Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> 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).

        I did not ask you to submit to any "tests of orthodoxy". I asked your view of
the person of Christ.
                                                Shalom,
                                                George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Dec 20 14:58:30 2003