Bill Taylor wrote: > 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.
Well, this is very interesting indeed. After reading this and the rest of your comments, I'm not sure we are all that far apart. Perhaps most of our debate here concerns what we would consider proper terminology. David Miller wrote: >> was there ever a time when God was not the Creator? Bill Taylor wrote: > Yes. Interesting. So if there was a time when he was not Creator, did becoming Creator change who he was? Why would you have a problem with there being a time when he was not "Father" but not have a problem with there being a time when he was not "Creator"? David Miller wrote: >> He simply is the Father because he created. Bill Taylor wrote: > 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. I have significant problems with this line of thinking, but I will consider what you have said further in my quiet time of study and meditation. My initial perspective about why Jesus instructs us not to call people Father on earth has to do with idolatry and also the detrimental effect upon the one being called father (pride, position, etc.). He also warned against other terms, like Master, Rabbi, etc. It seems like the reasons for prohibiting all these terms are related, and this would mean that father / son relationship is not the unique thing that prohibits the term father from use. Bill Taylor wrote: >>> he created to bring others into the relationship >>> he has always had with his Son; David Miller wrote: >> 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: > Hmmmm. That is very sad. Do you believe that the angels of heaven are called to have a father / son relationship? Is this why God created them? What about the animals of this earth? Were they created for the reason of replicating the father / son relationship? Bill Taylor wrote: > 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? Because he is establishing that our Father has humbled himself to become our brother that he might save us. So are you taking the position that the Son is the Creator and the Father is not? This is leading to another divergence between us. I see the Father as Creating through the son. "Let US make..." I do not see the Father as being passive in the creation events of Genesis 1 & 2. Bill Taylor wrote: > An antecedent does not have to be the subject > of a statement, David. Surely you know this. The antecedent sometimes does not even exist but is assumed. The problem here is that you reach back past the true antecedent, firstborn, because you want to grab the word "son" in order to make your case. I consider this improper. You can't go back beyond the true antecedent to make your case, stress the word "son" as if it has some extreme significance to Paul in this context, and be blind to the fact that the antecedent of "he" in Col. 1:16 is firstborn and not son! David Miller wrote: >> The immediate antecedent for Col. 1:16 is found >> in verse 15, "the firstborn of every creature." Bill Taylor wrote: >> Yes, David, and who is this firstborn of every creature? >> To answer that question, we must go looking for another >> antecedent. We have no dispute that the firstborn is the son, Jesus, the Christ, the everlasting father, the prince of peace, etc. But you take great pains to draw attention to the "son" being in the mind of the author when it is actually the term "firstborn" that is the term closest to the pronoun "he." You are going way out of your way to make a technical argument based upon syntax that is very tenuous upon examination. David Miller wrote: >> I don't think you would argue that Jesus was always > the firstborn from eternity past, would you? Bill Taylor wrote: > And from the context of this passage, > neither ought I need to ... Yes you do. All your arguments for eternal sonship from this passage apply more heavily to "firstborn" than they do to the term "son." I think recognizing how the term "firstborn" becomes applied to Jesus helps us understand that it is the person he points us to rather than the relationship term of son that is important. In other words, you are straining at sntax to try and make a case, but not being consistent to use the same passage to argue for the eternal firstborn doctrine. Why is that? I think the answer is eisegesis. 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.
