Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution.The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time ofyear, wecelebratemuch more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD. If God was completely folded into this man [Christ]thenGod acted as man to save man. Therecan be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many arguethat Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death haseternalvalue because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound. To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease tobe God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance. the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of thefoundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Hi David, thank you for your response. I am not an expert on Servetus and did not live in Geneva so like you I am depending on written accounts by others - and it appears as though there are other opinions about the situation in Geneva. In Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" P.63 he writes: "Calvin's defenders turn a blind eye to the facts when they attempt to exonerate him by blaming events in Geneva on the civil authorities. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Boettner even insists that "Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation between Church and State." In fact, Calvin not only established ecclesiastical law but he codified the civil legislation. He held the civil authorities responsible to "foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and condition of the church" and to see that "no idolatry, no blasphemy against God's name, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be disseminated among the people ... (but) to prevent the true religion ... from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy" Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored over the official records of the City Council for Calvin's day tells us "There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council in which we do not find the remark "Better consult Master Calvin about this" Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a "consultant's chair" in every meeting of the city authorities and "when he was sick the authorities would come to his house for their sessions" Rather than diminishing with time, Calvin's power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits that "in Calvin's latter years, and under his influence the laws of Geneva became more detailed and more stringent" Servetus may have been a rank heretic - but where there is life there is hope of repentance. His life was taken from him. judyt On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, elders and bishops are the same thing in Scripture. The passage that Bill quotes is "bishop" in the KJV. I thought that was the version of your Bible. You still don't get the situation in Geneva. John Calvin was brought to Geneva to help them organize a "reformed" church. Calvin outlined an organization with Doctors, Pastors, Deacons, and Elders. The powers went only as far as excommunication. This was the only power that Calvin had, and when he exercised it once to the chagrin of the city council, he himself was banished from Geneva for 3 years, until a new city council had invited him back. In regards to Servetus, Calvin had NO POWER or AUTHORITY to put him to death, as mandated by his own outline of powers of the church. His involvement was by exhorting the city council to do something about this man, and then by making the case for how Servetus had blasphemed the name of God. So your question of, "how would it have been possible for one of these men living in Geneva to reign in John Calvin," has already been answered. All they had to do was say to Calvin, "no." That's it. In fact, Servetus had made the case that Calvin should be the one on trial and he sought to have Calvin put to death and all his belongings given to Servetus. The council took no action on his exhortation. What would history have been like if they had accepted Servetus's arguments instead of Calvin's? Think about it. I'm off to meeting with the saints now. God bless. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore Are you reading from the Latin Vulgate Bill? My Bible calls them "elders" - yes they are to be "examples" to the flock but Jesus is head of the Church and they are at best undershepherds. How would it have been possible for one of these men living in Geneva to reign in John Calvin? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:49:02 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd writes: Better read Titus 1:9-13 jt writes: Where in scripture does one find a "Bishop-led" Church? Titus 1.7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and
[TruthTalk] Are you believing media myths??
Thursday, December 1, 2005 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction. The question is... WHY do they believe this lie?
[TruthTalk] A real question! Who IS Jesus?
WHAT IF GOD WERE (BECAME) ONE OF US? Jesus' abound:New Age Jesus (ascended master et al), JW Jesus (Michael the archangel), Mormon Jesus (literal offspring - via Mary - of a god who himself was once a man). Dan Brown's Jesus (DaVinci Code) One could go on and on and. Does it matter WHO JESUS IS? Do true believers come, via Scripture, to sincere but DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS? Is the 'heart of the gospel' to be found in the answer to this question? IMO, THE MOST ASKED QUESTION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is WHY? (why me, why now, why this, why that). Is it possible that the answer to (IMO) 'the most asked question' is to be found in 'WHO JESUS IS' (Does WHO take precedence over WHY AND WHAT) Of course there are a multitude of other and, important questions but, is any question more central than this? (WHO IS JESUS, WHO IS EMMANUEL, WHO IS THIS JEW BORN OF MARY, WHO IS THIS MAN RELATIVE TO THE FATHER AND THE SPIRIT?) Does the 'GOSPEL WE PREACH' grow out our answer to this?
[TruthTalk] Emailing: trinity
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:Shortcut to: http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. trinity.url Description: Binary data
RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: trinity.htm
Title: The Trinity Subordinationism by Kevin Giles Bottom line: liberals are liberals because they have a spirit of rebellion. Thus subordinationism (submission to authority) is anathema to them. And they certainly cant have Jesus doing that!!! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:09 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Emailing: trinity.htm
[TruthTalk] Garrison Keillor
My husband and I used to enjoy Prairie Home Companion on the radio every weekend until Garrison Keillors liberal politics got so rabid that we stopped listening altogether. It was sickening. iz
Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Your quote from Dave Hunt's book is great. I have no problems with hisfacts or how he explains the connection between Calvin and the City Council. What he says below is exactly what I have been saying, and I hope you can see that what he says is much different than saying that Calvin had murderous hatred towardServetus and murdered him. The only comment I might make to clarify matters stated belowis that Calvin indeed believed in separation between Church and State, but not in the way that we think of it today. The church, which Calvinwas part of and was a leader of, had only the power to excommunicate. That's it. This is what Calvin taught.The State, on the other hand, had the responsibility to wield the sword of God (Romans 13). So he argued that the State, not the church, was the one who punished evil doers. The difference comes in when we consider laws against adultery, homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy, not observing the Sabbath, drunkenness, etc. These days, separation of Church and State mean to most people that the State should not be involved in any matters that concern God or the church. From Calvin's perspective, the State had an obligation to wield the sword of God in matters that affected the Church and God. Sofrom his view, the State wielded the sword of God to punish evil doers whilethe Church ministeredforgiveness, mercy,the love of Christ, etc. This was Calvin's view of separation of Church and State, and this is what he worked toward accomplishing in Geneva. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore Hi David, thank you for your response. I am not an expert on Servetus and did not live in Geneva so like you I am depending on written accounts by others - and it appears as though there are other opinions about the situation in Geneva. In Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" P.63 he writes: "Calvin's defenders turn a blind eye to the facts when they attempt to exonerate him by blaming events in Geneva on the civil authorities. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Boettner even insists that "Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation between Church and State." In fact, Calvin not only established ecclesiastical law but he codified the civil legislation. He held the civil authorities responsible to "foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and condition of the church" and to see that "no idolatry, no blasphemy against God's name, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be disseminated among the people ... (but) to prevent the true religion ... from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy" Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored over the official records of the City Council for Calvin's day tells us "There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council in which we do not find the remark "Better consult Master Calvin about this" Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a "consultant's chair" in every meeting of the city authorities and "when he was sick the authorities would come to his house for their sessions" Rather than diminishing with time, Calvin's power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits that "in Calvin's latter years, and under his influence the laws of Geneva became more detailed and more stringent" Servetus may have been a rank heretic - but where there is life there is hope of repentance. His life was taken from him. judyt On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, elders and bishops are the same thing in Scripture. The passage that Bill quotes is "bishop" in the KJV. I thought that was the version of your Bible. You still don't get the situation in Geneva. John Calvin was brought to Geneva to help them organize a "reformed" church. Calvin outlined an organization with Doctors, Pastors, Deacons, and Elders. The powers went only as far as excommunication. This was the only power that Calvin had, and when he exercised it once to the chagrin of the city council, he himself was banished from Geneva for 3 years, until a new city council had invited him back. In regards to Servetus, Calvin had NO POWER or AUTHORITY to put him to death, as mandated by his own outline of powers of the church. His involvement was by exhorting the city council to do something about this man, and then by making the case for how Servetus had
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
myth (a radical falsification of the NT picture of JCs ministry--another bit of evidencein whichconfounded cultic-Fundamentalist psychobabblecircumvents the truth of the NT, demandg instead political loyaltyto the/irRepublic repudiatingglobal public committment/s such as Calvin's which areat great cost to both JC himself and all his realfollowers) On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:13 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [GWB]happens to be a believer in Christ in his own personal life which is not open to public scrutiny
Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Dean wrote: Calvin said God gave him his authority to kill-God clearly did not do Bill Taylor wrote: Where did Calvin say that? Dean wrote: J. Calvin wrote: Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very quilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his church (Shaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p.791.). This partial quote does NOT indicate that Calvin said God gave him (Calvin) authority to kill. Calvin would argue that he had no authority to kill. What he is arguing here in context is the authority of the civil magistrates, the State, to wield the sword of God for this purpose. Calvin argues that those who do not support Romans 13 and the authority of the State to wield God's punishment against such evil doers are knowingly and willingly incurring their guilt. This is like saying that if we do not support the idea that the State should punish murderers, then we are incurring the guilt of murderers. There is room to debate this point, but let's not twist his words into some statement that Calvin believed God gave him authority to kill. You are misunderstanding his argument. Dean wrote: He never once told us or the disciples to kill those that break this law. He also never told the authorities to stop killing those who deserved death according to the law, did he? Would Jesus want us to get rid of the justice system and no longer prosecute murderers and thieves? Is that what you are arguing? Dean wrote: No I do not agree as I am confined by the Bible which does not call for one to die over committing blasphemy -Titus 1 clearly states they must be silenced by opposing those who do such and even strong rebuke-but not death. I am glad that you make this point here, Dean. Bravo. I like it. Nevertheless, this passage in Titus is speaking about the authority of the bishop, and Calvin would 100% agree with you in this context. On the other hand, when you say that the Bible does not call for one to die over committing blasphemy, well, that statement is flat out false. You need to consider the whole Bible, and not just one part that you argue is silent about it. The Bible is very specific, showing how the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord as well as the one who commits murder, should be put to death. Following is the passage for your consideration, where it even gives an example of a man who was stoned to death for blasphemy: Leviticus 24:15-23 (15) And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. (16) And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (17) And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. (18) And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. (19) And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; (20) Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. (21) And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. (22) Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. (23) And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses. Dean wrote: You must remember That J.Calvin made a decree that heretics, and blasphemers, and those that say it is unjust to kill for these reasons were put to death-not just blasphemers. I think you are reading too much into his statement. He does not mean that the civil authorities should put to death those who disagree. I read him to be saying that before God, when they appear before God and are judged by him, they will bear guilt for not siding with God's Holy Scriptures, the Bible, because they know what the Bible says should be done to blasphemers, but they disagree and do not support the Scriptures. I could be wrong, but that is how I read it. Dean wrote: I hope you also understand that I believe in the death penalty as I am also told to keep the laws of the land unless they conflict with the laws of God-I see no conflict ions except aborting and Sodomy. ??? What!? No conflicts except abortion and sodomy? What about adultery? What about how they deal with divorce in light of what Jesus taught? What about ordering the Ten Commandments into the closet? The list goes on and on... Dean wrote: God put governors and rulers in place to make such decisions and stated that He would
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:46:25 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (a radical falsification of the NT picture of JCs ministry--another bit of evidencein whichconfounded cultic-Fundamentalist psychobabble[subverts] the truth of the NT, demandg instead political loyaltyto the/irRepublic repudiatingglobal public committment/s such as Calvin's which areat great cost to both JC himself and all his realfollowers) On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:13 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [GWB]happens to be a believer in Christ in his own personal life which is not open to public scrutiny
[TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs -
All of this dialogue is ironic when one considers Calvins doctrine - which is that because of God's Sovereignty - He hasdecreed everything .. So why did she not allowGod to deal with what He had Himselfdecreed? There are so many contradictions. Last night our DIL (who not so long ago came back to church) and I attended a class where our pastor was attempting to enlighten us about 'Reformed doctrine' -Our DIL (who is a smart girl) came out of there thoroughly confused because at the beginninghe taughtTotal Depravity and last night he covered Romans 2:14,15 (same asJD would teach it) which is that these are pagan Gentiles - rather than taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome (who the letter is written to) and that they might just possibly be born of the Spirit and have a new regenerated nature as per Jer 31:33.Our DIL was tryingtofigure out how these 'totally depraved Gentiles' have the law of God written on their hearts and do instinctively the things written therein. Amazing!! No wonder ppl check their minds in at the door and pick them up on the way out. David Miller writes: This partial quote does NOT indicate that Calvin said God gave him (Calvin) authority to kill. Calvin would argue that he had no authority to kill. What he is arguing here in context is the authority of the civil magistrates, the State, to wield the sword of God for this purpose. Calvin argues that those who do not support Romans 13 and the authority of the State to wield God's punishment against such evil doers are knowingly and willingly incurring their guilt. This is like saying that if we do not support the idea that the State should punish murderers, then we are incurring the guilt of murderers. There is room to debate this point, but let's not twist his words into some statement that Calvin believed God gave him authority to kill. You are misunderstanding his argument.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
Excuse me, please don't ascribe words or motives to anyone but yourself tt I am not demanding anything; I am saying that you have no right to judge another man's servant because he is not in the public forum as a preacher/teacher. On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:46:25 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (a radical falsification of the NT picture of JCs ministry--another bit of evidencein whichconfounded cultic-Fundamentalist psychobabblecircumvents the truth of the NT, demandg instead political loyaltyto the/irRepublic repudiatingglobal public committment/s such as Calvin's which areat great cost to both JC himself and all his realfollowers) On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:13 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [GWB]happens to be a believer in Christ in his own personal life which is not open to public scrutiny judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs -
Oophs! I meant 'he'since Calvin is male On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:23:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of this dialogue is ironic when one considers Calvins doctrine - which is that because of God's Sovereignty - He hasdecreed everything .. So why did she not allowGod to deal with what He had Himselfdecreed? There are so many contradictions. Last night our DIL (who not so long ago came back to church) and I attended a class where our pastor was attempting to enlighten us about 'Reformed doctrine' -Our DIL (who is a smart girl) came out of there thoroughly confused because at the beginninghe taughtTotal Depravity and last night he covered Romans 2:14,15 (same asJD would teach it) which is that these are pagan Gentiles - rather than taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome (who the letter is written to) and that they might just possibly be born of the Spirit and have a new regenerated nature as per Jer 31:33.Our DIL was tryingtofigure out how these 'totally depraved Gentiles' have the law of God written on their hearts and do instinctively the things written therein. Amazing!! No wonder ppl check their minds in at the door and pick them up on the way out. David Miller writes: This partial quote does NOT indicate that Calvin said God gave him (Calvin) authority to kill. Calvin would argue that he had no authority to kill. What he is arguing here in context is the authority of the civil magistrates, the State, to wield the sword of God for this purpose. Calvin argues that those who do not support Romans 13 and the authority of the State to wield God's punishment against such evil doers are knowingly and willingly incurring their guilt. This is like saying that if we do not support the idea that the State should punish murderers, then we are incurring the guilt of murderers. There is room to debate this point, but let's not twist his words into some statement that Calvin believed God gave him authority to kill. You are misunderstanding his argument. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] bush song
What "global committment?" Geneva isglobal now ? You are hallucinating Gary tt writes: repudiatingglobal public committment/s such as Calvin's which areat great cost to both JC himself and all his realfollowers judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] A real question! Who IS Jesus?
Amen, Lance! You are right: the question of "Who is Jesus" should really be the question. Today we only think about ourselves, and engage in idolotry.Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God Blessings Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WHAT IF GOD WERE (BECAME) ONE OF US? Jesus' abound:New Age Jesus (ascended master et al), JW Jesus (Michael the archangel), Mormon Jesus (literal offspring - via Mary - of a god who himself was once a man). Dan Brown's Jesus (DaVinci Code) One could go on and on and.Does it matter WHO JESUS IS? Do true believers come, via Scripture, to sincere but DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS? Is the 'heart of the gospel' to be found in the answer to this question?IMO, THE MOST ASKED QUESTION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is WHY? (why me, why now, why this, why that).. Is it possible that the answer to (IMO) 'the most asked question' is to be found in 'WHO JESUS IS' (Does WHO take precedence over WHY AND WHAT)Of course there are a multitude of other and, important questions but, is any question more central than this? (WHO IS JESUS, WHO IS EMMANUEL, WHO IS THIS JEW BORN OF MARY, WHO IS THIS MAN RELATIVE TO THE FATHER AND THE SPIRIT?) Does the 'GOSPEL WE PREACH' grow out our answer to this? Yahoo! Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
Re: [TruthTalk] A real question! Who IS Jesus?
My first response to this question is "No." How could it matter when no one really has it right? And I think that I could make a very strong case from this beginning. I would argue that God's love is bigger than our misunderstandings of Him and go on from there. But, the question isnot Does it matter WHO JESUS IS?, rather Does it matter WHO JESUS IS? Do true believers come, via Scripture, to sincere but DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS? Is the 'heart of the gospel' to be found in the answer to this question? Is it possible that the true answer to this question is not an intellectually stated conclusion but an ontological one? I can see separation in the first but unanimity in the second? jd -Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:35:52 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] A real question! Who IS Jesus? WHAT IF GOD WERE (BECAME) ONE OF US? Jesus' abound:New Age Jesus (ascended master et al), JW Jesus (Michael the archangel), Mormon Jesus (literal offspring - via Mary - of a god who himself was once a man). Dan Brown's Jesus (DaVinci Code) One could go on and on and. Does it matter WHO JESUS IS? Do true believers come, via Scripture, to sincere but DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS? Is the 'heart of the gospel' to be found in the answer to this question? IMO, THE MOST ASKED QUESTION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is WHY? (why me, why now, why this, why that). Is it possible that the answer to (IMO) 'the most asked question' is to be found in 'WHO JESUS IS' (Does WHO take precedence over WHY AND WHAT) Of course there are a multitude of other and, important questions but, is any question more central than this? (WHO IS JESUS, WHO IS EMMANUEL, WHO IS THIS JEW BORN OF MARY, WHO IS THIS MAN RELATIVE TO THE FATHER AND THE SPIRIT?) Does the 'GOSPEL WE PREACH' grow out our answer to this?
Re: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs -
Additional comments below in
red.
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:44
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs
-
... rather than taking into consideration
that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome
...
Hi Judy,
What about Romans 1.18-32: did Paul write this in
regards to the Christians in the Rome church? Were they the ones who were
doing those things? Is this sectionabout the Gentile Christians there,
but not aboutthe Jewish ones? It would seem it is, since Paul moves
immediately onto a rebuke of Jews in the first part of Chapter Two. And, of course, in that rebuke he charges them with having
practiced the same things. Or maybe I should ask this: Do you consider
the "O man" statements of Romans 2 to be in reference to Jews only and not to
Gentiles also? Many commentators consider this ("O man") vocative to be Paul's
way of directing his comments to Jews only. My question is,Do you agree
with them?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:23
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs
-
All of this dialogue is ironic when one
considers Calvins doctrine - which is that
because of God's Sovereignty - He hasdecreed
everything .. So why did she not
allowGod to deal with what He had Himselfdecreed?
There are so many contradictions. Last night
our DIL (who not so long ago came back
to church) and I
attended a class where our pastor was attempting
to enlighten us about
'Reformed doctrine' -Our DIL (who is a smart
girl) came out of there thoroughly confused
because at the beginninghe
taughtTotal Depravity and last night he covered Romans
2:14,15 (same asJD would teach it) which is
that these are pagan Gentiles - rather than
taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome
(who the letter is written to) and that they might
just possibly be born of the Spirit and have
a new regenerated nature as per Jer
31:33.Our DIL was
tryingtofigure out how these
'totally depraved Gentiles' have the law of
God written on their hearts and do
instinctively
the things written therein. Amazing!! No wonder
ppl check their minds in at the door and
pick them up on the way
out.
[TruthTalk] FW: Insight into the Arab World
I thought you'd like to see another viewpoint # Insight into the Arab World from an Arab Time Magazine is publishing a shocking interview with an Iraqi suicide bomber. It's mind-boggling to understand, but just like in WWII when America came to understand and accept the barbarism of its Nazi and Japan enemies, so must Americans come to grips with our current enemy (Islamic militants ) how they view America. To help explain this, consider Brigitte Gabriel, a native of the Arab world, and the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television. Now a Contributing Editor for FamilySecurityMatters.com, Gabriel wants viewers and listeners to know the truth about what the Arab World thinks of Senator Durbin's remarks, the alleged so-called abuses at Gitmo (a joke she calls it), and the Arab ideology which views the mettle of a man as the brutal way they treat their enemy. As a child, Gabriel's own home was destroyed by radical Islamists because she was a Christian. She spent 2 1/2 months in the hospital and then lived under-ground for 7 years with no electricity and little food. THEN she rose to become a news anchor, and later moved to the US where she's a true American success story - own business, husband, two kids, etc. WHAT THE ARAB WORLD THINKS By Brigitte Gabriel Torture is accepted and even expected in the Arab world. Yes, I know what you're thinking-that's not politically correct in most mainstream media. And you know some nice Arabs who have immigrated to America. But it's the truth in the Arab world. Might makes right. Real men don't eat quiche. They prove their manhood by the way they treat their enemy. After all it's what Muhammad did to the unbelievers - Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in the Quoran - the 'holy book' allegedly mishandled in Guantanamo prison. Arab Muslim men gain honor by shaming, belittling, abusing and torturing their enemy in the most horrific ways. Just look at how the Palestinians treat so-called collaborators by disemboweling them and hanging them upside down in Manger Square in Bethlehem. Look at the terrorist torture chambers that the coalition forces recently uncovered in Iraq. When people refer to the prisons of Saddam Hussein and his regime they think he is the extreme exception. Not! The truth is his torture tactics are quite the norm in the Arab world. If you want to see torture that is beyond what any Westerner can ever imagine please go to (http://www.masada2000.org/impalement.asx) . Yes, you read it right, impalement. You'll get a glimpse of what the Arabs do to their own people. As someone who came from the Arab world and knows how they think, it frustrates me to see self-appointed righteous minded politicians and media pundits oblivious to Arabic culture and thinking, criticizing America's actions at Guantanamo. These are a bunch of al Qaeda jihadists who were captured while bent on killing us - the kaffirs or 'unbelievers. They laugh watching our government bend over backwards, forwards and sideways trying to appease the critics. The more we stumble over ourselves questioning our goals and tactics, the more they think we are weak and easy to defeat. They smirk because they believe that Americans have demonstrated how stupid and weak they are by caving in to stories about maltreatment of Guantanamo detainees. They are watching our critics in this country and counting on them to embolden the radical Islamic cause and weaken our resolve. Actually, Gitmo is a joke as far as the Arabs are concerned. Prison? You call that a prison? Let me tell you what some of the prisoners call Guantanamo, Al muntazah al-dini lilmujaheden al Muslimin, The Religious Resort for Islamic Militants. They are given three halal meals a day in accordance to their religious dictates. How many kosher prisons are there in the Arabic world? None. Jews captured in the Arab world are butchered like those obscene pictures taken in Ramallah during the frenzied slaughter of two Israeli reservists who got lost. Remember the Palestinian man holding his red, Jewish blood dripping hands, high above his head in victory? Remember Nick Berg's head being held high also? Most of these detainees never had three meals a day in their entire life. They are gaining weight, and are living in what they refer to in Arabic as Al-Jannah, paradise. They have radio, television, soccer games, air-conditioning, clean clothes, servants, meaning American GIs, who wait on them hand and foot. They have Islamic chaplains and handed Qu'rans, the social hate guide against Infidels, by people so concerned as not to offend that they wear latex gloves and carry the book with two hands. Many Muslims in the Middle East would gladly give up their poverty, dictatorial governments, corrupt leaders and social bondage to enjoy the relative luxuries Guantanamo offers. They have free medical care, better than millions of uninsured
Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Well said, David. Your comments have not fallen completely on deaf ears. I've very much appreciated the history lesson. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore Your quote from Dave Hunt's book is great. I have no problems with hisfacts or how he explains the connection between Calvin and the City Council. What he says below is exactly what I have been saying, and I hope you can see that what he says is much different than saying that Calvin had murderous hatred towardServetus and murdered him. The only comment I might make to clarify matters stated belowis that Calvin indeed believed in separation between Church and State, but not in the way that we think of it today. The church, which Calvinwas part of and was a leader of, had only the power to excommunicate. That's it. This is what Calvin taught.The State, on the other hand, had the responsibility to wield the sword of God (Romans 13). So he argued that the State, not the church, was the one who punished evil doers. The difference comes in when we consider laws against adultery, homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy, not observing the Sabbath, drunkenness, etc. These days, separation of Church and State mean to most people that the State should not be involved in any matters that concern God or the church. From Calvin's perspective, the State had an obligation to wield the sword of God in matters that affected the Church and God. Sofrom his view, the State wielded the sword of God to punish evil doers whilethe Church ministeredforgiveness, mercy,the love of Christ, etc. This was Calvin's view of separation of Church and State, and this is what he worked toward accomplishing in Geneva. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore Hi David, thank you for your response. I am not an expert on Servetus and did not live in Geneva so like you I am depending on written accounts by others - and it appears as though there are other opinions about the situation in Geneva. In Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" P.63 he writes: "Calvin's defenders turn a blind eye to the facts when they attempt to exonerate him by blaming events in Geneva on the civil authorities. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Boettner even insists that "Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation between Church and State." In fact, Calvin not only established ecclesiastical law but he codified the civil legislation. He held the civil authorities responsible to "foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and condition of the church" and to see that "no idolatry, no blasphemy against God's name, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be disseminated among the people ... (but) to prevent the true religion ... from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy" Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored over the official records of the City Council for Calvin's day tells us "There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council in which we do not find the remark "Better consult Master Calvin about this" Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a "consultant's chair" in every meeting of the city authorities and "when he was sick the authorities would come to his house for their sessions" Rather than diminishing with time, Calvin's power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits that "in Calvin's latter years, and under his influence the laws of Geneva became more detailed and more stringent" Servetus may have been a rank heretic - but where there is life there is hope of repentance. His life was taken from him. judyt On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, elders and bishops are the same thing in Scripture. The passage that Bill quotes is "bishop" in the KJV. I thought that was the version of your Bible. You still don't get the situation in Geneva. John Calvin was brought to Geneva to help them organize a "reformed" church. Calvin outlined an organization with Doctors, Pastors, Deacons, and Elders.
Re: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs -
... rather than taking into consideration that
the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome ...
Hi Judy,
What about Romans 1.18-32: did Paul write this in
regards to the Christians in the Rome church? Were they the ones who were doing
those things? Is this sectionabout the Gentile Christians there, but not
aboutthe Jewish ones? It would seem it is, since Paul moves immediately
onto a rebuke of Jews in the first part of Chapter Two. Or maybe I should ask
this: Do you consider the "O man" statements of Romans 2 to be in reference to
Jews only and not to Gentiles also? Many commentators consider this ("O man")
vocative to be Paul's way of directing his comments to Jews only. My question
is,Do you agree with them?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:23
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs
-
All of this dialogue is ironic when one considers
Calvins doctrine - which is that
because of God's Sovereignty - He hasdecreed
everything .. So why did she not
allowGod to deal with what He had Himselfdecreed?
There are so many contradictions. Last night
our DIL (who not so long ago came back
to church) and I attended
a class where our pastor was attempting to
enlighten us about
'Reformed doctrine' -Our DIL (who is a smart
girl) came out of there thoroughly confused
because at the beginninghe
taughtTotal Depravity and last night he covered Romans
2:14,15 (same asJD would teach it) which is
that these are pagan Gentiles - rather than
taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome
(who the letter is written to) and that they might
just possibly be born of the Spirit and have
a new regenerated nature as per Jer
31:33.Our DIL was
tryingtofigure out how these
'totally depraved Gentiles' have the law of
God written on their hearts and do
instinctively
the things written therein. Amazing!! No wonder
ppl check their minds in at the door and
pick them up on the way out.
David Miller writes:
This partial quote does NOT indicate that Calvin said God gave him
(Calvin) authority to kill. Calvin would argue that he had no
authority to kill. What he is arguing here in context is the authority of
the civil magistrates, the State, to wield the sword of God for this
purpose. Calvin argues that those who do not support Romans 13 and
the authority of the State to wield God's punishment against such evil
doers are knowingly and willingly incurring their guilt. This is
like saying that if we do not support the idea that the State should
punish murderers, then we are incurring the guilt of murderers.
There is room to debate this point, but let's not twist his words into
some statement that Calvin believed God gave him authority to kill.
You are misunderstanding his argument.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
GWBs declining presidency, like he himself,is public property; so are his educational, tax, military records, records of his family career in Texas, his local and national campaign speeches, policy documents, bill signings, news conferences,faith-based initiatives, military operations. tax codes, state of the union addresses, radio commentaries, office transcripts, public appearance tapes, convention speeches, fund raising banquet circuit notes, off-handed comments, and what ever he's ever said or done and embodied in his closest associates On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:25:50 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I am saying that you have no right to judge another man's servant because he is not in the public forum as a preacher/teacher. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] A real question! Who IS Jesus?
who is Jesus in his ppl? On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:04:11 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the question of "Who is Jesus" should really be the question. Today we only think about ourselves, and engage in idolotry.||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent. What bothers me about the "begotten"as used in John 3:16AND 1:14 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. Youmisunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God.More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD. The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). That he layed aside His form and took onthe form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical tothen argue thatHe ceased to be God. Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became theSon of God is to preach the doctrine ofAdoption.You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution.The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time ofyear, wecelebratemuch more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD. If God was completely folded into this man [Christ]thenGod acted as man to save man. Therecan be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many arguethat Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death haseternalvalue because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension p; [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound. To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease tobe God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance. the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of thefoundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
..and 500 years from now, John Calvin'sincreasingly interesting influenceon globalfellowship with the Christ who partook of our human sufferings as God will be as vibrant as it is now, ~500 yearsafter he wrote the Institutes, direct evidence of his historic, public faith in Christ even as a politician he didn't hide it from anybody On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:42:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GWBs declining presidency, like he himself,is public property; so are his educational, tax, military records, records of his family career in Texas, his local and national campaign speeches, policy documents, bill signings, news conferences,faith-based initiatives, military operations. tax codes, state of the union addresses, radio commentaries, office transcripts, public appearance tapes, convention speeches, fund raising banquet circuit notes, off-handed comments, and what ever he's ever said or done and embodied in his closest associates On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:25:50 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I am saying that you have no right to judge another man's servant because he is not in the public forum as a preacher/teacher. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? What's your point, Gary?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:)On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yahoo! Personals Let fate take it's course directly to your email. See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Or is it the three who saw Jesus on the mount of transfiguration? I thought about that right after I hit "Send." Sorry about responding to myself, but perhaps you will understand, Gary. ;-)Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? What's your point, Gary?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:)On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yahoo! Personals Let fate take it's course directly to your email. See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals Yahoo! Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
do you believe (because)they saw God in the flesh? On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:42:36 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
Yes - everything he does while in office is public property along with ppl scrutinizing everything about him. However, if you have any fear of God within you at all, you will leave George Bush the man alone in the area of his faith and service to the Lord Jesus Christ since God does not judge the way men do (by outward appearance). He looks at the heart and His evaluation is most likely opposite of yours. On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:42:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GWBs declining presidency, like he himself,is public property; so are his educational, tax, military records, records of his family career in Texas, his local and national campaign speeches, policy documents, bill signings, news conferences,faith-based initiatives, military operations. tax codes, state of the union addresses, radio commentaries, office transcripts, public appearance tapes, convention speeches, fund raising banquet circuit notes, off-handed comments, and what ever he's ever said or done and embodied in his closest associates On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:25:50 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I am saying that you have no right to judge another man's servant because he is not in the public forum as a preacher/teacher. || judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs -
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:56:09 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Additional comments below in
red.
From: Taylor
... rather than taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in
the church at Rome ...
Hi Judy,
What about Romans 1.18-32: did Paul write this
in regards to the Christians in the Rome church? Were they the ones who were
doing those things? Is this sectionabout the Gentile Christians there,
but not aboutthe Jewish ones?
To me it appearsas though Paul is
giving an example of what happens when ppl (either Jews or Gentiles) in the
Church hold the truth
in unrighteousness - IOW when they know the
truth but continue practicing the lust of the flesh, eventually God turns
them over to it since they love this
wickedness more than they love God and His ways.
It would seem it is, since Paul moves
immediately onto a rebuke of Jews in the first part of Chapter Two. And, of course, in that rebuke he charges them with having
practiced the same things.
Apparently they have been judging ppl and
Paul rebukes them for this. I don't see it as necessarily related to
the problems addressed
in Chapter 1. Jesus gives the same warning
in Matt 7:1; many times we dislike in others what we dislike about
ourselves..
Or maybe I should ask this: Do you consider the
"O man" statements of Romans 2 to be in reference to Jews only and not to
Gentiles also? Many commentators consider this ("O man") vocative to be
Paul's way of directing his comments to Jews only. My question is,Do
you agree with them?
No, I believe Paul is addressing the Church
at Rome which consists of both Jew and Gentile but he does give the Jew
special attention in Chapter 11.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005
9:23 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Calvin's beliefs
-
All of this dialogue is ironic when one
considers Calvins doctrine - which is that
because of God's Sovereignty - He
hasdecreed everything .. So why did she not
allowGod to deal with what He had Himselfdecreed?
There are so many contradictions. Last
night our DIL (who not so long ago came back
to church) and I
attended a class where our pastor was
attempting to enlighten us about
'Reformed doctrine' -Our DIL (who is a
smart girl) came out of there thoroughly
confused
because at the beginninghe
taughtTotal Depravity and last night he covered Romans
2:14,15 (same asJD would teach it) which is
that these are pagan Gentiles - rather than
taking into consideration that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are in the church at Rome
(who the letter is written to) and that they
might just possibly be born of the Spirit and have
a new regenerated nature as per Jer
31:33.Our DIL was
tryingtofigure out how these
'totally depraved Gentiles' have the law of
God written on their hearts and do
instinctively
the things written therein. Amazing!! No
wonder ppl check their minds in at the door and
pick them up on the way
out.
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying? More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent. So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with another believe outside of an evil motive? What bothers me about the "begotten"as used in John 3:16AND 1:14 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman. Youmisunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. If He appeared here the way He was in heavennoone would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD. As a memberof the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside? The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generationHe walked amongst. That he layed aside His form and took onthe form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical tothen argue thatHe ceased to be God. I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying isthat while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became theSon of God is to preach the doctrine ofAdoption.You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me.Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called manythings in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution.The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time ofyear, wecelebratemuch more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided,
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: bush song
No he didn't, deceived ppl never know they are deceived. Calvin was drinking from a poisoned stream, his mentor was Augustine rather than Christ. I don't agree that he will receive a "well done thou good and faithful servant" because the servant is like his Master and Calvin was nothing at all like Christ. Christ never everhunted ppl down, banished them, flogged them, or burned the first one at the stake fornot agreeing with him. He preached the gospel and warned them and as His ambassadors we are to do the same. Mercy always triumphs over judgment. On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:08:09 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..and 500 years from now, John Calvin'sincreasingly interesting influenceon globalfellowship with the Christ who partook of our human sufferings as God will be as vibrant as it is now, ~500 yearsafter he wrote the Institutes, direct evidence of his historic, public faith in Christ even as a politician he didn't hide it from anybody On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:42:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GWBs declining presidency, like he himself,is public property; so are his educational, tax, military records, records of his family career in Texas, his local and national campaign speeches, policy documents, bill signings, news conferences,faith-based initiatives, military operations. tax codes, state of the union addresses, radio commentaries, office transcripts, public appearance tapes, convention speeches, fund raising banquet circuit notes, off-handed comments, and what ever he's ever said or done and embodied in his closest associates On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:25:50 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I am saying that you have no right to judge another man's servant because he is not in the public forum as a preacher/teacher. || judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
We isn't JD because he never did behold God the Word walking about in a flesh body in his generation. On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:25:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) cameto "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD).The Word, pronounced to be God Himselfin v 1became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
