Re: To Wrench: God the Son Wednesday,
02-Aug-2000 09:41:31
Hi Ray,
In reqards to your last
post. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, Wrench, These passages
plus a few others were directly related to your previous denial of the logos'
participation in the creation of all things...based on a distinction between the
words "create" and "make" in Gen. 1:26. My point being that the "God" you refer
too INCLUDES the logos as the intermediate agency, just as in the context of
salvation where he is our Savior and we likewise "owe" our salvation to the
intermediate agency. But if you REALLY think my position is "slipping away from
me", perhaps the wiser decision for you would be to "stay the course" and
respond to my letter point for point...as I did yours. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I did say it was just a feeling. If the feeling was
off-mark then I am wrong. It just seems that for a very long time it was just a
consideration of John 1:1-3 and Colossian 1:15ff that had been presented by you
as the those "contexts" which were solid enough for your position to overturn
the natural readings of the threefold witness that I offered. Our discussion has
now grown to include Romans 11:36, Genesis 1:26, 1 Cor. 8:6, Rev. 21:6; 22:13.
Genesis 1:26 is now branching off into other scriptures and we have not settled
anything yet even in regard to John 1:1ff and Colossian 1:15ff. In this latest
post, in relation to Genesis 1:26 there were a bunch more scriptures brought
into the discussion. I just didn't understand why you would do that when we have
been trying to find a way to shorten these things up and make them more
manageable. If Genesis 1:26 in itself is going to swell into a multitude of
other scriptures then we are going to have to wait to discuss that at a later
time. It's simply too much at once. I don't think that is unreasonable.
I
mean, don't you think that for the sake of clarity and manageability and
convenience of reading for others who might be following along that we can more
thoroughly cover what is on the table before proceeding to other "contexts" that
you find supportive to your side? I am sure that a discussion of the new
scriptures that you mention is going to be quite involved and lengthy, and I
just can not see the sense and nor do I have the time to devote to an even
longer posting format than what we have had. Your response was 90 pages and if I
go respond tit for tat for everything it will end up being over a 100 pages
long. I promise you I will address all the scriptures and contexts that you feel
are important, Ray, but I do not think it to be unreasonable to ask that we do
these things in a more singular fashion. We are already discussing Rev. 3:14,
Colossians 1:15-17, Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, Genesis 1:26, John 1:1ff and 1
Corinthians 8:6ff and Romans 10:36. I think that is enough for our table of
discussion until we get some of these other things out of the way. Let's either
agree to disagree in relation to some of these scriptures or continue to talk
about them until we reach some sort of mutual point of understanding or agree to
move on.
I am sorry if my comment offended you, it is simply the way it
appeared to me. Appearances can be
deceiving.
