Those who try to deconstruct the Trinity

by Sandy Simpson, 5/13/19

These days every core doctrine of the Church is under extraordinary attack. One of the most important core doctrines is that of the Trinity, the Triune God … “God is one God eternally existent in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Another way of stating it is “God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality”. I am going to lay out the general case first against any teachings that intentionally or unintentionally try to deconstruct who God is, in particular who Jesus Christ is. I will then move on to a few specific cases and answer their assertions individually.

First and foremost, any teaching that claims that God changed in character along some timeline is teaching heresy. God does not change.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

1 Samuel 15:29 Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

Psalm 55:19 God will hear and answer them— Even the one who sits enthroned from of old— Selah. With whom there is no change, And who do not fear God.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

These statements in the written Word are either true, or they are false. If they are false they can be disproved by other verses here and there. If they are true, which they are since we can see that from context and co-text, then God does not change. If he does not change then His character does not change. God purposed in Himself to send the Son to add humanity to Himself in the Incarnation so that He could shed his blood for our sins as the perfect sacrifice (Heb. 9:22), and rise from the dead to become the firstfruit for all who believe.

So then anyone who teaches that there is no Son of God in the Old Testament or that God (the “What” or the “Whos”) changed somehow in the New Testament is attacking the character of God.

So some will say, “Where then is God the Son in the Old Testament”? The line of Adam to Shem to Abraham, and finally the sons of Israel, had encounters with God but they knew that no one could see the Father and live. 

Exodus 33:20 He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

They also knew they were dealing with, what they only knew how to term, “THE angel of God” or “THE” messenger of God. They knew the difference between “an” angel of God and “THE” angel of God. 

The references to “THE angel of God” are as follows: Gen. 21:17, 24:7, 31:11, Ex. 14:19, Num. 22:22, Jud. 6:20, 6:22, 13:9, 1 Sam. 14:20, 2 Sam. 19:27, 2 Kings 1:3, 1 Chron. 21:30, Dan. 3:28, Zech. 12:8, Acts 7:35. ⁽¹⁾

The references to “THE angel of the Lord” are: Gen. 16:7, 16:9, 16:10, 16:11, 22:11, 22:15, 24:7, Ex. 3:2, Num. 22:23, 22:24, 22:25, 22:26, 22:27, 22:31, 22:32, 22:34, 22:35, Jud. 2:1, 2:4, 5:23, 6:11, 6:12, 6:21, 6:22, 13:3, 13:13, 13:15, 13:16, 13:17, 13:18, 13:20, 13:21, 2 Sam. 14:17, 19:27, 24:16, 1 Kings 19:7, 2 Kings 1:3, 1:15, 19:35, 1 Chrin. 21:12, 21:16, 21:18, 21:30, Ps. 34:7, 35:5, 35:6, 37:36, Is. 37:36, Zech. 1:11, 1:12, 3:1, 3:5, 3:6, 12:8, Matt. 1:24, Rev. 22:6. ⁽²⁾

Notice a few things. Men could meet with THE angel of the Lord face to face whereas no one could meet with the Father face to face. Also THE angel of the Lord would not reveal His name as it was too wonderful for men to hear at that time and still a mystery (Rom. 16:25). Since Gabriel and Michael were revealed by name, this can only mean that the time had not come for Yeshua to reveal His name to men, only after the Incarnation. Notice that THE angel of the Lord is contrasted with “an angel” who destroyed the people in 1 Chron. 21:15. Again, there are only three places in the New Testament that mention THE angel of the Lord. Acts 7:35 references the burning bush and Who was there speaking to Moses. Also take note that it was Yeshua speaking from the burning bush, yet when asked for his name he states it is “I Am that I Am” speaking of Himself in the “What” that is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:24 THE angel of the Lord spoke to Joseph before the Incarnation and naming of the baby. There is a difference of opinion where some commentators believe THE angel that spoke to Joseph was “an” angel, but others believe it was the pre-Incarnate Christ because of the phraseology.

Finally in Rev. 22:6 Yeshua is in heaven when he gives the Revelation to John, therefore it uses the term “His angel”. All this is in contrast to when the Bible talks about “an angel of the Lord” which is one of the created beings that serve God.

As stated before, you will notice that “THE angel of the Lord” or “THE angel of God” is no longer mentioned in the New Testament, with the exception of before the incarnation in Matt. 1:24, Acts 7:35, and Rev. 22:6. So after Jesus became the God-man for all eternity those who believe on Him do so in His Name. But he was not named in the Old Testament, with the exception that God (The “What”) gave His name through His Son in the burning bush. So the name of God … Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is YHWH, “I Am that I Am”. In the New Testament, post Incarnation, the name of His Son was revealed as Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ. We are to worship Him in the name of His Son, because it is in the name of His eternal Son that we can be saved and have eternal life.

All the above is to prove why the Patriarchs were waiting for the Messiah and were taken to Paradise when they met Jesus in the Bosom of Abraham, having been justified by their faith.

Hebrews 11:10 for he (Abraham) was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

The Son of God and Son of man are both mentioned in the OT.

Daniel 7:13 [ The Son of Man Presented ] “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. (NASB)

Daniel 3:25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!” (NIV)

Daniel 3:25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." (NKJV)

Nebuchadnezzar worshipped false gods till he was shown the power of YHWH. This is why he described the fourth person walking in the fiery furnace as a son of the gods. But this was clearly The Son of God, as interpreted correctly in the KJV and NKJV, though not the literal translation which is “like a son of the gods”. 

God is defined as Elohim (plural) as opposed to El (singular) all the way back starting in Genesis 1:1. God also speaks of Himself in a plural form:

Genesis 11:7 "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."

Even though many Jews missed it, except for Abraham, David and others, God always consisted of more than one Person … one God eternally existent in Three Persons … Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even in the first part of the Jewish “Shamah” Deut. 6:4 states: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” implying that Elohim is a plurality of Persons in one God. Why would you have to double down on repeating “the Lord is our God” in a monotheistic culture by adding “the Lord is one”? I know this was done as a witness to the polytheistic cultures around them but I have always been curious why the Lord had them repeat this phrase. Perhaps to set them up for when the mystery of Yeshua was revealed? 

Melchizedek, whether a Christophany or possibly Shem (who was still alive in Abraham’s time), was mentioned as a type of the Son of God from the Old Testament.

Heb. 7:1-3 For this man, Melchizedek, King of Salem and priest of the Most High God—he who when Abraham was returning after defeating the kings met him and pronounced a blessing on him—to whom also Abraham presented a tenth part of all—being first, as his name signifies, King of righteousness, and secondly King of Salem, that is, King of peace: with no father or mother, and no record of ancestry: having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made a type of the Son of God—this man Melchizedek remains a priest for ever.

In any case, Jesus is uniquely God come in the flesh.

John1:1 In the beginning wasthe Word, andthe Word was with God, andthe Word was God.

Jesus Christ is mentioned as being “the Word” in only this verse in the New Testament. This is not His name as that is Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ. It is an attribute, descriptive of Who He is and what He does, such as Yahweh Jireh (Yahweh will provide). Jesus Christ is the Word of God, both in what He speaks and in His character. So Jesus did not change from the Old Testament, but continues as Yeshua HaMashiach Who is the Word. 

Worth mentioning is that Jesus, along with the Father and Holy Spirit, created the universe.

God ("What") created the universe: Gen. 1:1 
Father ("Who") created the universe: Mal. 2:10, Mt. 25:34 
Son ("Who") created the universe: Col. 1:15-16, Heb. 1:2, Mt. 13:35 
Spirit ("Who") created the universe: Ps. 104:30, Job 33:4, Jn. 6:63

God does not change.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

1 Samuel 15:29 Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

Psalm 55:19 God will hear and answer them— Even the one who sits enthroned from of old— Selah. With whom there is no change, And who do not fear God.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

 

Jesus does not change.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus did not change from the Old Testament to the New. He is the same. God did not change His mind or His plans. Jesus fulfilled the plan of the Father from eternity past for His Son to add humanity to Himself in the Incarnation. He is now the Hypostatic Union forever, 100% God and 100% man for all eternity. He is not 50/50 but fully God and fully man. He never, at any time, dropped His Godhood or His humanity after the Incarnation. He submitted Himself to the will of the Father, but remained Divine throughout (Phil. 2:7-10). Those who teach Adoptionism also commonly teach that Jesus was not God while on earth or before His baptism, using these verses. That is a false, demonic interpretation. God cannot cease to be God.

Barnes New Testament Notes says: that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his Divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and good.

Jameson, Faucet and Brown Commentary states: (1) He was in the form of a servant as soon as He was made man. (2) He was "in the form of God" before He was "in the form of a servant." (3) He did as really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man. For He was as much "in the form of God" as "in the form of a servant"; and was so in the form of God as "to be on an equality with God"; He therefore could have been none other than God; for God saith, "To whom will ye liken Me and make Me equal?" (#Isa 46:5)

God cannot stop being God. He was not just a man baptized in the Holy Spirit as many Word of Faith and Latter Rain teachers claim, but He was God come in the flesh. To prove a person is truly born again they must believe and proclaim that God came in the flesh.

1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

Another proof of the Son in the Old Testament is that Jesus references David recounting how the Lord was speaking to his Lord.

Psalms 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Matthew 22:43-45He (Jesus) said to them,“Then how does Davidin the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet”’?If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?”

Barnes New Testament Notes states:

Verses 41-46.Jesus proposes a question concerning the Messiah. See also #Mr 12:35-37 Lu 20:41-44. Verse 41. While the Pharisees, etc. Jesus, having confounded the great sects of the Jews, proceeds in his turn to propose to them a question for their solution. This was done not for the purpose of vain parade and triumph, but, 1st. to show them how ignorant they were of their prophecies. 2nd. To humble them in view of their ignorance. 3rd. To bring to their attention the true doctrine respecting the Messiah —his being possessed of a character superior to that of David, the most mighty king of Israel—being his Lord, at the same time that he was his descendant.

So the Eternal Sonship of Jesus really does exist. See https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

Jesus was present in eternity past as He will be present in eternity future.

Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Matthew Henry Concise Commentary states:

#22-31 The Son of God declares himself to have been engaged in the creation of the world. How able, how fit is the Son of God to be the Saviour of the world, who was the Creator of it! The Son of God was ordained, before the world, to that great work. Does he delight in saving wretched sinners, and shall not we delight in his salvation?

John Gill Commentary says:

Ver. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, &c.] Not "created me", as the Targum and the Septuagint version; which version Arius following gave birth to his pernicious doctrine; … besides, Christ, as the Word and Wisdom of God, is the Creator of all things, and not created, # Joh 1:1-3

The Son of God was the One who led Israel through the wilderness out of Egypt.

Exodus 14:19 it is written, And THE angel of Elohim, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them.

One of the points where false teachers get it wrong is misusing and misinterpreting the phrase “only begotten son”.

What does it mean that Jesus is God's only begotten son?

The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." 

It's this last phrase ("only begotten" used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; i.e., that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

So what does monogenesmean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature(BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogeneshas two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenesin that context.

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenesto highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some pseudo-Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.(https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html)

Jesus Christ is not adopted; He is “begotten” meaning “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship”.

A few more verses to consider:

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal,

“The Son” created all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2). Second, there are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Third, 1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” Fourth, Hebrews 13:8 teaches that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” This same truth is also implied in John 20:31, where we see John’s purpose in writing his gospel was so that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” It does not say that He became the Son of God but that He is the Son of God. Finally, one of the strongest evidences for the eternal Sonship of Christ is the triune nature of God and the eternal relationship that exists among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Particularly important is the unique Father/Son relationship that can only be understood from the aspect of Christ’s eternal Sonship. One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. 

Historical Adoptionists

Shepherd of Hermas

The 2nd-century work Shepherd of Hermas may also have taught that Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son.[note 2][28][29]While the Shepherd of Hermas was popular and sometimes bound with the canonical scriptures, it didn't retain canonical status, if it ever had it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)

Theodotus of Byzantium

Theodotus of Byzantium (fl. late 2nd century), a Valentinian Gnostic,[30]was the most prominent exponent of adoptionsim.[31]According to Hippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, VII, xxiii) Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man born of a virgin, according to the Council of Jerusalem, that he lived like other men, and was most pious. At his baptism in the Jordan the "Christ" came down upon the man Jesus, in the likeness of a dove (Philosophumena, VII, xxiii), but Jesus was not himself God until after his resurrection.[30][32] Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century and was rejected by the Synods of Antioch and the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified the man Jesus with the eternally begotten Son or Word of Godin the Nicene Creed. [33][34]The belief was also declared heretical by Pope Victor I. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)

Joesph Priestly

A form of adoptionism surfaced in Unitarianism during the 18th century as denial of the virgin birth became increasingly common, led by the views of Joseph Priestley and others. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)

James Strang

A similar form of adoptionism was expressed in the writings of James Strang, a Latter Day Saint leader who founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844. In his Book of the Law of the Lord, a purported work of ancient scripture found and translated by Strang, he offers an essay entitled "Note on the Sacrifice of Christ" in which he explains his unique (for Mormonism as a whole) doctrines on the subject. Jesus Christ, said Strang, was the natural-born son of Mary and Joseph, who was chosen from before all time to be the Savior of mankind, but who had to be born as an ordinary mortal of two human parents (rather than being begotten by the Father or the Holy Spirit) to be able to truly fulfill his Messianic role.[44]Strang claimed that the earthly Christ was in essence "adopted" as God's son at birth, and fully revealed as such during the Transfiguration.[45]After proving himself to God by living a perfectly sinless life, he was enabled to provide an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men, prior to his resurrection and ascension.[46] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)

Modern Adoptionists (there are many, many more)

William Branham

But once adopted, positionally placed in the body of Christ, you are heir of all things. Notice, that's what God did to His Son. God didn't ask us to do anything that He would not do. He took His own Son, Who had been obedient. This was just a little before the crucifixion. Remember what He said come down? The Son of man goes to Jerusalem, be delivered in the hands of the Gentiles. Said, "Don't tell the vision to anyone." But while they were standing there, God adopted His own Son, for He overshadowed Him. And the Bible said that He put a robe on Him, insomuch that His raiment shined like the sun in its strength, set Him up before heavenly witnesses, before earthly witnesses. And a voice said, "This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him." Whatever He says, it's just as good as My Word. He was adopted. Jesus said, "All powers in heaven and earth is given unto My hands." There's the adoption of God adopting His Son. (William Branham, 58-0126 - Hear Ye Him, para. 25)

He never died as God. He died as a man. The sin of man was upon the Son of man, and He had to become a man in order to pay the penalty. (William Branham, THE MIGHTY CONQUEROR, JEFF.IN, 56-0401M)

In the Garden of Gethsemane, the anointing left Him, you know, He had to die as a sinner. He died a sinner, you know that; not His sins, but mine and yours. That's where that love come in, how He took mine. Oh, hallelujah, how He took mine. (William Branham, ADOPTION 2, JEFF.IN, 60-0518)

Most modern Latter Rain proponents learned the heresy of Adoptionism from William Branham. It is clear Branham thinks Jesus Christ became the Son then ceased to be God at some point, usually the crucifixion. The idea that Jesus died spiritually was famously taught by Kenneth Hagin. The fact is that Jesus died physically to shed His blood to cover our sins but God cannot die spiritually. That is an absurd notion, unless you don’t really believe that Jesus Christ was God in the first place. Equally absurd is the Branham teaching that the anointing left Jesus. Jesus Christ IS the Anointing. He is the coming King of Kings, and by His Spirit those who are born again share in His Anointing.

Bill Johnson (Word of Faith, Latter Rain, follower of William Braham)

“Jesus Christ said of Himself, ‘The Son can do nothing.’ In the Greek language that word nothing has a unique meaning—it means NOTHING, just like it does in English! He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever! … He performed miracles, wonders, and signs, as a man in right relationship to God…not as God.” (Johnson, Bill. When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles. Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House, 2003. Print (Page 29)

Read this article for an excellent investigation of the heresies of the Word of Faith, New Apostolic and Latter Rain movement (which include people like Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA) “An Inquiry into the Theological Characteristics of the Word of Faith, Third Wave Movement, and New Apostolic Reformation” by R.P. Moore, https://www.academia.edu/26575525/An_Inquiry_Into_the_Theological_Characteristics_of_the_Word_of_Faith_Third_Wave_Movement_and_New_Apostolic_Reformation

Anton Bosch (“Incarnational Sonship”)

Explaining a servant and a son, Bosch says: 

… The son is part of the family (he is comparing the son here to the angels and they are servants) But you are my son today I have begotten you, he statesthis verse is misunderstood misinterpreted by the Jehovah witnesses. They say he had a beginning today I have begotten you, they if he is son and is begotten he cannot be eternal he cannot be God, this is their argument.But clearly he is not referring to the eternal beginnings of Jesus he is clearly referring to the day he was born in Bethlehem’s manger. That was the day he became a son.He was not always a son and we need to remember that and this is very difficult to explain to a JW. But the Old Testament does not reveal the relationship of Father and Son … (that relationship) did not exist in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament it was not the Father and the Son but it was God and the Word. In the beginning was the Word, not in the beginning was the Son in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and was God. His relationship and position in heaven and in the eternity past was that of the Word. … He only became the Son when he was born in Bethlehem’s manger 2000 years ago. That is when he became the son (Hebrews 1:3-14). 

He then argues about an impression of the Father superior to the son, has more power, more respect, honor etc.

Jesus was not subject to the Father, no they were equal. Each member of the Trinity in submission to the other ... The only reason He came as the Son was not because of His relationship with the Father, but in order to reveal to us the relationship which God the Father wants to have with us.”

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. But Mark in a overwhelming desire to prove me wrong and his obsession with the King James Version and a consequent inability to understand the word "monogenes" (Only begotten) went to this extreme. (Video, 10/20/18 afternoon)

If the Son did not exist in the Old Testament, in fact for all eternity (which I have amply proven above) and then “became” the Son, then the character of God changed at some point. God does not change, not in character. In Henry Hart Milman’s 1840s book “The History of Christianity” Milman described how early Gnostics believed that Jesus didn’t become “the Son” until he was baptized in the flesh by John. Yeshua has always been the Son, has always been the Word, and has always been a Person in the one Triune God. Bosch claims to hold to the orthodox interpretation of the Trinity, yet picks it apart in his teachings. You cannot say you believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, is eternal then say that He did not become the Son till He added humanity to Himself in the Incarnation.

There are many more modern Adoptionist teachers today, mainly in the Word of Faith, New Apostolic Reformation/Latter Rain movements.

Footnotes:

⁽¹⁾An angel of God: Gen. 28:12, 32:1, 1 Sam. 29:9, 2 Sam. 14:17, 1 Chron. 21:15, 2 Chron. 32:21, Matt. 4:6, Luke 1:19, 1:35, 2:13, 12:8, 12:9, 15:10, 20:36, John 1:51, Acts 10:3, 10:22, 12:23, 27:23, 1 Cor. 4:9, Gal. 4:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 5:21, Heb. 1:6, 2:9, 12:22, 1 Pet. 3:22, 2 Pet. 2:4, Rev. 2:18, 3:1, 3:14, 7:2, 8:4, 9:13, 10:7, 14:10, 14:19, 15:1, 15:7, 15:8, 16:1, 19:17

⁽²⁾An angel of the Lord: Num. 20:16, 1 Kings 13:18, 1 Chron. 21:15, 2 Chron. 32:21, Ps. 103:20, Zech. 1:14, 6:5, Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, 28:2, Luke 1:11, 1:38, 2:9, John 5:4, Acts 5:19, 8:26, 12:7, 12:11, 12:23, Rev. 11:15