Let's stay with the original point that I made, please. I have no intention
of submitting myself to any tests of orthodoxy regarding either the nature &
authority of the biblical texts or what it means to call Jesus "Son of God."
The original point was that Lewis gave only two options regarding Jesus: 1)
Jesus was the "Son of God" in the particular manner decided in the 4th
century when the Council of Nicea chose the Athanasian meaning of Jesus'
divinity over the Arian version; or 2) Jesus was some combination of madman,
fool, and demon.
I say that Lewis's setting up this stark either/or choice was a disservice
to Christianity. It leads many Christian people, including some on this
list, to dump all persons who question any part of 1) into the trash
category specified by 2).
Howard Van Till
Received on Sat Dec 20 14:30:30 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 20 2003 - 14:30:31 EST