship of Christ is unrelated. But I digress.

Just some final thoughts on this because I think the discussion is winding down. John did not deny the sonship of Jesus Christ. If you read his retraction statement and the section in the Hebrews commentary where he addressed this, the issue for John is the "when" did Jesus take on the role as a son. Was Christ always "the son" even before God decreed to redeem a sinful people unto himself? Or was that role entered into by the second person of the Trinity when the decree to redeem a people was set into divine motion, so to speak? John specifically stated that the word "begotten" is a difficult term to grasp. What excatly does it mean that Christ was "the only begotten son?" Obviously, from the entire testimony of scripture it does not mean that Christ was created, so it must have some other designation connected to it. In John's mind, at the time of teaching through Hebrews, his understanding was that it had incarnational connotations. Thus, the title of the "begotten son" was an incarnational title, not one that the Second person of the Godhead held BEFORE the decree to redeem and Christ was appointed to step into humanity.

Some other posters have mentioned the divine word of John 1:1. Was the second member of the trinity eternally thought of as the Godman Jesus? Or was that a role he entered into at the incarnation. The decree to die for sinners had always been in place, but God became man (as you pointed out in another post) happened at a point in time. When was that point? At Christ's incarnation.

That being said, we must keep in mind that John has changed his position, however, those who do hold to incarnational sonship I do not believe are heretical, nor are they fundamentally denying the ontological relationship of the son to the father. Many of them may be just confused and ignorant of all the language, but those who are not are simply trying to deal honestly with the language of scripture as it describes our saviour's life here on earth as he related to the father.

Fred

Fred,

Your post is smoke. I’m sorry. Let’s define our terms. Those who hold to the “incarnational sonship”, as did John, deny the eternal sonship. Accordingly, they deny the eternal-ontological Son-Father relationship.


Unless titles are meaningless, when John affirmed that “begotten” referred strictly to the incarnation, he by necessary consequence denied the eternal-begotten Son-Father relationship which is a denial of the ontological Trinity since the Persons of the Trinity are who they are by the relationship they hold to the other persons of the Trinity.

Did John deny the eternal sonship of the Second Person? Yes, by saying that the Son was begotten in time and became the Son.

Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes

Therefore, John denied an essential property of the eternal Son and the eternal ontological, Trinity.

Was this heresy? Of course it was. If you wish to deny John's former heresy, please interact with the specifics of the case. It's not germane that John believed in the eternal Second Person or that he affirmed Jesus' sonship. Those points are not in dispute.

Ron

Fred,

As one of the "Moderators" of this Board, I take responsibility for allowing this thread to go off-topic. When it began going down this road, I did consider moving the "offending" post with its then relatively few replies to its own thread, but I guess I got distracted and didn't bother to do so..... yes, I should have. Please accept my apologies for not doing so and even more for contributing to it.

I'll take the deserved stripes!

Pilgrim,

But you're not just any ole moderator, you're the Head Honcho! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Pilgrim is always starting trouble!

Thanks Pilgrim You made that simple and clear enough even I understood. I hope you never tire of repeating yourself, because their maybe someone who needs to hear.

neicey

(Fred) I disagree bud. John denied the eternal aspect of Christ's sonship, but not his sonship. Again, I would point out that the ontological aspect of the Eternal son is only relevant to Covenant Theology, because the Covenant of Redemption that the CT system is built upon is dependent upon the eternal sonship doctrine. Those who disagree with CT and the theology's definition of terms are not heretical. First, the CTer must demonstrate an actual Covenant of Redemption being outlined in scripture. I would agree there was a decreed purpose of redemption, but I do not equate that with a "Covenant." The two are distinct.


(Fred) Did John deny the eternal sonship of the 2nd person as CT argues for that distinction? yes. Did he deny Christ's sonship? no.
I would also add that you are still in need of defining the word "begotten" or at least describing the concept as far as it is taught in scripture. What exactly does it mean that God "begot" the Son? Keep in mind that I am not arguing for begotten to mean Christ was created.


(Fred) That is where I believe you are dead wrong. In fact, some one wrote me and told me tha James White was asked in his chat channel if the eternal sonship doctrine is necessary to maintaining the Trinity and he stated that it is not. Thus, denying the eternal sonship of Christ does not equate to denying the Trinity, and I would add, or the ontological relationship between the Father and Son.


(Fred) It is only heresy for the CTer and his system. Is it biblical heresy? No it is not. Further, I do believe I have interacted with the specifics of the case, and as I wrote in a previous post, the specifics of the case as they pertain to John are no longer relevant seeing that John changed his position. My point of contention is that incarnational sonship is not heretical, even though I do not agree with it.

Fred

I see several problems with this. First, the covenant of redemption aspect, to which you refer, John has always embraced being a Calvinist! Consequently, John thought that the First Person of the Trinity gave the elect to the Second Person of the Trinity without the elect being given to the Son!

Secondly, the eternals sonship is pre-Reformation doctrine, so obviously it has significance apart from the doctrines of the divine decree that became more apparent at the time of the Reformation.

Now a question: Since John (and presumably you) believes that the Second Person was given the elect by the First Person in eternity, how can this be without the Second Person being the Son? If it can’t be, then the eternal sonship is essential with respect to a doctrine John held to, predestination in Christ. So I’ll ask you, a Calvinist, could the First Person have given the elect to the Second Person without the relationship of Father-Son? Yes or No. This has nothing to do with the distinctions between dispensationalism and covenant theology.

Finally, by not distinguishing between Father-Son, then for all eternity there would have been no eternal distinction of persons or ontological role of Father-Son within the Godhead. If the relationship were to have evolved into Father-Son at the incarnation, then there would be evolution within the Godhead with respect to the relationship within the Godhead, which would undermine the immutability of God. Again, you seem to think that the relationship of Persons does not go into defining the Godhead. You would like to think that the First and Second Person’s relationship could be non-Son and non-Father without destroying the essence of the ontological Trinity.


While John held this aberrant view he was embracing the covenant of redemption yet in a way that was in violation of the doctrine of the eternally begotten Son of the Father, which was held by all of Christendom prior to the full development of covenant theology.

I stated: “Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes”

You Replied:


Let me see if I have this.

Premise 1: James White says that eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology
Conclusion: Eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology

O.K., I think I got it now.

Ron

Fred,

Let me state right up front that I have no desire to cause any friction or to cast any stones, as it were, upon MacArthur; a man I highly admire. What I would like, however is some clarification of what he used to believe and has since left behind him.

QUESTION: What would John MacArthur have called the second person of the Trinity if He was not the "Son"? If the second person of the Trinity acquired "sonship" in time; i.e., at the time of the incarnation, what or who was He before that event in regard to the economic relationship within the Trinity? As you can probably surmise, I'm just a tad confused as to what exactly MacArthur once held on this matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

No clarification is needed. MacArthur stated, "The 'incarnational sonship' view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy."

Of course, incarnational sonship is rank heresy. It is also blasphemy and idolatry. It is worshipping a false Christ who saves no one. Those who deny the Christ begotten of the Father before the worlds shall perish everlastingly.

The clarification needed is whether the Reformed agree with scripture and the Ecumenical Creeds or with MacArthur.

Hey Speratus,

TAKE A PILL! My question was posed to "fredman" and it wasn't whether he thought MacArthur's now non-existent view(s) were heretical. Your response was inflammatory and at least disrespectful, not to mention, anything but helpful in providing an answer to my specific question.

Speratus,

Although I appreciate your zeal for the truth, I think we need to allow God to save those who deny truths (for a season). One can truly embrace Christ to the saving of his soul while professing heresies, even rank heresies. The Scriptures are replete with warnings to those who were following after false teachings. God's grace is pretty amazing.

Blessings,

Ron

I respect your authority as moderator to interpret the rules of The Highway.

Yes, I agree completely. A man should not be considered a heretic until after the stages of admonition. Titus 3:10, 11.

OK guys, and especially Ron D. This is probably going to be my last post on this, because I believe I have stated all that needs to be stated. Moreover, I have some other interesting emails to address on a personal level and our good Arminian fellow, Michael, has returned and I find it more fun to engage the discussion of the inconsistency of Arminian philosophy with God's exhaustive knowledge. Perhaps if Ron D would bring his talents to that discussion there? Any how, I wanted to tie up any loose ends that I left dangling.

I appreciate Ron's remarks; he makes a worthy defense of eternal sonship, to which I would agree (and John agrees as well). However, I am not of the opinion that an incarnational viewpoint is heretical. It may not be the clearest way to look at the text, and it may be bad teaching like KJV onlyism and Progressive Creationism, but it is not heretical in the Arian sense of the the word. It is an attempt to deal honestly and exegetically with the "begotten" terminology found in scripture. How exactly is Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, "begotten?" That is the question the incarnational viewpoint is attempting to answer. For example, yesterday at Church, we read through John 1:1-14 as our scripture reading of the day. Note that verse 14 states that the word became flesh and that we beheld his glory, the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the father, full of grace and truth. When does John describe Jesus as the "only begotten?" When he became flesh and dwelt among men. The idea of Christ being begotten is in relation to him becoming flesh, the incarnation.


(Fred) To attempt to answer Pilgrim's question specifically, John's treatment on this is found in his commentary on Hebrews where he addresses 1:5. Let me summarize from selected quotations from his commentary:

"Though his sonship was anticipated in the OT (Prov. 30:4), He did not receive the title of Son until He was begotten into time. Prior to time and His incarnation He was eternal God with God. The term Son has only to do with Jesus Christ in His incarnation. It is only an analogy to say that God is Father and Jesus is Son - God's way of helping us understand the essential relationship between the first and second Persons of the Trinity....He is no "eternal son" always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God. Sonship is an analogy to help us understand Christ's essential relationship and willing submission to the Father for the sake of our redemption." Hebrews pp. 27, 28

So to answer the question, it seems as though he understood the terms "father" and "son" to be an analogy to convey the roles of the Trinity in the redemption of men.

Fred

Hi Fred,

If you wish to conclude by this passage that the Second Person was begotten in time, at the incarnation, I would think that you would similarly have to affirm that he received his glory at the incarnation as well. After all, “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father…”

Blessings,

Ron

No one reading carefully would conclude that this passage is saying that the second member of the trinity was begotten. The Word = the Second member of the trinity. He was begotten in flesh, meaning that he took on the role in time as the redeemer of mankind, the only begotten son. Obviously, this was in the mind of the Godhead in eternity past as to the divine purpose to save. The word "begotten," however, has to mean something, correct? When did this begetting take place? That is the issue incarnationalists are attempting to clarify.

Fred

Fred,

Again you just ignored my post. If you wish to apply begotten to the flesh then you must apply "glory" to the flesh as well. Given your most recent post, I think it's time to deal with Pilgrim's post: https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1

Blessings,

Ron

J. C. Philpot, in his book "The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Only Begotten Son of God", refutes this argument of the incarnational sonship advocates: