In 1890, the Brethren movement split into two, one section led by F E Raven (the cause of the split) who was then succeeded by James Taylor Senior, who also held at least some of Raven's views.

Raven and Taylor taught that the expression 'son of God' refers only to the One who came in flesh after his incarnation and not before. Thus a number departed at the time and emphasised the 'eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ'.

This issue had affected other movements previously, and J C Philpot, of the Baptist movement, wrote, in 1860, a book titled 'The True, Proper and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ'.

Today, some appear to be Exclusive Brethren and are headed by an Australian man, (and administered from Australia) calling themselves 'Plymouth Brethren' but their teaching contradicts the Leader of that, original, movement (J N Darby) who is quoted as saying :

If I hold the Son only as son from incarnation - I lose everything.

Question One :

I am interested to know if those who hold that Jesus Christ is 'son of God only by incarnation' use the term 'The Trinity'.

If they do, it is important to realise that they hold that there are three gods whose relationship (in deity) is unknown and unrevealed, who accepted 'offices' (their word, not mine) which offices are labelled "father", "son" and "holy spirit".

This is not what others believe who also use the term 'The Trinity' which, to them, means eternal relationships which truly reveal Person within Deity and that the names 'Father' 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are real revelations of Person, not of 'assumed office'.

Question Two :

And if it is the case that the Taylor Brethren refer to 'The Trinity' does this term need to be further qualified for the sake of clarity ?

  • I think that Jesus emphasised chaste active love, over right understanding of the letter of the word. Regarding the trinity, wasn't the concept introduced several hundred years A.D. If it was an important concept I am sure the Bible authors would have spent a little bit more time on it. Mat 28:19 could be read; baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son: The Holy Spirit". Rev 14:1 proofs this interpretation: "who had His name, and His Father's name written on their foreheads" (Holy). – Constantthin Dec 2 '18 at 2:30
  • Well, I don't know Greek, so your Greek is "Greek" to me. I looked up the Greek word that had been translated into "and" (Strong's G2532) and it looked like that word could have more than one meaning: "apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet." – Constantthin Dec 2 '18 at 4:52
  • So, it is not possible that the first "kai" serves a copulative purpose, and the second "kai" a cumulative purpose, as in Strong's explanation? – Constantthin Dec 2 '18 at 5:00
  • @Constantthin I agree with you: it is not possible.Extended discussions in comment are discouraged, so I will bring this to a close. – Nigel J Dec 2 '18 at 5:02
  • You have obviously studied the Greek language, and are well-versed in its grammatical intricacies. Which I can not say I am. Ok, so what about Rev 14:1? – Constantthin Dec 2 '18 at 5:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.