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
