I'd only 'tweek' this a bit by saying:I am a realist theologically while David Miller and Judy Taylor are rationalists.I do not esteem (intrinsically) any woman/man over any other.
I do not esteem ----- 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 historical document with someone like Athanasius behind it.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.
