Debbie wrote:
> ... there were three other things I noticed in Bill's account
> that ... invite comment.
>
> 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.
I don't see how such an introduction would change the nature of God. The
Logos being born in the flesh is a much more contrasting event whether or
not he was called "son" prior to his being born in the flesh. If becoming a
son would change his nature, how much more would becoming a man! Now he
would experience temptation and death and suffering! No, God's nature is
not changed by these events. His nature is simply illuminated!
Debbie wrote:
> 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).
Acts 13:33 does not make a direct link between Psalm 2:7 to the
resurrection, but rather he speaks of Jesus being raised up to sit upon his
throne. It is a direct link to God raising up a son through Mary. The
resurrection comes up in the next verse, 34, which connects Isaiah 55:3 and
Psalm 16:10 to the resurrection. The relationship of the resurrection to
Psa. 2:7 is only that God's raising up of the Christ was not hindered or
stopped by death. Rather, the resurrection is a testimony to the fact that
this man Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the one whom God hath raised up to
sit on his throne and rule man.
Debbie wrote:
> 3. The purpose of the Incarnation (and indeed the creation)
> was to extend to people the filial relationship enjoyed within
> the Godhead.
True enough, but this supports Judy's viewpoint just as much as it might
support Bill's viewpoint. If there is any marrying of the two views,
perhaps it is in recognizing that the capacity of the Logos to be in
submission to the Father as a Son had always existed but was only manifest
in these last days as Christ was came into the world as a man.
Debbie wrote:
> (1) is in the nature of a logical theological argument.
But one must question whether God is as static as assumed by the statement,
and even if he was, does the introduction of Christ into the world as a son
really change God's nature. I think not. God is who he is regardless of
the circumstances in which he is found.
Debbie wrote:
> (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).
No it does not refute any "proof" because it mangles the meaning of Acts
13:33 and ignores the context of Psalm 2 and Heb. 1:5 and Heb. 5:5 which all
taken together make the meaning of Psalm 2:7 very clear.
Debbie wrote:
> (3) is not an argument per se, but situates the eternal
> Sonship within a larger interpretation of revelation
> to show coherence.
Just because something makes sense does not mean it is true. The filial
relationship is offered even if it only came about when Jesus came into the
world as a man. No coherence is lost by Judy's understanding here.
Debbie wrote:
> Any comment on those, especially from the
> Son-only-as-of-Mary's-conception folk?
You have my comments above and in other posts. :-) I'm very glad to read
your clear and readily understandable posts back on this forum.
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.
