RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

[ShieldsFamily]

-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:00 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me   Izzy wrote to John: > I cannot honestly make heads or tails of > the meaning of what you wrote above.   I can't give you the full answer to your questions, but I can discern a concise statement from what John wrote.  If I'm wrong John, please correct me in the spirit of meekness. Thanks for having the patience, David, as I really want to get to the bottom of this if I can.   John seems to be saying that God exists outside of time. I think I believe the same thing because time seems to be something that we are tied to because we age.  He does not.    Therefore, if God is a father, he has always been and will always be a father because there is no time for him.  I tend to think that “Father” is a term God has given us to help us understand Him.  He is much more than that, I think.   Likewise, the son always was a son and always will be a son, because time does not exist for him either. I can also buy into that.   So the difference in primary assumptions between John and Terry seems to be that Terry assumes God exists within time (or at least is known to us within our context of time) and John assumes that God exists outside of time (without any possible reference to time). If you say so. J   Another difference in definition of terms might possibly exist.  John seems to be understanding eternal as focusing upon the idea of something "unaffected by the passage of time" whereas others might be understanding the word eternal to mean, "existing throughout all time, without beginning or end." Why can’t I believe He is both? Are they mutually exclusive?   Further elaboration in case you did not understand the sentence just written: ---------------------------------- John seems to define the word "eternal" to mean existing outside of time. Others might understand the word "eternal" to mean existing within time, but having extended toward infinity in time past as well as will be extending toward infinity in time future.  John's perspective sees God as existing along the entire time continuum AT THE SAME TIME, but others might view God as existing along the entire length of the time continuum, but not at the same time (in other words, they would perceive God to experience time the same way that we do, with the exception that he never had a beginning and he will never have an end). Boy, that’s still a bit confusing. Why can’t “eternity” where God dwells be untouched by time, whereas we here in this galaxy or universe are constrained by time (within God’s eternal dwelling, which is everywhere and always)? He would be God in both places.  Izzy   Peace be with you. David Miller.