Blackhawk said:
It seems like you are playing a game. You know that I have stated that you must prove not that the Son was not eternally the Son but that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. See your positive statement is that the Son became to be the Son at a certain period of time. So you must prove that.
And I have already explained to you what is so evident. You just continue to deny it because you wish to hold onto some tradition that Origen enthusiastically spoke of. But as long as you are unable to provide me Scriptural reference that the Son was eternally the Son, you are no better in your argument than me.
Blackhawk said:
Arguing against your proof is the statement that there was progressive revelation in the Bible. It does not prove anything nor did I use it to prove something.
Then you commit
ad ignorantiam.
Blackhawk said:
What it does though is throw doubt on your proof #1. There is another more historical alternate which is a better explanation of why the Father-Son relationship is not mentioned.
Please, do tell.
Blackhawk said:
Huh? Do you mean the OT only or all of the BIble? If all of the Bible then it is just clearly false. But the OT has allusions to other persons in the Trinity. Like in the Psalms where it states something like My Lord said to my Lord." or something like that. I am too lazy right now to look up the reference. But I will if you want me to. So this is false.
I am speaking of the Old Testament only. But, then you quote Psalm 110:1, which says, "Yahweh says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Please prove to me that God is speaking to another divine person, and not a royal king.
Blackhawk said:
Okay but then again my point about this has always been that no one can call God Father at all unless there was an eternal Son.
So, you're denying that the Jews called God their Father? Why do you continue to repeat yourself? You think that just because God is called "Father," that it must logically follow that God has a Son who always was with Him eternally. But this doesn't prove anything. It's merely an assertion.
Blackhawk said:
So I would state that becasue of progressive revelation and my point here this statement is not any form of proof. At the very least it does not really support what you are saying.
Again, you commit the logical fallacy of
ad ignorantiam.
Blackhawk said:
Why? There is no reason to do so.
But you assume that the Son was eternally the Son.
Blackhawk said:
First one can call the 2nd person of the Trinity the Word. I have no problem with that.
Probably because you act as though by me saying that the Word was with God, that I am really saying that the Son was with God.
Blackhawk said:
Especailly since John calls him that in John 1. And why would calling him son in that passage be any closer to Modalism than using the Word?
You've read the above statement of John 1:1 by BrendanMark, haven't you? To say that the "Word was God" is to say in a good, but terse translation, "What God was, the Word was." This cannot be said of the Father and the Son, lest you commit Modalism, nay, Sabellianism, because then you would be saying that the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father. So, you would have it either as, "and the Son was the Father," or again, "And what the Father was, the Son was." As if God and His Word were one person, as if the Father and Son were not distinct.
Blackhawk said:
Why did you replace God with the Father? You are making no sense here and are suggesting things I never have. This proof is just silly.
You need not state them, for if that were the case, then you could never falsely accuse me of saying that the Son of God is not the Son by nature. You are telling me that the Father has eternally been the Father, and that the Son has eternally been the Son. You use "Word" and "Son" synonymously. And because God is commonly called the Father in the New Testament, it must naturally flow that you would be telling me, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father." Even moreso, "The Son was with the Father in the beginning."
Blackhawk said:
Why are you bringing up Prov. if you beleive in proof #2? It makes no sense.
Because, Wisdom is personified and not a real person. Furthermore, if I were to say that Wisdom was a person, it would not affect what I meant, since we don't see God speaking to Wisdom. And if you want to get really picky with this, well, I could say that God had an eternal Daughter, not Son.
Blackhawk said:
But anyways I have no problem saying that the Word has always been. And have no problem using Wisdom also for Christ.
That is because you are using "Son" synonymously with those two words. That is deceptive.
Blackhawk said:
UMMM. As you know I was responding to a statement by you. You brought up the Verse where Mary asks the Angel how can she conceive if she is a virgin? You had said that the use of future language demonstrates that the Son will be the Son in the future or after the birth. I was just demonstrating that the verse does not say that. What it states is that in the future others will call him Son of God. It does not mention if he is the SOn of God at that moment or not. But you know all of this. This is clearly some type of game you are playing.
So, you are unable to support your argument. If you want to have me believe that the Son has eternally been the Son, then you must show to me from both the Old and New Testament that the Son was always known as the Son. Besides, whether or not others would call our Lord, "Son of God," does not mean that you have refuted my previous statement, as your interpretation is not mutually exclusive with mine. You're merely saying that it does not disprove that the Son of God was not the Son of God eternally, which is yet again,
ad ignorantiam.
Blackhawk said:
What I said is that you sould read the whole of the NT through the lens of Christ.
Or rather, that I should read it from a historical perspective. There is no reason for me to impose my theological agenda to Scripture. That's eisegesis.
Blackhawk said:
This is a very historic heremeneutical principle. The church fathers, the medieval theologians, the reformers, the puritans, some of the Neo-Orthodox, the fundamentalists, etc. All support some type of this hermeneutical prinicple.
Ad populum. Again, just because the majority of people have done this or that does not make it true or correct. Such fallacious arguments.
Blackhawk said:
So what I am saying is that you cannot understand the OT fully without the NT. You see what was going on in the OT in a new light because of what is revealed in the NT. Thus one by looking through Christ can keep the mosaic of the king together instead of shuffling around the pieces to make the mosaic look like a dog or fox. (Irenaeus). Thus only by looking through Christ can we see the pattern in the OT that displays Christ.
However, I am not shuffling around Scripture. I do not need to act like those who say that when Moses said, "In the beginning Elohim created," that this is a reference to a triune God, nor do I need to take up Deuteronomy 6:4 and think that it is speaking of a triune God, either. Not that I deny that God is triune. I fully accept it. But there is no reason for me to go back and ruin the historical perspective. Even the Jews act as though they have it right when they mention that Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one, that is, numerically, for it can also be written, "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." Thus, we understand that Ancient Israelt was monolatristic.
Blackhawk said:
okay. but the problem you have is that tradition is very important even in the Biblical text. In Deut. God through Moses tells the Jews to tradition what he said to future generations. The great commission also tells us to tradition all the teachings of Christ to future generations. Although it is not infallible proof to many it should seem like some kind of proof to state that the church has believed the eternal Sonship of Christ for 2,000 years.
You would have to prove that our Lord, even His disciples, believed that the Son was eternally the Son.
Blackhawk said:
Sure but it does give proof that it could be true. To say that the 99 gives no proof is crazy. You seem like many to state that there cannot be anytime where a proof might not be true. Well all the 99 could be wrong sometimes so it can't be proof.
Unless the ninety-nine witnessed it. Otherwise, just because a majority of people say that something is right or wrong, does not necessarily make it true or false. To think that the majority is correct is
ad populum, unless they have evidence.
I do not accept that kind of argumentation. Real life is not like that. in real life we look at probabilty and if something has a very high degree of probability then it is proved. That is the only way in which we can function. So the tradition of the church gives us proof of a higher probabilty that the eternal Sonship of Christ is true.[/quote]
Did the disciples of Jesus teach eternal Sonship?
Blackhawk said:
huh? You are using tradition to state your case? Calvin could be wrong. Right? That is no proof.
Calvin could be wrong. Let any man refute Calvin's arguments, then we can say that Calvin was wrong. Besides, I also made note of Proverbs 8:22-31. I'll go so far as to say that even Tertullian himself spoke of God's Word as Reason first, for Reason is first manifested before Word. Not that the Reason is not the Word, but that God's Reason was within God's mind, and was God's mind. And when God spoke, then came forth His Word. Thus, if God is eternally, and if God is rational, then God has possessed Reason from all eternity. Therefore, it follows, as I have said before, that for the Arians to deny that God's Wisdom was not, but came into existence is to say that God was not a rational being.
Blackhawk said:
So the title of son is just figurative. Hmm. But then how do you explain Jesus' use of Fahter in the NT. Clearly he did not see it as just figurative.
Oh, how little you know of this. The angels are called "sons of God." This is a figurative term, yes? Surely God does not have offspring. No wonder the Muslim's get riled up when they hear that God had begotten a Son. They think that God had actually begetted an offspring. But clearly you have stated that the term "begotten" is figurative. And yes, we can say that the term "Father" is figurative, for God had fathered Jesus as a Son. And though you quoted Psalm 2:7 previously, the JPS says, "You are my son, I have fathered you this day." This is a support that God's role as a Father came into play when the Word became flesh. And is it any wonder why John does not call the Word, "Son," until after the Word became flesh?
Blackhawk said:
Second you can't say that the title "Son of God" is figurative and then say he is the Son of God by nature.
When I say that Jesus is the Son of God by nature, what I mean is that by nature, Jesus possess godhood, just as the Father. Not that the Son has eternally been called "Son."
Blackhawk said:
I am not saying that you donot think the Word is God or divine. I am saying that you believe that he is not Son by nature which is clearly what you have said also.
Read above.
Blackhawk said:
My point was that he was what he is stated to be when he sent him. So if we can speak in temporal terms. The Son was the Son at or really before the time of sending. So it was before the incarantion that the Son was the Son. Sicne God is outside of time then the SOn was the Son eternally.
You must then present an argument why Jesus is not called the "Son" until after the time of His become flesh.
Blackhawk said:
I have already show nthat you have. And you state that you have also.
If you wish. As if it say anywhere in the New Testament that the Son of God is the Son by nature.
Blackhawk said:
But many passages it does not say that God sent His Word. BTW I am fine with that statement. But the passages say "God sent His Son." or as John 3:16 "that he (God/Father) gave His only begotten Son . . ." Thus when the Father sends or gives the Son the Son the Son is the Son. There is no way around that. He is the Word and He is the Son.
The Word is pre-Incarnate. The Son is Incarnate. Again, you're quoting off of verses that say "Son of God" after the Word became flesh. Prior to this, it does not say, "the Son was with the Father."
Blackhawk said:
But it shows a pattern. The Son is the Son when the FAther gives him. Thus gives even more credibilty to the statement that the Son is eternally the Son and the Father is thus eternally the Father.
How about you refute my statement that this was prophetical, that it was a shadow, not reality.
Blackhawk said:
I think I have shown much proof that the Father and the SOn are both eternally so. You have really show nvery few if no proof of your positive claim that the SOn became the Son after the incarnation. Please do so. YOu know that is a positive claim. You are not just saying that there is no proof that the SOn was not the Son eternally. You are saying that the SOn became the SOn at a certain time. So prove it. And stop playing games.
I have proven it. Denial of it doesn't make what I have said any less true.
Blackhawk said:
I tried that verse before and it has some historical baggage also.
That is because it was never meant that way until someone had to go about and think that the Son was the Son from all eternity. Surely, if anyone in the Early Church went by historical understanding, they would have not fallen into the error of thinking that Psalm 2:7 speaks of eternal generation.