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"?
jt: I don't know that my description is the best one -
to me it is as though you and he start with this "eternal Son" doctrine and
then read it into every NT scripture you can find
whether or not it is clear from the text alone and Phillpot kept repeating
himself.
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.
jt: Colossians says clearly that the person who is now the Beloved Son
did all these things, it does not clearly state that He was a "beloved Son"
then. In fact in Genesis he is called Elohim. In several OT scriptures
the three members of the Godhead are revealed and the second member is never
referred to as a "son".
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?
jt: It was God the Word, the second member of the Godhead who was
there at the beginning and who is also there at the end (see Rev
19:13)
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"?
jt: No I wouldn't mind Bill.
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?"
jt: What I deny is that He was "the beloved Son"
when he did these things Bill; Yes God is One and yes He is eternal
- But this is how it is: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is who created the
worlds and this is who became flesh (the beloved Son) and dwelt amongst
us.
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
