Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech

[Bill Taylor]

David wrote > I can't think of any passage of Scripture that poses any difficulty to this viewpoint that Judy has presented.

I believe you, David. And in this realization (that of my believing of you) volumes are spoken. Perhaps as time goes on, and with your blessing, of course, I will point out to you the ways in which I see your view negatively affecting both the way you approach God and life, and the relationships imbedded in both.

Thanks for the exchange and the opportunity you have given me to articulate this most orthodox of doctrines. I believe you believe "orthodoxy" has got it wrong on this one. I do not. And so we are at an impasse. Peace to you, MY BROTHER. I sense that most of our colleagues have grown weary of this debate. I do not see where there is much to be gained on either of our parts by reducing it to "gnats." If you are agreeable, let us move on.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech


> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > It is my belief that the statement is figurative in that it
> > refers not to one point in time but to multiple points
> > in time throughout eternity and redemptive history.
> > Yes, it applies to the birth of Jesus Christ: "This day
> > I have become your Father." But this is not the only
> > point in time to which it refers. Look with me at
> > Acts 13.32-33: "And we declare to you glad tidings
> > -- that promise which was made to the fathers.
> > God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He
> > has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second
> > Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'"
> > Here Paul uses this same statement from Ps. 2.7 to
> > establish the Sonship of Jesus Christ, but he does not
> > place the origin of that event at the moment of Jesus'
> > birth, as Judy and David maintain it must be; instead
> > he uses this statement to establish Sonship by way of
> > Jesus' resurrection from the dead, stating that "God
> > has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has
> > raised up Jesus."
>
> Hi Bill.  I don't see this phrase, "he has raised up Jesus" in Acts 13:33
to
> be referring to the resurrection.  The KJV is a little misleading here
> because it adds the word "again," but clearly you recognize that this
> "again" is not the only way to translate the passage because you do not
have
> it in the translation that you give us.  It seems to me that Paul is
> referring to the incarnation of Jesus as the son, as one being raised up
in
> the seed of David to sit as king upon the throne.  (Even John Gill, who is
a
> strong advocate of the eternal sonship doctrine, agrees that this phrase
in
> Acts 13:33 does not refer to his resurrection, so please don't think that
I
> am guilty of eisogesis here).  The resurrection is a natural next step in
> talking about this because the fact that he was resurrected proves that he
> was indeed the son of God and not just the son of man.  As the son of God,
> he could not see corruption.  We see this thought expressed by Paul in
> Romans:
>
> Romans 1:3-4
> (3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of
> David according to the flesh;
> (4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit
of
> holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
>
> The resurrection establishes the decree that he is the son of God, but the
> part of the passage that says, "this day have I begotten thee" seems to me
> to refer to the birth of Mary, because he was called the son of God before
> his resurrection.  In other words, he was the son of God prior to his
> resurrection, but the resurrection is a proof that he was indeed what he
> claimed to be, the son of God.
>
> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > Now, does this mean that Jesus was not the "Son" until the
> > "day" of his resurrection? No, it does not, and that is not the
> > argument I am attempting to set forth. Jesus indeed was the
> > Son prior to the resurrection. But how can this be when
> > verse 33 clearly states, "Today I have begotten You" --
> > that "day" is the day of his resurrection, not the day he
> > became incarnate? The reason it can be is because the
> > statement is figurative; it is not to be taken as a literal reference
> > to one specific day in time. It is instead a proclamation,
> > a decree which was used at different points of ultimate
> > significance to affirm the divine Sonship of Christ.
>
> I still have trouble grasping this idea of it being figurative.  Why say,
> "this day have I begotten thee" in a figurative proclamation.  Why not
> simply say, "this is my beloved Son" as a proclamation, like he did on the
> mount of transfiguration?
>
> If he does repeat this as a proclamation at other times, surely the phrase
> "this day" still refers to a particular day in the past that he desires to
> remind us about.  Could this be a reason that Christmas is such a
celebrated
> event around the world?  Perhaps the incarnation of the son in the flesh
is
> a very significant event to the father above.
>
> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > The fact that it is used in one place to affirm this status at
> > his birth does not negate or limit its use in another place
> > to affirm the same Sonship at his resurrection. This is
> > because Son is eternally begotten. The statement of
> > Ps 2.7 refers not to one point or one day but to every
> > day, and on certain days -- like at his birth and at his
> > resurrection -- the Father chooses to make the grand
> > announcement: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You."
>
> The phrase, "this day" figuratively means "every day"?  Every day he has
> begotten the son?  Sorry, Bill, but I have a lot of trouble seeing that.
> What is wrong with the idea that he became the son when he was born of
Mary?
> That viewpoint sure seems to go along with every other passage much
better.
> I can't think of any passage of Scripture that poses any difficulty to
this
> viewpoint that Judy has presented.  The only downside I see is that it is
> both historically and in modern times the minority viewpoint, but since
when
> was truth always decided by majority vote?
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>