Bill Taylor wrote: > At his request I have decided to rejoin you for a while > (who knows, maybe even longer:>)
Great! Welcome back, Bill. We have missed you. Bill Taylor wrote: > "Adoption" is his "purpose"; it is why he created; > this that we might know him as Father. It seems to me that adoption is a term that might be applicable only after the fall of man. Do you see it differently? Of course, if the fall was predestined, then so was adoption, but identifying the purpose of creation as being adoption seems to go a little beyond what the passage actually says. Bill Taylor wrote: > And so the question is, did God become a > "Father" at some point after his creation. The one who creates is by nature a Father. However, he is not actually known as Father until he creates. From your perspective, was there ever a time when God had not created anything? In other words, was there ever a time when God was not the Creator? Bill Taylor wrote: > Is that why he created: to be a Father? No, I don't see being a Father as having anything to do with his motivation. The question of "why" is not applicable. He simply is the Father because he created. Bill Taylor wrote: > OR has he always been the Father, and > he created to bring others into the relationship > he has always had with his Son; Not everyone he created is called to be in this same Father / Son relationship, so this would not be the reason for why he created either. I think his reasons for creating have nothing to do with the title Father or for replicating that relationship with others. Bill Taylor wrote: > I believe that God can only be truthfully known and understood > in the context of this latter question. God has always been "Father" > because his Son is eternal. You are setting up a tautology here. This is called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." You are asserting the question being asked as being true and hoping it will be accepted without evidence. What would cause us to accept the idea that God can only be truthfully known in the context of the eternal sonship doctrine? Bill Taylor wrote: > Adoption did not make God something he was not before > -- neither did the birth of Jesus; that is, the virgin birth did > not introduce "fatherhood" to the Father; nor did it introduce > "sonship" to the Son. There has always existed a "filial" relationship > in the Godhead. In other words, the birth of Jesus did not change > the eternal nature of God. I think we agree that the birth of Jesus did not change the eternal nature of God, but what does that have to do with the question of whether or not Jesus was always his Son? We would all agree that God was Father BEFORE Jesus was born. This says nothing about the supposed Sonship relationship of the Logos prior to the incarnation. Bill Taylor wrote: > God has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Begging the question again. Bill Taylor wrote: > What the birth of Jesus did was change the way we, > his creation, have come to know him. Agreed. Bill Taylor wrote: > It is through Jesus Christ that we may now know God > the way he desires to be known -- as "Father" through > his Son: "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage > again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption > by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father' ... And because > you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into > our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6). Right, and it was the incarnation that accomplishes this. The Logos becoming flesh, becoming both son of man and son of God. Bill Taylor wrote: > Indeed there was no mature articulation nor knowledge > of God prior to the advent of his Son. This most wonderful > of truths, while hinted at, was never fully disclosed throughout > the OT period; in fact, Jesus states that prior to his coming no > one really knew who God was. It was only after he came that > people could begin to know him for who he really was (see Luk 10.22). Right, and this affirms our position of the incarnation being the point in time when the Logos became the son. Bill Taylor wrote: > Why is the question of Christ's sonship so important to me? > Because I believe it is integral to a true and right understanding > of God. Fair enough, but does his being a son from some point prior to our creation an idea that is necessary for a proper understanding of God? Also, some of us might ask, can we really fully understand God even if we accept the eternal sonship doctrine? Bill Taylor wrote: > It is where the knowledge of God begins. Christ came not > only to save us but to introduce us to his Father, to our > Father; that is, he came to introduce us to God as he really > is. To say that there was a time when the Son was not, Nobody is saying that there was a time when the Son was not. The Son (the person we now know and call the Son) was eternal and has always existed. However, there was a point in time, "this day," when God declared him to be his Son. This unique event we call the incarnation, when God became flesh. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: THEREFORE also that holy thing which shall be born of thee SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God." Bill Taylor wrote: > is to also say that the God who can be known only > through his Son, is not the God who was before the > Incarnation, before he was "the Father"; it is to say that > Christ came to introduce a new God, a Marcionite god, > a God who suddenly stopped being the God of the Old > Testament, now to be a Father. This will not do. No. This is a non sequitur. Would it be plausible if you were to argue that Christ becoming flesh would mean that he could not reveal to us the same God as found in the OT? Of course not. His becoming the Son of God through becoming flesh does not preclude him from being able to reveal the Father to us. On the contrary, it enabled him to do it more effectively. Bill Taylor wrote: > ... I pointed out that it was actually to his resurrection and > not his birth that the prophetic language of this psalm pointed > -- to that day when God would say of his Son, "On this day > I have begotten you." Look with me at Acts 13.30-33: "But > God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days > by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, > who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you > glad tidings -- that promise which was made to the fathers. > God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised > up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are > My Son, Today I have begotten You.'" I had pointed out to you before, Bill, that this passage is not pointing to the resurrection when it speaks of Jesus being raised up. The resurrection is a confirmation that God himself has raised up this son, because what man was ever resurrected from the dead? The point is that he was raised up by God as his son and not cut off by death, but continues on, raised up as the Son. John Gill, who also believes in the eternal sonship doctrine like you do, agrees with my perspective about this passage not referring to the ressurection. Gill writes the following about Acts 13:33: "in that he hath raised up Jesus again;" which may not be understood of his resurrection from the dead, since the promise made, and now fulfilled, has not a single respect to that; but of his being raised up, and sent forth into the world, to be a Saviour and Redeemer, and to sit upon the throne of David, as in Act_2:30 of which raising of him up to regal dignity, mention is made in Psa_2:1, Psa_6:1 which is produced as a testimony of it; and the rather this seems to be the sense, since the article of the resurrection of the dead is spoken of in the next verse, as distinct from this; and other passages of Scripture are produced, as speaking of it; though admitting that Christ's resurrection from the dead is here intended, as the Alexandrian copy reads, what follows is very applicable to it, without any detriment to the doctrine of Christ's eternal generation and sonship, as will be hereafter made to appear: Bill Taylor wrote: > Did Christ become a Son at his resurrection? > Is this what God through the Psalmist promised? > Yes, in a sense it was. So you believe he was a Son in eternity past and then became a Son again at his resurrection? I think I can follow the sense of what you are trying to communicate, but is this terminology really right? I'm getting bogged down in this idea that he did not become a son at the incarnation, he has always been the son, but now he becomes the son at the resurrection. Bill wrote: > Therefore God says of him on the day of his resurrection, > "Today I have begotten thee." But you have not established that God said this on the day of his resurrection. Hosea 11:1 refers to Jesus as "son" when he was just a baby living in Egypt. When Jesus was baptized by John, a voice came from heaven with this decree, "This is my beloved Son." The tempter attacked Jesus on the knowledge he had of being the Son of God, saying, "If thou be the Son of God..." Even devils yelled out that he was the Son of God. Surely the decree was made long before his resurrection. Bill Taylor wrote: > But was the Son the Son of God before the resurrection? > Of course he was. And was the Son the Son of God before > the Incarnation? Yes, indeed, he was. Look with me at the > following passage in Colossians: > ... Verse 16 states that all things were created "by him" and > "through him." And so, the question is, who is this "him"? > The antecedent for the pronoun "him" in this verse is "the > Son" (see v.13), and this Son is the Son of the Father (see > v.12). My friends, in order to create all things which are > created, the Son had to exist prior to the creation of anything. > Do you agree with me? The Son existed prior to the creation of anything, but not as the Son. He existed as the Logos of God. Technically, the antecedent is not specified in the passage. The word "Son" is not the subject of the sentence but was part of a prepositional phrase modifying "kingdom." The immediate antecedent for Col. 1:16 is found in verse 15, "the firstborn of every creature." I don't think you would argue that Jesus was always the firstborn from eternity past, would you? In any case, we all know who he is talking about. He is talking about the person we know as the Son, the Logos, Jesus, Messiah, etc., but he is not trying to prove that the Son existed as the Son prior to his incarnation. Bill Taylor wrote: > This passage therefore stands as indisputable proof that > God's Son existed as the Son of God prior to his birth > as a human being from the womb of Mary -- a woman > who was herself a created being. But being himself the > uncreated creator of all things, the Son is necessarily > eternal -- he can be nothing else. > Hence this Son is the eternal Son of God. LOL. Bill, suppose Scripture had said the following: "The man Christ Jesus was before all things and created all things." Would this prove the following? 1) that Jesus was known as Jesus prior to creating all things? 2) that Jesus was a man prior to creating all things? I don't think so. In like manner, just because the passage refers to the Son does not mean that he was always known as the Son prior to creating all things. I hope you are not discouraged by my response here. I'm just trying to help you understand how my thinking on this matter works when I read your post. This topic is evidentally very important to you. From my perspective, our understanding of the Godhead is not nearly so important as abiding in the teachings of Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
