JACOB PRASCH'S SHILL MARCO QUINTANA ON ADOPTIONISM

Marco Quintana of Devore Truth takes a faulty shot at defining Adoptionism.

Marco Quintana: "Some people try to say again, the Sonship, Adoptionism - that Jesus just became the Son at his birth, or Jesus became the Son at the incarnation, or Jesus became the Son at baptismal. Baptismal Sonship Incarnational Sonship, same error. Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He has always been with the Father, He has revealed to us the Father.. Jesus is not the Son of God only at the incarnation .. Jesus is the eternal Son of God.." (from 23:00)

We cannot reasonably slap the label "adoptionist" onto those who believe in the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Word before the incarnation. (John 1:1,14). The Temporal Sonship/Incarnational Sonship view is based on the premise that the Eternal Word became the Son of God at His birth.

Marco Quintana has ventured into something of a grey area that has been debated by Christians since the early church. Adoptionism is the heretical doctrine that before his "adoption" Jesus was a mere man. The adoptionist heresy was re-hatched by Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, in Spain late in the eighth century and Felix, bishop of Urgel (Seo de Urgel). They asserted that at the time of his birth Jesus was purely human and only became the divine Son of God by adoption when he was baptized. Spanish advocates predicated the term adoptivus of Christ only in respect to his humanity; once the divine Son "emptied himself" of divinity and "took the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7), Christ's human nature was "adopted" as divine. Problematically, Elipando's assertion appears to suggest that Christ's human nature existed separately from His divine personhood. In the twelfth century, Peter Abelard, in France, taught another variation of the heresy ~ Neo-adoptionism. {1}

The case against eternal Sonship by Walter Martin:

(a) “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 which opened the door theologically to the Arian and Sabellian heresies which today still plague the Christian Church in the realms of Christology.

(b) The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament.

(c) The term ‘Son’ itself is a functional term, as is the term ‘Father’ and has no meaning apart from time. The term ‘Father’ incidentally never carries the descriptive adjective ‘eternal’ in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal (‘the eternal Spirit’—Hebrews 9:14), emphasizing the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical ‘eternal Sonship’ or ‘eternal generation’ theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, for there is a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word ‘Son’ predicates time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us as the Logos, is timeless, ‘. . . the Word was in the beginning’ not the Son!” (p. 103 My page reference is to the fifteenth printing, January 1974 edition. The same material can be found in the current edition (October 2003) on page 139.)

The case for eternal Sonship by D.A. Carson:

“It is not that this eternal Word became the Son by means of the incarnation, so that it is appropriate to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only after the incarnation, whereas before the incarnation it would be more appropriate to speak of the Father, the Word, and the Sprit. No, for as we have seen in Hebrews, the Son is the one by whom God made the universe. In John 3:17, we are told, ‘God did not send his Son into the word to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.’ It is fanciful to suppose this means that God sent into the world someone who became the Son after he arrived. ‘The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. . . . He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him’; indeed, ‘all things have been created through him and for him’ (Col. 1:15-19), making him not only God’s agent in creation but creation’s master and goal. In these and numerous other passages (e.g., Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 14:9; 17:1-8; 1 John 5:20), Jesus is not the Son of God by virtue of being the ultimate Israel, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being the Messiah, the ultimate Davidic king, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being a perfect human being. Rather, he is the Son of God from eternity, simultaneously distinguishable from his heavenly Father yet one with him, the perfect Revealer of the living God.” {2} 

Augustine of Hippo vigorously advocated the theory of Eternal Sonship. Augustine's view gradually met universal acceptance in the West and the doctrine was subsequently incorporated into the Nicene Creed in 325 AD. 

Eternal existence as against eternal generation does have some scriptures in its favour.

The angel Gabriel said of Mary's miraculously conceived child: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David.. (Luke 1:32, 35).

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? (Hebrews 1:5). Begotten is suggestive of a beginning. Clearly Jesus Christ has no beginning and is not a created being like the angels.

I do not label anyone a heretic who questions the doctrine of eternal generation in favour of eternal existence. The scriptures are not conclusive either way and it would be a mistake to rely on the arguments of dubious individuals like Origen and Augustine. (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Anton Bosch was targeted by Jacob Prasch for this alleged error.

Anton Bosch's Statement of Faith below does not deny the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ:

We Believe:
God
• That there is but one God, a personal conscious Being, Creator of all things seen and unseen, eternal (without beginning or end) as three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
• That the Word became flesh, and was born of the virgin Mary, He is the only begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: Who lived a sinless life, was crucified, died, and rose again. We hold that Jesus will return soon to establish His kingdom.{3}

Anton Bosch: "I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is eternal (co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit). He is without beginning and end. 'Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' (John 8:58) I reject the idea that Jesus was 'begotten', was 'generated' or 'came forth' in eternity past since it diminishes the fact of his eternality and therefore His deity and is born out of Arianism." {4}

Anton Bosch: "Just to be clear, the majority today seem to prefer the eternal sonship view (that Jesus always was the Son and the Father always was the Father). I hold to "Incarnational Sonship" (He only became the Son at Bethlehem). Neither view denies His deity nor His eternal co-existence with the Father and Spirit and is not even remotely a basis for division. (video 10/20/18 afternoon)" {5}

Marco Quintana's video is, in my view, a veiled attack on Prasch's previous victims, Amir Tsarfati being the latest - for an error that he corrected two years ago. {6} I do not endorse the ministry of Amir Tsarfati, mainly due to his pre-tribulation rapture position and his questionable associations. However, I do believe he has been targeted unfairly on this occasion.

There are those who would cause unnecessary divisions within the Body of Christ, albeit under the pretext of upholding "truth". Prasch and his little band of accusers are very quick to label anyone "heretic" on a mere whim, with the covert intention of slandering them. (2 Timothy 3:3; Jude 1:19; Revelation 12:10). Marco Quintana's argument might have been delivered by Prasch himself, it has his fingerprints all over it.

1. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01150a.htm
2. https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/walter-martin-vs-d-a-carson-on-the-eternal-sonship-of-jesus/
3. http://antonbosch.org/statement-of-faith
4. https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2019/01/moriel-update-jacob-prasch-is.html

5. http://lifestylec.com/the-trinity-has-been-under-attack-not-just-by-cults-but-within-evangelical-christianity-by-sandy-simpson/ 

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJbohKoQLPs&feature=youtu.be

Further Links:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1359-was-jesus-the-son-of-god-eternally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJbohKoQLPs&t=1690s
https://vimeo.com/341659274