On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:16:10 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
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 don't have to tap dance around anything JD - and at least I don't ignore you (still waiting for thosescriptures). I would rather say what I believe in my own words rather than give a yes/no to a loadedquestion. As for me expecting more from you than what is in scripture - Not so. The second member of the Godhead is all over the Old Testament only He is not referred to as the "eternal son". You must be unaware that the OT contains the New and the NT reveals the Old.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.Other issues? Such as what? You are free to stop, back up, and/or question anything JD. There is no hurry.J.C. Philpot is someone I an unfamilar with and care not to know about at this time.I'm surprised to hear that JD, Phillpot is the author of the teaching on "eternal sonship" that Jonathan sent to the list by way of Lance. I thought you would have wanted to read it to bolster your position.There are few if any at BSF who would agree with your teaching on the Eternal Sonship of Christ.I don't think it wise to involve BSF in this unless you have a direct quote from their ministry materials because you could find yourself propagating heresy in their name.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.There you go again JD. I would like to request a direct quote showing that BSF teaches this along with the other scriptural proof from the Old Testament. Just find two or more places that state clearly that the Godhead is a trinity that consists of a Father, Son, and Spirit in the Old Testament.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.I will gladly do that once you have met my request JD since it preceded Bill's and anyway Bill only uses the NT same as Phillpot.Why do you say "perhaps?" when Lance has bought Athanasius and the Nicene teachings hook, line, and sinker.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. JDHmmm that's interesting in light of the fact that he called me a heretick over this one issue and how do you have so much insight into Bill Taylor and not Lance? jt
