I once 'convinced' a Mormon believer of error. He said to me that for 'personal' reasons he would never publicly acknowledge this. The 'can't/won't dilemma is one that we all face. IMO this 'conversation' has not yet reached this impasse. However, also IMO it's aweful close.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: December 29, 2004 07:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Let's get clear on this one -- please > John Smithson wrote: > >>> What John 17:24 conveys is the existence of the > >>> Father - Son relationship from the foundations > >>> of the world. > > David Miller wrote: > >> 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. > > John Smithson wrote: > > Are you saying that the Father loved the Son before > > He, the Son, existed and that this passage teaches this? > > There needs to be some clarification of this phrase, "before the Son > existed." First, Judy has been clear that this son of man, Yeshua, has > always existed as God. The way I think she is reading you is to say that he > was not known as the Son until his birth in the flesh. In other words, I > think you are saying one thing but Judy is reading you as saying something > else because of her past correspondence with you that she does believe that > Jesus Christ existed as God from eternity past. > > My answer to your question is the passage does not say anything at all about > whether Yeshua was the son of man or the son of God before the foundation of > the world. It does not define exactly what kind of relationship existed > except for a relationship of love. What we know from this passage is that > God the Father loved Yeshua before the foundation of the world. > > If somebody were to believe that Yeshua did not exist at all until he was > born in the flesh, this passage could still be understood to suggest a love > that the father had for his yet non-existant son, much like a mother like > Hannah who desired a son and loved him before he was born. This is not what > I believe, but the passage itself does not refute such a concept, especially > if you take the position that time was created at the foundation of the > world and did not exist before creation. > > John Smithson wrote: > > all those passages teach one thing ----- a pre-existent > > Son (IMO). > > Which is something we agree upon. We agree that the person known as the son > of man or the son of God existed before the foundation of the world. > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > I agree with this hermeneutic principle, which is why I have not yet > embraced the eternal sonship doctrine. I do not need to change any of the > wording of these passages that you have shared if I were to adopt Judy's > position. On the other hand, I would have to change the wording of Psalm > 2:7 and Luke 1:35 and Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5. These passages are the > troublesome passages for the eternal sonship doctrine. > > David Miller wrote: > >> You appear to read into them your bias > > John Smithson wrote: > > This is only true if, in fact, there is no other way > > to read a passage. > > No, there may be numerous alternative understandings, and bias can still > lead us down a particular path. Sometimes that bias will lead us down the > right path, but sometimes it takes us down the wrong path. > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > I go with the latter also. What passage do you think I need to change the > original wording of in order to embrace Judy's position? I don't know of > any at all. My problem is that Bill interprets Psalm 2:7 so figuratively > that "this day" actually means "every day." Are you comfortable with that? > I'm not. For me, it is like the theistic evolutionists who interpret the > phrase in Genesis, "and there was evening and there was morning, one day" > not to mean one day but rather millions of years. > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > It is still the case. It seems to me that the revelation of Scripture > points to him being begotten at his birth, but I have received no personal > revelation no this matter. If the entire Christian world was against the > eternal sonship doctrine, then I would probably more readily reject it. The > fact that so many embrace it makes me more thorough to investigate a matter > before rejecting it. I still have more study to do on the matter. > > One other thing that bothers me is that the very word "begotten" must be > changed to accept the eternal sonship doctrine. The creed says, "begotten, > not made." Yet, outside of this doctrine, this word begotten has not meant > "not made." When I have time, I plan to do some original language study on > the appropriate Greek and Hebrew words. I also need to study the creeds a > little closer on this phrase, because the creeds have not been static and > etched in stone. There is some changing of words here in particular that I > need to examine carefully in a historical context. > > David Miller wrote: > >> and I still can't get past Psalm 2:7, > >> "this day have I begotten thee." > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > Actually, no, it has not been part of my theology for sometime. I've read > it, but I have not put it into any significant theological framework in > regards to when Jesus became a son. > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > There is something more significant to our difference in approach than what > you mention here. It seems to me from your statements here that you look > for confirming passages for a particular viewpoint. I take a very different > approach. When I consider a viewpoint, I ask, "what passages would refute > this viewpoint." I take a falsification approach whereas you take a proof > and verification approach. For the sake of full disclosure, I did not learn > this approach from the Bible. I learned this approach to truth from my > scientific training, in particular, from the philosopher Karl Popper and the > biologist John Platt. For a short treatment of this approach, you might > consider an article by Platt published in Science, called, Strong Inference. > It is available freely on the internet at > http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/gradprog/courses/radosevich/science.htm. > > Therefore, the reason I look at Psalm 2:7 is not because this is where I > start. Rather, it is the ultimate source of contradiction to the viewpoint > of the eternal sonship. I actually first looked at Hebrews 1:5, which led > me to Psalm 2:7. Then I considered Acts 13:33 and then Luke 1:35. The > reason I go to these passages is because I am looking for what would > discount the viewpoint of the eternal sonship. Most of those passages that > you shared has been in my background. The eternal nature of Christ is > firmly rooted in me and will never change. That is not the question here > for me. The question is, what does Psalm 2:7 mean. What is it trying to > communicate to us? It appears to be speaking something contrary to the > eternal sonship viewpoint. > > Something else occurred to me yesterday. I have always been uncomfortable > with this idea of "begotten, not made." I am not uncomfortable with the > idea that Jesus was not made, but rather I am uncomfortable with the fact > that begotten does not mean, "not made." It truly seems to make more sense > that "begotten" refers to when the Son of God was begotten in Mary's womb by > the power of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:35 certainly seems to carry this > message, that because she knew no man, and because what was born in her was > conceived of the Holy Ghost, her son would be called the Son of God. > > John Smithson wrote: > > 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. > > Then how do you deal with Psalm 2:7? He says, "This day have I begotten > thee." What would lead you to think that this verse does not mean what it > says, except for your leap of logic that the eternal existence of Jesus > Christ and the unchangeable nature of Christ must mean that he has always > been the begotten son of God. > > I must point out that John 17:5 speaks of a different kind of glory which > Jesus would receive when he returned to the father, a glory which he had in > the beginning, but now as the son of God did not have. Philippians 2, as > Judy pointed out, also speaks of this. The relationship between the father > and Yeshua clearly has not always been the same through all eternity. His > humanity changed some aspects of it. Judy hinted at this with her reference > to John 14:28 (my father is greater than I). > > 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. ---------- "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.
