I am done with this discussion for a while. Impasse has arrived. But more than that, a point of "truth" has occured for me. Thank you all for the impute presented -- Bill, David, Judy and Jonathan (the greates of these is the lest). I now feel confident as to what I believe and will teach on this point. One thing is not clear and I address this to all but esp the Slademeister: from a Hebrew perspective, what significance is there in the terms "begotten" and the throne at the right hand of God -- the throne of Daivd (?). Did the Son leave that throne and then returned to it? Drawing from seminary memory, years ago, "begotten" carried a meaning that included something about the exchange of essence into essence -- that "begotten" was a statement that went directly to the divine nature of the Son because of this begetting, if you will.. My memory is not as good as it should be. I can't find my notes on that....... but still looking. Help.
JD
In a message dated 12/29/2004 5:03:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
