The hermeneutical criteria that I am
questioning is the criteria of interpretation that you use against others
but are unwilling to apply to yourself. Let me state it in different words. At
the beginning of our debate over the Sonship of Christ, you sent a series of
posts stating that no where in Scripture are the words
"eternal Son" used.
jt: It is true that these two
words are not used together in scripture Bill and that this is a theological
construct which has been made by the so called Church Fathers (how ironic
when Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth Father because we
have just ONE (spiritual) Father) .
You therefore used that to
draw the conclusion that the Son of God was not the eternal Son of God.
Do you remember this, or would you like me to dig up those posts?
jt: This is just one of the things that leads me
to this conclusion Bill. If I could see the eternal son concept in
scripture I would consider it but I don't even see that. To me it is akin
to the RCC's obsession with Mary and the eternal baby Jesus keeping
him an infant and calling Mary the Mother of God. So you see Bill I am
not the ONLY one who is busy with the misunderstandings and
mischaracterizations here but you don't question them because they are
"orthodox" so that makes me the heretick - right?
Judy, the words "spiritual
death" do not appear in Scripture. The concept of
spiritual death is a theological construct that you and many others
have built, based upon less than explicit statements in the Bible. This in
itself is not a bad this, if in fact the Bible does set forth this doctrine in
its non-specific language. I do not believe it does that.
jt: It does in fact do that Bill.
The Bible is basically a spiritual book. You may not find those exact
words but the concept is there and it needs no theological
constructing at all. "As in Adam ALL die even so in Christ shall all be made
alive" (1 Cor 15:22). You will probably reply that this refers to the
resurrection - but that makes no difference because if we were not spiritually
dead we would need no resurrecting. When we become born of the Spirit or
born again we receive the earnest of our inheritance in Christ which is the
indwelling Spirit and pass from death to life.
If in Genesis God had said, On the day you eat of it, you will surely die a spiritual
death, then I would have no recourse to argue against your concept of
spiritual death. But God did not say that; he said "On the
day you eat of it, you will surely die." There is nothing explicit
about that death, no mention as to how they would die or what kind of
death that it would be, just that they would die.
jt: Well we know that Adam did die
that day just as God in His Omnipotence said he would and we know that he did
not die a physical death because he did not die physically for 960 more years
so what kind of a death did he die that day Bill?
I believe that rather than
allowing them to die on that day, God substituted his own Son on their
behalf. This does not mean that the Son died on that day (although he is
called the Lamb slain from the foundation or beginning of the world), but it
does mean that the Son's fait was sealed on that day.
jt: Oh so God changed His mind
without telling anybody. The Lamb's fate was sealed "before the foundation of
the world" Bill which was before any of the activity written about
in the book of Genesis took place and yes He did die to reverse the curse
placed on humanity that day... because death reigned from Adam to
Moses.
"So also it is written "the
first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life giving
Spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the
spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from
heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the
heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the
image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor
15:45-49)
Immediately after the
fall, God promised the Woman that to her a Seed would be born and that
that Seed would be bruised (in other words, die on a cross, but in
resurrection change the nature of death for ever and everyone) but
that in so doing he would crush the deceiver's head (and this is
forever). Therefore, I do have a very
plausible explanation, which does not employ your extra-biblical
term: "spiritual death." Why if you are unwilling to
accept the eternal Son teaching, and this because it is not a biblical
term, are you now willing to continue to uphold the "spiritual death"
doctrine, when it too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical
criteria that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will use
against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. Sincerely, Bill
jt: Because eternal sonship is not
scriptural and spiritual death is. All we need is to do a Bible Study on
life and death to see that this is so.
Grace and Peace,
Judyt
I have no idea what
you are talking about Bill. First you might define what you mean by
"hermeneutical criteria"
and then tell me how I hold your feet to the fire
and excuse myself, because to me this is nothing but an unfounded
accusation. You say there is no such thing as "spiritual death".
I say there is and it is right under your nose in the
book of Genesis. Why not deal with the
facts? Just throwing out accusation solves nothing.
Peace to you, Judy. We have been down this
road before. I was just checking to see if you had the integrity to hold
your own feet to the fire by employing the same hermeneutical criteria
toward yourself that you do against those whose beliefs differ from your
own. No surprises here, you don't. Bill
O poor poor John,
If it will make you feel better, I will
go so far as to say that there is no explicit scriptural support for
the idea of "spiritual death." This idea came to us via the wake
of the Augustine-v-Palagius controversy.
Not so Bill, the book of
Genesis was written way before the Augustine v Pelagius controversy
and this is where the idea of "spiritual death" comes from. God
said "In the day A&E ate they would SURELY die" Are you
saying He lied and they didn't die that day?
In fact I also know that Judy, if she is
going to be consistent, will have to agree with me on this
one, although on different grounds; and this because she is so
insistent on pointing out that since there is no explicit language
stating that Jesus is the "eternal Son," he therefore cannot be the
eternal Son. To use her line of argumentation (against her, in this
instance:>) there cannot be any such thing as "spiritual death"
since there is no such explicit language in Scripture.
Do you need everything
spelled out for you Bill? Just how did they die THAT DAY - Adam did
not die physically until 960yrs later?
Even though we do not all affirm your
view concerning a lack of a fallen nature, there are at least a couple
of us who will affirm the absence of a concept of "spiritual
death" in the biblical narrative.
Now, does that make you feel better?
Bill
I sure hope not because a
false peace is much worse than no peace. judyt
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005
6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose
Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/10/2005
11:55:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Unscriptural
John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into
a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach
that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph
1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at
the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the
foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall
nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from
being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is
an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not
saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God
call's sin and stop doing it?
I stand alone on
this "fallen nature thing, " I know. The write -
wongers (nothing wrong with being a write winger
---------- and no, I did not misspell. A
right winger who joins a list such as this truly is, becomes a write
winger --------------- thank you very
much) start bouncing and my friends, out of respect no doubt, become
painfully silent ( know exactly what that means
!! you can't fool little old Johnny)
Oh,
by the way,
A left winger who joins a list such as this
truly is becomes a TEACHER. he ha.
But I
digress. Judy -- there is no fallen
nature. God just isn't done with us yet. Adam and his
Seventh Rib are completed by the same Christ you and I
are. It has ALWAYS been that way, since before the
foundations of the world.
The soul that
sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so
tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be
wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing
it? Judy
!!!! The soul that sinneth, it shall die
-- is not a true statement for those who are in
Christ. We will be saved -- signed
sealed and delivered per Roimans 8. Get used to it,
Judy. You ARE going to heaven. So am
I. I just hope we don't live on the same block, ya know
what I am saying ??
