# Incarnate Sonship heresy?



## satz (May 14, 2012)

Is taking the position of incarnate sonship instead of eternal sonship of the the Lord Jesus Christ (which is espoused by the WCF, LBCF) considered to be heresy by the reformed faith? Would you still fellowship with a christian holding such a belief?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 14, 2012)

Hi:

How would you envision the "incarnate sonship" as differing from the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? Would you deny the Second Person of the Trinity as existing prior to the incarnation?

Thanks in advance,

Rob


----------



## satz (May 14, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> How would you envision the "incarnate sonship" as differing from the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? Would you deny the Second Person of the Trinity as existing prior to the incarnation?
> 
> ...



Hi, the position would be that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at his incarnation (the Word made flesh) and was not so for eternity. Hence, it would disagree with the language of "eternally begotten of the Father" in the WCF/LBCF. 

The position would not deny the second person of the Trinity has existing prior to the incarnation.


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 14, 2012)

satz said:


> The position would not deny the second person of the Trinity has existing prior to the incarnation.


So prior to the incarnation there was a Binity (Father + Spirit) or was the Son somehow still a being but did not possess the office of son? Either way I cannot see how they would be tolerable views.


----------



## Philip (May 14, 2012)

satz said:


> Hence, it would disagree with the language of "eternally begotten of the Father" in the WCF/LBCF.



That language comes from the Nicene Creed, so I would think so.


----------



## rbcbob (May 15, 2012)

*John Owen on Eternal Sonship*

John Owen Works Vol 12 pp. 72ff.

By the subsisting of God in any person, no more is intended than that person’s being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him to be, Hebrews 1:3) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person: that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is not. To say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he be God, he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father, he is not the Son. That he is the Son and not the Son is sufficiently contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him. That distinction from him is his personality, — that property whereby and from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost. The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost is God: for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons; of which more afterward. 

The eternal generation of the Son is in the next place rejected, that he may be sure to cast down every thing that looks towards the assertion of his deity, whom yet the apostle affirms to be” God blessed for ever,” Romans 9:5. 

That the Word, which “in the beginning was” (and therefore is) “God,” is “the only begotten of the Father,” the apostle affirms, John 1:14. That he is also” the only begotten Son of God” we have other plentiful testimonies, Psalm 2:7; John 3:16; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:4-6; — a Son so as, in comparison of his sonship, the best of sons by adoption are servants, Hebrews 3:5, 6; and so begotten as to be an only Son, John 1:14; though, begotten by grace, God hath many sons, James 1:18. Christ, then, being begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father; for these are the very same things in words of a diverse sound. The only question here is, whether the Son have the generation so often spoken of from eternity or in time, — whether it be an eternal or a temporal generation from whence he is so said to be “begotten.” As Christ is a Son, so by him the “worlds were made,” Hebrews 1:2, so that surely he had his sonship before he took flesh in the fullness of time; and when he had his sonship he had his generation. He is such a Son as, by being partaker of that name, he is exalted above angels, Hebrews 1:5; and he is the “first begotten” before he is brought into the world, verse 6: and therefore his “goings forth” are said to be “from the days of eternity,” Micah 5:2; and he had “glory with the Father” (as the Son) “before the world was,” John 17:5. Neither is he said to be “begotten of the Father” in respect of his incarnation, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of the substance of his mother; nor is he thence called the “Son of God.” In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him to have had an eternal generation: if he be not, a generation must be found out for him suitable to the sonship which he hath; of which abomination in its proper place.


----------



## satz (May 15, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> John Owen Works Vol 12 pp. 72ff.
> 
> By the subsisting of God in any person, no more is intended than that person’s being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him to be, Hebrews 1:3) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person: that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is not. To say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he be God, he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father, he is not the Son. That he is the Son and not the Son is sufficiently contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him. That distinction from him is his personality, — that property whereby and from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost. The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost is God: for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons; of which more afterward.
> 
> ...



Thank you, Bob.

However, I am not seeking to argue for the doctrine, but wanting to know how severe an error this is considered to be? Would you have fellowship with someone holding this doctrine?

Any thoughts all?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (May 15, 2012)

I believe John MacArthur held that (incarnational sonship) position at one point, and then recanted.


----------



## rbcbob (May 15, 2012)

satz said:


> Would you have fellowship with someone holding this doctrine?


 I grant that our Lord has regenerated many souls who have barely read His Word in their native tongue and who have never had orthodox Christology taught to them. Such dear saints love the Lord Jesus while never being able to comprehend the depths of His glorious Person. To such as believe on Him whom they love and trust I can extend fellowship and would teach them more of Him if they could receive it.


----------

