Bill Taylor wrote: >> if John wants to question it, we should be >> willing to give him the freedom to do so.
I don't know anybody who is not willing to allow him freedom to question the doctrine of the fall. My question to Jonathan and you concerned why you would object to questions concerning the Eternal Sonship Doctrine but not to questions concerning the doctrine of the fall of man. From my perspective, both doctrines can be questioned and explored in more detail. It just seems to me that the Eternal Sonship Doctrine has never been as firmly established in orthodoxy as the doctrine concerning the fall. Pelagius was declared a heretic for his rejection of the doctrine of the fall, and he argued for such based upon noble moral reasons, calling men to turn away from sin. John does not have this moral high ground in his questioning of the doctrine of the fall, so he would seem to be on even less stable ground concerning what you guys would consider orthodoxy. I guess I'm still trying to grapple with what orthodoxy means to you guys. Obviously it is not a paradigm that figures too much into my way of thinking. John wrote: > And I will add that David Miller has not > a clue as to what it is that I object to in > the notion of the "fall." Obviously true, John, which is why I asked you so many questions about it. I would not ask questions if I knew what you believed. John wrote: > What is it that I believe, David? That is what I asked you. Instead of answering me, you decided to ask me to tell you what you believe. John wrote: > I had asked some questions of you > in the past, recent past. Questions > you decided to avoid. Sorry. If they are important to you, please ask again. Some of your questions I think are rhetorical. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. John wrote: > It is much easier to pass judgment on > one's beliefs if you don't have to defend > that judgment or even understand the > person's point of view. Do you think that I have passed judgment on your belief concerning the fall of man? If so, rest assured that I have not. I tend to think that you do not have a clearly formulated doctrine of the fall, and so your questioning of it is probably based upon the influence of pop theology. I raised this point before, but you disagreed with my perspective that pop theology has anything to do with it. I'm still waiting to hear more to understand what leads you to question the doctrine of the fall. John wrote: > You can just float around above the forest > and pontificate without fear of accountablility. We are all accountable, to God and to each other. I don't know what you mean by this statement. John wrote: > It's a gooooooooooooooood life, > isn't it? Yes it is. Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. I hope I answered all your questions in this post. ---------- "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.
