On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:16:10 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, Judy. Apparently you missed the article by Bill Taylor below and some of my thoughts added in response. It is added to "correction" from Terry -- perhaps Terry will retract his correction at this time in spite of the fact that Judy has a hard time with the word "yes" in this particular case.I didn't miss Bill's article or your comments JD; what I am still waiting on is some homework from you and Lance from your personal studies giving some Old Covenant proof that Jesus was an Eternal Son when He created the worlds rather than the Word of God who spoke them into existence.I would recommend a reading of Bill's article again. It may be comprehensive enough to have covered all of the serious implications of this biblical doctrine.Bill gives the same circular argument as J. C. Phillpot without the mystical aspect and the threats. Phillpot is honest enough to state that the doctrine props up the trinity and that without it the doctrine of the trinity crumbles. However, this is not scriptural either. My how far we have fallen. The Jews were so careful not to mess with even one jot or tittle and we have substituted trinity for Godhead and eternal son for Lord Jehovah and God the Word.How we view God IS based upon the content of our presuppositions to that doctrine. That being true, IMO, it becomes critical that we have a "correct" view of same. "Correctness" is used in this context as meaning something more than just an intellectual positioning. I see that now. Lance, in fact, has made this very point in the very recent past...... the importance of content as it relates to our faith. Now, what would God have us do with these differences? A serious question, for me ---- a very serious question.I can say with certainty that what God would have us do is go to His Word and sit at the feet of Jesus with a humble and teachable spirit.I am a little surprised at Lance's positioning on this -- as I follow his discussion with Dave and Blaine. One would expect a raving and goofy liberal to have no such view - a view that in and of itself sets his belief apart and against (?) those of some others (i.e Blaine and Dave -- perhaps JudyT on this eternal Son discussion. JDWhy do you say "perhaps?" Lance has bought Athanasius and the Nicene teachings hook, line, and sinker. jt
