Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 8
Chuck’s explanation of “Son of God” rejects both Muslim objections (“God can’t have a Son”) and mythological misunderstandings (“God and Mary got together”), saying the Son is eternal and “has His origin in the Father”; how does this definition challenge casual or sloppy ways Christians use the phrase “Son of God,” and what practical difference should it make in worship and proclamation?
Another way to ask: How does Chuck’s meaning of “Son of God” correct common misunderstandings, and what difference should it make in how Christians worship and talk about Jesus?

Direct Answer Chuck’s definition pushes Christians to use “Son of God” as a statement about Jesus’ eternal relationship to the Father, not a crude biological idea or a mere honorific. Practically, it should make worship and proclamation more careful and more rooted in what God promised long before Jesus’ birth.

Support from Transcript:

  • Chuck recounts Muslim objections: Jesus “couldn’t be the Son of God because God can’t have a Son,” and they deny cross/resurrection while calling him a prophet.
  • He insists, “Christians didn’t invent this…written 1,000 years before…that the king would be called the Son of God” (linking to 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2).
  • He rejects mythological misunderstanding: some think it means “God and Mary got together…like…Greek mythology.”
  • He defines it: “Jesus was the Son of God before all ages…He came from the Father…not a created being…had His origin in the Father…as a ray of light comes out of the sun.”
  • He clarifies incarnation: “That was only the Son of God becoming flesh.”
Discussion Follow-ups If “Son of God” is eternal and scripturally promised, how should that change the way you explain Jesus to people from other religions or to children in the church?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10
Back Questions Next