Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
no charge--to a v rich man who (also) had defected to the perspective of the Roman Empire's foremost radical critic the NT tells us that Pilate not only defied his dream-wife (feminist nightmare?), he daringly defied Caesar himself, from whom orders later came to seal JCs tomb & post around the clock guards there to keep JCs disciples from the body On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
You have one vivid imagination Gary; where oh where do you find Jesus wasting time on criticizing the Roman Empire? Being buried in a rich man's tomb is making a statement but not the same one as you are attempting to proffer. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:57:40 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no charge--to a v rich man who (also) had defected to the perspective of the Roman Empire's foremost radical critic the NT tells us that Pilate not only defied his dream-wife (feminist nightmare?), he daringly defied Caesar himself, from whom orders later came to seal JCs tomb & post around the clock guards there to keep JCs disciples from the body On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued
Thank you and yes I am. Children are awesome beings !! I have coached kids sports for 25 years, maybe a little more, soccer, baseball and wrestling, and I do it as much because of the uniqueness of the experience as for anything. If you ever think you have seen or heard it all, just hang out with a bunch of kids for a while and you will realize you have not yet heard all of the story. Anyway, we are very thankful , here. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congratulations JD; I assume you are the proud Grandpa What a blessing from the Lord. Welcome Claire!! On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:51:09 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued
All of Canada chimes in 'bishop'. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued Thank you and yes I am. Children are awesome beings !! I have coached kids sports for 25 years, maybe a little more, soccer, baseball and wrestling, and I do it as much because of the uniqueness of the experience as for anything. If you ever think you have seen or heard it all, just hang out with a bunch of kids for a while and you will realize you have not yet heard all of the story. Anyway, we are very thankful , here. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congratulations JD; I assume you are the proud Grandpa What a blessing from the Lord. Welcome Claire!! On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:51:09 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] Educated Pagans
Let's not forget that Paul and Christ Himself were very well educated. Luke and Matthew were bprobably better educated than most, as well. Most of the apostles, in fact, knew two -- maybe three - languages. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why? Pagans with educations speak out of both sides of their mouth all the time. Look at how the Medical Health Care pronouncements change One minute coffee and chocolate are not good - too much caffeine and sugar Now they are healthy and keep one from cancer, all these antioxidents are in them Kind of like the dog chasing his tail Education does not make genius... On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:40:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The so-called law of non-contradiction is, on occasion, self-refuting. Boy, are you out of touch! Bet it makes you feel smart though. Why not use it with the Pagans? Just make sure that you don't choose a Pagan with an education. From: Kevin Deegan I will speak with great plainess of speech for ya You SELF-REFUTE in your philosophy/statements What shall we do with the Law of NON CONTRADICTION? Banish it to America?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I reall do hope that when you 'ranters' rant that you speak with greater clarity than that which you exhibit on TT. Otherwise. From: Kevin Deegan IMO? Your opinion is your opinion that Real Truth is unknowable, does that extend to your opinions? OTOH Your opionion is that your opinions should be accepted EX CATHEDRA.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NO, NO, NO! YOUR TRUTH, DEAN, is perceived by YOU absent any ad hom component. I'm with DH on this one as it (YOUR TRUTH - NOT ALWAYS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TRUTH) is intrinsically ad hom. (IMO of course) - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 09, 2006 06:30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM* - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 3/9/2006 3:08:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM* Are you implying Dean called you such NAMES?DAVEH: I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin..I say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your temple Pagan!!! cd: Hey- that is Judge Moore to you buddy. You are the one that put a separation between Christianity and Mormonism-in you comment -and when I declare that by doing so this is Paganism you state crying . My Comment: Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean? Your reply:So let me ask you, Dean..Is it the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean? I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian-To be non-Christian is to be a Pagan. You DaveH are a Pagan.The fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus Christ is a deeper conformation of that point. Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack- or state a petition to impeach me.I am not Judge Dean -by your standards isn't that Ad. Homein attacking-better stop or I will have to go to the Moderator.Hey -Judge Moore Moderate this!Kevin Deegan wrote: Are you implying Dean called you such NAMES?Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups?DAVEH: Hwell, I hadn't thought about dissecting you guys, but it is a tempting thought you've given me! ;-) Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?DAVEH: LOL..Sometimes I think SPers are their own worst enemy! You have the power to push the button that bars me from TT, Dean. If you do such, I don't think your problems will all go with me. I've been called a pagan here, a snake in the grass, satan's messenger boyand I've been falsely accused of condoning violence against SPers. So let me ask you, Dean..Is it the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mea n?Dean Moore wrote: cd:Dave why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups??Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?. - Original Message - F rom: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 3/7/2006 11:03:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose - Moderator commentADHOM* The latter. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 07, 2006 10:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM* IFO would not have such an assessment of anyone on TT.DAVEH: Is that is because you do not consider yourself a protected friend of the moderator and fear reprisal, Lance .or is it because you ha
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third > >> option, which seems to be slow in coming. > > > > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a > > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God > > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution > > is the only option. > > > > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but > > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate > > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > > > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of > > relatively recent origin. > > > > David Mille r > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
OK Gary - what NT is telling you all this? Even the NIV says it was the chief priests and pharisees who were worried about the body and so Pilate told them to set up their own watch ... what voices are you listenting to in CO? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:57:40 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no charge--to a v rich man who (also) had defected to the perspective of the Roman Empire's foremost radical critic the NT tells us that Pilate not only defied his dream-wife (feminist nightmare?), he daringly defied Caesar himself, from whom orders later came to seal JCs tomb & post around the clock guards there to keep JCs disciples from the body On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
[TruthTalk] 'The elephant in the room' - TT's demise
IFO believe this to be both appropriate and wise, David. Long ago Jonathan offered up a description of the participants on TT. His observations, IMO, have been borne out over time.The dialogue has become almost totally adversarial in tone. Most of those who had something to say, and said it well, saw that this was not a place for mutually beneficial conversation. They did what you're thinking of doing, David. They went on to more important things. Why not just suggest a number of other 'chat rooms' where each can carry their respective agenda's with them and, engage those who speak the same language? Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued
:-) -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All of Canada chimes in 'bishop'. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued Thank you and yes I am. Children are awesome beings !! I have coached kids sports for 25 years, maybe a little more, soccer, baseball and wrestling, and I do it as much because of the uniqueness of the experience as for anything. If you ever think you have seen or heard it all, just hang out with a bunch of kids for a while and you will realize you have not yet heard all of the story. Anyway, we are very thankful , here. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congratulations JD; I assume you are the proud Grandpa What a blessing from the Lord. Welcome Claire!! On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:51:09 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third > >> option, which seems to be slow in coming. > > > > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a > > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God > > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution > > is the only option. > > > > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but > > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate > > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > > > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of > > relatively recent origin. > > > > David Mille r > > > -- > "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
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Yes, and the importance of this conclusion -- It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. is lost to those who think that their think don't stink. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third > >> option, which seems to be slow in coming. > > > > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a > > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God > > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Gary, you have accused someone of being a liar for saying Truth is Jesus Christ. Now you say here that it is POSSIBLE that you think it is true about JC being Truth? First, let me lay out some new ground rules that are actually old ground rules. We don't allow ad hominem style arguments such has you posted in calling Judy a liar, so whether or not it is true and whether or not you believe it, please do not repeat such posts to TruthTalk. Second, we really need to carry this dialogue further than possibilities about what you believe. I know that you accept Scripture as being true, so, I would like you to state whether you agree or disagree with the following statements if you are willing. 1. Jesus said, "I am truth." 2. Jesus is truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. Along the same lines, we have discussed on this list long ago the following concepts and so I would like to hear whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. 1. God is love. 2. Love is God. Thank you. After I see what your position is, I will have some other questions. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth? it's quite possible that both Pilate & I think that's true about JC On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:18:36 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Because God's Word is true and every man a liar along with the fact that God was the only one there at the time and He has given us a written record through his servant Moses. This may be "simple minded" and "fundamentalist" to your frame of reference but I can guarantee I won't have to eat my words. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:10:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third > >> option, which seems to be slow in coming. > > > > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a > > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God > > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution > > is the only option. > > > > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but > > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate > > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > > > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of > > relatively recent origin. > > > > David Mille r > > > --
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Election rather than "justification" is the subject here JD; why do you seek to change it? And why is it that you and Lance can not accept the obvious The Scots ConfessionWritten by John Knox and five other "Johns" (Willock, Winram, Spottiswood, Row and Douglas), in 1560, at the conclusion of the Scottish civil war in response to medieval catholicism and at the behest of the Scottish Parliament in five days. Its central doctrines are those of election and the Church. It was approved by the Reformation Parliament and Church of Scotland, attaining full legal status with the departure of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1567. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:11:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and the importance of this conclusion -- It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. is lost to those who think that their think don't stink. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance why don't you get your own list together and organize it from your perch up there in the frozen North. David, Perry, Dean et al are doing their best under trying conditions. Do you really think they need an "expert opinion" hovering over their shoulders constantly? A little sensitiity please . On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:48:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other po
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
One can only be appreciative of the contribution made by yourself and David Miller as to my point of longstanding concerning 'illumination/interpretation'. You both lay claim to a nonexistent promise and, thereafter exhibit the opposite in your writing. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. Election rather than "justification" is the subject here JD; why do you seek to change it? And why is it that you and Lance can not accept the obvious The Scots ConfessionWritten by John Knox and five other "Johns" (Willock, Winram, Spottiswood, Row and Douglas), in 1560, at the conclusion of the Scottish civil war in response to medieval catholicism and at the behest of the Scottish Parliament in five days. Its central doctrines are those of election and the Church. It was approved by the Reformation Parliament and Church of Scotland, attaining full legal status with the departure of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1567. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:11:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and the importance of this conclusion -- It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. is lost to those who think that their think don't stink. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Notation after the fact: perhaps only the last paragraph is worth reading -- hopefully. jd One of the more important debates in the world of psychology is whether or not thoughts define a person. I rather think the heart of man is emotion. If the emotion is not given serious nourishment, words can ravage the heart. But if the emotion of belonging is given adequate provision in community (family, church, God in Christ in us, and the like) words (thoughts ) will have little negative effect. Words and thoughts are only an _expression_ of who we are (ontology) . Some theories of speech present the opinion that expressed speech (thoughts) originates in the sympathetic nervous system and has [only] an emotional pre-existence [to _expression_.] As such, they are not "right" or "wrong." Not all bias is wrong. And that is never more true than when we speak of the deeply felt emotional bias of the person. It is from this centre that man speaks and acts. Catastrophic "failure" in emotional development makes acceptable behavior impossible -- whether expressed in action or speech. That is why a well reasoned debate response often will have no influence over the opposing person -- she is controlled by an emotional centre that cannot receive the extension of another's emotional bias -- the two centre's are not enough alike. I have friends, for example, whose emotional extension (their words, their thoughts) are the same (for the most part) as mine. "We liked each other from the very beginning." Our emotional centre's have a shared commonality. So what in the world am I saying? Emotions are never "wrong." Their _expression_ may be ill-advised but they are not "wrong" in a soteriological sense of the word. Hence, thoughts that express our emotional bias are not wrong. If "authenticity" is the true _expression_ of a person, and thoughts are given regulation by the larger group (say a legalistic church fellowship) , the true person will never be known and repair to her "soul" will never be made --- at least not at "church." jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by
RE: [TruthTalk] The Future of TruthTalk
Read your post, David, and you will find the answer. Izzy Ec 3: 1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a (A)time for every event under heaven-- 2A time to give birth and a (B)time to die…. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:12 PM To: TruthTalk Subject: [TruthTalk] The Future of TruthTalk Dear TruthTalk members, As many of you know, I have not had time to moderate TruthTalk for a number of years. We have had some problems recently on the list that has been especially trying for many of us, especially the past moderator. Another TruthTalk member has volunteered to moderate the list, but given recent events, I am very reticent to consider this option. Right now, I have to confess to the list that I am seriously considering taking down the list. I don't regret having had this list for these last 8 years, but priorities in our lives change and I feel that my priority is toward other situations in my life which concern my family, my church, my business, etc. I also have a desire to start writing position papers on various issues, and TruthTalk basically takes away my time from doing such things. I suppose in some ways I feel that I have outgrown TruthTalk, and in other ways I just need a break for awhile. This would be a lot easier decision to make if TruthTalk was somehow dying on the vine with few posts being made. The truth is just the opposite of that situation. Interest continues concerning engaging in dialogue here. I will be continuing to moderate TruthTalk for the next week or so as if TruthTalk were going to continue, but I am still very seriously considering bringing an end to TruthTalk. If any of you have any wisdom or suggestions about TruthTalk continuing, perhaps without my leadership or involvement, please share it with me. I'm open to alternatives, but I do think my time with TruthTalk, even in an administration capacity or lurking capacity, is being brought to an end here this week. Most of all, I want everyone to know what is stirring in my heart so you are not surprised or shocked if I do take down this list at the end of the week or if there is some other drastic change that happens with the list. God bless you all, David Miller
RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
Only those who love them would understand. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watched much of a show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. Pretty good article, however. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] creation continued
Blessings, JD. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:07 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued Thank you and yes I am. Children are awesome beings !! I have coached kids sports for 25 years, maybe a little more, soccer, baseball and wrestling, and I do it as much because of the uniqueness of the experience as for anything. If you ever think you have seen or heard it all, just hang out with a bunch of kids for a while and you will realize you have not yet heard all of the story. Anyway, we are very thankful , here. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congratulations JD; I assume you are the proud Grandpa What a blessing from the Lord. Welcome Claire!! On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:51:09 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
The promise is only nonexistent to those steeped in unbelief and those who are "selective" about what they will receive from God's Word Lance. God calls this kind of a person "double-minded" and says that they will receive nothing from the Lord. (James 1:7,8) Why do you call the Promise "nonexistent?" On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:01:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: One can only be appreciative of the contribution made by yourself and David Miller as to my point of longstanding concerning 'illumination/interpretation'. You both lay claim to a nonexistent promise and, thereafter exhibit the opposite in your writing. From: Judy Taylor Election rather than "justification" is the subject here JD; why do you seek to change it? And why is it that you and Lance can not accept the obvious The Scots ConfessionWritten by John Knox and five other "Johns" (Willock, Winram, Spottiswood, Row and Douglas), in 1560, at the conclusion of the Scottish civil war in response to medieval catholicism and at the behest of the Scottish Parliament in five days. Its central doctrines are those of election and the Church. It was approved by the Reformation Parliament and Church of Scotland, attaining full legal status with the departure of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1567. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:11:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and the importance of this conclusion -- It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. is lost to those who think that their think don't stink. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the
RE: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
OK Gary - what NUT is telling you all this? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:48 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth? OK Gary - what NT is telling you all this? Even the NIV says it was the chief priests and pharisees who were worried about the body and so Pilate told them to set up their own watch ... what voices are you listenting to in CO? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:57:40 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no charge--to a v rich man who (also) had defected to the perspective of the Roman Empire's foremost radical critic the NT tells us that Pilate not only defied his dream-wife (feminist nightmare?), he daringly defied Caesar himself, from whom orders later came to seal JCs tomb & post around the clock guards there to keep JCs disciples from the body On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the mi
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
David:Prior to my departure (one hears cheers in the background) or, the cessation of TT, I'd like to have you lay out your belief/teaching on this matter so that even such as myself could understand what is being claimed by yourself and Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. The promise is only nonexistent to those steeped in unbelief and those who are "selective" about what they will receive from God's Word Lance. God calls this kind of a person "double-minded" and says that they will receive nothing from the Lord. (James 1:7,8) Why do you call the Promise "nonexistent?" On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:01:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: One can only be appreciative of the contribution made by yourself and David Miller as to my point of longstanding concerning 'illumination/interpretation'. You both lay claim to a nonexistent promise and, thereafter exhibit the opposite in your writing. From: Judy Taylor Election rather than "justification" is the subject here JD; why do you seek to change it? And why is it that you and Lance can not accept the obvious The Scots ConfessionWritten by John Knox and five other "Johns" (Willock, Winram, Spottiswood, Row and Douglas), in 1560, at the conclusion of the Scottish civil war in response to medieval catholicism and at the behest of the Scottish Parliament in five days. Its central doctrines are those of election and the Church. It was approved by the Reformation Parliament and Church of Scotland, attaining full legal status with the departure of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1567. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:11:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and the importance of this conclusion -- It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. is lost to those who think that their think don't stink. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Then why do you and JD deny the obvious Lance? Just admit that you admire the man and accept what he says along with the teachings of Calvin On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:15:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile. From: Judy Taylor Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
The pastor's comments in blood red. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death>" They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And waht is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither wer you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Will DAvid now ask that you present substantive argument? Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation
[TruthTalk] torrance
In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:29 Subject: [TruthTalk] torrance In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither were you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. Adding to what is written makes one anything but humble JD. This is what the adversary did in Gen 3:4; the actual text says no such thing unless you read it in to try and conform reality to your extra Biblical hypothesis as demonstrated below. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post. OK JD, what was the POINT of your post? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
Since he quotes the Scots Confession, I would say his understanding could be found therein. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:47:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? From: Judy Taylor In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
[TruthTalk] torrance and the scots confession
Until 1553 Knox was an agent of English Protestantism, like so many other Reformed luminaries who lived in England during this period. He was influential in the 2nd prayer book's insistence that there was no Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. In many ways he became the model which English Puritans were to follow for the next hundred years. But in 1553 when Bloody Mary came to the throne, Knox fled England. He spent most of the following years in Geneva, learning from John Calvin. The Scots ConfessionWritten by John Knox and five other "Johns" (Willock, Winram, Spottiswood, Row and Douglas), in 1560, at the conclusion of the Scottish civil war in response to medieval catholicism and at the behest of the Scottish Parliament in five days. Its central doctrines are those of election and the Church. It was approved by the Reformation Parliament and Church of Scotland, attaining full legal status with the departure of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1567. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:52:34 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Since he quotes the Scots Confession, I would say his understanding could be found therein. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:47:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? From: Judy Taylor In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
That which follows is a phony self-deprecatory commentty: Even though I've listened to everything he's taught that's been recorded since 1954 and, have read nearly everything he's written, along with many books that are about him/his work yet (here it comes) I'D NOT CALL MYSELF A TFTORRANCE EXPERT. You're wrong on this one Judy! Let it go and, move along. If indeed we have but a week left then, let's not dwell overlong on your misunderstanding of T. F. Torrance. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance Since he quotes the Scots Confession, I would say his understanding could be found therein. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:47:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? From: Judy Taylor In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
If anyone has expressed a belief in "total depravity," it is Judy Taylor -- what with her notion of the "generaltional curse"and all. She denies the use of phrase "total depravity" while esposing the teaching. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
Lance I don't have to know everything he has ever taught or call myself a "Torrance expert" to know what he says in the piece you posted. We are back to what is a dog?, what is a cat?. What is a black dog? What is a big black dog?. I am sorry to touch your idol Lance. all tha ttime would have been much better spent in God's Word - He will let you know for sure what He means when one comes on His terms. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: That which follows is a phony self-deprecatory commentty: Even though I've listened to everything he's taught that's been recorded since 1954 and, have read nearly everything he's written, along with many books that are about him/his work yet (here it comes) I'D NOT CALL MYSELF A TFTORRANCE EXPERT. You're wrong on this one Judy! Let it go and, move along. If indeed we have but a week left then, let's not dwell overlong on your misunderstanding of T. F. Torrance. From: Judy Taylor Since he quotes the Scots Confession, I would say his understanding could be found therein. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:47:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? From: Judy Taylor In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
You JD obviously do not understand the meaning of either - do your homework and then we will talk. jt On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:12:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anyone has expressed a belief in "total depravity," it is Judy Taylor -- what with her notion of the "generaltional curse"and all. She denies the use of phrase "total depravity" while esposing the teaching. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours. And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither were you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. Adding to what is written makes one anything but humble JD. This is what the adversary did in Gen 3:4; the actual text says no such thing unless you read it in to try and conform reality to your extra Biblical hypothesis as demonstrated below. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the poin
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
Thanks for you substantive statement of fact versus opinion. But, I shall continue with my opinion in light of numerous JudyPosts in my possession. And you did not answer Lance's question about TFT. In your words, specifically, what is Torrance's position as relates to Calvinism? I seriously do not think you know. Prove me wrong -- that will be fine with me. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You JD obviously do not understand the meaning of either - do your homework and then we will talk. jt On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:12:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anyone has expressed a belief in "total depravity," it is Judy Taylor -- what with her notion of the "generaltional curse"and all. She denies the use of phrase "total depravity" while esposing the teaching. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
On second thought, Judy, don't bother - as if you were going to answer the question, anyway !! Lance is correct -- if we have but a week remaining, trying to squeeze a real answer out of you on this one is not worth the effort. I will just say that you did and move on. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for you substantive statement of fact versus opinion. But, I shall continue with my opinion in light of numerous JudyPosts in my possession. And you did not answer Lance's question about TFT. In your words, specifically, what is Torrance's position as relates to Calvinism? I seriously do not think you know. Prove me wrong -- that will be fine with me. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You JD obviously do not understand the meaning of either - do your homework and then we will talk. jt On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:12:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anyone has expressed a belief in "total depravity," it is Judy Taylor -- what with her notion of the "generaltional curse"and all. She denies the use of phrase "total depravity" while esposing the teaching. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. Only in your own opinion JD How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? God is Spirit and when they died they lost His Image JD - it's elementary When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. They died "in that day" as God said they would The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours. And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? If you refuse to accept God's Word for what constitutes a day - I am not foolish enough to believe that anything I say would make the least bit of difference so carry on jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. Only in your own opinion JD No less an opinion than yours, of course. How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? God is Spirit and when they died they lost His Image JD - it's elementary So, it is established in JudySpeak, then. Is there a passge of scripture that actually speaks of "spiritual death?" When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. They died "in that day" as God said they would That evile J Smithson and his dirty old "traps." Did they die the INSTANT they ate the fruit or not? I think we all know the answer. "Day," then, is figurative. The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours. And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? If you refuse to accept God's Word for what constitutes a day - I am not foolish enough to believe that anything I say would make the least bit of difference so carry on Thank you and I will. It is God's word that I use -- your personal brand of logic aside. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
From what I know of the two men, it appears to me that Calvin was the better theologican and Luther the more involved pastor. They were not fully correct in their expressed theologies, but then, that just might be an impossibility for us all. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Then why do you and JD deny the obvious Lance? Just admit that you admire the man and accept what he says along with the teachings of Calvin On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:15:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile. From: Judy Taylor Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
So then Judy, are we off this now? IFO do not wish to engage you further on this. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 10:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance Lance I don't have to know everything he has ever taught or call myself a "Torrance expert" to know what he says in the piece you posted. We are back to what is a dog?, what is a cat?. What is a black dog? What is a big black dog?. I am sorry to touch your idol Lance. all tha ttime would have been much better spent in God's Word - He will let you know for sure what He means when one comes on His terms. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:11:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: That which follows is a phony self-deprecatory commentty: Even though I've listened to everything he's taught that's been recorded since 1954 and, have read nearly everything he's written, along with many books that are about him/his work yet (here it comes) I'D NOT CALL MYSELF A TFTORRANCE EXPERT. You're wrong on this one Judy! Let it go and, move along. If indeed we have but a week left then, let's not dwell overlong on your misunderstanding of T. F. Torrance. From: Judy Taylor Since he quotes the Scots Confession, I would say his understanding could be found therein. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:47:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy:What is 'The Reformed Doctrine of Election' as T. F. Torrance understands it (not as you understand it)? From: Judy Taylor In his writing below about "existential decision" Torrance confirms Calvin's doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches that fallen mankind is akin to a literal corpse and unable to make a decision that is anything but evil .. Unconditional Election follows along with Limited Atonement. I figure his Limited Atonement would conflict violently with the way you see the "incarnation" so possibly Torrance veers off here a little but so far it sounds like Calvin's other points are in place. "But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike."
RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
I understand two things about "them." One is that they are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith nearly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they are collecting monies from the far right. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Only those who love them would understand. iz > > > > _ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watched much of a > show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. > > Pretty good article, however. > > jd > > > --- Begin Message --- Only those who love them would understand. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watched much of a show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. Pretty good article, however. jd --- End Message ---
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition of "believer." I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term Christian in a broad sense of those who claim Christianity as their religion. We would be in agreement in regards to Christians having widely different interpretations about Gen. 1-11. On the other hand, the term "believer" for me takes on a more narrow meaning in the sense of someone who actually trusts in Jesus Christ. The term "believer" for me actually includes non-Christians, but among the Christians included, it is such a small group who are actually believers that the word is much more narrow than the term Christian. I think that believers actually do see Gen 1-11 in a very similar way in regards to knowledge they have confidence about, that is, in regards to the actual message of God being conveyed in the text. Some believers have more knowledge than others in regards to the subject matter in Genesis, so what they actually say will vary, but there are not sharp disagreements among believers in these matters. For example, if I were to share my knowledge of Creation, or the Nephilim, or the Noachide flood, etc., while my knowledge might be greater than many believers in many of these areas, I expect a lot of hearty amens as opposed to suspicion and disagreement. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical expression is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that > God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining > > it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain > life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other > possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller : > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation > > account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in > > comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolution
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Judy, comments like this one are better made off the list. They really are kind of insulting and do not add to the discussion at hand. I realize that Lance provoked you here, but somebody has to cut it off and I think you are mature enough to ignore comments like this one or discuss it off the list. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator p.s. Do not reply to this post on the list, please. Off list e-mail on this topic is welcome. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Lance why don't you get your own list together and organize it from your perch up there in the frozen North. David, Perry, Dean et al are doing their best under trying conditions. Do you really think they need an "expert opinion" hovering over their shoulders constantly? A little sensitiity please . On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:48:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > id
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
No, Lance, I do not think Judy is being accusatory. She is expressing a valid objection, that from her perspective, the way she is hearing John, she wonders if he calls God a liar. John should answer the objection. By the way, please write me privately about moderation issues, and if necessary, I can post clarification to the list in a single post. I don't want an extended thread on this subject. David Miller p.s. Judy could learn to express herself differently, in a more respectful way, and I have made efforts to talk with her about it off the list. Part of the problem is that Judy believes in being honest and transparent, so working too hard about expressing herself differently from how she actually feels tends toward guile, hypocrisy, and manipulation. These are valid concerns on her part, so we need to try and have some grace here and work with her as best we can. I can certainly understand how a sensitive person would take such questions as veiled accusations, but I think we all know Judy well enough by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
John wrote: > And you did not answer Lance's question > about TFT. In your words, specifically, > what is Torrance's position as relates to > Calvinism? I seriously do not think you know. > Prove me wrong -- that will be fine with me. You are asking the wrong person, John. Lance is the TruthTalk expert on Torrance. Judy's position is based upon a creed, which Lance apparently indicates Torrance does not fully embrace. If you want more information to substantiate this, press Lance to present it for us. As for me, I willing to accept Lance's opinion based upon the assumption that he is more informed about Torrance than Judy is. 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.
[TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David: Please take note that I employed the term 'believer' knowing of this sectarian distinction you are given to. Perhaps you move in insular circles where such an outcome would be the case. I do not and, it would not. Should you wish to pursue the matter further David, I'll simply mention Rikk Watts & Denis Lamoreaux. The foregoing are two 'believers', both of whom are thoroughly informed and, would likely not be in agrreement with you re: Gen 1-11. This is for the record, as it were. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 11:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition of "believer." I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term Christian in a broad sense of those who claim Christianity as their religion. We would be in agreement in regards to Christians having widely different interpretations about Gen. 1-11. On the other hand, the term "believer" for me takes on a more narrow meaning in the sense of someone who actually trusts in Jesus Christ. The term "believer" for me actually includes non-Christians, but among the Christians included, it is such a small group who are actually believers that the word is much more narrow than the term Christian. I think that believers actually do see Gen 1-11 in a very similar way in regards to knowledge they have confidence about, that is, in regards to the actual message of God being conveyed in the text. Some believers have more knowledge than others in regards to the subject matter in Genesis, so what they actually say will vary, but there are not sharp disagreements among believers in these matters. For example, if I were to share my knowledge of Creation, or the Nephilim, or the Noachide flood, etc., while my knowledge might be greater than many believers in many of these areas, I expect a lot of hearty amens as opposed to suspicion and disagreement. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical expression is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining > it > all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I als
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Lance finds himself compelled to jump in, David. What indeed is the point of this hypothetical construct at the conclusion of your post? It is totally meaningless. Whitcomb would not, I say again not, be taken seriously as a theologian any more than Tim LaHaye would. From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 11:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad I understand two things about "them." One is that they are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith nearly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they are collecting monies from the far right. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Only those who love them would understand. iz > > > > _ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watched much of a > show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. > > Pretty good article, however. > > jd > > > -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I have no intentions of defending myself against nonsensical accusation that have no basis in anything other than a desire to insult. I submit that there is no one on this forum who can honestly ask of me, "Do you call God a liar?" By the way, this is not a response to "moderator." It is a response to the first paragraph in the post below. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No, Lance, I do not think Judy is being accusatory. She is expressing a valid objection, that from her perspective, the way she is hearing John, she wonders if he calls God a liar. John should answer the objection. By the way, please write me privately about moderation issues, and if necessary, I can post clarification to the list in a single post. I don't want an extended thread on this subject. David Miller p.s. Judy could learn to express herself differently, in a more respectful way, and I have made efforts to talk with her about it off the list. Part of the problem is that Judy believes in being honest and transparent, so working too hard about expressing herself differently from how she actually feels tends toward guile, hypocrisy, and manipulation. These are valid concerns on her part, so we need to try and have some grace here and work with her as best we can. I can certainly understand how a sensitive person would take such questions as veiled accusations, but I think we all know Judy well enough by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
To your first question , "no." To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? jd John, I have a couple questions for you.1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me.2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
I am asking the "right" question, David. Surely it is appropriate to ask such a question of one who writes as it she knows of Torrance's "Calvinistic" belief system. Until she answers the question, why should we assume that she knows what she is talking about as concerns the above matter? By the way -- are you going to spend the remainder of this last week with me in your philosophical cross-hairs? Just asking. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > And you did not answer Lance's question > > about TFT. In your words, specifically, > > what is Torrance's position as relates to > > Calvinism? I seriously do not think you know. > > Prove me wrong -- that will be fine with me. > > You are asking the wrong person, John. Lance is the TruthTalk expert on > Torrance. Judy's position is based upon a creed, which Lance apparently > indicates Torrance does not fully embrace. If you want more information to > substantiate this, press Lance to present it for us. As for me, I willing > to accept Lance's opinion based upon the assumption that he is more informed > about Torrance than Judy is. > > David Miller > > -- > "Let your speech be a lways with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
DAVEH: LOL.That's a good one, Izzy! ShieldsFamily wrote: OK Gary - what NUT is telling you all this? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:48 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth? OK Gary - what NT is telling you all this? Even the NIV says it was the chief priests and pharisees who were worried about the body and so Pilate told them to set up their own watch ... what voices are you listenting to in CO? -- ~~~ 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] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
Your suspicion is misquided, of course. And what is wrong with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > I understand two things about "them." One is that they > are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living > Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith > nearly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they > are collecting monies from the far right. > > jd > > > > > > -- Original message -- > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Only those who love them would understand. iz > > > > > > > > _ > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > > > > > I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watched much of > a > > show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. > > > > Pretty good article, however. > > > > jd > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
John wrote: > To your first question , "no." If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: > To your second question, either you > did not read my post or you have > decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? David Miller John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Think of the early chapters of Genesis as theological literature with the emphasis on 'literature'. It is a well drawn story. Bruce Waltke, in a recent commentary on Genesis, says "the prologue announces that the God of the covenant community is the same as the Creator of the cosmos." Waltke asks 'Is Genesis myth? He answers: 'If by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and, experience, an ideaology that explains the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth.In this sense, myth addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery.' Genesis and science discuss essentially different matters. Genesis 1 is concerned with ultimate cause (see my reference to teleology), not proximation. The purpose of Genesis and science differ. Genesis is prescriptive, answering the questions of who and why and what ought to be, whereas the purpose of science is descriptive, answering the questions of what and how." Genesis is about who has created the world and for what purpose. Genesis and science address different communities. They require a distinct means for validation. One requires empirical testing for validating, while the other, being addressed to the covenant community of God, requires the validation of the witness of the Spirit to the heart (Rom. 8:16) For these reasons; the Genesis creation account cannot be delineated as a scientific text." See 'Genesis, a commentary' Bruce K. Waltke, Eerdmans, 2001. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 13:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? John wrote: To your first question , "no." If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? David Miller John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, season
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. DAVEH: Quite the contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical separation from God and his love. The effect of such separation is similar to how it would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of Jerusalem, except its effect would last forever. Are you saying then that it is not a place? DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven is located in a place, then heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located. So yes, hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does his love emanate. It is not physical? DAVEH: Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of fire and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel who end up there. I do not believe people will literally be cast into a burning lake of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, IMHO. If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, DAVEH: Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem irrelevant. Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where you think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. Are you saying then that it is not a place? It is not physical? When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion. If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that suffer this mental anguish be? Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer? Can there be both joy & sorrow in the same place? Will they be in a physical place? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: you have been decieved by the Devil DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and D&C passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter mine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion. Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly sh ow the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth. whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke. which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. D&C 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels— DAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important and pertinent information, Kevin + 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels— 37 And the only ones on wh om the second death shall h
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Hi Lance. I don't mean to be rude, but all the below is the same boring stuff I have heard for many years. Many scientists repeat this mantra too. I just don't buy it. The Bible is more than poetry and literature that answers questions outside of science. There are real, empirical observations in the Bible, history of a people, real names of real people and real places, with dates and times that are real and refer to our physical world. The way I see it, the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ encompass all knowledge and all wisdom. It is all inclusive of science. Science, on the other hand, defines its realm of inquiry as one that excludes God and excludes any consideration that cannot be observed empirically and demonstrated to others. When it comes to the question of origins, science dismisses the idea of a Creator a priori. What people like Waltke try to do is define Biblical study as exclusionary of science. I strongly disagree. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Think of the early chapters of Genesis as theological literature with the emphasis on 'literature'. It is a well drawn story. Bruce Waltke, in a recent commentary on Genesis, says "the prologue announces that the God of the covenant community is the same as the Creator of the cosmos." Waltke asks 'Is Genesis myth? He answers: 'If by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and, experience, an ideaology that explains the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth.In this sense, myth addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery.' Genesis and science discuss essentially different matters. Genesis 1 is concerned with ultimate cause (see my reference to teleology), not proximation. The purpose of Genesis and science differ. Genesis is prescriptive, answering the questions of who and why and what ought to be, whereas the purpose of science is descriptive, answering the questions of what and how." Genesis is about who has created the world and for what purpose. Genesis and science address different communities. They require a distinct means for validation. One requires empirical testing for validating, while the other, being addressed to the covenant community of God, requires the validation of the witness of the Spirit to the heart (Rom. 8:16) For these reasons; the Genesis creation account cannot be delineated as a scientific text." See 'Genesis, a commentary' Bruce K. Waltke, Eerdmans, 2001. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 13:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? > John wrote: >> To your first question , "no." > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > John wrote: >> To your second question, either you >> did not read my post or you have >> decided to insult my presentation? > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a > figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > theology, in my opinion. > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, > but > the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling > with > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it > as > being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having > plants > created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a > biologist's > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must > be > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the > claims > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to > Genesis
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Dave, for what it is worth, your view of hell is also shared by many Protestants. In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone preacher by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes about hell pretty much just like you do. Still, Jed will stand on campus and warn students loudly about "bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of FI-I-I-R-R-E!" I was surprised the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached was figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? In other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to convey to people the danger of transgressing the commandments of God? David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. DAVEH: Quite the contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical separation from God and his love. The effect of such separation is similar to how it would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of Jerusalem, except its effect would last forever. Are you saying then that it is not a place? DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven is located in a place, then heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located. So yes, hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does his love emanate. It is not physical? DAVEH: Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of fire and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel who end up there. I do not believe people will literally be cast into a burning lake of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, IMHO. If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, DAVEH: Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem irrelevant. Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where you think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. Are you saying then that it is not a place? It is not physical? When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion. If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that suffer this mental anguish be? Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer? Can there be both joy & sorrow in the same place? Will they be in a physical place? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: you have been decieved by the Devil DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and D&C passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter mine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion. Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly sh ow the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth. whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke. which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
By being AROGANT do you hope to convince the Arogant of their ERROR?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (your presumptive dualism is characterized by two absolutes both rooted in arrogance) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:02:49 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:[Pilate] knew nothing about Truth Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
David: I'd never consider a response that amount to 'harumph' rudeness. Did you note the leap you took when shifting your response from Gen 1-11 (particular 1-3) so as to change the topic from creation to something else entirely. Would you like a list of real/practicing scientists who are themselves believers? I'd be please to connect you with lectures/books that might enable you to begin to engage the 21st century both biblically and scientifically. It just may be that the ultra confident/self assured sense of having apprehended the truth of the matter carries some weight in your sect but, David, not in the wider world. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 16:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Hi Lance. I don't mean to be rude, but all the below is the same boring stuff I have heard for many years. Many scientists repeat this mantra too. I just don't buy it. The Bible is more than poetry and literature that answers questions outside of science. There are real, empirical observations in the Bible, history of a people, real names of real people and real places, with dates and times that are real and refer to our physical world. The way I see it, the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ encompass all knowledge and all wisdom. It is all inclusive of science. Science, on the other hand, defines its realm of inquiry as one that excludes God and excludes any consideration that cannot be observed empirically and demonstrated to others. When it comes to the question of origins, science dismisses the idea of a Creator a priori. What people like Waltke try to do is define Biblical study as exclusionary of science. I strongly disagree. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Think of the early chapters of Genesis as theological literature with the emphasis on 'literature'. It is a well drawn story. Bruce Waltke, in a recent commentary on Genesis, says "the prologue announces that the God of the covenant community is the same as the Creator of the cosmos." Waltke asks 'Is Genesis myth? He answers: 'If by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and, experience, an ideaology that explains the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth.In this sense, myth addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery.' Genesis and science discuss essentially different matters. Genesis 1 is concerned with ultimate cause (see my reference to teleology), not proximation. The purpose of Genesis and science differ. Genesis is prescriptive, answering the questions of who and why and what ought to be, whereas the purpose of science is descriptive, answering the questions of what and how." Genesis is about who has created the world and for what purpose. Genesis and science address different communities. They require a distinct means for validation. One requires empirical testing for validating, while the other, being addressed to the covenant community of God, requires the validation of the witness of the Spirit to the heart (Rom. 8:16) For these reasons; the Genesis creation account cannot be delineated as a scientific text." See 'Genesis, a commentary' Bruce K. Waltke, Eerdmans, 2001. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 18, 2006 13:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? John wrote: To your first question , "no." If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely f
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Frankly, I am not interested in what's his name. Post it to the group, if you like -- but don't do it on my account. I know what I believe on the matter. Secondly, one's motivation for taking a particular position is quite unimportant. If you need an answer on that, hear me say "intellectual honesty." And virtually all of my argumentation was of a contextual in nature. There was no appeal to cultural or outside sources. How is it that you missed this? jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > To your first question , "no." > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > John wrote: > > To your second question, either you > > did not read my post or you have > > decided to insult my presentation? > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a > figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > theology, in my opinion. > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but > the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as > being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants > created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis > 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? > > David Miller > > > John, I have a couple questions for you. > > 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the > length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even > discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology > background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he > is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not > figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day > figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying > that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there > is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a > theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what > would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? > > 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 > < BR>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Thy word is true from the beginning Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they?- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the > idea that > the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created > roughly 1 > years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God > created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, > you are completely right: > > David: > > I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life > getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for > evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, > God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe > that the > universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very > long time. > > Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Conor wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally. > > > > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the > > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account > > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to > > the second creation account. > > > > Conor wrote: > >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third > >> option, which seems to be slow in coming. > > > > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a > > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God > > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution > > is the only option. > > > > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but > > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate > > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third > > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the > > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it > > all. > > > > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of > > relatively recent origin. > > > > David Mille r > > > -- > "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. Yahoo! Travel Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Know was just a disciple of his Mother the REFORMED CATHOLIC Calvin http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/knox2.htm Knox began as a Catholic priest Knox became a major supporter and disciple of Calvin'sLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try againThis is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in ChristFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> He also says this:But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangel icals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying a
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > To your first question , "no." > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > John wrote: > > To your second question, either you > > did not read my post or you have > > decided to insult my presentation? > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a > figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > theology, in my opinion. > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but > the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as > being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants > created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis > 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? > > David Miller > > > John, I have a couple questions for you. > > 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the > length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even > discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology > background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he > is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not > figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day > figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying > that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there > is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a > theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what > would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? > > 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 > < BR>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > To your first question , "no." > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > John wrote: > > To your second question, either you > > did not read my post or you have > > decided to insult my presentation? > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a > figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > theology, in my opinion. > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but > the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as > being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants > created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis > 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? > > David Miller > > > John, I have a couple questions for you. > > 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the > length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even > discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology > background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he > is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not > figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day > figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying > that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there > is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a > theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what > would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? > > 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 > & lt; BR>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] DH, Who is God?
Maybe you can help me out here Dave H? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Then perhaps the devil in the verse below is also figurative? What other portions do you find to be FIGURATIVE? What is the figurative significance of "they must go in to the place"? This would seem to imply being sent somewher. In one particular sentence, why is "lake of fire and brimstone" FIGURATIVE while "endless torment" is not, in that same sentence? 2 Nephi 28:19-25 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal bsecurity, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is welland thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. And behold, others he aflattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is noneand thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell.DAVEH: Quite the contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical separation from God and his love. The effect of such separation is similar to how it would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of Jerusalem, except its effect would last forever.Are you saying then that it is not a place?DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven is located in a place, then heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located. So yes, hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does his love emanate.It is not physical?DAVEH: Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of fire and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel who end up there. I do not believe people will literally be cast into a burning lake of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, IMHO.If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place,DAVEH: Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem irrelevant. Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where you think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located?Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. Are you saying then that it is not a place? It is not physical? When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion. If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that suffer this mental anguish be? Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer? Can there be both joy & sorrow in the same place? Will they be in a physical place?Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: you have been decieved by the DevilDAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and D&C passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter mine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion.Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal HellDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your positi
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Lance have you attended these meetings? http://politicsofthecross.blogspot.com/ The Character of Theology by John Franke the reformed traditon, it is important to understand that he does not mean Charles Hodge and R. C. Sproul. He is talking about the tradition stemming from Barth. I believe that the kind of reformed theology Franke is doing has the potential to be a rallying point for evangelicals of all traditions. It does not have the double predestination of people either to heaven or hell as taught by Augustine and Calvin at it heart. Instead it has a vision of the missional God who seeks to save all creatures. It does not try to graft into Christian theology a pagan notion of god as derived from philosophy. Rather... The Character of Theology by John Franke Given the violent history of Western civilization, it is both unsurprising and unfortunate that militaristic and competitive metaphors for evangelism proliferate among evangelicals today. His metaphor for evangelism is "dance," which is a good way to talk about leading someone without controling them, for coming together in relationship without coercion and for emphasizing the beauty of God rather than the power and wrath of God.We need to realize that postmodern people associate Christianity with violence and top-down social control. summarizing postmodern evangelism.1. The Relational Factor - count conversations not conversions.2. The Narrative Factor - listen to their story, share your story and share God's story, not just proposisitons or formulas.3. The Communal Factor - expect conversion to normally occur in the context of authentic Christian community, not just in the context of information.4. The Journey Factor - see disciple-making as a holistic process and unending journey, not just as a conversion event.5. The Holy Spirit Factor - believe that God is at work "out there" in everyone . . . not just "in here" in the church.6. The Learning Factor - see evangelism as part of your own discipleship - not just the other person's!7. The Missional Factor - see evangelism as recruiting people for God's mission on earth, not just people for heaven.8. The Service Factor - see evangelism as one facet of our identity as servants to all.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Know was just a disciple of his Mother the REFORMED CATHOLIC Calvin http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/knox2.htm Knox began as a Catholic priest Knox became a major supporter and disciple of Calvin'sLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.Why does he clearly quote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thing On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance? The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is Calvinistic John Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic) Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?" Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try againThis is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the text of his article. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in ChristFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he. His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats a redactive
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..another large crowd gathered...[in a province of Rome that] had nothing to eat, [so] Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people.. ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
JD wrote: > And virtually all of my argumentation was > of a contextual in nature. There was no > appeal to cultural or outside sources. > How is it that you missed this? There was no direct contextual evidence in your presentation that the meaning should be taken figuratively. Let me put it another way. If the Holy Spirit was trying to communicate to us a sequence of events that took millions of years, then it seems to me that he is not a very good communicator. The use of First Day, Second Day, etc. and Evening and Morning are time references that are not normally indicative of millions of years. Was he trying to be mysterious or ambiguous in your opinion? David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
.."You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.." On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:22:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..another large crowd gathered...[in a province of Rome that] had nothing to eat, [so] Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people.. ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
"..they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat.." On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:22:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..another large crowd gathered...[in a province of Rome that] had nothing to eat, [so] Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people.. ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
"Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." ©Luke On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .."You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.." On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:22:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..another large crowd gathered...[in a province of Rome that] had nothing to eat, [so] Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people.. ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..Jesus..went to..the villages around Caesarea...along with his disciples and said: "..What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:12:05 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." ©Luke On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .."You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.." On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:22:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..another large crowd gathered...[in a province of Rome that] had nothing to eat, [so] Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people.. ©Mark On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
I must admit that my reasons for wanting the days in genesis to be figurative is because I believe the universe to be an old place. I've never really thought about that before, but I suppose that's where my opinion comes from. When you really get down to it, I'm not much of an expert on those particular passages. I've read the book of genesis a number of times, but my familiarity with ancient hebrew is certainly very lacking. Also, I've never studied the text closely enough to make a decent conclusion on whether or not the text implies a literal or figurative definition of "day". However David, I'm sure you agree that any serious contradictions between the Bible and science would be problematic. If science declared (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the universe was a billion years old, and the Bible declared (with equal certainty) that the universe was 6000 years old, clearly there was a contradiction that must be worked out in some manner. I suppose it would come down to who you trusted more :) What do you believe about creation? I can imagine a nice compromise in my head, whereby the universe was created 15 billion or so years ago, and our planet (or the life on our planet) was a much more recent creation. Of course, thinking it doesn't make it so. I suppose that, in the end, the only conclusion I can make is that the universe is an old place. I don't really know enough to truly decide between a literal or figurative day. To be completely honest, it's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to. I find astronomy to be very interesting and entertaining, but there are many aspects of christianity that are much more important in my personal life, and get much more attention. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: John wrote: To your first question , "no." If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? David Miller John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
your view of hell is also shared by many Protestants. DAVEH: That is interestingthanx! Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. David Miller wrote: Dave, for what it is worth, your view of hell is also shared by many Protestants. In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone preacher by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes about hell pretty much just like you do. Still, Jed will stand on campus and warn students loudly about "bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of FI-I-I-R-R-E!" I was surprised the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached was figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? In other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to convey to people the danger of transgressing the commandments of God? David Miller -- ~~~ 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] Who is God?
DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you can help me out here Dave H? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost -- ~~~ 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] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our perspective. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son through the horror of dying on the cross in our behalf? Could not have God simply snapped his fingers to make all right? Could not God have destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from screwing up the world? Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and has presented us a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan is not simple, but involves a lot of pain and suffering by all mankind. For a God who is all powerful, why need there be any pain and suffering at all? Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be crucified. Wouldn't it have been more expedient to just speak his will be done? Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is that implements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limited by fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss. Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find inter
