----- Original Message ----- From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 22, 2005 11:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> If David is right about Judy, I may be completely misunderstanding her > problem. She thinks that, by definition, Sonship means finitude. Is that it? > > Of COURSE it's not going to be logical! Does Judy believe Jesus is both God > and man? How is THAT logical? > > 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 historical document with someone like Athanasius behind it.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.
