----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Sonship
Oh I believe it was intentional Bill - but could be you revealed
more of your character than you thought.
Here is a "big gun" theologian who uses the same language as you but has
the same argument as me - DavidM may be familiar with these:
(1) I have not been able to find any express declaration in the
Scriptures concerning it.
(2) If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be
eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in
reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too
(3) If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then the
Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him
(4) Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it
must be in time; i.e., there was a period in which it did not exist and a
period when it began to exist
(5) To say that he was begotten from all eternity is, in my
opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive
self-contradiction.
Real cute Bill; so you see yourself and David as
the two big hot shot theological dogs and I'm the little Terrier?
:)
This says more than you could ever articulate
verbally about why you stay so hung up on eternal sonship -
Thanks for the insight even if proffered
unintentionally. I won't bother you again. jt
Only somewhat unintentionally,
Judy, in that I did include the story with a purpose in mind
-- however, that purpose was not intended to evoke this response
from you. Do as you wish, but please consider along the way what that
purpose may be.
Blessings,
Bill
