David wrote > I'm going to study your comments about John 8 a little more carefully. Unless a big light bulb goes off by doing so, I will probably have some questions about it.
That's fine, David, but let me tell you up front, I'm not interested in going down a thousand different bunny trails in search of that which if we would but look up, we could see right before us. While we are sniffing out the trail, the Bunny becomes a smaller and smaller speck on the horizon. Questions of clarification are fine, but I do not feel a necessity with you (being the exegete and student of Scripture that you are, with the resources you have at your disposal) to reinvent the wheel. There is no end to the books which have already been written -- by theologians of much greater renown than myself -- on this subject. If what you want is a book, then at some point it needs to be your imperative to read the ones already written. I would be glad to make some suggestions to get you started. Please do not take offense at this, but it concerns me very much the way you are wont to re-direct a discussion away from the big picture which holds it all together. Perhaps this is not so great a problem -- your method -- in the physical sciences, but I find it quite problematic in terms of theological methodology. You may already know this, but I want to emphasize it here because it is becoming so much more apparent to me why this is so. T.F. Torrance in every book and every lecture stresses the importance of allowing the object of our study determine the way we come to know it. A scientist would not use a microscope to look for distant galaxies. For that he would use a telescope. In like manner he would not use a telescope to examine the constitution of a virus; he would use a microscope for that. This is because he knows that he must let the object of his inquiry establish the means by which it is studied. As Christians we must apply these same scientific principals in our study of God. We must let him determine the way that he is to be known. We dare not take a microscope to that which can only be seen through a telescopic lens. God cannot be reduced. The sum of the parts cannot ever equal the whole, and this is because God is indivisibly one. When we attempt to define him via a process of falsification, we lose sight of who he is -- the Bunny scoots over the hill. You and Judy seem to want everything spelled out in tidy propositional statements. If the Bible doesn't say it word for word, then you conclude it must not say it at all. Yet neither of you are willing to hold yourselves to that task. You both draw inferences all the time, which, as I said last night, is fine, as long as there is substantive evidence from which to draw the inference. David, the substantive evidence abounds in relation to the eternal Sonship of Christ. You are allowing one statement, which may or may not be propositionally applicable, frame the whole discussion, and shape and steer your regulative beliefs as it relates to our Lord. There are hundreds of statements in Scripture that we know must be figurative, even though they are stated in propositional form. We do not take them literally because we know that to do so would be to diminish or even deny truths that are greater and grander and more definitive in our understanding of the biblical narrative as a whole. Yes, Ps 2.7 and its cognates (I couldn't think of the right word) is a difficult passage. But must we shut out from our thoughts the greater narrative of who the Son is and hence who our God is, as presented through an abundance of implicit language, until that time that we fully understand its meaning and significance? Certainly not, for then we could not confidently know anything about our Lord; dedicated Christians have been debating the meaning of that verse for centuries. If absolute certainty is the criterion by which we may call a statement true, the truth is we will never meet it. We must allow the greater narrative to hold, while we attempt to delineate the meaning of its particulars. Please just consider what I have said. No comments necessary. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me > Bill Taylor wrote: > > David, I broke your statement down into > > parts and answered accordingly: > > <snip> > > we are five out of six in terms of agreement. > > Thanks Bill! This was VERY helpful. > > I'm going to study your comments about John 8 a little more carefully. > Unless a big light bulb goes off by doing so, I will probably have some > questions about it. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > David, I am curious about something: Why are > > you denying (and on more than one occasion) > > that what you are setting forth is your "teaching" > > as well? Why instead do you insist on calling this > > "the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, > > Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc"? > > I'm just trying to clarify that I have no teaching on this matter. I have > been exploring this subject as a result of Judy bringing this up, and > Jonathan and others having objections to it. I am not teaching this > doctrine here, but as a diligent student, I am asking some tough questions > of those who take the position of knowing the truth on this matter. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Is it purely on her behalf that you are making > > these arguments? > > No. I'm asking the questions for my own learning. Her perspective goes > along much better with the direct teaching of the Bible. It is much more > simple. There is less need to resort to figurative interpretations, such as > saying that Psalm 2:7 really means "every day" when it says "this day" or > that "monogenes" does not mean "only begotten" but rather "unique." Rather > than just accept her teaching, however, I am fully exploring the answers > that those on the other side might have. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > -- Or is it because you do not want to explicitly > > identify yourself as the teacher of that which can > > only be interpreted as heresy from the position > > of classic orthodoxy? > > This is an interesting comment. I heard Jonathan claim that it was > unorthodox and attacked the Trinity, but I did not find merit in his > argument along these lines. Now it sounds like you too consider it heresy? > What church council in Church history has taken such a position? > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > I say this not to offend either one of you, but if > > I were Judy, I would want to know why you are > > so willing to let her hang out on that branch all by > > herself. > > LOL. Judy is a big girl, and very smart too. She should be flattered that > she is teaching something that others here do not accept with the same > degree of confidence. Nevertheless, she is not completely alone. Terry > seems to be strongly in her camp, and we cannot forget the Holy Spirit being > her Comforter and Teacher. :-) She hardly needs me to be squarely > positioned in her camp on this subject. > > I will be getting back to you about this. Again, thanks for parsing my > email and showing agreement in five of the six terms. This tremendously > helps me understand your use of language and your position on this subject. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
