Starting with their own presuppositions they each make some solid points but I would argue that contra (1) the term refers to something with intent that can only be realized with a preexistent Sonship; contra (2) the term has specific meaning; and contra (3) the terminology’s usage has been properly realized by the New Testament authors.

Usage of “Son of God”
“Sons of God” appears early in Scripture, specifically Gen 6:2-4 to a group that married the daughters of men. There are several interpretations of this term as applied to this group ( here you go) but all I want to say here is that with whichever interpretation one goes with, neither of them attest to a connection via progeny of Deiity.

The important thing about the usage of it here (then in Job, and Deuteronomy, Psalms, etc) is that the connection to God is to something He does by nature and is evidenced in those with Sonship. For example: Angels are Sons of God because of their spiritual activity and being; the Sethite line are Sons of God because they’ve been elected to take over the ruling role of Adam (who Luke calls the Son of God) and so they receive special promises from God (thus culminating in Israel as a whole who has been called God’s Son); a group of Kings would be Sons of God because they’re functioning as sovereign over the people just as God is sovereign over all.

We see the same language used in Psalms 2:7 where God speaks to His anointed (presumably King David looking back to the event in Samuel) and tells him “You are my Son; Today I’ve begotten you.” Of course, God isn’t saying “You are my male-born child because today you were born”. God is performing a declarative action which takes the anointed individual and makes him a Son in a very specific function: King. He’s not God’s Son in every sense (he’s not creating, he’s not the ultimate giver of life) but in the sense as being King over the nations, he’s very much God’s Son.

Functional Sonship Evidenced
This is evidenced all over middle-eastern culture, and attested to in the Gospel accounts. Jesus isn’t a Carpenter merely by trade (Mark 6:3), but because he was the Son of a Carpenter (Matt 13:55). The Jews, when arguing with Jesus claim that their father is God. In so doing, they stand on the side of God’s promises and truth: they think they have claimed the high ground with Them under God, and God on their side.

When Jesus turns and says that their real father is the Devil, He is not saying that they’re slaves to the Devil or born from Satan (as I’ve actually heard some Christians argue). He’s saying that insofar as the Devil lies and murders, this group of individuals are liars who plan to commit murder (John 8). In this respect, they are Sons of the Devil.

The sermon of the mount makes use of this functional sonship. Christ says things like “blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Sons of God.” He’s not saying that peacemakers will be called Christians or believers but as much as they are folk who promote shalom (peace and rest) they are functioning (in that single aspect) as a Son, or copier, of God.

The term even winds up being applied to Christians as Sons of God (albeit by adoption: Gal 4:5). Believers are gifted with the Spirit of God and those who are led by that spirit are subsequently called Sons of God (Rom 8:14). Since God is love, argues John, those who know God must themselves love. John understands that Christians will fail (and thus points to Christ the advocate) but openly acknowledges that although we are currently children (in place of Sons) of God when the time comes we will be fully like the Father-putting emphasis on the transformation of the being in how he or she acts.

This usage shouldn’t surprise us. When my son acts really weird, waving around a lightsaber my wife turns to me and says “That’s you’re Son.” She’s not denying the fact that he’s actually her son too, but she’s saying in the way the boy is acting, it reflects outward, revealing me as his father.

Christ as Son of God
When the terminology is applied to Christ it follows this same connection to function (albeit a much different level). So whereas each King or Angel or Christian or Israelite is narrowly functioning as a Son, Christ’s function would entail of all things. He’d say things like “everything the Son sees the Father doing, He Himself does” and then proceeds to show how this means in matters of giving life, of raising the dead, and even in judging. Jesus takes the function to such a level that the Jews immediately think “He’s functionally making himself out to be a god on par with God.” In other words, they saw this Sonship as pitting Christ God Versus Yahweh God.

Christ’s argument is that His Sonship is not in opposition to God, but in functional subjection to God while simultaneously working equally as God the Father.

Whereas you have a King being declared a functional son of God in regards to ruling and anointed, we now have Christ who was the sent Son with all these other entailments tied into His position. Whereas you have Adam, the Son of God, to be God’s vice-gerent over the created order yet fails dramatically bringing it all down with him, we now have Christ, the Son of God who dramatically obeys before the incarnation (setting aside what He didn’t have to steal: his divinity) becoming a servant obedient to death on the cross, raising again and bringing all of creation up with Him. Whereas you have Israel, the Son of God, as a nation of priests; we now have Jesus Christ, who is both priest and king.

So Christ not merely becomes, but is the Son of God par excellence. All previous mentions looked forward to someone who would encompass all these different aspects and reflect absolute functional Sonship.

Concluding Points
Therefore we can see that (Contra (3)) the New Testament writers haven’t imbued new theological and exegetically unsound meaning but have followed the various threads of functional Sonship to the one big ball of yarn tied up in Christ; (Contra (2)) the term has very specific meaning in regards to function in relation to God but in regards to Christ this is exemplified above and over being God’s Anointed while simultaneously including the Anointing aspect. All Kings (even the bad ones) are functional sons of God, but The Son of God par excellence would necessarily include Messiahship with Shalom-promoter, Eternal Father, Judge, and Giver of Life to the Dead; (Contra (1)) One can see that these threads weren’t merely God’s attributed functions being coincidentally appropriated in Jesus Christ. They each reflected a functional aspects of God (including creative ability, self-existence, imagination-the list is endless) which would necessarily result in a being that already has all those things. Jesus wasn’t born \to become the functional Creator of the World-the Sent Son would have had to have done that already (John 1:1-3). Jesus wasn’t born to become the bringer of shalom, as the Sent Son He would have already been a promoter of shalom

The article states that this tablet has information of the possibility of a death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah before the disciples’ claim that’s what actually happened to Jesus. The question being raised is this: Is the Jesus resurrection then unoriginal and thus fake? I’d argue of course not.

Paul would argue throughout his epistles and most pointedly in the synagogues that Jesus the Messiah (the Christ if you would rather use that term) was revealed, suffered and died and rose again according to Scripture. Paul argues this by looking back at the Old Testament Hebrew writings before Christ came. If he could argue those points based on those texts, why would it surprise anyone that there’s a tablet that has some Jewish interpreters drawing similar conclusions before Messiah came? In other words, if Paul saw it in Isaiah 53 (and other places), one would expect others to pick up on it too.

One of the scholar’s in the article suggests that the resurrection event that occurs in 3 days in the account puts Christianity in an extremely bad light. I wonder why he would assume that since the 3 day motif is one that is drawn from the Jonah story where he spends 3 days and nights in the belly of a water creature. And even if there weren’t other sources to draw a 3 day/3 night parallel from I’ve already argued in a different post that there may be myths out there that hint at the truth but what happened with Christ was the realization of myths. In other words, it wasn’t merely a story: it happened.

Lastly, going back to my main point about the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection, most Christian’s shouldn’t be concerned by these sorts of discoveries-if anything we should be excited. They speak of things that others have realized in regards to the coming Messiah and when Messiah actually came, He carried out what was promised to happen and was still rejected and crucified. So when there’s folk bringing a charge that the story of a suffering Messiah is labeled a fabrication post-Jesus (and thus maintaining the teachings of Jesus as Good but the Theologizing of the disciples as Bad) we can point to earlier interpretive evidence that shows that the Disciples weren’t alone in seeing this.

Now this isn’t to say that a person can’t see a just reason for going to war (such as to defend a weaker nation, or to right some moral wrong) but I’m talking about finding some actual Biblical principles that would allow Christians to stand any say “The Bible says this is Fine”.

Here’s what we know:

1. The Bible portrays wars. But just because the Bible documents wars doesn’t mean that its endorsing or refuting a principle of war.
2. The Bible records times where God tells Israel to go to war. And yet, in those times, Israel is oftentimes the weaker nation and God tells them that He will fight for them. At the other times God makes a statement on judgment on the nation being attacked. And yet other times, we don’t know just that God is there fighting as well. In each of those times, God seems to be the active motivator of the thing leaving humans no justifiable excuse except that God told the nation to do it.
3. The Bible reveals that God uses war to accomplish His purposes. Sometimes its a very evil person, like Nebuchadnezzar, who is called God’s Tool to accomplish His will. Sure these tools are willingly doing it and even rejoicing in their excess violence but then God turns around to them (in Isaiah) and says He’ll judge them for their wickedness.
4. The Bible shows God fighting in wars. Some of the bloodiest wars though are when God Himself fights. Take for instance Revelation when Christ is fighting in such a way that the imagery shows a valley roughly three feet deep with blood and Christ fighting as if He were in a winepress: vivid!

But in all of these cases the only one labeled as Just is God: not the war. God is just when He moves the nations because He does that. God is just when He judges the nations because that’s His prerogative. But in regards to man its always a pitiful thing when we see it. This person is used to be a judgment and then they will be judged because they were wicked when they were used.

In other words, with our utter sin the choices men are left with are bad and worst. So we can either (a) let the violence occur or (b) bring the violence against another. Both cases an aberration of life is being performed and a cosmic drama if you will of man left to His own devices. It’s no wonder that when God sees the Kingdoms of the world in Daniel 7 they’re all ferocious, amoral, animals.

As Christians I think we have to see that God may indeed be using a war and that there may temporally justifiable reasons for any given war on both sides but we should never stand up and say any given war is Biblical unless its a voice from Heaven that declares it so.

Ekklessia (or the Greek word for church) is made up of two Greek words. Kaleo which means to call or summon and ek which means out from. The Church is God’s Called Out Ones!
Wrong. Ekklessia is its own word that has a couple of root words. It just means assemblage or a gathering. For example in Acts 7:38 the word refers to the Israelites in the wilderness and in Acts 19:32 the same word refers to a confused and ticked off mob. We don’t do this in English: Butterfly is made up of two root words which is butter (the dairy spread we put on toast) and fly (the annoying aerial insect that ruins picnics). A Butterfly is therefore an annoying aerial insect that we can put on toast for breakfast!

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of God for it is God’s dynamite unto salvation.
I’ve heard this one enough times but I can still give D.A. Carson credit for including it in his book. Look just because the Greek word dunamis is the root concept word for dynamite it doesn’t mean that dynamite illustrates the point Paul is making years before the invention of the stuff. The Gospel doesn’t even work like dynamite (explosively destructive and volatile over time).

John 6:44 proves that God forces us to be saved. The Greek word there is used elsewhere to mean the forceful dragging of fishermen.
True and elsewhere it’s used to denote the attractive element of the cross: in other words, just because the word means different things in different contexts doesn’t mean it means the same thing across all contexts. Let me say that in English. Drag can mean drag across the floor and a really boring event. Sometimes it can even mean smoking. Making the word mean the same thing across every usage would be quite a drag (insert smoking here and suddenly my sentence makes no sense). The point here isn’t to dismantle the John 6:44 argument it’s to show that context determines meaning.

Since the verse refers to Brothers (and the Greek term is also a male referent) then it is speaking exclusively to men.
Not necessarily. God created Men, male and female He created them. Sometimes a generic male term is used to speak categorically to a group. Sometimes a singular male term can even be used to refer to a group comprised of men and women! Context is everything.

Colossians 2 proves X doctrine hands down; just read it.
Just because a favored proof text is in a single chapter does not mean that the proof is in the passage. In fact, many have read the same passage and have drawn a completely different conclusion. Worst, the chapter headings weren’t there originally and the chapter you refer to might be part of a larger argument which would leave your doctrinal stance gasping.

God’s foolishness is greater than our wisdom therefore we shouldn’t bother doing theology, philosophy or logic.
The purpose here isn’t so much the fallacious argument it’s the usage of Scripture to prove a point that the passage was never making. The passage in 1 Corinthians may be speaking to an altogether different situation but the user here has lifted it from its context and has recontextualized it in a place it doesn’t belong.

I’ll end with a quote followed by a book recommendation. The first is a rephrasing of Paul by one of my favorite Bible scholars-Dr. David Gooding-who had this drilled into his own head over time. It is in reference to looking at the literary structure of any material and the proper usage of that reading material and how, specifically, it’s important in Bible study.

Now there are these three; pattern, structure, thought-flow. Yet the greatest of these is thought flow.

And here, go now: pick up Carson’s book. It’s worth every penny.

Most of us are familiar with Romans which is broken into four Gospel focused. Note the chart:

As a skeleton structure this means nothing but once we zoom in and examine Paul’s argument the implications become obvious.

Chapter three of the first movement finalizes a major dilemma, that all men, both Jew and Gentiles, are sinners before God and under God’s wrath. And yet, Christ became a propitiation for God’s wrath so that Sinners wouldn’t be wiped out. The section culminates with the love of God and the end of hostilities pointing out that the equal footing of both Jews and Gentiles before God: under His wrath, propitiated on behalf of God and justified by faith apart from works.

The second movement’s great dilemma is that man is besmirched and bemired by sin: they continue to sin because they are sinful. Both Gentiles and Jews find themselves law struggling with the carnal desires against conscience and/or command-moreso when the command becomes explicit. But this section also culminates in God’s solution once again in Christ. Both Jewish and Gentile believers have died in Christ and have risen in Christ and are therefore able to try to walk as perfect as God always demanded. There will surely be failures but God’s solution is not merely giving access to that bounty but providing all the power to generate that bounty. Specifically God imbues with His Sprit, has a plan for those in Christ to be conformed into the image of the Son, and they will surely be perfected. This section also culminates with the love of God and showing that God is altogether on the side of those who are in Christ.

The third movement’s great dilemma is potent: If God has discarded His promises to Israel how is it possible that He’ll keep His promises to those in Christ in regards to ensuring their ultimate conformation and glorification? Paul deftly argues that it’s not a matter of the created person’s desires but the fact that God has figured a way possible that no one stands head and shoulders above another in respect to race, creed, age-ranking or even works. All people stand on the same ground of God’s absolute right to show mercy giving Him unrestricted usage of His mercy. God can therefore freely show mercy to Israel and to Gentiles because it’s His prerogative. Of course, God can also choose to refrain from showing mercy and take an individual or group who already stands under His wrath and make that individual firm in their decision against God: they then become a vehicle of God’s wrath to save others. With these facts in place, Paul establishes the length of God’s mercy towards Israel and the fact that Israel is only partially hardened but will fully be realized in a later time-a time after the Gentiles have received their full mercy. The Gentiles stand on the mercy of God for Israel is partially hardened and the Jews stand on the mercy of God since they’re only partially hardened and not full-on. In fact, the Gentiles are being saved to provoke Israel to jealousy but how much greater (argues Paul) will it be when the Jews finally do believe. This section winds up culminating in the wisdom of God.

The final movement then deals with a great problem which is an expansion of Chapter 7. The Church is a new entity where she stands on God’s mercy, love and wisdom and promised to be perfected but her members are wracked by their old sinful ways. Therefore God’s solution is this Measure of Faith. This is not a little faith for X person or a little faith for Y person: that would be contrary to Paul’s constant argument that no one has a reason to boast.

The measure is a measuring rod, or a ruler-stick, of the object of Faith which is Christ Himself. There was wrath, Christ propitiated; there was sin, Christ empowered; there was needs for mercy, Christ was provided; there was need for love, Christ illustrated; there was need for wisdom: God was personified and died. So this measuring rod winds up being used for everything.

Like a regular measuring stick asks “How long is this?” this stick does the same thing. Yet the question this measuring rod wants to answer is twofold. Question one: How do I measure up to God’s Gospel? Question two:Do They stand on the same ground (before God) as Me?

Constantly through the final chapters of Romans the measuring rod is used.

• How does it work in the body of believers? We’re all segments of a Whole, saved by grace, justified by faith, standing on God’s mercy and equipped by His Sprit to function as a whole.
• How does it work in the government? We are sinners, just as they, the powers that be are established by God therefore we are to respect them as God ordained.
• How does this work in regards to things that are doubtful? Christ died for me while I was still a sinner and Christ died for Them while they were still sinners: should I then beat them down over food when they stand before Christ and His righteous decisions?
• What about dealing with these legalistic Jews in our church? Well, both Jews and Gentiles stand on the same ground but they have the commandment that really makes them aware of their sinfulness-just as myself with my conscience.
• Should I rob them of their convictions if they stand before God’s mercy, wisdom and love?

So here finally is my concluding practical point. Cynicism looks at everyone else as having some ulterior selfish motive. Pharisaicism is that position where we look at all others as beneath us. Judgmentalism is that position where we self-righteously preside over others in matters that aren’t black or white and in fact, may be extremely minute. In each of these positions we’re stepping away from the Gospel’s message (you are a sinner, you have no place to stand but the same ground as those next to you, beneath God’s wrath, on top of His Mercy, needing His Love and grateful for His wisdom in sending His Son who died so that Humanity may live). But when we step back under the shadow of that cross, we are put on the same level with everyone else: completely reliant on the Lord. We can’t be cynical, pharisaic or judgmental since we don’t have that prerogative.

• Well, You’re A Liar and a Heretic.
  Even if you’re right it doesn’t mean what the person is saying is wrong. Instead you’re take everything they’re saying and lumping it under their character to disprove it. That doesn’t dismantle any argument: it ignores it.
• Sounds like you’ve been reading X’s heretical garbage.
  This has nothing to do with what the person is saying. Look above.
• Well, you can’t trust what he says: he’s started up a bunch of incendiary threads.
  Heck, maybe they were even a criminal and a murderer. It doesn’t matter that the person has done a lot of wrong in the past: his or her statement stands apart from that.
• Calvin, Luther, Piper and Joel Olsteen would say you’re wrong.
  Ooooh: they’re big and famous and agree with you but, sorry bro, that doesn’t mean your position is right. If there’s equally famous people that disagree with your position then what you’re doing is pretty much name-dropping uselessness.
• The majority of Church History would disagree with you so you can’t be right.
  Okay, that’s pretty interesting information but it still doesn’t prove the argument wrong. Just because the majority of any group holds a certain position it doesn’t make it right or wrong: it just makes it popular.  Now true, the Spirit of God was working throughout Church history but there’s no possible way that you or I can say “Yes, this is most definitely the Hand of God” without some sure sign of heaven.
• Either this doctrine is true or God is a liar.
  It may very well be that your doctrine has nothing to do with God’s truthfulness but you’ve elevated to a level where it shouldn’t be.
• If this isn’t true, then there is no basis to believe the Bible. If there’s no basis to believe the Bible then we might as well be atheists.
  This argument also shows up a different way. For example: God can’t do that–if He did it would make him the author of Evil and I can’t believe in that sort of God. Okay, that’s a fine opinion but it doesn’t disprove or prove any argument. The latter is a matter of wishing something was true and the former is a matter of setting up a very steep slope with your doctrine at the very tippity top. In both cases it doesn’t make your position right or wrong: it’s just a non-decider.
• Well, when you’re a charismatic, you’re happy and that means you really enjoy God.
  Just because it makes you happy doesn’t mean its right.
• IF you don’t believe my position then you’re unregenerate and going to the lake of fire for eternal torment.
  Not only is this a false dilemma but scaring me into your position? Is that really the way you want to win your argument?
• Paul was a Calvinist because He wrote Romans 9-11 which has been proved to be Calvinistic.
  This is just one horrendous circle-nothing good can come of this sort of arguing.
• 75% of the posts here are theologically adept: it’s amazing that 75% of the Church is this theologically astute.
  I haven’t seen this one yet, but I’ll give it some time.
• You can’t prove that there was death before the fall, therefore there wasn’t.
  See, this sort of thing makes no sense. Honestly, the other party can’t prove there wasn’t death before the Fall either that doesn’t mean that the opposing position is correct.
• I’ve always believed in Arminianism and my parents and pastor taught me it when I was younger so it’s true.
  Not necessarily. My parents told me that you get head colds by not wearing socks.
• Dispensationalists believe in a separation between Israel and the Church which means they believe in two separate gospels. Paul says that salvation is by Christ alone so Dispensationalism is wrong.
  Not only does this oversimplify matters but it sets up Dispensationalism as an idiotic puppet that you can attack full force and show you’re strength when you drop kicked it.
• I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian but right in the middle-which I know to be the correct place to be.
  Wrong. Just because you’ve found some place to stand between the two camps doesn’t make your position any more right or wrong than the others. It just means you found a place to stand.

(And here are the technical terms.)

The Timeline.
After years of exposure to the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the covenants, at just the right time Christ finally arrives. Virgin born, according to a specific interpretation of prophecy, in the right place, he’s hailed as a King from early on. We see a couple of events from his early life but for the next thirty something years, we hear nothing. When he finally does reappear in the text, immediately after being baptized by John, he begins preaching the Kingdom of God. While He’s doing all this, He’s gathering followers, which includes a core group who He continues to teach.

He tells them that He’s going to build the Church (either on Peter or Himself), He tells them He’s going to equip them by dying and going to God the Father and sending them a Helper.

The Helper’s Work.
But what is the Helper’s Job? In the John 14-16, this Helper is to comfort them, bring everything they’ve learned (from Christ) into remembrance, teach them and is also to work in the world convicting it of sin (because it rejected Christ), of righteousness (because Christ’s death has been overturned and Christ went to the Father) and of judgment (because the ruler of the world has been judged).

Fast forward to Pentecost. The message that Peter goes out to preach–the message that winds up winning three thousand converts from the priest caste–is a message of sin (because they’ve crucified Christ), of righteousness (because Christ now sits on the right hand of the Father) and of judgment (because now the one They crucified is waiting).

A jaunt through the book of Acts and we’d notice Paul doing the same thing. As Paul speaks to the Jews he argues for the resurrection from the dead, as Paul discusses with the Athenians their waywardness in worship, he discusses the resurrection from the dead.

Even when you get down to the letters that Paul writes to the Churches, he constantly brings their activities back to the cross and the resurrection of Christ from the dead. What is the gospel that he preaches? The Gospel of God based on Christ who is the son of David by lineage and the son of God via the resurrection of the Dead. What is the message that Paul preaches? Christ crucified and resurrected from the dead which is a stumbling block for the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile.

Constantly, the repeated message of the Church to those Outside of the Church is the historical crucifixion of Christ, His resurrection from the dead and the imminent judgment of God resting on Christ’s bestowed authority (Revelation 1-7, 19-21; Romans 8; John 5)

The Living Dead.
Paul then shows a very deep connection between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of people (1 Cor 15) in a manner that is consistent with Jesus’ own preaching (John 11).  With such a resurrection in place, it becomes important for Christians to Grow Up. Why?

This Growing Up, argues Paul, is a complete unity of Believers in Christ’s Crucified Death and Resurrected Life (Eph 1, Eph 4, Rom 6) and culminates in a unity in Christ’s glorification (Rom 8:17).The Church Universal (as in the entire Church, not any single local gathering), says Paul, has been gifted with apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers for this very purpose. As if that were not enough, Paul mentions (in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 12) that believers have been individually gifted so as to support the entire body in this endeavor.

These gifts are to edify the saints (build them up as Jesus stated the Holy Spirit would do) and to equip them (to evangelize in the World: a task the Holy Spirit would help in). But the equipping is not merely a task of arming forces but actually focused on molding individuals in the model of Christ. Therefore, Paul would argue, that since Christ has equipped the Church with these helps, God is in fact fully reforming humans with these aids (Romans by ending one life and supplanting it with an eternal one.

This completely ties the resurrection from the dead with the church’s gifting. The Church is made up of people labeled “A New Creation” (Romero might say the Living Dead). A creation formed in the image of God and reformed in the image of the son. This Image is molded to speak properly with God, to interact with God, to work with God and to rule with the Son. Paul would call them co-workers with God (1 Cor 3) who have a responsibility to continue doing these tasks (2 Tim 4). It’s the Fall Reversed.

Therefore, the Church’s goal and purpose is crystallized by its two major works which are merely two sides of one coin. The Church reflects the work of the Holy Spirit by bringing into remembrance Christ (via His teaching) and exposing the world to Christ (His love and mercy via his death and resurrection) until He returns.