- Parent Category: FAQs
- Category: Bible Questions and answers about Jesus Christ
- Published on Monday, 07 February 2011 09:32
Does the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Divine Trinity involve inferiority or subsequence to the Son?
It is on such strange affirmations that the deniers of the Eternal Sonship of our Lord rest their theories, and is exactly what the arch- heretic, Anus, rested on to deny the deity of the Son. But what is eternal cannot be subsequent to anything, and what is divine cannot be inferior to anything, and the Son partakes of the whole Divine Essence equally with the Father and Spirit. Really Anus was more subject to the Scriptures than the present-day deniers we refer to, for he saw that the Lord’s Sonship, as prior to His incarnation, was so clearly revealed in the Word of God that it could not be denied. His only escape from the dilemma he had manufactured for himself was then to deny the Lord’s deity. He was exceedingly exalted, but because He was clearly said to be the only-begotten Son, and that long before He came into the world, there must have been a time when He was not begotten, and therefore did not exist.
By the mercy of God the followers of Mr. J. Taylor do not, up to now, deny the deity of the Lord; therefore they must invent another loop-hole of escape: the Lord was only Son as the result of incarnation. It is really fortunate that Anus is not still in the flesh, for one would tremble for this whole company in face of his sophistries, to which they seem to have some strange affinity. It is hard to conceive of men, with any pretence to weighing the words of Scripture, being satisfied with the reasonings they allege, involving as they do the modelling of the Divine and Eternal relations in the Godhead on the human and temporary expedients of earthly relationship. The human relations of any father and son, involve, so they assert, inferiority in the son, therefore the Divine relations of Father and Son must also involve inferiority in the Son, as though anyone thought of the eternal generation of the Son in terms of the human. It is a complete reversal of the true order of things.
Sonship in its highest possible human development, that is where all thought of even a conventional inferiority of the son has passed from view, is only a faint shadow of the Eternal and Divine Sonship, where neither subsequence nor inferiority could have ever existed. When the Lord claimed in John . 17, to have worked also, as the Father (“My Father worketh hitherto and I work”), the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because such words could only mean that, by speaking of Himself in the same breath with God as His Father, He did clearly assert His equality with the Father, and our Lord accepted the inference, while asserting that such equality did not preclude subordination for mutual purposes. If the Lord was only Speaking of a relation established on the earthly plane at Bethlehem, then, according to these teachers, He would not have been equal to His Father and proves by their own showing that He was speaking of Divine relationships existing before His birth. It is surprising that any Christian teacher should fail to differentiate between eternity and the divine on the one hand and time and the human on the other, and try to import into the former, ideas attaching to the latter.