Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
No. Thanks for the information. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 21:06 Subject: 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 clearlyquote 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 servants—and it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Sectarians indeed, John! You've identified the real question.Yes, He is (the creator)! I thinkthat the sectarians marginalize themselves. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 17:05 Subject: 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have)
taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group
(sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as
'recovering' the truth.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 18, 2006 17:35
Subject: 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 thefearof 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the
ologies.
In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so
that we may recognize the faith
once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or
reality. Jesus was not referring to any
"Unity in diversity" in John 17.He prayed they
would be One as He and the Father are One
Is "Unity in diversity" how you seethe Godhead or
"Trinity?" JD
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have)
taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group
(sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as
'recovering' the truth.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 thefearof reprisal. jd
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
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
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You then, David, ought to be and, likely are, warning those non-protestants within your sect concerning this. Amen, I guess, for consistency if nothing else. Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 16:11 Subject: 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 DC 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 23:00 Subject: 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. -- 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] Who is God?
As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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
I don't know what you mean,Gary. Judy is just speaking the basics of a spiritual man. I like what Judy said. I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about the relationship between Jesus and truth. Could you comment after each of the falling statements with the word "agree" or "disagree" please? 1. Jesus said, "I am Truth." 2. Jesus is Truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him? ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Judy, I'm scratching my head on this one. I think maybe you might understand the response better than me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
You, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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] Confined by Laws of Physics
JT I don't make up things that paint God into any corner DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it Could the disagreement between JT DH bebecause Judy believes God CREATED all things while Dave believes in the ORGANIZATION by PHYSICAL LAWS of preexisting matter?In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute who creates ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos — neither its fundamental matter nor the space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not not exist and on which all else is contingent for existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical necessity. Such realities include inherently self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic value of selves and the requirements for growth and happiness Blake Ostler, "The Mormon Concept of GodHow could a finite being create everything and how could such a finite being NOT be subject to the laws of the UNIVERSE to which he is confined? The LDS god exists in a locality confined in time space."It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being" (Brigham Young Deseret News, Nov.16, 1859, p.290). "there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (DC 131:7). In view of this quote, DH would you define "spiritual" as IMMATERIAL? God and you (all intelligences) are CO-ETERNAL "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." DC 93:29 "Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive."Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 thatimplements 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 limitedby 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. 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] Who is God?
The vaunted Larry King once said that he asked no question of those being interviewed to which he already knew their answer. Based on your thoroughgoing knowledge of LDS theology and, to a lesser extent, Kevin himself, I'd say that this is not a practice to which you subscribe. Hm? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him? ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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] Hell BoM
I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. 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] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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] Hell BoM
Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM You, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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. -- 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
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. jt: Anything physically yes, such as rain, drought, changing seasons, moving mountains. However, his holiness prevents him from lying or being one with evil/sin. 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? jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I think if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is and Peta would come unglued. 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? jt: Because God gives everything he creates freedom of choice; He could have created automatons but forced love is no love at all. Power and control breed fear. God desires our love and worship freely given. So he gives us a choice and even makes a way for us when we blow it and miss the mark. That's love. Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. jt: Oh I agree; in fact most of what we hear about God is mixture but He reveals Himself to those who will seek Him with their whole heart. Just about everyone will say they believe in God and even the demons believe and tremble. But as the Psalmist writes "the gods of the nations are idols" (or fantasy) 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? jt: Speaking to an inanimate object , to nature, or even animals like Balaam's ass is one thing Speaking to those created in His own image is another. He has given us choices and he has made us responsible for our choice so that we reap the consequences one way or the other. How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? Would that not make us robot like?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 thatimplements 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 limitedby 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. 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]
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
You are not doing what the early church didDM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did?I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.9Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;10And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confoundedThe tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against meJacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of ChristJacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:1717And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach.I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-)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.orgIf 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. Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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. -- 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] Hell BoM
David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
This stuff looks like it is right down your alley and in your nieghborhood! Are you a 21st Century Friend? Do you also believe in the Emergant Church? Are these guys nothing more than there "Politically" active RC Fathers? Are they trying to bring in the Kingdom and establish their own brand of Theocracy?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Thanks for the information. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 21:06 Subject: 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 clearlyquote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thingOn 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 servants—and 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
What truth do you refer toLance? Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group because he encourages his daughter to believe God to speed healing of herwrist and relieve the pain? or Because there are many religious sects on this TT list? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Of course! I'm hoping to be appointed King. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. This stuff looks like it is right down your alley and in your nieghborhood! Are you a 21st Century Friend? Do you also believe in the Emergant Church? Are these guys nothing more than there "Politically" active RC Fathers? Are they trying to bring in the Kingdom and establish their own brand of Theocracy?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Thanks for the information. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 21:06 Subject: 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 clearlyquote 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
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Kevin, we are not supposed to be talking about anything to do with "torrance" Lance has made him off-limits But your list below does include what Lance and friends seem to hold dear Community, relationship, a dancing trinity - all that... I don't understand his reticence re the relational or conversation factor; I don't believe I've seen one decent conversation. He is the master of"one-liners" On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:15:59 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This stuff looks like it is right down your alley and in your nieghborhood! Are you a 21st Century Friend? Do you also believe in the Emergant Church? Are these guys nothing more than there "Politically" active RC Fathers? Are they trying to bring in the Kingdom and establish their own brand of Theocracy?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Thanks for the information. From: Kevin Deegan 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 clearlyquote 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly (I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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. -- 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] Hell BoM
No! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM What truth do you refer toLance? Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group because he encourages his daughter to believe God to speed healing of herwrist and relieve the pain? or Because there are many religious sects on this TT list? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
[TruthTalk] Hell BoM
David and Lance, why would you have the most interesting discussions off the list? Do you think the rest of us are too immature or not up to your level? I'm aware of E.W. Kenyon and Hobart Freeman, New Thought and on and on These are not sects per se even if these men did get off into error and legalism Philosophy can be every bit as evil - in fact we are warned to stay away from philosophies of men. As for real believing scientists re Genesis 1-3 - there are plenty of them at ICR - why not allow them to clean your pipes. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: March 19, 2006 08:08Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things,
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
As to the former, I agree. As to the latter, that's what I'm suggesting to David but, he seems not to want engagement at that level. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:31 Subject: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David and Lance, why would you have the most interesting discussions off the list? Do you think the rest of us are too immature or not up to your level? I'm aware of E.W. Kenyon and Hobart Freeman, New Thought and on and on These are not sects per se even if these men did get off into error and legalism Philosophy can be every bit as evil - in fact we are warned to stay away from philosophies of men. As for real believing scientists re Genesis 1-3 - there are plenty of them at ICR - why not allow them to clean your pipes. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: March 19, 2006 08:08Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
What is so difficult about a simple question? Are you attempting to imply that his religion is secretive?What do you mean EMARASS him are you Embarassed by your understanding of his theology?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not
permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My
goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able to
understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you,
David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do
think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly
are not, in some important areas, leaving a good
impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill, Caroline,
Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great loss. It was
their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep bringing them
up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the same
restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even
Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO he may not
be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based
on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God
operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into
all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this
point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this
last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you
understand me better if you would take the time to hear
them. David Miller - Original Message -
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day
in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before
have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you
subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you
deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against
theological anthropology. - Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative? Lance
wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a
rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the more
esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then
I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this
definition, I am not a rationalist either. However,
I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does
not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The
Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he
expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and
action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit
not being rational is just a cop out, in my
opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses
the cop out explanation for an observation, "God did it" to stop
further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of
logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any
time. 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. -- "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
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
Nuff said. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? What is so difficult about a simple question? Are you attempting to imply that his religion is secretive? What do you mean EMARASS him are you Embarassed by your understanding of his theology?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him? ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were
doing was akin to Kevin stating that DH believes in the same Trinitarian God
that he (Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 08:45
Subject: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative?
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not
permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My
goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able to
understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF
you, David, were who you think yourself to be then,
Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I
really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You
certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a
good impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill, Caroline,
Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great loss. It
was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep bringing
them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the
same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even
Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO he may
not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read.
Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I
believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone
cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to
understand at this point, but you should know that you are
not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle
distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would
take the time to hear them. David
Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here
before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which
you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David.
you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as
against theological anthropology. -
Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative? Lance
wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a
rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the more
esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth,
then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By
this definition, I am not a rationalist either.
However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is
rational. He also does not lie or employ
deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought
to speak to us, and he expects us to include
rationality as a basis of belief and
action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit
not being rational is just a cop out, in my
opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses
the cop out explanation for an observation, "God did it" to stop
further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid
of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any
time. 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. -- "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,
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being
identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss concerningthe
following; please explain. What promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was
akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin)
does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not
permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My
goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able
to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post')
IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've
never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with
your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great loss. It
was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep bringing
them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the
same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even
Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO he may
not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read.
Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I
believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone
cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able
to understand at this point, but you should know that you
are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle
distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would
take the time to hear them. David
Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been
here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to
which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David.
you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological
theology as against theological
anthropology. - Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative? Lance
wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a
rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the more
esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth,
then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By
this definition, I am not a rationalist either.
However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is
rational. He also does not lie or employ
deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought
to speak to us, and he expects us to include
rationality as a basis of belief and
action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy
Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my
opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses
the cop out explanation for an observation, "God did it" to stop
further research and investigation. The truth is not
afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any
time. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
George Burns used to close his act with his wife
Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie Allen would
reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics along with
your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and better. Many meanings
elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my use of the word
'elude' eh.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 09:05
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT,
Promises etc
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being
identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss concerningthe
following; please explain. What promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was
akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin)
does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is
not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David.
My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be
able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last
post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've
never left. I really do think you've got better things to do
with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas,
leaving a good impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great loss.
It was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep bringing
them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put
the same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" -
even Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO he
may not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read.
Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I
believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone
cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able
to understand at this point, but you should know that you
are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle
distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would
take the time to hear them. David
Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is
the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've
been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of
logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates
then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is
anthropological theology as against theological
anthropology. - Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative? Lance
wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a
rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the
more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of
truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a
rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either.
However, I do believe that the Holy
Spirit is
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Only we are not talking about me Lance
The subject is you and your mentor. If you know
something that eludes me - then lay it out.
Also you need to tell DavidM and I what nonexistent
promise we lay claim to.
The above is your duty as a professing believer who
sees a brother/sister in a fault
I'm waiting to see the LOVE
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Burns used to close his act with his wife
Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie Allen would
reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics along with
your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and better. Many meanings
elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my use of the word
'elude' eh.
From: Judy Taylor
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being
identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss concerningthe
following; please explain. What promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was
akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin)
does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy
Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is
not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From:
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point,
David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect
you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on
this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be
then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al
would've never left. I really do think you've got better
things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some
important areas, leaving a good impression on
TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great loss.
It was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put
the same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" -
even Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO he
may not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is
well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have
read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on
this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against
it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't
expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know
that you are not hearing me in this last post. I
make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me
better if you would take the time to hear
them. David Miller - Original
Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is
the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've
been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of
logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates
then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is
anthropological theology as against theological
anthropology. - Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
I did not believe the former to have been the case, David. As to the latter, not unlike Judy, I've always thought you spoke from the heart. I also believe that you both believe that you 'know'. However..I needn't remind you, by name, of the host of persons over the centuries who 'knew that they knew'!! Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM You, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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. -- 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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Repetition, thy name is ...well Judywell David!
Even David, your 'knowing' colleague in all of his lucidity could not make known
to you some things. That was my point, Judy.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 09:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT,
Promises etc
Only we are not talking about me Lance
The subject is you and your mentor. If you know
something that eludes me - then lay it out.
Also you need to tell DavidM and I what nonexistent
promise we lay claim to.
The above is your duty as a professing believer who
sees a brother/sister in a fault
I'm waiting to see the LOVE
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
George Burns used to close his act with his
wife Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie Allen
would reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics along
with your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and better. Many
meanings elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my use
of the word 'elude' eh.
From: Judy Taylor
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being
identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss
concerningthe following; please explain. What promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing
was akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he
(Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy
Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who
is not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From:
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point,
David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect
you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me
on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to
be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et
al would've never left. I really do think you've got better
things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some
important areas, leaving a good impression on
TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great
loss. It was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would
put the same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" -
even Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time. IMO
he may not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is
well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have
read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on
this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against
it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I
don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but
you should know that you are not hearing me in this
last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would
help you understand me better if you would take the time to
hear them. David Miller -
Original Message - From: "Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
And who is the 'knowing' colleague Lance? George
Burns and Gracie Allen?
Please speak with lucidity and give up the
riddles. What is the nonexistent promise?
You can at least tell us that much
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:38:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Repetition, thy name is ...well Judywell
David!
Even David, your 'knowing' colleague in all of
his lucidity could not make known to you some things.
That was my point, Judy.
From: Judy Taylor
Only we are not talking about me Lance
The subject is you and your mentor. If you know
something that eludes me - then lay it out.
Also you need to tell DavidM and I what nonexistent
promise we lay claim to.
The above is your duty as a professing believer who
sees a brother/sister in a fault
I'm waiting to see the LOVE
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
George Burns used to close his act with his
wife Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie Allen
would reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics along
with your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and better. Many
meanings elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my use
of the word 'elude' eh.
From: Judy
Taylor
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance
being identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss
concerningthe following; please explain. What
promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing
was akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he
(Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy
Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who
is not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those he
approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From:
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point,
David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't
expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not
hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you
think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline,
Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do
think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You
certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill,
Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great
loss. It was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I would
put the same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT"
- even Jesus could not please
all of the people all of the time.
IMO he may not be a perfect man just yet
one who has fully attained but he is
well on the way and he is a godly man ...
who are you to personallyjudge another man's
servant Lance Muir?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have
read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on
this one. I believe God operates with logic, not
against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I
don't expect you to be able to understand at this
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Since when has truth been evaluated by how many have in the past gotten of the track and fallen? As sad as that may be every one will stand or fall before his own Master. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:34:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not believe the former to have been the case, David. As to the latter, not unlike Judy, I've always thought you spoke from the heart. I also believe that you both believe that you 'know'. However..I needn't remind you, by name, of the host of persons over the centuries who'knew that they knew'!! From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMYou, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMDavid Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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.-- "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] Hell BoM
It hasn't Judy but, untruth has. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 09:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Since when has truth been evaluated by how many have in the past gotten of the track and fallen? As sad as that may be every one will stand or fall before his own Master. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:34:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not believe the former to have been the case, David. As to the latter, not unlike Judy, I've always thought you spoke from the heart. I also believe that you both believe that you 'know'. However..I needn't remind you, by name, of the host of persons over the centuries who'knew that they knew'!! From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMYou, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMDavid Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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.-- "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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
The 'knowing colleague' to whom I made reference
was David Miller. You and he seem to believe that the two of you apprehend the
Scriptures in a way that I, along with others over the years on TT, simply don't
believe. IMO, you and he believe that you've been promised that such,
misapprehension of meaning, cannot happen.
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 09:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT,
Promises etc
And who is the 'knowing' colleague Lance?
George Burns and Gracie Allen?
Please speak with lucidity and give up the
riddles. What is the nonexistent promise?
You can at least tell us that much
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:38:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Repetition, thy name is ...well Judywell
David!
Even David, your 'knowing' colleague in all of
his lucidity could not make known to you some things.
That was my point, Judy.
From: Judy Taylor
Only we are not talking about me
Lance
The subject is you and your mentor. If you know
something that eludes me - then lay it out.
Also you need to tell DavidM and I what
nonexistent promise we lay claim to.
The above is your duty as a professing believer
who sees a brother/sister in a fault
I'm waiting to see the LOVE
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
George Burns used to close his act with his
wife Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie
Allen would reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics along
with your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and better. Many
meanings elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my
use of the word 'elude' eh.
From: Judy
Taylor
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance
being identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss
concerningthe following; please explain. What
promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were
doing was akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he
(Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself
who is not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those
he approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden" list?From:
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point,
David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't
expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not
hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you
think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline,
Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do
think you've got better things to do with your time, David.
You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.
Lance, I am so tired of hearing about
Bill, Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan
You talk like their absence is some great
loss. It was their choice to leave
and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am
forbidden to discuss torrance then I
would put the same restriction on you
regarding these four.
As to the "impression left by DavidM on
TT" - even Jesus
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
So let's just throw it all out since noone can know what is true and what is not anyway? I can see where you get this idea since your mentor writes: Justification means that at every point in our theological inquiry we have to let our knowledge, our theology, our formulations, our statements, be called into question by the very Christ toward whom they point, for He alone is the Truth. Justification means that our theological statements are of such a kind that they do not claim to have truth in themselves, for by their very nature they point away from themselves to Christ as the one Truth of God. Therefore whenever we claim that our theological statements or our formulations have their truth in themselves we are turning back into the way of self-justification. Out of sheer respect for the majesty of the Truth as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, we have to do our utmost to speak correctly and exactly about it—that is the meaning of orthodoxy and the way of humility—but when we have done all this, we have still to confess that we are unfaithful servants, that all our efforts fall far short of the truth. My question then is: Is there no victory? Are we just to be passive, grovel and cringe since we are so impotent and can't know anything? Who are the "good and faithful servants who enter into His Rest?" Who are those spoken of in Luke 16:16 who press into the Kingdom. This is not a passive thing, it is pressing oneself in with energy. What exactly is the Kingdom to you Lance? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:51:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It hasn't Judy but, untruth has. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 09:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Since when has truth been evaluated by how many have in the past gotten of the track and fallen? As sad as that may be every one will stand or fall before his own Master. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:34:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not believe the former to have been the case, David. As to the latter, not unlike Judy, I've always thought you spoke from the heart. I also believe that you both believe that you 'know'. However..I needn't remind you, by name, of the host of persons over the centuries who'knew that they knew'!! From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMYou, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoMDavid Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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. -- "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
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
You are wrong then; I have been misguided in the past
and I have testified of it
openly on TT. We are warned all over the
scriptures about false prophets and false teachers
However, when he rose Christ gave gifts to the Church.
We also have His Word so there is no
excuse for staying in the ditch - or for constantly
accusing others. We are to put on the whole
armor of God. I see a very definite conflict
between the teaching of God's Word and your
favorite mentors Barth and TFT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:56:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 'knowing colleague' to whom I made reference
was David Miller. You and he seem to believe that the two of you apprehend the
Scriptures in a way that I, along with others over the years on TT, simply
don't believe. IMO, you and he believe that you've been promised that such,
misapprehension of meaning, cannot happen.
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 09:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT,
Promises etc
And who is the 'knowing' colleague Lance?
George Burns and Gracie Allen?
Please speak with lucidity and give up the
riddles. What is the nonexistent promise?
You can at least tell us that much
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:38:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Repetition, thy name is ...well Judywell
David!
Even David, your 'knowing' colleague in all
of his lucidity could not make known to you some things.
That was my point, Judy.
From: Judy
Taylor
Only we are not talking about me
Lance
The subject is you and your mentor. If you know
something that eludes me - then lay it out.
Also you need to tell DavidM and I what
nonexistent promise we lay claim to.
The above is your duty as a professing believer
who sees a brother/sister in a fault
I'm waiting to see the LOVE
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
George Burns used to close his act with
his wife Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which
Gracie Allen would reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'
As to your homework on various topics
along with your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and
better. Many meanings elude you but, IFO have never thought it
intentional thus, my use of the word 'elude' eh.
From: Judy
Taylor
Why would you be embarrassed about torrance
being identified with Reformed
theology and John Calvin when you
personallyinform the list as follows and torrance
quotes these doctrines in his own
writings?
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.
Also Lance you are still remiss
concerningthe following; please explain. What
promise?
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.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were
doing was akin to Kevin stating that
DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he
(Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!
From: Judy Taylor
Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself
who is not permitted to speak about torrance;
seems to beOK for Lance and those
he approves/respects ... you may not be on
the "forbidden"
list?From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this
point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I
don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you
are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were
who you think yourself to be then, Bill,
Caroline,
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
myth (as alluded to,somethoughtful readersmaywanna explore the relationship betw jt's notions:'truth is JC' is 'Jesus wasting [her] time'in pursuitof truth--how about you, Bro?) On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || 1. Jesus said, "I am Truth." 2. Jesus is Truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
..or is it #4? (take all the time in the world, Bro,esp if youreally most likeher notion thatJC himselfwasted his) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority -- On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
All out of context, just a mumbo, jumbo of words but I guess it makes no difference when one is way out there On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
..actually, on #4, DaveH may lean a little toward it himself ..but what do you think,like, couldhe jt be onto somethingbetter than wastingtime with JC? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:29:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..or is it #4? (take all the time in the world, Bro,esp if youreally most likeher notion thatJC himselfwasted his) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority -- On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
I was wondering how you would answer. DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will reciprocate. Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God. Kevin Deegan wrote: As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. DAVEH: ??? Jesus could not forgive sin without shedding of blood? Is that what you believe? if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is DAVEH: That God subscribes to the Jewish sacrificial system would suggest God is beholden to law far more deeply than some may think. If God is as powerful as you believe, could he not circumvent the Jewish sacrificial system? How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? DAVEH: Why do you think God created Lucifer? Rather than allow us to be tempted, would it now have been easier to either not create the devil, or perhaps to fully destroy him instead of letting him inflict his evilness upon mankind? Judy Taylor wrote: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. jt: Anything physically yes, such as rain, drought, changing seasons, moving mountains. However, his holiness prevents him from lying or being one with evil/sin. 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? jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I think if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is and Peta would come unglued. 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? jt: Because God gives everything he creates freedom of choice; He could have created automatons but forced love is no love at all. Power and control breed fear. God desires our love and worship freely given. So he gives us a choice and even makes a way for us when we blow it and miss the mark. That's love. Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. jt: Oh I agree; in fact most of what we hear about God is mixture but He reveals Himself to those who will seek Him with their whole heart. Just about everyone will say they believe in God and even the demons believe and tremble. But as the Psalmist writes "the gods of the nations are idols" (or fantasy) 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? jt: Speaking to an inanimate object , to nature, or even animals like Balaam's ass is one thing Speaking to those created in His own image is another. He has given us choices and he has made us responsible for our choice so that we reap the consequences one way or the other. How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? Would that not make us robot like? 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 thatimplements 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder! DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I know I feel that way sometimes. Kevin Deegan wrote: You are not doing what the early church did DM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did? I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. nbsp9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto youthere is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; nbsp10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder! ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against me Jacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of Christ Jacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words. Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:17 nbsp17 And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned. BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM? David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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?
One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave! You'd be so bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF your first 'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole system/foundation/restored version is man-made. PS:Do YOU know of anyone who has read that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling - Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 11:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? I was wondering how you would answer.DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will reciprocate. Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.Kevin Deegan wrote: As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
A 'posture' from which a 'blithering idiot' like myself might learn. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 12:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I know I feel that way sometimes.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are not doing what the early church did DM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did? I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. nbsp9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; nbsp10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder! ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against me Jacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of Christ Jacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words. Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:17 nbsp17 And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned. BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach.I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-)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] Hell BoM
Lance, I don't know what you are talking about. We do have a failure to communicate here. 1. Heb. 11 isn't meant to be case closed, just helpful. 2. I don't know who Hobart Freeman is, or his legacy. 3. I am familiar a little with E.W. Kenyon. No, I am not one of his offspring. 4. Exposing myself to believing scientists? I'm not sure what you mean by exposing myself. I have engaged many believing scientists about this. What I'm really more interested in are theologians. The few I have engaged can't handle the science side, and generally they plead ignorance in our discussion, falling back on I'm a theologian... sorry... Would I expose myself to scientists and theologians? Of course. Your question seems nonsensical. 5. Real logicians? Of course I would welcome that. I could be wrong, but as best I can tell, in theological circles, there appear to be biases expressed against concepts like rationalism and dualism and reductionism etc. You seem to try and operate in line with those biases without really understanding the reasoning behind the criticisms leveled against the ideas expressed by these words. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, I'm happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people who came together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about it. At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot simply rejoice with me when God is so good. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM What truth do you refer toLance? Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group because he encourages his daughter to believe God to speed healing of herwrist and relieve the pain? or Because there are many religious sects on this TT list? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Judy quotes a mentor of Lance: Out of sheer respect for the majesty of the Truth as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, we have to do our utmost to speak correctly and exactly about it -that is the meaning of orthodoxy and the way of humility-but when we have done all this, we have still to confess that we are unfaithful servants, that all our efforts fall far short of the truth. Judy wrote: I see a very definite conflict between the teaching of God's Word and your favorite mentors Barth and TFT Judy, which mentor are you quoting above? There is a definite conflict between God's Word and what you quote above. Is there anybody on this list who does not see this conflict? If so, I will elaborate as time permits. 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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
I see no conflict. -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy quotes a mentor of Lance: Out of sheer respect for the majesty of the Truth as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, we have to do our utmost to speak correctly and exactly about it -that is the meaning of orthodoxy and the way of humility-but when we have done all this, we have still to confess that we are unfaithful servants, that all our efforts fall far short of the truth. Judy wrote: I see a very definite conflict between the teaching of God's Word and your favorite mentors Barth and TFT Judy, which mentor are you quoting above? There is a definite conflict between God's Word and what you quote above. & gt; Is there anybody on this list who does not see this conflict? If so, I will elaborate as time permits. 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] Hell BoM
Dean is anti- charismatic. He would challenge most of your theology as relates to faith and healing. No surprise. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, I'm happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people who came together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about it. At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot simply rejoice with me when God is so good. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM What truth do you refer toLance? Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group because he encourages his daughter to believe God to speed healing of herwrist and relieve the pain? or Because there are many religious sects on this TT list? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
There is no thing as a NON SECTARIAN unless you meana Unitarian who has no beliefsDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David.You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently.That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages?Matthew 19:17(17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.John 14:15(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.John 15:10(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.1 John 2:3-4(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.1 John 3:22(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.1 John 3:24(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.1 John 5:2-3(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.Revelation 12:17(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Revelation 14:12(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.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.orgIf 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. Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
Sorry position is filled.As far as that crowd Reformed (RC) to the core. They are right all other clods have it wrong.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course! I'm hoping to be appointed King.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.This stuff looks like it is right down your alley and in your nieghborhood! Are you a 21st Century Friend? Do you also believe in the Emergant Church? Are these guys nothing more than there "Politically" active RC Fathers? Are they trying to bring in the Kingdom and establish their own brand of Theocracy?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Thanks for the information. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 21:06 Subject: 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 clearlyquote from what he does not hold to then Lance? Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thingOn 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 servants—and it is precisely Justification
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Nice theory but just a fable as Kevin never has stated any such thing! Maybe you do not understand all you think you do. The mind can be a funny thing. Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was akin to Kevin stating that DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:45 Subject: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not permitted to speak about torrance; seems to beOK for Lance and those he approves/respects ... you may not be on the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly
("I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill, Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan You talk like their absence is some great loss. It was their choice to leave and I wish them well but why do you keep bringing them up constantly. If I am forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the same restriction on you regarding
these four.As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even Jesus could not please all of the people all of the time. IMO he may not be a perfect man just yet one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ... who are you to personallyjudge another man's servant Lance Muir?From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not
against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is
anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy
Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, "God did it" to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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. -- "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
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
So if TFT only held to say 75% of calvinism that makes him non REFORMED? Lets just call him the continuosly reformed reformer OK? Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being identified with Reformed theology and John Calvin when you personallyinform the list as follows and torrance quotes these doctrines in his own writings?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.Also Lance you are still remiss concerningthe following; please explain. What promise?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.On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was akin to Kevin stating that DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!From: Judy Taylor Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not permitted to speak about torrance; seems to beOK for Lance and those he approves/respects ... you may not be on the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill, Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan You talk like their absence is some great loss. It was their choice to leave and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the same restriction on you regarding these four.As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even Jesus could not please all of the people all of the time. IMO he may not be a perfect man just yet one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ... who are you to personallyjudge another man's servant Lance Muir?From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a
rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, "God did it" to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
Thanks DH Since Jesus is called the FULLNESS of the Godhead Bodily how does that fit into your theology?I read your reply. I am not trying to mock here but...You say the Trinity is confusing? You left the question unanswered in my mind. Is there one God or Three?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering how you would answer.DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will reciprocate. Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.Kevin Deegan wrote: As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
But Jesus did not have a command as in DC 71 COMMANDING him to confound. Why all the verses on confounding when to all observers it would seem that it is in reality the LDS who are confounded? Seems the LDS god has called and none have answered. Men women or children. On paper in 1Nep 17 LDS are preach but in Reality, The SP's preach and none can contend against them What does this say about the Power of Mormonism?And as answwer to the dry ink of Helaman, The SP's preach with great powerand LDS come forthe outside the gates of the temple confess their sins and become Christians! What does this say about the Power of Mormonism?Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I know I feel that way sometimes.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are not doing what the early church didDM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did?I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. 9Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 10And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confoundedThe tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against meJacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of ChristJacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:17 17And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach.I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-)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. Yahoo! Travel Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it. Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite! Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him? ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] Who is God?
I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling DAVEH: Have you read it, Lance? Lance Muir wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him? ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God? As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer? Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
Where are the valiant ones like in Helaman? LDS don't have even one that believes thier gods words inDC 71?No one believes the promise of DC 71? there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 10And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confoundedI lift my voice on a regular basis right outside your solemn assemblies and NONE can answer. What does this say about the Power of Mormonism? These verses are not worth the paper they are printed on.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I know I feel that way sometimes.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are not doing what the early church didDM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did?I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. 9Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 10And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confoundedThe tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against meJacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of ChristJacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:17 17And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach.I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-)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. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS
Riddle me this one Batman!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A 'posture' from which a 'blithering idiot' like myself might learn.- Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 12:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I know I feel that way sometimes.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are not doing what the early church did DM brings up a great point. Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you are not doing what the early church did?I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God come upon the characters in the BoM etc. Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City! And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us PUBLICLY! DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. 9Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 10And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confoundedThe tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!ARE THESE TRUE? 1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against meJacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of ChristJacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. Mosiah 1219 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers? Hel. 5:17 17And it came to pass that they did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done. Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he could at least find some Women or Children? Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116 pages of the original BoM?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach.I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-)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. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Brings words and photos together (easily) withPhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Unitarians, of course, have beliefs. Here is a definition of sectarian that allows many to escape the curse of "Sectarian !!" Sectarianism refers (usually pejoratively) to a rigid adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination. It often implies discrimination, denunciation, or violence against those outside the sect. The term is most often used to refer to religious sectarianism, involving conflict between members of different religions or denominations of the same religion. It is also frequently used to refer to political sectarianism, generally on the part of a tight-knit political faction or party. Sectarianism may, in the abstract, be characterized by dogmatism and inflexibility; sentimental or axiomatic adherence to an idea, belief or tradition; and idealism that provides a sense of continuity, orientation, and certainty. As a pejorative term, accusations of sectarianism may sometimes be used to demonize an opposing group. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no thing as a NON SECTARIAN unless you meana Unitarian who has no beliefsDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David.You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently.That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages?Matthew 19:17(17) if thou wilt enter int o life, keep the commandments.John 14:15(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.John 15:10(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.1 John 2:3-4(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.1 John 3:22(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.1 John 3:24(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.1 John 5:2-3(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.Revel ation 12:17(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Revelation 14:12(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.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.orgIf 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. Brings words and photos together (easily) withPhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
OH like Paul For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Unitarians, of course, have beliefs.Here is a definition of sectarian that allows many to escape the curse of "Sectarian !!" Sectarianism refers (usually pejoratively) to a rigid adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination. It often implies discrimination, denunciation, or violence against those outside the sect. The term is most often used to refer to religious sectarianism, involving conflict between members of different religions or denominations of the same religion. It is also frequently used to refer to political sectarianism, generally on the part of a tight-knit political faction or party. Sectarianism may, in the abstract, be characterized by dogmatism and inflexibility; sentimental or axiomatic adherence to an idea, belief or tradition; and idealism that provides a sense of continuity, orientation, and certainty. As a pejorative term, accusations of sectarianism may sometimes be used to demonize an opposing group.-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no thing as a NON SECTARIAN unless you meana Unitarian who has no beliefsDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David.You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently.That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages?Matthew 19:17(17) if thou wilt enter int o life, keep the commandments.John 14:15(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.John 15:10(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.1 John 2:3-4(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.1 John 3:22(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.1 John 3:24(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.1 John 5:2-3(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.Revel ation 12:17(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Revelation 14:12(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.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.orgIf 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. Brings words and photos together (easily) withPhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] DOGMAtism
Did I miss your response Lance?Do you think that you could change the mind of one who might fit the description of Acts 15:26? Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Would you say that men that put their own lives in hazard are not somewhat DOGMATIC?Would you admit that some (not all) you claim to follow had strong beliefs and were thenas you say, Dogmatic?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Did I miss your response Lance? You have picqued my interest. Do you think that you could change the mind of one who might fit the description of Acts 15:26? Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Would you say that men that put their own lives in hazard are not somewhat DOGMATIC? Would you admit that some (not all) you claim to follow had strong beliefs and were thenas you say, Dogmatic?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Do you think that you could change the mind of one who might fit the description of Acts 15:26? Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Would you say that men that put their own lives in hazard are not somewhat DOGMATIC? Would you admit that some (not all) you claim to follow had strong
beliefs and were thenas you say, Dogmatic?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've no problem acknowledging the 'fixity and eternality' of truth. I do, however, have a problem with some persons interpretations. I'd say to you that which I said to Kevin: Once you (Judy) are convinced that your statements
concerning the truth (Scriptural quotations on any subject) are themselves the truth then, even the possibility of conversation is over.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 15, 2006 07:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
dearly departedI am saying that I don't understand your question Lance - so it looks likeyou have excused yourself again. Why are you so full of conditions - is it really that difficult to say what you mean?On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:31:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:When you answer my question then, I'll 'give it a shot' as it were.From: Judy Taylor On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:02:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Would you be so kind Judy, as to restate 'apprehend and apply' so as to demonstrate to me that therein lies the meaning 'truth is NOT fixed and eternal..'?I say that truth IS fixed and eternal so would you pleaseexplain what you mean by the above ...Further Judy, should we actually be attempting to exhibit a 'new and improved' TT, was the last 'shot' necessary? ('dancing around a calf').
I think so Lance, and BTW it is not a "shot" We all come into this world with hearts full of idolatry, I examine my own daily. Remember, we are all "by nature" children of wrath. That is unless we walk after the "new nature" From: Judy Taylor Not so Lance; Truth is fixed and eternal in every generation. God does not change and neither does His Word which is forever sealed in heaven. As Dean warns - better be sure you are not dancing
around a calf.On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:42:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Each generation must apprehend then apply the truth in a manner appropriate to its time. This is but one reason IFO favour newer translations of all sacred texts, including the text of scripture. Some recent christian teaching/writing is an asset to the believing community. FWIW, I'd dance to that tune.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 14, 2006 15:46 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed cd: No, it was not honest. But then again since when did this dancing brotherhood ever worry about honesty-or truth-orThe Truth? They are a fine testimony for their group thinking religion-which they claim is ongoing revelation given by the decision of the majority of the group. They claim to decide if God is Male / Female or whatever- I asked them : What if the majority decided that God is a calf and to date have gotten no reply to this question.. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 3/14/2006 11:58:47 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed So why did jd inquire of you about them? Was that honest??? izOn Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:22:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:cd; They have been in contact with Miller- Blain, DH ,John, Gary- and believe it or not Glen tabor.All in one group e-Mail-of which I seem to be the topic. From: ShieldsFamily Why dont you contact them directly? You have their email addresses, as do the rest of us. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]By the way -- are we allowed to ask as to the status of Gary and DH?
Re: [TruthTalk] Sectarianism defined
Actually, when sectarians become angry, which is most of the time, they call others "sectarian" just to complicate things. One cannot read Romans 14 and come away believing that Pual was "secatarian." Further, his role in revealing the mystery of the gospel, that Jews were not the only ones in God's grace, works against such a false charge. You do believe the charge was false, don't you? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] OH like Paul For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unitarians, of course, have beliefs. Here is a definition of sectarian that allows many to escape the curse of "Sectarian !!" Sectarianism refers (usually pejoratively) to a rigid adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination. It often implies discrimination, denunciation, or violence against those outside the sect. The term is most often used to refer to religious sectarianism, involving conflict between members of different religions or denominations of the same religion. It is also frequently used to refer to political sectarianism, generally on the part of a tight-knit political faction or party. Sectarianism may, in the abstract, be characterized by dogmatism and inflexibility; sentimental or axiomatic adherence to an idea, belief or tradition; and idealism that provides a sense of continuity, orientation, and certainty. As a pejorative term, accusations of sectarianism may sometimes be used to demonize an opposing group. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no thing as a NON SECTARIAN unless you meana Unitarian who has no beliefsDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David.You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently.That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages?Matthew 19:17(17) . if thou wilt enter in t o life, keep the commandments.John 14:15(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.John 15:10(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.1 John 2:3-4(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.1 John 3:22(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.1 John 3:24(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.1 John 5:2-3(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.Rev el ation 12:17(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Revelation 14:12(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in t he balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
Re: [TruthTalk] Sectarianism defined
Then there are a lot more sectarians out there they even they(sectarians) know themselves.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Actually, when sectarians become angry, which is most of the time, they call others "sectarian" just to complicate things. One cannot read Romans 14 and come away believing that Pual was "secatarian." Further, his role in revealing the mystery of the gospel, that Jews were not the only ones in God's grace, works against such a false charge. You do believe the charge was false, don't you? jd-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] OH like Paul For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Unitarians, of course, have beliefs.Here is a definition of sectarian that allows many to escape the curse of "Sectarian !!" Sectarianism refers (usually pejoratively) to a rigid adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination. It often implies discrimination, denunciation, or violence against those outside the sect. The term is most often used to refer to religious sectarianism, involving conflict between members of different religions or denominations of the same religion. It is also frequently used to refer to political sectarianism, generally on the part of a tight-knit political faction or party. Sectarianism may, in the abstract, be characterized by dogmatism and inflexibility; sentimental or axiomatic adherence to an idea, belief or tradition; and idealism that provides a sense of continuity, orientation, and certainty. As a pejorative term, accusations of sectarianism may sometimes be used to demonize an opposing group.-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no thing as a NON SECTARIAN unless you meana Unitarian who has no beliefsDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David.You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently.That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages?Matthew 19:17(17) . if thou wilt enter in t o life, keep the commandments.John 14:15(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.John 15:10(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.1 John 2:3-4(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.1 John 3:22(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.1 John 3:24(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.1 John 5:2-3(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.Rev el ation 12:17(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Revelation 14:12(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in t he balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.David Miller --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians
Re: [TruthTalk] Fwd: FW: Canadian Press on Bush
George Bush, the man. David Warren. The Ottawa Citizen Sunday, September 11, 2005There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved andpointed at Washington, DC The theory being that, when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live.And that isn't an exaggeration! Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the US Gulf Coast has been military and National Guar d. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, it was once again the US military efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail.From Democrats and the American Left -- the US equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass.This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and government support through many other program s. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the flood waters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations.The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "thewallets."The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States and you will learn that the US federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero. Suppose natural disasters occurred in 5 or 6 areas at the same time. Local governmental bodies must, legally and morally, take charge.Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has managed to coordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial powers He has been sufficiently residential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish bl ame-throwing.One thinks of Kipling's poem If, which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and liberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is good, beautiful, or true:"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,Or being hated, don't give way to hating,And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise"Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man. "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell ---BeginMessage--- ---BeginMessage--- A bit more objectivity than we get from our own press and politicians.George Bush, the man. David Warren. The Ottawa Citizen Sunday, September 11, 2005There's plenty wrong with America, since you
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic,--- dm
Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.. -- lm
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
A discussion between DM and apracticing scientist would be most interesting !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] As to the former, I agree. As to the latter, that's what I'm suggesting to David but, he seems not to want engagement at that level. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:31 Subject: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David and Lance, why would you have the most interesting discussions off the list? Do you think the rest of us are too immature or not up to your level? I'm aware of E.W. Kenyon and Hobart Freeman, New Thought and on and on These are not sects per se even if these men did get off into error and legalism Philosophy can be every bit as evil - in fact we are warned to stay away from philosophies of men. As for real believing scientists re Genesis 1-3 - there are plenty of them at ICR - why not allow them to clean your pipes. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: March 19, 2006 08:08Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 1 9, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word "sect" here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the child ren of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth.
1. Jesus in His "sermon on the mount" assumed that all in the crowd were evil ("If you being evil know how ...) Does this mean that the parents of John the B were not in the crowd? And would the assumption apply to you, if you had been in attendance? It is in this very sermon that He tells them to be perfect? Does this mean the indwelling was offered to this multitude? Did Chrsit expect this crowd to obey all of why He said in the sermon. And when was the last time you cut off your hand or plucked your eye -- or haven't you ever committed such sins?
2. Is sin only "transgression of law?"
3. When we are told that we are " .. falling short of the glory of God," how is that a present time occurrence?
4. If the saint were actually "dead to sin," why the continued teaching against sin and the constant [implied] call to [begin again] avoiding sin?
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic
David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may ahve misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my perspective. Below you say this: If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. -- DM Torrance might give caution with these words: ".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow some field of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the light of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by schematising it to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating wit h a framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of Christ pp 4,5
Re: [TruthTalk] Polytheist Pope
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-03/17/article03.shtml Pope Calls on Religious Leaders to Come Together "Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in the one God, creator of heaven and earth. Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
A noun is a noun irrespective of the race, creed or culture of the interpreter!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 'knowing colleague' to whom I made reference was David Miller. You and he seem to believe that the two of you apprehend the Scriptures in a way that I, along with others over the years on TT, simply don't believe. IMO, you and he believe that you've been promised that such, misapprehension of meaning, cannot happen. From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 09:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc And who is the 'knowing' colleague Lance? George Burns and Gracie Allen? Please speak with lucidity and give up the riddles. What is the nonexistent promise? You can at least tell us that muchOn Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:38:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Repetition, thy name is ...well Judywell David! Even David, your 'knowing' colleague in all of his lucidity could not make known to you some things. That was my point, Judy.From: Judy Taylor Only we are not talking about me Lance The subject is you and your mentor. If you know something that eludes me - then lay it
out. Also you need to tell DavidM and I what nonexistent promise we lay claim to. The above is your duty as a professing believer who sees a brother/sister in a fault I'm waiting to see the LOVE On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:George Burns used to close his act with his wife Gracie Allen by saying 'Say goodnight Gracie!, to which Gracie Allen would reply, 'Goodnight Gracie'As to your homework on various topics along with your conviction and sincerity Judy, you get better and
better. Many meanings elude you but, IFO have never thought it intentional thus, my use of the word 'elude' eh.From: Judy Taylor Why would you be embarrassed about torrance being identified with Reformed theology and John Calvin when you personallyinform the list as follows and torrance quotes these doctrines in his own writings?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.Also Lance you are still remiss concerningthe following; please explain. What promise?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.On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:52:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Speak of him all you wish, Judy. What you were doing was akin to Kevin stating that DH believes in the same Trinitarian God that he (Kevin) does. Thus 'embarrassment'!From: Judy Taylor Sorry Kevin - I guess it is only myself who is not permitted to speak about torrance; seems to beOK for Lance and those he approves/respects ... you may not be on the "forbidden" list?From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly ("I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT.Lance, I am so tired of hearing about Bill, Caroline, Debbie, and Jonathan You talk like their absence is some great loss. It was their choice to leave and I wish them well but why do you keep
bringing them up constantly. If I am forbidden to discuss torrance then I would put the same restriction on you regarding these four.As to the "impression left by DavidM on TT" - even Jesus could not please all of the people all of the time. IMO he may not be a perfect man just yet one who has fully attained but he is well on the way and he is a godly man ... who are you to personallyjudge another man's servant Lance Muir?From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic
Rationalist : Human reason experience is the Origin of Truth instead of the God of the Bible. Unwittingly making man the judge of God instead of God the judge of man.Thus the difference between Deductive vs Inductive"reasoning" as a method for Theology. Christian Thelogy comes from "Above" rather than below. God is the basic axiom. This is not in favor with the crowd that is more properly labeled ANTHROpologetic or PSYCHOlogic.If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. -- DMTorrance might give caution with these words: ".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow some field of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the light of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by schematising it to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating wit h a framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of Christ pp 4,5 Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
Funny all you focus on is the (in your imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:52 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 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] torrance
No, he prefers to put up with your insults this week. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: 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 sheknows 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] torrance.
Just wondering; does anyone know if this John Knox is the same one who in the early 1700s apparently won Alexander Hamilton to Christ when he was a teenager in the West Indies? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:52 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: 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's Lance 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 clearlyquote 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
RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
What is the positive message about hell? iz 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Random acts of insanity. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:41 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Lance and cohorts, please stop referring to David Miller's sect. Can you identify or name any such sect? Why do you insist on such arrogant insults? David please close this snakepit. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You then, David, ought to be and, likely are, warning those non-protestants within your sect concerning this. Amen, I guess, for consistency if nothing else. Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 16:11 Subject: 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 DC 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
RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
The problem with you, Lance, is that you live an insular life; thinking that others who don't agree with you don't get out enough. My husband is a medical doctor and research scientist who believes exactly as DM does, and he knows many others who believe as he does. Stop being so narrow minded about what real scientists believe. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:21 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is
RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
So do I. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:28 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Demonstrate that you and Torrance are 'as one' on this point, David. My goodness but you esteem yourself highly (I don't expect you to be able to understand this point', 'you are not hearing me on this last post') IFF you, David, were who you think yourself to be then, Bill, Caroline, Debbie, Jonathan et al would've never left. I really do think you've got better things to do with your time, David. You certainly are not, in some important areas, leaving a good impression on TT. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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. -- 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.
