Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity
BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 2:21:04 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I don't believe you understand His nature at all Lance; also I fail to see why it is so important to you that he be God walking around on earth - why not allow him to be as the scripture reveals. cd: Judy-see scripture revealing more of Christ also.Lance and Baxter's "dancing around" theory has some very good points/teachings if one looks past the undertones of Augustness-which Calvin popularized to the protestant world (notice Blaine and Dave I said protestant world which Armenians- I my opinion-aren't a part of as the doctrines are separate/differant.). The point I am hoping to make is that Christ was more than a man while on earth. If a king took off his royal clothing and put on rags and emptied himself of most of his wealth and went out into the cold so as to experience what the common man experienced he would still be a King only one in rags. This king would know he was still a king-as Christ identified himself as such-He knew that He was more than a man and considered himself equal with God-His covering didn't make up his identity- rather who He was made that identity foremost.He remember a Glory that was shared with the Fathers before the world began-How can any man hold a memory of that magnitude and still be just a man?Job asked God for a Mediator as a go between God and man -God honored that request and sent down a Mediator who could experience both sides of the issue. Christ by walking in the form of man with the temptations of a man -due to the flesh-Yet was also able to relate with God's side of the issue in his divinness.Hope this helps and know that this is my understanding-if anything can be added to help my understanding please do so-Thank you. It is after his death (as a man) burial and resurrection that God the Father exalted Him and gave Him a Name above every Name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. cd: I see God as honoring Christ for the work on the cross-but knees bowed to him here while on earth also-The soldiers fell backwards to their knees in the garden when Christ said "I am" and many others bowed before Him which was allowed as He was God in the flesh.Remenber He identified himself as the great "I am". This is identifying himself as God.Yes he was made in the flesh a little lower than the Angles but still commanded those same angles as He could have called 12 legions to His defense-in the wilderness of temptation these Angels came and served/ministered to him in the form of servants. No Angel ever allowed a man to bow before them-Yet Christ allowed this to be so.He was therefore greater than the Angels and hence much more than the common man. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:11:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I think I know where you are going with this, David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at least, I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on that, then? Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do with his position; it was not a change in nature. Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance, in your theology, was Jesus exalted in any way, after his crucifixion? Does the following _expression_ by Peter also puzzle you? Acts 2:36(36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what about Jesus made Him divine'. It is not as if he were a man to whom a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. He is divine because he is God the Son who has existed from eternity, of one nature with the Father and Spirit, come AS A human being. Your question is like asking what makes God God. He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus revealing his Superman garb. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 13, 2006 10:49 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Dean and Lance, What exactly was it about jesus that made him divine? Since you say you know what it was not - can you now tell me what it is? judyt On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is: Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline their own position on this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:21:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences are you street preachin' these days? cd: Yes but not as often as I should -I did preach as WCU yesterday. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:28:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? cd: My doctrine is as Judy's but we will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and there are many parts to the same body.I would like to think my mind is being shaped by God-with the thoughts of God. I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness-yet God gave me to Christ as His own which I hope to live up to-may God help me live up to that which is Christ.In the below letter I stated that "Gary is into Gary" I did this so we could come to this point of discussion. You are into your expressive form of art which you enjoy presenting-weather or not other can learn from this form-or even understand what you are saying is secondary to what you love in this form of _expression_-Therefore I conclude self is more important than others to you and hence the statement.This is not to belittle you but you "seem" to have much to offer the hearer-but if one speaks in a language none can understand what gain does God receive from your wo rk. Have you considered finding someone to interpret for you? If not-then be silent as Paul ordered the church who were also speaking in "tongues" that could not be understood.I mean this for your good Gary. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
there's something to Lance's 'equation', below, carefully put; but, 'equation' is a loaded concept as DaveH knows || On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?.. ..Hell, it sounds like you need plenty of room for individuals in that equation On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:37:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..sorry, without more greater revelation it really seems kinda hard to tell, Bro On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:33:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..or was that onea his other mothers? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:19:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..his real Momma was a 'goddess', eh? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:12:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..how 'bout JCs real Momma--how'd she handle herself? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:08:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..his Momma wasn't one Hell of a porn star was she? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:03:01 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..JC wasn't born again, was he? On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:56:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JC was born in heaven, but not on earth, eh? On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:48:22 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: g: is the ff. greater revelation basic to marriage adultery polygamy or pornography? which is which? "God [age: unknowable ] is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children "The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus" "God had sexual relations with Mary [age: ~14
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language" gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical." "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor "trinity " in the place of "Godhead." Our translations are copies of the original text (as best as we can reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in biblical history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the English translations. To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has to read "godhead" or"divine nature." jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is: Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline their own position on this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Divine = God - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:59 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 9:58:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd cd: Hey now-I'm still here also so it didn't happen yet:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
Never fear Dean, it's based on a faulty reading of key texts so nobody's goin' anywhere. It is kind of on a par with Albert Barnes' reading concerning the eternality of the Son. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 10:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 9:58:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd cd: Hey now-I'm still here also so it didn't happen yet:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
O.Kkk. Man, are we going to have a good time we get together or what !! :o ) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 9:58:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd cd: Hey now-I'm still here also so it didn't happen yet:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
I was kind a like kiding, guys. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Never fear Dean, it's based on a faulty reading of key texts so nobody's goin' anywhere. It is kind of on a par with Albert Barnes' reading concerning the eternality of the Son. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 10:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 9:58:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd cd: Hey now-I'm still here also so it didn't happen yet:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
good question in context, Bro On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
When I respond to a post with an "amen" or "An excellent post," it is because I not only agree but because I actually learned something. Amen and an excellent post !! jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
how 'bout you doin' exactly that, Bro, while reducing the biblically communal 'God with us' to the more philosophically palatable 'God with Me'? On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:49:40 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness -- for ref: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:28:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? cd: My doctrine is as Judy's but we will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and there are many parts to the same body.I would like to think my mind is being shaped by God-with the thoughts of God. I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness-yet God gave me to Christ as His own which I hope to live up to-may God help me live up to that which is Christ.In the below letter I stated that "Gary is into Gary" I did this so we could come to this point of discussion. You are into your expressive form of art which you enjoy presenting-weather or not other can learn from this form-or even understand what you are saying is secondary to what you love in this form of _expression_-Therefore I conclude self is more important than others to you and hence the statement.This is not to belittle you but you "seem" to have much to offer the hearer-but if one speaks in a language none can understand what gain does God receive from your wo rk. Have you considered finding someone to interpret for you? If not-then be silent as Paul ordered the church who were also speaking in "tongues" that could not be understood.I mean this for your good Gary. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 10:32 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 10:58 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Right! There are no degrees of Godhood. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:39 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) When I respond to a post with an "amen" or "An excellent post," it is because I not only agree but because I actually learned something. Amen and an excellent post !! jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
My doctrine is as Judy's but we will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and there are many parts to the same body And Judy does not believe the above. At least, she does not allow for the differences between herself and the likes of myself -- she suffering under the fantasy that my beliefs are not of God to the same degree that her's are. No one needs to get made about this, I suppose, but that is the way she believes. I do not see, at this time, the same thinking in your postings, Dean. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] how 'bout you doin' exactly that, Bro, while reducing the biblically communal 'God with us' to the more philosophically palatable 'God with Me'? On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:49:40 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness -- for ref: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:28:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? cd: My doctrine is as Judy's but we will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and there are many parts to the same body.I would like to think my mind is being shaped by God-with the thoughts of God. I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness-yet God gave me to Christ as His own which I hope to live up to-may God help me live up to that which is Christ.In the below letter I stated that "Gary is into Gary" I did this so we could come to this point of discussion. You are into your expressive form of art which you enjoy presenting-weather or not other can learn from this form-or even understand what you are saying is secondary to what you love in this form of _expression_-Therefore I conclude self is more important than others to you and hence the statement.This is not to belittle you but you "seem" to have much to offer the hearer-but if one speaks in a language none can understand what gain does God receive from your wo rk. Have you considered finding someone to interpret for you? If not-then be silent as Paul ordered the church who were also speaking in "tongues" that could not be understood.I mean this for your good Gary. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 10:32 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:03:37 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor I don't believe you understand His nature at all Lance; also I fail to see why it is so important to you that he be God walking around on earth - why not allow him to be as the scripture reveals. cd: Judy - see scripture revealing more of Christ also. Lance and Baxter's "dancing around" theory has some very good points/teachings if one looks past the undertones of Augustness - which Calvin popularized to the protestant world (notice Blaine and Dave I said protestant world which Armenians - I my opinion-aren't a part of as the doctrines are separate/differant.). Thanks for this Dean but I don't see the relevance of this "so called" divine procession and I can't see an "eternal" son in scripture. He did not have two births and was not a creation of the Father at the beginning. The point I am hoping to make is that Christ was more than a man while on earth. If a king took off his royal clothing and put on rags and emptied himself of most of his wealth and went out into the cold so as to experience what the common man experienced he would still be a King only one in rags. This king would know he was still a king-as Christ identified himself as such - He knew that He was more than a man and considered himself equal with God-His covering didn't make up his identity- rather who He was made that identity foremost. He remember a Glory that was shared with the Fathers before the world began - How can any man hold a memory of that magnitude and still be just a man? Well to everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven. When he was born in that manger in Bethlehem it was in human form - a little lower than the angels, even though we do have the prophetic voices telling us that he would be so much more. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Job asked God for a Mediator as a go between God and man - God honored that request and sent down a Mediator who could experience both sides of the issue. I believe Job was speaking prophetically see (Job 19:25) where he says "I know that my redeemer lives and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" Christ by walking in the form of man with the temptations of a man - due to the flesh- Yet was also able to relate with God's side of the issue in his divinness. Hope this helps and know that this is my understanding-if anything can be added to help my understanding please do so-Thank you. It is after his death (as a man) burial and resurrection that God the Father exalted Him and gave Him a Name above every Name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. cd: I see God as honoring Christ for the work on the cross-but knees bowed to him here while on earth also-The soldiers fell backwards to their knees in the garden when Christ said "I am" and many others bowed before Him which was allowed as He was God in the flesh.Remenber He identified himself as the great "I am". This is identifying himself as God.Yes he was made in the flesh a little lower than the Angles but still commanded those same angles as He could have called 12 legions to His defense-in the wilderness of temptation these Angels came and served/ministered to him in the form of servants. No Angel ever allowed a man to bow before them-Yet Christ allowed this to be so.He was therefore greater than the Angels and hence much more than the common man. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:11:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I think I know where you are going with this, David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at least, I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on that, then? Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do with his position; it was not a change in nature. Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance, in your theology, was Jesus exalted in any way, after his crucifixion? Does the following _expression_ by Peter also puzzle you? Acts 2:36(36) T
[TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Well it is something that needs to be repented of JD; if it is not sin, then why the need to repent? Dead works is something lifeless as opposed to works of righteousness which are the fruit of walking after the spirit. One is dead religion - the other is life and peace. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:17:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debbie Sawczak Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
Here we go again - And who is the one who denied staking everything on translational and Gk arguments - very, very, recently?. judyt On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language" gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical." "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor "trinity " in the place of "Godhead." Our translations are copies of the original text (as best as we can reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in biblical history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the English translations. To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has to read "godhead" or"divine nature." jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is: Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline their own position on this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, So
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Dean, I think this is where "theology" gets itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so long. How ironic that his mentor Bill would write something like this. I think Lance just repeated it to qualify something. So their Jesus must have a schism in his personality (or nature). What about his saying to Philip "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" We know he wasn't speaking of his physical body here; so does God The Father also have a schismatic personality. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
Dean, I think this is where "theology" gets itself tied in knots. This is what JD has been accusing me of for so long. How ironic that his mentor Bill would write something like this. I think Lance just repeated it to qualify something. So their Jesus must have a schism in his personality (or nature). What about his saying to Philip "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" We know he wasn't speaking of his physical body here; so does God The Father also have a split personality? On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. cd: Lance at this point- How do you define "Divine"?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Fat nancy 2001 obviously was not born of the Spirit and was most definitely not privy to Hebrews 6:4,5 Are you Gary? On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:18:18 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it-- sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's thoughts rather than those of Bob Dylan Gary Is this a problem for you? 'Immanuel' be damned? Oh well! Out of the abundance that fills the heart the mouth speaks..!!! cd: My doctrine is as Judy's but we will have some difference as God leads each one on a separate journey and there are many parts to the same body.I would like to think my mind is being shaped by God-with the thoughts of God. I would not damn Emmanuel as He presented me to God and taught me of God greatness-yet God gave me to Christ as His own which I hope to live up to-may God help me live up to that which is Christ.In the below letter I stated that "Gary is into Gary" I did this so we could come to this point of discussion. You are into your expressive form of art which you enjoy presenting-weather or not other can learn from this form-or even understand what you are saying is secondary to what you love in this form of _expression_-Therefore I conclude self is more important than others to you and hence the statement.This is not to belittle you but you "seem" to have much to offer the hearer-but if one speaks in a language none can understand what gain does God receive from your wo rk. Have you considered finding someone to interpret for you? If not-then be silent as Paul ordered the church who were also speaking in "tongues" that could not be understood.I mean this for your good Gary. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lest anyone be deceived further by Gary's comments, let me clarify yet again that I do not believe that "JC ceased to be God." The mindset he is talking about is a figment of his imagination. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
DM: We are all helped on hearing that which you do not believe, David. We are not helped insofar as knowing that which you do believe on this most important of discussions. You ask questions of Bill, John, Judy, Gary, Lance etc. All well and good, DM. Why not do what you do so well, namely, write a definitive statement relfecting DM's teaching on just who Jesus was/is and lace it with Scripture? I believe Bill Taylor came onto TT as a result of a then ongoing discussion concerning the humanity of Christ. Shall we come full circle and, once again, be treated to your position on this? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 13:47 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lest anyone be deceived further by Gary's comments, let me clarify yet again that I do not believe that "JC ceased to be God." The mindset he is talking about is a figment of his imagination. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) the mindset in which you dwell is that JC ceased to be God this point is at root level, Bro: e.g., Phil 2 is biblical, take it to the bank--the NT never touches your mind/set, that JC himself ain't the divine God's divinity is essential in essence greater than God's glory like one's humanity is essential/ly true, in contrast to one's (idea of) authority & power "As great as you are a man, you'll never be greater than yourself." --fat nancy, 2001 :: As great as you are..[God], you'll never be greater than yourself. --g On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:56:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Oh, it is Biblical, Gary.> > Philippians 2:5-9|| > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)> > myth (indeed, evidence suggests that you're a philosopher, also not > a very good one; that there is no way the ff. is either true or biblical)> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:54:33 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes:> <<[JC] had laid aside his divinity, meaning that he had laid aside > the glory that he had with the Father.>> ||
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
JD wrote: > Yes -- and who said that "repentance > from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? I did. JD wrote: > There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has > something else in mind when he speaks of repentance > from the failing effort of self justification. The "failing effort of self justification" is sin. Are you going to argue that such works are righteous? I don't think so. If the works that are being repented of are unrighteous, then they are sinful works. The point is that Heb. 6:1 speaks about repenting from WORKS, not repenting of theology, ideology, or a false understanding of the Godhead. As I said in a previous point, I agree about repentance concerning one's attitude toward Jesus Christ or failing to recognize who he is. That too is sin! I preach this all the time. I often rebuke Muslims on this very issue, calling them to repent on this issue. What I disagree with is the EXCLUSION of the concept of repenting from the kinds of sins that are known as deeds or works. To try and separate these from each other is like being satisified that a murderer has repented, not because he has changed his mind and heart about murder, nor because he has experienced contrition for his many murders, but because he has changed his philosophy about the rightful power and authority of government. It is amazing to me that we are arguing about this. The Bible is filled with examples of repentance from sin (repentance from deeds), as illustrated in the many passages I shared that have been stripped away from replies and ignored. You ignore the rest of the Bible at your own peril. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 10:32 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || > Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. || > Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 -- "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 t
Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 14:18 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Of course it is sin and needs repenting of. (JD is actually making the same vocabulary mistake below as DM.) But it is not immorality; in fact, it is morality. Where this whole discussion of repentance began was with a critique of street preachers' focus on repentance as a call to turn from immoral living to moral living. As pointed out long ago by Bill and/or JD, the repentance urged on people in much biblical preaching was not a call to moral living, but a call to recognize God. Insofar as it was a call to moral living, it was to people who were already the people of God, and was a call to recognize God as covenant partner. Peter's sermon fits right into that and moves beyond it; the covenant is gathered up in Christ who turns out to be both its maker and keeper, and that is why repentance is sealed by being baptized into him. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:45 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 12:54 Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Well it is something that needs to be repented of JD; if it is not sin, then why the need to repent? Dead works is something lifeless as opposed to works of righteousness which are the fruit of walking after the spirit. One is dead religion - the other is life and peace. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:17:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debbie Sawczak Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
"Dead works" are those personal imperatives that one one uses to point to the right path to salvation. Works of righteousness flow FROM the influence of the Indwelling and testify to a fact already accomplished. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well it is something that needs to be repented of JD; if it is not sin, then why the need to repent? Dead works is something lifeless as opposed to works of righteousness which are the fruit of walking after the spirit. One is dead religion - the other is life and peace. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:17:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debbie Sawczak Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
The Hebraic-Roots Version translates Acts 2:36 as:"Truly therefore, let know all the house of Yisra'el that YHWH and the Messiah has made Eloah this Yeshua, whom you crucified." DM and this, in fact, validates Bill's thesis !! Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's interpretation of one sermon. We are not told the entire message of Peter, so we don't really know all the things Peter hammered upon concerning repentance. DM I doubt that Bill's whole theology on this matter comes from this passage -- but surely it is of value to discus what IS written. There is no question whatsoever that Peter was calling them to a point of view about Christ that they (the Jews) had gotten wrong. Luke want's Theophilus to see the importance of Jesus as YHWH and Messiah -- and the role this played in the conversion (repentance) of the very people who had Him crucified . jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bill wrote: > > Please consider this with me: the Hebrew speaking > > Jews present that day would have heard Peter saying > > to them that "Elohim hath made that same Yeshua . . . > > both Yahweh and Messiah." Does this mean that God > > made Jesus divine? No, it means that Elohim -- a plural > > noun; hence it being a triune decision -- made Yeshua the > > one whom the Jews had been worshiping throughout their > > history as a people. Peter is saying to them that the one > > whom they had nailed to the cross was the very covenant- > > keeping YHWH of their fathers. Hence they were cut to > > the heart and feared greatly. What must they do? they asked. > > They must change their minds about this Jesus and be baptized > > (in his name no less!) into the forgiveness of sins, whereupon > > they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. > > The Hebraic-Roots Version translates Acts 2:36 as: > "Truly therefore, let know all the house of Yisra'el that YHWH and the > Messiah has made Eloah this Yeshua, whom you crucified." > > So I'm not sure about your emphasis on Elohim and the triune decision. > > Bill wrote: > > To shift the emphasis from this to a general call to turn > > from sin, which is what most preaching on repentance > > entails, is to miss the thrust of Peter's sermon: that this > > Jesus whom they had crucified was in fact their LORD > > and Christ; it is therefore to miss the primary aspect of > > repentance -- that they believe in this Yahweh who saves > > -- and to make that which is now but a subsidiary, although > > an important one, the main point, thus changing the thrust > > of the Gospel. > > Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. We are not told the entire message of Peter, > so we don't really know all the things Peter hammered upon concerning > repentance. > > I'm not going to quibble with you about your putting an emphasis upon people > changing their minds about who Jesus is. It is important! I would not > quibble with you in saying that repentance from sin is subsidiary to > repenting about one's attitude toward Jesus. On the other hand, if you are > going to quibble about preachers who might sometimes put the emphasis on > repenting from sin, repenting from their evil deeds, then you will hear some > comment from me on that. > > Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ is > repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. Many > other passages likewise do the same. Fo r example: > > Revelation 16:11 > (11) And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their > sores, and repented not of their deeds. > > Revelation 9:21 > (21) Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of > their fornication, nor of their thefts. > > Revelation 2:21-23 > (21) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented > not. > (22) Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with > her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. > (23) And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall > know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto > every one of you according to your works. > > 2 Corinthians 12:21 > (21) And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that > I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not rep ented of the > uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. > > Paul makes a connection between repentance and works in his appeal to > Agrippa: > > Acts 26:19-20 > (19) Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly > vision: > (20) But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and > throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they > should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. > > We have to understand the difference between a sowin
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
In fact, you have said these very words. But no matter. What do you believe? Is Jesus the representative of God or God in the flesh? Which is it. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Those are not my words JD, that must have been what you THOUGHT Judy said. What does Emmanuel mean?? On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:28:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Judy has stated to me in past times that Jesus was only a representative of God while here on earth. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I know where you are going with this, David. I will of course agree that Jesus was exalted after his death and resurrection, and you will say that this somehow corroborates Judy's view that Jesus was not God all the while he was on earth (at least, I think this is what she has implied). Do you agree with her on that, then? Yes/No. As for his exaltation, my answer is that it had to do with his position; it was not a change in nature. Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 13, 2006 13:19 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Lance, in your theology, was Jesus exalted in any way, after his crucifixion? Does the following _expression_ by Peter also puzzle you? Acts 2:36(36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I'm puzzled by your _expression_, Judy 'what about Jesus made Him divine'. It is not as if he were a man to whom a special endowment were added or superimposed, 'making' him God. He is divine because he is God the Son who has existed from eternity, of one nature with the Father and Spirit, come AS A human being. Your question is like asking what makes God God. He ain't Clark Kent, Judy who needs only to remove his robe thus revealing his Superman garb. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 13, 2006 10:49 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Dean and Lance, What exactly was it about jesus that made him divine? Since you say you know what it was not - can you now tell me what it is? judyt On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lance wrote: It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it were then all believers would be equally divine. Yes; this is what I thought to myself also when I read Judy's post about that. D cd: Lance and Debbie- what bearing do you view Jesus having that spirit "without measure" have on you statement? Albert Barns wrote: Joh 3:34 - Whom God hath sent - The Messiah. Speaketh the words of God - The truth, or commands of God. For God giveth not the Spirit - The Spirit of God. Though Jesus was God as well as man, yet, as Mediator, God anointed him, or endowed him with the influences of his Spirit, so as to be completely qualified for his great work. By measure - Not in a small degree, but fully, completely. The prophets were inspired on particular occasions to deliver special messages. The Messiah was continually filled with the Spirit of God. "The Spirit dwelt in him, not as a vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a bottomless ocean (Henry).
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Huh ??? I really hate to bring up a "big word " or three, but there really is such things as "economic trinity" and "immanent trinity." Function and essence. I speak of essence and you quote passages that have to do with function. It appears that we do not disagree -- because we are not even talking about the same things. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > What the verse does not accomplish is this: > > it does not establish an event in which the > > incarnate was not an equal partner. > > 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 > (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things > are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all > things under him. > (28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also > himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be > all in all. > > John 14:28 > (28) Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. > If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for > my Father is greater than I. > > 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: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Debbie: I am trying to say that repentance from dead works is activity that results in self-justification - we repent from that and , in so doing, turn to the only other alternative, Jesus. Does this clarify my remarks? Help !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 14, 2006 14:18 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Of course it is sin and needs repenting of. (JD is actually making the same vocabulary mistake below as DM.) But it is not immorality; in fact, it is morality. Where this whole discussion of repentance began was with a critique of street preachers' focus on repentance as a call to turn from immoral living to moral living. As pointed out long ago by Bill and/or JD, the repentance urged on people in much biblical preaching was not a call to moral living, but a call to recognize God. Insofar as it was a call to moral living, it was to people who were already the people of God, and was a call to recognize God as covenant partner. Peter's sermon fits right into that and moves beyond it; the covenant is gathered up in Christ who turns out to be both its maker and keeper, and that is why repentance is sealed by being baptized into him. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:45 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 12:54 Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Well it is something that needs to be repented of JD; if it is not sin, then why the need to repent? Dead works is something lifeless as opposed to works of righteousness which are the fruit of walking after the spirit. One is dead religion - the other is life and peace. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:17:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes -- and who said that "repentance from dead works" is speaking of sin, anyway? "Dead works" is that body of works that convinces someone that she is accpted by God RATHER THAN PLACING HER FAITH IN THE CHRIST and allowing Him and Him alone to be glorified in this [saving] function. Bill's comment is brilliant, I think, and as it is attached to Acts 2 -- the best possible understanding of what happened on that First Day. There is no reason to think that the Hebrews writer has something else in mind when he speaks of repentance from the failing effort of self justification. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debbie Sawczak Dead works is not the same as immorality, which is what I think David means by sin. IMO, that [his equating sin with immorality] is where this false and hence problematic distinction arises between repentance from 'sin' and repentance from a failure to recognize who Christ is. yD From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:01 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 09:38 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? Re: repentance: basically, your admitting that Bill's understanding of the Acts passage he posted is correct--i'd agree that's bible teaching however, the point you are trying to make about it, represented below, is a scripture dog that don't hunt--as usual, it is your own private notion universalized, shot through with geekness but rooted plainly (through contrast) in personalized philosophy, over which you sprinkle some home-brew holy water labeled 'Heb 6:1' the issue historically is that you don't study and think much about (e.g.) Heb 6:1 while continually presupposing that it matches your philosophical bias, bec to you it sounds always like it does in the end, it simply ain't bible teaching, Bro On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:06 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Surely you know better than to hang the entire gospel on one's > interpretation of one sermon. ||> Heb. 6:1 says that an elementary principle of the doctrine of Christ > is repentance from dead works. This clearly links repentance and sin. || --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
Your response has nothing to do with my comments, near as I can see. My point is this: every English word in our bible is "added " to the original text. so you like godhead" and I like "trinity." They are both translations of the orgiinal word and/or thought. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here we go again - And who is the one who denied staking everything on translational and Gk arguments - very, very, recently?. judyt On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language" gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical." "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor "trinity " in the place of "Godhead." Our translations are copies of the original text (as best as we can reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in biblical history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the English translations. To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has to read "godhead" or"divine nature." jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is: Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline their own position on this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .Does that work in your theological paradigm?Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill-- ~~~ 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.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
myth (one delves into humanity, ppl & their thoughts bec of the mind of Immanuel--Isaiah's view makes more sense of him than yours does) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's thoughts
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
stunningly beautiful prose, Pastor On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:56:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || repentance from dead works is activity that results in self-justification - we repent from that and , in so doing, turn to the only other alternative, Jesus. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
I am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in Jesus Christ. DM Is this supposed to matter? -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > > DM should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and > > expound that difference then, just move on. > > Lance, I try not to make assumptions about what other people believe. Let > Bill clarify his position first if you don't mind. I don't know whether or > not Bill excludes the concept of sin from repentance. If he does, you will > be hearing me expound upon our differences. You forget that you and Bill > are better read and trained in theological matters. I am ignorant in this > area. What seems clear to you is not clear to me. I didn't even notice > that there might be a difference in our understanding of the word repentance > until subsequent reads of his post prompted by your post claiming that Bill > did not answer in the affirmative t hat repentance is part of the gospel. > I'm expecting to see some back pedalling by Bill perhaps prompted from > private posts by you, or to see Bill clarify his viewpoint on the place of > the call to repentance in the preaching of the gospel. > > If Bill does have an esoteric definition of repentance, then his perspective > that most people have no idea what it means to repent takes on many other > considerations. Is salvation found in turning away from sin and turing to > the person of Jesus Christ, or is it found by changing one's philosophy > about the Godhead, from Judaic monotheism to understanding the Trinity! I'm > truly still shell shocked that this is where we are at in our discussion. I > am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been > right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been > thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in > Jesus Ch rist. > > David Miller. > > > - Original Message - > From: Lance Muir > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:56 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > EVERYONE on TT, Judy, believes their observations to be 'rooted and > grounded' in Scripture. Each believes, where they are in their journey just > now, to have reflected that which the Lord Himself would have them say. I > BELIEVE THIS OF YOU. I BELIEVE THIS OF DM. ETC. However, when one encounters > duplicity, faulty argumentation, a careless 'reading' of another's > 'mail'..then, a corrective must be offered. Also JT, you and DM, rather > strangely I would suggest, regularly demean any who acknowledge the > contribution of another believer in print. It's almost like suggesting that > all sufficiency is to be found in 'God, The Book, and You'. Accessing any > other source whatsoe ver is cause for criticism. > > Now, as to the matter of 'repentance' (please correct me Bill if I'm > misrepresenting you on this) DM and Bill have differing understandings. DM > should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and expound that difference then, just > move on. I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of > course. > - Original Message - > From: Judy Taylor > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: January 13, 2006 06:29 > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all > it is his doctrine that claims one > must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total > depravity" and this comes out of a > misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > From: Debbie Sawczak > Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to > repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are > saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete > with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the > greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news > of Jesus Christ. Amen. > > Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, > having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It > (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his > Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my > Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. > > D > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message.. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006 > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every m
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
See below -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: Lance asked about the difference between the Christ of DM and JT and some others on this forum. There is so much confusion that one scarsely knows where to begin. Perhaps the best way to say it is this: they believe in a Christ of Law and grace and others believe in a Christ of Spirit and grace. The former insists that obedience is the path to God, ala the Old Law -- and the others believe that obedience is a response to the Indwelling - an indwelling that cannot possibly miss His mark because He has become a part of the ontology of the saint. John, the only confusion on this is in your mind. No matter how many times I tell you what I believe, you prefer to believe falsely about me. You are not even close to characterizing how I believe. Just because I do not believe that the law has been done away, as per the teaching of Jesus, but rather that it is the covenant of law that has been made obsolete by the sacrifice of Christ, does not mean that I believe that obedience is the path to God ala the Old Law. I'm not aware of anyone on TruthTalk right now who thinks that way. Slade did, who you got along with just fine because of his hippy era liberal bent, but he is not here anymore. If you gave me a multiple choice test, I would check the same box you would, that obedience is a response to the Indwelling. I also would check the box for a Christ of Spirit and grace. Your antinomian bias has confused you concerning what I believe. If you sin and do not repent, for whatever reason, will that single sin place you in hell. You speak of rebuking and hell muhc more ofter than I, of course. Surely we would not check the same boxes on whatever test !! LOL I do have to ask you, however, that when you say, "an indwelling that cannot possibly miss the mark because He has become a part of the ontology of the saint," are you claiming an ontological infallibility for yourself simply because you are a Christian? I am acknowledging God's guarantee to complete the task He has initiated within me. If He has become a part of who I am, ontologically, then how can I be lost apart from an outright rebellion to his presense? With that in mind, I will answer your question in a single word, "Yes." David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences I am sure I agree --- but I do not dismiss the relational impact (whether positive or negative) of those on this site. When I came to this forum, I was a supporter of David M, typically conservative (for lack of a better term) and an oft defender of Judy Taylor. And what have I learned? That few on this site have a clue as to the meaning of "liberal." that some on this site place concepts (their concepts which they confuse with divine concpet) as more important than continuing relationships. Lance asked about the difference between the Christ of DM and JT and some others on this forum. There is so much confusion that one scarsely knows where to begin. Perhaps the best way to say it is this: they believe in a Christ of Law and grace and others believe in a Christ of Spirit and grace. The former insists that obedience is the path to God, ala the Old Law -- and the others believe that obedience is a response to the Indwelling - an indwelling that cannot possibly miss His mark because He has become a part of the ontology of the saint. That is how I see the difference. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/11/2006 7:59:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry How Kevin treats someone who is willing to listen to him for an extended period of time has little to do with the way he treats those on this forum with whom he disagrees. jd cd: What I am trying to say is that there is more to Kevin than what you have seen. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/10/2006 1:02:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry I have had several encounters with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really g
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
You wouldn't know what my thoughts make of Isaiah's Immanuel or the "mind of Christ" Gary because you are off into another orbit. jt On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:27:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (one delves into humanity, ppl & their thoughts bec of the mind of Immanuel--Isaiah's view makes more sense of him than yours does) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Someone with the mind of Christ thinks on God's thoughts
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
It does to the merciful and caring heart .. Yes it does. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:37:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in Jesus Christ. DM Is this supposed to matter? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > > DM should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and > > expound that difference then, just move on. > > Lance, I try not to make assumptions about what other people believe. Let > Bill clarify his position first if you don't mind. I don't know whether or > not Bill excludes the concept of sin from repentance. If he does, you will > be hearing me expound upon our differences. You forget that you and Bill > are better read and trained in theological matters. I am ignorant in this > area. What seems clear to you is not clear to me. I didn't even notice > that there might be a difference in our understanding of the word repentance > until subsequent reads of his post prompted by your post claiming that Bill > did not answer in the affirmative t hat repentance is part of the gospel. > I'm expecting to see some back pedalling by Bill perhaps prompted from > private posts by you, or to see Bill clarify his viewpoint on the place of > the call to repentance in the preaching of the gospel. > > If Bill does have an esoteric definition of repentance, then his perspective > that most people have no idea what it means to repent takes on many other > considerations. Is salvation found in turning away from sin and turing to > the person of Jesus Christ, or is it found by changing one's philosophy > about the Godhead, from Judaic monotheism to understanding the Trinity! I'm > truly still shell shocked that this is where we are at in our discussion. I > am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been > right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been > thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in > Jesus Ch rist. > > David Miller. > > > - Original Message - > From: Lance Muir > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:56 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > EVERYONE on TT, Judy, believes their observations to be 'rooted and > grounded' in Scripture. Each believes, where they are in their journey just > now, to have reflected that which the Lord Himself would have them say. I > BELIEVE THIS OF YOU. I BELIEVE THIS OF DM. ETC. However, when one encounters > duplicity, faulty argumentation, a careless 'reading' of another's > 'mail'..then, a corrective must be offered. Also JT, you and DM, rather > strangely I would suggest, regularly demean any who acknowledge the > contribution of another believer in print. It's almost like suggesting that > all sufficiency is to be found in 'God, The Book, and You'. Accessing any > other source whatsoe ver is cause for criticism. > > Now, as to the matter of 'repentance' (please correct me Bill if I'm > misrepresenting you on this) DM and Bill have differing understandings. DM > should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and expound that difference then, just > move on. I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of > course. > - Original Message - > From: Judy Taylor > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: January 13, 2006 06:29 > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all > it is his doctrine that claims one > must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total > depravity" and this comes out of a > misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > From: Debbie Sawczak > Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to > repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are > saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete > with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the > greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news > of Jesus Christ. Amen. > > Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, > having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It > (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his > Human Pe
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
cd: Well some people are going to be caught up into the air and some graves or going to open and all are going to be changed in a moments time-that is what the passage says -do you know an errors in this passage? - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 10:17:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences Never fear Dean, it's based on a faulty reading of key texts so nobody's goin' anywhere. It is kind of on a par with Albert Barnes' reading concerning the eternality of the Son. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 14, 2006 10:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 9:58:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences And where is Terry? I am not a student of the "rapture," but what if there is [was] the Rapture? I mean, what if it has already occured? Terry seems to be the only one missing !!! jd cd: Hey now-I'm still here also so it didn't happen yet:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:26:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ,,your doctrine's about like jt's ain't it--sorta like you are among a couple of ppl whose mind is the God-thoughts of God, 'Immanuel' be damned? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:13 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are you street preachin' these days? On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:12 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cd:John -not to insult but I think to focus on concernment on you part would put most of these issues at rest. If you went and asked students at college:" what do you think the highest level of math is?" I think you would get different answers as studentsstudents vary in grade levels-would you then walk away shaking your head saying theses students have been taught wrong? No, I would think that you would realize some have more knowledge than others and relate to them in an appropriate manner-even to help the younger ones understand more-the trick- in my opinion- is to decide where to start and hopefully one can learn as they seek to help others.The same can be said here. D.Miller in my opinion could be one of the leading Bible scholars of our day if he ever outgrew the Church of God-which has trapped his doctoring and he is blind to this fact-which speaks of pride. Judy and I are caught somewhere between Calvinism and Armenians in our doctrine but we see this and want it out of our teachings as soon we can- but ar e finding that the teachings run deep and don't really know how to leave it behind. The "intellectuals" are trapped in Calvinism toward Catholicism and don't even know it as they focus on the "dancing around teachings" of Baxter-and if they did know one would doubt if they would care. Blaine is Mormon in belief and doctoring and will listen to truth and even agree with that truth but fail to incorporate that his beliefs. DaveH knows the truth but fear prevents him from dealing with that truth-the comfort zone has trapped him.. Izzy-in my limited knowledge of her-has a good handle on truth but is resisted by the flesh. Gary is into Gary.Perry is a great man from my limited knowledge. This is all just my opinion given to help-for you and them not to attack.Note: that I am limited by my bias of self so any feedback offered would be helpful. The main point is go slow as people are different but one must know Jesus and the crucified one. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
myth (the sound of what you say about him below is insightful) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:47:36 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You wouldn't know what my thoughts make of Isaiah's Immanuel .. ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/14/2006 10:07:54 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE Divine = God cd: Lance Webster puts it this way-Note that Christ fits many of the below definitions. DIVINE, a. [L., a god.] 1. Pertaining to the true God; as the divine nature; divine perfections. 2. Pertaining to a heathen deity, or to false gods. 3. Partaking of the nature of God. Half human, half divine. 4. Proceeding from God; as divine judgments. 5. Godlike; heavenly; excellent in the highest degree; extraordinary; apparently above what is human. In this application the word admits of comparison; as a divine invention; a divine genius; the divinest mind. A divine sentence is in the lips of the king. Prov 16. 6. Presageful; foreboding; prescient. [Not used.] 7. Appropriated to God, or celebrating his praise; as divine service; divine songs; divine worship. DIVINE, n. 1. A minister of the gospel; a priest; a clergyman. The first divines of New England were surpassed by none in extensive erudition, personal sanctity, and diligence in the pastoral office. 2. A man skilled in divinity; a theologian; as a great divine. DIVINE, v.t. [L.] 1. To foreknow; to foretell; to presage. Darst thou divine his downfall? 2. To deify. [Not in use.] DIVINE, v.i. 1. To use or practice divination. 2. To utter presages or prognostications. The prophets thereof divine for money. Micah 3. 3. To have presages or forebodings. Suggest but truth to my divining thoughts-- 4. To guess or conjecture. Could you divine what lovers bear.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
By the way -- ae yo going to answer my question aobut your belief regarding the deity of Christ? Was He God before He became flesh? Was (is) He God afterwards? If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, how can this be? Please answer. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It does to the merciful and caring heart .. Yes it does. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:37:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in Jesus Christ. DM Is this supposed to matter? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > > DM should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and > > expound that difference then, just move on. > > Lance, I try not to make assumptions about what other people believe. Let > Bill clarify his position first if you don't mind. I don't know whether or > not Bill excludes the concept of sin from repentance. If he does, you will > be hearing me expound upon our differences. You forget that you and Bill > are better read and trained in theological matters. I am ignorant in this > area. What seems clear to you is not clear to me. I didn't even notice > that there might be a difference in our understanding of the word repentance > until subsequent reads of his post prompted by your post claiming that Bill > did not answer in the affirmative t hat repentance is part of the gospel. > I'm expecting to see some back pedalling by Bill perhaps prompted from > private posts by you, or to see Bill clarify his viewpoint on the place of > the call to repentance in the preaching of the gospel. > > If Bill does have an esoteric definition of repentance, then his perspective > that most people have no idea what it means to repent takes on many other > considerations. Is salvation found in turning away from sin and turing to > the person of Jesus Christ, or is it found by changing one's philosophy > about the Godhead, from Judaic monotheism to understanding the Trinity! I'm > truly still shell shocked that this is where we are at in our discussion. I > am hoping that the answer is not what I think it is. Perhaps Judy has been > right all along in her appraisal of you boys and I am the one who has been > thinking too optimistically about your salvation and ontological status in > Jesus Ch rist. > > David Miller. > ; > > - Original Message - > From: Lance Muir > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:56 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > EVERYONE on TT, Judy, believes their observations to be 'rooted and > grounded' in Scripture. Each believes, where they are in their journey just > now, to have reflected that which the Lord Himself would have them say. I > BELIEVE THIS OF YOU. I BELIEVE THIS OF DM. ETC. However, when one encounters > duplicity, faulty argumentation, a careless 'reading' of another's > 'mail'..then, a corrective must be offered. Also JT, you and DM, rather > strangely I would suggest, regularly demean any who acknowledge the > contribution of another believer in print. It's almost like suggesting that > all sufficiency is to be found in 'God, The Book, and You'. Accessing any > other source whatsoe ver is cause for criticism. > > ; Now, as to the matter of 'repentance' (please correct me Bill if I'm > misrepresenting you on this) DM and Bill have differing understandings. DM > should, IMO, acknowledge, clarify, and expound that difference then, just > move on. I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of > course. > - Original Message - > From: Judy Taylor > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: January 13, 2006 06:29 > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > > > How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all > it is his doctrine that claims one > must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total > depravity" and this comes out of a > misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes: > From: Debbie Sawcz ak > Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to > repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are > saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete > with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the > greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news > of Jesus Christ. Amen. > > Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, > having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It > (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his > Human Perso
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God.. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh? They don't have to have the Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God.. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and He is merciful and longsuffering enough to want to give them one more chance which they took for a measure of time even though they regressed later and were eventually destroyed. Their response to Jonah's warning bought them some time but unfortunately they did not gain eternity. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh? They don't have to have the Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God.. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel
1. You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is right. You have stated that many times in the past. I was just hoping that you good explain how that can be true with the example of Nineveh hanging over this theological conclusion. 2. Secondly, you believe that Christ stopped being God in spite of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." I was hoping for an explanation of this, as well. Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to answer it emphatically , not fearing being "set up." I do not mind being responsible for what I consider to be true. Could you please do the same? I doubt anyone on this forum can tell the rest of us what you believe. Seriously jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and He is merciful and longsuffering enough to want to give them one more chance which they took for a measure of time even though they regressed later and were eventually destroyed. Their response to Jonah's warning bought them some time but unfortunately they did not gain eternity. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh? They don't have to have the Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God.. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen. Lance, I now see what you meant today about the exchange bw Bill and David, having read the full message from Bill. The above is the crux, isn't it? It (esp the part I bolded) reminds me of what Victor said numerous times in his Human Person course: I know Christ first of all, before anything else, as my Saviour. The accountability, the repentance, arise out of that. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:45:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. You believe that unregenerated man cannot do what is right. You have stated that many times in the past. I was just hoping that you good explain how that can be true with the example of Nineveh hanging over this theological conclusion. I have no problem with unregenerated man repenting and this is what the ppl of Nineveh did; when one have no theological boxes there is no problem. 2. Secondly, you believe that Christ stopped being God in spite of the oft quoted (by you) passage "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." I was hoping for an explanation of this, as well. No worries JD. Yesterday he was God the Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his place in the Godhead forever. Actually you do not quote correctly JD. It is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. Ask me a question, Judy, about my beliefs and I will be glad to answer it emphatically , not fearing being "set up." I do not mind being responsible for what I consider to be true. Could you please do the same? I doubt anyone on this forum can tell the rest of us what you believe. Seriously jd That's easy JD. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> God is the Creator of the ppl in Nineveh also and He is merciful and longsuffering enough to want to give them one more chance which they took for a measure of time even though they regressed later and were eventually destroyed. Their response to Jonah's warning bought them some time but unfortunately they did not gain eternity. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:24:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what does that have to do with the people of Nineveh? They don't have to have the Spirit to do right as long as the preacher has the Spirit? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes ... and Jonah was called by God and anointed to speak by the Spirit of God.. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:15:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But aren't you the one who preaches that one cannot do the works of God without the Spirit of God? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Death reigned from Adam to Moses and it reigned over Nineveh in Jonah's day.. So obviously the wages of sin is death with or without a written Law. Jonah called on these people to repent and they did do that in sackcloth and ashes... even without theological permission. On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:36:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, Nineveh was not under the Law. Jonah does not call them to the Law. And it is the Law that defines sin to be sin. Can sin exist apart from the law? Paul says it does. Jonah is certainly not calling them to live their lives as the Jews lived theirs !! jd On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:56:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm with Bill on this one. God is with Bill on this one, IMO, of course. I'm not surprised since you and Bill are so into culture and all that - but don't bring God into your folly. The pagan Persian City of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32) And what do you suppose his message to them was? From: Judy Taylor How interesting - Debbie Sawzak is of a Calvinistic bent; because after all it is his doctrine that claims one must be regenerated before it is possible to repent because of "total depravity" and this comes out of a misunderstanding of the spiritual realities involved. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:21:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Debbie Sawczak Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with direc
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel
myth (private philosophy not bible teaching; 'leaders', in Heb 13, refers to: those who 'say with confidence', to: those who 'spoke the word of God' presented in the OT text/s employed in context by the author of Hebrews) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:59:29 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || Yesterday he was God the Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his place ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel
..iow, your comments counter Hebrews; are self-generated opinion (perhaps somewhat unwittingly, Lance) rooted in common philosophy mired militantly in mitigating JCs deity On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:36:07 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (private philosophy not bible teaching; 'leaders', in Heb 13, refers to: those who 'say with confidence', to: those who 'spoke the word of God' presented in the OT text/s employed in context by the author of Hebrews) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:59:29 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || Yesterday he was God the Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his place ||
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The mystery of Judy's gospel
..your comments represent another of your manufactured scriptural over-rides in support of a false philosophical projection, pejorative, in its impact, to the person of JC--perhaps a subtle ad hominem in our archive/d context On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:47:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..iow, your comments counter Hebrews; are self-generated opinion (perhaps somewhat unwittingly, Lance) rooted in common philosophy mired militantly in mitigating JCs deity On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:36:07 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (private philosophy not bible teaching; 'leaders', in Heb 13, refers to: those who 'say with confidence', to: those who 'spoke the word of God' presented in the OT text/s employed in context by the author of Hebrews) On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:59:29 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || Yesterday he was God the Word, today He is God the Word, and this will be his place ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Differences
DAVEH: Don't have much to add to any of the discussions. BTWIt wasn't my computer this time, but rather my ISP had a couple tough days earlier this week. Dean Moore wrote: cd: I don't know-but he has been quite lately. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/13/2006 11:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Differences ..Bro, do you think DaveHs computer crashed again last night? :) O -- ~~~ 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] love and trinity
I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. DAVEH: Do you believe the oneness of God/Christ extends beyond love? neither am I divine. DAVEH: Do you acknowledge any divine roots, Bill? Taylor wrote: BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..The oneness of God is thereforeFather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill -- ~~~ 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.
