----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Sonship
Hi Debbie, glad to see you are still around ... Thanks!
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:20:16 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Judy, I think I understand. You are saying that the author of
Colossians 1:16 is calling the second Person of the Godhead "the Son" when
referring to his creative role because that's what we know him as now, in much
the same way that I might say, "My mother enjoyed her childhood" (even though
she was not yet my mother then).
jt: I guess that is a different way of
saying it
Although I disagree with your understanding (taking
instead the view that he is called the Son in his creative role because he was
the Son already then), I don't think it is ruled out by the passage
itself.
jt: Col 1 may not rule anything out but it does
not establish "eternal sonship" either - I
agree. I meant it doesn't force either conclusion.
Same with Hebrews 1:3 (which says much the same
thing). We both understand those verses in a way that fits with the rest of
our interpretation of Scripture.
(I meant to say Hebrews 1:2 here, BTW.
Sorry.)
jt: It fits with the rest of scripture which is completely silent
concerning an eternal aspect to the Sonship of Christ... We mean different things by complete silence in Scripture, and
there is also this long-standing difference we have about the
unavoidability of interpretation, and these differences are not resolvable.
So yes, I will say that there is not the kind of proof you are
looking for.
But there were three other things I noticed in Bill's
account that were important (IMO) and that invite comment. Bill, if I have not
understood them properly, please correct:
1. The introduction of a Father-Son relationship to
the Godhead would be a change in the nature of God. That in
turn would mean that the Godhead Jesus revealed to us in the Incarnation was
not God as he always has been.
jt: Then this would belie Malachi 3:6 which is one scripture
among others stating that "God does not change" Exactly.
That's why some of us oppose the idea of the Father-Son relationship being a
new thing inside the Godhead. Should I conclude that you think the
introduction of such a relationship does not constitute a change in the
nature of God? If so, OK, I understand you.
2. In Acts 13:33, the quote from Ps 2:7 ("Today have
I begotten thee") is linked with the resurrection, so it would seem that it is
referring not to a literal begetting (as David M suggested with reference to
the same quotation in Hebrews).
jt: No it isn't linked with the resurrection, Jesus was begotten
in the womb of Mary. Paul quotes the prophecy in Acts 13 but the meaning
is not changed. Then I don't understand what it has to do
with the point Paul is making there.
3. The purpose of the Incarnation (and indeed the
creation) was to extend to people the filial relationship enjoyed within the
Godhead.
jt: The ppl who came up with this idea (in the 4th Century) did
not know God Debbie. They were religious ppl who rather than learn His ways -
tried to conform Him to theirs. They did not know a whole lot about the
Godhead. This isn't a response to the idea, but OK, I hear
your opinion about these people.
(1) is in the nature of a logical theological
argument. (2) refutes one of the key biblical "proofs" against the eternal
Sonship view (even if one might understand something more or different from it
than Bill does). (3) is not an argument per se, but situates the eternal
Sonship within a larger interpretation of revelation to show coherence.
Any comment on those, especially from the
Son-only-as-of-Mary's-conception folk? Debbie
jt: I would like to know why this "eternal sonship" idea is so
important to you and those like you Debbie. I am
not certain that it is so all-important, actually, and I haven't said
that it is. As I said in the message Lance posted before I came back on,
I think you and I are talking about the same Jesus, and that is the main
thing. But that doesn't mean a thing isn't worth talking about. Do
you think ppl are unable to understand relationship without conjuring up
something like this? No, I don't. It is not something
conjured to help people understand relationship, and I don't think I suggested
that.
Thanks for responding,
Judy.
From: Judy Taylor
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
