God is sure into those non sequiturs it seems :>) Bill
PS I would have appreciated you letting Judy have a crack at this first, as I did ask her. I imagine she'll read it a lot as you do, however. Want make any wagers? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ > 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. > ---------- "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.
