John wrote: > You tie three statements together, pretend that I ordered > these thoughts and then, restate your insult.
It was not an insult. I was simply pointing out a tautology, which is a statement that in itself is logically true. I think that was your point as well. I was agreeing with you, and asking, where do we go from here since your statement was a logical truism? John wrote: > IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO this between > you and me .. without exception. There is not one > thing that is presumptive in the three unrelated > (contextually) comments.....especially the last comment. You presume the "eternal Sonship" in your statement, "IF Christ is the Eternal Son, he was such before the virgin birth." Why would you now say that there is not one thing that is presumptive? John wrote: > I do not read Bill as saying that before the > resurrection, Christ was something other > than the Son. Neither do I. That was my point. Even though he was the son BEFORE the resurrection, Bill is teaching that he was also BEGOTTEN the son in the resurrection. Go back and read his post. That is a little different than your statement that such would be impossible because "An eternal Son only CONTINUES to be a son." I'm sorry we have such a hard time communicating, John. I think you have taken my comments much too personal. I meant no insults whatsoever. I am just trying to outline the logic and follow it through to proper conclusions. 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.
