|
David writes > just because the
passage refers to the Son does not mean that he was always known as the Son
prior to creating all things.
BT > I am not arguing that he was always "known" as the Son
prior to his incarnation, David. I am arguing that he was always the Son,
whether his creation knew him as such or not -- a fairly significant
difference, I would suggest.
By the way, I answered most of your post, David, and then pulled your
statement here to the top. I did this because it seems to get to the heart
of what is disturbing me about not only this discussion but theology in general.
The truth, it seems to me, is that we are most likely all doing
eisegesis, and this under the semblance or banner of what we each consider
to be sound exegesis; we read into the text our preconceived notions, hence
drawing from our study that which confirms what we already believed. You
will probably disagree with me on this, but I want to tell you anyway that it
concerns me a great deal to witness such variance in the beliefs of such
obviously Christ-committed followers. To you, my interpretation/argument is
little more than a setting forth of a sloppy non sequitur and is not at all
compelling. To me, when Paul says the Son created all things, he means
that the Son was really there at the time of the creation to do
the creating. Hence we both find a way of concluding that which we most want to
believe.
You can read my comments below and take from them what you like, David. But
as far as I am concerned, there doesn't seem to be much to be gained in
prolonging this conversation. We are both pretty much set in our
beliefs.
Blessings,
Bill ____________________________________________________
Bill Taylor wrote: "Adoption" is his
"purpose"; it is why he created; this that we might know him as
Father.
DM > It seems to me that adoption is a term that
might be applicable only after the fall of man. Do you see it
differently?
BT > Well, sort of :>) --
"Adoption" as an act on the part of the Father through the Christ does not
require the fall in order to take place; it requires that the Son become
incarnate, that through him--i.e., by way of representation--humanity might
be assumed and included in his filial relationship with the Father.
Having said this, however, I now want to predicate it on the following
statements. Paul states that before the foundation of the world (i.e., prior to
the introduction of sin) the Father "predestined us to adoption
as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself." And so, here's the rub: if we
are predestined to adoption through "Jesus" then we are predestined through him
whose name means Yah Saves. It seems reasonable to me to conclude therefore that
at the time of our adoption the Father knew that we would first need to be saved
-- hence this seems to me to be a clear indication that the fall was at the
very least an inevitability at the time the Father purposed to
adopt.
DM > Of course, if the fall
was predestined, then so was adoption,
BT > I do not believe the fall was
predestined, per se, but as I state above, I do see it as being
inevitable.
DM > ... but identifying the purpose
of creation as being adoption seems to go a little beyond what the passage
actually says.
BT > Perhaps someday you will come
to see it differently.
____________________________________________________
Bill Taylor wrote: And so the question is, did God become a "Father" at some point after his creation. DM > 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?
BT > Yes.
_____________________________________________________
Bill Taylor wrote: Is that why he created: to be a Father? DM > 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.
BT > I disagree with your premise, David. "Father" is first
and foremost a relational term. That is why Jesus commands us to call no one
Father; this so that we will not confuse our understanding of his perfect filial
relationship with the Father with our less than perfect, indeed
fallen, relationships here on earth. God is called "Father,"
because he is Father of the Son. It is the relationship that defines the
term.
___________________________________________________
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;
DM > 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.
BT > Hmmmm. That is very sad.
____________________________________________________
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. DM > 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?
BT > Because it is it in and through the Son that the Father
is revealed. Take away the one and the other cannot be known for who He is
eternally.
_____________________________________________________
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. DM > 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.
BT > You are setting up a tautology here, David. You assume
that I am going to accept your Father-because-he-is-creator doctrine -- not so.
Paul tells us that it was by and through the Son that everything was created.
What is it that establishes the Father as the Father, if in fact it was
by the Son that we were created?
_____________________________________________
Bill Taylor wrote: God has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DM > Begging the question again.
BT > Okay.
_____________________________________________
Bill Taylor wrote: What the birth of Jesus did was change the way
we, his creation, have come to know him.
DM >
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). DM > 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).
DM > Right, and this affirms our position of the
incarnation being the point in time when the Logos became the son.
BT > Hmmmmm.
_______________________________________________
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.
DM > 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?
BT > Fully understand? Of course not, but as DaveH says, it
can certainly draw us closer to the center (conceptually,
i.e., although I'm sure he would not agree with me that this is what will
get us there :>)
_______________________________________________
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, DM > Nobody is saying that there was a time when the Son was
not.
BT > Oh really? Hmmmmm. I thought that was what this
discussion was about.
DM > 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.
BT > It was one of the points in time when God declared him
his Son.
______________________________________________________
<SNIP>
______________________________________________________
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.
DM > So you believe he was a Son in eternity past and then
became a Son again at his resurrection?
BT > I believe this is a statement of designation, David, one of
prominence, position, and stature. I have no real problem with concurring that
this statement was made of him as well at his physical birth -- i.e., the
begotten or firstborn Son. In Acts 13.33, however, it is spoken of him at the
resurrection, he being the firstborn from the dead (cf. Col 1).
DM > 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.
BT > Perhaps you are trying too hard.
____________________________________________________
> > 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. BT > See above
_________________________________________________
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? DM > The Son existed prior to the creation of anything, but
not as the Son. He existed as the Logos of God.
BT > I know that that is what you believe.
DM > 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."
BT > An antecedent does not have to be the subject of a
statement, David. Surely you know this.
DM > The immediate antecedent for Col. 1:16 is found in verse
15, "the firstborn of every creature."
BT > Yes, David, and who is this firstborn of every creature? To
answer that question, we must go looking for another antecedent.
Question: from the context of this passage, who is the firstborn over all creation of verse 15? Answer: It is the Son of verse 13. The title "the firstborn ..." finds its antecedent in the relative pronoun (in the Greek) "he" of verse 15, which finds its antecedent in the relative pronoun "whom" of verse 14, which finds its antecedent in the Son of verse 13. This is not complicated, David. Simplified it reads, The Father conveyed us into the kingdom of his son, who is the firstborn over creation. From the context of this statement, then, who is the firstborn? It is the Son. DM > I don't think you would argue that Jesus was
always the firstborn from eternity past, would you?
BT > And from the context of this passage, neither ought I
need to ...
<SNIP>
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] As to the eternal sonhip of Christ Bill Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] As to the eternal sonhip of Christ David Miller
