Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

[knpraise]

 Hi, Judy.  Apparently you missed the article by Bill Taylor below and some of my thoughts added  in response.   It is added to "correction" from  Terry   --  perhaps Terry will retract his correction at this time in spite of the fact that Judy has a hard time with the word "yes" in this particular case.  

 

I would recommend a reading of Bill's article again.   It may be comprehensive enough to have covered all of the serious implications of this biblical doctrine.  

 

How we view God IS based upon the content of our presuppositions to that doctrine.   That being true, IMO, it becomes critical that we have a "correct" view of same.   "Correctness" is used in this context as meaning something more than just an intellectual positioning.  I see that now.   Lance, in fact, has made this very point in the very recent past......  the importance of content as it relates to our faith.  Now, what would God have us do with these differences?  A serious question, for me  ----    a very serious question.  

 

I am a little surprised at Lance's positioning on this  --   as I follow his discussion with Dave and Blaine.   One would expect a raving and goofy liberal to have no such view -  a view that in and of itself sets his belief apart and against (?) those of some others  (i.e Blaine and Dave --  perhaps JudyT on this eternal Son  discussion.   

 

JD

 

 

 

JD you have a bit of a nerve questioning me when you have yet to come up with evidence

from God's Word OT proving that in his preincarnate state Jesus was God the Son.  Still waiting...... judyt

 

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:31:13 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:

So you believe "Jesus" and the "Son" began at the virgin birth !!   Thank you.  JD 

 

From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>

My belief JD is that in his preincarnate state the man Jesus was God the Word ie "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  jt

 

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:20:03 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:

Do you concur, Judy.  It is your belief I am speaking of.   Do you believe that "Jesus" and the "Son" began at the virgin birth?  JD   

 

From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

knpraise@aol.com wrote:

Debbie writes:   Does she (JudyT)  have the same God? If she thinks the beginning of Jesus was the beginning of the Son, then no.  

 

This is precisely what i hear Judy saying.   Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

==============================================================
You are wrong.  Judy is correct.  You have been corrected.
Terry

 

 

Great to have Bill  and Debbie back for a season.   Some thoughts below  -  not an effort to half-sole what has been so well presented.    JD

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Taylor <wmtaylor@plains.net>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:52:49 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] As to the eternal sonhip of Christ

Greetings all,

 

Lance called this morning to tell me that the "conversation" had swung back around to the subject of our Lord's sonship. At his request I have decided to rejoin you for a while (who knows, maybe even longer:>) As you will remember, this is a subject that I am quite passionate about; this because it speaks to the eternal nature of our God: who is this God, and how are we to know him? In my studies I have come to believe that the news that most moved the Apostle Paul was that God's desire is to be known as "Abba, Father" (cf Rom 8. 15; Gal 4.6). Paul tells his readers that this is why God created, that "He predestined us to adoption as sons [and daughters] through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," (Eph 1.5). "Adoption" is his "purpose"; it is why he created; this that we might know him as Father.   This is such a wonderful  truth. For me, personally, to understand God As Father and Son is to have a much different view of the "wrath" of God,  or God as a judge,  or God as one who administers His will in differing ways ---  patriarch/God; His rule through Moses and then the Law; His administration in the select Priesthood, in the prophets, in the kings and in His [nearly] unspoken  relationship with the Gentile nations before the Christ event.   "Father God"  puts a very different perspective on all of the above.  It ties together the disappointment of the Garden, the impossible promise to Abraham, the comings and goings of His select people and the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile to Himself at the Cross.  In this "tying together,"  I see the Divine Purpose throughout all of scripture  -  the biblical story as a continuous thread and an ever increasing manifest of His purpose. 

 

It seems to me that if He predestined or predetermined  (are they the same thing?) us  to be sons  -  His fatherhood must have predated that "decision."   If this was a determination on the part of God "from the beginning" (that we be sons and daughters) then how could  He be not be the Father Eternal?  And, if this was all to be accomplished in His Son,  predestined as it were,  how could the Son be anything other than the eternal Son? 

 

When Bill first presented this, some time ago,  I thought  -- this guy lives at around the 6000 foot elevation mark -   obviously not  enough oxygen to the old brain.  But, as time goes on, it has become clear to me just how full of truth the teaching is  -  how comprehensive the words "Father" and "Son" are to an understanding of the bibilical text and the story it reveals. 

 

And so the question is, did God become a "Father" at some point after his creation. Is that why he created: to be a Father? OR has he always been the Father, and he created to bring others into the relationship he has always had with his Son; that through adoption we might share in that which the Son has always had with his Father?  This will be resisted by some - which is fine.  We are a discussion group.  But to what purpose?  " ...that through adoption we might share in that which the Son has always had with his Father."   I cannot even imagine what is fearful in that statement  -  to be avoided or abbreviated in some way.       I believe that God can only be truthfully known and understood in th e context of this latter question. God has always been "Father" because his Son is eternal. And so the Son, as the Son, prays for a glorification once shared with the Father before the worlds were (John 17:5)   Adoption did not make God something he was not before -- neither did the birth of Jesus; that is, the virgin birth did not introduce "fatherhood" to the Father; nor did it introduce "sonship" to the Son. There has always existed a "filial" relationship in the Godhead. In other words, the birth of Jesus did not change the eternal nature of God. God has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If we deny this, what do we have in its place?  If God is the same yesterday, today and forever --  an oft quoted thought on TT -- why is He not always the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?     What the birth of Jesus did was change the way we, his creation, have come to know him. It is through Jesus Christ that we may now know God the way he desires to be known -- as "Father" through his Son: Hence the use of the term "Father [God]" some 278 times in the N.T. and twice in the O.T. &nbs p;  "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father' ... And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6). Indeed there was no mature articulation nor knowledge of God prior to the advent of his Son. This most wonderful of truths, while hinted at, was never fully disclosed throughout the OT period; in fact, Jesus states that prior to his coming no one really knew who God was. It was only after he came that people could begin to know him for who he really was (see Luk 10.22).

 

Why is the question of Christ's sonship so important to me? Because I believe it is integral to a true and right understanding of God. It is where the knowledge of God begins. Christ came not only to save us but to introduce us to his Father, to our Father; that is, he came to introduce us to God as he really is. To say that there was a time when the Son was not, is to also say that the God who can be known only through his Son, is not the G od who was before the Incarnation, before he was "the Father"; it is to say that Christ came to introduce a new God, a Marcionite god, a God who suddenly stopped being the God of the Old Testament, now to be a Father.  This will not do.     "God the Father" is clearly not an O.T. theme, per se.   The contrast between the God of the Old and the God of the New is profoundly stark.   So much so, that if what Bill is saying is not true  -  we do have two different Gods  presented rather than one God fully revealed in the Christ  --   His Son.  great point !!   (Bill's,   not mine).

 

We are familiar with the argument against my position, the one which asserts that Christ became the Son of God at his Incarnation. The verse most commonly cited to support this claim is Psalms 2.7, along with NT verses that quote it: "... Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." I have responded to this argument in the past, whereupon I pointed out that it was actually to his resurrection and not his birth that the prophetic language of this psalm pointed -- to that day when God would say of his Son, "On this day I have begotten you." Look with me at Acts 13.30-33: "But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings -- that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'" Thanks for this point.

 

Did Christ become a Son at his resurrection? Is this what God through the Psalmist promised? Yes, in a sense it was. It was there that he became "the firstborn over all creation" (see Col 1; cf Acts 2).   Birthed from death into life ?????  Hence firstborn ??    When the Son of God took upon himself human flesh at the Incarnation, it meant that he could not return to his Father until that flesh had been perfected. Luke says that Jesus beat his way forward with blows, that he grew in wisdom and stature. And the preacher to the Hebrews writes that the Son learned obedience by the things he suffered, and that having been perfected, he was qualified to return to his Father as Priest. Yes, it is the Son resurrected and seated at the right hand of his Father that God is excited about: Jesus seated as Lord and Christ (Act 2.36); the Son seated as High Priest, seated the author of salvation (Heb 5.9-10). It is in resurrection that the Son fulfills that for which he was sent. Therefore God says of him on the day of his resurrection, "Today I have begotten thee."

 

But was the Son the Son of God before the resurrection? Of course he was. And was the Son the Son of God before the Incarnation? Yes, indeed, he was. Look with me at the following passage in Colossians:

1:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Verse 16 states that all things were created "by him" and "through him." And so, the question is, who is this "him"? The antecedent for the pronoun "him" in this verse is "the Son" (see v.13), and this Son is the Son of the Father (see v.12). My friends, in order to create all things which are created, the Son had to exist prior to the creation of anything. Do you agree with me? This passage therefore stands as indisputable proof that God's Son existed as the Son of God prior to his birth as a human being from the womb of Mary -- a woman who was herself a created being. But being himself the uncreated creator of all things, the Son is necessarily eternal -- he can be nothing else.  (think Amos and Andy and say it with me now ..." there's some exegeten goin on here!)

 

Hence this Son is the eternal Son of God.

 

And so we are back to where we began. At the heart of God is an eternal, undiminished relationship between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. From eternity this God purposed to bring us into that relationship. That is why God created, that through adoption we might share in that which the Father has always shared with his Son and the Son the same with his Father. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved" (Eph 1.3-6). Amen!!

 

Praise God. 

 

Bill