Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship

[Judy Taylor]

Oh I believe it was intentional Bill - but could be you revealed more of your character than you thought. Here is a "big gun" theologian who uses the same language as you but has the same argument as me - DavidM may be familiar with these:   (1) “I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it”. (2) “If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too” (3) “If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him” (4) “Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e., there was a period in which it did not exist and a period when it began to exist” (5) “To say that he was begotten from all eternity is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction.”   On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:58:33 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor   Real cute Bill; so you see yourself and David as the two big hot shot theological dogs and I'm the little Terrier? :) This says more than you could ever articulate verbally about why you stay so hung up on eternal sonship - Thanks for the insight even if proffered unintentionally.  I won't bother you again.  jt   Only somewhat unintentionally, Judy, in that I did include the story with a purpose in mind -- however, that purpose was not intended to evoke this response from you. Do as you wish, but please consider along the way what that purpose may be.   Blessings,   Bill