[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
Date: September 02, 2012
Time: 06:24 PM
foxlemkeChristians are committed to the gtmraamical method. The word beget is not difficult. But CS Lewis evacuates it of all meaning! (“Like one book leaning on another.” To lean is not the same as to beget!)Matt. 1:18., 20, Luke 1:35, with I Jn 5:18 designate the place where and the time when the Son is begotten. “What is begotten, brought into existence, fathered in her is from holy spirit” (Matt. 1:20).It is ludicrous to refuse the word “beget”! On that basis God could not reveal anything for certain. One could just say, “God does not operate within our rules.”In this way we would never know what He meant! Adam could never have come into existence as Son of God (Lk 3:38).I hope that the biblical unitarian position is now completely clarified by reaction to Norelli’s remarks. The issue is childishly easy. If “beget” is allowed its actual meaning as a semantic unit (verifiable in any dictionary), then the Trinitarians lose out! If the Son was brought into existence (begotten) in time and in Mary, the notion of an eternal begetting is nonsense, as some honest Trinitarians admit! (McCleod, The Person of Christ, 131) remarks as a Trinitarian that “it is far from clear what content, if any, we can impart to the concept of eternal begetting.” Meaningless ideas are useless and should be banished.At least the positions are utterly clear now. I myself believe that words, especially the words of Holy Scripture, have definable meanings and cannot be twisted out of meaning in support of a strange philosophy.Norelli’s method would spell the end of revelation since no one would know what God means.Luke 1:35 speaks of time and place and explains that “Son of God” for Jesus is the designation appropriate for him because of the Father’s begetting miracle in Mary.What a lot of wasted, waffly words would be spared if people chose to believe Scripture!Anthony.