jt: What do you mean 'antecedent?' are you reading something into the
above?
No, I am not reading anything into the text. I am
reading the text to gain understanding; i.e., to identify it characters so as to
determine about whom the Apostle writes. Allow me to post the passage again
and I will try to clarify my point.
Colossians 1.12 giving thanks to the
Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in
light. 13 For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us
to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the
forgiveness of sins. 15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation. 16 For by Him 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. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in
everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the
fulness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to
Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I
say, whether things on earth or things in
heaven.
In Grammar an antecedent is the word, phrase,
or clause that determines what a pronoun refers to. Verse 16 states
that all things were "through him" and "by him." The pronoun
"him" is a third person singular personal pronoun; it refers to a person
mentioned in a preceding statement. When I ask you who the antecedent for
this pronoun is, I am asking you to determine the person to whom the
pronoun refers; i.e., Who does the "him" refer to?
The "antecedent" for "him" in verse 16 is "the
beloved Son," as identified in verse 13. Do you agree with this conclusion? If
not, then please explain to me why you disagree, and please tell me who you
think the antecedent is. If you do agree with me, that the beloved Son is
the one through whom and by whom all things were created, then please
tell me how this beloved Son could have created anything prior to
his existence as the beloved Son.
(I'll make a couple comments to your other
statements below in red)
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:19
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Sonship
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.
Thanks for the info Judy, but
it does not address my request. Again, 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"?
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.
It is, Judy, and it begins with clear statements like
the one above in Colossians and spreads outward from there. From this
statement we may conclude, e.g., that the "Word" of God is also
the Son of God, by whom and through whom all things word
created.
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.
Okay.
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.
Okay, and who is this "Word of His
power." Is it someone other than the beloved Son of this passage?
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.
I don't quite understand your
"oophs" here, but I agree with you that the beloved Son is not a created
being. By the way (just being onery here), would you mind showing me in
Scripture where the Son is refered to as "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.
To the contrary, Judy, my
point is that all of these referents point to the same person: "the beloved
Son," as identified in verse 13. If the beloved Son is the head of the body,
which is the church; and if he is the beginning, the first-born from the
dead, etc. etc., as stated in these verses, and if you agree with me on this,
then why do you deny that this same "beloved Son" is the creator of all
things, both things in the heavens and on earth, things visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities? Is it
because you know if he is the Creator he is necessarily eternal, i.e, the
eternal Son of God, and that to admit this would be to admit that you have
been wrong in your extended criticism of my (our, the Christian) belief in the
eternal sonship of this "second member of the Godhead?"
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
