« LifeWay's Faux Pas in Banning Magazine | Main | Wade Burleson Falsely Accuses Southern Baptists of Semi-Arianism »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave Miller

I think this gets at the heart of the problem with dialogue and discourse in the SBC. Wade often adopts a "sky-is-falling" approach about Landmarkism. Wade's opponents sometimes adopt a similar "sky-is-falling" rhetoric about the reintroduction of liberalism.

Instead of engaging one another in dialogue, we rail against each other, intimating that only our view will save the SBC.

Of course, my favorite t-shirt says, "I am not opinionated; I'm just always right."

I agree with some of Wade's stuff. Disagree with some of it.

I have been pretty much the only person on his blog defending the Eternal Sonship of Christ. I wish one of the scholarly blogs would take a crack at it.(Bart, Nathan Finn, etc.)

Dave Miller

By the way, dumb question: Is that movie actually coming out soon? It looked like it might be a good one. Since my kids are grown, but have not given me grandkids yet, I do not get to see this kind of movies much.

That was a great trailer.


I often agree with some or most of what Wade Burleson posts, but not here.

What about verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:28 ESV which says, "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." and also, from Christ Himself in John 14:28 ESV, "You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." Are these also Semi-Arian verses? Certainly not. And these do not stand alone, but still the equality and divinity of Christ's shared nature with the Father is never denied, though distinctions are made in their persons.

I agree with Dave Miller. Christ is eternally the Son, yet also God. If I remember correctly, Wade also does not address the subordination of the Holy Spirit to God the Father either. If he is going to address subordination, then he should do so completely.



Great post! This is funny. This reminds me of the people who wear the end is coming signs and walk around the streets of some big city. I guess some people have to have drama in order to have some excitement in life. I have people like that who live by me. They always have to have some new cause, or there has to always be some bad problem to fix.

Peter, you know, the hippies of the 60's and 70's used to be like that, too. They were out to change everything....mostly just for the sake of change. They had to have something to be protesting against....kind of like the PC groups of today...you know, PETA, Global Warming crowd, tree huggers, etc.

Well, my wife just told me that breakfast is ready. I must go.


Jim Champion


Other than Peter, the BI bloggers have decided to pretend that Wade doesnt exist - and that if they continue to ignore him he will go away.

I think that Wade has rasied some interesting topics of late, I read your comments - think you both made good points and am undecided how I feel about the issue. I would have enjoyed some from the BI side of the house to weigh in to see more good debate on this topic.

It is good to see Peter take the Wade bait - even in a joking manner


peter lumpkins


Thanks for your input.

Also, Dave, I think this movie is circa 2000. I missed it too. I think I'll buy ity on DVD.

With that, I am...



G'day Peter,
I wonder if Mr B. has read Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ by J.C.Philpot. In this notable puritan book, philpot points out that to deny the ternal sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his role of submission is to deny the very gospel we preach. Please note : "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." It was the Son who was given.... He was eternally the Son of God.. a conclusion that John Macarthur recently also needed to come to and repent of teachings that he formally as condemned as "semi arian".
Is it true that John MacArthur has reversed his position on the eternal Sonship of Christ?
Here's a statement from John about his views on that issue.
Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ John MacArthur (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/593)
"To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of "incarnational sonship." Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation."
"1. I am now convinced that the title "Son of God" when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy "because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." "
"The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.

In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. 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. "

Is this a case once again of poor theological education unravelling the essential gospel?

The comments to this entry are closed.