Journal of Thai Protestant Theology

Volume 2, Issue 2 – May 2025

A Theological Rebuttal to Bright Romance's Heretical Christology: Upholding the Eternal Sonship and Divine Sufficiency of Christ

Author: Dr. Chansamone Saiyasak (Professor of Religious Studies and Missiology), Theological Commissions of Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand & Asia Evangelical Alliance (a WEA-Regional Alliance) | Author’s Profile

Date: 27 May 2025

Abstract

This article presents a focused rebuttal to the Christological errors found in the public sermon of Bright Romance that was given in 2567 (2024). Building on a previous theological critique published in the Journal of Thai Protestant Theology, this reflection identifies four heresies embedded in Bright Romance’s teaching—Kenoticism, Functional Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Subordinationism—and evaluates them against Scripture and the historic confessions of the Church. This article defends the orthodox confession of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man, the eternal Son, and affirms the proper relations among the persons of the Trinity.

Introduction

Following the publication of the formal theological critique in the Journal of Thai Protestant Theology entitled "A Theological Defense of Trinitarian Doctrine, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and the True Incarnation: A Rebuttal of the Heretical Teachings of Bright Romance” (การปกป้องทางศาสนศาสตร์ของหลักคำสอนเรื่องพระเจ้าตรีเอกภาพ ความเป็นพระบุตรนิรันดร์ของพระคริสต์ และการรับสภาพมนุษย์ที่แท้จริง: การหักล้างคำสอนนอกรีต Heresy ของ Bright Romance แสงสว่างแห่งรักที่แท้จริง) (Saiyasak, 2025), this reflection offers a targeted supplement to examine Bright Romance’s public sermon more precisely. While the previous journal article addressed primarily core Trinitarian distortions, this article focuses on the embedded heresies in Bright Romance’s Christology and their serious departure from biblical and creedal orthodoxy. These four heresies are Kenoticism, Functional Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Subordinationism.

Kenoticism and the Surrender of Divine Attributes

Bright Romance teaches that Jesus' divine spirit was “full of knowledge and understanding” (เต็มไปด้วยความรู้และความเข้าใจ), yet “limited by His mind” (จำกัดด้วยจิตใจ) (Bright Romance, 2024, timestamp 2:43:00–2:48:25). This statement implies that Christ, in becoming human, relinquished or suppressed divine attributes such as omniscience—an idea consistent with the heresy of Kenoticism. As Grudem (1994) explains, “The kenosis theory holds that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth as a man... Christ ‘emptied himself’ of some of his divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while he was on earth as a man. This was viewed as a voluntary self-limitation on Christ’s part, which he carried out in order to fulfill his work of redemption” (p. 788). This view misinterprets Philippians 2:7, which teaches that Christ humbled Himself by adding human nature—not by subtracting divine nature. Colossians 2:9 asserts, “In Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Therefore, to suggest that the Spirit must compensate for what the Son lacks is to deny the full deity of Christ during the incarnation, a hallmark of Kenotic heresy. Irenaeus of Lyons, an early Church Father, traditionally considered to be a spiritual "grandchild" of the Apostle John, through his connection to Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a direct disciple of Apostle John, discussed the nature of Christ's incarnation in Book V of Against Heresies to defend orthodox Christianity against heresies, emphasizing the true humanity and divinity of Christ and the apostolic tradition in the face of early heresies: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who did...become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself" (Irenaeus of Lyons, n.d.). He did not use kenotic language explicitly but emphasized that the Word (Logos, Jesus) became man without ceasing to be God, retaining all of God's attributes in Him.

Functional Adoptionism and the Conditional Sonship of Christ

Bright Romance also teaches that Jesus “decided to leave behind His old life, entered the water, and had a new life” (ตัดสินใจทิ้งชีวิตเก่า ลงไปในน้ำ และมีชีวิตใหม่), implying a transformative event that established His divine identity at baptism (Bright Romance, 2024, timestamp 2:43:00–2:48:25). This resembles the ancient heresy of Adoptionism, which holds that Jesus became the Son of God through obedience, moral development, or Spirit-empowerment. Yet Scripture affirms that Jesus is eternally the Son: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John 17:5 also records Jesus praying, “Glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.” Adoptionism was decisively rejected by the Nicene Creed (AD 325), which affirms that Christ is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” (Pelikan, 2003, p. 24). Bright Romance’s theology undermines this by teaching a conditional, functional Sonship. As Augustine affirms, “The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible” (Augustine, n.d., Book XV, Chapter 26). This direct assertion of the Son’s eternal equality and co-agency with the Father flatly contradicts any notion of Sonship that develops through obedience or is initiated by Spirit-empowerment. Equality in working presumes equality in essence; a Son who must be empowered into divinity cannot share inseparable divine operations.

Nestorianism and the Division of Christ’s Person

Bright Romance’s division of Jesus’ divine spirit and limited human cognition implies a separation of consciousness—one divine, one human. He states that Jesus had divine knowledge but was still limited in mind and bodily suffering (Bright Romance, 2024, timestamp 2:43:00–2:48:25). This aligns with Nestorianism, which posits two separate persons in Christ—one divine, one human—loosely united. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431) condemned this view for fragmenting Christ’s personhood. The Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) instead declares that Christ is “one and the same Son… recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” (Kelly, 2003, p. 307). The unity of the person of Christ is compromised when His divine will and human faculties are portrayed as psychologically disjointed. Bright Romance’s description thus reflects Nestorian heresy in its conceptual framework.

Subordinationism and Trinitarian Role Reversal

In his sermon, Bright Romance teaches that “Jesus did not lead the Spirit but the Spirit led Jesus” (พระเยซูไม่ได้นำพระวิญญาณ แต่พระวิญญาณนำพระเยซู) and that “the Holy Spirit led Him to do what the Father wanted” (พระวิญญาณลงมา เป็นผู้นำเยซู พระเยซูจึงสามารถทำตามพระบิดา) (Bright Romance, 2024, timestamp 2:43:00–2:48:25). In Bright Romance’s teaching, it is posited that Jesus’ capacity to act is contingent upon the enabling presence and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. These claims subordinate the Son to the Spirit in function and initiative, reversing the biblical order. Scripture teaches that the Son sends the Spirit (John 15:26) and that the Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). This inversion resembles a novel form of Subordinationism, whereby the Spirit—not the Son—is the primary agent in divine mission.

Such confusion in Trinitarian roles, as taught by Bright Romance, risks not only a reversal of divine mission but a dismantling of divine unity. If one misreads Scripture to suggest that the Son acts only under the Spirit’s empowerment, the logical consequence is a hierarchy within the Godhead—placing the Holy Spirit above the Son. Augustine sharply refutes such distortions with biting clarity: “Let them say then, if it pleases them, that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, whom they are wont to call less. Or is it, forsooth, because it is not said, He alone,—or, No one else except Himself—will guide you into all truth, that they allow that the Son also may be believed to teach together with Him? In that case the apostle has excluded the Son from knowing those things which are of God, where he says, ‘Even so the things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God’: so that these perverse men might, upon this ground, go on to say that none but the Holy Spirit teaches even the Son the things of God, as the greater teaches the less; to whom the Son Himself ascribes so much as to say, ‘Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you’” (Augustine, n.d., Book I, Chapter 6).<.p>

Augustine further defends that "the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son...Therefore the Spirit of both [Father and Son] is not begotten of both [Father and Son], but proceeds from both [Father and Son]” (Augustine, n.d., Book XV, Chapter 26). The Western Church codified this in the filioque, affirmed at the Eleventh Council of Toledo (AD 675) and the Council of Florence (1439) (Internet History Sourcebooks Project, n.d.; Shoemaker, n.d.). By reversing Trinitarian relations and implying ontological dependency of the Son, Bright Romance’s framework deviates from orthodoxy and falls into heretical inversion.

Theological and Pastoral Implications

The theological implications of Bright Romance’s teachings are profound. If Jesus became the Son through Spirit empowerment, His eternal deity is denied. If His divine attributes were suspended, His full divinity is diminished. If His divine and human natures operate as separate centers, His unity is destroyed. If the Spirit empowers the Son, the Trinitarian order is reversed. These teachings elevate spiritual experience over sound doctrine and threaten the Church’s confession of Christ as sufficient Savior.

Conclusion

Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, fully God and fully man, sufficient in Himself to accomplish the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and glorifies the Son, not the other way around. As the Church has confessed since the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), we affirm: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light of Light, very God of very God” (Pelikan, 2003, p. 24). Any teaching that compromises the person of Christ or inverts the Trinitarian order must be clearly recognized and faithfully rejected as heresy.

References

About the Author

Author Photo

Dr. Chansamone Saiyasak (Professor of Religious Studies and Missiology) is a Thai theologian and missiologist, based in Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, where he pastors Mekong Church Nonprasert. He serves on the Theological Commissions and Religious Liberty Commissions of the Asia Evangelical Alliance and the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand, contributing to theological development and religious freedom initiatives in Southeast Asia. He also serves as an Asian theologian for the World Evangelical Alliance General Assembly 2025's Theological Project. With over 40 years of ministry and leadership experience, he has led Christian educational and theological institutions, community development projects, and church planting movements across Thailand and Laos. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies from Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (Belgium) and Doctor of Ministry and Master of Divinity from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (USA), and has completed advanced leadership programs at Harvard University, Yale School of Management, and Oxford University. He completed Bachelor of Science in Religion from Liberty University (USA). Through his work with organizations such as the SEANET Missiological Forum and the Lausanne Movement, and World Evangelical Alliance, Dr. Saiyasak is committed to advancing Gospel-centered leadership, contextual theology, and mission engagement in Buddhist-majority societies.

💬 Join the discussion: Comment on Facebook

Page Views:

Visit counter For Websites