Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy
ALL 'gospel presentations' are provisional approximations. I spoke of the comparison because a couple of people had suggested a joint invitation to our next annual conference. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 04, 2004 16:45 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy I guess its all in the eye of the beholder. Willard seems to espouse a gospel that includes the belief that what you DO actually matters, and that there are present and eternal consequences for sin (a word he actually believes in). That does not sound like Kruger to me. Tell me what commonalities you see between them please. Thanks, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:24 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy What I'm about to say is no joke. I had breakfast with seven people Monday, each of whom had read Willard. They compared 'the Willard gospel' to the 'Kruger gospel'. I believe that to be a fair and accurate comparison. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 04, 2004 16:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Lance, Now that you have inserted yourself into my question to Jonathan, insulted and shouted at me, I would appreciate an answer from Jonathan. I did not post a caricature of you. I simply asked a straightforward question. For some reason it has caused quite a reaction from you. In Willards description of The Gospel on the Left I find an amazing similarity to the gospel embraced by you, Jonathan, and John. I would like to know how you see yourself differently. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Iff what I said was so then, NO INSULT. I've read everything Willard has written. NO I don't see your charicature of myself or of Jonathan in Divine Conspiracy. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 04, 2004 15:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Lance, Please be more specific, as many of your posts is a bit vague. Please clarify how my post was imprecatiing. I had a real theological question (do you see yourself when the author describes Leftist theology?), and for an answer I am insulted. I was hoping for an honest answer to my question instead. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:37 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Why is it that so many of your posts read like imprecatory Psalms? Sadly, I'm aware of just how serious, and certain, you are. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 04, 2004 14:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy I am VERY serious. How about yourself, Lance? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:30 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Now cut that out (Rochester implied)!!! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 04, 2004 12:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Jonathan, Have you read The Divine Conspiracy? If so, did you recognize yourself in his explanation of the theology of the Left? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:07 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspirac
[TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You have a spirit within you and it has been formed. This is true of everyone. The human spirit is an inescapable fundamental aspect of every human being; and it takes on whichever character it has from the experiences and the choices that we have lived through or made in our past. That is what it means for it to be 'formed'. Our life and how we find the world now and in the future is, almost totally, a simple result of what we have become in the depths of our being--in our spirit, will, or heart. From there we see our world and interpret reality. From there we make our choices, break forth into action, try to change our world. We live from our depths--most of which we do not understand. "Do you mean," some will say, "that the individual and collective disasters that fill the human scene are not imposed upon us from without? That they do not just happen to us?" Yes. That is what I mean. In today's world, famine, war, and epidemic are almost totally the outcome of human choices, which are expressions of the human spirit. Though various qualifications and explanations are appropriate, that is in general true. Individual disasters, too, very largely follow upon human choices, our own or those of others. And whether or not they do in a particular case, the situations in which we find ourselves are never as important as our responses to them, which come from our 'spiritual' side. A carefully cultivated heart will, assisted by the Grace of God, foresse, forestall, or transform most of the painful situations before which others stand like helpless children saying "Why?" Accordingly, the greatest need you and I have--the greatest need of collective humanity--is renovation of our heart. That spiritual place within us from which outlook, choices, and actions come has been formed by a world away from God. Now it must be transformed.
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's theology presented only is personal letters --- a style of presentation not found in First Testament scripture. Why is it not systematic in nature? Let me offer a scientific wild guess, brother John. Paul had no idea that he was writing for the ages, or that his words would be seen as Holy scripture. He was expecting the Lord's return at any moment, and was simply writing to educate and encourage small groups and individuals, in most cases, to keep the faith until that glorious day. And why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of His earthly and present ministry."Seems reasonable to expect such wording. Not there at all. == Again, with the SWG. Matthew presented Jesus as king of kings. John presented Him as God in the flesh. Their feelings for Jesus, along with all the others, were not only of admiration or respect. They worshipped Him. They lived for Him and they died for Him, and they represented Him. He was in them and they were in Him. He was their authority, and it showed. Some things are so obvious that they need no comment. You have no doubt that they were faithful to what Christ taught despite their lack of testimony to that fact. How much more those who were there and could observe instead of reading? Thems my thots on this crisp cool morning. Terry John --- bounding about in the wilderness of thought and wonderment. -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy
Please translate into American English. Iz ALL 'gospel presentations' are provisional approximations.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy
Semper Reformanda (Latin English) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 08:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Please translate into American English. Iz ALL 'gospel presentations' are provisional approximations.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy
Thanks for nothing. Some gospel presentations are crisply clear. Try “Repent and be baptized.” Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Semper Reformanda (Latin English) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 08:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy Please translate into American English. Iz ALL 'gospel presentations' are provisional approximations.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Lance shares: 'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You have a spirit within you and it has been formed. This is true of everyone. The human spirit is an inescapable fundamental aspect of every human being; and it takes on whichever character it has from the experiences and the choices that we have lived through or made in our past. That is what it means for it to be 'formed'. Our life and how we find the world now and in the future is, almost totally, a simple result of what we have become in the depths of our being--in our spirit, will, or heart. From there we see our world and interpret reality. From there we make our choices, break forth into action, try to change our world. We live from our depths--most of which we do not understand. "Do you mean," some will say, "that the individual and collective disasters that fill the human scene are not imposed upon us from without? That they do not just happen to us?" Yes. That is what I mean. In today's world, famine, war, and epidemic are almost totally the outcome of human choices, which are expressions of the human spirit. Though various qualifications and explanations are appropriate, that is in general true. Individual disasters, too, very largely follow upon human choices, our own or those of others. And whether or not they do in a particular case, the situations in which we find ourselves are never as important as our responses to them, which come from our 'spiritual' side. A carefully cultivated heart will, assisted by the Grace of God, foresse, forestall, or transform most of the painful situations before which others stand like helpless children saying "Why?" Accordingly, the greatest need you and I have--the greatest need of collective humanity--is renovation of our heart. That spiritual place within us from which outlook, choices, and actions come has been formed by a world away from God. Now it must be transformed. John remarks: Profoundly true and profoundly written. What is included in this inwardness we call the "heart?" -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's theology presented only is personal letters --- a style of presentation not found in First Testament scripture. Why is it not systematic in nature? Terry responds: Let me offer a scientific wild guess, brother John. Paul had no idea that he was writing for the ages, or that his words would be seen as Holy scripture. He was expecting the Lord's return at any moment, and was simply writing to educate and encourage small groups and individuals, in most cases, to keep the faith until that glorious day. John continues: And why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of His earthly and present ministry."Seems reasonable to expect such wording. Not there at all. == Again, with the SWG. Matthew presented Jesus as king of kings. John presented Him as God in the flesh. Their feelings for Jesus, along with all the others, were not only of admiration or respect. They worshipped Him. They lived for Him and they died for Him, and they represented Him. He was in them and they were in Him. He was their authority, and it showed. Some things are so obvious that they need no comment. You have no doubt that they were faithful to what Christ taught despite their lack of testimony to that fact. How much more those who were there and could observe instead of reading? Thems my thots on this crisp cool morning. Terry John Askes: What is SWG. Helpful post, Terry. Thanks. -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual “joking around” in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority.” He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If each person involved had been walking in an attitude of submission to God’s Word, instead of walking casually in the ways of the world, it would have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people. If we saw God’s commandments against sin as real daily helps to protect us from the immediate and eternal penalties of sin we could never write philosophies about “the human spirit being formed” etc, without including sin’s effect as the most important aspect. Do you see my point of view? Or are you going to cling doggedly to the opinion that I am hopelessly in bondage to old fashioned ideas? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus 'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You have a spirit within you and it has been formed. This is true of everyone. The human spirit is an inescapable fundamental aspect of every human being; and it takes on whichever character it has from the experiences and the choices that we have lived through or made in our past. That is what it means for it to be 'formed'. Our life and how we find the world now and in the future is, almost totally, a simple result of what we have become in the depths of our being--in our spirit, will, or heart. From there we see our world and interpret reality. From there we make our choices, break forth into action, try to change our world. We live from our depths--most of which we do not understand. "Do you mean," some will say, "that the individual and collective disasters that fill the human scene are not imposed upon us from without? That they do not just happen to us?" Yes. That is what I mean. In today's world, famine, war, and epidemic are almost totally the outcome of human choices, which are expressions of the human spirit. Though various qualifications and explanations are appropriate, that is in general true. Individual disasters, too, very largely follow upon human choices, our own or those of others. And whether or not they do in a particular case, the situations in which we find ourselves are never as important as our responses to them, which come from our 'spiritual' side. A carefully cultivated heart will, assisted by the Grace of God, foresse, forestall, or transform most of the painful situations before which others stand like helpless children saying "Why?" Accordingly, the greatest need you and I have--the greatest need of collective humanity--is renovation of our heart. That spiritual place within us from which outlook, choices, and actions come has been formed by a world away from God. Now it must be transformed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Divine Conspiracy
David wrote: What I think is necessary for effective dialogue is to say what you mean. John wrote: No you don't. You believe that there are rules of communication that go beyond simply "saying what you mean." I would agree that there are methods of communication that go beyond "saying what you mean," but a person who cannot be a standup guy and say what he means is... well... a weasel. I don't have a whole lot of respect for that. I think at the root of all good communication is knowing what you believe and being able to say what you mean. Often we will try and dish it out in a way that is acceptable, but not being able to say what we mean is a serious character flaw, in my opinion. John wrote: Or do you believe in insults, rude assertions and the like? Of course not. Au contraire. If such were good enough for Jesus, then they are good enough for me. You seem to forget that Christ and the apostles were not well received by others. They were persecuted and almost all were ultimately killed. Surely you are not going to contend that nobody was ever offended by them. Surely you do not believe that their communication skills were honed in such a way that most people loved everything they said. John wrote: So there is more to communication than just saying what you mean. Ok, I agree there is more, but saying what you mean is a necessary component. Without it, confusion results. Why do you think most conservatives considered Kerry to be a "flip-flopper" and communication deteriorated into both sides accusing the other side of lying? John wrote: When I communicate, I am hopeful that my speech or written post will actually have a positive effect. So do I, but that positive effect is not judged by whether or not the person falls in love with me. It is judged by God alone. The person might end up hating my guts, and yet a positive effect can result from it. John wrote: I know that this will not happen if I am hostile or aggressive with those who are my audience. I disagree. John wrote: Point one, of communication, is the hope that others will come to agree with you. I disagree. Even an insult will sometimes cause a person to begin to think, to question deeply held premises. That would be a good goal of communication also. John wrote: Not going to happen if the others think you are insulting them. I do not believe that anyone should aim at insulting others, but Jesus and the apostles sometimes did insult / offend others, and this in itself was an effective form of communication. When I preach to sinners, they are often offended. If I tell them to repent, that means they are not living right. Most of them will feel insulted by the message of repentance. Nevertheless, many of them cannot walk away from my preaching even when they do feel insulted. They are captivated, because deep down, they know I am speaking the truth, and the Holy Spirit is working on their heart. They might be aggravated, even angry that a man like me thinks he has the right to stand on a street corner and tell him that he needs to repent of his sins and get right with God, but the communication is happening. They are starting to think about God. They are wrangling with issues of spirituality and right and wrong. I may have upset what they thought was a peaceful and tranquil life of happiness, but I consider the overall effect to be positive because it is moving them toward dealing with God and God's Holy Word. John wrote: Point two: you say what others THINK you say. If you are insulting according to (i.e.) Jonathan, then you are insulting. Your intentions have nothing to do with it. Here is another place where you need to say what you mean. Why are you dwelling on the topic of "insults" now? Has anyone insulted another here? Has Jonathan insulted me or have I insulted Jonathan? Have I insulted you? I'm not sure that I would agree that intentions have NOTHING to do with it, but I would agree that we have to look at the effect of a communication effort and not just at the motivations and intentions. In other words, you might be overstating your case here. John wrote: Your wife tells you, in tears, that you have insulted her. You respond by saying that such was not your intention, that she should not be so sensitive --- that you have no plans for saying things differently. Try that for a couple of years and you will find yourself sleeping along -- with no one to insult. I agree that if my wife came to me in tears feeling insulted by something that I said or did, I would not go on defending myself. I would comfort her and try to help her emotionally. I would rather lose an argument temporarily and win the heart of my wife. But I find myself scratching my head for why you are talking this way. Who on this list has responded this way? Why bring up such a hypothetical situation? Please try and say what you mean. If you think I insulted Jonathan by saying that
RE: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
-Original Message- Terry responds: Let me offer a scientific wild guess, brother John. John Askes: What is SWG. Helpful post, Terry. Thanks.
[TruthTalk] A warm fuzzy
Okay, I’m just a gal who is too much into warm and fuzzies this morning, perhaps. But I’m sitting here (after hosting two big parties for my husband’s Department this week, one last night) on a chilly morning with the sun peeking through the window over the computer, in my robe, sipping a cup of java, and thinking how very much I am blessed by TruthTalk. More importantly, I am thinking how very much I love each and every one of you on TT!!! I thank God for each of you. Keep on keeping on. …now back to the squabbles!!! Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's theology presented only in personal letters --- a style of presentation not found in First Testament scripture. Why is it not systematic in nature? jt: Paul didn't write a rule book. His epistles/letters were for the express purpose of helping and encouraging the groups he helped to found. Jesus' teaching can all be found in the OT and he did not present it in a systematic way during his earthly ministry either. (We've been too brainwashed by the Greeks (Lance & Jonathan should like that :) John: And -why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of His earthly and present ministry." Seems reasonable to expect such wording. Not there at all. jt: No because those following Him are expected to "hear His voice" the way Peter heard the voice of the Father in Matthew 16:16. The RCC have made this out to be such a big mystery and proclaimed Peter the first Pope opver it, but Popery is extra Biblical and Peter's revelation is supposed to be normal Kingdom living.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, Im glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and its effect on the human spirit. We are formed in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sintoday, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their truth misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I cant go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual joking around in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority. He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If each person involved had been walking in an attitude of submission to Gods Word, instead of walking casually in the ways of the world, it would have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people. If we saw Gods commandments against sin as real daily helps to protect us from the immediate and eternal penalties of sin we could never write philosophies about the human spirit being formed etc, without including sins effect as the most important aspect. Do you see my point of view? Or are you going to cling doggedly to the opinion that I am hopelessly in bondage to old fashioned ideas? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus 'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You have a spirit within you and it has been formed. This is true of everyone. The human spirit is an inescapable fundamental aspect of every human being; and it takes on whichever character it has from the experiences and the choices that we have lived through or made in our past. That is what it means for it to be 'formed'. Our life and how we find the world now and in the future is, almost totally, a simple result of what we have become in the depths of our being--in our spirit, will, or heart. From there we see our world and interpret reality. From there we make our choices, break forth into action, try to change our world. We live from our depths--most of which we do not understand. "Do you mean," some will say, "that the individual and collective disasters that fill the human scene are not imposed upon us from without? That they do not just happen to us?" Yes. That is what I mean. In today's world, famine, war, and epidemic are almost totally the outcome of human choices, which are expressions of the human spirit. Though various qualifications and explanations are appropriate, that is in general true. Individual disasters, too, very largely follow upon human choices, our own or those of others. And whether or not they do in a particular case, the situations in which we find ourselves are never as important as our responses to them, which come from our 'spiritual' side. A carefully cultivated heart will, assisted by the Grace of God, foresse, forestall, or transform most
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, Im glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and its effect on the human spirit. We are formed in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sintoday, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their truth misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I cant go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual joking around in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority. He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If each person involved had been walking in an attitude of submission to Gods Word, instead of walking casually in the ways of the world, it would have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people. If we saw Gods commandments against sin as real daily helps to protect us from the immediate and eternal penalties of sin we could never write philosophies about the human spirit being formed etc, without including sins effect as the most important aspect. Do you see my point of view? Or are you going to cling doggedly to the opinion that I am hopelessly in bondage to old fashioned ideas? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus 'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You have a spirit within you and it has been formed. This is true of everyone. The human spirit is an inescapable fundamental aspect of every human being; and it takes on whichever character it has from the experiences and the choices that we have lived through or made in our past. That is what it means for it to be 'formed'. Our life and how we find the world now and in the future is, almost totally, a simple result of what we have become in the depths of our being--in our spirit, will, or heart. From there we see our world and interpret reality. From there we make our choices, break forth into action, try to change our world. We live from our depths--most of which we do not understand. "Do you mean," some will say, "that the individual and collective disasters that fill the human scene are not imposed upon us from without? That they do not just happen to us?" Yes. That is what I mean. In today's world, fam
Re: [TruthTalk] A warm fuzzy
Okay, Iâm just a gal who is too much into warm and fuzzies this morning, perhaps. But Iâm sitting here (after hosting two big parties for my husbandâs Department this week, one last night) on a chilly morning with the sun peeking through the window over the computer, in my robe, sipping a cup of java, and thinking how very much I am blessed by TruthTalk. More importantly, I am thinking how very much I love each and every one of you on TT!!! I thank God for each of you. Keep on keeping on. ânow back to the squabbles!!! Izzy YOU MADE MY WEEK. ABSOLUTELY THE BEST POST I HAVE SEEN ON TT IN A LONG TIME. aNOTHER DAY WITH A SMILE. jd -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual “joking around” in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority.” He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If each person involved had been walking in an attitude of submission to God’s Word, instead of walking casually in the ways of the world, it would have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people. If we saw God’s commandments against sin as real daily helps to protect us from the immediate and eternal penalties of sin we could never write philosophies about “the human spirit being formed” etc, without including sin’s effect as the most important aspect. Do you see my point of view? Or are you going to cling doggedly to the opinion that I am hopelessly in bondage to old fashioned ideas? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus 'Watch over your hearts with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life.' Proverbs 4:23 We live from our heart. The part of us that drives and organizes our life is not the physical. This remains true even if we deny it. You h
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Lance, I have fallen into your trap of course. J If taken out of context you can make anyone look like they are saying something they aren’t. But if you include Willard’s other comments in context you will find that he does not have a sin-blind philosophy, which is why I like him so much. (And actually the part you quoted was one big section that I have absolutely no yellow highlights in because I found it boring and pretty much slept through it. The rest is highlighted heavily.) In contrasting the two extremes of Christianity, the Left (which has a gospel of only social action to cure the ills of the world, and does not include the effects of personal accountability regarding actually obeying God’s commandments) and the one on the extreme Right “Once saved always saved; what you DO in regards to personal sin has no consequences as long as you just believe the right beliefs you will get into heaven”), he states: “,,,the resources of God’s kingdom remain detached from human life. There is no gospel for human life and Christian discipleship, just one for death and one for social action. The souls of human beings are left to shrivel and die on the plains of life because they are not introduced into the environment for which they were made, the living kingdom of eternal life. To counteract this we must develop a straightforward presentation, in word and life, of the reality of life now under God’s rule, through reliance upon the word and person of Jesus. In this way we can naturally become his students or apprentices. We can learn from him how to live our lives as he would live them if he were we. We can enter his eternal kind of life now. .. Does what we have discussed not make it clear that serious difficulties currently bar people of good intent from an effectual understanding of Jesus’ gospel for life and discipleship in his kingdom? Regarding “integration of life and faith” he writes: “We should not be surprised then that while those to the left claimed to regard Jesus’ ethical teaching highly, the ethic they ascribed to him turns out upon examination to be derived from the reflections of philosophers such as Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Marx…. The Modernists, no more than the conservatives, were about to accept as actually binding upon themselves the plain teaching of the Gospels as we have them. This remarkable reticence extends even to the Ten Commandments and to all specific moral directives of the Judeao-Christian heritage.” Must I point out that this is one of the places where I identified the Krugerites among us who distain “morality” and actually obeying God’s commandments as being “bondage”??? Let’s discuss him more, if you like. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Jon my man, please don’t over-idealize Lance. He is one waskally wabbit! J And Judy is no more quick to judgment than some others on TT in my estimation. You comment about Willard is accurate I think—as I said I really enjoy philosophy when it is truly Christ-centered. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual “joking around” in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority.” He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If each person involved had been walking in an attitude of submission to God’s Word, instead of walking casually in the ways of the world, it would have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people. If we saw God’s commandments against sin as real daily helps to protect us from the immediate and eternal penalties of sin we could never write philosophies about “the human spirit being formed” etc, without including sin’s effect as the most important aspect. Do you see my point of view? Or are you going to cling doggedly to the opinion that I am hopelessly in bondage to old fashioned ideas? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus 'Watch over your hearts with all dili
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
Good questions, John. I hope my comments will help you reflect upon some proper answers to your query. John wrote: Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's theology presented only is personal letters --- a style of presentation not found in First Testament scripture. I think the primary answer to this lies in the admonition of Jesus to his disciples, that they teach all nations (Mat. 28:19). These letters are an expression of that teaching and shepherding ministry. We get a look into the example of his life through these letters. Unlike the Hebrew prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament apostles and prophets were heralds of Christ's life changing message. They were not just delivering a message. They were changing lives. Also, they were not just teaching, but shepherding the people. Most of this was done directly, vocally, but Paul's education was such that he gave himself also to writing, which was God's plan so that we would benefit from what he wrote. John wrote: Why is it not systematic in nature? None of the Scriptures were systematic. Modern Theologians try to be systematic, but all they are doing is studying and analyzing those who appear to have successfully accomplished God's will. In Jesus day, they did this too. That's what the scribes were. But ultimately, the ones who "get it" are not the scholars (although their analysis is helpful), but rather those who actually do the will of God. We need to accept that God's will is to present his message in ambiguous terms, in a mystery, so that only those who actually do his will and receive his Spirit will know his doctrine (and I use "know" in its experiential sense). The fact that Jesus always spoke in parables and not openly is one testimony to this understanding. And Paul said he only spoke the wisdom of God among those who are perfect. John wrote: And why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of His earthly and present ministry."Seems reasonable to expect such wording. Not there at all. Actually, you are overstating the case a little when you say, "not there at all." For example, Paul said, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..." (1 Cor. 11:23). He then goes on to quote Jesus, "take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you" etc. Paul also quotes the words of Jesus when relating his vision that he received on the road to Damascus (e.g., Acts 22, 26). In Acts 23:11, Luke reports words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Paul. In Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus in his argumentation to the elders of the church of Ephesus, "it is more blessed to give than to receive." And we could continue with more. I think what you are recognizing here is that Paul and others incorporated the teachings of Christ into their lives, so that what they said and did were in fact the same as what the Lord did. Rather than being like the scribes and scholars of their day who reported second hand what was true and right, they lived it and represented it in person. They themselves became first hand testimony to the Word of God. God's desire is that we know the Living Word more than the Written Word. Relationship rather than head knowledge is what is important to God, and the lack of a systematic Bible and crystal clear instructions put men into a position to have to embrace the Living Word or be stuck with debatable theories and disagreements concerning the knowledge of God. 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Lance and I talk 2 to 3 times a day. I believe I can fairly state what he was thinking when he posted that quote to you. However, he is a rascally wabbit. Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. Now I am a big judger but I do not claim that I do not judge others. I am a sinner. I judge others. I do not however add to my sin by saying that I am not the judger of other people's hearts. Every post comes through a filter of what I already think of the poster. Every now and again Christ breaks through my stubborn heart and allows me to see that person for who they really are in Him. Now lets be honest: that does not happen too often. It is a daily struggle for me. All of us have a different perspective on our own posts than what others see. When we hit the send button we are usually happy with what we have written, our conscience's clean. Then the first response comes in. The responder didn't see what we were trying to say and even seems to have picked up on a tone that we were not aware was present in our emails. We deny that this tone is present. When the next response also highlights this tone we get even more defensive. As time goes on we then read that tone into each other's email. Let me give a quick example. Sometimes you (Izzy) write some pretty catty emails whose tone to me comes across as quite angry and disrespectful. When I have pointed this out in the past you have often written back that when you wrote those posts you had a smile on your face. Now we have a disconnect. The way you viewed yours posts is far different than the way I the responder viewed them. I believe that you may not have picked up the frustration and anger in your own posts while I may not have picked up the playfulness in yours. Another example. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. To sum up, we are all guilty of misreading other people's posts. We all need to attempt to respect others even when we disagree. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:43 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jon my man, please don’t over-idealize Lance. He is one waskally wabbit! J And Judy is no more quick to judgment than some others on TT in my estimation. You comment about Willard is accurate I think—as I said I really enjoy philosophy when it is truly Christ-centered. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
As it was a rather long quote I would claim that it was not taken out of context. However it raises an important point for the members of TruthTalk. We are all, including me, guilty of taking each post on TruthTalk as a summation of that person's gospel. In reality it is but a small portion of what that person believes. We take that incredibly small portion, blow it up to include all that it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and judge that person's salvation based upon this fragment alone. For example if in a 150 word discussion on salvation I do not mention the word 'sin' I am immediately jumped on for missing something vital to a description of salvation. All of us have our pet ways of describing what happened in the person of Jesus Christ. We give primacy to certain aspects while leaving others to be secondary. I will always give primacy to Christ himself, leaving our response to be secondary. Others will give primacy to the conditions of the gospel leaving Christ secondary. To sum up what I am trying to say as it seems to be getting away from me (as in it sounds right in my head but is not being transferred through the keyboard in such a clear manner) - Kruger spends a lot of time on sin. However due to the primacy he gives Christ sin is often in the background. Other theologies begin with sin and end up with Jesus. By taking a passage by Kruger on a certain topic one could say that he is sin-blind. Taking the totality of his thought you would come to a completely different conclusion. For Kruger to be sin-blind we would also have to say that Christ was sin-blind. We know this to be false. It is tempting to see a quote and immediately state that the person is preaching a false gospel. This has been a good example for all of us. Willard does not teach a false gospel. Taking a fragment of his thought and judging his entire philosophy upon it is a poor way of respecting that person. Now if only I would learn this lesson. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I have fallen into your trap of course. J If taken out of context you can make anyone look like they are saying something they aren’t. But if you include Willard’s other comments in context you will find that he does not have a sin-blind philosophy, which is why I like him so much. (And actually the part you quoted was one big section that I have absolutely no yellow highlights in because I found it boring and pretty much slept through it. The rest is highlighted heavily.) In contrasting the two extremes of Christianity, the Left (which has a gospel of only social action to cure the ills of the world, and does not include the effects of personal accountability regarding actually obeying God’s commandments) and the one on the extreme Right “Once saved always saved; what you DO in regards to personal sin has no consequences as long as you just believe the right beliefs you will get into heaven”), he states: “,,,the resources of God’s kingdom remain detached from human life. There is no gospel for human life and Christian discipleship, just one for death and one for social action. The souls of human beings are left to shrivel and die on the plains of life because they are not introduced into the environment for which they were made, the living kingdom of eternal life. To counteract this we must develop a straightforward presentation, in word and life, of the reality of life now under God’s rule, through reliance upon the word and person of Jesus. In this way we can naturally become his students or apprentices. We can learn from him how to live our lives as he would live them if he were we. We can enter his eternal kind of life now. .. Does what we have discussed not make it clear that serious difficulties currently bar people of good intent from an effectual understanding of Jesus’ gospel for life and discipleship in his kingdom? Regarding “integration of life and faith” he writes: “We should not be surprised then that while those to the left claimed to regard Jesus’ ethical teaching highly, the ethic they ascribed to him turns out upon examination to be derived from the reflections of philosophers such as Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Marx…. The Modernists, no more than the conservatives, were about to accept as actually binding upon themselves the plain teaching of the Gospels as we have them. This remarkable reticence extends even to the Ten Commandments and to all specific moral directives of the Judeao-Christian heritage.” Must I point out that this is one of the places where I identified the Krugerites among us who distain “morality” and actually obeying God’s commandments as being “bondage”??? Let’s discuss him more, if you like. Iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Oh one other thing. I have read 'In Search of Guidance' and 'Spirit of the Disciplines.' I have not read 'The Divine Conspiracy.' I have dipped into it before but not been through it completely. I began it last night. I will update you on the Gospel of the Right versus the Gospel on the Left in the upcoming weeks. I did skim the related passages (pg. 40-55) but I will attempt to be more thorough before I respond. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:43 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jon my man, please don’t over-idealize Lance. He is one waskally wabbit! J And Judy is no more quick to judgment than some others on TT in my estimation. You comment about Willard is accurate I think—as I said I really enjoy philosophy when it is truly Christ-centered. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual “joking around” in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority.” He thought about it and and he agreed that this was very true. If
RE: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
Wow. Another keeper, David. Iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD Good questions, John. I hope my comments will help you reflect upon some proper answers to your query. John wrote: > Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's > theology presented only is personal letters --- a style of > presentation not found in First Testament scripture. I think the primary answer to this lies in the admonition of Jesus to his disciples, that they teach all nations (Mat. 28:19). These letters are an expression of that teaching and shepherding ministry. We get a look into the example of his life through these letters. Unlike the Hebrew prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament apostles and prophets were heralds of Christ's life changing message. They were not just delivering a message. They were changing lives. Also, they were not just teaching, but shepherding the people. Most of this was done directly, vocally, but Paul's education was such that he gave himself also to writing, which was God's plan so that we would benefit from what he wrote. John wrote: > Why is it not systematic in nature? None of the Scriptures were systematic. Modern Theologians try to be systematic, but all they are doing is studying and analyzing those who appear to have successfully accomplished God's will. In Jesus day, they did this too. That's what the scribes were. But ultimately, the ones who "get it" are not the scholars (although their analysis is helpful), but rather those who actually do the will of God. We need to accept that God's will is to present his message in ambiguous terms, in a mystery, so that only those who actually do his will and receive his Spirit will know his doctrine (and I use "know" in its experiential sense). The fact that Jesus always spoke in parables and not openly is one testimony to this understanding. And Paul said he only spoke the wisdom of God among those who are perfect. John wrote: > And why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his > individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find > something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented > to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the > author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of > His earthly and present ministry."Seems reasonable to expect > such wording. Not there at all. Actually, you are overstating the case a little when you say, "not there at all." For example, Paul said, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..." (1 Cor. 11:23). He then goes on to quote Jesus, "take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you" etc. Paul also quotes the words of Jesus when relating his vision that he received on the road to Damascus (e.g., Acts 22, 26). In Acts 23:11, Luke reports words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Paul. In Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus in his argumentation to the elders of the church of Ephesus, "it is more blessed to give than to receive." And we could continue with more. I think what you are recognizing here is that Paul and others incorporated the teachings of Christ into their lives, so that what they said and did were in fact the same as what the Lord did. Rather than being like the scribes and scholars of their day who reported second hand what was true and right, they lived it and represented it in person. They themselves became first hand testimony to the Word of God. God's desire is that we know the Living Word more than the Written Word. Relationship rather than head knowledge is what is important to God, and the lack of a systematic Bible and crystal clear instructions put men into a position to have to embrace the Living Word or be stuck with debatable theories and disagreements concerning the knowledge of God. 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. -- "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.
[TruthTalk] The Gospel
What did Jesus and the apostles actually preach when they preached the gospel? We have to understand their culture a little and the audience to whom they spoke to fully understand their message and what part they emphasized. Their audience was primarily those under law, those who understood well what God's requirements were in regards to holiness. They understood, for the most part, how far short of the law they came. When we see the Jews of Christ's day as men who knew they fell short of God's law, but they had a mindset that they needed to try and keep it the best they could anyway, much of the New Testament takes on a different flavor. Jesus expounded the following to his apostles after his resurrection: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47) I think this passage captures much of what the gospel is all about. In other places, he calls it, "the gospel of the kingdom" (e.g., Mark 1:14, Mat. 24:14, Mat. 9:35, Mat. 4:23, Acts 28:31). To understand the kingdom of God, one needs to understand the idea of the reign of Christ. How does Christ reign? He reigns in our heart, but how? The first message we must receive of the gospel is repentance. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:14-15) Two direct admonitions are given here: 1) repent, 2) believe the gospel. Modern Christianity loves to emphasize a part of the "believe" aspect, but many omit repentance altogether from their message. Grace is emphasized, and they delight to say that all sins are forgiven, but the idea of "repentance" is almost universally ignored. One reason for this is philosophical. Many fear that preaching repentance puts too much emphasis on works, and so they think that the preaching of repentance actually detracts from the gospel message! However, there is another reason at play here that might not be so obvious to many. I believe that the aspect of repentance is ignored because preaching repentance is the part that invariably brings persecution against the Christian. Everyone likes to hear that God loves them and that their sins are forgiven. Few like to hear that they need to repent because Christ wants to reign in their heart. When you tell someone who wants to keep on sinning that they are destroying society and that they need to repent, they become angry and want to hit you. A wise man who is willing to submit his life to Christ will love you for it, but most people in this world are not wise. They will literally hate you and attack you for carrying this message. I would challenge everyone in this forum to consider that the foundation of the gospel message, the foremost instruction, is repent. I say this not because of philosophy or theology, but because it is plainly stated in Scripture in many places. It seems to be always mentioned first. Secondary to this admonition to repent is added the promise of the remission of their sins. The concept of the gospel message is that the time of God's kingdom is at hand and may be entered into by all those who make themselves ready for it through repenting of their sins and believing upon Jesus Christ. Who is worthy of Jesus Christ? Those who have repented and humbled themselves before the Lord. Who is not worthy of Jesus Christ and the remission of sins? Those who refuse to repent and continue to walk with self being their master and Lord. Remember when Simon wanted to buy the power to baptize people in the Holy Ghost? Peter said to him, "You perish with your money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter." These are pretty harsh words to a newly baptized Christian. In other words, Peter told him that he was not worthy of Jesus Christ, and he instructed him to repent of his wickedness and pray, if perhaps he might be able to find forgiveness from God." Although Simon appears contrite at this point in Scripture, and he asks Peter to pray that what Peter had said concerning him not come to pass, church history tells us that Simon became a great enemy of the gospel, going into towns where he knew Peter was going, attempting to disrupt the work of God in every way that he could. The idea that some people are worthy of the gospel and some people are not should not be foreign to us. The idea that everyone is a worm in God's sight and that none of us are better than the other defies reality. It is based upon a grain of truth, that we are all sinners and need Christ, but it goes into the realm of deception when it does not consider that those who repent and believe in Christ truly are transformed and enter a new kingdom, the kingdom of God, where righteousness rules. When it ignores that the people of the way of Christ are bless
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Good points, Jonathan, and I agree. However I do not agree that we should not judge. We should “judge with righteous judgment”. (John 7:24) Then it is without sin. Izzy PS Please note that Lance intentionally deceived me with his post by mis-identifying the origin of the writing (in the Subject line.) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance and I talk 2 to 3 times a day. I believe I can fairly state what he was thinking when he posted that quote to you. However, he is a rascally wabbit. Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. Now I am a big judger but I do not claim that I do not judge others. I am a sinner. I judge others. I do not however add to my sin by saying that I am not the judger of other people's hearts. Every post comes through a filter of what I already think of the poster. Every now and again Christ breaks through my stubborn heart and allows me to see that person for who they really are in Him. Now lets be honest: that does not happen too often. It is a daily struggle for me. All of us have a different perspective on our own posts than what others see. When we hit the send button we are usually happy with what we have written, our conscience's clean. Then the first response comes in. The responder didn't see what we were trying to say and even seems to have picked up on a tone that we were not aware was present in our emails. We deny that this tone is present. When the next response also highlights this tone we get even more defensive. As time goes on we then read that tone into each other's email. Let me give a quick example. Sometimes you (Izzy) write some pretty catty emails whose tone to me comes across as quite angry and disrespectful. When I have pointed this out in the past you have often written back that when you wrote those posts you had a smile on your face. Now we have a disconnect. The way you viewed yours posts is far different than the way I the responder viewed them. I believe that you may not have picked up the frustration and anger in your own posts while I may not have picked up the playfulness in yours. Another example. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. To sum up, we are all guilty of misreading other people's posts. We all need to attempt to respect others even when we disagree. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jon my man, please don’t over-idealize Lance. He is one waskally wabbit! J And Judy is no more quick to judgment than some others on TT in my estimation. You comment about Willard is accurate I think—as I said I really enjoy philosophy when it is truly Christ-centered. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complet
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
I have to leave to take my Dad out for the day, so don’t mean to keep others from responding by responding so quickly. However I must say that all of us have had ample time to explain our “gospel”, and we have a pretty good idea of who puts importance on sin, morality, etc., and who doesn’t. As for Kruger, as I stated I read his entire book expectantly looking for good stuff, but came away sadly disappointed to find a sin-less, cross-less gospel. That’s why I am delighted with Willard—all the pieces appear to be present, not just a lopsided gospel. Presenting a part of Willard’s viewpoint and leaving out the part that I would look for the most is presenting him out of context. I try to keep in mind that God has a place for each of us to grow and learn at whatever point we are in our walk towards Him. Apparently Kruger fills a need for some of you, and hopefully this will propel you forwards and not backwards. I hope it leads you on to a fuller gospel that does not eclipse the importance of our Actions with the importance of relationship/community. We really do NOT have a relationship with Christ if we do not Obey Him. (Need I quote scriptures to prove the point?) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus As it was a rather long quote I would claim that it was not taken out of context. However it raises an important point for the members of TruthTalk. We are all, including me, guilty of taking each post on TruthTalk as a summation of that person's gospel. In reality it is but a small portion of what that person believes. We take that incredibly small portion, blow it up to include all that it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and judge that person's salvation based upon this fragment alone. For example if in a 150 word discussion on salvation I do not mention the word 'sin' I am immediately jumped on for missing something vital to a description of salvation. All of us have our pet ways of describing what happened in the person of Jesus Christ. We give primacy to certain aspects while leaving others to be secondary. I will always give primacy to Christ himself, leaving our response to be secondary. Others will give primacy to the conditions of the gospel leaving Christ secondary. To sum up what I am trying to say as it seems to be getting away from me (as in it sounds right in my head but is not being transferred through the keyboard in such a clear manner) - Kruger spends a lot of time on sin. However due to the primacy he gives Christ sin is often in the background. Other theologies begin with sin and end up with Jesus. By taking a passage by Kruger on a certain topic one could say that he is sin-blind. Taking the totality of his thought you would come to a completely different conclusion. For Kruger to be sin-blind we would also have to say that Christ was sin-blind. We know this to be false. It is tempting to see a quote and immediately state that the person is preaching a false gospel. This has been a good example for all of us. Willard does not teach a false gospel. Taking a fragment of his thought and judging his entire philosophy upon it is a poor way of respecting that person. Now if only I would learn this lesson. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I have fallen into your trap of course. J If taken out of context you can make anyone look like they are saying something they aren’t. But if you include Willard’s other comments in context you will find that he does not have a sin-blind philosophy, which is why I like him so much. (And actually the part you quoted was one big section that I have absolutely no yellow highlights in because I found it boring and pretty much slept through it. The rest is highlighted heavily.) In contrasting the two extremes of Christianity, the Left (which has a gospel of only social action to cure the ills of the world, and does not include the effects of personal accountability regarding actually obeying God’s commandments) and the one on the extreme Right “Once saved always saved; what you DO in regards to personal sin has no consequences as long as you just believe the right beliefs you will get into heaven”), he states: “,,,the resources of God’s kingdom remain detached from human life. There is no gospel for human life and Christian discipleship, just one for death and one for social action. The souls of human beings are left to shrivel and die on the plains of life because they are not introduced into the environment for which they were made, the living kingdom of eternal life. To counteract this we m
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Cool! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Oh one other thing. I have read 'In Search of Guidance' and 'Spirit of the Disciplines.' I have not read 'The Divine Conspiracy.' I have dipped into it before but not been through it completely. I began it last night. I will update you on the Gospel of the Right versus the Gospel on the Left in the upcoming weeks. I did skim the related passages (pg. 40-55) but I will attempt to be more thorough before I respond. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jon my man, please don’t over-idealize Lance. He is one waskally wabbit! J And Judy is no more quick to judgment than some others on TT in my estimation. You comment about Willard is accurate I think—as I said I really enjoy philosophy when it is truly Christ-centered. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus When Lance posted this he thought that Izzy would jump on it thinking how wonderful it was considering how much she was enjoying one of Willard's other books. There was no intent to bait her at all. In actual fact it was an attempt to meet Izzy on an even ground. Why do you enjoy jumping on Lance so much Judy? You who always claims she does not want to judge another person's heart. You are always accusing us of thinking the worst of people before figuring out what is actually going on but you are the first to do it with others. What a load of garbage. All talk, no walk. Other than the words 'Jesus Christ' any description of the gospel is truncated and incomplete. You must understand that Willard is first and foremost a philosopher, secondly a theologian, and thirdly a spiritual director. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus You're not playing fair Lance. Hopefully Willard would complete this trucated gospel in another part of his book if he is a "true gospel" man. I don't believe philosophy and true spirituality mix but that's me. Lance why do you enjoy this kind of cat and mouse game so much? On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:58:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy says:'This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of true gospel' The source for this 'philosophy void of true gospel' is: 'Renovation of the Heart' -Putting on the Character of Christ' by best-selling author of The Divine Conspiracy-Dallas Willard from pg 13-chapter one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 09:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Lance, I’m glad you shared this with us. This is a good example of what I consider philosophy void of the true gospel. I love philosophy, but not the void part which skews it into error. The words below contain much truth. What they lack is the insight one has on human behavior when viewed through the glasses of sin and it’s effect on the “human spirit”. We are “formed” in sin. The gospel is the good news that we can be set free from that bent in and through Christ. Not just free from the eternal penalty of sin, but free from sin—today, here and now! That is the crucial element that I see is missing from Kruger and other sin-blind philosophers. They mean well, but their “truth” misses the mark like a rock skipped off the surface of a lake; it bounces across the top w/o penetrating the depths. For example, let me tell you about a private conversation between my son and myself. He told me about three recent problems that had occurred at his squadron recently, a couple of which caused career problems for the people involved and one involved deaths. I can’t go into the specifics because of that. But it had left him sad and disappointed to see what seemed like disastrous consequences for seemingly minor infractions. I said, “If you look at each one of those incidences you will see that if the people involved had simply obeyed God none of them would have happened. One involved excessive consumption of alcohol, one involved taking a casual attitude about sexual “joking around” in the office, and one involved disrespect to authority.” He thought about it and and he ag
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
John wrote: > Here are some questions I am considering: Why is Paul's > theology presented only is personal letters --- a style of > presentation not found in First Testament scripture. I think the primary answer to this lies in the admonition of Jesus to his disciples, that they teach all nations (Mat. 28:19). These letters are an expression of that teaching and shepherding ministry. We get a look into the example of his life through these letters. John responds: (capital letters is the only way I can identify my comments -- I AM NOT YELLING. IF THE AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL IS THE LIFE AND EXAMPLE OF THE LIVING CHRIST WITHIN (and I agree fully) -- WHY IS THAT NOT TRUE TODAY? (THINK "VERBAL AND PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT.) AND I AM ASKING ANYONE - NOT JUST DAVID. IT IS APPARENT TO ME THAT OFTEN, HERE ON TT, WE DO NOT GIVE ENOUGH HONOR TO THOSE WHO ARE TRULY SERVING JESUS -- INSISTING THAT WHAT WE THINK IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE attempt TO DO. Unlike the Hebrew prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament apostles and prophets were heralds of Christ's life changing message. They were not just delivering a message. They were changing lives. Also, they were not just teaching, but shepherding the people. Most of this was done directly, vocally, but Paul's education was such that he gave himself also to writing, which was God's plan so that we would benefit from what he wrote. John wrote: > Why is it not systematic in nature? None of the Scriptures were systematic. Modern Theologians try to be systematic, but all they are doing is studying and analyzing those who appear to have successfully accomplished God's will. In Jesus day, they did this too. That's what the scribes were. But ultimately, the ones who "get it" are not the scholars (although their analysis is helpful), but rather those who actually do the will of God. We need to accept that God's will is to present his message in ambiguous terms, in a mystery, so that only those who actually do his will and receive his Spirit will know his doctrine (and I use "know" in its experiential sense). The fact that Jesus always spoke in parables and not openly is one testimony to this understanding. And Paul said he only spoke the wisdom of God among those who are perfect. PAUL BELIEVED THAT WE WERE PERFECTED BY ANOTHER. BUT MORE TO THE POINT OF THIS RATHER UNUSUAL CONCLUSION -- THE BIBLE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS THAN THOSE "INFILLED?" John wrote: > And why does no NT writer quote Jesus in support of his > individual theologies and admonitions. I would expect to find > something to the effect of "Jesus while on this earth, presented > to us the very advice I am giving to you now. It is He who is the > author and finisher of our faith -- my words are only a mirror of > His earthly and present ministry."Seems reasonable to expect > such wording. Not there at all. Actually, you are overstating the case a little when you say, "not there at all." For example, Paul said, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..." (1 Cor. 11:23). He then goes on to quote Jesus, "take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you" etc. Paul also quotes the words of Jesus when relating his vision that he received on the road to Damascus (e.g., Acts 22, 26). In Acts 23:11, Luke reports words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Paul. In Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus in his argumentation to the elders of the church of Ephesus, "it is more blessed to give than to receive." And we could continue with more. SO MY QUESTION WAS WITHOUT MERIT? THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES DID NOT REFER THEIR THEOLOGY TO THE AUTHOR OF THE FAITH IN THE SAME WAY NOR TO THE SAME DEGREE WE MODERN DAY MINISTERS USE THE BIBLICAL TEXT. IS THERE A MESSAGE IN THERE FOR ANYONE AND, IF SO, WHAT IS IT? i DO AGREE THAT ONE'S EXAMPLE AS A TEACHER/EVANGELIST/PREACHER IS CRITICAL. IS THERE MORE TO A CONCLUSIVE ANSWER? I think what you are recognizing here is that Paul and others incorporated the teachings of Christ into their lives, so that what they said and did were in fact the same as what the Lord did. Rather than being like the scribes and scholars of their day who reported second hand what was true and right, they lived it and represented it in person. They themselves became first hand testimony to the Word of God. God's desire is that we know the Living Word more than the Written Word. COULDN'T AGREE MORE - SO WHY THE RANKER WHEN ONE IS SEEN AS MISAPPLYING SCRIPTURE? oNE OF MY FAVORITE THEOLOGIANS IS BONHOFFER AND THE REASON I GIVE HIM SOME ATTENTION IS THAT HE WAS WILLING TO DIE FOR THE LORD AND DIE AS A SSERVANT. Relationship rather than head knowledge is what is important to God, and the lack of a systematic Bible and crystal clear instructions put men into a position to have to embrace the Living Word or
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Jonathan wrote: To sum up, we are all guilty of misreading other people's posts. Amen. Caveat emptor. Jonathan wrote: Taking a fragment of his thought and judging his entire philosophy upon it is a poor way of respecting that person. Amen. It is a poor way of understanding that person. You would have made a great moderator for the list. :-) 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Thank you David. I agree, except for the fact that I often am a bit too much of an ass. Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jonathan wrote: > To sum up, we are all guilty of misreading other people's posts. Amen. Caveat emptor. Jonathan wrote: > Taking a fragment of his thought and judging his entire philosophy > upon it is a poor way of respecting that person. Amen. It is a poor way of understanding that person. You would have made a great moderator for the list. :-) 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. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Jonathan, How does one recognize this Christ that you and Kruger give so much primacy to? How would you describe Him and/or communicate Him to others? judyt On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:27:19 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I will always give primacy to Christ himself, leaving our response to be secondary. Others will give primacy to the conditions of the gospel leaving Christ secondary. Kruger spends a lot of time on sin. However due to the primacy he gives Christ sin is often in the background.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
ROFL!!! Is that why Democrats have chosen such as their symbol? (ONLY KIDDING!!!) Izzy PS I guess that criteria would eliminate more than one of us on TT? :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Thank you David. I agree, except for the fact that I often am a bit too much of an ass. Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus Jonathan wrote: > To sum up, we are all guilty of misreading other people's posts. Amen. Caveat emptor. Jonathan wrote: > Taking a fragment of his thought and judging his entire philosophy > upon it is a poor way of respecting that person. Amen. It is a poor way of understanding that person. You would have made a great moderator for the list. :-) 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. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. -- "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. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:08:53 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. jt: I believe you are referring to me above as the "one"; you lump what you refer to as "judging" all together and apparently don't see any difference between judging a person vs judging their teaching or doctrine. The former is never good for a professing believer and will cause lots of bad reaping .. whereas the latter is what the more honorable amongst us or good Bereans make a practice of doing. There is a difference Jonathan and it saddens me that you are not able to see it. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. jt: You are right about this, I don't look for parodies and you in particular have been offended so often that humor is probably the last thing I would be looking for in one of your messages or one of Bill Taylors. I do see it in John's quite often as it is obvious and most of the time the joke is on him. Humor very often is cultural.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Take care ye that cast aspersions!! Jonathan is from Australia. Wait a sec, I guess you're right about the 'cultural' business. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 05, 2004 17:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:08:53 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. jt: I believe you are referring to me above as the "one"; you lump what you refer to as "judging" all together and apparently don't see any difference between judging a person vs judging their teaching or doctrine. The former is never good for a professing believer and will cause lots of bad reaping .. whereas the latter is what the more honorable amongst us or good Bereans make a practice of doing. There is a difference Jonathan and it saddens me that you are not able to see it. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. jt: You are right about this, I don't look for parodies and you in particular have been offended so often that humor is probably the last thing I would be looking for in one of your messages or one of Bill Taylors. I do see it in John's quite often as it is obvious and most of the time the joke is on him. Humor very often is cultural.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
David Miller writes: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47) I think this passage captures much of what the gospel is all about. In other places, he calls it, "the gospel of the kingdom" (e.g., Mark 1:14, John remarks: I personally believe that Paul in I Cor gives us the definition of the gospel -- the death, burial and proveable resurrection. "Repentance" is something we do, of course and "remission of sins" is something given to us. The rich young ruler was told to give up his possessions. Others were told to leave their families behind, another was told to "sin no more" in regards to sexual sins. Peter on the Pentecost Day told preached repentance and baptism (probably with water). John 3:16ff gives us salvation tied to the New Birth. Paul in Gal. 3:26,27, presents Christ likeness in the light of "immersion into Christ (Himself)." James presents justification in terms of an expression of belief and Peter tells us that baptism, as an act of the conscience, saves through the resurrection (I Pet 3:21). It seems to me that the gospel is the Living Christ, an indwelling force and gift to all. How we appropriate that gift is a personal matter. There is no "plan of salvation) (something Church of Christers and Baptists are raised believing)except that we find ourselves in Christ, literally and spiritually. Sometimes that requires repentance -- sometimes confession, sometimes ---contrition and brokenness and so on. John -- "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.
[TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Izzy wrote: Keep in mind that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? There is a great lesson here about God's attitude toward the world, for while he so loved the whole world that he gave his only begotten son, many rejected his son and this led to God's hatred of them. In like manner, this is what happened with Esau, as an illustration to us of God's attitude toward a profane person. The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the LORD of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever." (Malachi 1:1-4) Esau, by the way, was the father of the Arabs who even today try to return and build up the ruins, but God tears them down. Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. Do you really want a word study of "hate"? I would be glad to post every verse that uses the Greek word for hate in Romans 9:13 and to post some lexicon definitions, if you are really interested. It is not hard for me to do, but I don't want to bore people if they don't really care. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- "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. -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Judy, I’ll admit you’ve got a point here. Humor from the likes of Jonathan does take one off guard. Maybe it’s just Canadian humor that we don’t get. J Iz jt: You are right about this, I don't look for parodies and you in particular have been offended so often that humor is probably the last thing I would be looking for in one of your messages or one of Bill Taylors. I do see it in John's quite often as it is obvious and most of the time the joke is on him. Humor very often is cultural.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:08:53 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. jt: I believe you are referring to me above as the "one"; you lump what you refer to as "judging" all together and apparently don't see any difference between judging a person vs judging their teaching or doctrine. The former is never good for a professing believer and will cause lots of bad reaping .. whereas the latter is what the more honorable amongst us or good Bereans make a practice of doing. There is a difference Jonathan and it saddens me that you are not able to see it. Jonathan: I was referring to you as the ‘one’. I am afraid that you do not see that quite often your judgments are not about teaching or doctrine but are about the person. Your judgment on Lance today is a case in point. What you accused him of simply was not true. There was no bait and switch with Izzy. When I met with him tonight (we always meet on Friday nights) he again exclaimed surprise that the quote he gave was not received more warmly. It is one of his favourite passages from Willard, one that he has shared with a number of people. Each one has always thought the passage to be worthwhile. There was no judgment of Lance’s doctrine or teaching here by you, just a jump attack on Lance. Judy, each of us are professing believers and each of us judge people on TruthTalk all the time. We also partake in judging each others doctrine. One day we will stick to the latter. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. jt: You are right about this, I don't look for parodies and you in particular have been offended so often that humor is probably the last thing I would be looking for in one of your messages or one of Bill Taylors. I do see it in John's quite often as it is obvious and most of the time the joke is on him. Humor very often is cultural. Jonathan: Here is a good example of how tone can be read into emails when the author doesn’t think it is present. John has also made a few posts about how easily offended I am. I would have to ask those close to me to see if this is true of my character. For a few weeks several months ago it was the ‘in’ thing on Truthtalk to put others down by highlighting their sensitivity. It even went so far as to call it an emasculated or feminine approach. This was used very well by a few people against Bill Taylor. From my point of view, I was hurt very much by the post you put out about me ‘dying with my CFS.’ I have been frustrated many times in what I perceive as attempts by you to halt dialogue. I am not sure how many times I have actually been offended though. Perhaps I am playing at semantics here. When I read one of your posts my first response is often a form of anger: frustration at you. Then I usually turn it inward upon myself. I blame myself for not communicating clearly what is on my heart. If you, or others, do not pick up on my passion for the Person of Jesus Christ I view that as my own failure to communicate. John, who does not always see eye to eye with me does see this passion in me. For that I am grateful. I look forward to the time that you, Izzy and Terry see this same passion. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Izzy, do you think there is anything your own children could do to make you actually hate or loathe them? Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Spurgeon's commentary on Romans 9:13. Please note that me quoting it does not mean I agree with it :) WHY DID GOD LOVE JACOB AND HATE ESAU? I can tell you why God LOVED Jacob; IT IS SOVEREIGN GRACE! There was nothing in Jacob that could make God love him; there was everything about him that might have made God hate him as much as He did Esau, and a great deal more. But it was because God is infinitely gracious that He loved Jacob and because He is sovereign in His dispensation of His grace that He chose Jacob as an object of that love. Jacob was loved by God simply on the footing of FREE GRACE. WHY DID GOD HATE ESAU? Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this... because that man DESERVES to be hated. No reply but that can be true. If God deals severely with any person, it is because that person deserves all that he gets. Esau did not lose his birthright; he sold it. he sold it for a "mess of pottage." If any of you want to know what I preach, it is this: "I preach salvation all of grace and damnation all of sin. I give God the glory for every soul that is saved; and when I come to preach damnation, I say that damnation is of man." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- "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. -- "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. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Askes: What is SWG. Helpful post, Terry. Thanks. === Scientific Wild Guess -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy John: Izzy, why in the world would you ask this question? " Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? " Talk to DavidM. He is the one who presented the option, not me. There is NOTHING, Linda, in my postings that would give rise to your question, above. John John -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Grammar & Worldview vs the Spirit
JUDY: Sorry I've been absent a couple of days with appointments so wasn't able to get back to this thread Slade.SLADE: That's alright. For a minute, I though you may have understood me. Sadly, I was wrong.JUDY: Below is one of the points I have been trying to get across but this Messianic Jewish person says it so much more eloquently: It's not about Hebrew or Greek mindsets and it's not about dividing spirit, soul, and body. Basically it is about the truth of God's Word and this is where we disagree .. Can you see this Slade? SLADE: No, I do not "see" it. Your friend is just one of many factions who call themselves "Messianic Judaism." Since she sees worldview has nothing to do with "it," this proves she doesn't know of what she speaks. I'm sure you'll feel more comfortable with her explanation [than with mine] because the philosophy you have brought forward proves she's more Christian than Jewish. One thing is true and I want you to know I realize this fact... both you and I seek the Truth of God's Word and we both seek the face of Messiah. You do it within your cultural bias, and I do within mine. I am not saying the Hebraic mindset is the only way to Truth because the Hellenistic mindset has many truths within it as well. They [the two mindsets] are merely and severely different and I was trying to help you understand some difficult passages by explaining them within their Hebraic context.JUDY: Jesus was talking about the Rabbinic teaching when he referred to Corban.SLADE: Yeshua was speaking of Corban when He spoke of Corban. I want you/her to understand that what you/she indicted me of is a false accusation. You have absolutely no clue what I have been speaking of when I say the Hebrews have an oral tradition as opposed to a culture that must write everything down. When I say Torah is memorized and orally passed down from father to son I mean Genesis through Deuteronomy is memorized and passed from father to son.JUDY'S FRIEND: As Messianic Jews, we do not agree with this foundational principle of Rabbinic Judaism. To us the written Word is authoritative, not Oral Torah. We don't accept it as binding. In fact, we do not believe that it was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.SLADE: Never have you ever heard slade say that the Oral Torah came from the Mountain. You once again see one thing when I speak something completely different. You are incapable of understanding me and I accept this fact and after this email, I will waste your time no more. [As a side note, no Rabbi believes, when you nail them down, that the whole of the Oral Tradition has been passed from Moses. Do you find this surprising? Pirkei Avot 1:1 speak of the passing down of TORAH from Sinai... "Moshe received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be diligent in judgment, develop many disciples, and make a fence for Torah." In that verse, do you hear anything about "Traditions" coming from Sinai???JUDY'S FRIEND: This does not mean there are not some good things we can glean from these writings, but they cannot and should not carry the same weight as the written Word...SLADE: Never once did I say the Oral Torah carries the same weight as the Written Torah. No one... not even a SINGLE Rabbi that I know... believes this.JUDY'S FRIEND: ...And certainly are not a source of spiritual enlightenment and guidanceSLADE: Oh, I see. The writings of Luther, Couller, Barth, and Greene are spiritually enlightenment and guidance, but not the Rabbis? Preposterous.JUDY'S FRIEND: What do we base this on? Several scriptures tell us that Moses wrote down what God spoke to him. Deuteronomy 31.9 "So Moses wrote down this law." Deuteronomy 31.24 "After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end." In other words, he wrote it all down. Other Scriptures tell us not to add to what has been written (see Deuteronomy 4.2 and Revelation 22.18).SLADE: No one (slade nor any Rabbi) has added to Scripture. Again, a fallacy -- a preconceived and irrational notion given the rank of truth.JUDY'S FRIEND: Also, there is never any mention or allusion to an oral law. In fact, God is always giving us instruction to be careful to observe the things written in the book of the Law. (See Joshua 1.7,8 and Joshua 23.6).SLADE: False. Ezra and the Scribes gave the sense of the meaning of the text, indicating that something was "missing" that required further study to fully understand. Moshe and the Elders also sat in judgment over the Children of Israel. We have the same problem today. No one understands emphatically everything in Scripture. We use the "traditions" of other men to help us understand the meaning in the text. Same principle for the Jewish person as the Christian person, and both sources of infor
Re: [TruthTalk] A Divine Mystery - some questions from JD
Scientific Wild Guess Terry, you may have been kidding when you came up with that phrase, but science if often in the business of guessing wild. Political science is constantly refering to its polling data as "scientific" to within a margin of error of 3 or 4 percent. We all know just how idiotic that claim was. John -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Grammar & Worldview vs the Spirit
Slade wrote: DEFINITIONS: Oral Torah: The commentary on the whole of the Older Testament Oral Transmission: Passing information from one person to another from mouth to ear. A culture whose information is passed in oral transmission rely on memorization of huge amounts of information. In order to "bring the words back," someone merely needs to recite the first few words and the rest of the text comes to mind. I give a few examples within our own culture: "Hey diddle diddle..." "Love love me do..." "Love me tender..." "For God so loved..." "In the beginning..." "Jack and Jill..." Remnant: That perpetually existent yet small group of people whom are the "true believers" Torah: The first five books of the Bible Traditions of the Elders: [See "Oral Torah"] Written Torah: [See "Torah"] John to Slade: when I get back to good old Calefornia, I will send you a list of phrases and such -- as time permits, defintions would be helpful. Also, In your discussions, could you cover the differing views that Messianic Jews share. I am sure they are not of one mind to the degree that there is no variations. I view the Old Testament as a part of the history of the Christian Church. But understanding your point of view, because youa re a brother in Christ, is becoming important to me. John -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
Jonathan Hughes wrote: . I blame myself for not communicating clearly what is on my heart. If you, or others, do not pick up on my passion for the Person of Jesus Christ I view that as my own failure to communicate. John, who does not always see eye to eye with me does see this passion in me. For that I am grateful. I look forward to the time that you, Izzy and Terry see this same passion. What, exactly, does passion for the person Mean? Terry --- --
RE: [TruthTalk] New Moderator of TruthTalk
A pastor friend of mine in Oklahoma once told me (as I "celebrated" my third year as a congregational leader) that if anything needed to be done, choose the busiest man and he'll get the job done. If you choose the one with time on his hands, the job won't get done. I have been practicing time management. slade P.S. I'll be the one bright spot on my resume! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, 04 November, 2004 14.21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] New Moderator of TruthTalk Hurray! (But how on earth is Slade going to add this to his to-do list?) Iz -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Yeshua tells us to love our enemies, pray for those who despitefully use and persecute us, bless than who curse us, and do good to those who hate us. Are we better than God? >From my worldview, to "love" your enemy IS to do good to them. -- slade CONTEXT OF SLADE'S MESSAGE It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. You seem to... wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Keep in mind that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
>From slade: Yeshua tells us to love our enemies, pray for those who despitefully use and persecute us, bless than who curse us, and do good to those who hate us. Are we better than God? >From my worldview, to "love" your enemy IS to do good to them. -- slade CONTEXT OF SLADE'S MESSAGE It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. You seem to... wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Keep in mind that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Grammar & Worldview vs the Spirit
It is more than interesting to me that Jacob used deceit to gain the birthright from his father, that Abraham allowed at least two kings to sleep with his wife (didn't happen of course -- but it wasn't Abraham's fault), Paul oversaw the death of Stephen and was not called to accountablilty for that --- I could go on. God is not weak when it comes to judgment, but He is truly a gracious God. John -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Dear friends, I was set straight about "the 613 commandments" by a friend and brother. He sent me this link and admonition: http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp The trappings of Judaism are a poor substitute for having the indwelling of God's spirit and being cleansed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I thought that the 613 commandments had been derived from the scriptures alone. This is because a friend of mine had faithfully identified 659 identifiable commands from the scripture before, and later revised his study to identify many more. I had assumed that Jewish practitioners had gone through a similar faithful study to arrive at their number. When I saw the list posted at the above site, I found that some were and many were not derived out of the scripture. The 613 laws of Judaism contain some laws summarized from the scriptures, but many of their laws are merely Jewish traditions that use some scriptural reference that may be somewhat related to the idea, but are not laws recorded in the scripture. According to one source, Judaism has 2800 other rules. I wanted to let you know that I was wrong when I thought the so called "613 commandments" were from the scripture. Some are, but others are not. Love, Marlin - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:24 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Hi Judy: 613 commands in the Torah, yes. Directly from God, not man. Why? Because God says Be Holy, because I AM holy. This is HOW a holy, set-apart people live. This is how you deal with this, this is how you deal with that. God has a whole system of government set up. Gee, too bad we didn't follow it in the first place. Maybe then our courts wouldn't be as messed up as they are. I don't understand WHY people freak out over 613 commands. They're reiterated in the newer Testament. In fact, the newer Testament contains 1,050 commands! Yeshua made the commands fuller, harder even. Yes, there are 613 commands. However, YOU don't have to follow each of them. There are commands for men, which you're not a man, so they don't apply. I know you're not a Levitical priest, so, whack away a whole SLEW of the 613. Let's see...how about instructions (law) for you in particular since you're a woman.Not to get personal, but I believe you're an older woman, correct? Well, then you can knock out the laws for Niddah (the monthly cycle) as well as the child bearing laws. When you were raising your children, didn't you have House Rules? Why did you give the Rules of the House to your children? To keep them safe? To keep order? To protect? God did the same thing for us. He's a loving Father who wants to keep His children safe and holy. Did you ever give your children a rule that they didn't understand? You knew the reasoning behind it and it was probably a good reason. God does the same thing. Every single one of the 613 fall under TWO categories. Every single law of the 613 have to do with either A. Loving God, or B. Loving your Neighbor. Funny, our house rules are just like that. I bet yours were, too. Kabbalah is something different, Judy. It's a much deeper spiritual application. I would not suggest reading it. There are also two different types of Kabbalah. God Himself says the laws He gives are "not far from you". It is NOT impossible. Maybe we should list all the laws and see exactly how many apply. Would that help? Being worn out due to learning a new one every day is something Paul was attempting for others coming in. It's what he speaks of in Acts...Kay's paraphrase Paul and the Council: Okay, we've got to DO something with these people coming in. We can't fellowship with them. They can't come into the sanctuary. In order to be able to do that...we have to give them these four rulesdon't fornicate, don't eat strangled foods, don't worship other idolsthey'll be coming to the synagogue every Shabbat. They'll be hearing the Torah when they come each week. It takes us three years to read the whole Torah. They can handle little bits of it each week. They'll learn. Slow, but sure, they'll build up and they'll learn. That's what we can do with them! Wow, we solved our problem! I've got lots of people in for the weekend. I won't be on much. Shall we look at ALL the laws and see what they are about? See which ones apply and then maybe we'll have a good number? Maybe after that, we should check out the 1050 in the Newer Testament and compare when we're done with that. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Thursday, 28 October, 2004 06.57To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAI
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
I believe the English word "hate" is a terrible translation. "Oppose" is far better. Yeshua tells us what is to be done to the "bad apples" in the congregation in Mattityahu 18. I believe God uses the same principle with those whom He opposes. He will rejoice with the angels when one enters the fold... and these people will not enter the fold if God hates them... however, they just might enter when God opposes their wicked deeds, yet continues to lovingly call them Home. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 05 November, 2004 22.21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Grammar & Worldview vs. the Spirit
We should remember that according to prophesy, Jacob is the rightful owner of the birthright (and rightfully lived up to this prophetic utterance by functioning AS the firstborn). Jacob, as the story unfolds, appears to be the obedient son who follows his mother's demands... and Jacob gets blamed for being the deceitful one! Granted... he knew better, but he also was trying [perhaps] to keep peace in the home (after all, any man knows that unless momma is happy, no one is happy!) Avraham, on the other hand... had a lapse of faith. Slade thanks God that He forgives lapses in faith!!! -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 05 November, 2004 22.37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Grammar & Worldview vs the Spirit It is more than interesting to me that Jacob used deceit to gain the birthright from his father, that Abraham allowed at least two kings to sleep with his wife (didn't happen of course -- but it wasn't Abraham's fault), Paul oversaw the death of Stephen and was not called to accountablilty for that --- I could go on. God is not weak when it comes to judgment, but He is truly a gracious God. John -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Thank you for your post, Marlin. Now, if you'd be so kind, please return to that list at http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp and please list me the commands that are NOT found in Scripture. When you find this exercise fruitless, please understand that several commands are REPEATED... easily explaining this 659 number. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Marlin HalversonSent: Friday, 05 November, 2004 22.44To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Dear friends, I was set straight about "the 613 commandments" by a friend and brother. He sent me this link and admonition: http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp The trappings of Judaism are a poor substitute for having the indwelling of God's spirit and being cleansed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I thought that the 613 commandments had been derived from the scriptures alone. This is because a friend of mine had faithfully identified 659 identifiable commands from the scripture before, and later revised his study to identify many more. I had assumed that Jewish practitioners had gone through a similar faithful study to arrive at their number. When I saw the list posted at the above site, I found that some were and many were not derived out of the scripture. The 613 laws of Judaism contain some laws summarized from the scriptures, but many of their laws are merely Jewish traditions that use some scriptural reference that may be somewhat related to the idea, but are not laws recorded in the scripture. According to one source, Judaism has 2800 other rules. I wanted to let you know that I was wrong when I thought the so called "613 commandments" were from the scripture. Some are, but others are not. Love, Marlin - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:24 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Hi Judy: 613 commands in the Torah, yes. Directly from God, not man. Why? Because God says Be Holy, because I AM holy. This is HOW a holy, set-apart people live. This is how you deal with this, this is how you deal with that. God has a whole system of government set up. Gee, too bad we didn't follow it in the first place. Maybe then our courts wouldn't be as messed up as they are. I don't understand WHY people freak out over 613 commands. They're reiterated in the newer Testament. In fact, the newer Testament contains 1,050 commands! Yeshua made the commands fuller, harder even. Yes, there are 613 commands. However, YOU don't have to follow each of them. There are commands for men, which you're not a man, so they don't apply. I know you're not a Levitical priest, so, whack away a whole SLEW of the 613. Let's see...how about instructions (law) for you in particular since you're a woman.Not to get personal, but I believe you're an older woman, correct? Well, then you can knock out the laws for Niddah (the monthly cycle) as well as the child bearing laws. When you were raising your children, didn't you have House Rules? Why did you give the Rules of the House to your children? To keep them safe? To keep order? To protect? God did the same thing for us. He's a loving Father who wants to keep His children safe and holy. Did you ever give your children a rule that they didn't understand? You knew the reasoning behind it and it was probably a good reason. God does the same thing. Every single one of the 613 fall under TWO categories. Every single law of the 613 have to do with either A. Loving God, or B. Loving your Neighbor. Funny, our house rules are just like that. I bet yours were, too. Kabbalah is something different, Judy. It's a much deeper spiritual application. I would not suggest reading it. There are also two different types of Kabbalah. God Himself says the laws He gives are "not far from you". It is NOT impossible. Maybe we should list all the laws and see exactly how many apply. Would that help? Being worn out due to learning a new one every day is something Paul was attempting for others coming in. It's what he speaks of in Acts...Kay's paraphrase Paul and the Council: Okay, we've got to DO something with these people coming in. We can't fellowship with them. They can't come into the sanctuary. In order to be able to do that...we have to give them these four rulesdon't fornicate, don't eat strangled foods, don't worship other idolsthey'll be coming to the synagogue every Shabbat. They'll be hearing the Torah when the
