Bill
you have overlooked and completely negated the fact that Jesus as God's
Son was begotten on a certain day:
Bill: No, Judy, I have not overlooked this, nor
do I negate it. To begin this conversation I will simply agree with
MacArthur: "the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even
though at first glance Scripture seems to employ
terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten
thee")
jt: Why not? Psalm 2 is
prophetic but Hebrews certainly spells out what day this is.
This conflicts with other parts of scripture and since ALL
scripture is given by inspiration from God by way of the Holy
Spirit who uses spiritual words to convey spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:12,13)
. Why would one assume that some scripture has temporal
overtones?
BT: Good question, Judy. But in
this instance it is not mine to answer. Why would you assume that this
scripture must have temporal overtones? I believe these verses
are not temporal but figurative of eternal truths. I believe they are
figurative because if they are not they present all kinds of problems with
the greater narrative of Scripture. In other words I believe
they submit themselves to the texts which define them more clearly.
There is nothing unusual about the employment of figurative language in
Scripture. Slade and Jeff are much more knowledgeable than I am on the use
of figurative language and the idioms of Hebrew culture, yet even I am
able to recognize at certain times that this or that saying must be
figurative in some way or another because if not it forces a contradiction
where I know none exists.
Bill: the context of Psalm
2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the
eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that
pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore
be understood as figurative, not literal"
(emphasis added).
jt: I don't see it
Bill since the begetting is a point in time
ie: "this day" Why would anyone consider the
language to be "temporal" and say it is not literal?
BT: Um, Judy, we need to get
something straight here, lest I get confused and fall off my perch.
Temporal means that which happens in time. It is your argument that the
begetting happened at a point in time. It is mine which states that the
Father eternally begat the Son and that the Son was eternally begotten.
See J I'm a nice guy; I'm
making your argument for you.
A decree is a decree, is a decree
and there are several words used for "decree" in scripture; this
particular one is choq #2706 which means
"enactment, appointment of time, space,
appointed."
BT: I'm sorry, Judy, I have lost
the context for this point. To what are you referring?
Phil 2:5-11 and
Isa 7:14, 9:6 refer to the incarnation when God the Word, the second
part of the Divine Godhead emptied Himself to take on a human body
and redeem mankind. <snip>
Bill: Philipians 2.5-11. You misunderstand the kenosis, the question
being What does it mean that the Son "empied"
himself? (I use the term "Son" interchangeably with Jesus Christ here
because as we see in verse 11 he did this -- the kenosis -- to
the "glory of God the Father." Just as the Son
is the eternal Son of the
Father, the Father is the eternal Father of the Son. If there were a time when the Son was not, then there must
also have been a time when the Father was not: Are you willing to
go this far, Judy?)
jt: No Bill. The above
appears more like an exercise in logic than the mind of Christ. Where
does the _expression_ "kenosis" come from and can you show me the foundation
for the above in scripture?
BT: Kenosis is the Greek
word for "emptied" in verse 7. I apologize for not making this clearer to
you.
"Father" is a relational term,
just like husband is a relational term. One cannot be a husband without
having a wife -- this is what I mean when I say it is a "relational term."
You were not a wife until you got married and had a husband. It would have
been non-sensical -- not to mention misleading -- for you to
have maintained that you were always a wife from the date of your
birth but that one day you got married and had a husband. Yet you wrote
earlier that the "Trinity" is the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. If I
understand you correctly, you maintain that the Father is eternal. If this
is so, may I ask, whom was he the Father of? Do you realize that you are
suggesting, nay, demanding that God was the Father of no one and nothing
for an eternity before he created a woman to bear a son? Do you realize
that you are implying that God the Father was actually illegitimate until
he begat a son? Do you realize that you have created a doctrine that makes
God dependent upon his creation in order to be what he claims to have been
from eternity: a Father? Please ponder these things.
Furthermore, may I ask you to
explain to me the nature of the Father's relationship with the Word? Did
they have a personal relationship? Was it a Father/Son relationship, or
was it something other than this? If it was not a Father/Son relationship,
what happened to that relationship on the day that the son was begotten
and the Word became flesh? Did that relationship cease to exist? In other
words, did the eternal God change?
The foundation for my position is
everywhere in Scripture. But in order to keep this conversation in a
manageable context, allow me to repost the verses I used to establish the
eternal Sonship of Christ:
- "Jesus answered, 'If I honor Myself, My honor is
nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your
God.' ... Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before
Abraham was, I AM.'" (John 8.54,58)
In verse 54 Jesus
identifies his "Father" as he who honors him. When he calls him Father he
identifies and establishes himself as the Son. It is the Son who is
honored by his Father. In verse 58 this same Son makes a
very clear and distinct reference to the Old Testament name of God. In
other words the Son identifies himself as both divine and eternal. Was
this Son misleading the Jews when he said these words? Of course not --
unless, of course, he was not eternally the divine Son of the
Father.
- "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with
Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world
was." (John 17.5)
Again Jesus speaks to the
"Father." He speaks as the Son of the Father. This Son commands the
Father to glorify him with the glory that he had shared with his
Father before the cosmos was, which of course is many
thousand years prior to the date of his incarnation. Did this Son mislead
his hearers when he led them to believe that he had shared in the glory of
the Father before the world was?
- "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me
may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have
given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the
world." (John 17.24)
The same holds true with this
verse. Here the Son declares that the Father had loved him before the
foundation of the world. This again was millenia prior to that date of his
incarnation. If there was a time when the Son was not, which is what I
hear you asserting, then what glory is it which he desires his
hearers behold? By your argument the "Son" could not know any glory except
that glory which he knew from the time he had been begotten. Any glory
before that time would not be the glory of the Father to his
Son.
Moreover, what kind of "love"
was it that the Father had for this Son from before the foundation of the
world, if it was not the love of the Father for his Son? This goes back to
my relationship question before. We see here that the love of the Father
is the love of the Father for his Son. Jesus said he knew this love
before the foundation of the world. How could he know this love of the
Father if at that point in eternity he was not the Father's Son?
Bill
