Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

[knpraise]

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:32:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

 

 

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.  You tap dance around my question/your answer to the qustion of whether "Jesus" and "Son"  began at the virgin birth  --  to the degree that Terry believes you do not believe such and, yet, you require of me more than what has been presented FROM SCRIPTURE,  insisting for some unstated reason, that I (we) must establish this teaching from the Old Scriptures, as if God's word in the New is not enough.   The full and specific teaching of the eternal Sonship of Christ is a New Covenant teaching  -  as is the doctrine of the new birth, salvation by grace apart from works, the church and so on. 

 

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.

 

Part of your debate strategy has been to drag into the debate other issues and flood the disucssion to such a degree that we lose track of the orignal point of discussion..   DM does the very same thing.   In this case  -  I do not want to go that route.  J.C. Philpot is someone I an unfamilar with and care not to know  about at this time.  There are few if any at BSF who would agree with your teaching on the Eternal Sonship of Christ.   I mention this only to put Bill's teaching in the proper context  -   that of a man who obviously cares about the written word and its content  -  a man who stands in agreement with a host of indivduals  (BSF) with whom you are in full and open fellowship.      He quotes scripture and explains his view as he understnds this Word.   He is as "bible" based as you.  So, lets just stick to his use of scripture.   That is the challenge fo r you  -  to stay on point and present to us your understanding  of the scriptures brought into this discussion. 

 

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.  Well, you miss my question but I do agree with your statement above  --  very much so. 

 

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. JD

 

Why do you say "perhaps?"  Lance has bought Athanasius and the Nicene teachings hook, line, and sinker.  jt   I say "perhaps"  because I do not know if, in his mind,  his beliefs are apart and against yours.   It is Lance who is the best observer of Lance  -  to the exslusion of all others. 

 

JD