By the way, the first two questions in this post are from David to me. The rest is my response to him.
Bill > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > not forever? > > > Genesis 3:22-23a Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become > like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and > take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" -- therefore > the LORD God sent him out of the garden > > The thought of letting them -- and thus humanity -- eat of the tree of life > and live forever in a fallen state was too horrible to contemplate; in fact > it was too horrible even to express. Bullinger is quite helpful in this > instance. The figure of speech employed here is called an aposiopesis, or > sudden-silence (152-153). "It is the sudden breaking off of what is being > said (or written), so that the mind may be the more impressed by what is too > ... awful for words." Adam and Eve could not be "fixed" in the state they > were in; it would take a re-creation to do that; thus they were graced with > the necessity of dying, that they might be raised anew in Christ's > resurrection. The same holds true for us. Adam and Eve would not have died > at all had they eaten (or continued to eat) of the tree of life. Bullinger > states, "Here the exact consequences of eating of the tree of life in his > fallen condition are left unrevealed, as though they were too awful to be > contemplated: and the sudden silence leaves us in the darkness in which the > Fall involved us. But we may at least understand that whatever might be > involved in this unspoken threatening, it included this fact:-- I will drive > him away from the tree of life!" > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > > > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > > > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > > > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > > > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > > > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. > > > > I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria > > used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the > silence > > of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct > > contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. > Judy > > then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the > > physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the > lack > > of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or > a > > misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood > > her. > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > > > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > > > their behalf. > > > > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > > not forever? > > > > It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the > world, > > and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. > > > > Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? > If > > the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize > > that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be > better > > understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not > > fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years > > later? > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the > > eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all > the > > Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS > > willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just > because > > the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a > > Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men > > with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible > did > > use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, > > but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other > > passages seem to contradict the idea. > > > > 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. > ---------- "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.
