In March 2005 a brother (A. Williams) e-mailed the IFCA National Office.  He was seeking clarification concerning the IFCA's position on Christ's Eternal Sonship and also how they view the denial of this doctrine.  The following e-mail exchange speaks for itself:

Please note:  We did not instigate this e-mail exchange. It originated from A. Williams who acted on his own.  However, Brother Williams did share with us these responses.  In fact, prior to this e-mail exchange, we did not even know this brother.

Hello,

I need you to clarify something for me. Does the leadership of the IFCA not consider the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ to be a "most serious error"?

The Middletown Bible Church of Middletown, CT states this is true and that is why they withdrew from the IFCA. Please see letter:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/destand.htm

Thank you.
A. Williams

E-mail: From the IFCA National Office to A. Williams:
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:27 PM

Dear A. Williams,

Greetings in Christ, and thank you for your inquiry regarding the IFCA and the matter of the eternal Sonship of our Lord. The IFCA clearly holds to and affirms the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ, as the son of God; the second person of the trinity. Our doctrinal statement clearly states, “We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God,…”

We would, therefore, consider it a serious error to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
I hope this helpful. Please see our website at www.ifca.org for a full reading of our doctrinal statement. If I can be of further assistance, please contact us again.

In Christ,
D.F.
 

E-mail, from A. Williams to IFCA National Office

Thank you for replying, however I am still somewhat confused, as you stated:

“We would, therefore, consider it a serious error to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.”

My question was do you consider it a serious error to deny the eternal sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ? (not His deity). I have read your doctrinal statement.

Thank you.
A. Williams

 

E-mail, from IFCA National Office to A. Williams

Dear A. Williams,

Thank you for your response. I do not want you to be confused regarding our position. Our doctrinal statement is clear, but let me additionally say that some continue to require additional clarification on this matter. Our position holds to and maintains the eternality and deity of Jesus Christ; i.e. He is the eternal son of God.

There was at one time a view presented by John MacArthur that caused concern, however, he has since renounced his former position in a widely distributed statement on the internet, dated September 4, 1999. I know of no one who holds that view in IFCA International. All affirm the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. Therefore, you are seeking an answer to a question no one is asking anymore. This doctrinal issue is closed.

Here is an internet site where you may read the statement regarding MacArthur’s change in position on the matter of the eternal sonship of Christ. http://www.gty.org.uk/articles/sonship2A.htm

I trust you will find this helpful. We rejoice in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the eternal son of God!

In His Grace,  D.F.


Observations by George Zeller on This E-mail Exchange

1. The IFCA National Office sidesteps the real issue. The issue is not Christ’s eternality and it is not His deity. We never accused John MacArthur of denying these important doctrines. Instead he denied the eternal Sonship of Christ, teaching instead that His Sonship began at Bethlehem. Please notice that the IFCA National Office never answered the question asked in the first e-mail. The question was, “Does the leadership of the IFCA not consider the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ to be a ‘most serious error’?” This was never answered.

They were asked if the denial of eternal Sonship is a most serious error. The IFCA answer was that the denial of the deity of Christ is a most serious error. The real question was avoided and sidestepped.

2. The IFCA National Office misinterprets the IFCA doctrinal statement. Here is how the IFCA National Office dissects the phrase “the eternal Sonship of God.”

Eternal—This means that Christ is eternal (emphasizing His eternality).
Son of God—This means that Christ is God (emphasizing His deity).

Certainly the expression “eternal Son of God” implies His deity and eternality, but it means much more than this. The phrase must not be chopped up, but must be understood as a whole. It clearly means that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God—that is, He always was the Son of God and His Sonship had no beginning. The IFCA doctrinal statement itself verifies this meaning: “We believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” If words means anything, then this is saying that Christ eternal existed as the Son.

3. This is not a minor issue because it involves the very essence of Christ’s Sonship. This is the key issue. CHRIST'S SONSHIP DIRECTLY RELATES TO HIS ESSENTIAL NATURE. The “incarnational Sonship view” calls Christ's Sonship merely a “title” and a “role.” According to this view, His Sonship has no bearing on His essential nature. The eternal Sonship position teaches that Christ is God's Son essentially and inherently. Christ's Sonship indicates equality with God (sameness of nature) and points to His true, real, essential and proper relationship with the Father from all eternity. The only-begotten Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18).

The “incarnational Sonship view” understands Sonship as a “role” and “title” which is external and extrinsic and extraneous to the real, true, proper and essential essence of who Jesus Christ really is. This is why his view is so contrary to the eternal Sonship position which insists that Jesus Christ is really and truly and actually and properly and intrinsically and eternally the beloved and unique Son of the Father. He is the Son because of WHO HE IS essentially and ontologically, not because of what He became and what He did.

The IFCA leadership needs to understand that the heart of this issue involves the true and essential essence of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Person that He really and eternally is. We are not debating some minor technical difference as to when He assumed a “role” or “title.” We are dealing with a MAJOR ISSUE which is the relationship of Christ's Sonship to His essential nature and essence.

4. The fact that MacArthur no longer holds the “incarnational Sonship view” is not the real issue. The fact is, he once did. And although the IFCA leadership knows of no one in the IFCA who holds to this position today, it is quite possible that in the future someone could hold such a view. It happened before and it could happen again. When MacArthur held this view it was not handled properly and the IFCA doctrinal statement was compromised and a deviant position was allowed. So in light of this, a question to ask the current IFCA leadership might be this: “Suppose an IFCA member were to come along who believes in the deity of Christ and in His eternality. And yet this same person denies the eternal Sonship of Christ, believing instead that He assumed the role and title of Son at the incarnation. Would this person be out of harmony with the IFCA doctrinal statement?”

5. In the first paragraph the IFCA Office states their understanding of the doctrinal statement. When the doctrinal statement says that Christ is “the eternal Son of God,” the IFCA leadership interprets this to mean two things: 1) He is eternal (His eternality); 2) He is God (His deity). While these two affirmations are certainly true, the phrase means more than this, as has already been discussed. It clearly signifies that He eternally existed as the Son of God, a vital point which the doctrinal statement elsewhere affirms (“eternally existing in three Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit”).

It’s obvious that the IFCA leaders want to put this doctrinal controversy in the past (“this doctrinal issue is closed”).  What is very puzzling are these words: “There was at one time a view presented by John MacArthur that caused concern, however, he has since renounced his former position in a widely distributed statement on the internet, dated September 4, 1999. I know of no one who holds that view in IFCA International. All affirm the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ.” The IFCA National Office seems to be saying that MacArthur once held a position that caused concern, he has renounced this position, no one today in the IFCA holds this view, all affirm the eternal Sonship of Christ. What is puzzling is this. When the IFCA dealt with the John MacArthur situation, the IFCA leadership concluded that John MacArthur’s position was not out of harmony with the IFCA doctrinal statement. They did this by defining “the eternal Sonship of Christ” just as the IFCA National Office has done in these e-mails, meaning merely that He is eternal and He is God. Since John MacArthur believed that Christ was eternal and that He was God, they had no problem with his clear and forceful denial of eternal Sonship (teaching in his published writings and in his public tapes that Christ was not the Son until Bethlehem). But the e-mail from the IFCA here makes the statement that “all affirm the eternal Sonship of Christ,” implying that there was a time in the past when this doctrine was denied. But when was this time? If “the eternal Sonship of Christ” is defined merely as a statement affirming the eternality and deity of Christ, then when was this ever denied? When in the history of the IFCA did any IFCA member ever deny the eternality and deity of Christ? I know of no such occasion.  Certainly MacArthur never denied the eternality and deity of Christ.  It is the IFCA's definition of "eternal Son of God" that is at fault.

6. If the doctrine of eternal Sonship merely means that Christ is eternal and Christ is God, then how can we say that MacArthur changed his position on eternal Sonship? MacArthur has always held that Christ is eternal and that Christ is God. He has never denied Christ’s eternality and Christ’s deity. But we all know that MacArthur did indeed change His position on eternal Sonship. He once believed that Christ’s Sonship did not begin until the incarnation; he now apparently believes that Christ has always been the Son of God. This merely proves our point that the doctrine of eternal Sonship involves more than an affirmation of Christ’s eternality and deity. It means that He has eternal existed as the Son of God, or as the IFCA doctrinal statement says, “We believe in one God, eternally existing in three Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

E-Mail From: A. Williams, Sent: March 10, 2005 To the IFCA National Office; Subject: Re: Eternal Sonship

Thank you for replying. However, I feel you might still be confused with my original question. I am not trying to argue here, just receive an honest answer. I have no qualms about your doctrinal statement saying IFCA believes in the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. I, too, believe in our Lord's eternal Sonship. I also read what MacArthur posted online. But this is not my point. Let me try to be clearer. The question I have is:

Does the "leadership" at IFCA feel it is "not a serious error" for someone--any church, anywhere in the world--not to hold to the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? (This, in spite of IFCA saying in their doctrinal statement that Christ is the eternal Son.) Would it be a serious error for a church to deny he wasn't? The emphasis is on my words is "be a serious error to deny".

I hope I have made myself clear.

You also made no mention of Middletown Bible Church's letter on the web at: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/destand.htm

Please take a look at this letter. Yes, I will ask them why it is still up. They must have a good reason. I am in contact with them.

A. Williams.

E-Mail from IFCA National Office to A. Williams:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005

Dear Brother Williams,

I appreciated the fact that you are “not trying to argue.” And I am not interested in getting into a banter, either. My view is that if anyone denied the deity of Jesus Christ in redefining the “eternal sonship” of Jesus Christ in the modalistic or monarchian sense that would deny both the biblical truth of the divine trinity, where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are fully co-equal in deity/eternality; that indeed would be heresy and a grievous error. IF, however, one is recognizing, as Isaiah portrays, in anticipation of the coming of Messiah that, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us…”(Isaiah 9:6, a future tense reference that obviously is referencing an event in time but in no way denying eternality or deity) it is possible, but not a wise choice of words, to speak of “sonship” as a time event, while not intending to deny “eternal sonship.” But such terminology is confusing and can lead to a conclusion that would be “a grievous error” if not properly qualified. This is why we must follow 2 Timothy 2:15 and 16.

It is clear from not only Isaiah 9:6, but also Galatians 4:4, that in order for a “son” to be sent, he must be a “son” at the time. He doesn’t “become” a son at the point of incarnation, but is in fact eternally “the Son of God.” The Trinity is eternally the Trinity.

With that little bit of background, the answer would be clearly, “Yes, it is a grievous error to deny the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ.”

I trust you will find this helpful. No one in IFCA would hold to any other view than that of the Scriptures which clearly declare and affirm the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ as the eternal son of our Trinitarian God. Let me know if this has been helpful.
I trust you can appreciate that fact that we receive many inquires, pro and con, and it is often difficult to reply to singular excerpts without benefit of the broader context. Therefore, we seek to be careful as well as forthright. The glory of IFCA is that we are faithful to the word of God, and at times are accused of being too legalistically conservative by some, and by others as being too liberal. Yet, we seek not to be pleasing to every critic, but faithful to the Lord and His inspired, inerrant and all-sufficient word. We seek to continue to make progress in this realm. It is a wonderful fellowship!

May the Lord continue to bless you in your diligent study of God’s word.
In His Grace and Truth,  D.F.


A final e-mail was sent by Brother Williams to the IFCA National Office, sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:07 AM

Dear Brother,

Forgive me for emailing again about this matter. May I just ask one more question?

You stated:

It is clear from not only Isaiah 9:6, but also Galatians 4:4, that in order for a “son” to be sent, he must be a “son” at the time. He doesn’t “become” a son at the point of incarnation, but is in fact eternally “the Son of God.” The Trinity is eternally the Trinity.

My question is:

If an IFCA member were to teach that Christ became a son at the point of incarnation and did not eternally exist as the Son (that is, He was not the Son prior to His being sent into the world), would this be a grievous error and would this be contrary to the IFCA doctrinal statement? In asking this, I am assuming that this IFCA member believes in the eternality and deity of Christ.

I hope we can settle this with one email. Thank you for your patience with me.
A. Williams

This final e-mail was never answered.


Final comments by George Zeller:

William’s final question to the IFCA is crucial and we are sorry it was never answered.

If the IFCA were to answer that this is a grievous error and contrary to the IFCA doctrinal statement, then this would condemn the IFCA in light of how they handled the John MacArthur situation in 1991. MacArthur, in his published writings and public tapes, clearly taught that Christ did not become a Son until the incarnation. If this were a grievous error and contrary to the IFCA doctrinal statement, then why didn’t the IFCA leadership do anything about it?

If he were to answer that this is not a grievous error and not contrary to the IFCA doctrinal statement, then this demonstrates that the IFCA continues to view the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ as a matter of little consequence. This would indicate a serious refusal to face up to the unambiguous statements of the IFCA doctrinal statement which strongly affirm the doctrine of eternal Sonship in clear, indisputable language.

Remember, we are not speaking of the denial of the deity of Christ or the denial of the eternality of Christ, as serious as these denials are. We are speaking of the denial of Christ’s eternal and essential Sonship, the teaching that insists that His Sonship is merely a title He acquired, a role that He played, a name He took on, and a function that He assumed at some point in time. It is a denial of Christ’s real, actual, and intrinsic nature. According to this view, Christ is the Son of God not because of who He is essentially and ontologically, but because of what He became and what He did. The eternal Sonship position insists that His Sonship is His essential identity, the very essence of who He is.

Go to the Next Chapter

Back to John MacArthur's Position on the Sonship of Christ - Index