eternal sonship?

[brody196]

I am very confused by all of this....What's at stake either way?

[Sean]

I am very confused by all of this....What's at stake either way?

Nothing.

[darinhouston]

I am very confused by all of this....What's at stake either way?

Nothing.

For some, it is integrity and truth which is at stake -- I don't mind when we cling loosely to a notion, but when we make it a fundamental tenet or touchstone of authentic orthodox belief, it should bear the tests of just these sorts of debates, so I think they're fairly important -- if the notion falls short, it should be a tangential issue, not one of our confessions and dogmas which have divided the church.

[Sean]

I am very confused by all of this....What's at stake either way?

Nothing.

For some, it is integrity and truth which is at stake -- I don't mind when we cling loosely to a notion, but when we make it a fundamental tenet or touchstone of authentic orthodox belief, it should bear the tests of just these sorts of debates, so I think they're fairly important -- if the notion falls short, it should be a tangential issue, not one of our confessions and dogmas which have divided the church.

The problem is, this question is not clearly answered by the text itself. So while different sides can make assumptions about this issue taking texts that may or may not be relevant and applying them either way we end up debating an issue that Jesus never seemed to make an issue of.

Is this an important matter? Well yes, I believe it is. Can we glean a valid answer from the bible? Maybe. If this were a major issue it would/should have been more clearly addressed by Jesus or His apostles. Since it didn't seem to be a major issue then I don't believe it should be a major issue now, mainly because we don't have a clear answer. Although it is interesting to discuss.

[steve]

Hi Sean,

You asked:

What about this verse:

1 John 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

If God sent His Son into the world, then is this not the Word/Son being called the Son before being born into the world?

I think it is a case similar to Hebrews 1:6 (discussed earlier in this thread, but a long time ago!). Since the incarnation, Christ certainly has, as one of His titles, the "Only begotten (or "unique", Gr. monogenes) Son". Forever afterward, including the time John was writing, it has been correct to refer to Him in this way. But whether this "sonship" speaks of His eternal status or His post-incarnation status would seem to be a question left unsettled by the use of the term. Any office held by Christ today could be attributed to Him proleptically in speaking about Him in pre-incarnate times as well. It is as when we say, "In his childhood, President Washington chopped down a cherry tree." We are not asserting that Washington was president in his childhood, at the time of his chopping down the tree, but the title "President" is used proleptically, that is, the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.