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
