JT writes > [MacArthur]
says the decree is eternal so
that makes the son eternal. I posted the Word from Strongs and it has
nothing to do with eternal rather it speaks to a point in time. You have not
responded to any of that.
BT: You are correct, Judy, I
failed to address this concern. Please see my post to David regarding idioms
and figures of speech. I believe I address your question (although not
explicitly) in that post.
BT: I'll take that as a sign that you have
wearied of our discussion -- "pre-adamic creation": What does that
mean?!
jt: God told Adam to replenish
the earth. Why would he have used that word if it had not been plenished in
the path. This is just a thought, it's not set in concrete but could have
been so.
BT: That's an intriguing
interpretation, Judy, but not one that applies to our discussion, as it rest
entirely upon speculation.
BT: And Judy, you might want to check with Dake
on your reading of 1 John 5:7 . . .
jt: Why? Does he say something
other than that the three that bear record in heaven are the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit?
BT: I don't know. I haven't read
that portion of Dake, not that I am aware of anyway (wink,
wink).
BT: On second thought, I've been reading him
myself; pitch him and go with someone who knows what he's talking about.
Study notes are not Scripture you know. The inspired words are
supposed to be on the top of the page; 1 John 5:7 KJV has quite a
background. Did you know that?
jt: Whatever floats your boat
Bill.. but I see nothing in OT scripture about an eternal Son bearing
witness or record in heaven.
BT: Two figures passed through
the pieces in the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant. Neither of
them was Abraham. Yet it was Abraham and Christ to whom the
promises were made; but it was Christ alone by whom the covenant was
fulfilled. The pre-incarnate Christ is therefore the only one who
could represent the recipient in the ratification of the covenant. Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. To jump ahead a bit, since we have established the
relational status of the covenant, it is therefore entirely reasonable to
conclude that one of the parties who passed through those pieces had to be
the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of the Father; the other being the
Father to the Son.
BT: I would like to know how the
Father was the "Father of all spirits" before he had created any of them. Or
do you not believe in creation ex nihilo? Or are you suggesting that he
was the Father of the Holy Spirit but that that does not in some weird way
make the Holy Spirit his Son?
jt: Are you asking me what came
first the chicken or the egg Bill?
BT: No, Judy, I'm not. And it is
comments like this which prompt me to conclude that you are dodging my
questions. Will you please answer them now?
BT: Merry Christmas, Judy. You just got your
gift from me (wink, wink). Use it, but don't wear it out too quickly.
Bill
jt: What gift is
this?
BT: It's the one which allows you
to save face if you are wise enough to do so.
Bill
