Debbie wrote: > I am making the point that one does not necessarily do > violence to a message by using words to talk about it > which do not appear in the message.
Good point, Debbie. I fully agree with this statement that you make here. I think the problem is when people begin to focus too much on the secondary language meant to lend further understanding of an original message. We have this problem here in this country concerning the First Amendment to our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson at one point called the establishment clause, "a wall of separation between church and state." The language is fine when understood in a particular context, but in modern times, many people focus upon this secondary language so much that they fail to grasp the original meaning of our Constitution. Instead of fostering freedom of religion, they use the secondary language to establish freedom from religion, which is something the original language never meant to do. In the same way, I think the Trinity concept and related verbiage does sometimes create problems. Shortly after the council of Nicea, the Trinity became the unorthodox position of the church for almost half a century. That is a pretty solid historical fact that illustrates how the Trinity doctrine did not really solve much. As I remember it, the Athanasius creed which stressed the "eternal sonship" idea was never accepted by any ecumenical council. The "eternal son" phrase was added later to the Nicean creed when the Trinity came back into favor as the orthodox position, late in the fourth century. This was primarily due to the new position of power held by Athanasius. So in striving over the validity of terminology, it is perhaps prudent to remind one another that terms like "Trinity" or "Eternal Son" are not Biblical. After all, if one declares someone else to be a heretic for not embracing the terms, could not the proper response be that such terms are not Biblical and so on what basis is the epithet "heretic" being hurled? The point is, what is the foundation of the idea being held? Is the foundation Scripture or the ideology of men? Recognizing a term as not being Biblical does not in itself mean that the term is improper or wrong to use. It simply means that perhaps other terms, Biblical terms, might better convey the concepts under consideration. Such is not really much different than urging a researcher to go to the primary sources for his arguments rather than relying upon secondary sources. Surely you understand the value of this. 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.
