Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:17:28 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: My current comments are in RED. No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim [gods, judges]. I think what you're referring to is the .you are gods part, right? DAVEH: Yes, that is how I read it as well. Perry mentioned that it was referring to judges who judge in behalf of God (I hope I've got that right, Perry). But if that were the case, I don't understand why Jesus would refer to theos (Jn 10:34&35), suggesting a deity to be worshiped, to be used in his defense. DavidM seemingly gave a pretty good logical explanation yesterday that I will ponder when I have more time. I'm just not sure labeling them as judges quite does justice to the meaning of Ps 82. Why would the author do that IF he could have used judges instead. Maybe I should be asking the questionwould judges have been a better term to useif not, why not? Had PS 82 used judges, I doubt Jesus would have referenced it in his defense. jt: Why not Daveh? Wasn't he speaking at Solomon's Porch in the temple so we can assume there were some Jewish leaders there, (the ones ordained to judge the people on God's behalf)? An alternative is Psalm 96:5 which says "For all the gods of the nations are idols" but I don't believe Jesus would identify himself with that, do you? First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. DAVEH? Hmmthat's curious. I guess BH hasn't much credibility here in TT, but how does the Protestant world in general treat him for suggesting gods refers to plural deity in PS 82? jt: This is another area where BH is "off the rails" In the past he has taught some other outlandish things (but was supposed to have repented) - this is why we must be Berean and not swallow everything we hear taught publicly. Am I totally off base and confused? That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc. I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, toothe egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH: Do you think one can understand the nature of God? Should we try? jt: Yes we should try, we should seek the Lord with all of our heart because this is the only way we will find Him. Jesus is the nature of God which is what he meant when he said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" His image is what the walk of salvation should conform us to...
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through DAVEH: Arrrgh..my grammar is attrocias! :-( a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Why Prophets?
DAVEH: Hey KevinDid you miss my last few words.. ;-) Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH says: To me to not define Christian leaves it pretty much in the air We can have all the definitions we want. If I asked you how WIDE is my driveway, you may say 7 feet, I might say 8 feet Judy may say 9 feet Until we get the RULER out we can have all the OPINIONS we want. There is ONLY ONE STANDARD of measurement the RULER. It will settle all doubt. It is and sets the STANDARD. Anything else or any other persons input is just an Opinion None of us is the STANDARD. In the case of Mormonism the SUPREME STANDARD is set by the GENERAL AUTHORITIES and in particular, the PROPHET (FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW) ONLY the general Authorities have the ability to define "Mormonism" They say you have NO RIGHT to determine anything apart from what the PROPHETS have already said on a topic. When they point the way it is supposed to clear it all up, it should MARK the END of Controversy! That is the WHOLE POINT of having a Prophet. How else can we know, which is the way? You seem to FOLLOW the PROPHET SOME of the TIME Mormons claim FOLLOW the PROPHET. You don't why should we? Did you not PROMISE to sustain the Prophet in ALL THINGS? or just some? REMEMBER God will do nothing without revealing it to you know who. "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7 I thought Mormons believed that God ALWAYS lead his people through prophets, not through debate, councils or individuals outside the Authorities. How do you determine just WHEN to FOLLOW the PROPHET? What STANDARD do you use? Your Opinions? Opinions of others? Your FEELINGS? Personal Revelation? What if your REVELATION contradicts The PROPHETS REVELATION? some from column A some from column B? Flip a coin? Really, just how do you determine? I suspect your definition is Very BROAD you might need to NARROW it down some. Still waiting on your Opinion about what is "Mormon" Still in the AIR ! " Have we not a right to make up our minds in relation to the things recorded in the word of God, and speak about them, whether the living oracles believe our views or not? We have not the right...God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this church; and he has required you and me, male and female, to sustain those authorities placed over us in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God..." - Orson Pratt, Apostle, Journal of Discourses 7:374-375, Sermon January 29, 1860 " When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan - it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other way that is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy." - Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354 " God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the Children of Israel, and he made me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be the mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 363 "...learn to do as you are told,...if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong." - Herber C. Kimball, 1st Counselor to Brigham Young. Journal of Discourses, v.2, p.106 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote Judy Taylor wrote: Well there is the broad road and the narrow way - everyone is on one or the other but only one of them will lead to life. Defining what the word Christian means is neither here nor there. jt DAVEH: ??? I don't quite follow your thinking on that one, Judy. I would think defining one's goals would assist in reaching them. If one doesn't know what defines a Christian, then how can one be one? For instanceIf a person of a specific sect (e.g.Holy Rollers) says that to be a Christian, one has to join the HR movement.then that would define it for that person in a specific way. One can then have the opinion that to become a Christian, he could sign up for HR and meet that criteria. Yet another person would probably define being Christian in another way that meets a different criteria. To me to no t define Christian leaves it pretty much in the air. Can a person who does not have a definition for Christian really be a Christian? Just thinking out loud on thisgo easy on me! :-) . -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Judy Taylor wrote: jt: No problem DaveH; all I'm saying is that there are a lot of people saying a lot of things and everyone claims to have the truth DAVEH: It does seem that way. but the bottom line is "Are we walking in it" because we will be judged on "deeds done in the flesh" or "obedience" rather than what some are calling doctrinal "orthodoxy" DAVEH: H..Does that mean you do not think we will be judged on faith in Jesus alone? Judy Taylor wrote: Well there is the broad road and the narrow way - everyone is on one or the other but only one of them will lead to life. Defining what the word Christian means is neither here nor there. jt -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
jt: What is this Bill some kind of gnosticism? God's Spirit anoints and works alongside God's Word - so "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel... (Rom 10:14-16) judyt On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:07:15 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This is an awesome statement. I hope everyone reads it and allows it to resonate. Bill Debbie wrote > When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. For the life of me, I don't get it. What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representat
Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more]
DAVEH: Heycould we get a second opinion on that! 8-) (And, no TerryThere is NO need to post pictures!!!) Terry Clifton wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shouldn't this be addressed to Terry's wife? == No. She don't look that bad naked. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: My current comments are in RED. Slade Henson wrote: Woops...I just noticed this post. I seem to miss posts on a regular basis.I'll go to this shade of purple: Slade Henson wrote: Scripture is very clear there are other gods, I would agree, however, I would say they're false gods. DAVEH: If the gods spoken of in Ps 82 were false (and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about what Ps 82 is conveying when using that term), then what would be their logical pertinence to Jesus' use of them as a defense in the accusations against him that he was making himself God? I worded that rather awkwardly, Kaydoes my question make any sense to you? No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim [gods, judges]. I think what you're referring to is the .you are gods part, right? DAVEH: Yes, that is how I read it as well. Perry mentioned that it was referring to judges who judge in behalf of God (I hope I've got that right, Perry). But if that were the case, I don't understand why Jesus would refer to theos (Jn 10:34&35), suggesting a deity to be worshiped, to be used in his defense. DavidM seemingly gave a pretty good logical explanation yesterday that I will ponder when I have more time. I'm just not sure labeling them as judges quite does justice to the meaning of Ps 82. Why would the author do that IF he could have used judges instead. Maybe I should be asking the questionwould judges have been a better term to useif not, why not? Had PS 82 used judges, I doubt Jesus would have referenced it in his defense. First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. DAVEH? Hmmthat's curious. I guess BH hasn't much credibility here in TT, but how does the Protestant world in general treat him for suggesting gods refers to plural deity in PS 82? Am I totally off base and confused? DAVEH: Not nearly as much as most TTers attribute to me! :-) That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc. I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, toothe egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH: Do you think one can understand the nature of God? Should we try? I don't think one can understand the nature of God 100%. I don't think it's humanly possible. I think we can have some understanding (in some people's minds, only little, depending on their minds and what may or not be in them!) Yes, I think we should try knowing our minds are limited. I think that by trying this would include praying for wisdom and understanding. I think that the more we understand, the more we can respect (fear) God and be more grateful to Him for what He did...the price He chose to pay for jerks like us. Will we attain it 100%? I don't so think in this life and I don't know about in the one to come...eternity is a long time to sit at His feet and learn... I would hope we would eventually understand! DAVEH: Thank you for responding to my question, Kay. I appreciate knowing a little more about your relationship with him now. Are the things others are saying you believe truly what you believe? DAVEH: Some are. Many are taken out of context, and really don't mean much when framed that way. I suspect you and other TTers find a lot of what has been said about my beliefs to be troubling due to the contrasting background with which many of you have grown up, and also considering the manner in which a lot of what has been posted is presented. From my perspective, the negative comments about LDS theology is not a problem at all, as it answers many questions that I see Protestantism avoiding. I'm sure some would say that Protestantism has already answered those questionsand, maybe it has. But when I have trouble getting a definition from a Christian (present company excluded, of course!) of Christian, it kinda makes me wonder why the reticence? And that's just a simple question. I've tried to answer most of the questions posed to me, with the exception of those that are intended to be disruptive (to my sleep, time or family by making busy work for me to do), or to make light of my beliefs in an attempt to embarrass me, or sometimes I simply
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
DAVEH: I'm not avoiding it, KevinI just hardly have time to read all the TT posts, let alone respond to each of them that applies to me. I've provided a definition in a parallel post tonight, but I will post it again below. As for the definition of ChristianI'm not worried about it, but it surprises me that instead of directly defining it, you tend to attack the religion of the questioner in an apparent attempt to change the direction of the discussion. Furthermore, defining Christian by framing it in a negative sense seems contrary to the rules of English as I learned them as a kid. Maybe the rules have changed since then, but it still surprises me that you would staunchly avoid responding in a way similar to the way Kay did. Her response to my question was straight forward and off the cuff, as she apparently thinks. Contrasted to that, if you are always thinking in a negative light, then perhaps your answers would be reflected by your thought processI don't knowI'm just surmising. Anywaydo you suppose we could just have a nice casual discussion between us and share some thoughts without worrying about casting a negative shadow on any of the points? Tell me what you think defines a Christian as I tell you what I think defines a Mormon. (I'll copy it below.) + Some folks consider Mormons to be those who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A broader definition would be...Mormons are those who belong to one of the denominations that accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture. Of the two, the former is more prevalent. + So Kevindo you want to reciprocate to see if we can communicate on a little more friendly level? I do hope so :-) Cheerio..Dave Kevin Deegan wrote: The question is why is DAVEH so worried about the definition of Christian while yet avoiding a definition for Mormon? Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Debbie wrote > When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. This is an awesome statement. I hope everyone reads it and allows it to resonate. Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:32 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. For the life of me, I don't get it. What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
DAVEH: Sorry to be so tardy with this, Izzy & Kay. I've had too many irons in the fire lately. So many questions to answer, and only so many hours to sleep. Tonight I'm dragging my tail. (No jokes related to the devil, please!) Anyway..Some folks consider Mormons to be those who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A broader definition would be...Mormons are those who belong to one of the denominations that accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture. Of the two, the former is more prevalent. ShieldsFamily wrote: Kay, if you don’t mind we would still like to hear DaveH’s definition. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
In a message dated 1/12/2005 8:42:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe because he asked for the Christian definition first and no one seemed to want to answer him, so he didn't feel obliged to answer when he was asked. I don't know...just guessing. K. the fact is, those who are asking have no intention of accepting the answer - so why bother. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise
Serious question, here. if God does not allow for their faith _expression_ to some degree, what is the point of the change of heart? By "allow" I am not saying "agree" or "support" or "view their religion as viable alternative." I guess what I am getting at is this -- a parallel of sorts between this acnient situation and the RCC, 7thDay Adventist, Mormons, JW, Ken my man Copeland -- these groups and the people within those groups who are doing the best that they can do. JD If I am on the right track, here, then this argument we have been having about Dave Hanson has biblical example in the way God responded to those nations who were not Jewish. In a message dated 1/12/2005 8:42:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somehow their tendency to flay the skin off prisoners is not a rite that God would smile upon. I think it shows the Grace of G-d... even the heathen is given an opportunity to change their heart. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 16.55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise Re: Ninevites nation and the rule of God in their culture. Observation: Apparently there was something existent in their going ons, at the time of Joanh, that established some degree of connectivity between these pagans and the God of the Jews (who would also be the God of us all, of course) . Clarification: The Ninevites were not obedient to the Torah. Question: Does the sending of Jonah mean that God allowed for their religious _expression_, such as it is, and what implications in that for us and the and the world we live in? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 8:23:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: who is whom in this post. The izzy part I got. Deb/Bill I might have it. John I was pretty close -- but thanks. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? who is whom in this post. The izzy part I got. Deb/Bill I might have it. JohnIn a message dated 1/12/2005 7:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:32 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?BT: If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them.Debbie: Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. BT: Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! Debbie: I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. BT: But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation Debbie: I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. BT: For the life of me, I don't get it.Debbie: What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie BT-- :>) -- Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position?Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. Actually, once again, you missed the point. No one is saying this. Romans 2:15 -16 speaks only of a maybe situation : "..their conscience either accusing or defending them " In Christ, we have the assurance of our salvation --- or, at least, some of us do. John
Re: [TruthTalk] On Echad
This is an awesome post, Jonathan. You have certainly made your point! Bill - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:37 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad Hi Slade, If I understand the Jewish mind correctly God is utterly transcendent, beyond our feeble grasp, and beyond definition. I believe this is an essential aspect of God that the evangelical church has laid aside. However, I believe that Jesus changes/fulfills the Older Testament view of transcendence. If Jesus is truly God then God has condescended to enter space and time and make Himself available in a way that is far more intimate and intense than the Older Testament. My view of the Older Testament is one of God giving us the mental furniture, the Word and Face that is then given light in the Person of Jesus Christ. Torrance calls Israel the ‘womb of the incarnation’. It is this Hebraic mindset and understanding that you, Kay, and Jeff provide on this forum that I find so helpful. Thank you. The Nicene theologians were not slow to appreciate the basic revolution in knowledge of God that had taken place in Jesus Christ, through whom as Mediator between God and man we who are far off from God are brought near and are actually given access to Him. That is to say, with the incarnation of His Son in Jesus Christ, God in Himself is no longer closed to us, but has opened Himself to our knowledge in His own being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for what He has revealed of Himself to us through Christ and in the Spirit He is in Himself. Hence we may now enter into personal communion with God without being limited by our creaturely incapacities or being obstructed by our alienation, because of what God in His love has done for us and our salvation in Jesus Christ and because of the gift of His Holy Spirit, the indwelling presence of God Himself. Thus through Christ Jesus and in the Spirit whether we are Jews or Gentiles we ma enter within the veil, and know God in the inner relations of His own sublime being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (T.F. Torrance, ‘The Trinitarian Faith’, pg. 68.) Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:34 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad The reason for the brevity is because the answer required brevity. To go further would simply force my foot in my mouth or my words may stumble into apostasy. G-d is s big I cannot begin to define even His edges, were they to exist. However, does the Newer Testament give more insight into the Holy One? Absolutely! Any commentary gives insight into a subject... how much more does the Newer Testament, as the Inspired "Commentary" on the Older Testament, give insight into the Older Testament! -- slade -Original Message-From: Jonathan HughesSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 20.20Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: Slade HensonSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade ---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Debbie, I am sorry I jumped to conclusions. I should have known better. Please forgive me. If it's alright with you, let's start over. Hi, my name is Bill Taylor. I am very glad to meet you and am equally happy that you are here with us :>) I do have a couple questions for you: You said, "I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the 'negative-option marketing' plan." I am a bit slow to catch on. What is this "'negative-option marketing' plan," and why the "But"? I said, for the life of me, I don't get it. I am sorry. You caught the brunt of my frustration. I have posted numerous times on the sufficiency of Christ's finished work to save babies the same way he has saved everyone else, "believers" included. We do not need a second "gospel" to get those who cannot believe into heaven. Our problems arise from a deficient view concerning WHO Christ is and what he has accomplished in our stead and on our behalf. It frustrates me when what I have said in regards to this is overlooked when the discussion comes up again. No, it is not your theology, and certainly not all of your theology from just one post. It is me through and through. Thanks for being gracious and making light of my comment. Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:32 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. For the life of me, I don't get it. What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
who is whom in this post. The izzy part I got. Deb/Bill I might have it. John In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. For the life of me, I don't get it. What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message- From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
No probs. -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:48 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Thanks Debbie. That means as well that I probably misunderstood your post. Please forgive me the harshness of my response to that post. Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That's a whole lot better way of saying what I meant. Debbie -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:02 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy Izzy, that would be true IF it were not for that fact that it is the Holy Spirit who draws people to the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is always working ahead of evangelism, preparing people to hear and respond to the Gospel message. Stated another way, the Gospel presentation never precedes the work of the Holy Spirit in a hearer's life. Since the Gospel is Good News, and since the Holy Spirit always prepares people to hear it, it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That, my concerned friend, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is taking the truth of his testimony and calling it a lie; for the Holy Spirit only testifies to the truthfulness of Christ. Once a person has heard the Gospel and rejected Jesus Christ, then he must repent of those beliefs, certainly; for to die in that state is to have committed the unforgivable sin, which is to trample under foot the Son of God and to deny the Lord who redeemed him; it is to lose his salvation. If the Spirit were not involved in leading people to Christ, then I would rush to agree with you. Why would I want to tell someone about Christ who would otherwise be saved. The risk of rejection appears to out weigh the benefits they will receive here on earth on this side of death. Why not let them wait and be assured of receiving the benefits on the other side? This however is not the case. Please pursue this further if I have not made this clear to you. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Thanks Debbie. That means as well that I probably misunderstood your post. Please forgive me the harshness of my response to that post. Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That's a whole lot better way of saying what I meant. Debbie -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:02 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy Izzy, that would be true IF it were not for that fact that it is the Holy Spirit who draws people to the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is always working ahead of evangelism, preparing people to hear and respond to the Gospel message. Stated another way, the Gospel presentation never precedes the work of the Holy Spirit in a hearer's life. Since the Gospel is Good News, and since the Holy Spirit always prepares people to hear it, it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That, my concerned friend, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is taking the truth of his testimony and calling it a lie; for the Holy Spirit only testifies to the truthfulness of Christ. Once a person has heard the Gospel and rejected Jesus Christ, then he must repent of those beliefs, certainly; for to die in that state is to have committed the unforgivable sin, which is to trample under foot the Son of God and to deny the Lord who redeemed him; it is to lose his salvation. If the Spirit were not involved in leading people to Christ, then I would rush to agree with you. Why would I want to tell someone about Christ who would otherwise be saved. The risk of rejection appears to out weigh the benefits they will receive here on earth on this side of death. Why not let them wait and be assured of receiving the benefits on the other side? This however is not the case. Please pursue this further if I have not made this clear to you. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
-Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:32 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Exactly. I was trying to point out the absurdity of it. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! I am not an Arminian (not that there's anything wrong with that...). My position is actually the opposite of Arminianism. What I meant was not really all that different from what you said last time. When I said God sees the end from the beginning, I didn't mean foreknowledge. I meant that the person's whole life-direction is one. And by that I meant, if they reject the message after hearing, then they have already been saying no to whatever light/Spirit-preparation they have already received. If they accept it, they have already been saying yes. Which is pretty much what you said. But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation I agree with you there. But I'm not satisfied with the "negative-option marketing" plan. For the life of me, I don't get it. What? My entire theology, based on one post? That's OK. Actually, I don't get it either half the time. --Debbie Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad
Hi Slade, If I understand the Jewish mind correctly God is utterly transcendent, beyond our feeble grasp, and beyond definition. I believe this is an essential aspect of God that the evangelical church has laid aside. However, I believe that Jesus changes/fulfills the Older Testament view of transcendence. If Jesus is truly God then God has condescended to enter space and time and make Himself available in a way that is far more intimate and intense than the Older Testament. My view of the Older Testament is one of God giving us the mental furniture, the Word and Face that is then given light in the Person of Jesus Christ. Torrance calls Israel the ‘womb of the incarnation’. It is this Hebraic mindset and understanding that you, Kay, and Jeff provide on this forum that I find so helpful. Thank you. The Nicene theologians were not slow to appreciate the basic revolution in knowledge of God that had taken place in Jesus Christ, through whom as Mediator between God and man we who are far off from God are brought near and are actually given access to Him. That is to say, with the incarnation of His Son in Jesus Christ, God in Himself is no longer closed to us, but has opened Himself to our knowledge in His own being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for what He has revealed of Himself to us through Christ and in the Spirit He is in Himself. Hence we may now enter into personal communion with God without being limited by our creaturely incapacities or being obstructed by our alienation, because of what God in His love has done for us and our salvation in Jesus Christ and because of the gift of His Holy Spirit, the indwelling presence of God Himself. Thus through Christ Jesus and in the Spirit whether we are Jews or Gentiles we ma enter within the veil, and know God in the inner relations of His own sublime being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (T.F. Torrance, ‘The Trinitarian Faith’, pg. 68.) Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:34 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad The reason for the brevity is because the answer required brevity. To go further would simply force my foot in my mouth or my words may stumble into apostasy. G-d is s big I cannot begin to define even His edges, were they to exist. However, does the Newer Testament give more insight into the Holy One? Absolutely! Any commentary gives insight into a subject... how much more does the Newer Testament, as the Inspired "Commentary" on the Older Testament, give insight into the Older Testament! -- slade -Original Message- From: Jonathan Hughes Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 20.20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
If your logic holds, then we had better be teaching people their babies went to hell. That might keep them from killing the rest of them. Why are you so convinced that it rests in the mystery of God seeing the end from the beginning? Way too Arminian for me -- you are still waiting to get people saved. I've got news for you: they are saved. That is the Good News: He is Jesus Christ. If a person persistently rejects that news unto death, she SHOULD have been struck in the head as a baby! But rest assured the responsibility for her subsequent rejection rests squarely and totally upon her own shoulders. Our heart bleeds for her, but she heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and this under the tutelage of none other than the greatest teacher in the universe, the Spirit of God himself, and still rejected that news. What a tragedy! But it is as great a tragedy to limp along under the weight of a gospel of a Savior, who has not saved anyone until each one completes in the right order a specific rite of initiation -- faith, repentance, baptism, obedience; or is it repentance, belief, obedience and then baptism; or had we better get them baptized as babies? Who the hell knows?! For the life of me, I don't get it. Bill - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Someday perhaps you'll understand. I'm sorry to hear that Scripture is not fun for you. It's great fun for me! Why did you call them astrologers? -- slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 00.31Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me jt: I don't know about "fun" Slade. It's serious business to student's of God's Word as it was to the astrologers or whoever they were who travelled so far to see the child Jesus; also to Simeon and Anna. Do you see Isa 9:6,7 as something other than "future" Slade? Should "shall and wil"l be interpreted as present or past tense?
RE: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise
Case and point. The heathen was given an opportunity to change. Thanks. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 21.22To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise Jonah 3:4-5 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Somehow their tendency to flay the skin off prisoners is not a rite that God would smile upon. I think it shows the Grace of G-d... even the heathen is given an opportunity to change their heart. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 16.55Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwiseRe: Ninevites nation and the rule of God in their culture.Observation: Apparently there was something existent in their going ons, at the time of Joanh, that established some degree of connectivity between these pagans and the God of the Jews (who would also be the God of us all, of course) . Clarification: The Ninevites were not obedient to the Torah. Question: Does the sending of Jonah mean that God allowed for their religious _expression_, such as it is, and what implications in that for us and the and the world we live in?John Do you Yahoo!?Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
-Original Message-From: David MillerSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 18.45Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic MovementDAVIDM...When I first began receiving revelation (dreams and visions), the Lord told me that I was functioning as a prophet but that I should not advertise that I was functioning in this way. He instructed me to tell others that inquired who I was that I was a brother in Christ. I kept it this way for many years, but after I matured and learned more about the different administrations in the body of Christ, the Lord released me to inform others that I was a prophet because many do not know what a prophet is. As I began to teach others about the function of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, it became useful for me to use myself as an example of the prophetic ministry.SLADE...How clear was this message? Was it riddled with parables? Was the message clear, concise, and very much to the point? DAVID...No, I am not deity, but a prophet is a prophet because of what he receives from above. There is a similar character that God requires of those whom he anoints for such jobs, that character of not defending oneself nor pushing oneself forward as somebody.SLADE...Interesting nonanswer. A teacher, a Rabbi, and that rare person with a Helping Heart are what they are because of what he/she receives from above; therefore your statement lends no support to your assertion. Also, I did not ask for you to defend yourself, I simply requested that you give a proof to your claim. This request on my part is perfectly acceptable. You, yourself agree when you stated, <>. I claim that right as well, but the Newer Testament" [wannabe] prophets deny this right. You have done the same. If you are a prophet, you should not fear! The Spirit of the Holy One guards and guides your lips. Speak it forth, brother. If you are a prophet, let u all glory in God over this rare find. If not... the Spirit never spoke through you and you deceived not only yourself but others as well. DAVID...This is one difference that I have discerned between the OT prophets and the NT prophets. The OT prophets would give a sign. This was the basis by which the Jews approached Jesus and asked him for a sign to prove that he was that Prophet spoken of by Moses. I have sought the Lord on this subject rather diligently, because based upon my study of the Hebrew Scriptures, they had a right to ask for such a sign. The Spirit told me that because it is the age of grace and faith, and especially now because the Spirit has been poured out upon all, it is prudent not to focus upon signs. Instead, signs generally come in response to faith. My interpretation of this is that there really is no "normal Joe" that is distinct from prophets, but rather all of those in Christ are priests and prophets unto God. The only reason that some are identified as prophets is because they have a personal responsibility toward God to continue to function in the revelatory gifts and be an example to the body in this way with the hope that all will walk in the Spirit of revelation.SLADE...Herein lies the problems. When Peter, the apostle to the Jewish people his letter, he wrote it to the exiles (the dispersion). Within this context, Peter mentions that the recipients of this letter are holy priesthood. There was no mention of prophet. You have erroneously inserted this. Your statement [and I paraphrase] that prophets are different in the NT than they were in the OT is justification to slide yourself into the office of prophet. Again, your statement < > rings true for me because of the prophetic nuances of the Spirit I spoke of before. This, in itself, if NOT the prophetic gift. DAVID MILLER wrote two emails ago...If you think that I do not measure up to what a prophet ought to be, that is your decision. What we are in the body of Christ is something we do not have to protect or defend. We are who we are. Jesus told me that those who receive me receive him, and those who reject me reject him. Therefore, I leave it all in the hands of my Lord.SLADE wrote two emails ago...Yeshua spoke that in response to Himself and His relationship with God... AS THE ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.DAVID wrote...That is not the only context in which he spoke this (see Luke 10:16), but I was referring to a personal revelation, not to Scripture which I would apply to myself.SLADE now says...Speak in His name, and I'll agree with you. STOP speaking in David Miller's name so I can stop disagreeing. SLADE wrote...You are nowhere even CLOSE to the majesty of Yeshua.DAVID replied...Are you saying that you do not believe that Christ lives in me and through me?SLADE now respon
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That's a whole lot better way of saying what I meant. Debbie -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:02 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy Izzy, that would be true IF it were not for that fact that it is the Holy Spirit who draws people to the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is always working ahead of evangelism, preparing people to hear and respond to the Gospel message. Stated another way, the Gospel presentation never precedes the work of the Holy Spirit in a hearer's life. Since the Gospel is Good News, and since the Holy Spirit always prepares people to hear it, it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That, my concerned friend, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is taking the truth of his testimony and calling it a lie; for the Holy Spirit only testifies to the truthfulness of Christ. Once a person has heard the Gospel and rejected Jesus Christ, then he must repent of those beliefs, certainly; for to die in that state is to have committed the unforgivable sin, which is to trample under foot the Son of God and to deny the Lord who redeemed him; it is to lose his salvation. If the Spirit were not involved in leading people to Christ, then I would rush to agree with you. Why would I want to tell someone about Christ who would otherwise be saved. The risk of rejection appears to out weigh the benefits they will receive here on earth on this side of death. Why not let them wait and be assured of receiving the benefits on the other side? This however is not the case. Please pursue this further if I have not made this clear to you. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy Izzy, that would be true IF it were not for that fact that it is the Holy Spirit who draws people to the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is always working ahead of evangelism, preparing people to hear and respond to the Gospel message. Stated another way, the Gospel presentation never precedes the work of the Holy Spirit in a hearer's life. Since the Gospel is Good News, and since the Holy Spirit always prepares people to hear it, it will never ever be received as Bad News except by those who have already rejected the preparatory drawing of the Holy Spirit. That, my concerned friend, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is taking the truth of his testimony and calling it a lie; for the Holy Spirit only testifies to the truthfulness of Christ. Once a person has heard the Gospel and rejected Jesus Christ, then he must repent of those beliefs, certainly; for to die in that state is to have committed the unforgivable sin, which is to trample under foot the Son of God and to deny the Lord who redeemed him; it is to lose his salvation. If the Spirit were not involved in leading people to Christ, then I would rush to agree with you. Why would I want to tell someone about Christ who would otherwise be saved. The risk of rejection appears to out weigh the benefits they will receive here on earth on this side of death. Why not let them wait and be assured of receiving the benefits on the other side? This however is not the case. Please pursue this further if I have not made this clear to you. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Yes, there is that problem if you press it to the logical conclusion, isn't there? Same with the all-babies-go-to-heaven view. In that case, best kill your kid before s/he reaches the age of accountability, or at least ensure a good pervasive brain injury. But no; the Heard-Not can't lose by hearing, nor the child by understanding. I think it relates to your earlier post--God sees the end from the beginning. Also, everyone has some knowledge or experience to respond to. The response doesn't have to be propositional, nor intelligible to us--only intelligible to God. (Mind you, I don't think I've figured this out yet...) Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:55 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise
Jonah 3:4-5 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Somehow their tendency to flay the skin off prisoners is not a rite that God would smile upon. I think it shows the Grace of G-d... even the heathen is given an opportunity to change their heart. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 16.55Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwiseRe: Ninevites nation and the rule of God in their culture.Observation: Apparently there was something existent in their going ons, at the time of Joanh, that established some degree of connectivity between these pagans and the God of the Jews (who would also be the God of us all, of course) . Clarification: The Ninevites were not obedient to the Torah. Question: Does the sending of Jonah mean that God allowed for their religious _expression_, such as it is, and what implications in that for us and the and the world we live in?John Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
Prophets who speak lies are very apt to pull people away from the Holy One, therefore, may God never forget the iniquity of ALL false prophets. That's why God says to kill them. Should they repent and NEVER PROPHESY AGAIN nor CLAIM to be a prophet, may G-d forgive them. Daniel Lee knows he falsely prophesies, yet he claims he repents but HE CONTINUES TO DO IT! In fact, he gave over 70 prophesies in a month's time or so. Talk about being possessed! May God not forget his iniquity. On the other hand, may God bring him to TRUE repentance. Prophets, we are told, are to be obeyed until they are proven wrong. When one claims to be a prophet, how are we to gauge their prophetic calling? Do we do the "christian" thing and say, "By Jove! That man sez heez a proffet! He's gotta be rite until heez rong?" No we do not. What the prophet says will come true and will be fact. It's not out of the question for proof of his prophesy. If anything, it's honorable to ask for proof. It's dishonorable to hide behind misappropriated Scripture. -- slade -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 22.59Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement SLADE'S NEWEST RESPONSE... Your last response about the sign of Jonah is the same argument made by the ridiculous false prophet Daniel John Lee (may God not forget his iniquity). Slade, I’m curious—why did you say that? Aren’t we supposed to walk in forgiveness, etc, etc? Just wondering what your take on it is. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? Bill Bill it appears to me that your theological construct forces one to believe that the worst thing you could do is to tell someone about Jesus Christ. If they never hear about Jesus they are guaranteed a ticket to heaven. If they do hear about Him and reject Him, that is the only possible way they can be destined for Hell. So why go forth and spread the gospel? It sounds like a terrible thing to do. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise
Somehow their tendency to flay the skin off prisoners is not a rite that God would smile upon. I think it shows the Grace of G-d... even the heathen is given an opportunity to change their heart. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 16.55Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwiseRe: Ninevites nation and the rule of God in their culture.Observation: Apparently there was something existent in their going ons, at the time of Joanh, that established some degree of connectivity between these pagans and the God of the Jews (who would also be the God of us all, of course) . Clarification: The Ninevites were not obedient to the Torah. Question: Does the sending of Jonah mean that God allowed for their religious _expression_, such as it is, and what implications in that for us and the and the world we live in?John
RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad
The reason for the brevity is because the answer required brevity. To go further would simply force my foot in my mouth or my words may stumble into apostasy. G-d is s big I cannot begin to define even His edges, were they to exist. However, does the Newer Testament give more insight into the Holy One? Absolutely! Any commentary gives insight into a subject... how much more does the Newer Testament, as the Inspired "Commentary" on the Older Testament, give insight into the Older Testament! -- slade -Original Message-From: Jonathan HughesSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 20.20Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: Slade HensonSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Ask him, Kay. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:45 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads Maybe because he asked for the Christian definition first and no one seemed to want to answer him, so he didn't feel obliged to answer when he was asked. I don't know...just guessing. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 18.25 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads The question is why is DAVEH so worried about the definition of Christian while yet avoiding a definition for Mormon? Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Why is it that whenever some TT’ers cannot agree on certain (usually non-essential) points of theology, instead of plainly explaining their position and then letting it go at that, they instead resort to personal attacks upon those who don’t agree? (You said this! You said that! You were so nasty!!!) Why this insistence on others being convinced? Why the acrimony when they aren’t? Isn’t this the road to the Crusades? Is that how the Holy Spirit works? I have been accused by some here of “not caring” about theology (ie: not too bright???) I just don’t “care” enough to fight about nuances and nonessentials, or even essentials for that matter, or to argue with those who don’t have ears to hear. I am only called to speak the truth. I am not responsible for how/if it is received. There will be NO theology test on Judgment Day. There will be NO debating test on Judgment Day. There will be a test of Obedience. We can only encourage one another to believe and obey the Lord. We cannot force anyone to believe or to obey. Izzy Matt:7 21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Luke 13: 23And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24"(Z)Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and (AA)shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, '(AB)Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, '(AC)I do not know where you are from.' 26"Then you will (AD)begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27and He will say, 'I tell you, (AE)I do not know where you are from; (AF)DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.'
RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad
Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade -Original Message- From: Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 23.51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On Echad Would you agree with me that in light of God's fuller self-revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament, there is very solid evidence upon which to conclude that echad in Deuteronomy, as it relates to the oneness God, and as it is quoted in the New Testament, does in fact reflect and refer to a coming together to form a oneness by way of unity, and that to the contrary it does not refer to an absolute singularity, as even some Christians are wont to insist? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Kay, if you don’t mind we would still like to hear DaveH’s definition. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:09 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? In a message dated 1/12/2005 2:04:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JOHN I hope you haven't stopped the discussion completely, because there are alot of questions and discussions we could all have regarding Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of life... Kay Actually, you are right about the above, too. If I were Calvin, this passage would be a big one for me. What are the implications of this visionary relaity? If obedience determines salvation's destiny for each of us, why are our names already written. John, don’t you think the “Eternal Son” can see the end of times as well as the beginning? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad
No. -- slade -Original Message-From: Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 23.51Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On Echad Would you agree with me that in light of God's fuller self-revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament, there is very solid evidence upon which to conclude that echad in Deuteronomy, as it relates to the oneness God, and as it is quoted in the New Testament, does in fact reflect and refer to a coming together to form a oneness by way of unity, and that to the contrary it does not refer to an absolute singularity, as even some Christians are wont to insist?
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Thank you for the dates Bill but I still can't find anything to do with Newbigin. I did find another judgment that I did make back then that was completely wrong and I have done an about turn regarding that assessment but it has nothing to do with what we've been talking about and nothing to do with scripture... and everything to do with living, learning, and refraining from speaking too soon ... judyt On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:16:14 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The original correspondence came from Judy Taylor on March 26, 2004 7:38 PM MST. The thread name was "POLYANYI" The private correspondence was sent to Judy the same day at 11:32 PM MST. I believe it was the next day that you posted it on TT. It was posted under the subject **Private Correspondence** If you will follow those threads you will gain the context. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:37:50 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: To the contrary, Judy, at the time of your judgment you did know of his background and that he had died. You may not have intended it as such, but your judgment of him, in the context of how it was made, did very much come across as an assessment of his eternal destiny. You even admit that in a private correspondence between us. That conversation is also in the archives because you mistakenly posted it on TT. jt: I would be interested in seeing what the publicly posted private correspondence says Bill so if you wouldn't mind could you send me those dates. However, I think you are reading your understanding into what I said because I just don't think along the lines of saved, lost, saved, lost, in my own life and I most certainly am not assessing others constantly to the point of damning them to hell (your words). I think you must have a good imagination and I wonder why you do so much accusing. judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Maybe because he asked for the Christian definition first and no one seemed to want to answer him, so he didn't feel obliged to answer when he was asked. I don't know...just guessing. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 18.25To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads The question is why is DAVEH so worried about the definition of Christian while yet avoiding a definition for Mormon?Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
The original correspondence came from Judy Taylor on March 26, 2004 7:38 PM MST. The thread name was "POLYANYI" The private correspondence was sent to Judy the same day at 11:32 PM MST. I believe it was the next day that you posted it on TT. It was posted under the subject **Private Correspondence** If you will follow those threads you will gain the context. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:37:50 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: To the contrary, Judy, at the time of your judgment you did know of his background and that he had died. You may not have intended it as such, but your judgment of him, in the context of how it was made, did very much come across as an assessment of his eternal destiny. You even admit that in a private correspondence between us. That conversation is also in the archives because you mistakenly posted it on TT. jt: I would be interested in seeing what the publicly posted private correspondence says Bill so if you wouldn't mind could you send me those dates. However, I think you are reading your understanding into what I said because I just don't think along the lines of saved, lost, saved, lost, in my own life and I most certainly am not assessing others constantly to the point of damning them to hell (your words). I think you must have a good imagination and I wonder why you do so much accusing. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:37:50 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: To the contrary, Judy, at the time of your judgment you did know of his background and that he had died. You may not have intended it as such, but your judgment of him, in the context of how it was made, did very much come across as an assessment of his eternal destiny. You even admit that in a private correspondence between us. That conversation is also in the archives because you mistakenly posted it on TT. jt: I would be interested in seeing what the publicly posted private correspondence says Bill so if you wouldn't mind could you send me those dates. However, I think you are reading your understanding into what I said because I just don't think along the lines of saved, lost, saved, lost, in my own life and I most certainly am not assessing others constantly to the point of damning them to hell (your words). I think you must have a good imagination and I wonder why you do so much accusing. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
SLADE wrote: > How do you KNOW you are a prophet? When I first began receiving revelation (dreams and visions), the Lord told me that I was functioning as a prophet but that I should not advertise that I was functioning in this way. He instructed me to tell others that inquired who I was that I was a brother in Christ. I kept it this way for many years, but after I matured and learned more about the different administrations in the body of Christ, the Lord released me to inform others that I was a prophet because many do not know what a prophet is. As I began to teach others about the function of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, it became useful for me to use myself as an example of the prophetic ministry. SLADE wrote: > Yeshua was tempted to "prove" his deity. > You are not deity, therefore the comparison is lacking. No, I am not deity, but a prophet is a prophet because of what he receives from above. There is a similar character that God requires of those whom he anoints for such jobs, that character of not defending oneself nor pushing oneself forward as somebody. Slade wrote: > Your last response about the sign of Jonah is the > same argument made by the ridiculous false prophet > Daniel John Lee (may God not forget his iniquity). I am kind of surprised he did not try to oblige you. He has made many false predictions. Slade wrote: > We, the normal Joe in the universe is to be given > something to prove that a prophet should be listened > to and you deny us the right to that proof. This is one difference that I have discerned between the OT prophets and the NT prophets. The OT prophets would give a sign. This was the basis by which the Jews approached Jesus and asked him for a sign to prove that he was that Prophet spoken of by Moses. I have sought the Lord on this subject rather diligently, because based upon my study of the Hebrew Scriptures, they had a right to ask for such a sign. The Spirit told me that because it is the age of grace and faith, and especially now because the Spirit has been poured out upon all, it is prudent not to focus upon signs. Instead, signs generally come in response to faith. My interpretation of this is that there really is no "normal Joe" that is distinct from prophets, but rather all of those in Christ are priests and prophets unto God. The only reason that some are identified as prophets is because they have a personal responsibility toward God to continue to function in the revelatory gifts and be an example to the body in this way with the hope that all will walk in the Spirit of revelation. David Miller wrote: >> If you think that I do not measure up to what a prophet >> ought to be, that is your decision. What we are in the >> body of Christ is something we do not have to protect >> or defend. We are who we are. Jesus told me that those >> who receive me receive him, and those who reject me >> reject him. Therefore, I leave it all in the hands of my Lord. SLADE wrote: > Yeshua spoke that in response to Himself and His relationship > with God... AS THE ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD > AND MAN. That is not the only context in which he spoke this (see Luke 10:16), but I was referring to a personal revelation, not to Scripture which I would apply to myself. Slade wrote: > You are nowhere even CLOSE to the majesty > of Yeshua. Are you saying that you do not believe that Christ lives in me and through me? Slade wrote: > You are hiding behind some of the worst Biblical > interpretations I've seen on TruthTalk. You are not > the mediator between man and Yeshua. If this is > what you believe, I am in the wrong discussion group. LOL. I have never claimed to be a mediator between man and Yeshua. Nobody needs me to follow Yeshua. You misunderstand my Biblical interpretations and twist almost everything I say. Why? I kind of feel as if you are trying to catch me in my words to demonstrate some fault in me somewhere. 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] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Bill is this what you do when you study scripture? ie: put words in the mouths of others and take off running? What I wrote concerning Newbigin's writing was an observation from scripture which contrasts a heart of faith with an evil heart of unbelief. Well duh! Judy. I didn't think you were judging by anything other than what you thought the Scriptures taught. I don't remember what I was commenting on and you don't include that but I assume Newbigin wrote something to the effect that the mind is the home of faith which is wrong. No he did not. He had actually written the opposite of that, which I had already stated in our correspondence, as well as from a direct quotation from him. You jumped to your conclusion without reading carefully what he said and came back with your judgment. I have the post printed off but it is not still on my hard-drive. If you would like the dates and such, I will send them to you and you can look it up in the archives. I have no who the man is or what he did so this is definitely not my personal assessment of his eternal destiny. To the contrary, Judy, at the time of your judgment you did know of his background and that he had died. You may not have intended it as such, but your judgment of him, in the context of how it was made, did very much come across as an assessment of his eternal destiny. You even admit that in a private correspondence between us. That conversation is also in the archives because you mistakenly posted it on TT. One which I am not qualified to make since I am not the Judge. Also how can you be so sure that I knew at the time Newbigin was dead? It's news to me It may be news to you now, Judy. But it was fresh in your memory at the time, as this too is part of the public record. Judy, I will accept your statements as truth and move on. Please forgive me if I have offended you. Blessings, Bill On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:15:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote: "Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Faith resides in the heart... One may have a heart of faith or an evil heart of unbelief." Judy, where do those unbelievers with evil hearts spend eternity? You knew at the time you wrote this that Newbigin was dead; that he was either in heaven or hell. Where does your judgment place him? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Vaguely but I don't remember "damning Newbigin to hell" and since you claim that I did this Bill then you need to show me in my own words what I said. This is a very serious accusation. judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon's trample the Blood
Why is it that a theology that claims Christ denigrates his Blood? Christ is only on the label. "Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose ones salvation". (What the MORMONS think of CHRIST, L.D.S. pamphlet, p.22. ) "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation" (James Talmage "The Articles of Faith," Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. p 432.) "...gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous. . . . Now, I know that some may be offended and the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. . . .But you been warned, and you have heard the true doctrine taught." (Bruce McConkie Church News, week ending March 20, 1982, p.5) __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
The question is why is DAVEH so worried about the definition of Christian while yet avoiding a definition for Mormon?Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Thanks for the response, David. I am resigned to the fact that we will have to disagree on this matter. Please do not interpret this as a rejection of you. It is not. I hope as time goes on and we are able to get to know each other better, you will be able to begin to perceive the paradigm from which I write -- and live and relate. In some ways I am blessed to have grown up in your paradigm, not completely, of course, but enough so that I remember what it was like to think the way you do. Thank you for trying to understand my position, even if in doing so you have not come to agree with it. God bless you, Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me > Bill Taylor wrote: > > He is most emphatically not just saying that he > > was "God" prior to Abraham's existence. > > Then we have a different perspective on this passage in John 8 that we > should explore more intimately. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > With his statement, "Before Abraham was, > > I AM" (and it having been made in the context > > of a derogatory suggestion, which had cast > > dispersions [sic] upon the legitimacy of his own > > sonship), he clearly interprets his status as that > > of the divine Son of God the Father; and this prior > > even to Abraham's day. > > I'm having trouble seeing this. I'm not saying you are wrong. You might be > wrong, but it also is possible that there is some paradigm difference > between us that makes what you perceive obvious to you but not to me. > > It seems to me that if Yeshua refers to God being his father, you infer that > this is the same thing as indicating that he is the eternal son of the > father. Such a conclusion is a non sequitur. God is his father, sure, and > this makes him God's son, right, but this does not necessarily make him > God's ETERNAL son. Even if he indicates that he is eternal, this does not > mean that he has eternally been known as the son. > > I do not see that this statement, "Before Abraham was, I AM," was said in > the context of an aspersion cast upon the legitimacy of Yeshua's eternal > sonship. I don't see this context anywhere in the dialogue. Rather, the > context was whether or not Jesus could have known Abraham. There is no > mention of the subject of eternal sonship at all as far as I can tell. The > context is that the Jews claimed Abraham and God as their father, and Jesus > derided them for thinking such. The basis for his perspective that Abraham > and God were not their father was their rejection of him. Yeshua expressed > the viewpoint that Abraham accepted him and rejoiced to see his day, so why > shouldn't they, if they were truly Abraham's children. His comment, "Before > Abraham was, I AM" was in response to whether or not he could have any > knowledge of what Abraham did or did not see concerning "his day." > > You seem to acknowledge that the Jews started all this by claiming that God > was their father, but when they did so, surely you do not think they were > asserting that they were the eternal sons of God, do you? Why then do you > assume that Jesus has eternal sonship in mind when he refers to God as his > father? He certainly makes an eternal claim in his dialogue here, but it is > not in reference to being a son, but in reference to whether or not he could > have knowledge that Abraham saw his day. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > At this point they again attempt to interpret his sonship > > in purely temporal, human terms: "You are not yet fifty > > years old, and have you seen Abraham?" > > Why do you see them interpreting anything about "sonship"? They were just > challenging how he could know anything about what Abraham thought about his > day. The term "son" has never been on the table. Don't you see how you are > reading your theology into the reading of this text? > > 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Slade wrote: >>> Only Begotten" means "unique." Terry wrote: >> Does the word "Begotten" have no relation >> to the word "Begat"? Do both not relate to >> child birth? I understand that "only" means >> "unique". Does this mean something other >> than the only son God ever had by a woman? Slade wrote: > Yes, basically it has nothing to do with it. > "Begot" is a terrible translation. Two different > languages What do you mean by "two different languages"? The word translated as "only begotten" and in one modern translation (ISV) as "unique" is "monogenes." You seem to think that unique is the better translation, but I'm with Terry in questioning that. The Greek word is not "monos" but "monogenes." Following are three opinions about how to accurately translate this word: Strong: -- G3439 monogenes >From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). Thayer: --- G3439 monogenes Thayer Definition: 1) single of its kind, only 1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) 1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God Part of Speech: adjective A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from G3441 and G1096 Citing in TDNT: 4:737, 606 New American Standard Bible Dictionary: -- G3439 monogenes; from G3441 and G1085; only begotten: - only (3), only begotten (6). We cannot overlook the theological bias that goes into the translators, but that bias works against keeping the idea of "begotten" in the meaning, so why is it still there? Clearly this last part of the word has some connotation about being begotten. In Scripture, it is always used of children. Clement also uses the word in reference to the Phoenix bird which had only one offspring. 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] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Bill is this what you do when you study scripture? ie: put words in the mouths of others and take off running? What I wrote concerning Newbigin's writing was an observation from scripture which contrasts a heart of faith with an evil heart of unbelief. I don't remember what I was commenting on and you don't include that but I assume Newbigin wrote something to the effect that the mind is the home of faith which is wrong. I have no who the man is or what he did so this is definitely not my personal assessment of his eternal destiny. One which I am not qualified to make since I am not the Judge. Also how can you be so sure that I knew at the time Newbigin was dead? It's news to me On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:15:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote: "Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Faith resides in the heart... One may have a heart of faith or an evil heart of unbelief." Judy, where do those unbelievers with evil hearts spend eternity? You knew at the time you wrote this that Newbigin was dead; that he was either in heaven or hell. Where does your judgment place him? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Vaguely but I don't remember "damning Newbigin to hell" and since you claim that I did this Bill then you need to show me in my own words what I said. This is a very serious accusation. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Bill Taylor wrote: > He is most emphatically not just saying that he > was "God" prior to Abraham's existence. Then we have a different perspective on this passage in John 8 that we should explore more intimately. Bill Taylor wrote: > With his statement, "Before Abraham was, > I AM" (and it having been made in the context > of a derogatory suggestion, which had cast > dispersions [sic] upon the legitimacy of his own > sonship), he clearly interprets his status as that > of the divine Son of God the Father; and this prior > even to Abraham's day. I'm having trouble seeing this. I'm not saying you are wrong. You might be wrong, but it also is possible that there is some paradigm difference between us that makes what you perceive obvious to you but not to me. It seems to me that if Yeshua refers to God being his father, you infer that this is the same thing as indicating that he is the eternal son of the father. Such a conclusion is a non sequitur. God is his father, sure, and this makes him God's son, right, but this does not necessarily make him God's ETERNAL son. Even if he indicates that he is eternal, this does not mean that he has eternally been known as the son. I do not see that this statement, "Before Abraham was, I AM," was said in the context of an aspersion cast upon the legitimacy of Yeshua's eternal sonship. I don't see this context anywhere in the dialogue. Rather, the context was whether or not Jesus could have known Abraham. There is no mention of the subject of eternal sonship at all as far as I can tell. The context is that the Jews claimed Abraham and God as their father, and Jesus derided them for thinking such. The basis for his perspective that Abraham and God were not their father was their rejection of him. Yeshua expressed the viewpoint that Abraham accepted him and rejoiced to see his day, so why shouldn't they, if they were truly Abraham's children. His comment, "Before Abraham was, I AM" was in response to whether or not he could have any knowledge of what Abraham did or did not see concerning "his day." You seem to acknowledge that the Jews started all this by claiming that God was their father, but when they did so, surely you do not think they were asserting that they were the eternal sons of God, do you? Why then do you assume that Jesus has eternal sonship in mind when he refers to God as his father? He certainly makes an eternal claim in his dialogue here, but it is not in reference to being a son, but in reference to whether or not he could have knowledge that Abraham saw his day. Bill Taylor wrote: > At this point they again attempt to interpret his sonship > in purely temporal, human terms: "You are not yet fifty > years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Why do you see them interpreting anything about "sonship"? They were just challenging how he could know anything about what Abraham thought about his day. The term "son" has never been on the table. Don't you see how you are reading your theology into the reading of this text? 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] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
By the way, the first two questions in this post are from David to me. The rest is my response to him. Bill > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > not forever? > > > Genesis 3:22-23a Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become > like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and > take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore > the LORD God sent him out of the garden > > The thought of letting them -- and thus humanity -- eat of the tree of life > and live forever in a fallen state was too horrible to contemplate; in fact > it was too horrible even to express. Bullinger is quite helpful in this > instance. The figure of speech employed here is called an aposiopesis, or > sudden-silence (152-153). "It is the sudden breaking off of what is being > said (or written), so that the mind may be the more impressed by what is too > ... awful for words." Adam and Eve could not be "fixed" in the state they > were in; it would take a re-creation to do that; thus they were graced with > the necessity of dying, that they might be raised anew in Christ's > resurrection. The same holds true for us. Adam and Eve would not have died > at all had they eaten (or continued to eat) of the tree of life. Bullinger > states, "Here the exact consequences of eating of the tree of life in his > fallen condition are left unrevealed, as though they were too awful to be > contemplated: and the sudden silence leaves us in the darkness in which the > Fall involved us. But we may at least understand that whatever might be > involved in this unspoken threatening, it included this fact:-- I will drive > him away from the tree of life!" > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > > > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > > > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > > > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > > > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > > > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. > > > > I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria > > used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the > silence > > of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct > > contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. > Judy > > then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the > > physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the > lack > > of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or > a > > misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood > > her. > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > > > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > > > their behalf. > > > > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > > not forever? > > > > It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the > world, > > and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. > > > > Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? > If > > the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize > > that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be > better > > understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not > > fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years > > later? > > > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > > > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > > > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > > > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > > > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > > > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > > > I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the > > eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all > the > > Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS > > willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just > because > > the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a > > Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men > > with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible > did >
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
A member of the Mormon church. Also called Latter Day Saint. I figured I supplied the definition for Christian that nobody wanted to give, I'd supply the definition for Mormon as well. Any more definitions we could look up? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 17.08To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Judy wrote: "Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Faith resides in the heart... One may have a heart of faith or an evil heart of unbelief." Judy, where do those unbelievers with evil hearts spend eternity? You knew at the time you wrote this that Newbigin was dead; that he was either in heaven or hell. Where does your judgment place him? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Vaguely but I don't remember "damning Newbigin to hell" and since you claim that I did this Bill then you need to show me in my own words what I said. This is a very serious accusation. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
I thank you, my feet thank you and even my burro thanks you! A long time ago I knew it was going to be a tough road, But I never imagined it to be this tough! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 17:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads In a message dated 1/12/2005 2:01:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is that why I have BF Goodrich Roadhandler tread marks seemingly tattooed on my back?JeffIf "wide track," I am sad to say "yes." I will pray from your recovery. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 2:04:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JOHN I hope you haven't stopped the discussion completely, because there are alot of questions and discussions we could all have regarding Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of life... Kay Actually, you are right about the above, too. If I were Calvin, this passage would be a big one for me. What are the implications of this visionary relaity? If obedience determines salvation's destiny for each of us, why are our names already written. Yeah -- could be good. But the personal thingy's of a couple could go the way of the wind, in my opinion. Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
We are still in the air waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, did I miss DaveHs definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
In a message dated 1/12/2005 2:01:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is that why I have BF Goodrich Roadhandler tread marks seemingly tattooed on my back? Jeff If "wide track," I am sad to say "yes." I will pray from your recovery. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 1:54:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JOHN I hope you haven't stopped the discussion completely, because there are alot of questions and discussions we could all have regarding Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of life... Kay I was kind of slapped back into some kind of reality, this morning. Result -- I want to be involved in discussions that are going somewhere. You know what I mean? Those who continue to key on personal slurs and judgments play no benefisical role to me. In my review of this mornings posts, I found some humor and noted that. Some of what Bill and Kay (that would be you) were good as well. Actually, Dave H and Perry are at least not getting down and dirty --- so maybe things are not that bad. But I do not plan on continuing to even review posts from those who only contribute acrimony. I just posted about Ninevah in an effort to change the discussion a bit. I just want to get away from the personality oriented stuff. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Is that why I have BF Goodrich Roadhandler tread marks seemingly tattooed on my back? Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads In a message dated 1/11/2005 11:57:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well there is the broad road and the narrow way - everyone is on one or the other but only one of them will lead to life. Defining what the word Christian means is neither here nor there. jtMaybe the road only SEEMS SMALL because we have found ourselves in an overhelmingly large vehicle --- one used by some to actually run over others who are forced to merely travse the road less traveled on foot. :-)=Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Role of Law - of God or otherwise
Re: Ninevites nation and the rule of God in their culture. Observation: Apparently there was something existent in their going ons, at the time of Joanh, that established some degree of connectivity between these pagans and the God of the Jews (who would also be the God of us all, of course) . Clarification: The Ninevites were not obedient to the Torah. Question: Does the sending of Jonah mean that God allowed for their religious _expression_, such as it is, and what implications in that for us and the and the world we live in? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Vaguely but I don't remember "damning Newbigin to hell" and since you claim that I did this Bill then you need to show me in my own words what I said. This is a very serious accusation. judyt On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:43:05 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JT wrote > I want you to go as far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off this list. Does the name Newbigin ring a bell? Bill From: Judy Taylor From: Bill Taylor Allow me to give you a resent example of one of your smears. Depending how you do with it, I may go further: "BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan." Can you say to me with a clear conscience and your hand on the Bible that yours is not a pejorative use of the word "triad"? jt: I don't swear on anything Bill, my yes or no should be enough and I can say with a clear conscience that I was not intentionally being "perjorative" in using the word triad which has become a kind of internet shorthand for you, Lance, and Jonathan, kind of like an endearing emoticon - I don't consider them perjorative. Do you?. Now allow me to give you an example of misrepresentation from a recent post: Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? jt: There you go Bill, doing exactly what you are accusing me of. I want you to go as far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off this list. And as for the second part of what I wrote above. I can say with a clear conscience that I don't remember any fo the "substantive words" you have written about anyone damning themselves to hell either. Now let me give you an example of your caricatures from a recent post? However, this is subject to change if anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the "eternal son" people have done so. While I admit that on this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of Christ and the relational nature of our triune God. I have deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the exegesis of Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture. jt: "Outsourcing" Bill? Sounds like problems US trade is having right now. I agree that you have tried to explain the above but I don't see the Godhead as three ppl all fixed and relating to one another throughout eternity, neither do I accept what you term as the "orthodox" doctrine of Christ - He has been, is, and will be so much more ... And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding what I am attempting to convey. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential to a right understanding of God. Yet you belittle that effort and shun your heritage with your derogatory characterization of us as the "'eternal son' people." jt: Bill just because something is old does not make it either good or true. I don't know that I don't understand what you are saying. I do know that I don't accept that Jesus is locked in to being an "eternal son" You have been shown in Scripture the basis for this belief. It is a strong enough basis to have convinced millions upon millions of Christians over the centuries. jt: I don't believe I have been given a scriptur
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
JOHN I hope you haven't stopped the discussion completely, because there are alot of questions and discussions we could all have regarding Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of life... Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 15.37To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?I am coming to the point in time when such discussions will not be enjoined by me. To think that I feel the need to make a statement about Amorite animals is illustrative of just how silly my discussion with has become. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
JT wrote > I want you to go as far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off this list. Does the name Newbigin ring a bell? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? From: Bill Taylor Allow me to give you a resent example of one of your smears. Depending how you do with it, I may go further: "BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan." Can you say to me with a clear conscience and your hand on the Bible that yours is not a pejorative use of the word "triad"? jt: I don't swear on anything Bill, my yes or no should be enough and I can say with a clear conscience that I was not intentionally being "perjorative" in using the word triad which has become a kind of internet shorthand for you, Lance, and Jonathan, kind of like an endearing emoticon - I don't consider them perjorative. Do you?. Now allow me to give you an example of misrepresentation from a recent post: Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? jt: There you go Bill, doing exactly what you are accusing me of. I want you to go as far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off this list. And as for the second part of what I wrote above. I can say with a clear conscience that I don't remember any fo the "substantive words" you have written about anyone damning themselves to hell either. Now let me give you an example of your caricatures from a recent post? However, this is subject to change if anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the "eternal son" people have done so. While I admit that on this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of Christ and the relational nature of our triune God. I have deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the exegesis of Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture. jt: "Outsourcing" Bill? Sounds like problems US trade is having right now. I agree that you have tried to explain the above but I don't see the Godhead as three ppl all fixed and relating to one another throughout eternity, neither do I accept what you term as the "orthodox" doctrine of Christ - He has been, is, and will be so much more ... And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding what I am attempting to convey. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential to a right understanding of God. Yet you belittle that effort and shun your heritage with your derogatory characterization of us as the "'eternal son' people." jt: Bill just because something is old does not make it either good or true. I don't know that I don't understand what you are saying. I do know that I don't accept that Jesus is locked in to being an "eternal son" You have been shown in Scripture the basis for this belief. It is a strong enough basis to have convinced millions upon millions of Christians over the centuries. jt: I don't believe I have been given a scriptural basis for this belief Bill - and do you really believe that these millions upon millions of Christians over the centuries did their own homework? Or have they been taught creeds and even at times given ultimatums?
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
The soul that sinneth, it shall die -- is not a true statement for those who are in Christ. JD, then by your theology there will be very few in hell, and most everyone in heaven—correct? Izzy 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21- Oh, sorry, Izzy, I am busy trying to come with any some sort of believeable answer. As sonn as I do, I will continue our discussion...'Course, when I get through with counting the saved, I will have to count the lost over all time AND then make some kind of reasonable projection for the future: 22-2-3-24-25-26-27-28- JD - out! On second thought, why don't you count out the saved. You seem to have a better handle on that. I will take number and the rest should be easy. JD, I don’t need to count it myself. Jesus already told us. Izzy Matt 7:13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Thanks, David, for attempting to articulate Judy's position. Perhaps you have stated it correctly. Bill PS My position against the concept of spiritual death does not necessitate a non-reductionistic, non-dualistic understanding of personhood, nor does it grow out of that understanding. My holistic understanding of personhood coincides with my position and supplements it, but it does not condition it. I may set this forth at some point in the future, but not at this time. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? > Bill Taylor wrote: > > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. > > I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria > used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the silence > of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct > contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. Judy > then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the > physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the lack > of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or a > misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood > her. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > > their behalf. > > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > not forever? > > It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the world, > and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. > > Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? If > the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize > that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be better > understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not > fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years > later? > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the > eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all the > Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS > willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just because > the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a > Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men > with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible did > use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, > but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other > passages seem to contradict the idea. > > 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
You have been shown the error of your theology, yet you mock us with words and titles like: "'eternal Sonship' - relationship - community thing." This is a caricature; it is a derogatory imitation of our beliefs san the substance of content. In Lance’s terminology, I think that would be “thingy”. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why not forever? Genesis 3:22-23a Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden The thought of letting them -- and thus humanity -- eat of the tree of life and live forever in a fallen state was too horrible to contemplate; in fact it was too horrible even to express. Bullinger is quite helpful in this instance. The figure of speech employed here is called an aposiopesis, or sudden-silence (152-153). "It is the sudden breaking off of what is being said (or written), so that the mind may be the more impressed by what is too ... awful for words." Adam and Eve could not be "fixed" in the state they were in; it would take a re-creation to do that; thus they were graced with the necessity of dying, that they might be raised anew in Christ's resurrection. The same holds true for us. Adam and Eve would not have died at all had they eaten (or continued to eat) of the tree of life. Bullinger states, "Here the exact consequences of eating of the tree of life in his fallen condition are left unrevealed, as though they were too awful to be contemplated: and the sudden silence leaves us in the darkness in which the Fall involved us. But we may at least understand that whatever might be involved in this unspoken threatening, it included this fact:-- I will drive him away from the tree of life!" Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? > Bill Taylor wrote: > > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. > > I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria > used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the silence > of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct > contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. Judy > then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the > physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the lack > of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or a > misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood > her. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > > their behalf. > > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > not forever? > > It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the world, > and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. > > Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? If > the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize > that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be better > understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not > fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years > later? > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the > eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all the > Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS > willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just because > the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a > Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men > with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible did > use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, > but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other > passages seem to contradict the idea. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned wit
RE: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shouldn't this be addressed to Terry's wife? == No. She don't look that bad naked. Terry But doesn’t she have to get a glimpse of you now and then? J Izzy (I’m so thankful God gave us all clothes!!!)
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. = I guess that’s why Terry, jt, DavidM, and I still don’t get it??? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more]
In a message dated 1/12/2005 11:47:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shouldn't this be addressed to Terry's wife? ==No. She don't look that bad naked. Terry Heavens to Mergatroid - I didn't have that in mind !! lol
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
jt: I don't "fake" stuff Kay, what am I supposed to be getting that I don't get? All anyone can have is an opinion about this question - unless you have some hidden insight and if you do then please share.. judyt Speaking of such, I am of the opinion (have I ever been taught this???) that we are born with a propensity to sin—not actually already condemned by sin (since we haven’t yet). So, in that case, anyone who dies prior to actually sinning is not under God’s judgment, and does not go to hell. Is there some scriptural reason for not believing this anyone? izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 11:42:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After all, if you were correct, wouldn't David and I agree with you? Terry lol
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
BTW, did I miss DaveH’s definition of mormon, or are we still waiting? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:18:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could you give her another goat--iz--JD? Izzy And, here, I had assumed the worse. :-)))
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
jt: And what in the world are you doing John? Are you actually using the "present day grammatical rules of Hebrew" to interpret God's eternal Word of Truth? Apparently you don't believe the Holy Spirit is able to lead us into all truth without these - am I correct? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:46:29 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, what in the world are you doing? Are you actually disagreeing with the grammatical rules of Hebrew. The correct responce to Slade's observation about the very language of the O.T. is "wow, I didn't know that" or perhpas simply "cool." Why are you disagreeing with Slade when you have no idea what you are talking about? John jt: I don't know about "fun" Slade. It's serious business to student's of God's Word as it was to the astrologers or whoever they were who travelled so far to see the child Jesus; also to Simeon and Anna. Do you see Isa 9:6,7 as something other than "future" Slade? Should "shall and wil"l be interpreted as present or past tense? On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:40:44 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hello, Judy. Please understand that there is no past, present, or future tense in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can infer past or present or future by perfect and imperfect tenses, but prophesy...? It breaks a lot of the grammar rules. It can be fun as long as you don't get dogmatic about it. Only Begotten" means "unique." -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/12/2005 6:27:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My previously happy ex-wife's mother, tried to cast an evil spirit out of me. She stop her debate with me, at the breakfast table with bibles opening and hearts churnning, squinted her eys. look streaight trough me and said "Some out of him, come out of him." True story. When she first started, I shut up -- the Smithmeister was silient for the space of one half hour -- and then, nothing. I finally said, "Mary, nothing is happening !" She replied " You won't let him come out !!" and I regretably said " Well, I guess I am a little tougher than your God" Not good -- me son-in-law and all. John Could you give her another go at it, JD? Izzy As much as I don't want to -- I have to admit that there's a big smile com'in on. :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 5:42:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The soul that sinneth, it shall die -- is not a true statement for those who are in Christ. JD, then by your theology there will be very few in hell, and most everyone in heavenâcorrect? Izzy 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21- Oh, sorry, Izzy, I am busy trying to come with any some sort of believeable answer. As sonn as I do, I will continue our discussion...'Course, when I get through with counting the saved, I will have to count the lost over all time AND then make some kind of reasonable projection for the future: 22-2-3-24-25-26-27-28- JD - out! On second thought, why don't you count out the saved. You seem to have a better handle on that. I will take number and the rest should be easy.
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
David wrote > I'm going to study your comments about John 8 a little more carefully. Unless a big light bulb goes off by doing so, I will probably have some questions about it. That's fine, David, but let me tell you up front, I'm not interested in going down a thousand different bunny trails in search of that which if we would but look up, we could see right before us. While we are sniffing out the trail, the Bunny becomes a smaller and smaller speck on the horizon. Questions of clarification are fine, but I do not feel a necessity with you (being the exegete and student of Scripture that you are, with the resources you have at your disposal) to reinvent the wheel. There is no end to the books which have already been written -- by theologians of much greater renown than myself -- on this subject. If what you want is a book, then at some point it needs to be your imperative to read the ones already written. I would be glad to make some suggestions to get you started. Please do not take offense at this, but it concerns me very much the way you are wont to re-direct a discussion away from the big picture which holds it all together. Perhaps this is not so great a problem -- your method -- in the physical sciences, but I find it quite problematic in terms of theological methodology. You may already know this, but I want to emphasize it here because it is becoming so much more apparent to me why this is so. T.F. Torrance in every book and every lecture stresses the importance of allowing the object of our study determine the way we come to know it. A scientist would not use a microscope to look for distant galaxies. For that he would use a telescope. In like manner he would not use a telescope to examine the constitution of a virus; he would use a microscope for that. This is because he knows that he must let the object of his inquiry establish the means by which it is studied. As Christians we must apply these same scientific principals in our study of God. We must let him determine the way that he is to be known. We dare not take a microscope to that which can only be seen through a telescopic lens. God cannot be reduced. The sum of the parts cannot ever equal the whole, and this is because God is indivisibly one. When we attempt to define him via a process of falsification, we lose sight of who he is -- the Bunny scoots over the hill. You and Judy seem to want everything spelled out in tidy propositional statements. If the Bible doesn't say it word for word, then you conclude it must not say it at all. Yet neither of you are willing to hold yourselves to that task. You both draw inferences all the time, which, as I said last night, is fine, as long as there is substantive evidence from which to draw the inference. David, the substantive evidence abounds in relation to the eternal Sonship of Christ. You are allowing one statement, which may or may not be propositionally applicable, frame the whole discussion, and shape and steer your regulative beliefs as it relates to our Lord. There are hundreds of statements in Scripture that we know must be figurative, even though they are stated in propositional form. We do not take them literally because we know that to do so would be to diminish or even deny truths that are greater and grander and more definitive in our understanding of the biblical narrative as a whole. Yes, Ps 2.7 and its cognates (I couldn't think of the right word) is a difficult passage. But must we shut out from our thoughts the greater narrative of who the Son is and hence who our God is, as presented through an abundance of implicit language, until that time that we fully understand its meaning and significance? Certainly not, for then we could not confidently know anything about our Lord; dedicated Christians have been debating the meaning of that verse for centuries. If absolute certainty is the criterion by which we may call a statement true, the truth is we will never meet it. We must allow the greater narrative to hold, while we attempt to delineate the meaning of its particulars. Please just consider what I have said. No comments necessary. Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me > Bill Taylor wrote: > > David, I broke your statement down into > > parts and answered accordingly: > > > > we are five out of six in terms of agreement. > > Thanks Bill! This was VERY helpful. > > I'm going to study your comments about John 8 a little more carefully. > Unless a big light bulb goes off by doing so, I will probably have some > questions about it. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > David, I am curious about something: Why are > > you denying (and on more than one occasion) > > that what you are setting forth is your "teaching" > > as well? Why instead do you insist on calling this > > "the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, > > Ada
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Yeah, that's pretty funny, Terry. Do I value my opinion too highly? I hope not! The truth is that I spend most of my time feeling very inadequate about my thoughts and opinions; I feel like I have failed to communicate what I really wanted to say. I place this burden upon myself; I feel responsible for your lack of understanding. O if I could just say it better, you would understand. And so I write it out again from a slightly different starting point, hoping that this time I will get it said. But again I am misunderstood. The truth is, Terry, you can say what you want, and you can draw your own conclusions. And if you want to poke a little fun at me, that is fine; I'll laugh along with you. But I would like to respectfully challenge you on this one, because there has been no failure on my part or the part of John Smithson and others to set this teaching forth in clear and cogent language. If you do not understand; it is because you do not want to understand. If you cannot see it; it is because you do not want to see it. The burden for this one is on your shoulders: Why are you so bent on going against that which has been upheld and set forth and cherished as orthodoxy by the church throughout the centuries of its existence? What reason do you have that is good enough for you to do that? Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? Bill Taylor wrote: Now let me give you and example of your caricatures from a recent post? However, this is subject to change if anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the "eternal son" people have done so. While I admit that on this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of Christ and the relational nature of our the triune God. I have deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the exegesis Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture. And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential to a right understanding of God.=You probably feel that this is an accurate statement, Bill. There is a long shot possibility that you have nailed it, but another reason why she cannot understand your viewpoint may very well be that you value your own opinion too highly and are actually in error. After all, if you were correct, wouldn't David and I agree with you?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Judaizers within the Messianic Movement
In a message dated 1/12/2005 5:08:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think Scripture says the false prophet is to be killed Kay :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:57:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I don't know about "fun" Slade. It's serious business to student's of God's Word as it was to the astrologers or whoever they were who travelled so far to see the child Jesus; also to Simeon and Anna. Do you see Isa 9:6,7 as something other than "future" Slade? Should "shall and wil"l be interpreted as present or past tense? On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:40:44 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hello, Judy. Please understand that there is no past, present, or future tense in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can infer past or present or future by perfect and imperfect tenses, but prophesy...? It breaks a lot of the grammar rules. It can be fun as long as you don't get dogmatic about it. Only Begotten" means "unique." -- slade Judy, what in the world are you doing? Are you actually disagreeing with the grammatical rules of Hebrew. The correct responce to Slade's observation about the very language of the O.T. is "wow, I didn't know that" or perhpas simply "cool." Why are you disagreeing with Slade when you have no idea what you are talking about? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: I wish I could think of stuff like that, JD. Nice to see Izzy get a jab in the ribs now and then. I'm too timid to tickle the whiskers of that sleeping cat :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2005 9:25:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This IS a discussion group, not an agreement farm !! John Looks more like a funny farm to meâIz That might change when you retire. JD A preemptive stoke of genius, on my part. Humbly Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: JOHN a dead baby is not my problem. I have a Heavenly Father whose nature and character is love and so I leave all those kinds of problems with Him cause I don't have to know everything. However, what about the babies of the Amorites and these other nations God was so disgusted with? I mean the ones where Israel was told not to let even one animal live? No theological statement in your defense? Why? Because there is no such thing .. unless you believe that Amorite dogs will join me in the lake of fire. If you don't believe the above places animals in hell, may I suggest neither does this passage place Amorite children there, either. I am coming to the point in time when such discussions will not be enjoined by me. To think that I feel the need to make a statement about Amorite animals is illustrative of just how silly my discussion with has become. John
Re: [TruthTalk] A Prophetic Word from David Miller
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's the Word become flesh in the life of David Miller John and this should be normal Christianity. jt could you explain conceptually (that would include biblical reference) apart from references to David. I do not want to apprear to be putting David on trial, here. No purpose is served in doing so. Thanks Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even though we do not all affirm your view concerning a lack of a fallen nature, there are at least a couple of us who will affirm the absence of a concept of "spiritual death" in the biblical narrative. Now, does that make you feel better? Bill yes .
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: O poor poor John, yes, that's me. :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How sad John, "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:15,16) jt You just don't try to understand anything I say, do you. If David can speak of a whole group of individuals, I can speak of the individuals themselves. If whole denominations are unpure, so are those who make them up -- but maybe you criticize me for not being clear about the notion that we are made pure by Another. I don't know. I do know that the Titus passage has nothing to do with what I am talking about. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
From: Bill Taylor Allow me to give you a resent example of one of your smears. Depending how you do with it, I may go further: "BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan." Can you say to me with a clear conscience and your hand on the Bible that yours is not a pejorative use of the word "triad"? jt: I don't swear on anything Bill, my yes or no should be enough and I can say with a clear conscience that I was not intentionally being "perjorative" in using the word triad which has become a kind of internet shorthand for you, Lance, and Jonathan, kind of like an endearing emoticon - I don't consider them perjorative. Do you?. Now allow me to give you an example of misrepresentation from a recent post: Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything. I underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my position? jt: There you go Bill, doing exactly what you are accusing me of. I want you to go as far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off this list. And as for the second part of what I wrote above. I can say with a clear conscience that I don't remember any fo the "substantive words" you have written about anyone damning themselves to hell either. Now let me give you an example of your caricatures from a recent post? However, this is subject to change if anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the "eternal son" people have done so. While I admit that on this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of Christ and the relational nature of our triune God. I have deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the exegesis of Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture. jt: "Outsourcing" Bill? Sounds like problems US trade is having right now. I agree that you have tried to explain the above but I don't see the Godhead as three ppl all fixed and relating to one another throughout eternity, neither do I accept what you term as the "orthodox" doctrine of Christ - He has been, is, and will be so much more ... And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding what I am attempting to convey. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential to a right understanding of God. Yet you belittle that effort and shun your heritage with your derogatory characterization of us as the "'eternal son' people." jt: Bill just because something is old does not make it either good or true. I don't know that I don't understand what you are saying. I do know that I don't accept that Jesus is locked in to being an "eternal son" You have been shown in Scripture the basis for this belief. It is a strong enough basis to have convinced millions upon millions of Christians over the centuries. jt: I don't believe I have been given a scriptural basis for this belief Bill - and do you really believe that these millions upon millions of Christians over the centuries did their own homework? Or have they been taught creeds and even at times given ultimatums? You have been shown the error of your theology, yet you mock us with words and titles like: "'eternal Sonship' - relationship - community thing." This is a caricature; it is a derogatory imitation of our beliefs san the substance of content. jt: I am sorry that you feel this way Bill. I'm not against relationship, community, or in sonship - if they are in the right balance and context. By the way, if you want any references you may check your comments below. Except for the last two, they were made in your post prior to this one. Bill jt: Thank you Bill for this
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2005 11:57:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well there is the broad road and the narrow way - everyone is on one or the other but only one of them will lead to life. Defining what the word Christian means is neither here nor there. jt Maybe the road only SEEMS SMALL because we have found ourselves in an overhelmingly large vehicle --- one used by some to actually run over others who are forced to merely travse the road less traveled on foot. :-)= Jd No seems about it. Small, small, small. Not even a two trail dirt road. Just a narrow path. My Savior said so, and He don't lie. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: Fw: I just don't look good naked any more]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shouldn't this be addressed to Terry's wife? == No. She don't look that bad naked. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Bill Taylor wrote: > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the silence of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. Judy then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the lack of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or a misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood her. Bill Taylor wrote: > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > their behalf. If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why not forever? It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the world, and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? If the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be better understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years later? Bill Taylor wrote: > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all the Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just because the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible did use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other passages seem to contradict the idea. 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] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Bill Taylor wrote: Now let me give you and example of your caricatures from a recent post? However, this is subject to change if anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the "eternal son" people have done so. While I admit that on this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of Christ and the relational nature of our the triune God. I have deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the exegesis Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture. And Judy, don't deceive yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential to a right understanding of God. = You probably feel that this is an accurate statement, Bill. There is a long shot possibility that you have nailed it, but another reason why she cannot understand your viewpoint may very well be that you value your own opinion too highly and are actually in error. After all, if you were correct, wouldn't David and I agree with you? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
I hear you Izzy - seems like I can also recall going through this procedure before and I've not been around TT as long as you ... On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:12:15 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jt, also I have learned that when a certain mormon fellow (to remain unnamed) asks us to define anything it is to get us squabbling about definitions amongst ourselves; thus avoiding him answering any specific, uncomfortable questions himself. Izzy On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:48:12 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: To the contrary, Judy, I have no problem believing that the names of those who do not reject the Christ will remain unblotted from the Lambs Book of Life. How about if you let me and the triad articulate our own beliefs. When you feel compelled to smear us with caricatures and misrepresentations, just think of how you like it when others do that to you. Then if you want to go ahead and do it, then go ahead and do it. You don't bother me so much anymore; I'll still forgive you. Your friend, Bill jt: Very dramatic Bill. But please tell me in what way I have smeared, misrepresented and caricatured you? BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan. Before you forgive me please tell me what I have done wrong. Don't you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything and weren't you writing about the perils of enlightenment thinking and how it keeps one from being able to understand scripture? If you don't believe these things then at least give me the opportunity to repent.. judyt On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:49:40 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. jt: Not my "teaching" John it is in the Book and the really important thing should be what God says even if it does conflict with your ontological model. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s - oh, never mind ! JD jt: Oh, I see. We are back to this is just my interpretation and I can't know anything because of my "enlightenment thinking?" Please yourself John. It's your future. I knew you (and the triad) wouldn't want "overcoming" on the front burner since the theological theories are so much easier. judyt __jt: Unscriptural John. How did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's sin and stop doing it? John: Interesting scripture, Judy. Our names are in that book from the beginning. Wow. I had forgotten this passage. Do you see God erasing some of these names? I don't. jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus 32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the one who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of life (Rev 3:5). So, the really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting teaching. Unscriptural John. - I would not have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s - oh, never mind !JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Woops...I just noticed this post. I seem to miss posts on a regular basis.I'll go to this shade of purple: -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, 10 January, 2005 10.16To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: Scripture is very clear there are other gods, I would agree, however, I would say they're false gods. DAVEH: If the gods spoken of in Ps 82 were false (and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about what Ps 82 is conveying when using that term), then what would be their logical pertinence to Jesus' use of them as a defense in the accusations against him that he was making himself God? I worded that rather awkwardly, Kaydoes my question make any sense to you? No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim [gods, judges]. I think what you're referring to is the .you are gods part, right? First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. Am I totally off base and confused? That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc. I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, toothe egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH: Do you think one can understand the nature of God? Should we try? I don't think one can understand the nature of God 100%. I don't think it's humanly possible. I think we can have some understanding (in some people's minds, only little, depending on their minds and what may or not be in them!) Yes, I think we should try knowing our minds are limited. I think that by trying this would include praying for wisdom and understanding. I think that the more we understand, the more we can respect (fear) God and be more grateful to Him for what He did...the price He chose to pay for jerks like us. Will we attain it 100%? I don't so think in this life and I don't know about in the one to come...eternity is a long time to sit at His feet and learn... I would hope we would eventually understand! Are the things others are saying you believe truly what you believe? Kay
Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
jt: I don't "fake" stuff Kay, what am I supposed to be getting that I don't get? All anyone can have is an opinion about this question - unless you have some hidden insight and if you do then please share.. judyt On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:55 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do you really not get it or are you faking it? Kay Kay...in this shade: Judy in this shade On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:31:07 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A dead baby may not be your problem, Judy, but it's many people's rather traumatic problem. People wonder where their family members GO...especially their children when they die. Death is a very real problem most of us have to deal with at one time or another. The death of a child is probably a pain so great that I can't even imagine it. jt: True Kay but what point is there in borrowing trouble. I trust the Lord to give me the grace to deal with it if and when the time comes. I understand that people question these things. My own mother has been asking why my sister was taken at 60yrs for the past 16yrs and she just had her 99th birthday. However, if you told her the truth she wouldn't receive it. Yes the pain is great but pulling a rabbit out of a hat to make them feel better is no long term solution. This was not the context of the discussion, Judy, nor the question John asked. There was nothing about borrowing trouble. The discussion was about being born in sin...would that affect salvation...what about a baby who doesn't get much of a life, who can't make the choice between God or not of God? John said: Judy - is a dead baby going to heaven or hell. I am sure your theology allows for such -- just interested in how that happens. You answered by saying a dead baby is not your problem. Now you say there's no point in borrowing trouble. I think it's a simple yes or no answer. Is a baby going to heaven? Is a baby going to hell? jt: Taking on questions I don't know the answer to is IMO "borrowing trouble" Kay. John is asking me to make a judgment or determination that neither he or I know the answer to. John is simply saying babies aren't accountable. Haven't you ever had a friend who miscarried or lost their baby to being stillborn, or died from SIDS, hit by a drunk driver, or from their immunizations? Haven't you known a family whose child died in an accident? Catholics would tell you the child goes to some in-between place unless the infant has been baptized. jt: I have miscarried myself and yes, I know how that is but John does not know everything and it's OK to be honest and admit it. It has nothing to do with what John knows or doesn't know. The discussion is centered on salvationwho has it and who doesn't. jt: Those who have it should have assurance by way of the indwelling Spirit. If you can find the answer to John's question in scripture - please tell me where it is at. I know that King David was sure the child he had with Bathsheba was with the Lord - even though David had sinned/repented, he was a son of the Covenant. I am not so sure about the offspring of idolators. Do you think the firstborn of the Egyptians who God allowed to be killed went to be with Him and if your answer is yes - what do you base this on? We don't have to know everything, but we can certainly have some tools to be an encouragement to others so we may minister to them in empathy and love. If a young mother just had a miscarriage, or had a baby stillborn, would you say to her.Gee, your dead baby isn't my problem? I have a heavenly father whose nature is love.. What if that young mother was a non-Believer? What do you think she would think/feel about a God who is love? Kay jt: Of course I wouldn't say that to someone who is grieving Kay but neither would I give them false hope. I see it as an opportunity to encourage them to seek God's answers in His Word for themselves. Too many people look to others for all the answers. Helping and encouraging them is one thing. How does false hope come into the
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related Different Roads
Since it is Jesus Himself who says the gate is strait and the way is narrow, I believe I will take him at His Word - sometimes or imaginations can get us into big trouble. judyt On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:18:14 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/11/2005 11:57:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Well there is the broad road and the narrow way - everyone is on one or the other but only one of them will lead to life. Defining what the word Christian means is neither here nor there. jtMaybe the road only SEEMS SMALL because we have found ourselves in an overhelmingly large vehicle --- one used by some to actually run over others who are forced to merely travse the road less traveled on foot. :-)=Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life?
Do you really not get it or are you faking it? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 13.04To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:02:00 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kay...in this shade: Judy in this shade On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:31:07 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A dead baby may not be your problem, Judy, but it's many people's rather traumatic problem. People wonder where their family members GO...especially their children when they die. Death is a very real problem most of us have to deal with at one time or another. The death of a child is probably a pain so great that I can't even imagine it. jt: True Kay but what point is there in borrowing trouble. I trust the Lord to give me the grace to deal with it if and when the time comes. I understand that people question these things. My own mother has been asking why my sister was taken at 60yrs for the past 16yrs and she just had her 99th birthday. However, if you told her the truth she wouldn't receive it. Yes the pain is great but pulling a rabbit out of a hat to make them feel better is no long term solution. This was not the context of the discussion, Judy, nor the question John asked. There was nothing about borrowing trouble. The discussion was about being born in sin...would that affect salvation...what about a baby who doesn't get much of a life, who can't make the choice between God or not of God? John said: Judy - is a dead baby going to heaven or hell. I am sure your theology allows for such -- just interested in how that happens. You answered by saying a dead baby is not your problem. Now you say there's no point in borrowing trouble. I think it's a simple yes or no answer. Is a baby going to heaven? Is a baby going to hell? jt: Taking on questions I don't know the answer to is IMO "borrowing trouble" Kay. John is asking me to make a judgment or determination that neither he or I know the answer to. John is simply saying babies aren't accountable. Haven't you ever had a friend who miscarried or lost their baby to being stillborn, or died from SIDS, hit by a drunk driver, or from their immunizations? Haven't you known a family whose child died in an accident? Catholics would tell you the child goes to some in-between place unless the infant has been baptized. jt: I have miscarried myself and yes, I know how that is but John does not know everything and it's OK to be honest and admit it. It has nothing to do with what John knows or doesn't know. The discussion is centered on salvationwho has it and who doesn't. jt: Those who have it should have assurance by way of the indwelling Spirit. If you can find the answer to John's question in scripture - please tell me where it is at. I know that King David was sure the child he had with Bathsheba was with the Lord - even though David had sinned/repented, he was a son of the Covenant. I am not so sure about the offspring of idolators. Do you think the firstborn of the Egyptians who God allowed to be killed went to be with Him and if your answer is yes - what do you base this on? We don't have to know everything, but we can certainly have some tools to be an encouragement to others so we may minister to them in empathy and love. If a young mother just had a miscarriage, or had a baby stillborn, would you say to her.Gee, your dead baby isn't my problem? I have a heavenly father whose nature is love.. What if that young mother was a non-Believer? What do you think she would think/feel about a God who is love? Kay jt: Of course I wouldn't say that to someone who is grieving Kay but neither would I give them false hope. I see it as an opportunity to encourage them to seek God's answers in His Word for themselves. Too many people look to others for all the answers. Helping and encouraging them is one thing. How does false hope come into the picture? What if the mom is illiterate and simply CAN'T
