Brethren Archive
Brethren Archive
Menu
Wednesday November 29, 2017

'mybrethren' Website

Some of you have already noticed that the 'mybrethren' website has been down for a while; I have managed to get in contact with the webmaster of the site .. He told me that he was not in a position to continue the maintainence of the project, and hadn't been able to find anyone else interested in taking it over, but he has very kindly given me a full copy of it and allowed me to integrate any parts of it into this one. Now obviously large portions of that site perpetrated views that many of my regular users might be uncomfortable with, but among that there were many items of valuable historical interest, particlularly related to individuals that it would be good to incorporate. I need to work out the best way of doing this still but I imagine the pages will need a lot of reformatting, so if anyone has time to help out with that, please let me know.

In This Section


Comments:
Lance said ...
Tom What was the mybrethren website?
Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 : 22:55
Tom said ...
Hi Lance .. it was a site originally run by an American brother (Gordon Rainbow) who had left the Taylors in 1970, and contained history and ministry along those lines. But also there were many interesting comments by people put up .. it was quite old and dated and not updated any more, but around the early part of the century it was the only real 'Brethren' website out there. I think you prob would have come across it at some point.
Thursday, Nov 30, 2017 : 00:06
Jason said ...
Gordon Rainbow was a Canadian brother, I know since I attended meetings with my father at Gordon and Betty place in Toronto. I was not aware that the site went down, but I would be happy to bring it back and maintain it.

The traditional understanding of a father-son dynamic implies hierarchy and subordination, which clashes with the concept of the equality and co-eternity of the Trinity. By distinguishing the Sonship as a role assumed during the incarnation, it preserves the equality within the Godhead while contextualizing Jesus’ earthly mission and relationship with humanity. It's a perspective that helps maintain theological coherence and respect for the divine nature of the Word. When the angel said that "the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God" he was not a lair, it would have been easy to say the holy thing...is the Son of God or later on we also read, "shall be called the Son of the Highest." One would have to twist the simple meaning of these verses with that of a skilled linguistic contortionist to mean the exact opposite. Even Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14 links Sonship to being born. In the beginning the Word was with God, which of course is the same person who would take on the title Son of God which underscores His connection with being Divine yet being made in human likeness and humbling himself by becoming obedient, a perfect reflection of what a father son relationship should be and what our relationship to God should be. He also became the Son of Man, which underscores His connection to humanity. It would be at this point in progressive revelation that we would read from John that the Son was made flesh, but we don't because it was the Word. One has to claim Gnostic knowledge to have insight into the relationship between the Godhead from eternity past and defly the basic meaning of words used in Scripture to support such a doctrine. When is says, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son" I don't change it to mean, "I am your Father and you are my son." Are we not warned, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other." which evidently and unfortunity seems to be the case today.

The doctrine of Eternal Sonship has deep roots in the history of the Catholic Church and seems to be a belief that most early reformers had been unable to remove themselves from. Early Church Fathers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas played significant roles in articulating and defending this doctrine. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD) played a significant role in developing the concept of Eternal Sonship as we can read in his work 'Contra Celsum'. Origen was a theologian and one of the early Church Fathers who articulated the idea of the eternal generation of the Son. His views were influenced by Neoplatonism, particularly the concept of eternal emanation. Origen's theological framework helped shape the understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity within Romanism, let's be honest and call it for what it is, Origenism.
Sunday, Oct 27, 2024 : 18:35
Nick Fleet said ...

Jason, this subject has often been covered on this site. Without repeating much of what has been written elsewhere, I would recommend reading JND's remarks on Psalm 2. There is also a difference between a name and a title, as also in the names 'Son' and 'Son of God'. The force of Heb 5:8 is clear, "though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered" (Darby trans). As (co-equal) Son in pre-incarnation the concept of obedience had no place yet, as Man, he 'learned obedience'.  The theory of eternal generation post-dates the New Testament and is, in my view, a red herring.

Monday, Oct 28, 2024 : 03:38
Syd said ...
Jason, Nick is right; every argument against the doctrine of Eternal Sonship, has been thoroughly addressed and debunked in writings on this website. Of course, each must take his own place.

A few remarks if I may. Your, “He also became the Son of Man, which underscores His connection to humanity,” is answered by the Lord’s own words—“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13).

Also, you argue, "When the angel said that ‘the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God’ he was not a lair (sic), it would have been easy to say the holy thing...is the Son of God.” Was it not He, Son of the Father (2 Jn 1:3), who, when on this earth was called “the Son of God” inter alia, by demons, the centurion, His disciples, and by He Himself?
Monday, Oct 28, 2024 : 21:04
Mark Best said ...
Jason

I write to help, not condemn.

The main cause of the conflict regarding the sonship of Christ comes about by not distinguishing sonship which is His eternally as the Son of the Father and how the name Son of God applies to Him when incarnate. Sonship is not a role.

Apart from a few individuals, “brethren” have never held to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. That comes about by taking the adjective or noun ‘monogenes’ to mean the same as, or at least derived from, the verb ‘gennao’.

Most modern translations avoid the term “only begotten” for ‘monogenes’ and use the expression “one and only” instead. I do not go into details here. That I have done elsewhere.

When the name Son is used – and it is His name – we have brought to our attention the Person who has eternally been one with the Father – and it might be added the Holy Spirit – in the Godhead. The one God in three Persons, the Triune God, the Holy Trinity. In short, the Son is who He is. As has also been dealt with elsewhere, when the Son became incarnate, there was no change as to His Person: “For the Person is not changed.” (J N Darby Synopsis, Volume 5, page 230.)

Those who press the eternal generation of the Son and those who deny His eternal sonship both make the mistake of not distinguishing between that which we call His eternal sonship and the how and the why the same Person born in time into this world as described in Luke 2 verse 35 was to thereby be called ‘Son of God’. They do not distinguish this aspect of His sonship from His eternal sonship.

Please read J N Darby in the volumes of his Synopsis on Psalm 2 verse 7, the closing verses of Matthew 1, the middle verses of Luke 1, the opening verses of Hebrews 1, and the footnote for 2 Samuel 7 verse 14.

In Hebrews 1 verse 5, ‘I will be to Him for Father, and He shall be to Me for Son’ is a quote from 2 Samuel 7, and pertains to Him as begotten in time according to Psalm 2 verse 7 as the relationship which applies to the Son as the Messiah, the Son of David, For this, He had to become man, be a man, but as a Person, in His Person, He is the Same, unchanged and unchangeable (Heb. 1.12b).

The historical imbalance in the Christian profession as to the matter of the sonship of Christ has been, on the one hand, to think that ‘Son’ only applies to Him as God, and on the other, that it applies only to Him as a man.

Sorry to put it this way, but we are not a re-enactment society living the halcyon days and enjoying the past. Brethren are broken into pieces, all hanging on to a board of the ship, something that “Brother So-and-so” said, although I am mindful that I have just referred to JND! If we have been wrong in the past, then it is time now to confess it and move on in the truth.

We cannot play fast and loose on the sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the main difficulty of fellowship among those known as brethren, dividing them and is keeping them apart, though I do not mean by this that “brethren” have any corporate existence in themselves apart from all other believers in Christ.

The Lord’s sonship is not something we can simply ignore, and about which, sink our differences. To deny His eternal sonship affects the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, for if there is no eternal Son there can be no eternal Father since they are correlative. And I know how some “brethren” have even gone astray on that.

This leads to another point. As to the comparison, or rather contrast, with the ‘Son of Man’, it is said that this title could not be His before this otherwise unnamed Person of the Godhead became a man. However, he did not become the Son.

It is a piece of fallacious reasoning to deny Christ being eternally the Son in applying the same criterion in terms of names and titles. The answer is simple. The Son is who He is eternally, but the Son of Man is what He became in time on coming down from Heaven to Earth. I express the matter in this way because, to make the wrong notion of incarnational sonship fit and that He could not therefore be sent as the Son, it has been taught that He did not come into the world until His baptism.

The same goes with the name Jesus Christ. He was given the name Jesus at His birth, along with other names and titles which would then and do now apply to Him as Man. To use such names and titles as “the Son of the Highest” and argue against who He is eternally in His Person, that He ever was, ever is and will be, the Son of the Father is to confuse things which must remain distinct in His Person as now incarnate. Now, having become a man, of course, He remains a man forever.

Regarding the statement that we do not read of the Son becoming flesh, but rather of that “the Word became flesh.” Even that the “title” ‘the Word’ applied to Christ in eternity has been denied elsewhere. Of course, John is writing of what he and the apostles witnessed. The Word had to become incarnate or He could not have been seen and heard, but who and what was seen and heard is set out by John in his gospel.

Concerning the words of the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1 as to the One to be born of the Virgin Mary being called Son of the Highest and Son of God that “one would have to twist the simple meaning of these verses with that of a skilled linguistic contortionist to mean the exact opposite.” John is set in contrast to Luke and the other Synoptists. In these, Jesus is presented to the Jews as their Messiah, but a point is reached when He is rejected. Then comes out the fact that He is the Son of the Father (Matt. 11.26-27). He might be refused His Messianic rights but they cannot change one bit who He is in His own Person. However, John commences with Him as already being rejected (Jn. 1.11), and he quickly comes to Him as being the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, and that eternally, the article and present participle in the Greek being timeless despite the argument based on the preposition ‘eis’ following.

I have tried to explain, though more might be said, but hope this is of some help.

Mark
Tuesday, Oct 29, 2024 : 18:15
Steve H said ...
Hi Mark, Jason and anyone else interested,

If only more had been willing to help rather than condemn, then perhaps "brethren" would not be so broken in pieces.

Where there have been differences, opposing sides have tended to hold firmly entrenched, dogmatic views, quoting (very often tiny) passages of Scripture to support their position.

Rarely have difficulties been discussed in a forgiving, friendly, loving spirit, and sadly people who once enjoyed real fellowship with others, are no longer able to do so because of the actions of a few in far-away places, causing (inter)national divisions!

Perhaps, if we all read our Bibles more, and meditated on such things, rather than just rely on previous ministry - however good and helpful that may appear to be - our appreciation and understanding of Divine things would continue to grow and improve.

Every blessing,

Steve H


Tuesday, Oct 29, 2024 : 19:15
Syd said ...

There are differences, and they will remain, especially on this subject. That’s why the website is probably one of the best with its wide range of searchable writings on the subject.

To condemn is wrong; to differ is scriptural, yet with a kind spirit. To be dogmatic is perfectly fine, because we are warned about not abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Of course we need to know that the doctrine we hold to is indeed taught of the Spirit. There was a time when those men of the early 19th century, “prayed out the truth on the knees in persevering prayer.” God by His Spirit honoured that. Yet today we are still required to discern the truth, and to go back to the Word prayerfully, again and again.

A thought on Sonship if I may. I find this very helpful to always keep in mind—we have to do with a Divine Person (the Son), who is co-eternal, co-existent, co-essential and co-equal with the other Persons of the Triune Godhead—the Father and the Holy Spirit. He, the Son, is unchanging and unchangeable.

Forgive me if I seem dogmatic—the Son never became anything that He was not already in His Divine Person as the Eternal Son. Of course He took flesh, and was made in the likeness of men; but that is a different point. It is the incarnation of the Son, and not Sonship by incarnation. He did not become the Son of Man; He was the Son of Man. John 3:13 is clear on this, with reference to “the Son of man which is in heaven.” He, the Son, manifested Himself as the Son of Man on earth (existing at the same time in heaven). It was God Himself in man, and He manifested Himself according to different names or titles, whether Son of God to prove His deity, or Son of the Highest to manifest who He was in relation to the Highest by the rights He earned by His acts.

I do believe that we need to guard against attributing to our glorious Lord that which in any way may detract from His unchangeable and unchanging Divine Person. He was manifest in the flesh, and thus in that body prepared Him, He manifested what He was in His Person.

Wednesday, Oct 30, 2024 : 14:57
C Gribben said ...
Mark Best: "Apart from a few individuals, “brethren” have never held to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son"

Mark, I'm aware of the eternal sonship discussion, but could you or anyone else tell me more about the discussion of eternal generation? Which brethren held to it, and which have spoken against it?

thank-you.
Friday, Nov 1, 2024 : 21:46
Mark Best said ...

C Gribben 

I am not aware of any leading teachers in either the "Open Brethren" or the "Exclusive Brethren" that have held to the doctrine of the "eternal generation" of the Son, except for one who took an active part in the division of the "Reunited Brethren" so-called at the end of the 1990s. His booklet "The Eternal Son of the Father" was sent out with the hopes of persuading those from a "Taylor Exclusive" or "London Brethren" background, but I suggest that pressing the "eternal generation" doctrine contained in it would not have helped. A booklet further developing the notion was also produced but seems to have had only a limited circulation. 

As to "brethren" speaking or writing against the "eternal generation" of the Son, here are half a dozen citations taken from past teachers on both the “open” and  “exclusive” sides. It is stated emphatically now that they all affirmed the eternal sonship of Christ.

There is no such thing as the eternal generation of the Son. 

(Roy A Huebner, The Eternal Relationships in the Godhead, page 51.) 

The phrase “eternal generation” finds nothing to correspond to it in Scripture. It does not serve to explain the doctrine of the eternal relationships of the Godhead. 

(W E Vine, Christ’s Eternal Sonship, page 24.) 

Begetting or generation is associated in scripture with the incarnation of the Son, but is never attributed to the Holy Spirit, Who did not “become flesh.”  The much-used term, “eternal generation,” applied to the Son is without scriptural warrant, for how could the Deity of the Son be derived from Another? or, how could the Eternal Sonship be bestowed by generation? But, being the Son from all eternity, when born of the Virgin Mary, He could be called the Son of the Highest (Luke 1:32). 

(W J Hocking, The Son of His Love, page 56. Emphasis Mr Hocking.)

The old theory of “eternal generation” does not appeal to the present writer, merely pushing the difficulty back to the eternity past, and not explaining anything. 

(John Heading, What the Bible Teaches, volume 6, page 24.) 

Some, correctly, anxious to guard the truth of Christ’s eternal sonship, speak of “eternal generation”, and regard the term “this day” as being synonymous with eternity. There is a certain unsatisfactory vagueness about this interpretation which does not seem to be in keeping with the apparent definiteness of “this day”. 

(J M Flanagan, What the Bible Teaches, volume 8, page 26.)

Only begotten is a term of relationship; not a low carnal idea of begetting. 

(Collected Writings of JND, volume 6, page 80.) 

A possible difficulty with those who have had association with James Taylor is the assumption that to hold to the eternal sonship of Christ means that the "eternal generation" concept must also be held. It does not. 

Brethren generally, both OB and EB, except so-called "London" after June 1929 when it was introduced among them by JT, have been quite able to accept that our Lord Jesus Christ ever was, is, and evermore, eternally the Son, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. 

The doctrine of the "non-eternity" of Christ's sonship, or "incarnational sonship" as it is otherwise known remains a difficulty in terms of fellowship. 

It is a pity many from among the "London" brethren cannot see that the problems which arose leading to their break-up in 1970 did not commence in 1959, but much earlier, and JND himself was concerned about "brethren" towards the end of his life.

Friday, Nov 1, 2024 : 23:42
C Gribben said ...
Thank-you, Mark - that's very helpful.
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 05:11
Joshua said ...
There is an OB brother from California who has written a book ( B.P.Harris, Understanding the Trinity, 2006.) in which he strongly argues for eternal generation and goes on to imply the denial of eternal generation is dilution of Historic Christian Faith and Semi Arian.
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 06:52
C Gribben said ...
CAC says (at 29:160): "Theologians, feeling that the word "begotten" implied the posteriority of the One begotten to the One who begot Him, but not seeing that it referred to Him as born of the virgin in time, tried to escape the difficulty by inventing the unscriptural phrase, 'eternal generation', which involves the serious error that in some way the deity of the Son is derived or communicated from the Father, and is therefore of subordinate character." CAC rightly wanted to avoid subordinationism, but that really wasn't what the doctrine of eternal generation was intended to imply.

JND (6:33): "Creeds may be useful as contradicting false notions, but are, to say the least, most imperfect and unsatisfactory as communications of truth. I judge the matter of the Athanasian to be, perhaps, the least objectionable."

JND (9:928): "Now as to doctrine (what may seem strange) I like the Athanasian Creed the best of all, though it be far too scholastic in form. But I maintain no creed ..."

JND's statements make this comment from JT (102:325) very interesting as to the practice of brethren: "A few days after the Glanton division occurred, however, Mr. James C. Trench, acting for his brother, served a notice of ejection on the brethren who signed the lease. When they remonstrated he directed them to read the lease and it was found that it required that the room was to be used for the breaking of bread, preaching the gospel, etc., by brethren who held the Athanasian Creed. As it was judged the brethren did not now hold this Creed, the lease was cancelled. The brothers (now with the Lord) who signed the lease and who had directly to do with this transaction told me of it together, and I am sure it will be confirmed by brothers in Sligo."

Was it, or is it, common for the trust deeds of halls or meeting rooms to refer to the Athanasian creed?
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 15:25
Mark Best said ...

C Gribben 

I agree fully with the summary statements of the Christological doctrines formulated by the four Councils that have arrived at our understanding – limited though such will always be – of the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

To summarise them as follows: 

Nicaea – AD 325 – condemning Arianism and affirming that He is very God. 

Constantinople – 381 – condemning Apollinarianism and affirming Him as very Man. 

Ephesus – 431 – Nestorianism condemned, that He is not two persons but one Person. 

Chalcedon – 451 – the Eutychians, teaching He has only one nature, were condemned, and that in Him are two natures, the divine and human, distinct and not merged. 

However, there are details of the Creeds with which I do not agree. For example, in the so-called “Apostles’ Creed is stated, I believe in God, the Father, Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. This conflicts with John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1. 

The Athanasian Creed is named after the one who took a leading role against Arius and his teaching that denied full deity to the Son in that the He was made the first created being through whom all the rest of creation came into being. 

However, there are aspects of it which are not based on Scripture or arrived at through a misapplication of Scripture. Hence, it was drawn up that He was begotten – not created – of the Father before all worlds. It is based on a misunderstanding of Psalm 2 verse 7 by regarding ‘this day’ as the “eternal day” as they call it. 

I quote a definition of eternal generation: “The eternal generation of the Son is an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”  (A. A. Hodge, Systematic Theology, page 182.) 

But where do we read this in the Bible? It is enough for me to simply believe that God eternally subsists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There can be no subordination in the Persons of the Godhead, all three are co-equal, and indeed, 'all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father' (Jn. 5.23). 

I know Psalm 2 verse 7 is produced (as already mentioned) and much made of John 1 verses 14 and 18 as well as John 3 verses 16 and 18, the assumption being that the noun or adjective ‘monogenes’ is formed from the verb ‘gennao’. John 5 verse 26 is also cited, but this applies to Him as now incarnate, as Man, having taken a place of subjection and receiving all from the Father, though ever personally the Son co-equal with the Father. 

Mark Best

Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 18:58
C Gribben said ...
Thank-you, Mark. These are helpful references. But Hodge, in defending classical arguments for the eternal generation of the Son, isn't arguing for subordination within the ontological Trinity, is he?

(We need to distinguish classical Trinitarian claims, like those defended by Hodge, from the implicitly and sometimes explicitly subordinationist claims of modern evangelicals - eg, see the recent debate about "eternal functional subordination" - but that's another story.)

I think the language of the creeds, in attributing the work of the creation to the Father, is echoing the logic of 1 Cor 8:6, in which creation is "of" the Father and "through" the Son.
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 20:05
C Gribben said ...
Additionally - thank-you again for the Hodge reference - I hadn't realised before that he isn't himself defending the classical language, admitting it should be held in "suspense" beneath explicit Biblical statements (Outlines of Theology, p. 183)!
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 20:33
Mark Best said ...

C Gribben 

I am not going to fall out with someone who holds to the "eternal generation" doctrine, and am aware that not everyone takes from it that the Son even in the Godhead is subordinate to the Father, and that would include A A Hodge. 

Nevertheless, it leaves the door open to it, and might have led to JT's eventual denial of the eternal sonship of Christ. The Father-Son relationship of the divine Persons cannot be understood merely in terms of how it applies at a human level. This thinking was behind the error of Arius and others who deny the eternal sonship of Christ in that among men a father precedes a son. 

True it is that the Son was not the first created being as some believe from misapplying Colossians 1 verse 15, and even by others Revelation 3 verse 14, but to put Psalm 2 verse 7 into eternity before time - "before all worlds" - and say the Son was "begotten, not created" as in the Christmas carol, does not adequately distinguish between the Son as God, co-equal with the Father in eternity, and as a Man born in time - what He became by the Incarnation. 

However, my point is that to press this doctrine on those brought up in a system where the eternal sonship of Christ was being denied, and among them C A Coates mentioned above, or at least who were indifferent to it, was not going to help them. 

As to A A Hodge, he would have differed completely with the "Darbyites" on subjects such as justification and sanctification, the Christian in relation (or not) to the Law, not to mention their ecclesiology and eschatology, and, for that matter, many other things. 

Mark

Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 21:21
C Gribben said ...
This is from Bellett, "Son of God" (which has loads of unacknowledged citations from John Owen, with whom the great recovery really begins), which gathers material first published in Present Testimony 3 (1851) and 4 (1853):

"We should fear to dim the light of that love in which our souls are invited to walk on their way to heaven. And — what is a deeper and tenderer thought, if I may be bold to utter it — we should fear to admit of any confession of faith (rather, indeed, of unbelief) that would defraud the divine bosom of its eternal, ineffable delights, and which would tell our God that He knew not a Father's joy in that bosom, as He opened it; and which would tell our Lord that He knew not a Son's joy in that bosom as He lay there from all eternity. I cannot join in this. If there are Persons in the Godhead, as we know there are, are we not to know also that there are relationships between them? Can we dispense with such a thought? Is there not revealed to faith, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding? Indeed there is. The Persons in that glory are not independent, but related. Nor is it beyond our measure to say that the great archetype of love, the blessed model or original of all relative affection, is found in that relationship."
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 21:45
C Gribben said ...
AJ Pollock:

"What then is the meaning of the Son having "life in Himself" as the gift of the Father? If "life in Himself" is life that never had a beginning, then the giving is clearly from all eternity. It means that there never was a moment when in the Godhead the Father was not bestowing, and the Son was not receiving "life in Himself." So that at any point it could be said, "For as the Father has life in Himself; so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself." It is life flowing from all eternity from the One to the Other in the essence of the Godhead. How true are the words of the old divine, "The Father from all eternity gives it, the Son from all eternity receives it." "Eternal generation" is a true idea, though we must be careful not to argue from the natural to the Divine. This is the great mistake that has been made. The manner of the Divine is beyond our understanding. The why and wherefore of these things the mind of man can never grasp. They are beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our adoring belief. The conclusion of the whole matter is that John 5:26, plainly states the truth in the Lord's own words that the Father has "life in Himself," life inherent, uncaused, from everlasting to everlasting, therefore He is the Father ETERNALLY; that the Son has "life in Himself" as the gift of the Father, life inherent, uncaused, Self-sustained, from everlasting to everlasting, therefore He is the Son ETERNALLY."

[https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/eternal_son/ajp3.html]
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 22:05
C Gribben said ...
Another interesting quote from Russell Elliott on John 5:26:

"in some respects this is the crucial verse of the chapter, and the one around which controversy has been the keenest. There are some who maintain that this can only refer to Incarnation. But where is there any reference to Incarnation, or even to our Lord as Man? It is not something given to the Son of Man but to the Son. In the very nature of things TIME is excluded. To introduce the thought of time into the eternal relations of Divine Persons is simply an anachronism. Time does not relate to God, and has no place with Him. Past, present and future do not exist as such, for Him it is one eternal NOW. ... it is opportune to remind ourselves that certain theological expressions which have been in use, such as "eternal generation," "begotten before all worlds," etc., are not out of place if taken as they were meant to be taken by those who coined them. They were never meant to be anything more than finite expressions of what is infinite. Least of all did those who employed them intend to convey the idea of any beginning to the life of the Son, or that He was created. They held strongly to the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, and that He was co-existent and co-eternal with the Father. Such expressions as the foregoing are intended to be nothing more than an attempt to put into words the highest conception of the human mind regarding something altogether beyond its range."

[https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/eternal_son/elliott2.html]
Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 22:17
C Gribben said ...
This from Wm Hoste:

"We will close this paper then with a quotation from one such, who is generally considered to have been not only a true and humble Christian, but a sound theologian. He thus writes of the Lord: "Meanwhile being divine, being properly God, He is filial, He is the Son …" See e.g., John 1:18; 17:5, 24; Col. 1:13-17; Heb. 1:2, 8; 2:14-17; 1 John 4:9. Not only as He is Man, but as He is God, He is so related to the Father, that in divine reality, eternally and necessarily, He is the Son; as such, truly possessing the whole nature of "His own Father" (John 5:18). The inscrutable mode of this blessed Filiation is named in the theology of the Christian Church "the Eternal Generation" … Scripture reveals that the Christ is the Son antecedent to Incarnation. It also reveals that He is eternal … The Christ did not become, but necessarily and Eternally is the Son.* Such has been the general faith of the elect in all ages."

"We may remind ourselves in this our closing chapter, that the difficulties involved in such expressions as "the Eternal generation"; or "the communication of the divine essence" need not perplex us. The greatest difficulty would be, were there no difficulties. If we understand so little the processes of human generation, how may we hope to fathom the Divine? But many of the difficulties, no doubt honestly felt by some, are based on fallacies, such as pressing the analogy of human generation; importing into a past eternity ideas of precedence or subsequence, which belong exclusively to time; confusing the original interrelations of Divine Persons with questions of deity, equality, eternity, etc. The new teachers seem to substitute for the Divine Trinity, a triad of Gods: they are in reality, it is to be feared, tri-theists."



Saturday, Nov 2, 2024 : 23:27
Mark Best said ...

Dear C Gribben 

Thank you for the above citations, However, I cite from a few respected teachers of a day past. 

"This passage also shews us that, although He was the eternal Son, one with the Father, He is always looked upon as manifested here in flesh, and, therefore as receiving all from the Father." (J N Darby, Synopsis, Volume 3, page 324.) 

Another from JND in answering a brother's tract: "But in John 5.26 ... It is not said life in Him, as in the Father Himself - "hath," and "given to have," at once makes a vital difference. You could not say any one gave God to have life in Himself, and that, because He has it in Himself. It is not a question with me of Christ's true eternal Deity ... 'That life,' you say, 'which is proper to God, dwells as fully in the incarnate Son, as in the Godhead itself.' I do not say anything of 'as fully,' but in the same way is not true, for the Father has given to the Son (incarnate) to have life in Himself. This is not true of Godhead.... In John's gospel this reception from the Father is most carefully everywhere retained, while His own proper Deity shines all through most strikingly. Hence your phrase, 'is none other than the life of God - the life which is proper to God, and which at the incarnation took up its abode, in all its divine fulness, in the Person of the Lord Jesus,' has hardly a clear sense. It never took up its abode in God, and is never said so in Scripture, but that the Father gave to the Son (incarnate) to have life in Himself." (J N Darby, Letters, Volume 3, page 86.) 

"For even as the Father hath life in Himself, so he gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and gave him authority to execute judgement [also], because he is Son of man" (vers. 26,27). The Lord evidently speaks here as come below, a man, the Sent of God, and Servant of the divine purposes, not as the One Who is over all, God blessed for ever, though both be true of Him in His Person" (William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John, page 115.) 

'In the Gospel of John it is that the Lord is seen as the Eternal life, the Son, to whom "the Father hath given to have life in Himself," just as the Father hath life in Himself (ch. 5. 26). The words show that it is as Man He is speaking, and that thus in manhood he becomes a Source of life.' (F W Grant, The Crowned Christ, page 69.) 

"Only those who have heard His voice have lived. They have lived because, as the next verse tells us, the Son now come forth in Manhood, has life in Himself, as given of the Father ... but here we see that in Manhood the Son is given of the Father as the Fountain Head of eternal life for men." (F B Hole, The Gospels and Acts, page 234.) 

I know that those who hold to the eternal generation of the Son use John 5 verse 26 as "a proof text" and reason that this was in eternity. However, I suggest, in the context, it is the life given to the Son as a Man is in order that we - "us men" - might have eternal life in Him. It all hinges on the Son as incarnate - having become Himself a Man. We do not - cannot - share in the life proper to the Godhead. 

Perhaps I might add that the Son is still the Son when incarnate, and I think a lack of appreciation of this led Russell Elliott to write, "It is not something given to the Son of Man but to the Son." Yes, but to the incarnate Son. 

Regarding Wm. Hoste, "If we understand so little the processes of human generation, how may we hope to fathom the Divine?"  I do not hope to fathom it. I simply believe and accept that Christ is eternally the Son and co-equal with the Father. In the life of divine Persons, the life proper to God, we cannot share (how could we?), but the eternal Son became a Man, so that He might give eternal life to those given Him of the Father. 

A large subject but I leave it there. 

Mark 

Sunday, Nov 3, 2024 : 01:51
Aaron said ...
Thank you , Interesting references here.

I came across a site " https://judev3.co.uk/" (it uses Darby Bible, so probably exclusive brethren). The site master Mr Steve Noble publishes articles without author names and gives reason for it.

The site has articles that say Trinity taken to its logical conclusion is Tritheism and insists on using Oneness of God.

Is this view the standard exclusive brethren view, has there been any teachers among brethren in past or present that taught this ?

Aaron
Monday, Nov 4, 2024 : 00:52
Syd said ...

I don’t intend to prolong this discussion, but firstly on the concept of “eternal generation,” to my mind, E.C. Hadley (https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/Eternal_Son.html) puts it quite succinctly—“But soon after the apostles' days the theory of eternal generation was brought out — that is that the Son of God as to His being exists eternally, but as a father is the source of a son he begets, therefore the Son of God exists as a sort of eternal or continual generation from the Father. This human theory, arrived at by introducing an element that has to do with the purely human relationship into their reasonings about the uncreated eternal relationship of the Godhead, actually deprives the Son of His co-equality with the Father and reduces Him to a derivative form owing His existence to the Father.”

Then a few comments on John 5:24-27, because the quotations of Darby, Kelly, Hole above essentially on verse 26, stand a little in isolation. Actually, that of Kelly and Hole capture better the gist. Clearly it’s about life from spiritual death. It’s about life now, when the voice of the Son of God through the gospel is heard and believed. Mark did allude to this above. About those still in the grave, the hour is still coming (v 28).

Note, it’s the voice of the Son of God that imparts life in verse 25, then verse 26 begins, “For,” giving the reason or motivation for this life—referring to the Father and the Son, both in whom this life exists. This is profoundly true in 1 Jn 5:20—the true God and His Son Jesus Christ, and eternal life.

So it’s about life, life eternal, and not about the Son having life in Himself through the incarnation (becoming a living Person), although this is quite true (and may also be suggested). Neither is it about “eternal generation” which is foreign to the context and makes matters very confusing.

1 Jn 5:11 is very helpful to confirm what both Kelly and Hole were saying—And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. It is not that the Son was given to have this life in Himself at His incarnation (otherwise 1 Jn 5:11 and 20, are meaningless from an eternity perspective), but that as Darby mentions above, “He is always looked upon as manifested here in flesh, and, therefore as receiving all from the Father.” How would God show that He had given eternal life, but through His Son, in whom this eternal life always existed, and that when He was manifested in flesh, and always said that He received all from the Father, as His obedient Servant?

Monday, Nov 4, 2024 : 03:27
Mark Best said ...

I found this when reading last evening: 'In the Gospel of John it is that the Lord is seen as the Eternal life, the Son, to whom "the Father hath given to have life in Himself," just as the Father hath life in Himself (ch. 5. 26). The words show that it is as Man He is speaking, and that thus in manhood he becomes a Source of life.' (F W Grant, The Crowned Christ, page 69.) 

___________

Aaron 

As to that cited from "https://judev3.co.uk/" I would have to see the extract in its context. 

The statement that says, "Trinity taken to its logical conclusion is Tritheism and insists on using Oneness of God," most certainly is not "the standard exclusive brethren view." 

True it is to speak of the oneness of God, for there is one God and God is one (Deut. 6.4, 1 Cor. 8.6),  but that does not mean that God does not subsist in a trinity of Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Triune God, as sometimes said. 

___________

I have now looked at some of Steve Noble's webpages relevant to the matter and it would seem that he is referring to or correcting a wrong impression of others who think we believe that the Holy Trinity are three Gods, not an uncommon accusation directed at Christians, but I suggest that he needs to be very careful of not slipping into error himself over this. To deny personality to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit would be seriously erroneous indeed. 

This is moving onto another subject, however.

Monday, Nov 4, 2024 : 15:40
Aaron said ...
Mr.Best.

Since Mr Noble doesn't mention the author names and has articles both from others and himself, I wanted to know whether this line of teaching was common in exclusive assemblies or not. Thanks for the clarification.
Monday, Nov 4, 2024 : 20:44
Steve Noble said ...
Somewhat surprised (to say the least) to see my name come up in this discussion. I have no intention of commenting here upon what has been said (or speculated upon) in connection with what is on my website. The subject is holy, and brethren in Christ who approach the subject with a genuine spirit of enquiry are quite able to contact me direct.
Tuesday, Nov 5, 2024 : 18:02
Aaron said ...
Mr. Noble,

I attend a open brethren church or more rightly a church that was earlier brethren (now we use music and all). I discovered both these websites (judev3 & brethren archive) recently . I assumed you were exclusive brethren because you used Darby Bible and your articles were helpful but your articles on trinity seemed different to what is taught in our church. So I was curious whether this was something standard among exclusive assemblies because I thought only difference between open and exclusive assemblies was about autonomous churches. So I got a doubt whether this is the standard exclusive teaching or your original exegesis.

Since you had already given reasons for not mentioning author names I assumed it would be not appropriate to put questions regarding authors and since this website had a comment option and there was a discussion about another website in relation to trinity so I thought to ask my question here .

My Sincere and humble apology to you for lot of assumptions and speculations on my part.

Aaron Varghese.
Tuesday, Nov 5, 2024 : 20:53
Timothy Stunt said ...

Little would the late Gordon Rainbow have imagined that a question about his identity would result in a ten day discussion of opinions concerning the Holy Trinity. To get back to the original enquiry. . . In my experience Mr Rainbow was a charitable man who was concerned about factual truth rather than his correspondents' opinions. The problem with many credal statements is that they tend to be more emphatic about the opinions of those with whom they disagree. Even the Nicene creed was guilty of adding a negative ['not made'] to the positive adjective 'begotten'. Defining our beliefs in terms of beliefs with which we disagree is a bad start. Timothy

Tuesday, Nov 5, 2024 : 23:46
Roger Holden said ...
To really get back to the original point, I find that mybrethren.org is currently accessible. Certainly, from my point of view, it has valuable material on it which should not be lost, irrespective of whether or not one agrees with these people.
Wednesday, Nov 6, 2024 : 01:31
Roger Holden said ...
Having posted the above, I have just noticed that the original post about mybrethren.org not being available was dated 2017, it is just the lengthy discussion about matters of the Trinity that has been added recently. I could add to this but will refrain.
Wednesday, Nov 6, 2024 : 01:39
Syd said ...
I think the website lends itself quite naturally and invitingly to discussion, typically what we have above. Jason commented early on, and charitably raised the issue of the Eternal Sonship. To the brethren who added some value to my own knowledge, by questions or contributions, thank-you.
Wednesday, Nov 6, 2024 : 01:51
Jason said ...
Thank you for all for your comments, the trust of my statements was brought forth merely to indicate that someone who actually held to the Biblical doctrines the website highlights and was a small part of the assembly behind it would be a good match for maintaining and maybe elaborating on it, as truthfully pointed out, it was dated.

I however don't want to ignore some comments attempt at refutation. We already know how Brethren have treated this subject, if there was no ambiguity on this issue we would not be here today.

Nick Fleet said ...I would recommend reading JND's remarks on Psalm 2. The commentary of others can be helpful, but we should be able to "with all readiness of mind" search the scriptures as to whether those things were so...(See Acts 17:11), too heavy a reliance on authority figures can sometimes bias our outlook. I don't claim to follow the teachings of F.E. Raven, or C.A. Coates, or Pre- John MacArthur, I claim to follow Scripture. Even Post-MacArthur admits to the doctrinal weakness of this new position, " I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply." Nick mentions the force Heb 5:8 is clear, "though he were Son...", but putting it in context we first read in vs 7, "During the days of Jesus’ earthly life". Does this not place the "though he was a Son", during earthly life? I would say, as the (co-equal) Word in pre-incarnation the concept of obedience had no place yet, as becomming Man and assuming the role of a Son, he 'learned obedience'. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" The broader biblical teaching is that humility is a key aspect of living a godly life, and how it applies to everyone who would become Son's of God, including sons in their relationships with their parents and God. Jesus Himself set a perfect example of humility through His earthly life assuming the humble role of becoming a Son.

Syd brings up John 3:13, but how it pertains to specific eternal relationships as Father and Son I don't see how this connection can be made. What is indicated is that He ties His identity to the prophetic vision in Daniel, emphasizing both His humanity and His divine authority. The verse serves to highlight Jesus' unique identity as both fully human and fully divine, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and establishing His mission on earth. Also the New Testament doesn't provide explicit accounts of demons referring to Jesus as the "Son of God" before His incarnation. The references we have are from Jesus' earthly ministry when the demons recognized His divine nature and authority during His encounters with them. However I would say that it's reasonable to infer that the spiritual realm, including demons, recognized His divine status even before the incarnation, though this specific acknowledgment is not directly recorded in the Scriptures, either way you are simply making educated guesses and drawing conclusions based on indirect evidence in this particular case.

I believe some of the confusion may lie in the Scriptures use of anachronistic relational terminology, like when it speakes of the Father sending the Son, what is important is Person who is identified, not what particular titles, roles, or conditions they may of had or have at aparticular moment in time. The condition of Sonship is made clear by Scripture, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.." (Gal 4:4)

. the doctrine of “eternal generation” or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in A.D. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the realms of Christology. Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar applied to Him in His incarnation. MARTIN, Walter R. (1928-1989) - The Kingdom of the Cults.

Is there really a clear Scriptural basis for saying that He was the Son before the incarnation, and if it not made clear how can it be a foundational salvific doctrine? Where does it say Father, Son, Holy Spirit is a divine relationship before incarnation in Scripture? Given the ambiguity why is it not more fair to say that the past eternal relations subsisting between the Persons of the Trinity are entirely beyond our knowledge and that we should not place any doctrine on it until the Lord comes?

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matt 11:27)

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. (1 Cor. 4:5)

Why don't these debates simply reflect the dynamic nature of theological discussions and how different perspectives can coexist and contribute to a richer understanding of faith? Ulimately Jesus said, "“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Did the issue of Incarnational Sonship vs Eternal Sonship need to come to blows like it has? I don't think so. Everyone here adhears to Eternal Sonship, that is just argumentum ad populum. "Every argument against the doctrine of Eternal Sonship, has been thoroughly addressed and debunked in writings on this website." - doubtful.
Wednesday, Nov 6, 2024 : 09:45
Mark Best said ...

Jason, 

Nick Fleet’s quoting ‘though Son’ is to show that, though come into in an inferior position, He was still the Son and in no way as such inferior in His Person. 

The (so-called) “Reunited Brethren” were divided in 1997 over the reception of those who could not affirm that God eternally subsists in three co-equal Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am deliberately avoiding the expression “eternal sonship” which as you say is not found in the Bible. But what the term means is. 

Before elaborating – and briefly – “brethren” do not have an existence in themselves. We are one body united by the one Spirit to all true Christians on earth. We cannot simply think of ourselves without taking into consideration all other believers in Christ. That we are smashed to smithereens is to our shame. We have failed the Lord and our fellow brethren in the “sects and systems” as we speak, sadly often arrogantly in a disparaging way. Not that I agree with all that is going on in the Christian profession, of course, and if Mr Darby could write of the “ruin of the church” in his day, things have got only worse since. But that is another subject. 

To come to the sonship of Christ. The Son is the Person. Who He is. There are different perspectives on His sonship but not in the way suggested. This, pertaining to that which He is in His eternal Person and as born in time according to Psalm 2 verse 7, has been dealt with before . Some might not agree with me here, but it was the teaching of Mr Darby and others. However, He is the Son, eternally one with the Father in the Godhead. This is fundamental Christian belief. I cannot let it go. 

As to the eternal generation of the Son, I do not fall out with people who subscribe to it as such, but nowhere in the Bible is such a concept described, and "brethren" largely have not taken that line. 

Concerning the supposed "Scriptures [sic.] use of anachronistic relational terminology," you ask, "Where does it say Father, Son, Holy Spirit is a divine relationship before incarnation in Scripture?" I ask, Where does it say not?  

Let me take up your text. ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law’ (Gal. 4.4). Was He sent as the Son, as already the Son, or did he become the Son when sent, on being sent? It also raises the question as to when He was sent. Following His baptism since He had to be sent as Son? Or the Incarnation as already being the Son? When He was made of a woman surely. Hence, if words mean anything, He was already the Son when sent forth, ‘come of woman, come under law’ – when 'born', Darby footnote.

Please allow me to explain this verse you have quoted.  'All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.' (Matt 11:27) This is the Son as Man, but something of the line taken by Matthew in his gospel needs to be understood. In short, in the early chapters, Jesus had presented Himself as Israel's Messiah but was rejected. His rights as such are refused, but no one can take from Him who He is, and in that moment He prays to the Father as the Son. The Incarnation made no change as to His Person. 

It compares with, though not exactly, that said earlier on John 5 verse 26 with the citations from J N Darby and others. The Son as Man "receiving all from the Father," as JND wrote. Hence, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'  

Let me take another Bible text partly alluded to. ‘The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World.’ (1 Jn. 4.14.) I am aware how C A Coates explains this, doubtless  based on James Taylor Snr's. teaching, but isn’t it stretching things rather too much that this is how this previously otherwise unnamed Person became the Son when sent, as so learned by the apostles after having been sent? 

To take an example used to illustrate this aspect of non-eternal sonship. A woman might say, “When my husband was a little boy …” Such an expression might well be used even though he was not her husband then. Hence, similarly, so the reasoning goes, Christ is referred to as the Son even though He was not before being incarnate. The point is that her husband was always her father-in-law’s son. He was that person in that relationship, the son of his father, before the marriage. 

It is a piece of false reasoning based on this concept which has been used by those who try to press that the Lord Jesus was not the Son before He was sent, being referred to as the Son later by those who knew Him. But if He was not the Son prior to sending, then the One who sent Him was not the Father, and CAC informs us that the terms are correlative, so at least in that regard he is consistent, though in this case, consistently wrong. So, in 4BC, or thereabouts, one Person of the Godhead became the Father, and another, the Son. Really?

Similar is JT's notion that “Son” did not apply to this otherwise previously nameless Person before the Incarnation in the same way that Jesus Christ did not apply before. This fallacious piece of reasoning is easily disposed of. Jesus was the name given to Him at His birth. Christ is His official designation as being the Anointed One of God, and, of course, as regards Jesus Christ, this does apply to Him now as Man. The Son is who He is in His eternal Person, one with the Father in the Godhead. 

As to an "argumentum ad populum." I do not believe this because everyone here does. Please! I am not arguing for argument's sake. I am trying to be helpful. But I can read the Bible. And in the examples quoted, such as Galatians 4 verse 4 and 1 John 4 verse 14, I take them as I read them without trying to explain them away just to suit an argument based on an opinion popular to some "brethren." 

"Why don't these debates simply reflect the dynamic nature of theological discussions and how different perspectives can coexist and contribute to a richer understanding of faith?" We are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Either the sonship of Jesus is eternal or simply incarnational, a role for time. It cannot be both. 

I do not comment on the misuse of 1 Corinthians 4 verse 5. 

However, Jason, I shall leave that matter between you and the Lord. 

Mark Best

Wednesday, Nov 6, 2024 : 17:21
Hiereus said ...
For attention of Crawford Gribben regarding your recent contribution:

“This is from Bellett, "Son of God" (which has loads of unacknowledged citations from John Owen, with whom the great recovery really begins), which gathers material first published in Present Testimony 3 (1851) and 4 (1853):”

I would be most grateful if you could elaborate further on the above sentence extracted from your contribution on 2nd November. How do you understand the term ‘the great recovery’ and what are your reasons for antedating it to the seventeenth century?
Friday, Nov 8, 2024 : 05:42
C Gribben said ...

For Hiereus: Thanks. Some of the 19th century critics of the brethren saw the movement not as representing something new, but as reviving some of the stranger beliefs and behaviours of the mid-17th century. It's a valid point. In Owen we can see many of the features of what would become known as the brethren movement, albeit in embryo, eg encouragement of weekly communion and meetings for Bible study without the oversight of an ordained minister, worries about the appropriateness of having a confession of faith, a distinction between the church and Israel (albeit while recognising continuity between one and the other), with an expectation that the Jewish people would be restored to the Promised Land. This might be why Owen's name pops up fairly often in early brethren writing, from Bellet's "Son of God" to Lincoln's "Javelin of Phinehas" (see the long quote from Owen in the appendix) to Kelly's defence of not using the Lord's prayer (which Owen agreed was not suitable for the period after Pentecost). One of the more curious citations of Owen's name is by Sir Charles Brenton, who, while an Anglican clergyman, found himself preaching in the parish church in which Owen had grown up; after Brenton left the Church of England, he realised that quite a few other clergymen who had also preached in that church had made the same move. His conclusion - perhaps tongue in cheek - was that their defection might have been due to Owen's prayers - as if Owen's prayers for his home parish were now resulting in individuals joining the brethren. Other 17th century contexts are important too: eg William Kelly identified Robert Leighton as the individual who saw more of "brethren truth" than anyone else who lived before the 19th century. So both critics and advocates of brethren ideas looked for antecedents in the same period.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

Friday, Nov 8, 2024 : 06:46


Add Comment: