John Smithson wrote:
>What John 17:24 conveys is the existence of the
>Father - Son relationship from the foundations
>of the world.
John 17:24
(24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for
thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
I see this passage like Judy does. I don't see how it conveys the existence
of the Father - Son relationship from the foundations of the world. It only
speaks about how the Father loved him before the foundation of the world.
Are you saying that the Father loved the Son before He, the Son, existed and that this passage teaches this?
All the passages you shared are similar in this vein.
You are right about this -- all those passages teach one thing ----- a pre-existent Son (IMO). When we give an explanation for the meaning of a passage that effectively changes the very wording of that passage, we can assume that we are wrong. At least, that is one of my personal hermeneutics.
You appear to read
into them your bias
This is only true if, in fact, there is no other way to read a passage. That would put you in full agreement with Lance and would find you saying the obvious. The only question then, is this, with which bias do we find the best approximation for the meaning of a given passage -- esp those in question -- a bias that changes the wording of a passage or one which allows the original wording to exist and exist in full force. I go with the latter.
that the son was the son in eternity past. You might be
right, but the Bible does not seem to teach that
I do not agree. I would say that it is more than obvious that it does so teach (IMO). What you don't know is that I, too, did not have my mind made up until I went through these scriptures. You have stated on a number of occasions, of late, that you have not made up your mind either. Apparently that is no longer the case.
, and I still can't get past
Psalm 2:7, "this day have I begotten thee."
You have stumbled onto a very important point, David. Ps 2:7 is a passage you are familar with. I would say it is and has been a part of your theology for sometime. When this discussion came up, you began your search/discussion from this passage. I did not. My mind went immediately to the prayer of the Son of God in the garden (John 17). The reason why we can have more than one viable opinion about so many biblical teachings is this very consideration -- where we begin our study. Your understanding Ps 2:7 forces you to conclude that there is more to John 17:24 than meets the eye. John 17:24 forces me to conclude that there is more to the "begotten" in Ps 2:7 than meets the eye. Judy may have started with, yet, a different passage. I thought "begotten" was fairly well dealt with by Bill and Slade.
The strongest authority we have are some fourth century creeds. Are they
enough to establish the eternal sonship doctrine as true?
Not apart from the biblical message. But I made my decision based on the biblical message and a very literal understanding of their wording. It is not the fourth century creeds that influenced my decision. I would be interested in their statements, but the stongest authority for this teaching (to me at this writing) is the biblical message.
Grace now
Peace later
John
David Miller.
