Judy wrote to Lance: > Then please help me by doing your homework > and coming up with the goods on this "eternal > sonship" dogma you value so highly - from scripture > - simple request ... you should know why you believe > something
I'm going to offer a few comments about what you are saying here. If you or Lance think I am mistaken, please say so. It seems to me that Lance does not approach truth in the same way as you, Judy. For you, ideas must be logical and reasonable. For Lance, this is not so. We had some discussion some time ago about whether or not truth is always logical, and Lance took the position that truth is not always logical. It seems to me that Lance looks at who says things and considers their credentials and the liklihood that they know what they are talking about. For example, if someone like Tom Wright said something and Judy said something which were opposed to each other, he would accept Tom Wright over what you would say, not because it makes more logical sense, but because of who said it and who is more likely to be right based upon popular acclaim, educational background, etc. In this particular issue, we have a very old historical document with someone like Athanasius behind it. It has the popular acclaim of churches throughout the century. The very weight of history and intellectual people who embrace the dogma of "eternal sonship" is what compels him to accept the idea and declare all those who differ to be heretics. For people like you, there remains a problem. The concept of eternal sonship poses several logical problems for you. 1. It attacks the Deity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was a son prior to the incarnation, that means he had a beginning. If he had a beginning, then he is a created being and not God. 2. If he was a son prior to the incarnation, then the Father was always greater than him, and his subjection to the Father has always been. This again, takes away from the concept of his Deity and equality with God. Instead of being God, there is this so-called eternal relationship of ancestor to descendent, progenitor to offspring, creator to created being. 3. The eternal sonship view therefore cheapens the sacrifice of Christ, because from your perspective, he not only became flesh, but he put himself under subjection to the Father and became a Son whereas before he had an equality and form with God that was not distinguished by such an hiearchical relationship. The resolution for problem 1 above is approached by the adherents of dogma by declaring that Jesus was begotten not made, as if this resolves the illogical problems posed by their doctrine. For people like you, however, such is simply redefining a word and making an illogical statement to justify an illogical dogma. For people like Lance, the irrationality of a particular dogma is not important because truth sometimes is not logical. What is important for him is that the churches have held the dogma in the majority for centuries and the intellectual caliber of people who have embraced it is sufficient to make all critics wrong. Therefore, your insistence for him to make a logical case for his belief has little merit. You think it is important for his viewpoint to agree with the "logos." From his perspective, however, such does not matter because regardless of any logical illustration, your view is contrary to a popular viewpoint held by churches for 1600 years. Can you see how you two approach truth from very different perspectives? You are a rationalist whereas Lance is a dogmatist. 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.
