Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:58
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Sonship
Thank you for your response, Judy. Paul states that
the "beloved Son" is the creator of all things. You deny this and argue that
at the time he created this "member" was not the beloved Son; this because
you believe that the "second member of the Godhead" only became a "Son" at
the Incarnation. I do not know how to proceed from here, other than to say
that your contention does not lie with me but the Apostle Paul. He is the
one who contradicts you: "For by the beloved 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 through
the beloved Son and for the beloved Son." -- Colossians 1.16
Till next time, Bill
Context Bill context. He had become the "beloved Son" by the time
Paul wrote the epistle to Colosse - So I have no conflict with Paul. So far
as I can see Paul never ever promoted a "gospel that included an eternal
son" or a trinity for that matter. These are "religious" constructs and to
promote them takes a lot of carnal reasoning. Lance and JD can
not meet my request because the scriptures just are not there. There
is nothing and I repeat nothing about an eternal Son in the 39 books of the
OT which is pretty remarkable I think. Don't you? I know all of
your relationship and father love doctrines rest on this but if they are not
based in truth - what's the point? God is still love -
regardless.
The way the Godhead operates is:
The Father wills it
The Word speaks the will of the Father
The Holy Spirit does it
Do you have a problem with this? Do you believe it is
heresy? judyt
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:28:05 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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.
jt: Of course it was the "beloved Son" when Paul wrote the epistle to
the Church at Colosse; but in His preincarnate state He was not known as a
Son - beloved or otherwise unless you can find an instance from Genesis
through Malachi.
(I'll make a couple comments to your other statements below in
red) Bill
From: Judy Taylor
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
