Bill Taylor wrote: > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God.
I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the silence of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. Judy then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the lack of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or a misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood her. Bill Taylor wrote: > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > their behalf. If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why not forever? It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the world, and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? If the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be better understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years later? Bill Taylor wrote: > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all the Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just because the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible did use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other passages seem to contradict the idea. 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.
