Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The eternal sonship heresy!

[patrissimo]

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?

[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".

Good study, thanks.

Well thank you, Hill Top

[bibleman]

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.

Above you said: "The Word ( son) is in subjection to the Father (God). The word is eternal but always in subjection to God."

So I think I hear you saying that the Father is GREATER than the WORD (Jesus).
You do not believe in the equality of the Trinity.
Is that right?

[bibleman]

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

Jesus the son was known as the WORD before being born in a manger.

Then He became the Son.

Thus it is appropriate to say (after the fact) that God sent His Son.

Try again.

[patrissimo]

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.

Above you said: "The Word ( son) is in subjection to the Father (God). The word is eternal but always in subjection to God."

So I think I hear you saying that the Father is GREATER than the WORD (Jesus).
You do not believe in the equality of the Trinity.
Is that right?

Dake's own doctrine makes the Father greater than the Word. In his notes on Philippians 2:7 "The 'Kenosis' of Christ" he says Christ emptied Himself of equality with God.

[bibleman]

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.

Above you said: "The Word ( son) is in subjection to the Father (God). The word is eternal but always in subjection to God."

So I think I hear you saying that the Father is GREATER than the WORD (Jesus).
You do not believe in the equality of the Trinity.
Is that right?

Dake's own doctrine makes the Father greater than the Word. In his notes on Philippians 2:7 "The 'Kenosis' of Christ" he says Christ emptied Himself of equality with God.

NOT greater than the WORD but YES greater than the man - And took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Try again.

[Bible Reader]

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?

No true systematic theology does not contradict a parable. But there is a difference between a description of an event and a parable used to convey an idea about that event.

[Hill Top]

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.

Above you said: "The Word ( son) is in subjection to the Father (God). The word is eternal but always in subjection to God."
So I think I hear you saying that the Father is GREATER than the WORD (Jesus).
You do not believe in the equality of the Trinity.
Is that right?

Dake's own doctrine makes the Father greater than the Word. In his notes on Philippians 2:7 "The 'Kenosis' of Christ" he says Christ emptied Himself of equality with God.

NOT greater than the WORD but YES greater than the man - And took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man.
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Another good example of inequality between God and Jesus is 1 Cor 15:23-28...
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when "Jesus" shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when "God" shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For "Jesus" must reign, till "God" hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For "God" hath put all things under "Jesus'" feet. But when "God" saith all things are put under "Jesus", (Psalm 8), it is manifest that "God" is excepted, which did put all things under "Jesus".
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto "God", then shall the Son also himself be subject unto "God" that put all things under "Jesus", that God may be all in all."
I have substituted the words "Jesus" or "God" in the appropriate places to clarify one being subject to the other.
Only after the end will there again be equity, but not between God and the Word, but after the end, between God and Jesus.

[patrissimo]

You all are forcing me to do my homework...which is a good thing! Here is what St. Ignatius of Antioch said in ca. 105 AD.

"Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages, and in the end, He was revealed."

Here is an early martyr who probably knew St. John the Evangelist personally. Where did he get this?

[luchnia]

You all are forcing me to do my homework...which is a good thing! Here is what St. Ignatius of Antioch said in ca. 105 AD.

"Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages, and in the end, He was revealed."

Here is an early martyr who probably knew St. John the Evangelist personally. Where did he get this?

So Jesus was born before He was born? Very baroque concept.