Hi Bill. I know you asked Judy, but following are my comments:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16). This favorite verse of Evangelicals tells us that the One Whom God "gave" to the world was "His only begotten Son". Jesus was already the begotten Son of God when the Father gave Him to us in the Incarnation!
I see this verse as talking about the incarnation. If I said, "God so loved the world that he gave us Bill Taylor," that would not mean that you were Bill Taylor before you were born. The logic used here is faulty. It is a non sequitur.
The next verse adds: "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:17). This clearly states that Jesus was the Son of God when He was sent "into the world", i.e.. the Incarnation!
Right, when he was sent into the world, the incarnation. This is what Judy's position is, at the incarnation, so this person makes her point for her with this verse.
"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). Jesus was God's Son when He was "sent forth" from the Father to be born of woman. Christ did not become God's Son at His human birth, He already was God's Son!
Non sequitur again. The logic is faulty. The statement, "God sent forth his Son" does not mean that he was already God's Son. Let me offer another example. Suppose my child knows me as dad, so she says to someone, "Dad was born on March 3, 1960, and when dad was 12 years old, he read the entire Bible." Does that mean that I was her dad in 1960 or that I was her dad when I was 12? No, of course not. So why would anyone think that the phrase, "God sent forth his son" would mean that he was functioning in the role of son of God from eternity past?
This passage affirms that at this particular time (when the time had fully come), God sent his son, born of a woman. This ties the concept of son to the incarnational birth, exactly as Judy's view suggests.
"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him" (I John 4:9). Again, Jesus is God's only Son before being sent into the world.
Non sequitur again, for the reasons previously mentioned. The incarnation is clearly in view in this passage. How is it that we might live through him? Because God became flesh, the incarnation. If anything, passages like this support Judy's viewpoint that the phrase "son of God" is a buzz word for the miracle of the incarnational birth of Christ.
The next verse reiterates this point: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I John 4:10) And yet again, four verses later: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world" (I John 4:14).
Again, these passages reiterate not that Yeshua was the eternal son, but that God expressed his love through the incarnation of Christ. It draws attention to the fact that Yeshua was unique in his birth, being the son of God, born of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35).
I don't see where any of these passages create any difficulty at all for Judy's viewpoint. They actually seem to support it from my perspective. This guy seems to be countering the idea of his becoming known as the son at the time of the resurrection. These verses would be applicable for rejecting the viewpoint that he became the son at the resurrection, but not for the idea that he became known as the son of God when born of Mary.
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.
