A Son yet God

Jesus Christ the Son of God and God

Hebrews 1:5: –

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?


Hebrews 1:8: –

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.


The Lord pronounced Peter, Blessed Matthew 16:17, for his acknowledgement of a truth, which had been revealed to him, but by flesh and blood, but from above, though he was at that time very deficient in doctrinal knowledge. It is easy to draw the line here, and precisely to distinguish how fundamental this truth was


Matthew 16:13-19: –

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14: And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15: He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


This is how important the revelation was that Christ promised the gate of hell shall not prevail against it and keys shall be given upon it to bind and lose; yet some attention to this distinction is expedient; and the want of such attention, has greatly contributed to foment and embitter controversies in the church of Christ; while fallible men, from a mistaken zeal for the faith once delivered to the saints, have laboured to enforce all their religious sentiments, with an equal and indiscriminate vehemence. Observe: –


If it is true that the three horns of Daniel 7 that were uprooted in 476 were Arians, doesn’t that mean something to folks who still oppose what was revealed to Peter in Matthew 16 by the Father! Doesn’t it mean that if you were present then you could have supported the papacy to uproot them? Isn’t that what is happening in the church with these disfellowshipings and it will intensify as we near the end?!


The uprooting was finished around 540 AD, after the papacy was granted supreme authority in 538 AD. Ufilas was a preacher to the Ostrogoths and taught in accordance with the scriptures, hence the Ostrogoths and other Arian tribes being at odds with Catholicism’s view of God and his Son doctrine, among other things. Groups that walked in line with Rome were left. The only problem that Arians had is that they believed Jesus was the first created angel but I believe by continued study, they could have reached to truth hence their extermination


By clearly tracing the literal sonship of Christ to heaven, we dismantle the belief that Mary had any divinity to offer our Savior hence she can’t be mother of God as assumed because Christ divinity precedes existence of Mary, that blessed woman among women. Arius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, wrote: “But we believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not un-begotten, nor in any way part of the un-begotten (created); and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable and that before He was begotten, or created, or established, He was not.” Its Arius’ use of the word “created” that was misleading to some and construed to accuse him of things he did not believe and teach. This may be one the reason the papacy destroyed the Arians because of their continued study bout the Son of God. Thee Arians had no problem with the Father and His Spirit but the meaning of begotten. Perhaps more clarity would have helped in allowing us to know exactly what was believed. They believed of sonship in the sense of relational based rather than office, term or roles while many assume that these are just titles.


By the fourth century, a most powerful challenge came to the church of Rome — the ‘heresy’ of Arianism. “It involved the question of the divinity of Christ and his relation to the Father.” A Dictionary of Christian Biography. Smith and Wace. Vol. 1. Art Arianism. Pg 144. 1877. London John Murray. Although Arius, a presbyter of Alexandra, was not the first to challenge the teaching of Rome on its understanding of God, his challenge led to a series of violent controversies which shook the Roman Empire, especially in the East, to its very base. The teachings of Arius have been explained by many people, but rarely is there agreement. On one hand, he is believed to have regarded Jesus as a created being, the “beginning of the creation of God”, as this text appears in Revelation 3:l4.


One writer stated of Arianism. “God cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos, who is himself created for the purpose of creating the world… Christ is himself a creature, the first creature of God, through whom the Father created other creatures….” A Dictionary of Christian Biography. Smith and Wace. Vol. l Art. Arianism. Pg l55.l56. This nineteenth century author is dependent upon previous writers, who themselves are dependent upon others, none of whom may have had the writings of Arius. They do not quote Arius, but in their own words, give his supposed belief. As very few of the Arian manuscripts are extant, we cannot totally refute the above statement, however, as we are seeing the very same charge made against those who believe in the literal sonship of Jesus today, it is more than likely the accusations were indeed false.


One author has plainly stated, “An erroneous charge was circulated (in the fourth century) that all who were called Arians believed that Christ was a created being. This stirred up the indignation of those who were not guilty of the charge.” Winds of Doctrine pg. 88. Russell Standish, quoting B.G. Wilkinson in Truth Triumphant pg 220. (Bracket added). There are others who believe Arius stood for the Bible truth, and that Christ was the literal only-begotten Son of His heavenly Father. They believe he was simply taking John 3:l6 as it reads – “for God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son….” Note how the two understandings have been blended in the quotation below. “Arius…. held that the Son was begotten of the Father, and therefore not coeternal nor consubstantial with the Father, but created by and subordinate to the Father, though possessing a similar nature…” The century Dictionary and cyclopedia. Vol. l. Art. Arian pg 308.


It is no wonder there is confusion as to what Arius actually believed. Be that a sit may, the teachings of Arius caused great concern to the Papal church. As a result, a council was called in AD325 at Nice (Nicaea), in which church leaders of both persuasions were invited, including Arius, although he was not a bishop. He was permitted to “express his opinions”, but during the proceedings, one bishop angrily jumped up and punched Arius on the nose. After much discussion, the draft of a creed was drawn up by Athanasius (a deacon who came with his bishop), and circulated among the bishops to read and sign. When it was discovered that eighteen Arian bishops had signed the document, the papal opponents broke into a wild uproar, and tore the document to pieces. At the same time they expelled Arius from the assembly. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History pg 15-17.


It is quite obvious that the council of Nicaea was not to unite Christendom, but to destroy Arianism. In the commotion that followed, Eusebius of Caesarea presented an old creed before the council. When it was read, the Arian bishops signified their willingness to subscribe to it, but this was the very thing the Papal party did not want. What could they do to keep the Arians from signing the creed? In the subsequent discussion, one of the bishops happened to mention the word ‘homoousios’, saying how absurd it was as a proposition of belief.(The Arians accepted the word ‘homoiousios’, meaning ‘like substance’, rather than ‘homoousios’ meaning ‘same substance’, although they cared not for either as neither of them are in the Bible). This chance comment gave the Papal party the distinguishing mark they were looking for, although even Eusebius had difficulty with the similarity of the words. When he asked Constantine the difference, the Emperor said, “Homoousios could be understood as Homoiousios”. This closeness proved to be an embarrassment to the council, for when Constantine asked the presiding bishop what the difference was between the two terms, Hosius replied, “They are both alike”. At that, laughter broke out in the assembly, and the word ‘heresy’ was flung into the air by the Papists. Truth Triumphant pg 92. Benjamin Wilkinson.


Once this amendment was voted upon, the Papists signed the document; and the Arians abstained. Arius and his followers were banished from their church offices, and every known book, paper, and manuscript of Arius were burnt. (It is important to note, that in spite of the fact that the synod at Antioch sixty years earlier had condemned the word ‘homoousios’ (because it meant ‘one identical substance’ as believed by Modalistic Monarchians), the Nicene council used the very same word to condemn the Arians). The Nicene Creed reads: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and in visible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios – the amendment)with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.” Nicene creed. English Version AD1549. (It has since been modified to include the word ‘eternal’ referring to the Son, as the Catholic Church believes in ‘eternal generation’).


“What the Apostles’ Creed was content to say, that Jesus was the only Son and Lord, the Nicene Creed accumulated convergent affirmations: he is ‘eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from light, true God from true God, of one Being with the Father’ “. How to Understand the creed. Jean-Noel Bezancon, Phlippe Ferlay, and Jean-Marie Onfray. Roman catholic. Pg 53. The council of Nicaea began a religious controversy that continued on for at least two hundred years. Many more councils were held, and the “boasted unity of Romanism was gloriously displayed by the diversified councils and confessions of the fourth century… Roads were crowded with bishops thronging to synods….”Truth Triumphant pg. 91.


It was not until the 6th century that a full agreement was reached on the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and its place in the Trinity dogma, now an integral part of Roman Catholicism. In AD538, the Arian believers were completely wiped out by the catholic Church, leaving the Papacy as the sole “Corrector of heretics”; Anyone opposing the Catholic teaching of the Trinity was exterminated, for “the Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith.” Handbook for Today’s Catholic p. II.


It is evident that the truths essential to the very being of a Christian, must be known, and experienced by all, of every nation, people and language, who are taught of God Isaiah 54:13. For they, and they only, are Christians indeed, who are thus taught.


However, if there be any doctrine fundamental and necessary to be rightly understood, what the scripture teaches concerning the person of Messiah the Redeemer, must be eminently so. Mistakes upon this point, must necessarily be dangerous. It cannot be a question of mere speculation, whether the Saviour be God, Son of God, God the Son or Creature. He must be either the one or the other. And the whole frame of our religion is unavoidably dependent upon the judgment we form of him.


No outward shrines may be visible, there may be no image for the eye to rest upon, yet we may be practicing idolatry. It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas or objects as to fashion gods of wood or stone. Thousands have a false conception of God and his attributes. They are as verily serving a false god as were the servants of Baal. Are we worshiping the true God as he is revealed in his word, in Christ, in nature, or are we adoring some philosophical idol enshrined in his place?. {ST, February 8, 1883 par. 2}


If he be a man only, or if he be an angel, though of the highest order, and possessed of excellencies peculiar to himself; still upon the supposition that he is but a creature, he must be infinitely inferior to his Maker, in comparison of whose immensity, the difference between an angel is annihilated. Then, all they who pay divine worship to Jesus, who love him above all, trust him with all their concerns for time and eternity, and address him in the language of Thomas, My Lord, and my God John 20:28, are involved in the gross and heinous crime of idolatry; by ascribing to him that glory, which the great God has declared, he will not give to another Isaiah 42:8. On the contrary, if he be God over all blessed forever, Jehovah, the Lord of hosts, then they who refuse him the honour due unto his name, worship they know not what John 4:22. The judgment we form of the Saviour, demonstrates likewise how far we know ourselves. For it may be fairly presumed, that they who think a creature capable of making atonement for their sins, or of sustaining the office of shepherd and bishop of their souls, have too slight thoughts both of the evil of sin, and of the weakness and wickedness of the human heart.


We ascribe it therefore to the wisdom and goodness of God, that a doctrine so important, the very pillar and ground of truth, is not asserted once, or in a few places of scripture only. It does not depend upon texts which require a nice skill in criticism, or a collection of ancient manuscripts, to settle their sense; but, like the blood in the animal economy, it pervades and enlivens the whole system of revelation. The books of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets, all testify of Him, who is styled the son of God in so peculiar a sense, that the apostle, in this passage, considers it as a sufficient proof, that he is by nature superior to all creatures. The form of the question, implies the strongest assertion of this superiority. As if he had said, Conceive of the highest and most exalted of the angles, it would be absurd to suppose that God would say to him, in this passage, considers it as a sufficient proof, that he is by nature superior to all creatures. The form of the question, implies the strongest assertion of this superiority. As if he had said, Conceive of the highest and most exalted of the angles, it would be absurd to suppose that God would say to him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Angels were created not begotten.


The verse contains three terms which require explanation, My Son—Begotten—This day. But who is sufficient for these things? If I attempt to explain them, I wish to speak with a caution and modesty becoming the sense I ought to have of my own weakness, and to keep upon safe ground; lest instead of elucidating so sublime a subject, I should darken counsel by words without knowledge. And I know of no safe ground to go upon in these enquiries, but the sure testimony of scripture. It would be to the last degree improper to indulge flights of imaginations, or a spirit of curiosity or conjecture upon this occasion. Those are the deep things of God, in which if we have not the guidance of his word and Spirit, we shall certainly bewilder ourselves. Nor would I speak in a positive dogmatizing strain; at the same time I trust the scripture will afford light sufficient, to preserve us from a cold and comfortless uncertainty.


The gracious design of God in affording us his holy scripture, is to make us wise unto salvation 2Timothy 3:15. His manner of teaching is therefore accommodated to our circumstances. He instructs us in heavenly things by earthly. And to engage our confidence, to excite our gratitude, to animate us to our duty by the most affecting motives; and that the reverence we owe to his great and glorious Majesty, as our Creator and Legislator, may be combined with love and cheerful dependence, he is pleased to reveal himself by those names which express the nearest relation and indearment amongst ourselves. Thus he condescends to style himself the Father, the Husband, and the Friend of his people. But though in this way, we are assisted in forming our conceptions of his love, compassion, and faithfulness; it is obvious that these names, when applied to human, must be understood in a sense agreeable to the perfections of his nature, and in many respects different from the meaning they bear amongst men.


Romans 1:20: –

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


And thus when we are informed that God has a Son, an only Son, an only begotten Son, it is our part to receive his testimony, to admire and adore; and for an explanation adapted to our profit and comfort, we are to consult, not our own pre-conceived ideas, but the further declarations of his word, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, attending with the simplicity of children to his instructions; and avoiding, as much as possible, those vain reasonings, upon points above our comprehension, which, though flattering to the pride of our hearts, are sure to indispose us for the reception of divine truth.


The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}


It is evident, by looking at John 1:1 that the WORD and the SON are synonymous terms, expressive of the same character. They are both the title of MESSIAH; of him John spoke, when he said, The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And of him God the Father said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Had God spoken thus to an angel, it would have been in effect saying, Thou art the Word, which in the beginning was with God, and was God, by whom all things were made. But to which of all the angels would the great God use language like this?


Our Lord, in his conference with Nicodemus, was pleased to say, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c John 3:16. It was undoubtedly his design, by this expression, to give to Nicodemus and to us, the highest idea possible of the love of God to sinners. He so loved the world, beyond description or comparison, that he gave his only begotten Son.—Surely then the gift spoken of must not be limited to signify the human nature only. This was not all that he gave. The human nature was the medium of the acts and sufferings of MESSIAH; but he who assumed it was the Word, who was before all, and by whom all things were made. It is true the human nature was given, supernaturally formed by divine power, and born of a virgin. But he who was in the beginning God with God, was given to appear, obey, and suffer, in the nature of man, for us and for our salvation. And to him are ascribed the perfections and attributes of Deity; of which the highest angels are no more capable.


I cannot, therefore, suppose, that the title of Son of God, is merely a title of office, or belonging only to the nature which he assumed. But that MESSIAH is the Son of God, and God as he is of God. We are real sons of our human parents because we possess their substance hence human and so Jesus is surely God for His descend is not humanity, clay or any material but of God.


In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. {1SM 226.2}


Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, a divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. {OHC 12.2}


The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.–The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54.


The God-man, the whole person of Christ, was sent, came forth from the Father. The manhood was the offering, but the Word of God, possessed of the perfections of Deity, was the altar necessary to sanctify the gift, and to give a value and efficacy to the atonement.


The term begotten, expresses with us the ground of relation between Father and Son, and upon which an only son is the heir of a father. I feel and confess myself at a loss here. I might take up your time, and perhaps conceal my own ignorance, by borrowing from the writings of wiser and better men than myself, a detail of what have been generally reputed the more prevailing orthodox sentiments on this subject. But I dare not go beyond my own ideas. Long before time began, the purpose of constituting the Mediator between God and sinners, was established in the divine counsels. With reference to this, he himself speaks, in the character of the Wisdom of God. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth, and my delights were among the sons of men Proverbs 7:22,27.


If the Word of God had not engaged according to an everlasting and sure covenant, to assume our nature, and to accomplish our salvation, before the earth was formed, he would not have appeared afterwards; for we cannot with reason conceive of any new determinations arising in the mind of the infinite God; to whom, what we call the past and the future, are equally present. In this sense, (if the expression be proper to convey such a sense) I can conceive that he was the begotten Son of God from eternity. That is, set up and appointed from eternity for the office, nature, and work, by which in the fullness of time, he was manifested to men. I believe him to be the eternal Son; I believe him to be God inherently. And I wish not to exercise my thoughts and enquiries more than is needful, in things which are too high for me for the wise man furnishes us with that which I acceptable to our comprehension:


Proverb 30:4-6: –

4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? 5: Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6: Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Worthy of Worship

Hebrews 1:6: –

Let all the angels of God worship him.

At his ascension, having finished the work appointed for him to do, he was solemnly ingested with authority and glory, and sat down at the right-hand of the Majesty on high. But in his lowest, no less than in his exalted state, the dignity of his divine person is the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. He was always the proper object of worship. It was agreeable to right, and to the nature of things, and a command worthy of God, that all the angels of God should worship him.


The holy angels that excel in strength Psalms 103:20, always do his commandments, hearkening to the voice of his word. We might be certain therefore, that this highest and most comprehensive command a creature is capable of receiving from his creator, is fulfilled by them, even if we had no express information of the fact. But we have repeated assurances to this purpose. Thus Isaiah, when he saw his glory and spake of him, saw the seraphim standing’ each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory Isaiah 6:1-13. I see not how the force of the argument arising from this passage, to prove that Messiah is the proper object of the most solemn adoration, which creatures can offer to the Most High, can be evaded; unless any were hardy enough to assert, either that the prophet was himself imposed upon, or has imposed upon us by a false vision; or else, that the apostle John John 12:41 was mistaken when he applied this representation to Jesus Christ. But the apostle likewise had a vision to the same effect; in which, while his people redeemed from the earth by his blood, cast their crowns at his feet, the angels were also represented as joining in the chorus of their praises, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power and riches, and wisdom and strength, and honour and glory, and blessing Revelation 5:12.


In brief, he is the Lord of angles. The heavenly host waited upon him, and sung his praises at his birth. Angels ministered unto him in the wilderness Luke 2:13-14. And they are so entirely his servants, that at his command, they are sent forth to minister unto, and to attend upon his believing people. Are they not all ministering (worshipping) spirits Hebrews 1:14, adoring the divine Majesty, yet sent forth to minister (to the service) to the heirs of salvation. He is likewise the head of angels. Though they are not in the same near relation to him, as the sinners whom he has redeemed with his blood; for he took on him their nature. There was no redemption appointed for the angels who kept not their first habitation. But the confirmation of those who continue in holiness and happiness, is in and through him. For all things both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, are gathered together in one (reduced under one head into one body) in him Ephesians 1:10. And they are therefore styled in contradistinction from the others, The elect angels 1Timothy 5:21. He is their life, and strength, and joy, as he is ours, though they cannot sing the whole song of his people. It is appropriate to the saved from amongst men to say, This God shines glorious in our nature, he loved us, and gave himself for us.


  • 2Peter 1:16: For we have not followed CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES,


  • Jude 1:3, 4: Beloved, when I gave all DILIGENCE to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS. 4: For there are CERTAIN MEN crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and DENYING THE ONLY LORD GOD, AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.


In Summary:

  1. Paganism entered the church at Rome during the early centuries, including the heathen teachings about God.
  2. The council of Nicaea in AD325 deliberately condemned the Arians for believing that Jesus had a beginning, without regard as to whether He was created or begotten. The decision of the council was that Christ was eternally begotten, without beginning. Arius said this belief made Christ the “un-begotten begotten One”, a contradiction of terms.
  3. After the passing of the Nicene creed, the Arians were proscribed. The uprooting of the three horns on the head of the fourth beast of Daniel 7, eradicated the Arians by force.
  4. The result of this decision (the decision of Nicaea) was that Arius was once again condemned for his faith and exiled. Constantine ordered the writings of this presbyter to be destroyed. This is why almost nothing of his original works exists today. This is also why his ‘enemies’ have found it so easy to misrepresent his beliefs.
  5. Some say the sudden demise of Arius was the ‘hand of God’ (against heretics) but others say it was the work of men. In other words, the latter believe that in order to stop Arius from being re-instated, his enemies poisoned him – which is more than likely. Following the death of Arius, the dispute continued to flourish. In fact the truth of the matter is that Arianism (as it is commonly called today although this designation is often very ambiguous), almost won the day. In other words, as time progressed, it was Arianism that was steadily gaining the ascendancy over the Nicene faith (the one substance theory).
  6. In his ‘Truth Triumphant’, Benjamin Wilkinson noted “The burning question of the decades succeeding the Council of Nicaea was how to state the relations of the Three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The council had decided, and the Papacy had appropriated the decision as its own. The personalities of the Trinity were not confounded, and the substance was not divided. The Roman clergy claimed that Christianity had found in the Greek word homoousios (in English, “consubstantiality”) an appropriate term to express this relationship.” (Benjamin Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, Chapter 7, ‘Patrick, organizer of the church in the wilderness in Ireland’). He continued “THEN THE PAPAL PARTY PROCEEDED TO CALL THOSE WHO WOULD NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS TEACHING, ARIANS, WHILE THEY TOOK TO THEMSELVES THE TITLE OF TRINITARIANS. An ERRONEOUS charge was circulated that all who were called Arians believed that Christ was a CREATED being. This stirred up the indignation of those who were not guilty of the charge.” (Ibid)


After all, I would remind you that the best knowledge of the doctrine of the person of Christ, that which affords life and comfort to the soul, is to be obtained, not so much by enquiry and caviling on our part. Prayer, attention to the great Teacher, a humble perusal of the scripture, and a course of simple obedience to his known will, are the methods which he has prescribed for our growth in grace, and in the knowledge of himself. Thus even babes are made wise; while they who are wise and prudent in their own sight, the more they endeavour to investigate and ascertain the sense of scripture, are frequently involved more and more in perplexity. He has given a promise and direction, for the encouragement of those who sincerely seek him. He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him John 14:21.


This is he with whom we have to do. In and by this Son of his love, we have access by faith unto God. Unworthy and helpless in ourselves, from hence we derive our plea; here we find a refuge; and on this we rest, and build our hope, that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; who is so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they Hebrews 1:4.



A Son yet God

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *