Incarnational Sonship

I recently had a run in with someone who posed themselves as believing a doctrine called the “Incarnational Sonship” of Christ. I soon discovered this was merely a small, insignificant theological problem compared to his views about the Trinity as a whole. Nevertheless, the actual position of the Incarnational Sonship of Christ peaked my interest because I had never heard the term before. In essence, the doctrine can be briefly summed up by saying that it is a position in which someone does not believe that Jesus was the “Son of God” from eternity. This doesn’t mean that they believe Jesus Christ is not eternal. They just believe that the Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the title of  Son of God did not become realized until Jesus’ incarnation.

Although this sounds strange to the ears, and would merit anyone espousing this doctrine having to reinterpret the many Scriptures that affirm the eternal Sonship of Christ, I believe it is possible to hold this position and be truly born again (I’m making room for grace). Moreover, I recognize that theological ignorance or semantical misunderstanding can play a role as to why someone would choose to believe this doctrine, even after being confronted with the insurmountable truth that Christ was always the Son of God before time began.

Surprisingly, John MacArthur once held to this doctrine (other advocates were Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Finis J. Dake, & Walter Martin). Thankfully he no longer believes it, but I figure posting his article here would be fitting. After all, why write about something when someone else credible has done the work, right? It is my hope that in revealing this doctrine we all become more aware of the various kinds of Christological teachings, even the ones the skate on thin ice.

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A235/Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ

 

I also stumbled across a gem of a post that explained this theology in contrast to the Eternal Sonship of God. After researching this doctrine, I found this contrast helpful.

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

Jesus was always the Son of God. He is the Eternal Son. “Son of God” is Who He Is. His Sonship directly relates to His Deity.

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

Before the incarnation, Jesus was the Eternal Logos, not the Son. “Son of God” is What He Became. His Sonship directly relates to His incarnation, and has no bearing on His essential Deity.

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

Christ’s Sonship is essential to His true identity and cannot be divorced from the person that He is. “Son of God” is who He is in His being of beings.

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

Being the Logos is essential to His inherent unchanging identity.”Son of God” is merely a title and role that He assumed, a relationship He was born into.

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

“Son of God” means equal with God, indicating likeness or sameness of being.

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

“Son of God” as an attribute of assumed humanity speaks of subservience, being less than God. [A debatable point]

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

God the Father has always been God the Father.

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

God has always been God. Prior to the incarnation He was “father” in a metaphorical sense as Creator. With the Incarnation He became a Father in the literal sense. Relationship does not involve a change in Person.

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

The Father-Son relationship has eternally existed in the Godhead. Before the Incarnation the Son was ever in the Father’s bosom.

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

Before the incarnation there was no Father-Son relationship in the Godhead. This does not imply there was no Triune relationship between persons (God, Logos and Holy Spirit), merely that we have no other term but “God” to represent the 1st Person of the Trinity. The Logos was ever in God’s bosom.

 

ETERNAL SONSHIP:

The Father sent His own Son into this world (see John 3:16-17; Galatians 4:4; etc.).

INCARNATIONAL SONSHIP:

God sent His own Logos — the One who was born Son — in Person into this world. Once again, a change in relationship does not equate to a change in Person

Taken from bro.ralph@gmail.com

 

Because of my recent experience, here is a warning/exhortation. If you come into contact with someone that believes that Christ was not eternally the “Son of God,” take a breath and don’t be quick to label them as a heretic. Find out if they believe whether Jesus eternally existed with the Father before the world was made. If they deny that Jesus, as the 2nd person of the Trinity, did not exist with the Father before time began, and/or they believe that Jesus and the Father are not one essence yet two distinct persons (not “manifestations” like some Oneness Pentecostals like to say), then it is safe to expose it as heresy. If, after pleading with them and correcting them on their position, they remain resolute, warn them about their dangerous position, that you will be obligated to warn others concerning them (especially if they are a teacher/leader), and that they will be marked as a heretic. You want to give space for them to admit openly that they are willing to at least consider the essential doctrine of Christ and His eternal essence.

If provided an opportunity, follow up and find out if there is any change or a willingness for further discussion. If, for whatever reason, they are unwilling to discuss the issue with you, and remain staunch concerning their heretical position, then the removal of the right hand of fellowship is sadly in order. This doesn’t mean you can’t talk with them in future contexts, pray for them, or perhaps further assist them with good works (if they care to have you in their company) that may open their hearts to the true gospel. It just means you can no longer consider them a brother or sister, or among those who are truly born again. However, if they are a teacher, leader, or just a strong advocate of their heresies, one of the options is avoidance.

Some Scripture concerning the handling of heretics: Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; 1 John 1:7-11.

One final thought. It is one thing to contend against a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, etc. that are openly affirming their denomination and what they believe (whether ignorantly or with knowledge), but it is quite another when you have someone that marches among the ranks of Christianity who are posing to have a biblical view of the essentials of the faith and are found wanting. Also, it is important to reserve heretical judgment toward someone until we are absolutely sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, they are believing historical heresies.  Always verify and ask for clarity. We are to treat all people with respect, but we must fear God and sin enough to speak the truth to others that may hold to damnably erroneous views of Christ. Let love lead our motive, truth organize our thoughts, the gospel guide our passions.

6 thoughts on “Incarnational Sonship

  1. How can John MacArthur preach sermons attacking the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Viciously attack the Assemblies of God for teaching the importance of being empowered by the Holy Spirit, Expressing demonstrative worship of Jesus Christ. Hungering for God at what we call our Altar service, and then at the same time John holds to Lordship theology, and the sheparding doctrine

    Like

  2. Perry – The Assemblies of God is an experience oriented religious group, putting those false anointings of the Holy Spirit above the Scripture. As for altar calls, that is an invention of the heretic Charles Finney. Beyond which – search the Scriptures and see if you find an altar in a new covenant church. Ain’t there. Altar calls are pagan in origin.

    Like

  3. When I referred to Altars I was not talking about altar calls. I was talking about sitting, standing, or kneeling to worship magnify,exalt the person of Jesus Christ. The anointing I am referring to is the Holy Ghost moving in the midst of God’s people, who set the hearts to seek the face of the triune God. You don’t know me and my relationship with Christ, but you sin against the Holy Spirit by calling his work FALSE. In Jesus name I rebuke those words that came from your heart. God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and truth, but you need to thirst and hunger and Jesus said Out of your Belly will flow rivers of living water, but this he speak of the Holy Ghost that would come after he was exalted at the right hand of God. To many religious groups received the new birth when Jesus breathe his spirit in them in John 20 but the believers who pattern themselves after the book Acts know the mighty infilling of the Holy Ghost cause Peter stood up and said THIS IS THAT which you now see and hear. Jesus called Wait until you be CLOTHED with power. The anointing is the Holy Spirit and he is always Exalted and magnifying JESUS CHRIST. So lets look at the fruit of soul-winning with the Assemblies of God. 75% of all conversions to Christ in the world. The reason for the filling of the Holy Ghost is have his power. The disciples had the Holy Spirit indwelling when they went to wait for Pentecost. Then peter stood up and said THIS IS THAT. Peter went on to say This promise is unto you and your children and and people far of and as many as the Lord shall call. Acts 8, 11, chapter 19 for the gentiles. When I got saved I was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I was a new creation, but I was afraid to witness, I was uncomfortable around Christians that worshiped Jesus, by exalting, and ministering to Lord until( I received the power of the Holy Spirit)

    Like

  4. Manfred I re-read your post about AOG being an experience seeking group. In ephesians 5,18-19 after Paul commanded them to get filled with the Holy Spirit. next verse speaking to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and making melody in your hearts to the Lord. After the infilling of the Holy Ghost in Acts the disciples were praising God. We have a UNCTIONawareness of the presence of Jesus that the Holy Spirit moves us to do the same. Remember the book of Acts is profitable for Doctrine

    Like

  5. I am sad at Christianity today. People hold the creeds of more importance than the Word of God. The creeds are no more than professions of faith held by the church at different points in history. I’m not saying we shouldn’t read them, but we should definitely not read the bible through their eyes. I get that there are conflicting views of the bible. We have more access than ever to the holy scriptures and to other written materials. It is possible for us to learn something new in light of all our resources.

    As far as the incarnational sonship goes, (which I am not fully convinced of) they make a really good point. Son literally means “male offspring”. Is the second person in the God head really a male offspring of God the Father? If so, how is it that God the Father has begotten (which has to do with a point in time) a Son whom has no beginning? My father was in Vietnam. He was not my father during that time in his life, but I can still say my father was in Vietnam. Likewise, the Son made all things. This could still be true even if the Sonship was not yet a reality at the time of creation. I think this is something that should be developed with a great deal of prayer.

    Like

Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s