David, you are probably right concerning the non sequitur of the Gal 4.4 argument.
As to my first paragraph, what I said was that you implied that the conclusion could only be drawn via a non sequitur. I was not confused enough to believe that a non sequitur argument necessarily means the conclusion is false. That is the point I was attempting to make -- not too successfully I suppose. Anyway, thanks for clearing this up for us. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The logical nature of Truth > Bill wrote: > > 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. > > ---------- "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.
