Did you notice the smiley face after my comment? That was supposed to indicate a light-heartedness about my words.
Yes, I noticed, which is why I also responded with light-heartedness. Did you notice my smiley face?
Bill wrote:
You seem to imply that a conclusion such as the ones drawn below can only be derived via a non sequitor [sic]. Just for the sake of argument, What if God did send his eternal Son into the world, would the Text be illogical in stating that truth in words like "God sent his Son into the world"?
We apparently need to define the phrase, "non sequitur." In the study of logic, a non sequitur does not mean that the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the specified premises. For example, someone might observe that the sky has been blue during the day everyday he has been alive. He might conclude from this that the sky will always be blue until his death. That conclusion might be true, but it is a non sequitur because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
The passages you shared do not contradict your belief, but the conclusion you have does not necessarily follow from the texts that you have quoted. In other words, these passages do not prove your doctrine on eternal sonship. They might be consistent with your belief, but these passages also are consistent with Judy's belief.
Bill wrote:
I am not as convinced as you that all the arguments you deemed non sequitors [sic] are indeed non sequitors [sic]. In my opinion, the following is not a non sequitor: "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!
This argument most clearly IS a non sequitor. This does not mean that your belief that Jesus was already God's Son when he was sent is illogically reconciable with this passage. It only means that your belief cannot be concluded based upon this passage. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the passage.
Note that "born of a woman" is not being argued as having happened in eternity past. Why not? It is stated there just like, "God sent forth his Son." You aren't arguing this because you know specifically when he was born of a woman based upon history and other passages. However, when he was begotten as a son is not stated specifically in the passage. You might presume either that it was before this time he was sent forth, or he might have been begotten when he was sent forth.
The passage states that the Son was sent forth when the time had fully come. In my mind, saying that the Son was not sent until this time is suggestive (but not proof) that the Son was not begotten until this time.
***** Important Point Here *****
------------------------------------
Judy's conclusion that the Son was not begotten until this time would be a non sequitur (he could have been begotten before but not sent), and also your conclusion that the Son was begotten prior to this time is a non sequitur (it could be that the Son was begotten at the time he was sent).
***************************
Bill Taylor wrote:
In reference to this bullet you gave an analogous example of the non sequitor fallacy and then you asked the question: "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?" The answer is contained in the verse itself: it was at a particular point in time, i.e., "when the time had fully come," that God sent forth this Son. Here you have a Father and a Son and a specific point in time when the Father sends his Son. The only reason to argue that this is a non sequitor is if you are prejudiced against the idea that the Father could have an eternal Son, since this verse argues as decisively for a pre-existent son as Ps 2.7 might be understood to argue for a temporal Son;
No, this passage does not specify anything about WHEN the son was begotten. Psalm 2:7 does address this question by saying, "THIS DAY have I begotten you." Psalm 2:7 points to a specific point in time, whereas it could be in respect to Gal. 4:4 that the Son had always existed and was never begotten.
Please reconsider the definition of non sequitur, and understand that in relation to this passage, your conclusion and Judy's conclusion are both non sequiturs. Neither conclusion logically follows from the premises outlines in this passage, but the passage is consonant with both conclusions.
Having said this, I do think the passage is more highly suggestive of Judy's position, because it points to a specific period of time when God sent forth his son, and that specific point in time is when he was born of a woman (not the resurrection, and not eternity past). The only reason Judy's position also is a non sequitur in relation to this passage is because the passage says nothing at all about when the son was actually begotten. It simply speaks of the son being sent forth, so the actual begetting of the son may have happened at an earlier point in time without contradicting anything in the passage.
Bill Taylor wrote:
after all, in 2.7 you have the same variables: a Father, a Son, and a specific point in time, when the Father begets the Son.
Good point. The two passages may very well be related to each other. In fact, I personally think they are. The specific point in time in Gal. 4:4 is when he was begotten of the woman, and Psalm 2:7 does not specify exactly when but it is clear that it was on "THIS DAY." If we consider both together, it is logical to infer that perhaps this day when he was born of the woman, and this day referred to in Psalm 2:7, are the same day, the day of Christ's birth.
Bill Taylor wrote:
One must examine the weight of the evidence one over against
the other to conclude which of these verses clarifies the other.
I believe it is reasonable to conclude, given the language of these
other Son-sent passages as well as Hebrews 1.2 ("through whom
he made the universe") and many other passages, that God did
send his eternally divine Son into the world in the fullness of time
to save sinners. When I consider further that Ps 2.7 is also quoted
in Acts 13.33 in the context of Jesus' resurrection, I am made all
the more confident in my conclusion.
If you read Acts 13:34, he says, "AND AS CONCERNING THAT HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD." The phrase "AND..." suggests something else. This was said immediately following his quote of Psalm 2:7. So it seems pretty clear to me that he is speaking about Jesus being born and raised for a purpose of God in Acts 13:33. This is the context of Psalm 2, Christ being raised up to rule the earth. Certainly the resurrection gives enormous testimony to that, but I think it is another non sequitur to conclude that Acts 13:33 refers specifically to the time of his resurrection. This is a straw man argument that some of those articles Jonathan posted had constructed and torn down to make their argument appear to be right. They argued against the viewpoint that the resurrection was when the son was begotten, and this is not the viewpoint of Judy or of any serious theologian that I have read.
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.
