On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Chus wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
Thanks for the observation. As I said in an earlier email, the simpler the better. I've never thought to use Romans 8:3 as a defense for the point, but it is handy ammunition for my arsenal!
The points I've had to debate before with those who reject the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship generally have focused on Him being eternally the Word, but not the Son. Revelation 19:13 is a big help to me in showing The Word is simply a name for the Son, not so much a state of being.
You are correct that we westerners often let our biases interpret the Bible, instead of understanding it was written with an eastern understanding. This affects many Bible topics, and often when I am struggling with a topic of this nature I find it helpful to go to Edersheim or some aid to revisit eastern or Jewish culture.
Thank you again for your thoughts. I hope you're doing well!
Chus
--------------------
POST 22
On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:15 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Edie,
Considering and attempting to answer a teacher's question will always make me the richer because it would only lead me nearer to the truth, and further away from error.
When I asked my question as a student, I half expected the weightier question that you posed below, and have been thinking about it. There was no dream last night. Your question nudged me to think a bit. That's the best thing on this forum - an instrument to a true long-distance learning.
The answer to your question is, quite simple, in my simple understanding.
If you would admit the plain distinction between the eternal Word (God the Son - a theological term identifying the second person of the Godhead) and the eternal Word was made flesh (the Son of God - a biblical term describing the dual-natured God-man, the incarnation of the eternal Word) in time, then the manufactured difficulty would not even arise. I learned the distinction between 'God the Son' and 'Son of God' from a PB student from another forum.
Now an attempt to answer the question you posed.
**If the "Son of God" did NOT exist until the incarnation, ie, the human birth of Jesus, Then why does 1 John 5: 7 refer to the 1st person of the Trinity as "the Father"? In other words, if the 2nd person of the Trinity did Not exist as *the Son of God* until 2000 years ago, Then it follows that the 1st person of the Trinity did Not exist as "the Father" until 2000 years ago either. This greatly weakens the historic view of the Trinitarian doctrine and suggests that the Trinity is evolving or is little more than a temporal phenomenon which emerged 2000 years ago.”
The three mentioned - the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost - are witnesses of the true identity of the Son of God - Jesus who is Christ, the Son of the living God.
The 1st person of the Trinity is referred to as "the Father" for the simple reason that Jesus the Christ was begotten of the 1st Person of the Trinity, i.e. the eternal Word was made flesh - THUS establishing the Father/Son relationship between the 1st and the 2nd Person of the Trinity. And the Scriptures is plain as the noonday sun - at least to me - when Jesus was begotten of God, Luke 1. The 1st person of the Trinity is bearing witness as Father, in the mediatorial relationship, concerning His only begotten Son Jesus, the Anointed Mediator. Without Jesus, God has no Son. The eternal Word is NOT the Son of God... the eternal Word was not begotten in any sense. The Son of God is.
The 1st Person of the Trinity and the 2nd Person of the Trinity and the 3rd Person of the Trinity co-existed eternally. The 1st Person of the Trinity performed the mediatorial role of begetting Jesus. The mediatorial relationship of Father and Son between the 1st Person and the 2nd Person of the Trinity BEGAN ONLY IN TIME... i.e. at the point when the eternal Word was made flesh, and BEGOTTEN the Son of God. The mediatorial relationship was purposed in the eternal covenant of redemption but was fulfilled and, became operative ONLY when the eternal Word was made flesh in time.
Your 'if' and 'then' argument is non-scooter [non-sequitur] i.e. a scooter with no wheels. ;-) A little rightly dividing the word of truth would put wheels to the scooter, and some grease to the axles too.
Brother Edie existed before he entered into the role of husband, or father. ;-)) And after becoming husband and father, his humanity did not diminish the slight bit than when he was a bachelor. [He is now most frequently addressed and referred to as ‘father’ by his children.]
In addition, I think there is a perfect reason why 'the Word' is used, instead of 'the Son.' The 2nd Person of the Trinity is properly the Word of God - John 1:1-2. 'The Son' who is God-man - is strictly speaking - not the 2nd Person of the eternal Trinity. It is the three Persons of the Godhead bearing witness of Jesus, the Christ, the Son begotten by God.
Jesus Himself said, 'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true' John 5:31.
There is an OBVIOUS distinction between 'the Word' and the 'Son of God.'
The eternal ‘Word' bears witness of Jesus, the 'Son of God.'
If there is no distinction between the two, as you claimed [e.g. 'the "Word" and the "Son" are one and the same divine person, even from eternity to eternity, ect. Hence, it is natural for the Holy Spirit to use either & to use them interchangeably'], THEN how are we going to understand Jesus' statement in John 5:31?
If the Word and the Son of God are identical, than according to the words of Jesus, the witness of the Word concerning the Son of God constitute bearing 'witness of self', and therefore 'is not true' (whatever this mean).
Just my sandy thoughts in trying to understand the self-consistent and harmonious Scriptures.
I would want to bury any historic view if it is found wanting in the light of Scriptures. I sound stupid and impudent for saying that... but I am only honest.
I hope I have not wasted your time reading these un-historic thoughts.
brotherly
sing
----
POST 23
On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Jay wrote:
Brother Sing,
Consider this passage.
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35, KJV)
Technically--and from this verse Biblically--the Holy Spirit was the active divine agent in Mary's conception, not the first Person in the Trinity. Therefore if we attribute the humanity of Jesus to a member of the Trinity as his "Father," according to this passage, we must regard the Holy Spirit, not the Father or first Person, as His
earthly "Father." Considering this passage, we must find another reason for referring to the first Person as "Father."
Your thoughts?
Jay
-------
POST 24
On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:10 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35, KJV)
My thoughts?
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:" Lk 1:32
The 1st Person of the Godhead begot Jesus, the Son of God, through the Holy Ghost.
Who does 'the Highest' refer to in the passage? Honest question.
From the same passage, "the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" speaks of that which SHALL BE BORN, SHALL BE BEGOTTEN took place in time...
Shall be born, shall be begotten, etc are simple enough English words... eastern or western thought... it is a universal and common language of man, understood by all. Probably I am too simple.
I am beginning to see that the whole idea of "eternally begotten" is a anti-Scriptural ideas concocted by some pagan philosophers that had tainted the minds of the 'church fathers' like Origen.
sing
----
POST 24
On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Jay wrote:
Brother Sing,
"...she shall be called woman...." (Genesis 2:23) Did she become "woman" when Adam called her "woman," or was she woman before he called her by the name? The language of Luke 1:35 does not need to be enlarged or qualified; it specifically says that the "...Spirit of the Highest shall overshadow thee...." Yes, dear brother, language is language, and I'm looking at Scripture, not at pagan philosophers or Origen.
If Luke 1:35 isn't sufficient to make the point I made, take a look at Matthew 1:18, 20. These two verses are even more clear and specific than Luke 1:35 in their reference to the Holy Spirit.
Would you address the point that I made from Romans 8:3? Also consider Galatians 4:4. Where in the language of either verse do we find any grounds on which to claim that God sent forth the Word who became the Son? God "...sent forth his Son...." He was the Son when He was "sent forth." Nothing in either verse even remotely hints that the Father sent the "Word" who became the Son. He was the Son at the point when the Father sent Him, not at the time of His virgin birth.
Notice similar language in Matthew 21:37, "But last of all he sent unto them his son...." Mark 12:6 reads, "Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them...." And Luke 20:13 agrees, "...I will send my beloved son...."Jesus taught parables from basic simple lessons in ordinary life; farmers, vineyard keepers, shepherds, etc. He used this simple lesson of the lord sending his beloved son to the unfaithful stewards who then plotted to kill the son. Was Jesus not using this parable to reveal how the Jews would treat Him? In the parable presented in each of the three synoptic gospels, did the person sent to the stewards only become the lord's son at the time he was sent, or was he the son, the only and beloved son, long before the lord sent him? This is Jesus speaking, not pagan philosophers or Origen. I sincerely desire to draw my faith from Him and His inspired writers of Scripture. I've never read Origen or a single pagan philosopher who taught "eternal sonship." I draw my beliefs from Scripture, and I seek the simplest and most straightforward interpretation of passages that I can possibly discover. In not one instance of the passages quoted above does a single inspired writer use language to even remotely suggest that the Father sent the Word who became the Son. Not even one. He was the lord's son when he was sent, and he was the lord's son when he arrived at the estate, and he was the lord's son when the wicked servants killed him. Is the parallel not clear in this parable?
Enough for this post, may the Lord bless our study,
Jay
================
POST 25
On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:17 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
You wrote: "...she shall be called woman...." (Genesis 2:23) Did she become "woman" when Adam called her "woman," or was she woman before he called her by the name? The language of Luke 1:35 does not need to be enlarged or qualified; it specifically says that the "...Spirit of the Highest shall overshadow thee...." Yes, dear brother, language is language, and I'm looking at Scripture, not at pagan philosophers or Origen.”
Good thoughts. Let's compare the two passages.
Gen 2
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
My simple comments:
- The LORD God MADE-MADE-MADE a woman, out of the man.
- Before the LORD God made the woman, there was simply no woman. Period.
- And after she was made, Adam said she shall be called Woman. Why? Adam draw the proper conclusion that she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
- 'She shall be called Woman' presupposes the PRIOR bringing into being of the Woman.
Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
John 1:14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
My simple comments:
- The eternal Word was MADE-MADE-MADE flesh. The LORD God MADE-MADE-MADE a God/Man out of the eternal Word. The one-natured divine Being was made flesh, and became a two-natured divine/human Being. Who made the eternal Word flesh? I take it that the eternal Word was made flesh by the LORD God, through the Holy Ghost. The Luke passage describes the profound and mysterious divine act of how the eternal Word was made flesh.
- Before the Word was made flesh by the LORD God, there was simply no that 'holy thing' to be called Son of God. Period.
- That which was made flesh, i.e. the eternal Word, must necessarily preceded the holy thing/Son of God that was MADE /BEGOTTEN. That which was fully divine was begotten/made/became fully divine/fully human.
- There is ONLY ONE such fully divine/fully human Person, i.e. the ONLY BEGOTTEN of Him that begot.
- Before the Word was made flesh, the 'holy thing' simply did not exist. What did not exist shall begin to exist. The 'holy thing' came into being at a specific point in time, when the eternal Word was made flesh.
- The 'holy thing' that shall come into being as the result of the Word was made flesh shall be called the Son of God. Why? Because the 'holy thing' was begotten of God... 'the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee'... BEGOTTEN of God.
- 'The holy thing... shall be called the Son of God' presupposes the PRIOR bringing into being of the holy thing. If the holy thing was not brought into being through the Word made flesh, there would be no holy thing to be called the Son of God. No 'holy thing', no Son of God.
- Nevertheless, there was the eternal Word.
Without the eternal Word made flesh, there would be no Son of God.
The MAKING/BRINGING INTO BEING must precede the CALLING/GIVING OF NAME.
Can't possibly name that which is not first brought into existence.
Of course we can still name 'nothingness'!
I have provided some coarse sand.
It's up to you to add cement and water to the sandy comments as you like.
Or just hose them away with plenty of water if you find them useless for building some solid wall.
sing
----
POST 26
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:02 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
You said:
“Notice similar language in Matthew 21:37, "But last of all he sent unto them his son...." Mark 12:6 reads, "Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them...." And Luke 20:13 agrees, "...I will send my beloved son...." Jesus taught parables from basic simple lessons in ordinary life; farmers, vineyard keepers, shepherds, etc. He used this simple lesson of the lord sending his beloved son to the unfaithful stewards who then plotted to kill the son. Was Jesus not using this parable to reveal how the Jews would treat Him? In the parable presented in each of the three synoptic gospels, did the person sent to the stewards only become the lord's son at the time he was sent, or was he the son, the only and beloved son, long before the lord sent him? This is Jesus speaking, not pagan philosophers or Origen.
I will continue...
You asked, “did the person sent to the stewards only become the lord's son at the time he was sent, or was he the son, the only and beloved son, long before the lord sent him?”
I want to be careful to use this parable to prove a point like yours.
To be consistent and honest, you would also assume that the lord's son in the parable was eternal, always existed, not born or begotten of the lord. Wouldn't you have to say that the lord's son was ETERNALLY begotten? A honest, non rhetorical question!
I wouldn't draw such lesson from the parable like you do.
To answer your question specifically, my answer is:
The lord's son was the son, the only and beloved son, long before the lord sent him.
How long? Sure not very long. How old was the lord's son, 30? 50? 1000? That lord's son in the parable must have a beginning, and so couldn't be very old.
The Son of God was begotten and born, the eternal Word was made flesh, and only after 30 long years LATER was He sent to the stewards - the Jews. So, yes, the Son of God was already around for 30 years before he was sent to the stewards, the Jews; before He was sent to do His Father's will. So, yes, the Son of God was around for 30 long years already before He was sent. He wasn't around before He was begotten. The eternal Word was. Yes, the parallel is indeed very clear - as far as the begetting and sending of the son, BOTH in time.
The incarnation is the ‘begetting,’ it is not the ‘sending’!
A double-edged sword cut both ways! Handle it with care.
Keep speaking... I want nothing but the truth...
sing
----
POST 27
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:07 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
You asked: “Would you address the point that I made from Romans 8:3? Also consider Galatians 4:4. Where in the language of either verse do we find any grounds on which to claim that God sent forth the Word who became the Son? God "...sent forth his Son...." He was the Son when He was "sent forth." Nothing in either verse even remotely hints that the Father sent the "Word" who became the Son. He was the Son at the point when the Father sent Him, not at the time of His virgin birth.”
Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"
First, I suggest that: the begetting of the Son of God must not be confused with the sending of the Son of God. Similarly, the making of the woman MUST precede the naming of her as 'Woman.' That's a given, I think. Even so, the begetting of the Son of God (the Word made flesh) must precede the sending of the Son of God.
Second, note that the Son is already BEGOTTEN IN TIME in the likeness of sinful flesh (the Word WAS MADE flesh) before He is sent by Him who begot in time, i.e. His Father. The Son is that God/man Person in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Third, I have a question: when was the Son of God begotten, and when was the Son of God sent?
May be I am just too simple.
The divine act that resulted in 'the Word was made flesh' is descriptive of God begetting His Son.
Without the Word was made flesh, there would be no Son of God, much less a Son to send.
A Son must be begotten first, otherwise there would be no Son to sent at the appointed time.
And the 'Word was made flesh' is God's act of begetting His Son, who was then sent LATER.
John 1:1,14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
If God ALREADY had a Son, if there had been the Son of God (two-natured divine-human Person) before the Word was made flesh, THEN incarnation is rendered unnecessary, and even meaningless.
What is the begetting activity described in Luke 1? Is Luke 1 a description of the begetting of the Son of God by the LORD God through His Spirit?
I am puzzled why the simple and biblical distinction - that 'the Word' [which refers to that eternal, one-natured divine Person with no beginning] and 'the Son of God' [which refers to that dual-natured divine-human Person brought into Being by the begetting activity of the LORD God at a definite point in time] - is REJECTED and not accepted.
Whatever happened at incarnation, when the Word became flesh? Did any thing transpire?
Thanks for your patience with a green lad,
sing
After this, I will be in 'no mail mode. I can't bring myself to quit this forum. So you will receive no reply. I better muzzle up for a while... and read the Scriptures a bit more and step on toes less. I stand in need of veteran teachers here, including Elder Edie
-------------
POST 28
On Jan 12, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Genie wrote:
Dear Members of FGF,
I have been enjoying the posts on this subject and will mention some things that came to my mind as I was reading the thoughts of others.
In John 10:30 will be found some words of Jesus: "I and my Father are one." This statement angered some Jews (verse 31) and then Jesus repeated the claim that God was His Father (verse 32). The Jews understood what he was saying and charged Him with blasphemy (verse 32). If God is recognized as the Eternal Father, it would seem reasonable to recognize Jesus as the Eternal Son----at any rate "I and my Father are ONE."
Some verses from John 8 make some statements that I believe indicate that Jesus is the Son of God at an earlier time than His birth at Bethlehem. In John 8:54, Jesus answers some Jews with these words "......it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:" A little later in verse 58 will be found these words: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus, the Son of God, made the claim that He was in existence "before Abraham was".
While I may not understand all the meaning of the language of Hebrews 13:8 it does make a simple statement. It says: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever."
While Dr. Gill has a lengthy commentary on this verse, I will quote a part of it----
" Moreover, these words may regard the immutability of Christ; who is unchangeable in his person, perfections, and essence, as God; and in his love to his people; and in the fulness of his grace, and in the efficacy of his blood, and in the virtue of his sacrifice and righteousness: it may be observed, that o autov,translated "the same", answers to awh, "he", a name of God, Ps 102:27 and which is used in Jewish writings {x} for a name of God; and so it is among the Turks {y}: and it is expressive of his eternity, immutability, and independence; and well agrees with Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever."
I will look forward to reading further comments and would like to invite others (the "lurkers") to share their thinking with us also.
If anyone has some material on Arianism advocated by Arius in the early 4th century, it might be interesting to share it with the group.
Your little brother,
Genie
=======
POST 29
On Jan 12, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Edie wrote:
Dear Brother Sing,
You wrote: “If you would admit the distinction between the eternal Word (God the Son - a theological term describing the second person of the Godhead) and the eternal Word was made flesh (Son of God - a biblical term describing the dual-natured God-man, the incarnation of the eternal Word) in time, the manufactured difficulty would not arise. I learned the distinction between 'God the Son' and 'Son of God' from a PB student from another forum.
Brother Sing, that person was no PB, much less a PB student! At least he was not such with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity! Let me be plain, "He is an Imposter!" The supposed distinction he makes between the term "Son of God" and the term "God the Son" is jibberish and pure sophistry! I am really surprised that you would even repeat it, much less embrace it! He did you no favor my friend.
Sing, you wrote: “The three mentioned - the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost – are witnesses of the true identity of the Son of God - Jesus who is Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The three, they are more than just witnesses. They are the Trinity. If they are only "witnesses", then who is this 4th character that you call *Christ* that they bear witness of? Forgive me, but this is jibberish! Did your psuedo-PB friend teach you this stuff? I suspect he has an agenda!
Sing, you wrote: “The 1st person of the Trinity is referred to as "the Father" for the simple reason that Jesus the Christ was begotten of the 1st Person of the Trinity, i.e. the eternal Word was made flesh -THUS establishing the Father/Son relationship between the 1st and the 2nd Person of the Trinity.”
WRONG !!
Tell me brother, was the "Father-Son" relationship made firm and secure when Mary conceived or when she gave birth? Historical and Biblical Christianity says "Neither"! What does your pseudo-PB friend tell you? I don't think he much likes PBs or this part of the LCOF!!! -grin-
Sing, you wrote: “And the Scriptures is plain as the noon day sun - at least to me - when Jesus was begotten of God, Luke 1. The 1st person of the Trinity is bearing witness as Father, in the mediatorial relationship, concerning His only begotten Son Jesus. Without Jesus, God has no Son. The eternal Word is NOT the Son of God... the eternal Word was not begotten in any sense. The Son of God is.”
OK! I hear you plainly saying in your teaching, "...without Jesus (the human nature), God has no Son." Accordingly, if your view is true, without the human birth of Jesus, God is no Father. Hence, prior to the incarnation, you teach that the 1st person of the Godhead did NOT exist as the Father; consequently, prior to the incarnation the 2nd person of the Godhead did NOT exist as the Son. But then, we are taught that the Holy Spirit is "sent" by the Father and the Son. Hence, one should logically conclude, according to your teaching, that the Holy Spirit must have been inoperative and "UnSent" during the whole course of Old Testament times. That is, the Holy Spirit was NOT SENT until the Father became the Father and the Son became the Son 2000 years ago.
This is just Amazing Stuff brother! What direction was that guy traveling that taught you this? Quite clearly he was Not traveling in the direction of historical or biblical Christianity!! Let me make a guess. This fellow is NOT now identified with PBs. Tell me true brother! I bet he is a fugitive from the PBs and is now a vagabond just drifting around and infecting all he can with his virus! I've seen a few of his kind. They appear fine outwardly but are inwardly very clever and full of mischief.
I believe we do well to hearken to the LCOF. The framers of it were not perfect but neither were they ignorant or unbiblical. Do you really think those old saints were heretics on the doctrine on the Trinity? If so, this would certainly weaken their credibility on the other doctrines. I'm sure your vagabond friend thinks they are heretics, at least on this subject. I've seen his kind before and have read their venomous words.
Brother Jay posted some pertinent comments and observations from scripture on this subject. I think they deserve some honest attention and consideration.
In Brotherly love,
Edie
==============
POST 30
On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:29 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Edie,
You wrote: “Brother Sing, that person was no PB, much less a PB student! At least he was not such with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity! Let me be plain, "He is an Imposter!" The supposed distinction he makes between the term "Son of God" and the term "God the Son" is jibberish and pure sophistry! I am really surprised that you would even repeat it, much less embrace it! He did you no favor my friend.”
Would you want me to quote his words and his name then? Then you can decide SLOWLY whether that person is no PB, etc. If I am not wrong he is a PB elder, ordained about a year or two ago. Of course, you may be dead right... that he is an IMPOSTOR.
I think you are getting heated up already... at least by your tone.
Go take a cold shower, brother.
I go take a mud bath with my buffaloes.
sing
-----------------
POST 31
On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:53 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Edie,
You wrote: “Brother Sing, that person was no PB, much less a PB student! At least he was not such with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity! Let me be plain, "He is an Imposter!" The supposed distinction he makes between the term "Son of God" and the term "God the Son" is jibberish and pure sophistry! I am really surprised that you would even repeat it, much less embrace it! He did you no favor my friend.
Were you never wrong before in your life till this moment, you are certainly presumptuously and injuriously and despicably wrong about this brother I refer too.
Now I think I know who you think I have in mind, but you couldn't be more wrong, SIR.
[And everything else in your post is perverted and grossly tainted by this bitter hatred... and needs no comment.]
Until this PRIMITIVE BAPTIST brother told me the distinction between 'God the Son' and the 'Son of God,' I was not aware of it at all. In fact I ask for clarification.
It is injurious for a PB elder calling another PB elder an Impostor, who most likely holds to your view on Sonship. Now, please go repent before God, said with all due respect to you as an older brother.
You do devour one another don't you.
Have mercy, O Lord.
sing
-----
POST 32
(contains the few words of the PB man mentioned that makes the distinction between ‘God the Son’ and ‘Son of God.’
Dear Brother Sing and Brethren,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 Sing wrote:
“My understanding on this subject is minimal. I hope you don't mind me expressing my simple understanding.”
Thank you for this lucid post.
It is refreshing to recognize, as you have demonstrated in so many words,
that the whole matter simply comes down to rightly dividing and discerning
between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.
Simple indeed, but "The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and
he helped me." Ps 116:6. And, "Qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimitur
gloria." Pr 25:27 (Vulg)
Ever,
Stevie
-------------
Dear Brother Stevie,
**It is refreshing to recognize, as you have demonstrated in so many words, that the whole matter simply comes down to rightly dividing and discerning between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.**
I did say I am rather simple.
I don't seem to get the point between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.
Please elaborate a little.
Thanks.
sing
----
Brother Sing,
I'm simple too, too simple maybe:
GOD THE SON = Eternal Sonship
THE SON OF GOD = Incarnate Messiah
Stevie
---------
Brother Stevie,
Now I get your point.
Your observation is right, but your conclusion is non sequitur.
There are THREE PERSONS in the divine God-head.
These are distinguished by the theologians respectively as the God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, according to how these three Persons are revealed in the redemptive history.
This DOES NOT mean that the second Person designated as God the Son, was the Son of God in eternity. The Scriptures clearly states that in eternity He was the Word, and the Word was with God. When the eternal Word was made flesh, we have the Son of God. Subsequently, the second Person of the God head is designated 'God the Son' in distinction from the other two Persons of the Godhead.
That is plain indeed.
sing
=========
POST 33
On Jan 13, 2008, at 2:23 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Veteran teacher Jay,
This is the last mail...
I will make comment within your post.
You said:
“It is essential in good communications to clearly define our terms. When relying on a common source of authority, it is equally essential to define our terms consistently with that common authority. Please refer to my post to Brother Gene. Both in the passage from the tenth chapter of John that Brother Gene quoted, as well as in John 5:18 that I quoted, the father-son relationship is clearly defined as equality, not as you define it in your note below. I do not accept your definition of "Son" that you set forth, and apparently you do not like John's definition of equality or sameness of nature that I cited. I find no definition of "sonship" in the New Testament that correlates with your definition. Perhaps we need to peel the onion one more layer and try to find Biblical affirmation of the meaning of our terms to help us understand and communicate more clearly on this question.”
## Father is divine. Word is divine
Son of God is Eternal Word was made flesh, and therefore, Son of God is divine/human.
Are these correct? If not, please make the correction, and state the reason.
Do the Father (divine) and the Son (divine/human) have the 'equality and sameness of nature'?
Before the Word was made flesh, the 1st and 2nd Person of the Godhead have the 'equality and sameness of nature.' I would say that a divine Person and a divine/human Person DO NOT have 'equality and sameness of nature' EVEN THOUGH they have the equality and sameness of divinity.
You said: “In the meantime I have a question. 1. In John 1:3 John affirms that the Word make all things that were made. In other words the Word was the creative "Person" in the Trinity.
## The Word (divine Person) made all things that were made BEFORE the Word was made flesh. The Son of God (divine/human Person) that was born of the virgin woman did NOT make all things that were made.
You said:
“2. In Hebrews 1:2 we are told that God has now spoken to us by "...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
## 'Hath in these last days' - i.e. in the days when the Word was made flesh, and the Son was begotten, and born of the virgin. BEFORE the last days, there was no Son of God. The Son (divine/human Person) did NOT make the worlds. The pre-incarnated Word did.
You said: “
“3. In Colossians 1:13-14 we read that God has translated us into the kingdom of "his dear Son...." In the fifteenth verse Paul describes the "Son," not the "Word," in these words, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible...."”
## It is quite simple if you would want to know. After the eternal Word was made flesh, and the Son of God having been begotten, all the works of the eternal Word PRIOR to incarnation is spoken of in reference to the Son of God because the Son of God, the Word made flesh IS the NEW term of reference in the last days when the Word has been made flesh. The NEW term of reference is Father and Son.
Remember I said the common manner of speaking: 'when my wife was a little girl, she killed a python.' When she killed that python, she was a little girl, the sweet daughter of her father, and was remotely my wife. But I speak in that manner because I speak from the new, and present perspective of her being my wife.
So, what is the problem? I just don't see any. Why insist otherwise and get messed up with contradictions and inconsistencies!!!
You said: “If the "Son" only began to exist at virgin birth, why do we read from two inspired authors of the New Testament that the "Son" was the source of creation, precisely as clearly as John attributed that work to the "Word"? But if the term "Son" means sameness of nature or equality, a definition that has no reference to the Incarnation, we have no problem with these verses, for "Word" and "Son" refer to the same Person in the Trinity, and they attribute work to the "Son" that was accomplished long before the Incarnation. If Paul held to the view that you seem to be defending (I could well not understand you correctly), he should have been more careful in his use of "Word" and "Son," attributing creation to the "Word," not to the "Son."
## Why? See comment above. Quite simple reason, and make perfect and complete sense. He who was the eternal Word is now the Son of God after incarnation, and is referred to as the Son of God, even if reference is made to matters PRIOR to incarnation.
If you think the term Son of God has no reference to Incarnation, then you may need to delete these passages:
Luke 1: 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1: 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I don't see any difficulty at all if you JUST accept the FACT of what actually took place at Incarnation. I am surprised that you said the term Son has no reference to incarnation. I AM SHOCKED. This is the first time I heard such shocking statement!!!
If "Word" and "Son" refer to the same Person in the Trinity, THEN I conclude that there is HUMANITY in your idea of the Triune God. Is this scooter or not???
Would you accept that there is NO humanity in the Word, and there is humanity in the Son?
You said, “I have a question that might help us cut through the issues. If you were to accept the definition of "Son" that I have presented above, have I represented any belief or doctrine that you do not also accept and agree with? A correct definition of terms is truly a supremely important issue in striving to understand each other.
## You definition of the Son is that it is exactly the same as the Word. Your 'Word' is the 'Son', and your 'Son' is the 'Word.' Incarnation has no biblical place in your definition. Might as well didn't happened at all. So, I do not agree with your definition. The Word was made flesh DOES NOT figure in your definition.
I have learned from the earliest day as a believer that the Son of God is GOD/MAN.
If the Word is GOD/MAN also, then I agree with you.
So, please tell me whether your Word is GOD/MAN?
If your Word is GOD/MAN, then why was the Word made flesh? What a wasted move! And I believe in the God who wastes NO move.
Keep speaking. Someone advised me, "when Brother Jay speak, listen carefully."
I take that advice seriously. And I am listening seriously. That's why I respond the issue you raise. I know I will learn something, whether we can agree or not.
I know you are not those who would devour me.
blessed,
sing
p/s No more reply after this... I am in 'no mail' mode.
Enjoy the discussion among yourself.
Just don't make mince-meat of those who believe in incarnational sonship.
==============
POST 34
Dear Brother Sing,
I always enjoy corresponding with you on FGF or reading your posts to others.
I count you as a dear brother even if we may disagree! Sometimes you surprise me but, brother, You Never offend me!!! Keep on sharing and contributing your thoughts with us! Hey! we are all students and want to learn from each other! I have a comment below in your post.
In brotherly love,
Eddie
You wrote: "Were you never wrong before in your life till this moment, you are certainly presumptuously and injuriously and despicably wrong about this brother I refer too.
Now I think I know who you think I have in mind, but you couldn't be more wrong, SIR.
Until this PRIMITIVE BAPTIST brother told me the distinction between 'God the Son' and the 'Son of God,' I was not aware of it at all. In fact I ask for clarification.
It is injurious for a PB elder calling another PB elder an Impostor, who most likely hold your view on Sonship."
Sing, this admission by you is real interesting. In your statement to which I was responding, your implication was that this "PB elder" held and taught your view, NOT my view! But Now you are saying that he likely holds my view! If what you say is true, I should change one of my statements. In my former post I said in effect, "....he did you no favor."
But now, since your admission that he likely holds my view on Sonship I need to change my statement to say, "....you did him no favor." You presented this PB elder as supporting your view of the Trinity and then accused me of being presumptuous, injurious, and dispicably wrong because I disagreed with him, .... when in fact, according to your subsequent response, you say he likely believes Sonship the same as myself. You did him no favor Sing. You made it appear that this honorable PB Elder viewed "Sonship" just like you. The way you originally presented it, you constrained me to call him an Imposter because of his view!!! Now you tell me that is NOT his view!!
Sing, I expect better things from you than this. We've had good discussions in the past. I look forward to more good stuff in the future. Edie
=======
POST 35
On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:41 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Edie,
First, you slander a fellow PB Elder as an Impostor... and you didn't admit your rash foolishness.
Now, you accuse me of making implication that PB elder held and taught my view of the Sonship. I am tempted to call you a liar, but I won't. I would attribute that to your rashness of the moment. May be the weather is too hot and sticky there in Luc. Valley.
If I am making any implication that that PB elder taught my view, why would I want to PACIFY and ASSURE a RASH SLANDERER that that PB elder DO NOT hold to the same view that the RASH SLANDERER condemned?
Go back and read carefully what I said. All I claimed is that that PB elder makes the distinction between the terms 'God the Son' and 'Son of God.' That is the bit I CLAIMED I learned from him.
Here is the paragraph:
“If you would admit the distinction between the eternal Word (God the Son - a theological term describing the second person of the Godhead) and the eternal Word was made flesh (Son of God - a biblical term describing the dual-natured God-man, the incarnation of the eternal
Word) in time, the manufactured difficulty would not arise. I learned the distinction between 'God the Son' and 'Son of God' from a PB student from another forum.
Brother, the rashness of a young man like me is understandable, but that of a veteran old seasoned man like you... I am blown to smithereens. Old and young are equally foolish, in some ways
You are just ASSUMING TOO MUCH... to your own injury, and the injury of another PB elder.
Now go tell him that the distinction he made between the terms "Son of God" and
"God the Son" is jibberish and pure sophistry!
With all due respect to a veteran in the faith,
sing
======
POST 36
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Jay wrote:
Dear Brother Sing,
Dear Brother, whether we ever agree on this issue or not, you are my brother, and the last thing I wish to do is "make mince-meat" out of my dear brother from the East.
You, I believe rightly, claim strong affinity to historical Particular Baptists. I quoted Gill (a Particular Baptist before the corrupting influence of Andrew Fuller compromised that precious people) on John 5:18. Below I will quote Gill on Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4.
Gill on Romans 8:3:
"God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The person sending is God, who gave the law weakened by the flesh, against whom we have sinned: and who is righteous, pure, and holy: which considerations enhance his grace and goodness, in the mission of Christ. This must be understood of God the Father, who is here manifestly distinguished from the Son; and who is God, but not solely, or to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit; and who sent Christ, though not singly, for the "Lord God and his Spirit sent" him, Isa 48:16; though as it is most agreeable for a father to send his son, this is generally ascribed to him; and he being the first person in the Godhead, is the first in order of working, and so in redemption. The person sent is his own Son; not by creation, as angels and men are; nor by adoption, as saints are; nor is he called so, on account of his incarnation, resurrection, or mediatorship, for he was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him, and his Son in that nature in which he is God......" [long quote truncated by sing]
Notice particularly Gill's comments regarding sonship; "The person sent is his own Son; not by creation, as angels and men are; nor by adoption, as saints are; nor is he called so, on account of his incarnation, resurrection, or mediatorship, for he was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him, and his Son in that nature in which he is God."
Brother Sing, my view on this question is the same as Gill's. He "...was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him, and his Son in that nature in which he is God."
Gill on Galatians 4:4:
"God sent forth his Son; God not absolutely and essentially, but personally and relatively considered, is here meant, namely, God the Father, as appears from the relation the person sent stands in to him, "his Son"; not by creation, as angels, Adam, and all men are the sons of God; nor by adoption, as saints are; or by office, as
magistrates be; or on account of his incarnation or resurrection from the dead, for he was the Son of God before either; but by divine generation, being the only begotten of the Father, of his divine nature and essence, equal to him, and one with him:... [long quote truncated by sing]
Gill throughout this quote affirms my belief, but he says it so more clearly and eloquently than I.
In terms of Jesus rising from the dead and perhaps in a specific sense in the virgin birth I do not deny that He became or took on Himself what He did not formerly possess, adding humanity to His immutable deity, and in a sense in that reference we can--as Scripture does on occasion--use the term "Son." My point, however, is that the passages we've been considering refer to a prior existence that Scripture refers to with the term "Son" as Gill affirms and as I believe the passages I've mentioned likewise refer to with the term "Son."
I still believe we need to re-examine our definition of terms. I've provided specific passages, along with Brother Gene, that define the term "Son" as referring to equality or sameness of nature, something that we both believe the Second Person in the Trinity eternally possessed. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not found a passage of Scripture that similarly defines the term "Son" as you defined it in your last post. Do you have such a passage?
Dear Brother, if you prefer to continue this dialogue privately in e- mails between the two of us, I am comfortable with that approach. If you prefer to discontinue it, I am equally comfortable with that decision. I sincerely believe if you consistently accept John's (and the dominant NT definition of sonship as referring to full equality and sameness of nature) definition, we are not otherwise in disagreement. But when you define the term as you do, and I define it as I do from John 5:18, we are disagreed.
Love you in Christ,
Jay
------------------
POST 37
On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:25 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
First, I want to thank you for your assurance you won't make mince-meat of me!
Seriously, I do appreciate your patience and kindness to me.
A few things do puzzle me.
What exactly is the problem with the view as I express them?
You and others have raised objections... and I thought I have given adequate, in my view at least, explanation. That's my way of making consistent sense of what I read of the Scriptures. (Brother Edie is grievously mistaken when he thought that I learned the 'heretical view' from the arch heretic in the eyes of the PBs – you know the name. Funny, he never bothers me with my open friendship and fellowship with the PBs. But some PBs sure hate him with perfect vicious hatred. And some do become quite unfriendly with me! )
It is something quite plain to me... only in the NT, and that after the Word was made flesh that we begin to read of the term Son of God to designate the second person of the Trinity. I think this observation alone is quite revealing. If there was any mention at all in the OT, Jesus Christ, the Son of God is spoken of only prophetically as future. Perhaps if you can show me that this observation is wrong, then you would do me a great favour.
You wrote: “I still believe we need to re-examine our definition of terms. I've provided specific passages, along with Brother Gene, that define the term "Son" as referring to equality or sameness of nature, something that we both believe the Second Person in the Trinity eternally possessed. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not found a passage of Scripture that similarly defines the term "Son" as you defined it in your last post. Do you have such a passage?”
My understanding of the term "Son" DOES NOT EXCLUDE equality or sameness of nature with the other 2 Persons of the Trinity. If that's what you had fear, then the fear is quite unfounded. Yes, both the eternal Word, as well as the begotten Son of God possess that exact and equal divine nature. Just because the Word was made flesh, that did not diminish the divinity in the Son of God (God/man) a quarter iota. The Son is begotten of God, the eternal Word was made flesh, therefore the divine nature of both is exactly the same.
However an understanding of the term 'Son' that EXCLUDES the plain fact that the Son of God, the God/man, was begotten in TIME when the eternal Word became flesh in TIME is a blatant repudiation of the plain teaching of Scriptures. It is like the whole doctrine of the incarnation is jettisoned from our most holy faith. The great change at incarnation and its implication must need be acknowledged. I do understand that your view does not do that. What I have been saying along is that BOTH must be acknowledged.
My definition of the Son is based on Lk 1:35 and John 1:14. It may not line up with your definition, but seem most reasonable to me.
You said: “Dear Brother, if you prefer to continue this dialogue privately in e-mails between the two of us, I am comfortable with that approach. If you prefer to discontinue it, I am equally comfortable with that decision. I sincerely believe if you consistently accept John's (and the dominant NT definition of sonship as referring to full equality and sameness of nature) definition, we are not otherwise in disagreement. But when you define the term as you do, and I define it as I do from John 5:18, we are disagreed.”
I have no problem with sonship as referring to equality and sameness of divine nature. That's taken for granted all the time... God and His begotten Son, eternal Word made flesh, MUST NECESSARILY possess the equal and same DIVINE NATURE. The problem lies in the refusal to acknowledge that fact of incarnation of the eternal Word into the Son of God, the God/man.
Never mind whether we agree or not. That's the least I am interested in.
And since I am no PB, none would harass and make mince meat of me, ;-)
Seriously, what is important to me is what appears to be the most consistent and adequate explanation of Scriptures.
always glad to be your student,
sing
----
POST 38
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Jay wrote:
Brother Sing,
Dear Brother you are always gracious. I truly love and respect you in Christ.
Let's walk slowly through this issue, one small step at a time, to see if we can really understand each other. Your post below has given me significant help in better understanding your view.
My first step is to ask you to take a hard look at Gill's writings on the question. You know Gill and his affiliation with the Particular Baptists of his day. To help your study of his writings I will copy here his commentary on two verses. I will highlight the particular areas that deal with his comments regarding “sonship.”
Romans 8:3:
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh... The person sent is his own Son; not by creation, as angels and men are; nor by adoption, as saints are; nor is he called so, on account of his incarnation, resurrection, or mediatorship, for he was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him...[long quote truncated by sing]
Galatians 4:4
God sent forth his Son; God not absolutely and essentially, but personally and relatively considered, is here meant, namely, God the Father, as appears from the relation the person sent stands in to him, “his Son”; not by creation, as angels, Adam, and all men are the sons of God; nor by adoption, as saints are; or by office, as magistrates be; or on account of his incarnation or resurrection from the dead, for he was the Son of God before either; but by divine generation, being the only begotten of the Father, of his divine nature and essence, equal to him, and one with him: and who was “sent” by him, not out of disrespect to him, but love to us; [long quote truncated by sing...]
Brother Sing, I ask you to consider Gill’s point in both of these quotes, that the Son was Son prior to the Incarnation, an affirmation of His full equality with the Father.
Perhaps it will give you some comfort to know that I do not interpret the second Psalm as referring to the Son’s “eternal generation,” as some do. I believe this particular passage is prophetic of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus in this case He is “Son” relative to His resurrection, not to His virgin birth or to his “eternal generation.”
A couple of brief observations regarding your reliance on Luke 1:35 and John 1:14. Luke 1:35 tells us what He shall be called, but it does not state that He became the Son at that time. That is the reason I raised Eve’s creation to you. She was woman before Adam called her woman. His calling her “woman” made no change in her being, her essential constitution. Grammatically or theologically, it appears to me that you are pouring more into this verse than it will support.
John 1:14. No PB that I have ever known has any problem with this passage. They heartily affirm it. It is the Word, God, Second Person in the Trinity, who took on Himself the form and nature of humanity, sin excluded. Again, however, grammatically the verse does not indicate that the Word became the Son at Incarnation. The glory we beheld was that of God Incarnate.
Several of the posts on the forum… have made a point that I made regarding Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4. The Father’s sending the Son indicates the identity of the One whom the Father sent, but none of these verses indicate that in His being sent, the Word became the Son. “Son” in all these verses identifies the One who was sent. I comfortably agree with Gill; he was Son prior to His being sent, and the identity of Son primarily refers to the fact that the One sent was not in any way inferior to God the Father. A primary definition of “Jesus” in its translation from Hebrew to Greek is “Jehovah is salvation.” Thus by His very name, Jesus Incarnate is in fact God Incarnate. If you study the insidious nature of first century Gnosticism, particularly docetic Gnosticism, the emphatic teaching of inspired New Testament writers to identify the One sent, the One who took upon Himself humanity, as being in every way fully and equally God, is a direct confrontation, rejection, and refutation of the Gnostic heresy.
Brother Berm… mentioned Isaiah 9:6; the child born is the Son given, who is also the mighty God and the everlasting Father. As with Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4, He does not become the Son by His birth, but rather His birth manifests that He is the Son, equal with the Father in every sense, given for us in Incarnation.
If you interpret any of the posts as diminishing the Incarnation, you have misunderstood the belief of the men who wrote. That was not at all their intent or their belief.
I have no problem with agreeing that in a sense at the beginning of the Incarnation there is a sense in which Jesus, the Word, became “Son.” I also have no problem with the idea that Psalm Two prophetically identifies the resurrection of our Lord and affirms, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Thus you and I have some common ground. However, I cannot justify based on the simple language of other verses interpret every appearance of “Son” as referring exclusively to one or the other of these events.
For the record, is it your belief that the Word became the Son at the inception of His Incarnation, virgin birth or conception, or that He became the Son later, either at the beginning of His public ministry, or at Calvary, or at resurrection? I can’t understand from your posts exactly when you believe He became the Son. Based on Isaiah 9:6, as well as your pivotal use of Luke 1:35, it would appear that your view is that He became the Son at the inception of Incarnation, but, based on your responses to me regarding the parables, it would appear that you believe He only became the Son at some later point.
Personally, I am far more comfortable discussing this question with you privately than in the public forum.
Although Cr… has never been a part of the PB fellowship, his mentor was and left our fellowship over a supposed disagreement on sonship. Since I was not involved on either side of that controversy, I may have a bit more objectivity than some. I suspect that the real issue between Jon’s mentor and our people had to do with other issues and that he used sonship to justify some things he did. Ironically your view is so near to his view that I hope you will understand why some of our folks might think you picked up the view from him. I will accept your statement and we can reason from the Scriptures apart from personalities.
Love you brother,
Jay
-----------
POST 39
On Jan 16, 2008, at 9:33 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jay,
Thanks for your response.
U wrote: “For the record, is it your belief that the Word became the Son at the inception of His Incarnation, virgin birth or conception, or that He became the Son later, either at the beginning of His public ministry, or at Calvary, or at resurrection? I can’t understand from your posts exactly when you believe He became the Son. Based on Isaiah 9:6, as well as your pivotal use of Luke 1:35, it would appear that your view is that He became the Son at the inception of Incarnation, but, based on your responses to me regarding the parables, it would appear that you believe He only became the Son at some later point.”
You are a good teacher in asking for clarification. If my teacher is NOT sure what the student has said, I fear the others may be confused also. Sorry for my poor expression.
I understand that the Son of God came into being when the eternal Word was made flesh. Before the Word was made flesh, there was no Son of God. I understand the term Son of God as that God/Man, the Eternal Word incarnated.
The MAKING of the Son of God at incarnation preceded the SENDING of the Son of God to the stewards.
So the eternal Word was MADE Son of God at incarnation, that divine/human being is the Son of God from the first instant of conception. But he was SENT at some later point. That would be exactly true of the son in the parable - about him being begotten of his father at some earlier point, and was sent at some later point.
You misunderstood the parallel I was drawing: the bringing into being of the son and the sending of the son to the stewards are separate and distinct events. [Incarnation is not sending! Incarnation is making the Son of God from the eternal Word.’]
Before the eternal Word was made/begotten Son, He was NOT - NOT - NOT in the likeness of sinful flesh. I cannot believe otherwise. Would you affirm that the eternal Word was in the likeness of sinful flesh? The Son is that particular divine being in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Son is that divine/human Person, begotten of the Highest in time, in the likeness of sinful flesh. At the proper time, the Son was sent. WITHOUT the eternal Word made flesh, there would be NO Son to send! This is just plain common sense, and rightly dividing the Word of truth. I am more and more convinced that ‘eternally begotten’ idea is really of pagan philosophy that Satan has used to attack the biblical doctrine of the Son of God. [WHY WOULD THE CHURCH NEED THIS PAGAN PHILOSOPHY OF ‘ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN’ TO TEACH THE EQUALITY AND THE ETERNALITY OF THE FATHER AND SON? WHY? ]
Concerning the parable, at certain point in time there was no son... there is the seed in father's loin... then the father beget his son at certain specific point... later the son was sent. EVEN SO, at certain point in time there was no Son of God, there is the eternal Word with the Highest and the Holy Ghost... then the Word was made flesh at incarnation... later the Son was sent.
Don't worry what Dr Gill says. His chief point of the Son's full and equal divinity with God from eternity is not disputed. When the Word was made flesh, the full divinity of the Word did not diminish in any sense. [When Jay was made husband, all his humanity as a bachelor man continues, but his wife is now united to him... and they shall be one flesh. Husband Jay is no less human than when he was a bachelor! Poor illustration...] The exact same nature of God that the Word possesses before remains and continues in the Son of God that was begotten in time.
Dr Gill has the idea that the Son is eternally generated/begotten, then I humbly say that it is a fable. I CANNOT find support from the Bible. As I said, why use such a pagan idea to express such a simple and obvious truth. May be when I read the Holy Book enough I may think otherwise. So, my God and Savior Jesus Christ help me.
Thank you for your patience and godly condescension,
sing
----
POST 40
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:43 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Jon,
I was just thinking about the Sonship on these two passages...
Luke 1:
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come [FUTURE] upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow [FUTURE] thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born [FUTURE passive] of thee shall be called [FUTURE passive] the Son of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1. Would it be right to conclude that WITHOUT the divine activity of the Highest and the Holy Ghost, there would be no Son of God?
2. Without the eternal Word made flesh, there would be no begotten Son of the Father?
3. Does 'shall be called' [future passive] indicate that the Son of God does not yet exist before the mysterious event in Luke 1:34 transpired?
4. If the Son of God existed before the eternal Word was made flesh in time, what should it be instead of 'shall be called'?
5. Did the Son of God exist at the point of the conversation in Luke 1:32-35?
What sayest the Holy Scriptures?
sing
----
