Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship

[Judy Taylor]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:41:42 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JT writes  >  Bill gives the same circular argument as J. C. Phillpot ...   Hi Judy. I am not familiar with J. C. Phillpot -- never heard of him, in fact. But I am interested in the "circular" aspect of your statement. Would you please explain to me what you mean? How is it that I have presented a "circular argument"?   jt: Phillpot lived before the turn of the century and he wrote an exhaustive piece on this subject that Jonathan sent to TT by way of Lance.   Just a question, Judy -- Why must the "proof" come from the Old Covenant (I believe you referred to it as the "OT" in your previous post)? Is the NT not sufficient to prove things about the Son of God?   jt: The NT begins with the incarnation where the Word becomes flesh but some claim there is an "eternal" aspect to his sonship and if this is so then it should be seen in the whole testimony of scripture rather than just one part. Jesus said there were things written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Him and all of them had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44) so since this is so if the doctrine is valid it should be revealed some place in all of this.   Is Paul's statement not proof enough for you? -- "giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. For He (the Father) delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.   jt: This Kingdom is a New Covenant event.   And He (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.   jt: Since the Resurrection He is the first born of the New Creation in Him.  He was not the first born of all creation because He is the Creator; all things were created and are today held together by the Word of His power.   For by him (the Son) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He (the Son) is before all things, and in Him (the Son) all things hold together.   jt: Oophs!  This is what I was talking about.  He is not a created being; He is the second member of the Godhead.   He (the Son) is also head of the body, the church; and He (the Son) is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him (the Son), and through Him (the Son) to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him (the Son), I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Col 1.12-20).   jt: Yes; the Resurrection and the Church - being born again from the dead are all N.T. events which don't prove your point.   Do you disagree with my application for the personal pronouns here? In other words, is it not the "beloved Son" who is the antecedent for each of these pronouns, excepting the first one, which is in reference to his "Father"?  Thanks,   jt: What do you mean 'antecedent?' are you reading something into the above?           On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:16:10 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 didn't miss Bill's article or your comments JD; what I am still waiting on is some homework from you and Lance from your personal studies giving some Old Covenant proof that Jesus was an Eternal Son when He created the worlds rather than the Word of God who spoke them into existence.   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.     Bill gives the same circular argument as J. C. Phillpot without the mystical aspect and the threats. Phillpot is honest enough to state that the doctrine props up the trinity and that without it the doctrine of the trinity crumbles.  However, this is not scriptural either.  My how far we have fallen. The Jews were so careful not to mess with even one jot or tittle and we have substituted trinity for Godhead and eternal son for Lord Jehovah and God the Word.   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 can say with certainty that what God would have us do is go to His Word and sit at the feet of Jesus with a humble and teachable spirit.    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   Why do you say "perhaps?"  Lance has bought Athanasius and the Nicene teachings hook, line, and sinker.  jt