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.
Miller, why are you interpreting Judy to me? It is not necessary nor appreciated. I asked Judy a question and you have chosen to to interfer in this exchange -- thus hindering the work of God between her and myself.
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. Only blind bias would make this statement. It is inescapable that these are the words of God the Son to God the Father. Neither you nor Judy have offered any evidence whatsoever for causing me to doubt this fact and, because of that doubt, move outside the text for clarification. Nothing needs to be clarified for me. I am quite the literalist when it comes to biblical interpretation. You and Judy are not -- and THAT is why we disagree. It does not define exactly what kind of relationship existed except for a relationship of love. Indeed, it does not define except for love BUT it does assume -- the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. What we know from this passage is that God the Father loved Yeshua the Son 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. No, this would be false. Hannah only loved the idea of a son -- there was no son of Hannah before his birth. Extremely poor example. What we do have is a Son, on his knees, talking to His Father and asking for the continuance of a love that existed before the foundations of the world. 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.
Is a play on words more important than a discussion? We DO NOT AGREE. I did not say "the person known as Son ......" -- I said, in black and white, "the Son ...[period]). Why is it that your camp so enjoys mis=stating what one has just written?
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. My hermeneutic does not allow me to change the wording of a given passage --- yours and Judy's does. John 17:24 cannot be changed with my teaching ---- it most certainly can be changed with yours. 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.
I will take time to give my answer to the above claim.
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. so you agree that bias is always present in our study of the biblical mesage.
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? Well, John 17:24 for starters. It is more clearly understood from yours and Judy's bias if it were to say, ".....thous hast loved me as your future Son before the foundations of the world." 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." What is important to me is the meaning of the words used in Hebrew text and to those to whom it was addressed. Are you comfortable with that? I would have to go to Bill's post. Your presentation may not accurately mirror his comments. Sorry.
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. Actually, I think this is possible, but that is another discussion.
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.
I have no idea what you man with this last phrase. Are you telling me that you receive personal revelation in addition to the biblical message. That the biblical message is not enough - so you wait for personal revelation on 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.
Which is it -- more study or a personal revelation?
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.
