Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

[Judy Taylor]

 

 

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:47:59 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 My responses on in this very type set.   JD

Understand that my comments below written in Bold   is my way of setting my newer comments apart.   I am not yelling.    I do expect straight answers  -- yes or no plus a commentary will be fine.  It does not appear that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ  --  but something that is bigger and even more important.   Judy, please be careful, here, that in your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own beliefs.

jt: Before I answer your questions JD let me ask you one ..  Do you accept the Nicean Creed on the same level as scripture? Do you believe it was the Holy Spirit who inspired these men to give their own peculiar definition of God and declare Jesus to be an "eternal son?"

 

Judy  -  the simple answer is no,  I do not hold the Nicean Creed as being on the same level as scripture.  I am not a theologian  (one who studies religion).  I am a pastor/teacher (of sorts, admittedly) and THAT has been my training.  You have never seen quote the Nicean Creed i anything that I have written while on TT  -  I, myself, have never read the document.  Do I dishonor its place in church history or the effort made by the document to deal with the various issues of the day?????????????No, I do not.  

 

jt: This is where your "eternal sonship" dogma comes from JD.  Paul didn't preach or teach it in the book of Acts and it is nowhere to be found in the OT.  It and the "procession" came out of the 4th century.

 

1. Is it possible to get a straight answer, here?   Do you believe that Christ was both Son and Almighty God at the same time, here on earth  --  a simple yes or no is what I am looking for. 

 

No.  He took upon Himself a body of flesh and as the "only begotten" son he walked this earth.  As the second Adam He represented God the Father.

 

Right here, in the above, you illustrate my concern for your over-zealousness.   You deny that Christ is God on earth  -- only tht he "represents" God on earth.   You do not separate "eternity" form "God."  You separate the Son from God and, thus, His eternal nature.   He is not the eternal Son because He is not the eternal God  !!!!!!!      I am not going to argue this point.  We have so little in common, at this point, that there is not much to say except for me to encourage you to actually read this fouth Gospel.   ...........    the very uniqueness of Christ as God is one of the remarkable thems of this book.     I am serious  --  take what you have written, in response above  --   and read/reread this Gospel of John.  

 

jt: What I have written above is in line with the teaching of scripture JD.  Jesus did not come to earth to dazzle everyone with God's glory.  He emptied Himself.  have you ever meditated upon what this means? He looked like every other person.  Just like BTK - only difference is the source of their power.

Do you believe we (the Church) have been enabled to do the same works he did and "greater?"

 

2. Are you aware that the Apostle John made these statements about Christ in John 1:1-18????  Apparently you do not think Christ is word, life and light?  I mean, why in the name of reason would you disagree with that?  Is Christ word, life and light?  Yes or no.   

 

Yes.

Let me ask you JD, what exactly does the word "Christ" mean (in your own words)?

 

Messiah

 

jt: Messiah is another word.  Come on - with all of your Greek and Hebrew study helps you should be able to define

Christ.

 

3. So, you deny that Jesus is the one and only Son of God  ??  Yes or no. 

 

Yes.

My belief is that Jesus is the "only begotten" which is an important distinction because God has many sons.

 

 

Wow !!  You take the Son of God, who's very being radiates from the bosom of the Father, making Him the uniques Son of God, and argue that because we are adopted sons (and daughters) , we are the same as He is , in terms of being sons of God.  You accurately quote Strong's and then ignore the implications of his definition entirely by confusing "adoption" and "natural" (if you will) sonship.  Impossible.    

 

jt: I don't ignore anything JD - you put totally new implications into Strongs definition.  ONLY BEGOTTEN  means just that.  Jesus is the only one who became a son in that way, the rest are either created or adopted but they are sons nontheless because scripture says so.  When you say that his VERY BEING radiates, it makes me think of those religious pictures with the burning hearts that we used to see in Newfoundland in the homes of rc folk who didn't know the Lord.  JD that is very religious.

 

4. Tell me what John 1:14 is talking about, then.  

 

John and the other disciples beheld Him after the resurrection and before the ascension for 50 days in a new and glorified body

 

And John makes no reference to this at all.  You go OUTSIDE the verse (1:14) to deny what the verse itself says  -   tht Jesus came in the flesh and revealed His flory  !!   The glory of this passage is the same as the glory in  5: 44ff.   ---   and 5:44ff pictures the incarnate Christ ministering to those who will listen, and speaking of this glory.   Chapter 5:37 -47 is the contextual statmen for 1:14.  

 

jt: You don't know what John 1:14 refers to JD; scripture is like that, especially the OT prophetic scriptures in Isaiah; they jump from one thing to another which is why it is impossible to understand the volume of the book aside from divine help.  John 1:14 must be understood in the light of all other scripture - not in the light of our perception of how the glory of God might look in a flesh person.

 

Anyway  -  I can tell you this  --  absolutely no teacher in BSF would be allowed to teach what you have written thus far in this post. 

 

jt: What does BSF have to do with what we are discussing on TT?  I would rather you tell me what you teach

or else give me a direct quote from BSF that is footnoted.

 

5. Is the "Word" a description of His divinity?   In other words, is being The Word tantamount to saying that He was God?   Yes or no.  

 

Yes

John 1:1 says "and the Word was God" However he was not God the Father was he? 

 

No, Judy, He was God the Son  !!  -   but you have denied  that in His earthly ministry, He was God at all !!  Only that he represented God.   See, right here --  with this statement  -  I think you actually beleive that He was God on earth  -  it just doesn't work as you do battle with me at this time.  You contradict yourself within this very post  !!  This is not about you being right and me being wrong  -  about winning the argument.  You've got yourself all bunched up here --  and it has much less to do with what Judy Taylor actually believes than it does with proving the resident heretic wrong again  (that

would be me). 

 

jt: I have done no such thing JD. I have said that during his earthly ministry he was not God Almighty; he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant even going so far as to say the Father is greater than He.  What I read you to be saying is that he and the Father are one and the same through all eternity including his earthly ministry which is not accurate.

 

6. I am talking about the eternal Fatherhood of God  -  that specific concept.  Also, there is absolutely no rule in scripture that tells us tht scripture is of no regard unless a thing is stated at least twice.   Are you telling me tht you believe that if God only says is once,  God is speaking here,  that you are required to pay Him heed until He gets around to stating it a second time????? 

 

No

I am saying that it is possible to misunderstand and wrest scripture to our own destruction and that knowing who Jesus is is tantamount to walking with Him because His sheep hear His voice.  It is folly to make a doctrine out of one scripture.

 

You conradcit youself here, but more importantly, you have conviently left off my challenge !!!!!!  Prove or evidence the eternal Fatherhood of God with OT scritpures.   I have asked you to do this several times, now and it doesn't get done.  You believe it to be the case  -----------------   so prove it!!!   Or will you admit that Father and Son are two of several doctrines that are uniquely New Covenant ?   Nee I remind you that "Father" as in "father God" is used no more than twice (that I could find) in the OT and 278 times in the New  !!!!!!!!!!  

 

jt: Wait just one moment JD.  I had to be very patient and wait for days for you to come up with your apologetic about the eternal sonship you are holding to and you still haven't given me anything from the OT which Jesus says told of him.  This morning is the first time I have seen your challenge so I would appreciate your giving me some of the same kind of grace.  We are going camping this morning. I don't know if the campground has a computer hookup - if it does I will get back to you and if not it will be Thursday.

 

7.  I really do not care about your analysis of their statements, Judy.   Christ Himself agreed with their premise.   Do you deny that "Son of God" as a claim makes Christ equal to "God?"   Yes or no.

 

No

As the son he declared that the Father is greater than he (see John 14:28)

 

 

Whoa, there, Judy.  Let me get this right  -  and I am trying to uderstand  -- you believe that Jesus IS the son, that this makes Him equal to God, but as the Son, He is subordinate to the Father.   Correct?

 

jt: JD why make it so difficult.  I believe the man Jesus to be a flesh representation of the second member of the Godhead which is God the Word and yes, as a servant/son walking this earth in a flesh body he was subordinate to the Father and the Father was "greater than he"  Are you saying he was mistaken or that he lied when he said so?  After all he only said what he first heard the Father say and his works were all done

by the Father.

 

8.  Do you believe that in Christ, John and others behold the glory of .......God?    Yes or no. 

 

Not the way I think you mean JD

My belief is that they beheld the glory of God in him after the resurrection and before the ascension but that it was not apparent other than in the words he spoke before that time.

 

9. Judy  --  do you think verse 46 is a part of the same context as that of verse 44?   Yes or no?  (John 5:44)

 

No not in your Bible

John 5:44-46 is talking about ppl who are honoring themselves and each other and don't seek the honor that comes from God alone.  You know what this is talking about JD - you see it in church circles all the time.