Replies

Some of the problems with the Incarnational Sonship of Christ are that this teaching confuses or destroys the internal relationships that exist within the Trinity, because if the Son is not eternally begotten by the Father, then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. Also, if there is no Son prior to the incarnation, then there is no Father either; and yet throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel. Instead of having a triune God eternally existing in three distinct Persons with three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship end up with a nameless Trinity prior to the incarnation, and we would be forced to say that God has chosen not to reveal Himself as He truly is, but only as He was to become. In other words, instead of actually revealing who He is, the Triune God instead chose to reveal Himself by the titles He would assume or the roles that He would take on and not who He really is. This is dangerously close to modalism and could easily lead to false teachings about the nature of God. One of the weaknesses of the doctrine of incarnational Sonship is that the basic relationships existing among the members of the Trinity are confused and diminished. Taken to its logical conclusion, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ reduces the Trinity from the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to simply Number One, Number Two and Number Three Persons—with the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation, destroying the God-given order and relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity. (https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html)

“eternally begotten”

That term is not just unscriptural, it’s contradictory. It’s like some theologians knew they couldn’t get away with removing the verses that say ‘begotten’, without being called out.

There’s a video of pastor Gino Jennings, of Philadelphia, reading modified verses from the homo produced “Queen James Bible”. The ‘editors’ of that book were justifying an opinion by tweaking the wording. Jennings tosses it in the trash at the end.

“God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)” are also not found in the scriptures. Were those phrases created to help strengthen an opinion?

The “gotquestions” dude gave an opinion based on a preconceived notion, but no scripture references. I suppose I should send him the scriptures I pointed to in this thread, and see how he interprets them.

Where is the Father not at?

Are you “boatbums of Florida”, or “Florida the boatbums”?