----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: June 22, 2005 11:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Can you please recap Judy's belief for me? Does she believe Jesus is God?
> Does she believe the Holy Spirit is God? Does she believe in a Binity? Or
is
> it just that she believes the second Person of the Trinity wasn't always
> Son?
>
> There will always be a problem with human language. I am wondering if the
> "resort" to the term "Son" in Scripture for the second Person of the
Trinity
> is based on the awareness of the Incarnation, i.e., the voluntary
> relationship of submission and obedience of the God-man Jesus (Philippians
> 2), even though the second Person is eternal and the Incarnation was in
> time. I think the term "begotten" is used only once, and can be translated
> otherwise in that place. (Am I right about that?) I think we are requiring
> the language to do too much if we get hung up on the begetting...
>
> D
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:14 AM
> Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Belief
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: June 22, 2005 10:20
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


----------
"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.

Reply via email to