Dake Bible Discussion BoardThe eternal sonship heresy!

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
User avatar
bibleman
Administrator
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 1998 5:23 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by bibleman »

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

The Westminster Confession violates their own Confession in asserting that "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father."

A great part of the Confession states: "IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:" Too bad they did not follow this rule of interpretation in so many places and particularly in this heresy of eternal sonship.

The Bible makes it clear, the WORD was NOT born a son until he was born a son in Bethlehem.

Luke 1:35 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.
Dake notes:

b [Son of God] Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, He had no beginning (Mic. 5:2; Jn. 1:1-2); was not begotten or He would have had a beginning as God; and was not God's Son. But as man, He had a beginning, was begotten, and was God's Son (Ps. 2:7,12; Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:35; Heb. 1:5-6). In these passages it is clear that there was a certain day when God was to have a Son and the Son have a Father. It was to be in the future from the time the prophets spoke. If sonship refers to deity, then this deity had a beginning on a certain day and He was not eternal. But if it refers to humanity, then all scriptures are clear and we have no man-made mystery of the so-called eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. If it refers to both deity and humanity, then when did He become God, when was He begotten, how could He have been eternal? If He had a beginning and was begotten then He was not, nor is He, an eternal God. If He was a son of God by creation, then He is no greater than angels and other beings who had beginnings. Multiplied problems increase and become unanswerable with Scripture if we hold to the theory of eternal sonship, but all questions are clear when we accept the plain statements of Scripture that sonship refers to humanity and not to deity.
Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Side Notes And End Notes Of Luke".


God bless
Leon Bible

http://www.ministryhelps.com
http://www.dakebible.com
http://www.dakebibleboard.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DakeBibleDiscussion/

The fault in Bible complications is not with God or the Bible, but with men who refuse to believe what God says and think we have to interpret what He says in order to get the meaning. Dake Bible -Mark 11:17 note

patrissimo
Having Conquered All, Stand, Ready to Do Battle Again
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by patrissimo »

"And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son." - Matt. 21:37

He sent His Son, not a Person who was to become a son.

As to the question whether a believer in Eternal Sonship is saved: If not, the vast majority of Christians throughout history would not be saved for that very reason. This would include the early Christians who actually preserved, compiled, and canonized the NT.

I suspect Dake got this from Adam Clarke.


Lord have mercy

User avatar
bibleman
Administrator
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 1998 5:23 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by bibleman »

patrissimo wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:08 pm
"And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son." - Matt. 21:37

He sent His Son, not a Person who was to become a son.

As to the question whether a believer in Eternal Sonship is saved: If not, the vast majority of Christians throughout history would not be saved for that very reason. This would include the early Christians who actually preserved, compiled, and canonized the NT.

I suspect Dake got this from Adam Clarke.
Matthew 21:37 does not state that the Word was a son BEFORE Bethlehem.

Matthew in writing his account calls Jesus the Son (as of course he was/is) since Bethlehem.

There was a day in which the Word became a man, born in a manger, and that was NOT in some fictitious day in the past.

Hebrews 1:5 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?

Having no support for the fallacy of eternal sonship of Christ, seems like you are grasping for straws.


God bless
Leon Bible

http://www.ministryhelps.com
http://www.dakebible.com
http://www.dakebibleboard.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DakeBibleDiscussion/

The fault in Bible complications is not with God or the Bible, but with men who refuse to believe what God says and think we have to interpret what He says in order to get the meaning. Dake Bible -Mark 11:17 note

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by Hill Top »

bibleman wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:06 am
The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

The Westminster Confession violates their own Confession in asserting that "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father."

A great part of the Confession states: "IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:" Too bad they did not follow this rule of interpretation in so many places and particularly in this heresy of eternal sonship.

The Bible makes it clear, the WORD was NOT born a son until he was born a son in Bethlehem.

Luke 1:35 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.
Dake notes:

b [Son of God] Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, He had no beginning (Mic. 5:2; Jn. 1:1-2); was not begotten or He would have had a beginning as God; and was not God's Son. But as man, He had a beginning, was begotten, and was God's Son (Ps. 2:7,12; Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:35; Heb. 1:5-6). In these passages it is clear that there was a certain day when God was to have a Son and the Son have a Father. It was to be in the future from the time the prophets spoke. If sonship refers to deity, then this deity had a beginning on a certain day and He was not eternal. But if it refers to humanity, then all scriptures are clear and we have no man-made mystery of the so-called eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. If it refers to both deity and humanity, then when did He become God, when was He begotten, how could He have been eternal? If He had a beginning and was begotten then He was not, nor is He, an eternal God. If He was a son of God by creation, then He is no greater than angels and other beings who had beginnings. Multiplied problems increase and become unanswerable with Scripture if we hold to the theory of eternal sonship, but all questions are clear when we accept the plain statements of Scripture that sonship refers to humanity and not to deity.
Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Side Notes And End Notes Of Luke".
Good study, thanks.



Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by Hill Top »

patrissimo wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:08 pm
"And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son." - Matt. 21:37
He sent His Son, not a Person who was to become a son.
In the parable, the son didn't exist until he had been born.
Just as a Son didn't exist until He was born.
As to the question whether a believer in Eternal Sonship is saved: If not, the vast majority of Christians throughout history would not be saved for that very reason. This would include the early Christians who actually preserved, compiled, and canonized the NT.
As there is never just one sin to be judged guilty of, their eternal destiny will not be tied to just one error in judgement.
I wonder if they consider the Word the Son of God before He took on flesh?
Or do they think Jesus was walking around in heaven before He was born of Mary?



Bible Reader
Zechariah
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:05 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by Bible Reader »

I think it is a question of physical status rather than spiritual relationship.
A son is the physical offspring of the father and therefore has a beginning.
However a son either physical or spiritual is in subjection to his father.
The Word ( son) is in subjection to the Father (God). The word is eternal but always in subjection to God.
That word was always in subjection to God the father but became a physical son (likewise in perfect submission to God) when he was born of the virgin. Hence the Son/Word are eternal.

Be careful in discussions about the Trinity, since no human can truly comprehend the actual Trinity it does not become us to act so prideful as to call someone wrong. The confession mentioned was a Godly attempt to explain the unexplainable and was done so to counter teachings of polytheism and Gnosticism and other false teachings that try to say the Trinity is not eternal or made up of more than one God. Any discussion that tries to place a physical divide in te Trinity reveals a lack of true understanding of the spiritual truth contained in scripture.



patrissimo
Having Conquered All, Stand, Ready to Do Battle Again
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by patrissimo »

Did the king in Matt. 21:37 not already have a Son when he said he would send His Son?


Lord have mercy

Bible Reader
Zechariah
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:05 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by Bible Reader »

patrissimo wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:27 pm
Did the king in Matt. 21:37 not already have a Son when he said he would send His Son?
Parables were not intended to establish systematic theology. They were used to convey an idea in an understandable way..
Yes the king did send his son but in this parable the wedding dinner was taking place when in fact the wedding dinner of the Lamb is still in our future.



User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by luchnia »

bibleman wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:06 am
The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

The Westminster Confession violates their own Confession in asserting that "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father."

A great part of the Confession states: "IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:" Too bad they did not follow this rule of interpretation in so many places and particularly in this heresy of eternal sonship.

The Bible makes it clear, the WORD was NOT born a son until he was born a son in Bethlehem.

Luke 1:35 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.
Dake notes:

b [Son of God] Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, He had no beginning (Mic. 5:2; Jn. 1:1-2); was not begotten or He would have had a beginning as God; and was not God's Son. But as man, He had a beginning, was begotten, and was God's Son (Ps. 2:7,12; Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:35; Heb. 1:5-6). In these passages it is clear that there was a certain day when God was to have a Son and the Son have a Father. It was to be in the future from the time the prophets spoke. If sonship refers to deity, then this deity had a beginning on a certain day and He was not eternal. But if it refers to humanity, then all scriptures are clear and we have no man-made mystery of the so-called eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. If it refers to both deity and humanity, then when did He become God, when was He begotten, how could He have been eternal? If He had a beginning and was begotten then He was not, nor is He, an eternal God. If He was a son of God by creation, then He is no greater than angels and other beings who had beginnings. Multiplied problems increase and become unanswerable with Scripture if we hold to the theory of eternal sonship, but all questions are clear when we accept the plain statements of Scripture that sonship refers to humanity and not to deity.
Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Side Notes And End Notes Of Luke".
Some groups are die-hard about the eternal sonship fallacy. The thing is God's word is plain about when Jesus was born and how He was born. Amazing how many false doctrines are out there floating around and have been for a long time. The Word was in the beginning.

I have had people tell me Jesus was with God in the beginning and I would say, Jesus wasn't even born yet. He was born in Bethlehem to Mary on a certain day. Then you get the strange look as if you have lost your mind. The Father said, "This day have I begotten thee." God never said, "I begot thee in days past."


Word up!

patrissimo
Having Conquered All, Stand, Ready to Do Battle Again
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: The eternal sonship heresy!

Post by patrissimo »

Bible Reader wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:45 pm
patrissimo wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:27 pm
Did the king in Matt. 21:37 not already have a Son when he said he would send His Son?
Parables were not intended to establish systematic theology. They were used to convey an idea in an understandable way..
Yes the king did send his son but in this parable the wedding dinner was taking place when in fact the wedding dinner of the Lamb is still in our future.
Can a true systematic theology contradict a parable?

Also...for whoever knows the answer...Why does Dake call Exodus 20:11 a parable?


Lord have mercy

Post Reply