Re: [TruthTalk]
This will be my last post to TT. I've had fun and learned from you all. I will miss you very much: you are family. I am not upset, nor am I shaken. I do not believe my "premises" are wrong or that I am "barking up the wrong tree," as is frequently the charge -- I would not be advocating these things if I did. Neither do I expect that others will always accept or agree with me, and so I am not disillusioned when they don't. No, the reason I'm leaving is this: I do not want to be a stumbling block, and that is what I have become. I can't say a word without it being spun and attacked. To stir up that much angst in a fellow believer, is not good. The constant strife that we have to endure because of it, is not good either, not for any of us. It is better for us all that I just leave. Paul writes, "If your [sister] is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." I know that it is not my "food" that is the issue here; it's something much bigger -- but the admonition stands nonetheless: I do not feel right about what I'm doing to my sister. Is this not what Paul has in mind when he writes, "Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil"? I think so. I wish you all the very best. I love you and will truly miss you, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
Peace to you, Judy. You do not read for understanding. If you did, you would understand what I say below by the things I have said many times before. Nope, yours is a different ambition. You read only to find something you can use to stir up strife. Well, guess what? Peace to you. I'm not biting. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 5:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] (no subject) With the words, "Be fruitful and multiply," we may know that we were created for relationship, both with God and our neighbors. This is koinonia: fellowship, giving, sharing, participation, communion, community. Prayer is relational, too, you know. When Jesus left the crowds he did not leave these things behind. He kept them fully intact, presenting them whole to his Father. Bill jt: Where did Jesus have all of the above fellowship, giving, sharing, participation, communion and community in the four gospels Bill?. It appears to me you "perichoresis"people are trying to find a reality to fit your theology. Jesus ministered to people (leaving us an example that we should follow in His steps) but Hebrews teaches that he was "separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26) and he "endured such a contradiction of sinners against him" John 2:23-25 tells us that "when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 7/28/2004 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Having said that, I think you may have unwittingly put God in a box by assuming that He always wants His followers (or his animals) in continual close contact. Abraham was a nomad, not a member of a community. Moses ,as I recall, spent a few years alone, as did Elijah, John, the Baptist, and Paul. Though I don't have much right to put myself in this crowd, I try to spend time alone every day, just to keep my priorities straight and do some thinking on my own. Just as God made geese to be in flocks, He made tigers to be loners. You may see a herd of deer, but never a herd of skunks. Fellowship is important, but uninterrupted fellowship can be a drag. Jesus often went alone to the wilderness. I assume that was to get away from the crowd, and have fellowship with God. Something we all need to do from time to time.Just a thought.TerryI agree with your comments above. What I see in the thinking I shared is a case for the necessity of community. All interpretive conclusions have problems, I think. That is why we have some many opinions floating around on TT. Eph 5:18-20 presents the idea that Spirit filling is an aspect of community, "Be you filled with the Spirit as you address one another in song ..." is a Smithson translation (in part) of that text. Among other considerations, the presentation gives added weight to church involvement, something my wife and I have been a little lax in. The community of believers bears the image of God and, therefore, in that community we would expect to see real benefit. Because community does or should bear the image of God, when that fellowship moves from God, seeks secular solutions and the like, it becomes less than what it could be. I did not mean to imply a one dimensional concept relating God to man. I will take a look at the post with that issue in mind. Thanks TerryJohn
Re: [TruthTalk] Perichoresis
Thank you, Izzy. Your words are very much appreciated -- beautifully spoken, too. I'm sure the "Liberals" will agree. J Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perichoresis Jt, Im no great defender most of the ideas of our Liberal friends, as you well know. But please tell me you are not such a flat world thinker that you cannot understand a metaphor such as dance, which implies not polytheism, but dynamisma constant beautiful flow of interaction between separate entities in One Being. God is One. God is also Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in beautiful, flowing relationship. Dynamic relationship. Not stagnant. Ever-moving, ever-creating, ever-changing-things. Do you ever dance in the Spirit? If so, you would surely not think so one-dimensionally. Just as the inexpressibly intimate interaction between souls of two lovers in marriage can be pictured as a heavenly dance of oneness; so can I picture the joyous burst of energy in Father, Son, and Holy Spirits relationship with One Another. To take away that glorious aspect from a husband-wife relationship would leave a very flat, lackluster, dead pretense of a union. The same is true of our picture of God if we think He is just a big guy sitting on a throne ordering his partners around. Just food for thought my Friend. Izzy "Dance of the trinity?" Like they are three people dancing with one another? This is polytheism. I see God as ONE and He made us in His image in that as He is One being who is triune in nature and so are we. We are primarily spirit, we have a soul, and we live in a body of flesh and blood. He is a loving Father (the will of God), His Word (Jesus) has always been part of Him, and so has His Spirit. How would it be if I described my body, soul, and spirit as a Community involved in some kind of divine dance - I would surely be picked up by the men in the white coats :). judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
You are fine, John. With the words, "Be fruitful and multiply," we may know that we were created for relationship, both with God and our neighbors. This is koinonia: fellowship, giving, sharing, participation, communion, community. Prayer is relational, too, you know. When Jesus left the crowds he did not leave these things behind. He kept them fully intact, presenting them whole to his Father. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject) In a message dated 7/28/2004 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Having said that, I think you may have unwittingly put God in a box by assuming that He always wants His followers (or his animals) in continual close contact. Abraham was a nomad, not a member of a community. Moses ,as I recall, spent a few years alone, as did Elijah, John, the Baptist, and Paul. Though I don't have much right to put myself in this crowd, I try to spend time alone every day, just to keep my priorities straight and do some thinking on my own. Just as God made geese to be in flocks, He made tigers to be loners. You may see a herd of deer, but never a herd of skunks. Fellowship is important, but uninterrupted fellowship can be a drag. Jesus often went alone to the wilderness. I assume that was to get away from the crowd, and have fellowship with God. Something we all need to do from time to time.Just a thought.TerryI agree with your comments above. What I see in the thinking I shared is a case for the necessity of community. All interpretive conclusions have problems, I think. That is why we have some many opinions floating around on TT. Eph 5:18-20 presents the idea that Spirit filling is an aspect of community, "Be you filled with the Spirit as you address one another in song ..." is a Smithson translation (in part) of that text. Among other considerations, the presentation gives added weight to church involvement, something my wife and I have been a little lax in. The community of believers bears the image of God and, therefore, in that community we would expect to see real benefit. Because community does or should bear the image of God, when that fellowship moves from God, seeks secular solutions and the like, it becomes less than what it could be. I did not mean to imply a one dimensional concept relating God to man. I will take a look at the post with that issue in mind. Thanks TerryJohn
Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
ï
John, this is absolutely wonderful. You are very
much on the mark! I am glad you've had the opportunity to listen to Kruger and
see that he is not the bad man that some among us may imagine. Yes, as with all
that is good, fellowship finds it source in the heart of God: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. I am so excited about your excitement! You are talking about what
theologians call the prospective side of atonement: those things for
which we were saved.
When you get ready for some more Kruger, let me
know. There is more, so much more good news!
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:11
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
Bill, you wanted to see where I was going
with this "image" thing. Here it is. Krugers idea regarding
"fellowship" as being the very essence of God has nearly force these ideas
into my thinking and the result is as follows: (for some
reason I cannot change the color of the text so I hope the transmission is
ok).Mankind and the Image of
God As we develop our relationship with God, two things happen: " we
have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from our
sins" (I Jo 1:7). A question comes to mind: why is it that
"fellowship with one another" is even a consideration in this
text. John could have written the passage this way:
"as we walk in the light as He is in the light, we become the very image
of God and share in the continual flow of the blood of the
Lamb." After all, the author of Hebrews (1:3) tells us that the
Son is the exact representation (the expressed image) of His [God the
Father's] nature. Surely we share in that nature as we walk in the
shadow of the Son, as we accept His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) into our
lives. Everyday and in every way, we become more and more like
Him. As true as this might be, John does not present this
idea. Rather, he focuses on a most unusual conclusion, that if we
walk in the Light as He (Jesus Christ) is in the light, a primary result will
be the fellowship of one another; a vertical circumstance that
commands a horizontal conclusion. All that we call
"fellowship" can be, therefore, traced to the issue expressed in this
passage (I Jo 1:7). The very possibility of fellowship is
centered in our walk with God. We can do one of two things with
this truth: say "Amen" and move on to the next subject or ask
"why." And this paper asks the question: Why it is
that "fellowship with one another" is so intertwined with our walk with God as
to be a part of the dynamic conclusion of that journey? Perhaps
the answer takes us to the very essence or nature of the Living
God. We see Him manifested in the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. Although we might not pretend to understand the how of this
theological reality, it is a fact that God has more than one will
("â.nevertheless not my will but yours be done") and, therefore,
should be considered to be more than one person. The Hebrew writer
of old presents the greatness of God as he allows for God's
duplicity with these words, "Let US make man in OUR imageâ" (Gen
1:26). From the very beginning of the biblical record, then, God
is a being of community (God the Father, God the Son). The apostle
John declares the duplicity of God in his affirmation of Christ as the creator
God ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the
Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things
came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing came into being.
In Him was life and the life was the light of men and the light shines in the
darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:1-5).
Isaiah gives us a prophetical description of the One we know as Jesus and in
so doing, presents to us a description of God Himself: a wonderful
counselor, a mighty God, an eternal Father, a prince of peace (Is
9:6). The essence of God is found in the community of all these
realities. However it happens, our God is a community of
personalities. Apart from mankind, before creation, God has always
been what He is now -- a being whose core existence is found in
community or fellowship (the Father loves the Son, the son loves the
Father and the Spirit does the bidding of both). If we understand and agree
with this conclusion, that the essence of God is seen in fellowship, Genesis
1:26,27 takes on a whole new meaning. "Then God ("elohim" is
the plural form of the Hebrew word translated "God" in this instance)
said "Let us make man[kind] in our image, according to Our
likeness And God created man[kind] in His own image, in the image
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past?
ï Cool story, John. Thanks for sharing it. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past? In a message dated 7/25/2004 8:40:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Would you care to elaborate? Iâd be interested to hear about it. IzzyAnd I understand my God more than I did just 5 years ago.Actually it has been 8 years (summer/winter of 1997). That was the first time I immersed myself into Christ (Gal 3:26,27). Upon the advise of a preacher, I decided (for seven days only) to listen and think and read nothing but that which was divine --- radio sermons, Christian music, Bible study before and after work, private devotions -- nothing secular. I wound up doing this for nearly two years. It turned me around, presented God as real in way that was even shocking to me --- and extremely consistent. I had gotten away from this immersion over the course of the last couple of years. Not "backslidden" as they say but not fully immersed. God has used this group to put me back under -- immersion into the Lord. And in 1998, He gave me an assignment that opened my eyes to all the times He was a part of my life, using me in his work, and me complaining that I was missing something !!!I had no idea this "assignment" was grom God until the very instant the whole affair was over. Read on -- I'll keep it short. It was about a man named Shelby Martin. I and some friends went to a Promise Keepers event in Fresno in l998. Shelby Martin was a visitor in our church, someone I did not know. I had given him a hand shake but it was meaningless. He was a biker-dude with lots of tattoos, a 13 year old daughter who was married to another biker-dude -- he was a genuine tough guy. Anyway, I am at PM. On Sat., they took a two hour break so some of us went to the book tent. I saw a Bible, a leather bound Bible, and I decided to buy it. I didn't have any money, but thank God I still had plenty of checks in my bank book. So I paid $50 for this Bible and went back to the stadium. I laid it down on top of my old NASV, the one that I had for maybe 30 years -- full of notes , falling apart. I deserved this new Bible. But as I sat there, I began to regret the purchase -- I was betraying my friend, that old NASV. By the end of the service, I had decided to take the book back but the tent was closed and everyone was gone. I could not return the book. On the way home, I decided to use it in my private devotional. So Sunday morning, 5 am, there I was trying to study with some good religious music on -- and NOTHING. I was so distracted by the fact that I did not want the Bible (the new one) that I couldn't even use it in these devotionals. So I decided to give it to someone at church -- Chris, a new convert and a member of my bible study group. Yes -- Chris but there was another name that kept coming into my mind:Shelby Martin. I thought "not Shelby" I don't even know the guy and Chris could use this book. No use. Shelby, Shelby kept coming into my mind. So I finally decide to give it to Shelby. I wrote something in the front of the bible and went to church. Shelby always comes late. That day he was one of the first ones in the sanctuary. So I decided to give it to him then. I went up to him (understand that I am 5' 7" and Shelby was probably 6' 2".) "How ya doing" I said. "Fine." And I reached out with the new Bible and said "Here, take this thing. I bought it but can't use so it is yours -- no thanks are necessary, believe me." He said in surprise "What is this?" I said, "This would be a Bible -- just take it , no big deal." And he took the book. After church, he came up to me, with tears in his eyes and told me he wanted me to go outside -- he wanted to talk to me in private. So we did. He told me that on the previous Wednesday, he had gotten "pissed off at God" and had gone into his bedroom and had torn up his Bible. It was still laying in the middle of the floor -- no one in the house would touch it. Linda, at times I have been one of the bigger fakes in religious history and God used me to get to Shelby. The single most important event in my life. My wife runs a close second, however. Anyway, that's the story. I get very emotinal just telling the story. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus Blood
jt wrote > The promise however, is not made to everyone who was ever descended from Adam. God narrows it down to the seed of Abraham through Isaac and on from there; so by this we see that the promise does not have to do with bloodlines because Ishmael was just as much a son of Abraham after the flesh. To John and Judy and all, The bloodline of significance to this discussion is the one containing the Seed promised to Eve in the garden. I would like to point out that Jesus did not come through Ishmael but Isaac. The Ishmael comment is irrelevant to the subject at hand; he has nothing to do with the truthfulness of our premise. There is only one bloodline leading from Eve to Jesus. It is the Seed promised to Eve, again to Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob and Judah, then David and on through the ages to and through Mary to Jesus. Gentiles are included in that blood through our common heritage in Adam through Eve, the giver of life. This is why Jesus can be the Kinsmen Redeemer, because we are related to him by our common blood. When the covenant was cut with Abraham, he slept. It was a unilateral covenant, in other words, the fulfillment being dependant upon God's faithfulness to his promise concerning the Seed, and not upon Abraham's obedience or any of the rest of ours. Sure there are consequences for disobedience, just like blessings for obedience, but the covenant stood because God was faithful to his promise in and through his Son, the Jew Jesus Christ; its fulfillment being made in him. In other words, Jesus stood in for the sleeping Abraham as his substitute and his representative. Being the God-man, Jesus fulfills the entire covenant. Before discounting what I say, why don't you all trace the bloodline. You will find that the Seed passes unsevered through the entire OT. God included the whole human race in his promise to Eve precisely by narrowing its fulfillment down to but one representative man, his Son Jesus Christ. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus Blood From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Much of what you say below, Judy is good. However, blood line does seem to be important. Luke is the one who gives us the lineage of Christ back to Adam, not Bill. (Luke chapter 3). JD jt: There is a genealogy in Matthew also but we already know that Jesus is the foster son of Joseph because Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and the holy child born of her is the son of the Most High. Jesus is a legal heir to the throne of David through Joseph who is of the kingly line; and even though a foster son, he is the first born into the family. Maybe someone can help me here but as I remember, Matthew goes through Joseph and Luke actually goes through Mary (?) I am not sure of your point above, however. One of the most powerful sermon illustrations I have ever heard was the reading of geneology of the gospel of Luke. In the Matthew text, Christ is tied to Abraham. In Luke, Christ is "..the son of Enoch, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, THE SON OF GOD" (Lu 3"38) and, so, again, blood line is a critical issue to the biblical writer. jt: I've also heard that each of the two genealogies is for a different purpose. What is the point of the sermon you refer to and Luke 3:38 going back to Adam since Adam is the original man from whom all humanity came through procreation?. The promise however, is not made to everyone who was ever descended from Adam. God narrows it down to the seed of Abraham through Isaac and on from there; so by this we see that the promise does not have to do with bloodlines because Ishmael was just as much a son of Abraham after the flesh.
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming
When people must tiptoe about and watch what they say for fear of arousing anger in another - this is a phenomenon called "control by anger" Judy, I did not ask you to tiptoe around, nor did I assume you would need to. I simply asked you to be honest, stop the spin and stay on the subject at hand. Are you willing to do that? Your ongoing denial with John suggests you are not. Should we all conclude that the devil is weeping and talking about love? Is that your solution to every problem? Blame those with whom you disagree of following the devil? If it would help settle the issue, Judy, I will just ignore you and you can continue being you, led by the Spirit in truth, to the best of your abilities, no repentance necessary. Thank you, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 5:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming john: What is it in my words above that give rise to the notion that I am suggesting we be controlled by the emotions of others? jt: It's not your words per se John, it's the situation. When people must tiptoe about and watch what they say for fear of arousing anger in another - this is a phenomenon called "control by anger" If we apply the advise of I Co 13:4-7 , we are being controlled by the Spirit of God are we not? jt: Not necessarily. When we try to apply NT scripture like rules to fix a problem we mishandle the Truth. Actually "the goal of the instruction of scripture is love from a pure heart" .. so you see "a pure heart" is the first part of the goal and all of these other issues are distractions along the way. We've all got "stuff" and none of us has arrived just yet. Love covers. The emotion of the others is of no concern to those controlled by God. I am certain you agree with that so help me out. Why do you think I am suggesting (in the above wording) you be controlled by the emotions of other? jt: God does not control people; control is in the devil's court; God gives us the freedom to choose either to be led by the Spirit of God or our old carnal, unrenewed mind. God has a live, and let live policy so long as we understand that we will always reap what we sow and we are ultimately responsible before Him for every choice we make. You and I (and Bill and Perry and ..) are family members because we serve the same Christ, then we do not have the freedom to respond in the way we desire -- we are constrained by the spirit of love in Christ. Correct??? jt: Yes .. I would say that love should constrain or keep us from anger and offence because the anger of man does not result in the "righteousness of God" ATST family members should be free to be honest with each other. If I didn't know better, I would say that you are saying that 13:4-7 does not apply to those on TT. jt: I gave up trying to apply scriptures to other people years ago. Right now my focus is being a "doer of God's Word" myself and my hope is that others will give me freedom and the room to grow.. I am not saying you are angry. But I am saying that quite often, the "way you are saying" (your words above) could be more constrained. It seems that the best expense of time, on this forum, is to form our responses with a view to persuasion or to continue the learning circumstance. When we write only to correct, when there is no obvious concern to change the thinking of the other or to accept some of his/her thinking, then our discussion is of no importance. I doubt that anyone on this list is here for the purpose of correction. But if you are concerned that God work through you to enlighten, I would think that the advise of I Co 13:4-7 is forced upon you (and us all.)jt: Love without truth is spiritual harlotry John; where would be be if Martin Luther had not had a heart for truth. I believe he is the one who wrote that "everytime the devil is challenged he begins to weep and talk about love." I am not deluded enough to believe that Bill would take correction from me personally or that I am even in a position to give him correction since I don't know much about him personally; but I do feel free to challenge this "perichoresis" thing publicly. You are right on here. Accepting that Bill is a brother, consider this: assume that Bill is still a "babe in Christ" (sorry about that William) jt: Sure John ... With so many of you deferring to him and falling at his feet? I may have a lot of issues but I'm not quite that thick. :) I will pray that the Holy Spirit gives me sensitivity in the way I respond to everyone on TT
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming
Th-Th-Tha-anks, brother. Point well taken. bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming In a message dated 7/24/2004 11:39:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Is it the content of what I say Bill, or the way I am saying it? Should I pray for more delicate wording?I hope you know that my regard for you is sincere -- but you can be a little short, as they say (so can Bill, by the way.) Your question above is the solution, I think. In the short time I have been an observer, I can tell each of you (Bill and you, Judy) what is not going to work when you two write each other. I continually refer back to I Co 13:4-7. That chapter is most often used to solve marital disagreements/issues when, in point of fact, it is a passage of instruction designed to give advice regarding how brethren are to relate to one another -- i.e. on this list. If I were sitting next to your computer, reading what you were preparing to send, I would be saying (often, I am sure) "I don't think that is going to go over well." If I know what sets each of you off, well, its not a secret is it? When I am following your (the both of you) thread, I am learning or at reconsidering my own position BUT I AM ALSO WORRYING A LITTLE as to when it is all going to blow up. If we don't like the heat, we should float in the pool and stay out of the kitchen -- and both of you need to get a handle on that. When I started with this forum, I was more an infighter than either of you and I can slam with the best of them. But along the way, I have decided to leave that out of my communication . way before Jonathan's criticism but the fact that I hurt him in some way was my fault -- whether i meant to or not. The Lord doesn't care if it pays to be nice or gentle -- he just wants us to treat each other that way period -- or did I miss His point? Anyway, I will leave it at that. You guys are great. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming
Judy wrote > no I didn't just want to insult you; I am sharing my thoughts here, have never been into ad hominem attacks on TT. Well then you obviously need to be a little more selective in your wording, Judy, because you are offensive, very much so, and sometimes you are called on it, like this time. I forgive you now and will pray the grace to forgive you many more times. I'll tell you what: I know that I have goaded you on occasion -- I admitted doing that even last night. I should not do that and I will stop. Will you please try to extend to me some decency? You know quite well that I do not go to the Scribes for my wisdom. Why suggest that I do, if not to stir up strife? I do not appreciate those kind of remarks, just as you do not like being goaded. Let's not do that. Also, Judy, in a different post you talk about how you would just like to challenge me. Well, that is fine -- if you will do it honestly. But I am not willing to patronize any longer your spin. You are an intelligent person and well equipped to challenge me straight on. No one can carry on a conversation with a politician -- he is too shifty, too evasive, too enamored with his own talking points to be open to true exchange. You, I am sure, do not want to be associated with this sort. Please stop twisting my words and dodging my questions: address what I say, without the spin, or leave me alone. If you believe what you wrote about TT, "We are discussing Truth here, right?" then let's do it with integrity and respect -- or let's not do it at all. I am opened to this. Are you? Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming jt: These are who you quote Bill and I am sharing my thoughts here, have never been into ad hominem attacks on TT. We are discussing Truth here, right?. Could we just stay with the issues and leave off the personal offenses? (that is taking or giving personal offense) If you are a sincere seeker after Truth you should not be offended to have some of these ideas challenged. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> I do not look to the Scribes for wisdom, Judy; neither do I look to Charles Ryrie. On this occasion I agree with the Scribes over Ryrie. How did you miss that from what I wrote? Oh, I get it: you just wanted to insult me. Bill From: Judy Taylor I may have unfairly jumped to a conclusion concerning your concept, Slade, thus lumping you into a group in which you do not fit. If this is so, please forgive me. When you wrote, "see the miracles of Yeshua," I was thinking Yeshua would need to be visibly present to be seen working the miracles; that is all. I did not intend to imply that you interpret the passage this way in order to rid yourself and others of the threat. I saw that only as a result of this interpretation of the passage. I certainly do believe miracles still happen; each time a person comes to faith, it is a testimony to the greatest of miracles and demonstrates the ongoing miraculous work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Why would Jesus need to be seen?. God the Father was not seen when He was doing works through Jesus but at least one man came to him and said "noone could do the works he did unless God was with Him" and this was before the cross. People did not get Born Again until the Spirit was sent at Pentecost. Being Born Again is a work of the Spirit in a person's heart but it is not a working of Miracles. Allow me to quote Charles Ryrie from his Study Bible to give you an idea of why I may have prematurely evaluated what you were saying: "Technically, according to the Scribes, blasphemy involved direct and explicit abuse of the divine name. Jesus here teaches that it also may be the reviling of God by attributing the Spirit's work to Satan. The special circumstances involved in this blasphemy cannot be duplicated today; therefore this sin cannot now be committed." Why look to the scribes for wisdom? Weren't they the ones who hung out with the Chief Priest and Pharisees all the time? Even the common people knew they didn't speak with authority (Mark 1:22) and most of them didn't recognize Jesus as the Word of God when he was speaking truth right to their face because of the condition of their hearts. I tend to agree with the Scribes over the limited view of Ryrie: blasphemy is a deliberate abuse of the divine name, a twisting of the identity of Christ, which renders him less than Lord (Yahweh) and Savior, the effect being a denial of the name of Jesus (Yahweh saves). And so the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, is a refusal to yi
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past?
Bravo, bravo! Well said, Izzy. Right on. bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past? And regarding the many and diverse denominations going on, I believe that God uses them for good wherever we allow Him to. I look at them as stepping stones for those hungering after a deeper walk with God. Anyone can find a church where they feel comfortable at the moment, where they can learn and grow. Then they get the urge to move on to another group/denomination/fellowship and start learning even more. In my own life I started out in a RCC family. The first thing I did as a young married woman was start attending a Lutheran church nearby, which was very similar, but different in many good ways. From there I attended Presbyterian for many years, and then a couple of charismatic churches, and now I have been attending a non-charismatic, evangelical, seeker-friendly, non-denominational church for some time. I would be happy to attend any church my husband wants for us, as it is such a joy to worship alongside ones spouse wherever it is. Im sure I could get something (and give something) at most any true fellowship of Believers. Folks arent necessarily limited by their churchs denominational doctrines if they dont want to be. Some folks even find Jesus (below all the man-made hubris) in the RCC! Amazing, the power of the Holy Spirit. I say diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. Its not the denomination that matters (although most of them turn ME off!), but the Christ we are seeking there. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past? I really should already be gone but I wanted to add a comment -- my ego constrains me!!The reason why we include the 400 (or more) in our search for truth is rather obvious to me and Judy knows this scripture before I am able to finish the text:Eph 4:11ff " And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints [in] their work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ [and will do so] until we attain to the unity of The Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man [or woman], to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ."As I see it, Bill and others quote whoever for the same reason we have preachers and teachers. There is a progressive logic that presents Bill with his theological conclusions, more so than a Bible thumper such as myself, but, and it is clear to me, in the final analysis, brother Taylor insists that his conclusion measure up to the biblical message as he understands that message. In other words, he is as Bible based as any one. However, the observation still applies that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Gotta goJohnIn a message dated 7/24/2004 7:43:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: These are who you quote Bill and no I didn't just want to insult you; I am sharing my thoughts here, have never been into ad hominem attacks on TT. We are discussing Truth here, right?. Could we just stay with the issues and leave off the personal offenses? (that is taking or giving personal offense) If you are a sincere seeker after Truth you should not be offended to have some of these ideas challenged.[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I do not look to the Scribes for wisdom, Judy; neither do I look to Charles Ryrie. On this occasion I agree with the Scribes over Ryrie. How did you miss that from what I wrote? Oh, I get it: you just wanted to insult me. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past?
Thank you, John, well said. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the listen to voices from the past? I really should already be gone but I wanted to add a comment -- my ego constrains me!!The reason why we include the 400 (or more) in our search for truth is rather obvious to me and Judy knows this scripture before I am able to finish the text:Eph 4:11ff " And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints [in] their work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ [and will do so] until we attain to the unity of The Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man [or woman], to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ."As I see it, Bill and others quote whoever for the same reason we have preachers and teachers. There is a progressive logic that presents Bill with his theological conclusions, more so than a Bible thumper such as myself, but, and it is clear to me, in the final analysis, brother Taylor insists that his conclusion measure up to the biblical message as he understands that message. In other words, he is as Bible based as any one. However, the observation still applies that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Gotta goJohnIn a message dated 7/24/2004 7:43:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: These are who you quote Bill and no I didn't just want to insult you; I am sharing my thoughts here, have never been into ad hominem attacks on TT. We are discussing Truth here, right?. Could we just stay with the issues and leave off the personal offenses? (that is taking or giving personal offense) If you are a sincere seeker after Truth you should not be offended to have some of these ideas challenged.[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I do not look to the Scribes for wisdom, Judy; neither do I look to Charles Ryrie. On this occasion I agree with the Scribes over Ryrie. How did you miss that from what I wrote? Oh, I get it: you just wanted to insult me. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
John
I do not have a problem with "Adam" referring
to "mankind," not if mankind came through Adam. I also believe that God
did create us all, just not all of us at the same time. I'll let you write on
and see where you are going.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:33
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor
and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Hi Bill. Don't get me wrong
on this one. I am not one who takes the creation claims as
allegory. Chapter 1:26,27 presents (to my thinking) a
contextual consideration that allows (if not demands) the text to say that
"mankind" is the view. I actually researched this one before drawing my
conclusion and found that most scholars (actually, I am being too kind here;
all scholarship in my possession) in my humble library call for "mankind" in
the translation rather than "Adam" ("let us create Adam in our image
..." doesn't even sound right to me). There is much
going on in the ancient world at the time of Adam and Eve.
Populations are exploding and cities are being built. Adam and Eve are
recorded because of the very point you mention below -- the
bloodline, an excellent point on your part. Beans
My Sweetie just called me to breakfast. To be continued
later. a brother, John
SmithsonIn a message dated 7/24/2004 7:10:50
AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi John, There are numerous
theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the
creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are
not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For
several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline.
Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go
back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity
in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he
is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. Nevertheless, John, I am
thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of
the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his
insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning
fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have
been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first
parents not rebelled. Thanks, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Yes, G, I agree. Great insights. Oh, and you would be right even if I didn't agree. hehe Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Matt 12 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. || 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. the NT Son of Man operates on the premise that his Messianic reign including his war vs. the power of Satan, could be misunderstood; it actually baffles even his followers, but, as he says, he, the Son of Man, may choose to be merciful to them however, if those who are baffled (and in unbelief) go so far as to categorically repudiate the Spirit by whom or in which the Son of Man fights, they are joining forces with the enemy to be destroyed--destroyed, as in the beginning, essentially, for repudiating the Spirit of God G On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:31:15 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Mark 3] "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.') ||
Re: [TruthTalk] 400+ different theologies and systems
"Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins" (Pro 10.12). Thank you, Slade, a calm voice and some clarity. And thank you further for giving me opportunity to expand upon my thinking before jumping to conclusions. Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:45 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] 400+ different theologies and systems The insult could be promoting "another Jesus" an anti Christ, in the sense of (in place of) and this is what we are warned against. Israel did it all the time. They followed their own wayward hearts and their own ideas. Being obdurant, stiff necked, and refusing to allow the Spirit through God's Word to lead us into ALL truth is blaspheming the Holy Spirit because there is no other way to be saved. I wonder if God will be pleased with 400+ different theologies and systems all claiming to lead people to Him. He really doesn't care about the 400+ different theologies and systems claiming to lead people to Him. He doesn't appreciate the systems who don't. The rest of the systems are designed to provide comfort for the 400+ different personality and worship styles found among those who believe in Messiah.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Hi John, There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us. Nevertheless, John, I am thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first parents not rebelled. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:06:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better. billYou're a good man, Bill Taylor. By the way, I am about to revise my leanings in regard to Adam and this image of God thing. The single most important contribution I see in Kruger (to date) is his well worded defense of the relational Godhead (he would say Trinity but I just can't do that) and the idea that central to the essence of God is this thing we call fellowship -- The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit (and these are my words, I know) finds purpose as He indwells (fellowships) the disciples of Christ. In the Genesis account, I am thinking the proclamation "Let us make man in Our image" (1:26) and the fulfillment of that announcement "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him -- male and female He created them" are not specific references to Adam and Eve -- rather a declaration about "mankind." Mankind is in the image of God. If the essence of God is fellowship, would not the community of human beings known as "mankind" have, as its essence, the property of fellowship? Community demands fellowship does it not? And so it is that mankind was created in the image of God (a collective deity) The resulting conclusion is almost forced upon us -- that when fellowship is perverted into warring factions and sectarian spirits, the end result is the destruction of those who participate in that misuse of community.Just thinkingJohn (I'm listening) Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks
Judy, I think it would be better to just let your words shrivel on their own. You are so wrinkled over anything your brothers have said that no words now could smooth things over. And since I am sure everyone else understands that a dance is harmony and not the different partners off doing their own thing, why incite you further with a response? You should have kicked up your heels a few times, Judy. If you had, you would understand the beauty of perichoresis. Anyway, til next time, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:03 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks Since we are involved in exchanging thoughts here, let me share one or two about the theology that has arisen from the idea of 'perichoresis' a seemingly ALL important 'trinitarian doctrine of God' as a 'relational being'; a trinity of three individuals all doing this divine dance with one another In a search for the roots of this concept I found that the first person to use the word perichoresis is one Gregory of Nazainzos who was an ordained priest, a onetime ascentic and eventually Bishop of Constantinople (378AD) during the age of the so called Christian Empire (312-390). Scripture (which is always in the now) exhorts us to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" s Can Gregory's revelation stand in the light of God's Word? Do we see this divine dance going on in scripture? I can not find it. I see a Godhead in total harmony. Wikipedia says about Gregory: In his theology, Gregory advocated the doctrine of the Trinity, including the full divinity of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized that Jesus did not cease to be God when he became a man, nor did he lose any of his divine attributes when he took on human nature. He also proclaimed the eternality of the Holy Spirit, saying that the Holy Spirit's actions were somewhat hidden in the Old Testament but much clearer since the ascension of Jesus into Heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost. Gregory Nazianzus is given the title 'Gregory the Theologian' by Eastern Orthodoxy, a title he shares with John the Apostle, also known as John the Theologian. He is widely quoted by Eastern Orthodox theologians and highly regarded as a defender of the Christian faith. Following his death, Saint Gregory's body was buried at Nazianzos. His relics were transferred to Constantinople in 950, into the church of the Holy Apostles. Part of the relics were transferred to Rome at a later date. So, it's nice that Gregory believed and taught that the Godhead was all God, but he did not understand the incarnation because he is in error about this aspect. Scripture teaches us that Jesus layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon himself the form of a man which means that during his earthly ministry he had some limitations. He only spoke what the Father told him to speak and he only did what he first saw the Father doing. The Holy Spirit, of course, was the facilitator as He is for us today. My question is "Why, when we have God's Word and the third member of the Godhead to reveal it to us - do we need to go back to a 4th Century RC Church Father and build upon his error, complicating the simplicity of the gospel of Christ and laying a different foundation than the "faith" once delivered to the saints? The use of words such as "essence" and even "substance" in the Apostles Creed are no more spiritual than the word "perichoresis" - although substance is at least a word that is used in scripture (for material substance). The apostle Paul made it a point to say that he did not come to teach using enticing words of "man's wisdom" He ministered by the Holy Spirit and with power. Paul used spiritual words to convey spiritual truth and God follows His Words with signs.. God is Spirit - Jesus said He and the Father are ONE. God is Spirit, Jesus is Spirit, the Holy Spirit is Spirit. We need to remember the warning about 'TAKING HEED HOW WE HEAR' It's impossible to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Flesh will always be flesh. We must be BORN OF THE SPIRIT. The sons of God are those who are led by the SPIRIT OF GOD. John 8:14. (Not those who have gone before and others who follow them building on their error) Jesus said "My sheep hear MY voice and they follow ME" Let's follow the lamb withersoever He goeth - and let the spirit of Gregory of Nazianzos RIP From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bi
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming
I do not look to the Scribes for wisdom, Judy; neither do I look to Charles Ryrie. On this occasion I agree with the Scribes over Ryrie. How did you miss that from what I wrote? Oh, I get it: you just wanted to insult me. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates Blaspheming I may have unfairly jumped to a conclusion concerning your concept, Slade, thus lumping you into a group in which you do not fit. If this is so, please forgive me. When you wrote, "see the miracles of Yeshua," I was thinking Yeshua would need to be visibly present to be seen working the miracles; that is all. I did not intend to imply that you interpret the passage this way in order to rid yourself and others of the threat. I saw that only as a result of this interpretation of the passage. I certainly do believe miracles still happen; each time a person comes to faith, it is a testimony to the greatest of miracles and demonstrates the ongoing miraculous work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Why would Jesus need to be seen?. God the Father was not seen when He was doing works through Jesus but at least one man came to him and said "noone could do the works he did unless God was with Him" and this was before the cross. People did not get Born Again until the Spirit was sent at Pentecost. Being Born Again is a work of the Spirit in a person's heart but it is not a working of Miracles. Allow me to quote Charles Ryrie from his Study Bible to give you an idea of why I may have prematurely evaluated what you were saying: "Technically, according to the Scribes, blasphemy involved direct and explicit abuse of the divine name. Jesus here teaches that it also may be the reviling of God by attributing the Spirit's work to Satan. The special circumstances involved in this blasphemy cannot be duplicated today; therefore this sin cannot now be committed." Why look to the scribes for wisdom? Weren't they the ones who hung out with the Chief Priest and Pharisees all the time? Even the common people knew they didn't speak with authority (Mark 1:22) and most of them didn't recognize Jesus as the Word of God when he was speaking truth right to their face because of the condition of their hearts. I tend to agree with the Scribes over the limited view of Ryrie: blasphemy is a deliberate abuse of the divine name, a twisting of the identity of Christ, which renders him less than Lord (Yahweh) and Savior, the effect being a denial of the name of Jesus (Yahweh saves). And so the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, is a refusal to yield to the present, personal testimony of the Spirit to the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the Hebrews passage that I mentioned, and you mentioned as well, the preacher includes in his warning these words: "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has ... insulted the Spirit of grace?" (10.29) What is this insult (which is certainly blasphemous) if it is not the rejection of Jesus Christ, a blatant trampling underfoot the Son of God through counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing (in other words, nothing at all) and not the absolute and wondrous life giving miracle that it was? The insult could be promoting "another Jesus" an anti Christ, in the sense of (in place of) and this is what we are warned against. Israel did it all the time. They followed their own wayward hearts and their own ideas. Being obdurant, stiff necked, and refusing to allow the Spirit through God's Word to lead us into ALL truth is blaspheming the Holy Spirit because there is no other way to be saved. I wonder if God will be pleased with 400+ different theologies and systems all claiming to lead people to Him.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better. bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all I enjoyed reading this application of Kruger thought. I enjoyed it because I agreed with it's conclusions. The parenthetical remark concerning JudyT caused some concern, however. JohnIn a message dated 7/23/2004 8:23:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves. When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis. I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us. On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments. Blessings, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either). I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves. When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis. I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us. On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied. Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments. Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! Taylor is held in high regard by the Canucks, and would seem to be the resident trinitarian scholar as well, so I thought to include you. Thought the story might be of interest or a note of amusement to you. My apology if you were offended. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/23/2004 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all Thanks Chris, tell us though: What does Taylor have to do with the Canucks. Taylor is from the high plains of eastern Colorado. He once worked one very cold winter in the taconite mines of Northern Minnesota, replacing burned out bricks in very hot furnaces and wind ducts, and so he knew a few Canucks, but that is his only immediate connection with the bunch -- oh and the Avalanche were once Canadians but not Canucks. So, tell him, sir, what's the connection? - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.') Hi John, and Slade. One can read Mark's parenthetical statement in more than one way. He may be saying that this is the only way that one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or he may being giving an explanation of how indeed they did blaspheme the Holy Spirit, theirs being one of numerous ways this could happen. Taking into view the other statements in the N.T., some of which I have mentioned, I tend to think Mark is doing the latter. Thanks and Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates In a message dated 7/23/2004 2:17:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please pay close attention to the last sentence of Marcus 3:22-30. Yeshua tells us what blasphemy against the Spirit of the Holy One is. Now my question... Is this kind of sin that can be committed only by those who SEE THE MIRACLES OF YESHUA AND CLAIM THEY ARE DONE BY HASATAN? >From my perspective the miracles of God in Christ continue. I see this sin as attributing to Satan the workings of God. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all
Thanks Chris, tell us though: What does Taylor have to do with the Canucks. Taylor is from the high plains of eastern Colorado. He once worked one very cold winter in the taconite mines of Northern Minnesota, replacing burned out bricks in very hot furnaces and wind ducts, and so he knew a few Canucks, but that is his only immediate connection with the bunch -- oh and the Avalanche were once Canadians but not Canucks. So, tell him, sir, what's the connection? - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! I have never been much of one for listening to preaching tapes. The exceptions to that have been Robert Bayer (sometimes called "the Walking Bible" for his command of Scripture all committed to memory) and John Ekstadt. Bayer I have seen many times, and spent some considerable personal time with as well. John Ekstadt I never met. John Ekstadt was a peculiar treasure of The Almighty. Smithson may have some particular appreciation for him. Ekstadt became a UPC preacher that UPC preachers often loathed as he taught with Scriptural authority against their pet rapture doctrine as well as many other pat pet pablum standard fare of UPC. However, he was not always a UPC preacher. Upon his death several UPC ministers reportedly were heard chuckling as another said in a mocking tone, "Well, the old prophet is dead." Eckstadt was a Canuck from eastern Canada (Nova Scotia if memory serves). He was an unruly terror as a boy and as a young man -- full of fight. He came by it natural as his father was the same. Eckstadt began to go to a Baptist church which his father tolerated though with much mocking. He also was warned not to go too far with religion and especially to stay away from the holy rollers. Making a long story short he was baptized in The Holy Spirit with the Assemblies of God but kept it from his father. One day his father came home quite early from work very unexpectedly to come upon his son in the loft praying in tongues. "That's IT", his father exclaimed and threw all his belongings out the upstairs window crying out, "Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition"! Ecstadt became a preacher for the AG. He was a terror to the UPC, as he preached against Oneness and baptism in The Name with such fervor and authority that he converted many away from UPC to the AG. Then as with The Apostle Paul the bright Light of the World shined down. The Word revealed Himself to Eckstadt, he was baptized in The Name, and preached with the result that even more were converted to Oneness than he ever had converted to the trinity. On one tape set he preached the trinity in such a convincing manner that he warned Oneness listeners as he began that they should not listen unless they would immediately follow it with the next tape that gave answer with Oneness, for fear that their faith would be shaken. UPC tolerated him due to the strength of The Anointing upon him and his command of Scripture though they did not herald him much in their ranks. I have found it so with UPC that the grandest of their preachers as far as anointing and command of Scripture are not heralded, while those they herald I have found to generally be as Bill Shakespeare wrote, "Much Ado About" not all that much. I have found UPC to stand most accurately for Union of Pentpolitical Churches. Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
I may have unfairly jumped to a conclusion concerning your concept, Slade, thus lumping you into a group in which you do not fit. If this is so, please forgive me. When you wrote, "see the miracles of Yeshua," I was thinking Yeshua would need to be visibly present to be seen working the miracles; that is all. I did not intend to imply that you interpret the passage this way in order to rid yourself and others of the threat. I saw that only as a result of this interpretation of the passage. I certainly do believe miracles still happen; each time a person comes to faith, it is a testimony to the greatest of miracles and demonstrates the ongoing miraculous work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Allow me to quote Charles Ryrie from his Study Bible to give you an idea of why I may have prematurely evaluated what you were saying: "Technically, according to the Scribes, blasphemy involved direct and explicit abuse of the divine name. Jesus here teaches that it also may be the reviling of God by attributing the Spirit's work to Satan. The special circumstances involved in this blasphemy cannot be duplicated today; therefore this sin cannot now be committed." I tend to agree with the Scribes over the limited view of Ryrie: blasphemy is a deliberate abuse of the divine name, a twisting of the identity of Christ, which renders him less than Lord (Yahweh) and Savior, the effect being a denial of the name of Jesus (Yahweh saves). And so the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, is a refusal to yield to the present, personal testimony of the Spirit to the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the Hebrews passage that I mentioned, and you mentioned as well, the preacher includes in his warning these words: "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has ... insulted the Spirit of grace?" (10.29) What is this insult (which is certainly blasphemous) if it is not the rejection of Jesus Christ, a blatant trampling underfoot the Son of God through counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing (in other words, nothing at all) and not the absolute and wondrous life giving miracle that it was? Thank you and please accept my apology, Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:16 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates I didn't realize this interpretation removed any threat. Is that why I interpret the passage this way? If you'd be so kind, which is the correct contextual interpretation and why? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Thursday, 22 July, 2004 20:51To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates That is a common interpretation, Slade, one which gets rid of the threat to us today. There are many commentators who embrace it; however, as with all interpretative matters, there are many also who do not. Thanks for your input. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates I have a bit of a question. I know the average commentator will say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is some thing humans can do now - today. The person in green below (Bill, I think) claims Hebrews speaks of it as a trampling underfoot the Son of God. What if the definition is considerably more... confined? If I may, please read the following passage: The Scribes [...] were saying, "He is possessed by Baalzibbul," and "He casts out the demons by the rulers of the demons." And [Yeshua] called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.') Please pay close attention to the last sentence of Marcus 3:22-30. Yeshua tells us what blasphemy against the Spirit of the Holy One is. Now my question... Is this kind of sin that can be committed only by those who S
Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity
Is there a password one needs to know before he can be a moose? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity <<907-288-3110 Moose Pass Inn P. O. Box 73 Moose Pass, Alaska 99631>> source: DrGJT, missing since ~4/03 ; last known address On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:57:48 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hey Jonathan, I think he's asking you. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity do you keep an address at Moose Lodge? On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:35:15 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Back to exile with me!
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
That is a common interpretation, Slade, one which gets rid of the threat to us today. There are many commentators who embrace it; however, as with all interpretative matters, there are many also who do not. Thanks for your input. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates I have a bit of a question. I know the average commentator will say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is some thing humans can do now - today. The person in green below (Bill, I think) claims Hebrews speaks of it as a trampling underfoot the Son of God. What if the definition is considerably more... confined? If I may, please read the following passage: The Scribes [...] were saying, "He is possessed by Baalzibbul," and "He casts out the demons by the rulers of the demons." And [Yeshua] called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.') Please pay close attention to the last sentence of Marcus 3:22-30. Yeshua tells us what blasphemy against the Spirit of the Holy One is. Now my question... Is this kind of sin that can be committed only by those who SEE THE MIRACLES OF YESHUA AND CLAIM THEY ARE DONE BY HASATAN? -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, 22 July, 2004 17:10To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill: I'm not real sure where the problem is on this one, Izzy. But I will give it a shot. There is in Scripture the mention (in various ways) of an unpardonable sin, a sin for which there is no forgiveness. In Mark 3 Jesus identifies it as the blasphemy of the Holy Sprit.* The preacher to the Hebrews calls it a trampling underfoot the Son of God.** Peter says it is a denial or refusal of the Lord who redeemed us.*** And John refers to it as the sin which leads to death. All of these occurrences (and there are others) have at their source a conflict between the person of Christ and some faction or another of religious leaders, men (or women, if we are speaking in terms of today) who claim a stature or position of knowledge and authority. In each case these are men who blatantly reject Jesus Christ -- they are called "false prophets"; certain ones of them are "Pharisees"; they are "anti-christs," "deceivers," "wolves in sheep's clothing." And in each case there is a blatant refusal to accept Jesus as who he claims or is claimed to be. And so, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is described in each of these instances, is, I believe, a refusal on the part of humans, and especially any who hold positions of religious influence over other people, to receive the convicting witness and testimony and call of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of Jesus Christ, his salvific act, his personal and corporate identity, and/or his divine nature. These are those to whom I believe Christ was referring when he said he will say: "Away from me, I never knew you" (I must also add that I believe until a person, even one of these really rotten ones, takes his or her last breath, there is still time to repent. Nevertheless, John seems to indicate that at some point a person can become so hardened, after so many wonderful but squandered opportunities, that he will not and perhaps can not repent. See cf. 1 Joh 5 -- "I do not ask that [you] pray for [the one who commits the sin which leads to death]"). Bill the scripture that I quoted above did not refer to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. How much more clearly can He state it? Can you admit that refusal to repent of sin IS a rejection of Jesus? Can we agree on that?
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
I get an image in my mind, Izzy, of you and Judy with your fingers in your ears, your eyes closed tightly and your tongues just a flapping: "lalalalalalalalalalalalala." What a sorry song! The "refusal to repent of sin" may be a rejection of Jesus Christ, but it is not the rejection of Jesus Christ, i.e., the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And so, since this is what you mean, No I will not "admit that refusal to repent of sin is a rejection of Jesus," although I think it would be very foolish not to. Jesus himself said, "all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter." This is why he came: to bear our sins upon the cross and in so doing bring about reconciliation between God and humanity. That is what he did. It is the rejection in the face of the forgiveness that he wrought that leaves humans outside of his Salvation. You can continue in your rejection of my words, Izzy, refusing to repent; and if you do, you will still be forgiven, although I think you are very foolish. The truth is, it takes a far worse sin than that to send you to hell: "but he (or she) who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation." Thank you God that we are saved by Jesus Christ and not our works! There're some other comments below. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Izzys new comments in hot pink below: Legal repentance says: Repent, and if you repent you will be forgiven, as if God is persuaded into being merciful by our acts of repentance.No, God gave us these conditions. Jesus said in Luke 13:3 AND 13:5: 3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Here our forgiveness is conditional upon our deeds of obedience. BT: I guess I am missing your point, Izzy. How does this take away from what I've said? The "repentance" to which Jesus is referring is a repentance from their rejection of him. If anyone rejects Jesus Christ and the salvation he provided, and then refuses from that moment on to repent, he or she will certainly perish. Bill please pay close attention to this: you just ignored how scripture completely invalidated the statement (above) by JBT. Please explain how you can accept BOTH statements; JBTs alongside of Jesus? Bill: I'm not real sure where the problem is on this one, Izzy. But I will give it a shot. There is in Scripture the mention (in various ways) of an unpardonable sin, a sin for which there is no forgiveness. In Mark 3 Jesus identifies it as the blasphemy of the Holy Sprit.* The preacher to the Hebrews calls it a trampling underfoot the Son of God.** Peter says it is a denial or refusal of the Lord who redeemed us.*** And John refers to it as the sin which leads to death. All of these occurrences (and there are others) have at their source a conflict between the person of Christ and some faction or another of religious leaders, men (or women, if we are speaking in terms of today) who claim a stature or position of knowledge and authority. In each case these are men who blatantly reject Jesus Christ -- they are called "false prophets"; certain ones of them are "Pharisees"; they are "anti-christs," "deceivers," "wolves in sheep's clothing." And in each case there is a blatant refusal to accept Jesus as who he claims or is claimed to be. And so, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is described in each of these instances, is, I believe, a refusal on the part of humans, and especially any who hold positions of religious influence over other people, to receive the convicting witness and testimony and call of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of Jesus Christ, his salvific act, his personal and corporate identity, and/or his divine nature. These are those to whom I believe Christ was referring when he said he will say: "Away from me, I never knew you" (I must also add that I believe until a person, even one of these really rotten ones, takes his or her last breath, there is still time to repent. Nevertheless, John seems to indicate that at some point a person can become so hardened, after so many wonderful but squandered opportunities, that he will not and perhaps can not repent. See cf. 1 Joh 5 -- "I do not ask that [you] pray for [the one who commits the sin which leads to death]"). Bill the scripture that I quoted above did not refer to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Bill: I know you do not think so, Izzy, . . . but you are wrong. ___ Jesus said, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. How much more clearly can He state it? Can you admit that refusal to repent of sin IS a rejection o
Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity
Hey Jonathan, I think he's asking you. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity do you keep an address at Moose Lodge? On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:35:15 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Back to exile with me!
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
ï Yes, Jack, we sure are. Again, I think it is not our theology which saves us. It is Jesus Christ. And it's a good thing too! or heaven would be a really lonely place. Some people act as though everything has to be all figured out -- and all figured out their way! -- or you're going to hell. Well, I hope for their sake they're right, because we are going to be judged by the way we judge others . . . Theology is in part how we know God. The better our theology, the better equipped we are to know him. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates A most interesting exchange. And I do think that Iz held her own in this one. I have a question for Bill -- actually for anyone who would care to answer. How does I Co 8:1-4 play in this discussion of opposing theologies. When it is all said and done -- arn't we all a little ignorant?JohnIn a message dated 7/18/2004 8:06:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, I am encouraged that you were not discouraged by my comments, and that you replied. J It seems you are easily put-off sometimes. (Me also, I admit!) So may I make a couple of further comments? How about in blue this time?Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you?Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus.BT: I'm sure you genuinely believe you do, Izzy. How much more preeminent would he be if you would credit all of your salvation to him and did not credit any of your salvation to your faithful response and obedient perseverance? You do consider these to be conditions that you must meet in order for salvation to be yours, don't you? I can only tell you what is in my heart, and you can choose to believe me or not: JESUS gets ALL the credit for anything I do that is obedient or good, for my ability to even understand and receive His grace, and certainly for HIS saving grace by HIS Blood which has made everything possible. Do you think I am ignorant, or just lying? I hope not. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Godâs requirements, not Manâs. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. BT: Those "requirements" do make you "co-redeemers" when you make your salvation contingent upon their fulfillment. Yes, God makes commandments, but only after or in the context of the indicatives of his grace. I once tried to show you this and Judy so erupted that I finally dropped it. I agree that His grace comes first. Faith and obedience only show that I am HIS obedient servant, who gratefully has received His grace. To insist otherwise is to make oneâs theology preeminent over Godâs Word. BT: It only places one's theology over God's word if it is false, Izzy. But if it is true and you refuse to believe or even consider it, it is disobedience. So how do we resolve which belief is false, except by loving exchanges like this; to side by side think it through? We must do this, because we love each other. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process.I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology (thank you for giving it a Name!) because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. I appreciate your good motives in wanting this to be true. However to me it seems a way of escape from responsibility for our sinful behavior; can you see how it I might think that?Bill I am glad you are excited about something. You may think I
Re: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity
Oh MY, Jonathan! my, My, MY. I CERTAINLY COULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT BETTER! BRAVO. This one is going in the keeper drawer. Bill - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:34 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Moralism versus Christianity Greetings all, I am writing from my self-imposed exile. All is well here on the island of Patmos. Just a quick note for this conversation which I have re-titled as I am afraid that the point is being missed and that there is a lot of talking past one another. What Lance, Terry and Izzy are saying are all flying past one another. I do think that moralism and Christianity are diametrically opposed. Bill could write all this up much better than myself. Perhaps he will correct where I am off here. My apologies for using the Canadian/British spelling of behaviour. J Lance is saying that there is no hope, no life, no godliness in moralism. Moralism is the practice of moral behaviour. Moral behaviour is taught by society. What we determine to be moral as a nation may not be what another nation may think (I wrote about how having a mistress in Malta is considered by many of the populace as normal, whereas having a mistress in North America is considered adultery). In our lifetimes we are seeing a wide swing regarding homosexuality; it is moving from being considered immoral to moral (i.e. acceptable). When my father was young chewing gum in school was considered immoral. The problem with moralism (keeping good social morals) is that it is completely disconnected from God. Morals properly placed in a subjective manner to God are good. For example, the Torah laws are good as long as they are placed subservient to the lawgiver God. To just follow the laws apart from a relationship with God earns one nothing but it does give the illusion of progress (i.e the Pharisees followed the laws and were indeed legally righteous; what they missed was the lawgiver this is moralism. It is no more new today than it was then). In other words, morality (which can be defined as good behaviour, even desired holy behaviour) divorced from God avails nothing but an illusion. The illusion itself is powerful. It is this illusion that makes some think that we live in moral, godly nations. The precepts our countries were built on have been detached from a relationship with their Creator. What the founding fathers wrote is great stuff, as long as it is placed within the framework of who God is. Without God, it turns into a legal matter, a moralistic issue instead of a spiritual issue. In society it becomes moralism; in the church it becomes religion. Let me give another quick example. Imagine that I behaved completely moral to my wife. I did everything right, treated her kindly, never cheated on her and was always polite. It would not take my wife long to see through me; although I did nothing legally wrong to her, without the love that God has placed in my heart for her my behaviour is empty. My behaviour was spot on, my heart was not. Moralism is like this. My behaviour, while noteworthy (others who saw how well I treated my wife would be jealous of our marriage) lacked the basis in relationship. Legislating moral behaviour is a whole other post .. Back to exile with me! Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote In a message dated 7/20/2004 9:05:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance, Ive been wanting to ask you this. Would you please clarify what it is you have against morality? Please define morality. (To me it means making moral choices vs immoral choices, which means choosing sinless choices over sinful choices.) Izzy A great question. And your (Izzy) exchange with Bill was as interesting to me as was Bill's comments. Did you change the color of your hair? ;-)John
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Izzy wrote > Jesus said our obedience is the fruit of repentance. Matt:3-9:Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I responded > Did he now? (Probably while banging her head on the monitor,) Izzy replies > I just quoted JESUS; did He not Please answer this question, Bill, please: did He not say Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance? Bill responds: Well, Jesus said to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. You said he said "our obedience is the 'fruit' of repentance." It seemed appropriate at the time to point out the distinction. I wish now I had not. Please forgive my lack of better judgment (I hope your head is feeling better). i'm sorry, bill
Re: [TruthTalk] The Two Trees
Oh dear! please forgive me.
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:54
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
Bill:I take it back. Now that you've identified
Chris as 'Christ', I believe we've found our teacher. To borrow an _expression_
from Chris via Scripture-HALLALUJAH!
- Original Message -----
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: July 20, 2004 11:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
Sounds great, Christ. I am very
interested.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:38
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua !
I am in general agreement with jt on this one. One exception
would be that 'foundation of the world' does not refer to creation.
These words are first recorded in Scripture as coming right from the mouth
of The Saviour. It is used after that by many others. It
occurs ten times in total. There are not too many phrases (if any)
that occur more often. This phrase is one of the secret treasures of
The Almighty. The phrase actually refers to original sin.
I have a detailed study on this sensational subject and will post it
in 7 parts for those who can handle some serious
meat.
Ahava b'
YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
Chris Barr
a servant
of YHVH
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/20/2004 7:42 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Et al - Not to change the subject (we always say that
when, in fact, we intend to do just that) BUT I am thinking about this
whole business regarding Adam (blame Kruger for this)
We pretty much believe that Adam was created one person and,
after "the fall," became like all those who would come after
him. Oh my little grasshoppers -- not so fast. I
am not sure where I am going with this but here goes:
jt: Don't you
have it in reverse John? Adam was made in the image of God.
He was first. After the fall Seth through whom the spiritual
lineage came was made in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3 rather than
God).The fact that the "Tree of Life" was in the garden
indicates to me that Adam was created a mortal being. The
fact that the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" was in the garden is
an indication that he already had a nature that was given to
sinning -- it just hadn't happened yet.
jt: What would
make you assume the above? Adam was made in the image of God, are
you saying that God has a nature that is given to sinning? Or that God
is a physical being rather than Spirit and that Adam was made physically
looking like God outwardly?
I would argue that he was selfish, conceited, lazy, etc
before "the fall." But where there is no law, there is no
definition for sin --- especially character
flaws.
jt: H! He
named all the animals which was no mean feat. Lazy? He was not required
to work and eat by the sweat of his brow before the fall, (this is part
of the curse see Genesis 3:19); in fact Adam's Bible had just one verse
which was Genesis 2:17 which reads in the original "in the day you
eat of it in dying (spiritually) you shall die"
(physically).
Ro 5:12 makes it clear that we share not only in Adam's death, but
that we own a share of personal responsibility ("..and death passed
upon all men because all have sinned.")
jt: We share
Adam's death mortally because of the fall; however our own personal
responsibility as per Romans 5:12 is because "all have sinned" Yes we
are born with an inheritance in the first Adam but are responsible for
our own sin as Ezekiel 18 makes clear.Perhaps the point
of the Cross beginning with Adam is this: humans were never going
to
Re: [TruthTalk] The Two Trees
Sounds great, Christ. I am very
interested.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:38
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua !
I am in general agreement with jt on this one. One exception would
be that 'foundation of the world' does not refer to creation. These
words are first recorded in Scripture as coming right from the mouth of The
Saviour. It is used after that by many others. It occurs ten times
in total. There are not too many phrases (if any) that occur more
often. This phrase is one of the secret treasures of The Almighty.
The phrase actually refers to original sin.
I have a detailed study on this sensational subject and will post it in 7
parts for those who can handle some serious
meat.
Ahava b'
YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch
YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
Chris Barr
a servant of
YHVH
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/20/2004 7:42 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The Two
Trees
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Et al - Not to change the subject (we always say that when,
in fact, we intend to do just that) BUT I am thinking about this whole
business regarding Adam (blame Kruger for this)
We pretty much believe that Adam was created one person and, after
"the fall," became like all those who would come after him. Oh
my little grasshoppers -- not so fast. I am not sure where I am
going with this but here goes:
jt: Don't you have it
in reverse John? Adam was made in the image of God. He was
first. After the fall Seth through whom the spiritual lineage came was
made in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3 rather than God).The
fact that the "Tree of Life" was in the garden indicates to me that Adam was
created a mortal being. The fact that the "Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil" was in the garden is an indication that he already had a
nature that was given to sinning -- it just hadn't happened
yet.
jt: What would make
you assume the above? Adam was made in the image of God, are you
saying that God has a nature that is given to sinning? Or that God is a
physical being rather than Spirit and that Adam was made physically looking
like God outwardly?
I would argue that he was selfish, conceited, lazy, etc before
"the fall." But where there is no law, there is no definition
for sin --- especially character
flaws.
jt: H! He named
all the animals which was no mean feat. Lazy? He was not required to work
and eat by the sweat of his brow before the fall, (this is part of the curse
see Genesis 3:19); in fact Adam's Bible had just one verse which was Genesis
2:17 which reads in the original "in the day you eat of it in dying
(spiritually) you shall die" (physically).
Ro 5:12 makes it clear that we share not only in Adam's death, but that
we own a share of personal responsibility ("..and death passed upon all
men because all have sinned.")
jt: We share Adam's
death mortally because of the fall; however our own personal responsibility
as per Romans 5:12 is because "all have sinned" Yes we are born with an
inheritance in the first Adam but are responsible for our own sin as Ezekiel
18 makes clear.Perhaps the point of the Cross beginning with
Adam is this: humans were never going to be able to inherit the
kingdom of Heaven apart from the process of
reconciliation.
jt: The first two
humans were living in it - they were in the Garden of God with access to the
Tree of Life. Why would they need to inherit it?
It is not that Adam "blew it" for the rest of us.
Rather (perhaps) it is that from the beginning, the created being
(mankind) was going to need provision from the creator in order to live
again in a dimension we call "eternity."
jt: Before Adam "blew
it" God had made provision; all of their needs were met and they were living
in the eternal dimension.The scriptures do teach that flesh
and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
jt: Fallen flesh and
blood will never inherit God's Kingdom; we need to read it in balance and
context.
So, the creation process always included the Cross.
jt: No, Jesus was a
lamb slain before the foundation of the world only because of God's
foreknowledge. He provided a way back, so we have Paradise lost, and
Paradise regained in Christ.
We - Adam included _ have always fallen sho
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Judy, when you answer my questions I will get back to you. Until then, this conversation is over. . Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:45 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>BT wrote: Are you the kind of mother who would say "I'll love you if and only if you do your chores, and your homework, and eat all your vegetables"? Assuming you're not, Do you think it would be wrong if you were? I do. jt responded: To love a child is to discipline a child. God says that an undisciplined child is an unloved child. Bill > Nice spin, Judy. But it hardly addresses the point. Let me ask the question a different way. Let's say you had told your kids (or your grandchildren) to do their chores, their homework, and to eat all their vegetables. Would you stop loving them if they did not? Let's say they did not do these things, and this in spite of knowing how important they are to you, would you hate them because they disobeyed you? I'm sure you may discipline them if they didn't do what they were told, as well you should, but does this make your love conditional? Do this or I will not love you, but I will discipline you. That doesn't make much sense to me. jt: They would be disciplined for outright disobedience and rebellion. I understand that some people in this day of instant gratification interpret discipline as rejection rather than love and because of parental opposition proper discipline has been banished from our public schools (here anyway). Rebellion and disrespect will always cause a breach and put an end to any kind of meaningful relationship between children and parents and between God and his creation.BT wrote: But from where does this right sense come if not from God? Why should it be wrong for us to place conditions upon our love if this is how God enacts his love for us? jt: God's love is and has always been conditional even though theology causes some to deny this fact. These are the ones with private interpretations who dismiss or ignore the ifs, ands, and buts, of scripture, Love is a two way street or else there is a breach. Bill > I've heard this saying many times, Judy. But I do not believe it. A relationship is a two way street. A loving relationship is the heart of God. But love itself is not dependent upon reciprocation. jt: The wisdom of God speaks as follows: "I love those who love me, and those who seek me early and diligently shall find me" (Proverbs 8:17) "Therefore the Lord the God of Israel says, "I did promise that your house and that of your father (fore-father Aaron) should go in and out before Me for ever. But now the Lord says "Be it far from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Samuel 2:30) "Because He has set his love upon Me, therefore will I deliver him; I will set him on high, because he knows and understands My name (has a personal knowledge of My mercy, love and kindness, trusts and relies on Me, knowing I will never forsake him, no never). He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honor him. With long life will I satisfy him, and show him My salvation" (Psalm 91:14) "The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who (really) loves Me, and whoever (really) loves me will be loved by My Father. And I (too) will love him and will show (reveal manifest) Myself to him - I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him" (John 14:21) BT: How could it be? we are to love our enemies. We do not tell them we will love them if and only if they will love us in return. Jesus says we are to love them, not expecting anything in return (cf Luke 6.35). This does not sound to me like something that is a two way street. Quite the opposite, in fact. And is God any different? jt: No God is not different, He causes it to rain upon both the just and the unjust; He provides for us all and everyone is given a measure of time to get it together. However, until we repent and turn from darkness to light we have no fellowship with Him or with his people (those who are walking in the light) and His blood in this case does not not avail for us. All embracing fleshly compassion is light years away from the love of God. There is a difference. BT: Paul says that God demonstrated his love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and that it was while we were enemies with him that he reconciled us through the death of his son (cf Rom 5.8,10).
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Bill, I am encouraged that you were not discouraged by my comments, and that you replied. J It seems you are easily put-off sometimes. Hi, Izzy. I've read your post and will respond to the rest of it tomorrow PM sometime. I just want to sort of set the record straight on your opening statement. To you it may seem that I am easily put-off. To me it seems like it takes something like the calling for a stoning to get me really riled. My professors may not matter to you or some of the other TTers. To me they matter very much. They are my mentors. I know them and know their heart for our Lord. I've seen them weep in sorrow and in joy. I've seen them drop everything to minister to broken hearts. I love them very much and I respect them. They are honorable men. I know that they know that to stand up and call the church to repent of its religiosity and return to the faith once delivered, will bring upon them scorn from those for whom their hearts bleed. Yet when this happens I am hurt; I am angered; I am offended. I put up with a lot from people all the time, even here on TT. I try to let it run off my back. I am not so willing to do that when people treat the ones I love with blatant disdain. Had they sat under these same professors, they would know what I know -- and they would not want to see them stoned. Peace to you, sister. I will be back tomorrow. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:05 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill, I am encouraged that you were not discouraged by my comments, and that you replied. J It seems you are easily put-off sometimes. (Me also, I admit!) So may I make a couple of further comments? How about in blue this time? Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you?Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus.BT: I'm sure you genuinely believe you do, Izzy. How much more preeminent would he be if you would credit all of your salvation to him and did not credit any of your salvation to your faithful response and obedient perseverance? You do consider these to be conditions that you must meet in order for salvation to be yours, don't you? I can only tell you what is in my heart, and you can choose to believe me or not: JESUS gets ALL the credit for anything I do that is obedient or good, for my ability to even understand and receive His grace, and certainly for HIS saving grace by HIS Blood which has made everything possible. Do you think I am ignorant, or just lying? I hope not. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Gods requirements, not Mans. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. BT: Those "requirements" do make you "co-redeemers" when you make your salvation contingent upon their fulfillment. Yes, God makes commandments, but only after or in the context of the indicatives of his grace. I once tried to show you this and Judy so erupted that I finally dropped it. I agree that His grace comes first. Faith and obedience only show that I am HIS obedient servant, who gratefully has received His grace. To insist otherwise is to make ones theology preeminent over Gods Word. BT: It only places one's theology over God's word if it is false, Izzy. But if it is true and you refuse to believe or even consider it, it is disobedience. So how do we resolve which belief is false, except by loving exchanges like this; to side by side think it through? We must do this, because we love each other. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process.I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology (thank you for giving it a Name!) because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward
Re: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] Religious Books
a typo, I believe Glad to see you on Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: Re: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] Religious Books In a message dated 7/15/2004 1:38:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TFT = Thomas Forsyth Torrance (considered by Bill, Lance and myself to be the finest theologian alive.)TFT -- Torrance and the "Y" ?JD
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
BT wrote: Are you the kind of mother who would say "I'll love you if and only if you do your chores, and your homework, and eat all your vegetables"? Assuming you're not, Do you think it would be wrong if you were? I do. jt responded: To love a child is to discipline. God says that an undisciplined child is an unloved child. Bill > Nice spin, Judy. But it hardly addresses the point. Let me ask the question a different way. Let's say you had told your kids (or your grandchildren) to do their chores, their homework, and to eat all their vegetables. Would you stop loving them if they did not? Let's say they did not do these things, and this in spite of knowing how important they are to you, would you hate them because they disobeyed you? I'm sure you may discipline them if they didn't do what they were told, as well you should, but does this make your love conditional? Do this or I will not love you, but I will discipline you. That doesn't make much sense to me. ___ BT wrote: But from where does this right sense come if not from God? Why should it be wrong for us to place conditions upon our love if this is how God enacts his love for us? jt responded: Love is a two way street Bill > I've heard this saying many times, Judy. But I do not believe it. A relationship is a two way street. A loving relationship is the heart of God. But love itself is not dependent upon reciprocation. How could it be? we are to love our enemies. We do not tell them we will love them if and only if they will love us in return. Jesus says we are to love them, not expecting anything in return (cf Luke 6.35). This does not sound to me like something that is a two way street. Quite the opposite, in fact. And is God any different? Paul says that God demonstrated his love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and that it was while we were enemies with him that he reconciled us through the death of his son (cf Rom 5.8,10). Love suffers long, and it does not seek its own. It bears all things. There is nothing that has to be two way about any of this -- not at least that I can tell. How about you? I don't know, Judy; I think maybe you've been duped by some of that philosophy you don't read. jt wrote: and a parent's responsibility is to train a child so that he is able to love in return, so this analogy kind of breaks down. Bill > Well Judy, that is yet to be seen, isn't it? Have you answered the above questions? BT wrote: God's love is unconditional. He loved us before we loved him. Did you get that? -- Does this not indicate that he also loved us before we were meeting any of his requirements? jt responded: He loved mankind enough to allow His only begotten son to go to the cross for us, however, this is not carte blanche nepotism. Sin makes a breach causing God to not only hide his face from us - but to allow the curse to light because of our transgression - love or no love. What do you do with that? Bill > I don't really know what to do with it, Judy: Where did you get it? I am pretty confident of this: the curtain has been torn from top to bottom; God is no longer hiding his face; our sins have been removed as far as the east is from the west; God remembers them no more; God in Christ reconciled the world to himself. Does this have anything to do with that?
Re: [TruthTalk] Second work of Grace
That's a nice story, Judy. It sounds like you love
her very much. I'm kind of surprised that you would use the term, but thank you
very much for answering my question.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Second work of
Grace
Actually I heard it from one
of the most godly older women it's been my priviledge to know, she had a close
walk with God; her husband was a civilian worker (past retirement age)
at the Fire Station at the Naval Station on Adak and he would bring troubled young sailors home
to have her pray for them (because her prayers were answered). She was
sensitive to the Spirit of God and she asked me once if I believed
sanctification to be a second work of grace. Oh! and in case you
are wondering she was not a Methodist. judyt
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm familiar with the term sanctification, Judy,
enough so that I wasn't asking about it. hehe. What I did ask about was
the "second work of grace." It's this language that I am curious about. Where
do you find it in the Bible?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:59
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Second work of
Grace
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy writes
> and sanctification is a second work of grace
Hey Judy,
I know you get upset when I ask for the goods,
but where in Scripture does it speak of this "second work of grace." I know
it's a Methodist idea, but seeing how you have given that up, I was
wondering where you find it in the Bible. I would like something explicit
please. Is there anything there?
jt: You don't upset me Bill
but when I give you the goods and you keep on asking it does become
tiring.
I notice that you still
think in terms of Arminian vs Calvinist even though you claim that this new
trinitarian
incarnational theology has
delivered you from all of that. Sanctification is not Methodist. It is
what the
whole New Testament is about
from the book of Romans on. It is the teaching of the apostles
the
foundation of Christ which
involves putting off the old man of flesh and putting on Christ.. and
it's all
by grace, through
faith.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically
speaking vs Spiritual Reality
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt: My question is why are
they dead?
Now I am convinced. You do not understand
metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech, Judy, in which on object is
liked to another by speaking of it as if it
were that other object. If I say "you are riding a dead
horse here." I do not mean you have really mounted a dead horse,
that you're whooping and kicking away; I mean your argument is going
nowhere; it's pointless and you need to dismount (metaphorically,
of course).
jt: Thank you for the
mini lesson Bill but I do understand the meaning of both similitude and
metaphor. I just don't agree that scripture is as full of them as you
appear to believe.
BT: When Paul writes to living
people, or when Jesus speaks of living people, and calls them dead, he
does not mean they are really dead -- they are obviously alive!
-- he means they are living as if they were dead; they are helpless
to do anything to bring about their own salvation.
jt: No what both Jesus
and Paul mean is that they are spiritually dead, IOW they have been
deceived and they are walking in darkness. It is possible to be
biologically/physically alive and ATST spiritually dead. In fact
before spiritual death became a part of the first two human beings it
was impossible to die physically.
That is the wonderful point that Paul is
making in Eph 2. It was while humans were as it were
dead and helpless in trespasses that God "made us alive together
with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together,
and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.
2.5-6). Why were they dead? Because of their sin; because there was no
way to b
Re: [TruthTalk] Second work of Grace
I'm familiar with the term sanctification, Judy, enough so that I wasn't asking about it. hehe. What I did ask about was the "second work of grace." It's this language that I am curious about. Where do you find it in the Bible? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:59 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Second work of Grace From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy writes > and sanctification is a second work of grace Hey Judy, I know you get upset when I ask for the goods, but where in Scripture does it speak of this "second work of grace." I know it's a Methodist idea, but seeing how you have given that up, I was wondering where you find it in the Bible. I would like something explicit please. Is there anything there? jt: You don't upset me Bill but when I give you the goods and you keep on asking it does become tiring. I notice that you still think in terms of Arminian vs Calvinist even though you claim that this new trinitarian incarnational theology has delivered you from all of that. Sanctification is not Methodist. It is what the whole New Testament is about from the book of Romans on. It is the teaching of the apostles the foundation of Christ which involves putting off the old man of flesh and putting on Christ.. and it's all by grace, through faith. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically speaking vs Spiritual Reality From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt: My question is why are they dead? Now I am convinced. You do not understand metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech, Judy, in which on object is liked to another by speaking of it as if it were that other object. If I say "you are riding a dead horse here." I do not mean you have really mounted a dead horse, that you're whooping and kicking away; I mean your argument is going nowhere; it's pointless and you need to dismount (metaphorically, of course). jt: Thank you for the mini lesson Bill but I do understand the meaning of both similitude and metaphor. I just don't agree that scripture is as full of them as you appear to believe. BT: When Paul writes to living people, or when Jesus speaks of living people, and calls them dead, he does not mean they are really dead -- they are obviously alive! -- he means they are living as if they were dead; they are helpless to do anything to bring about their own salvation. jt: No what both Jesus and Paul mean is that they are spiritually dead, IOW they have been deceived and they are walking in darkness. It is possible to be biologically/physically alive and ATST spiritually dead. In fact before spiritual death became a part of the first two human beings it was impossible to die physically. That is the wonderful point that Paul is making in Eph 2. It was while humans were as it were dead and helpless in trespasses that God "made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). Why were they dead? Because of their sin; because there was no way to bridge the gap between humanity and God until the sin problem was confronted and defeated. This is what Christ did. This is the Gospel. jt: You have gone way, way past what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2 Bill. He says to the Church at Ephesus in Vs.1 "You hath He quickened" who WERE dead in trespasses and sin." The idea being that there had been some repentance and these people are now in the process of being sanctified. Yes Jesus made the way for us to be reconciled with the Father and yes He defeated principalities and powers and He made a show of them openly. However, we still have to deal with the sin that is in our own lives, He did not do this for us at Calvary. We MUST learn to discern between good and evil because before God we are responsible for our own choices. jt: Ephesians is written post Calvary. I thought that your belief is that everyone had been raised and seated in the heavenlies with Christ already, at least this is what you've been telling us. BT: Judy, read this and tell me who you think is telling yo
Re: [TruthTalk] Second work of Grace
Judy writes >
and sanctification is a second work of grace
Hey Judy,
I know you get upset when I ask for the goods, but
where in Scripture does it speak of this "second work of grace." I know it's a
Methodist idea, but seeing how you have given that up, I was wondering where you
find it in the Bible. I would like something explicit please. Is there anything
there?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically
speaking vs Spiritual Reality
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt: My question is why are they
dead?
Now I am convinced. You do not understand
metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech, Judy, in which on object is
liked to another by speaking of it as if it
were that other object. If I say "you are riding a dead horse
here." I do not mean you have really mounted a dead horse, that you're
whooping and kicking away; I mean your argument is going nowhere; it's
pointless and you need to dismount (metaphorically, of
course).
jt: Thank you for the mini
lesson Bill but I do understand the meaning of both similitude and metaphor.
I just don't agree that scripture is as full of them as you appear to
believe.
BT: When Paul writes to living people, or
when Jesus speaks of living people, and calls them dead, he does not mean
they are really dead -- they are obviously alive! -- he means they
are living as if they were dead; they are helpless to do anything to bring
about their own salvation.
jt: No what both Jesus and
Paul mean is that they are spiritually dead, IOW they have been deceived and
they are walking in darkness. It is possible to be biologically/physically
alive and ATST spiritually dead. In fact before spiritual death became
a part of the first two human beings it was impossible to die
physically.
That is the wonderful point that Paul is making
in Eph 2. It was while humans were as it were dead and
helpless in trespasses that God "made us alive together with Christ (by
grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit
together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). Why were they
dead? Because of their sin; because there was no way to bridge the gap
between humanity and God until the sin problem was confronted and defeated.
This is what Christ did. This is the Gospel.
jt: You have gone way, way
past what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2 Bill. He says to the Church at
Ephesus in Vs.1 "You hath He quickened" who WERE dead in trespasses
and sin." The idea being that there had been some repentance and these
people are now in the process of being sanctified. Yes Jesus made the
way for us to be reconciled with the Father and yes He defeated
principalities and powers and He made a show of them openly. However,
we still have to deal with the sin that is in our own lives, He did not do
this for us at Calvary. We MUST learn to discern between good and evil
because before God we are responsible for our own choices.
jt: Ephesians is written post
Calvary. I thought that your belief is that everyone had been raised and
seated in the heavenlies with Christ already, at least this is what you've
been telling us.
BT: Judy, read this and tell me who you think
is telling you this: "even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us
alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up
together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"
(Eph. 2.5-6). It was at Calvary that God did
this. It was there that Christ was raised from the dead. And when he
ascended we ascended.
jt: The apostle is
speaking to the Church at Ephesus by faith and this is a faith reality.
However, you
are teaching Positional Truth Bill and I've been there and
done that [] I once had a plaque on my wall that a
friend gave me which read "keep looking
down, you're seated with Christ in the
heavenlies" It all sounds very high and wonderful but we need to be
more concerned with walking in repentance and sanctification - or
the devil will eat us for lunch. We must have more balance
and context and less metaphor Freedom should be a present
reality.
BT: I don't know if this is any comfort to you,
Judy, but many of the people to whom Paul was writing were alive when
Calvary took place. He is writing to them about an event that took place in
their or their parent'
Re: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically speaking vs Spiritual Reality
Thanks, Judy, for your response. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically speaking vs Spiritual Reality From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt: My question is why are they dead? Now I am convinced. You do not understand metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech, Judy, in which on object is liked to another by speaking of it as if it were that other object. If I say "you are riding a dead horse here." I do not mean you have really mounted a dead horse, that you're whooping and kicking away; I mean your argument is going nowhere; it's pointless and you need to dismount (metaphorically, of course). jt: Thank you for the mini lesson Bill but I do understand the meaning of both similitude and metaphor. I just don't agree that scripture is as full of them as you appear to believe. BT: When Paul writes to living people, or when Jesus speaks of living people, and calls them dead, he does not mean they are really dead -- they are obviously alive! -- he means they are living as if they were dead; they are helpless to do anything to bring about their own salvation. jt: No what both Jesus and Paul mean is that they are spiritually dead, IOW they have been deceived and they are walking in darkness. It is possible to be biologically/physically alive and ATST spiritually dead. In fact before spiritual death became a part of the first two human beings it was impossible to die physically. That is the wonderful point that Paul is making in Eph 2. It was while humans were as it were dead and helpless in trespasses that God "made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). Why were they dead? Because of their sin; because there was no way to bridge the gap between humanity and God until the sin problem was confronted and defeated. This is what Christ did. This is the Gospel. jt: You have gone way, way past what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2 Bill. He says to the Church at Ephesus in Vs.1 "You hath He quickened" who WERE dead in trespasses and sin." The idea being that there had been some repentance and these people are now in the process of being sanctified. Yes Jesus made the way for us to be reconciled with the Father and yes He defeated principalities and powers and He made a show of them openly. However, we still have to deal with the sin that is in our own lives, He did not do this for us at Calvary. We MUST learn to discern between good and evil because before God we are responsible for our own choices. jt: Ephesians is written post Calvary. I thought that your belief is that everyone had been raised and seated in the heavenlies with Christ already, at least this is what you've been telling us. BT: Judy, read this and tell me who you think is telling you this: "even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). It was at Calvary that God did this. It was there that Christ was raised from the dead. And when he ascended we ascended. jt: The apostle is speaking to the Church at Ephesus by faith and this is a faith reality. However, you are teaching Positional Truth Bill and I've been there and done that [] I once had a plaque on my wall that a friend gave me which read "keep looking down, you're seated with Christ in the heavenlies" It all sounds very high and wonderful but we need to be more concerned with walking in repentance and sanctification - or the devil will eat us for lunch. We must have more balance and context and less metaphor Freedom should be a present reality. BT: I don't know if this is any comfort to you, Judy, but many of the people to whom Paul was writing were alive when Calvary took place. He is writing to them about an event that took place in their or their parent's lifetime. They looked at Calvary as very much a real space-time event, a pivotal point in human history, a point that happened in their own lifetime. We tend to think the gap into the equation. We think this has to happen to us in our lifetime. That is a RC idea, just keep good ol' Jesus on the cross. Crucify him over and over again. No, the work of salvation is finished. Christ did it once for all! We participate in it, but we do nothing to cause it. jt: I'm not hung up on who causes salvation or WHEN Calvary
RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:36 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you? Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus. BT: I'm sure you genuinely believe you do, Izzy. How much more preeminent would he be if you would credit all of your salvation to him and did not credit any of your salvation to your faithful response and obedient perseverance? You do consider these to be conditions that you must meet in order for salvation to be yours, don't you? Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Gods requirements, not Mans. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. BT: Those "requirements" do make you "co-redeemers" when you make your salvation contingent upon their fulfillment. Yes, God makes commandments, but only after or in the context of the indicatives of his grace. I once tried to show you this and Judy so erupted that I finally dropped it. To insist otherwise is to make ones theology preeminent over Gods Word. BT: It only places one's theology over God's word if it is false, Izzy. But if it is true and you refuse to believe or even consider it, it is disobedience. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process. I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. Bill I am glad you are excited about something. You may think Im an airhead because such theological complexities dont interest me. However to me such endeavors only serve to put Theology above the Simplicity of believing and accepting His Word without second-guessing, questioning, or out-maneuvering HIS will. Whether or not people argue about their theologies is not an issue for me, and causes me no loss of sleep. I dont need to resolve it. I dont need to understand everything about it. I just accept it as a little child. BT: I don't get this one, Izzy. You ask me why I think this is so important and when I answer you, you grab onto it and use it as an opportunity to extol the higher virtues of ignorance. Maybe if you took a little more interest in your heritage you would appreciate the hard work of your brothers and sisters who have. In the meantime, do not suppose that I don't accept it "as a little child." The word for child means formable, impressionable, someone who can be shaped and molded. I don't know, Izzy, it seems to me that most Evangelicals, if they've been Christians very long, get pretty set in their ways. The above mentioned teaching is of paramount significance because it lets love be what it is: unconditional. That is the problem with this Theology you have embraced. Gods love is not unconditional. It is free for those who will receive it by meeting His conditions, because He paid the price to make it possible. BT: God's love is unconditional, Izzy. God is love. What "conditions" were there when all there was was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Did God change his nature when he created? Is the love he has for us different than the love that he is in his being, the love that he shares with his Son in the Holy Spirit? Are you the kind of mother who would say "I'll love you if and only if you do your chores, and your homework, and eat all your vegetables"? Assuming you're not, Do you think it would be wrong if you were? I do. But from where does this right sense come if not from God? Why should it be wrong for us to place conditions upon our love if this is how God enacts his love for us? God's love is unconditional. He loved us before we loved him. Did you get that? -- Does this not i
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Thanks, G. You may be correct about Judas. If he rejected Christ unto death, he lost whatever salvation he had gained in his inclusion in Christ. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates '..whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, he cannot be my disciple.' -- back to Judas; not all disciples experience/d salvation--one may follow Christ, as the NT depicts, yet (be) reject(ing) salvation the point now is that the demanding criteria that Iz applies to salvation, below, were not applied to salvation by JC himself; they were JCs criteria for asking and/or allowing people to follow him in sum, such discipleship criteria arbitrarily, selectively applied to biblical salvation are applied according to alternative (in this case, ascetic and legalistic) biases, or bias rooted in an unauthorized counter-biblical authority, a subjective alternative to salvation as yet uncorrected by the Gospel in general, before theology carries any weight with those who are saved, the theologian's mindset must be perceived to be reconciled to the Lord's, to whom all authority has been given on earth and in heaven in turn Iz terms people (like me) 'rebellious' who do not agree with her; yet, from what she's written, the KoG is a mystery to her G == for ref: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:23:12 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy, if you would like me to respond further, I will. But I will not be doing it tonight. Please hang tight and I will get back to you later. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates So, Bill, why dont you respond to my comments (in red)? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates We will be doomed to never come to agreement here? Hope not! Izzy Me too. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill, as I said, thanks (finally J ) for the response. I will put my comments in Red below. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:36 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you? Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Gods requirements, not Mans. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. To insist otherwise is to make ones theology preeminent over Gods Word. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process. I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precede
Re: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically speaking vs Spiritual Reality
jt: My question is why are they dead? Now I am convinced. You do not understand metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech, Judy, in which on object is liked to another by speaking of it as if it were that other object. If I say "you are riding a dead horse here." I do not mean you have really mounted a dead horse, that you're whooping and kicking away; I mean your argument is going nowhere; it's pointless and you need to dismount (metaphorically, of course). When Paul writes to living people, or when Jesus speaks of living people, and calls them dead, he does not mean they are really dead -- they are obviously alive! -- he means they are living as if they were dead; they are helpless to do anything to bring about their own salvation. That is the wonderful point that Paul is making in Eph 2. It was while humans were as it were dead and helpless in trespasses that God "made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). Why were they dead? Because of their sin; because there was no way to bridge the gap between humanity and God until the sin problem was confronted and defeated. This is what Christ did. This is the Gospel. jt: Ephesians is written post Calvary. I thought that your belief is that everyone had been raised and seated in the heavenlies with Christ already, at least this is what you've been telling us. Judy, read this and tell me who you think is telling you this: "even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). It was at Calvary that God did this. It was there that Christ was raised from the dead. And when he ascended we ascended. I don't know if this is any comfort to you, Judy, but many of the people to whom Paul was writing were alive when Calvary took place. He is writing to them about an event that took place in their or their parent's lifetime. They looked at Calvary as very much a real space-time event, a pivotal point in human history, a point that happened in their own lifetime. We tend to think the gap into the equation. We think this has to happen to us in our lifetime. That is a RC idea, just keep good ol' Jesus on the cross. Crucify him over and over again. No, the work of salvation is finished. Christ did it once for all! We participate in it, but we do nothing to cause it. jt: BTW what do you mean by "causal agent?" I mean that our salvation was caused by God in Christ. He is the causal agent, not our faith (or anything else you tack onto it). If you want the complete context, it's in the archives. Judy, I don't really think we're getting anywhere with this. Your mind is set. Hell will freeze over before you change it. I think it's probably time for us to part company on this one and go on the something else. How is Jenna doing. I am so sorry she is going through this terrible struggle. She is very much a part of our prayer life. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Metaphorically speaking vs Spiritual Reality "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy writes: They might be biologically alive but so far as God is concerned they are dead in trespasses and sin just as you recently posted in Ephesians 2:1-3, you can't have it both ways. Doubleminded men are unstable in all their ways and they don't receive anything from the Lord and that includes salvation (according to His Word throught James not mine) judyt Judy, please do not assume that I meant anything more than, metaphorically speaking, they are dead and can do nothing to advance their own salvation. I do hope that you were not implying that I am a "doubleminded" man. To put any questions to rest, I would like to include a paragraph I wrote to David M. back on the 23rd of May. Ephesians is written post Calvary. I thought that your belief is that everyone had been raised and seated in the heavenlies with Christ already, at least this is what you've been telling us. Sin doesn't get into heaven and the ones Paul describes in Ephesians 2:1-3 were dead in trespass and sin; sin does not go anywhere until it is repented of. Repentance without regret means that we understand and stop participating. Allow me to answer your question first and to then share a few words as to my understanding of faith and its role in the Christian life. No, I do not believe that fa
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Izzy, if you would like me to respond further, I will. But I will not be doing it tonight. Please hang tight and I will get back to you later. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates So, Bill, why dont you respond to my comments (in red)? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates We will be doomed to never come to agreement here? Hope not! Izzy Me too. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill, as I said, thanks (finally J ) for the response. I will put my comments in Red below. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:36 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you? Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Gods requirements, not Mans. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. To insist otherwise is to make ones theology preeminent over Gods Word. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process. I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. Bill I am glad you are excited about something. You may think Im an airhead because such theological complexities dont interest me. However to me such endeavors only serve to put Theology above the Simplicity of believing and accepting His Word without second-guessing, questioning, or out-maneuvering HIS will. Whether or not people argue about their theologies is not an issue for me, and causes me no loss of sleep. I dont need to resolve it. I dont need to understand everything about it. I just accept it as a little child. The above mentioned teaching is of paramount significance because it lets love be what it is: unconditional. That is the problem with this Theology you have embraced. Gods love is not unconditional. It is free for those who will receive it by meeting His conditions, because He paid the price to make it possible. But Jesus said we should count the cost and gave a few conditions:, Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? At the same time it calls us to unconditional obedience. In the words of James B. Torrance (Thomas' younger brother, who died last year at 81) it distinguishes between "legal repentance" and "evangelical repentance." Please consider his words: Legal repentance says: Repent, and if you repe
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Izzy, when Terry is decent, I will be glad to respond. When he acts like he did in that post, I will not accommodate him. I have already said what I thought Jesus was doing there. Terry has no knowledge at all concerning the one and the many -- the way it was used, and the prominent role it played in Jewish culture -- yet when he has been provided with opportunity to learn, which has been on several occasions, he shuns it and spouts off his tired witticisms; he even calls for the stoning of those who could teach him. Please save your comment about resolutions and good points being dropped for an occasion when a good point has been made. I've endured plenty of heat from you guys and have always tried to answer questions thoughtfully, thoroughly, and truthfully. When I am stumped or unsettled about a point that has been made or a question asked of me, I openly admit it to you. Don't tell me that I deliberately dodge "good points." On the other side of the token, you know good and well that I have never taught or endorsed universalism, which espouses the final salvation of all humans, yet how many times have you or Judy, and there have been others, gotten rattled and associated my beliefs with universalism? The truth is, I have written many times about the reality of hell and the truth that it will be populated. Your accusations are sophomoric and cheap. You impugn yourselves. You also know that I have never espoused a gospel of non-involvement. I have posted as much about participation, relationship, commitment, obedience, and repentance as any of you. I have never condoned evil or made excuses for it. If anything the Christian life that I espouse (and model!) is more involved and less violent than many of you are even willing to consider. Yet when you, Izzy, are stumped by my presentation, you end the conversation with a blatantly false summation: "How very BIZARRE. A gospel of noninvolvement. A gospel that permits every form of evil. Who could possibly believe this??? (Pleasedont answer!)" [Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:28 AM ]. I have apologized on occasion for being sharp and not as patient as I should have been. On those times I meant it. The rest of the time I try to be civil, even when I am thoroughly fed up! Still, I know that what I am talking about is new to you and will take some time to digest. Why not be civil in return? Are we really into stoning these days? Is that our answer for those with whom we disagree? I am disappointed. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:43 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole Bill, May I ask that you respond to Terry rather than impugning his spirit? (Pretty please?) Ignore his last sentence if you want to and please respond to his valid comments about one vs many. (One reason we fail to come to any resolutions is because when one party makes a good point the other party drops the subject). Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 4:19 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole That's the spirit, Terry. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole Wm. Taylor wrote: jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God) are going to find it. Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of the day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few" and the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the many. Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow way. Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity, reconciled and restored. Bill ---Bill:You are not making sense. All humanity is not a few. A few is not one. Most of humanity is on the broad road, not the narrow path. Whoever is teachimg you should be stoned.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
And that's the Spirit, Terry.
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:44
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Hyperbole
Wm. Taylor wrote:
jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way
and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of
God) are going to find it.
Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of
the day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few"
and the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the
many. Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow
way. Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity,
reconciled and restored.
Bill---Bill:You
are not making sense. All humanity is not a few. A few is not
one. Most of humanity is on the broad road, not the narrow path.
Whoever is teachimg you should be stoned.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
That's the spirit, Terry. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole Wm. Taylor wrote: jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God) are going to find it. Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of the day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few" and the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the many. Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow way. Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity, reconciled and restored. Bill---Bill:You are not making sense. All humanity is not a few. A few is not one. Most of humanity is on the broad road, not the narrow path. Whoever is teachimg you should be stoned.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
We will be doomed to never come to agreement here? Hope not! Izzy Me too. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill, as I said, thanks (finally J ) for the response. I will put my comments in Red below. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:36 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you? Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers. They are Gods requirements, not Mans. They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture. To insist otherwise is to make ones theology preeminent over Gods Word. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process. I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. Bill I am glad you are excited about something. You may think Im an airhead because such theological complexities dont interest me. However to me such endeavors only serve to put Theology above the Simplicity of believing and accepting His Word without second-guessing, questioning, or out-maneuvering HIS will. Whether or not people argue about their theologies is not an issue for me, and causes me no loss of sleep. I dont need to resolve it. I dont need to understand everything about it. I just accept it as a little child. The above mentioned teaching is of paramount significance because it lets love be what it is: unconditional. That is the problem with this Theology you have embraced. Gods love is not unconditional. It is free for those who will receive it by meeting His conditions, because He paid the price to make it possible. But Jesus said we should count the cost and gave a few conditions:, Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? At the same time it calls us to unconditional obedience. In the words of James B. Torrance (Thomas' younger brother, who died last year at 81) it distinguishes between "legal repentance" and "evangelical repentance." Please consider his words: Legal repentance says: Repent, and if you repent you will be forgiven, as if God is persuaded into being merciful by our acts of repentance. No, God gave us these conditions. Jesus said in Luke 13:3 AND 13:5: 3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Here our forgiveness is conditional upon our deeds of obedience. Jesus said our obedience is the fruit of repentance. Matt:3-9:Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance. When the prodigal son returns, the Father puts off the party of restoration until after the son has truly demonstrated his contrition and change of heart and thus merited the restoration of status. The prodigal son repented by the sheer act of humbling himself and returing. His father could tell what was in his heart before the words were out of his mouth. His father received him because he
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
That's funny, G. hehe. It says that we may be to
quick to judge. If Jesus asked his Father to forgive those who had falsely
accused him, and those who had hung him on the cross ("Father, forgive them; for
they know not what the do."), why would he not also ask forgiveness for him who
had betrayed him?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:10
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
what does it
say?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:57:48 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would like to recommend a book, Ray S.
Anderson The Gospel According to Judas: Is There a Limit to Gods
Forgiveness? (Pasadena: Fuller Seminary, 1994).
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:46
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Hyperbole
what happened to
Judas?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Jesus..brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity,
reconciled and restored.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Peace, sister. I'll give you a break. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole From: Wm. Taylor jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God) are going to find it. Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of the day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few" and the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the many. Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow way. Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity, reconciled and restored. Bill jt: What do you mean Bill. He IS IT. He didn't need to find anything. Jesus Himself is the door. He Himself is the WAY. You have "another gospel" which to me looks a lot like Universalism or one of the 'isms' anyway - judyt - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kay was not offended by your post, Judy, so it's ok. I am not offended by your post either. I would like to demonstrate to you where the problem lies. Example One: The US court system made it legal to perform abortions. In recent months, it is legal for doctors to perform abortion on teenage girls and to prescribe abortifascient pills and condoms to teenagers without parental consent. This means US citizens support abortion. While you will be quick to clarify that not ALL citizens of the US support abortion, I would be just as quick to defend the Jewish people in that they HAVE historically kept the Law of Moses... jt: I'm glad that we can discuss this issue and walk in love toward one another Slade & Kay even though we may not agree (BTW are you Jewish yourselves or Gentiles who are sympathetic to the plight of the Jews?). I appreciate the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and they have taken that responsibility seriously; I also agree with you that we can not paint everyone with the same brush. I do not judge the Jews personally but look at the sermons of both Peter and Stephen in the book of acts and Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit, faith and power states that they did not keep God's law (see Acts 7:53). That's what KEPT THEM ALIVE these millennia when Christianity has attempted to exterminate them... repeatedly! To this day the Words are true: they kept the oracles of God (Romans 3). To claim that Jewish people have not [historically] kept the Law of Moses is just as false as to say that the Jewish people keep the Law for salvation reasons. Let me ask you a question: WHY would a group of people "chosen by God" keep the Law in order to be saved? They're the chosen people... they are ALREADY saved! They place their FAITH on the fact!!! They LOVE GOD and that motivates [most of] them to keep the Torah (some keep it to be culturally correct). jt: Abraham believed God, it was counted to him for righteousness; and he is known as the father of faith. during Jesus' earthly ministry the Jews thought they would be accepted by God in spite of their unbelief because they were the biological children of Abraham. I'm sure you know what Jesus told them. Example Two: With the release of "The Passion," the question rises once again... "Did the Jews Kill Jesus?" Surprisingly, the overwhelming response to that question is "Yes." To those who answered "Yes," I ask, "Are you sinless as to not have participated in Jesus's need to die?" jt: I don't point a finger of blame or shame at the Jews (and I did not appreciate Mel Gibson's movie) but facts are facts and the Jews did tell Pilate to "let his blood be upon us and our children" (Matt 27:25) Surely you would not deny this Slade? Please pardon the "hyperbole," but what kind of question is "do you believe the Holy Spirit is also Jewish?" Do you believe Jesus is and the Spirit is not? Do you believe neither are? What about "The Father?" jt: Jesus took a Jewish body upon Himself for the suffering of death but He
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
I would like to recommend a book, Ray S. Anderson The Gospel According to Judas: Is There a Limit to Gods Forgiveness? (Pasadena: Fuller Seminary, 1994). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole what happened to Judas? On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0600 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jesus..brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity, reconciled and restored.
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Judy writes: They might be biologically alive but so far as God is concerned they are dead in trespasses and sin just as you recently posted in Ephesians 2:1-3, you can't have it both ways. Doubleminded men are unstable in all their ways and they don't receive anything from the Lord and that includes salvation (according to His Word throught James not mine) judyt Judy, please do not assume that I meant anything more than, metaphorically speaking, they are dead and can do nothing to advance their own salvation. I do hope that you were not implying that I am a "doubleminded" man. To put any questions to rest, I would like to include a paragraph I wrote to David M. back on the 23rd of May. Allow me to answer your question first and to then share a few words as to my understanding of faith and its role in the Christian life. No, I do not believe that faith is the causative agent that puts us into Christ and brings about the new birth within us. Faith is the means through which we participation with the Causal Agent who gave us new birth in his resurrection: "even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2.5-6). This he did without our commitment, without our say. We were dead (metaphorically speaking) and without faith, unable to participate. Yet God raised us up and made us alive in Christ Jesus, in his resurrection. This is the new birth, born from above, "born again." I believe, not in order to be born again, but because I am born again. I believe because I am alive and able to believe, to respond to and participate in the work of the Holy Spirit in my life. Thanks for your interest. Is there any update on Jenna? Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates There is Bill, And I don't need to keep looking because I see it already from Genesis to Revelation. You are the one who has the problem seeing but I don't believe that anything I could say would make one bit of difference so long as you are determined to cling to this all encompassing incarnational doctrine which incidentally makes the narrow way a whole lot broader. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED]> It would seem, Judy, if your concept of spiritual death is as all-pervading as you claim it is, there would be some reference to it in Scripture. Keep looking . . . jt: But Jesus refers to the person as dead, not his works. In Luke 9:60 AMP it reads "Allow the dead to bury their own dead" and Matt 8:22 says "Follow Me, and leave the dead (in sin) to bury their own dead. And after He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. This does not appear to refer to dead works nor does it appear to be a 'metaphor' so far as I can see. Yes, Judy, the AMP is a wonderful resource; however, it is also a theological resource. The amplifications are interpretive. Do you not know that? jt: Of course I am aware but they have not changed the meaning in this instance at least, they add words that express the though. By the way, I agree with the AMP to a point. When people turn away from Jesus to "idols (in your words), whatever they be, they are dead in sin, metaphorically speaking; i.e., they are alive but do not to live as such because they refuse to acknowledge the justification of life, Jesus Christ. jt: They might be biologically alive but so far as God is concerned they are dead in trespasses and sin just as you recently posted in Ephesians 2:1-3, you can't have it both ways. Doubleminded men are unstable in all their ways and they don't receive anything from the Lord and that includes salvation (according to His Word throught James not mine) judyt - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:22 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: This concept is all through the Bible Bill, from Genesis on. A&E died the day they ate from the forbidden tree but they did not die physically that day they died spiritually (Genesis 2:17) - (the serpent deceived Eve with an exact contradiction of the Word of God Genesis 3:4). There are two kinds of wisdom. The wisdom or Word of God brings life; the lie or wisdom from the father of lies produces spiritual death in a person's life. Life and death are spiritual conditions that lead to eternal life or eternal dea
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Izzy asks > Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you? Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process. I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. The above mentioned teaching is of paramount significance because it lets love be what it is: unconditional. At the same time it calls us to unconditional obedience. In the words of James B. Torrance (Thomas' younger brother, who died last year at 81) it distinguishes between "legal repentance" and "evangelical repentance." Please consider his words: Legal repentance says: Repent, and if you repent you will be forgiven, as if God is persuaded into being merciful by our acts of repentance. Here our forgiveness is conditional upon our deeds of obedience. When the prodigal son returns, the Father puts off the party of restoration until after the son has truly demonstrated his contrition and change of heart and thus merited the restoration of status. Evangelical repentance, on the other hand, says: Christ has borne your sins on the cross, therefore repent. In evangelical repentance, forgiveness is logically prior to repentance. God has spoken his word of forgiveness on the cross, and it is this word that summons forth our repentance and obedience. The father runs down the road when his prodigal son returns and cuts short the sons prepared confession, ordering his sons immediate restoration and the killing of the fatted calf. I could go on and on, Izzy, and, the Lord willing, I will continue to espouse these views. I am very much encouraged by your words earlier. Thanks again. I am glad to be sparking some interest -- even if for now it provides but fodder for disagreement. Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 10:43 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates Bill wrote: ." The word of truth, the good news of their salvation was already true and real and complete before they heard it, before they trusted in Jesus Christ, and before they believed and were sealed with the Holy Spirit. It seems quite backwards to me. One is sealed with the Holy Spirit when one gets saved. One isnt saved until they believed. Luke 199 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. (This was BEFORE He went to the cross.) Acts 221 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Slade will probably fall over of heart attack when
he sees you've credited him with these words. hehe
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:38
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Slade:A (like) total Amen (man)!!
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: July 17, 2004 15:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Hyperbole
jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way
and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God)
are going to find it.
Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of the
day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few" and
the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the many.
Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow way.
Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity,
reconciled and restored.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:11
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kay was not offended by your post, Judy, so it's ok. I am not
offended by your post either. I would like to demonstrate to you where the
problem lies.
Example One: The US court system made it legal to perform
abortions. In recent months, it is legal for doctors to perform abortion
on teenage girls and to prescribe abortifascient pills and condoms to
teenagers without parental consent. This means US citizens support
abortion. While you will be quick to clarify that not ALL citizens of the
US support abortion, I would be just as quick to defend the Jewish people
in that they HAVE historically kept the Law of
Moses...
jt: I'm glad that we can discuss this issue and walk in love toward
one another Slade & Kay even though we may not agree (BTW are you
Jewish yourselves or Gentiles who are sympathetic to the plight of the
Jews?). I appreciate the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the
oracles of God and they have taken that responsibility seriously; I also
agree with you that we can not paint everyone with the same brush. I do
not judge the Jews personally but look at the sermons of both Peter and
Stephen in the book of acts and Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit,
faith and power states that they did not keep God's law (see Acts
7:53).
That's what KEPT THEM ALIVE these millennia when
Christianity has attempted to exterminate them... repeatedly! To this day
the Words are true: they kept the oracles of God (Romans 3). To claim that
Jewish people have not [historically] kept the Law of Moses is just as
false as to say that the Jewish people keep the Law for salvation reasons.
Let me ask you a question: WHY would a group of people "chosen by God"
keep the Law in order to be saved? They're the chosen people... they are
ALREADY saved! They place their FAITH on the fact!!! They LOVE GOD and
that motivates [most of] them to keep the Torah (some keep it to be
culturally correct).
jt: Abraham believed God, it was counted to him for righteousness;
and he is known as the father of faith. during Jesus' earthly ministry the
Jews thought they would be accepted by God in spite of their unbelief
because they were the biological children of Abraham. I'm sure you
know what Jesus told them.
Example Two: With the release of "The Passion," the question rises
once again... "Did the Jews Kill Jesus?" Surprisingly, the overwhelming
response to that question is "Yes." To those who answered "Yes," I ask,
"Are you sinless as to not have participated in Jesus's need to
die?"
jt: I don't point a finger of blame or shame at the Jews (and I did
not appreciate Mel Gibson's movie) but facts are facts and the Jews did
tell Pilate to "let his blood be upon us and our children" (Matt
27:25) Surely you would not deny this
Slade?
Please pardon the "hyperbole," but what kind of question is "do you believe the Holy Spirit is also
Jewish?" Do you believe Jesus is and the Spirit is not? Do you
believe neither are? What about "The Father?"
jt: Jesus took a Jewish body upon Himself for
the suffering of death but He was there
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
jt: Slade, I say that it is a strait gate and a narrow way and that only a few (Jews, and Gentiles, as well as the Church of God) are going to find it. Actually, Judy, if you were aware of the literary conventions of the day, you would realize that there is only One who found it. The "few" and the "many" is an appeal to the Hebrew concept of the one and the many. Jesus is the only one who made it through the strait gate and narrow way. Yet when he did, he brought with him the many, i.e, all of humanity, reconciled and restored. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kay was not offended by your post, Judy, so it's ok. I am not offended by your post either. I would like to demonstrate to you where the problem lies. Example One: The US court system made it legal to perform abortions. In recent months, it is legal for doctors to perform abortion on teenage girls and to prescribe abortifascient pills and condoms to teenagers without parental consent. This means US citizens support abortion. While you will be quick to clarify that not ALL citizens of the US support abortion, I would be just as quick to defend the Jewish people in that they HAVE historically kept the Law of Moses... jt: I'm glad that we can discuss this issue and walk in love toward one another Slade & Kay even though we may not agree (BTW are you Jewish yourselves or Gentiles who are sympathetic to the plight of the Jews?). I appreciate the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and they have taken that responsibility seriously; I also agree with you that we can not paint everyone with the same brush. I do not judge the Jews personally but look at the sermons of both Peter and Stephen in the book of acts and Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit, faith and power states that they did not keep God's law (see Acts 7:53). That's what KEPT THEM ALIVE these millennia when Christianity has attempted to exterminate them... repeatedly! To this day the Words are true: they kept the oracles of God (Romans 3). To claim that Jewish people have not [historically] kept the Law of Moses is just as false as to say that the Jewish people keep the Law for salvation reasons. Let me ask you a question: WHY would a group of people "chosen by God" keep the Law in order to be saved? They're the chosen people... they are ALREADY saved! They place their FAITH on the fact!!! They LOVE GOD and that motivates [most of] them to keep the Torah (some keep it to be culturally correct). jt: Abraham believed God, it was counted to him for righteousness; and he is known as the father of faith. during Jesus' earthly ministry the Jews thought they would be accepted by God in spite of their unbelief because they were the biological children of Abraham. I'm sure you know what Jesus told them. Example Two: With the release of "The Passion," the question rises once again... "Did the Jews Kill Jesus?" Surprisingly, the overwhelming response to that question is "Yes." To those who answered "Yes," I ask, "Are you sinless as to not have participated in Jesus's need to die?" jt: I don't point a finger of blame or shame at the Jews (and I did not appreciate Mel Gibson's movie) but facts are facts and the Jews did tell Pilate to "let his blood be upon us and our children" (Matt 27:25) Surely you would not deny this Slade? Please pardon the "hyperbole," but what kind of question is "do you believe the Holy Spirit is also Jewish?" Do you believe Jesus is and the Spirit is not? Do you believe neither are? What about "The Father?" jt: Jesus took a Jewish body upon Himself for the suffering of death but He was there in the beginning with the Father as the Word of God and No, I don't believe the Godhead is in favor of any cultural bias. God is on the side of righteousness and holiness no matter what the nationality. I have another question: Do you believe the Jewish People need this special "breath from Jesus" in order to understand the Scriptures? Do Gentiles need that same breath, or are the Jewish people "so thick" that ONLY THEY need this extra help from Jesus? jt: Neither do I have cultural bias Slade - everyone needs the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to them. How do you suppose Jesus at age 12 astounded the Jewish teachers of the law with His understanding? How could Jesus tell the Jewish leaders they were not of God and call them sons of the devil because they could not hear His Word? You claimed the the Jewish People rejected their own Messiah? I'm sure you realize Jewish men wrote the "New" Testament and current leaders within the Messianic Jewish m
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
It would seem, Judy, if your concept of spiritual death is as all-pervading as you claim it is, there would be some reference to it in Scripture. Keep looking . . . jt: But Jesus refers to the person as dead, not his works. In Luke 9:60 AMP it reads "Allow the dead to bury their own dead" and Matt 8:22 says "Follow Me, and leave the dead (in sin) to bury their own dead. And after He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. This does not appear to refer to dead works nor does it appear to be a 'metaphor' so far as I can see. Yes, Judy, the AMP is a wonderful resource; however, it is also a theological resource. The amplifications are interpretive. Do you not know that? By the way, I agree with the AMP to a point. When people turn away from Jesus to "idols (in your words), whatever they be, they are dead in sin, metaphorically speaking; i.e., they are alive but do not to live as such because they refuse to acknowledge the justification of life, Jesus Christ. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:22 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: This concept is all through the Bible Bill, from Genesis on. A&E died the day they ate from the forbidden tree but they did not die physically that day they died spiritually (Genesis 2:17) - (the serpent deceived Eve with an exact contradiction of the Word of God Genesis 3:4). There are two kinds of wisdom. The wisdom or Word of God brings life; the lie or wisdom from the father of lies produces spiritual death in a person's life. Life and death are spiritual conditions that lead to eternal life or eternal death. The mouth speaks from the abundance that fills the heart so both are evident by the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21) and we are speaking one or the other continually ie: 'A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth (Proverbs 12:14). By your words you are either justified or condemned (Matthew 12:37). An evil man is snared by the transgression of his lips (Proverbs 12:13). The one holding the power of death is the devil (Hebrews 2:14) and Jesus told the apostle Paul he was "sending him to the Gentiles (us) to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me" BT: Perhaps you misunderstood my request, Judy. The challenge to you was to provide for me explicit language; that is, show me in Scripture where the text uses the language of "spiritual death" or "spiritually dead" or "died spiritually," something like that, that could substantiate your claim. I am familiar with the Text. I don't think it's there. jt: It's there Bill - 1 Tim 5:6 teaches that "she who lives in pleasure and self gratification - giving herself up to luxury and self indulgence - is dead even while she still lives" In Luke 15:24 the father says of his prodigal son "this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found!" We know the son did not die physically but he was living in sin out in the pigpen with the pigs. Are these examples explicit enough? Then there is the Church at Sardis in Rev 3:1 to whom Jesus says "I know your record and what you are doing; you are supposed to be alive but (in reality) you are dead" (AMP) BT: Here's what I think about Genesis and the promise that on the day they eat of it they shall surely die. There was death that day. There was also the introduction of the Gospel. Instead of pulling his life-support from Adam and Woman God sacrificed a substitute. He covered them in the fatty portions of a lamb, the Lamb slain from the beginning. In doing this, he sealed on that day the vicarious death of his Son, in their place and on their behalf. And so, as you see, one does not need to interpose a foreign concept into the text to make it make sense. jt: Yes Bill there was a sacrifice. God killed an animal in Genesis 3:21 so that A&E could cover their nakedness but it was not the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Not yet. Yours is an a priori, Judy. You have heard this language so many times, for so long, that it is now a given in your reading of Scripture. You supply it, in other words, but the words themselves are not their. It is something you bring with you to your reading of the text, just as you did when you wrote "let the (spiritually) dead bury their own dead." jt: If, as you claim Bill, my understanding is wrong and these words are not t
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Judy, do understand what a metaphor is? The examples you give are metaphors. There is no mention in any of the of "spiritual" death. I'm still waiting ... Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:22 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: This concept is all through the Bible Bill, from Genesis on. A&E died the day they ate from the forbidden tree but they did not die physically that day they died spiritually (Genesis 2:17) - (the serpent deceived Eve with an exact contradiction of the Word of God Genesis 3:4). There are two kinds of wisdom. The wisdom or Word of God brings life; the lie or wisdom from the father of lies produces spiritual death in a person's life. Life and death are spiritual conditions that lead to eternal life or eternal death. The mouth speaks from the abundance that fills the heart so both are evident by the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21) and we are speaking one or the other continually ie: 'A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth (Proverbs 12:14). By your words you are either justified or condemned (Matthew 12:37). An evil man is snared by the transgression of his lips (Proverbs 12:13). The one holding the power of death is the devil (Hebrews 2:14) and Jesus told the apostle Paul he was "sending him to the Gentiles (us) to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me" BT: Perhaps you misunderstood my request, Judy. The challenge to you was to provide for me explicit language; that is, show me in Scripture where the text uses the language of "spiritual death" or "spiritually dead" or "died spiritually," something like that, that could substantiate your claim. I am familiar with the Text. I don't think it's there. jt: It's there Bill - 1 Tim 5:6 teaches that "she who lives in pleasure and self gratification - giving herself up to luxury and self indulgence - is dead even while she still lives" In Luke 15:24 the father says of his prodigal son "this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found!" We know the son did not die physically but he was living in sin out in the pigpen with the pigs. Are these examples explicit enough? Then there is the Church at Sardis in Rev 3:1 to whom Jesus says "I know your record and what you are doing; you are supposed to be alive but (in reality) you are dead" (AMP) BT: Here's what I think about Genesis and the promise that on the day they eat of it they shall surely die. There was death that day. There was also the introduction of the Gospel. Instead of pulling his life-support from Adam and Woman God sacrificed a substitute. He covered them in the fatty portions of a lamb, the Lamb slain from the beginning. In doing this, he sealed on that day the vicarious death of his Son, in their place and on their behalf. And so, as you see, one does not need to interpose a foreign concept into the text to make it make sense. jt: Yes Bill there was a sacrifice. God killed an animal in Genesis 3:21 so that A&E could cover their nakedness but it was not the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Not yet. Yours is an a priori, Judy. You have heard this language so many times, for so long, that it is now a given in your reading of Scripture. You supply it, in other words, but the words themselves are not their. It is something you bring with you to your reading of the text, just as you did when you wrote "let the (spiritually) dead bury their own dead." jt: If, as you claim Bill, my understanding is wrong and these words are not there - then what is your explanation for this verse. Do you actually believe that physically dead people can bury other physically dead people? If so how? The challenge is still open. . . jt: I've met the challenge more than once Bill but I don't expect you to accept my explanation because your all encompassing incarnational doctrine hath blinded your eyes. Judy wrote: I've never ever read Augustine, Greek or any other philosophy, or religious Manichaeism Bill, neither do I approve of any type of Calvinism. Neither did you need to to have your thinking influenced by these guys. All you needed to do was breath. The rest is supplied by people around you, when you go to church, for example, or when you went to school, or when you turn on your radio or television, or fire
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Thanks, Izzy, that is very kind of you -- and much needed, too! I will do my best not to bore you. J Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:05 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole BTW, Lance, Jonathan and Bill, I just want to say that you three fellas sure make TT a LOT of fun. Thanks for all the (even Liberal!) thought provoking that you do, along with all the great book referrals. I know you only hear negatives from me most of the time, but dont be deceivedI would HATE it if we didnt have all three of you. I love you guys! J Izzy PS It would be SO boring with no one to disagree with! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole Lance, I have the Jewish Study Bible as well and love it. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole Izzy:Consider:'The Jewish Study Bible' featuring the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation and, Abraham Joshua Heschel's: Sabbath (you've got it), I asked for Wonder, The Prophets. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 17, 2004 08:17 Subject: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole I think one of the many things we miss, as Believers, by not having an understanding of the Jewish culture of which Jesus was a part is that we dont understand scriptural wording as well as we could. Hyperbole was an important teaching method for any Rabbi, and Jesus used it frequently. Just as someone from two hundred years ago would have a very difficult time understanding our wording today, we speak a very different way than they did two thousand years ago. Todays Jews still use many of those same expressions and teaching tools that Jesus did then. Id appreciate some teaching on this subject from Slade if he has the time. Izzy BT: Yes, Judy. I am aware of this translation. I think it is connotatively on the mark (Terry said something quite similar in his response a couple days ago). I do not think, however, that this calls for a redefinition of hate. The point is, this is hyperbole. Jesus is not attempting to add new meaning to hate; he is setting up a contrast by way of exaggeration. jt: My dictionary defines hyperbole in rhetoric as 'a figure of speech which expresses much more or less than the truth, or which represents things much greater or less, better or worse than they really are; an object uncommon in size either great or small strikes us with surprise, and this emotion produces a momentary conviction that the object is greater or less than it is in reality. this same effect attends figurative grandeur or littleness and hence the use of hyperbole which expresses this momentary conviction' Jesus also said it is impossible to serve two masters because we will hate the one and cleave to the other; I don't believe He was into hype. This is just "how it is" and that's the way He said it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
O Slade, good job, great analogy, well said! You
make us think; that's a good thing -- sometimes we so gobble up the party line
that we lose hunger for what would otherwise be recognized as solid food.
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:28
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hyperbole
Kay was not offended by your post, Judy, so it's ok. I am not
offended by your post either. I would like to demonstrate to you where the
problem lies.
Example One: The US court system made it legal to perform abortions. In
recent months, it is legal for doctors to perform abortion on teenage girls
and to prescribe abortifascient pills and condoms to teenagers without
parental consent. This means US citizens support abortion. While you will be
quick to clarify that not ALL citizens of the US support abortion, I would be
just as quick to defend the Jewish people in that they HAVE historically kept
the Law of Moses... That's what KEPT THEM ALIVE these millennia when
Christianity has attempted to exterminate them... repeatedly! To this day the
Words are true: they kept the oracles of God (Romans 3). To claim that Jewish
people have not [historically] kept the Law of Moses is just as false as to
say that the Jewish people keep the Law for salvation reasons. Let me ask you
a question: WHY would a group of people "chosen by God" keep the Law in order
to be saved? They're the chosen people... they are ALREADY saved! They place
their FAITH on the fact!!! They LOVE GOD and that motivates [most of] them to
keep the Torah (some keep it to be culturally correct).
Example Two: With the release of "The Passion," the question rises once
again... "Did the Jews Kill Jesus?" Surprisingly, the overwhelming response to
that question is "Yes." To those who answered "Yes," I ask, "Are you sinless
as to not have participated in Jesus's need to die?"
Please pardon the "hyperbole," but what kind of question is "do you believe the Holy Spirit is also Jewish?" Do
you believe Jesus is and the Spirit is not? Do you believe neither are? What
about "The Father?"
I
have another question: Do you believe the Jewish People need this special
"breath from Jesus" in order to understand the Scriptures? Do Gentiles need
that same breath, or are the Jewish people "so thick" that ONLY THEY need this
extra help from Jesus?
You
claimed the the Jewish People rejected their own Messiah? I'm sure you realize
Jewish men wrote the "New" Testament and current leaders within the Messianic
Jewish movement believe up to 40% of Jewish people during the Second
Commonwealth believed Yeshua was the Promised Messiah. This helps explain why
there was such a fervor against them by the leadership of the 60%. Can you say
40% of Gentiles accept Jesus as their Messiah and are TRUE believers? If you
can't make that claim, then the Gentiles have rejected Jesus FAR MORE than the
Jewish people.
We
need to be careful not to box people into groups that are too broad. This can
hurt people feelings and your goal (the proliferation of the Good News) will
suffer from it. My goal is to see ALL of Israel saved, but that's not going to
happen if we box the Jewish people in too tight. Give them the room to be
individuals ('cuz they are) and allow the reality that MANY keep the Law
of Moses and the love God with all their heart... just like the
Gentiles are individualistic and not all Gentiles support and perform
abortions on their teenage girls.
--
slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Judy, I am sorry I did not see this earlier. I will certainly be praying. I hope you do go to Austin. You will be a great help. Bill - Original Message - From: "Judy Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 10:36 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request > We have just learned that today Jenna went into shock and is back in > hospital. She is > presently in the ICU on a ventilater with tubes all over her. This shock > reaction is to > one of the drugs they gave her for the leukemia the day she left the > hospital in Austin. > She is in serious condition and the oncologist told our daughter that he > hasn't seen a > reaction like this in 2yrs but it does happen. > > Jenna may be hospitalized for up to two weeks and I need to pray about > whether to fly > to Texas to help with the other three kids. > > Thanks so much, > judyt > -- > "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] God Hates
Judy wrote: This concept is all through the Bible Bill, from Genesis on. A&E died the day they ate from the forbidden tree but they did not die physically that day they died spiritually (Genesis 2:17) - (the serpent deceived Eve with an exact contradiction of the Word of God Genesis 3:4). There are two kinds of wisdom. The wisdom or Word of God brings life; the lie or wisdom from the father of lies produces spiritual death in a person's life. Life and death are spiritual conditions that lead to eternal life or eternal death. The mouth speaks from the abundance that fills the heart so both are evident by the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21) and we are speaking one or the other continually ie: 'A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth (Proverbs 12:14). By your words you are either justified or condemned (Matthew 12:37). An evil man is snared by the transgression of his lips (Proverbs 12:13). The one holding the power of death is the devil (Hebrews 2:14) and Jesus told the apostle Paul he was "sending him to the Gentiles (us) to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me" Perhaps you misunderstood my request, Judy. The challenge to you was to provide for me explicit language; that is, show me in Scripture where the text uses the language of "spiritual death" or "spiritually dead" or "died spiritually," something like that, that could substantiate your claim. I am familiar with the Text. I don't think it's there. Here's what I think about Genesis and the promise that on the day they eat of it they shall surely die. There was death that day. There was also the introduction of the Gospel. Instead of pulling his life-support from Adam and Woman God sacrificed a substitute. He covered them in the fatty portions of a lamb, the Lamb slain from the beginning. In doing this, he sealed on that day the vicarious death of his Son, in their place and on their behalf. And so, as you see, one does not need to interpose a foreign concept into the text to make it make sense. Yours is an a priori, Judy. You have heard this language so many times, for so long, that it is now a given in your reading of Scripture. You supply it, in other words, but the words themselves are not their. It is something you bring with you to your reading of the text, just as you did when you wrote "let the (spiritually) dead bury their own dead." The challenge is still open. . . Judy wrote: I've never ever read Augustine, Greek or any other philosophy, or religious Manichaeism Bill, neither do I approve of any type of Calvinism. Neither did you need to to have your thinking influenced by these guys. All you needed to do was breath. The rest is supplied by people around you, when you go to church, for example, or when you went to school, or when you turn on your radio or television, or fire up your computer. Lance shared a really neat quote about how the philosophies of the mountain top flow down the streams to water the plants in the valley. We get theology and philosophy whether we seek it out or not. In many ways people are more susceptible and vulnerable to bad thinking when they eschew these things than they would be if they were to educate themselves to their subtleties. Maybe Lance could post this parable again to refresh your memory. jt: I see the juxtaposition between darkness and light, life and death, good and evil all through scripture Ah yes, and so do I. jt: and I have no idea what you are speaking of when you refer to "holistic personhood" - could you explain further please? I am talking about the thought that a person could be physically alive but spiritually dead. The Hebrew mind did not have the Greek idea that body and soul or spirit could be separated, parts being alive while others are dead. The Hebrew view of personhood is that humans are non-reducible wholes. There is no dualism there. Judy wrote: How do you read Matt 8:21 and Luke 9:59,60? I thought I had already answered that. This is a metaphor: "Let the dead bury their own dead," but you "follow me." Everything that people do that is given priority over following Jesus is as it were dead works. When we think we have something really important to do that is more important than what Jesus is commanding us to do, our acts are futile. Metaphorically speaking, they are as dead as the dead person awaiting burial. Again I ask you, why not let this first reference to "dead" be a metaphor for the futility of human activities when those activities are given status of priority over following Jesus? Sincerely, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wrote: Jesus tells us we must "hate" our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even our own life, or we cannot be his disciples (Luk 14.26). Yet certainly we are to love them too. What kind of hate is this? Judy responds: The word hate here means (love them less than) for if we put them ahead of God we are making idols out of them and unbelieving family members can certainly exert a lot of pressure at times. Judy, It's interesting that you would say this. The same word (miseo in Greek) is used in both Psa 5.5 and 11.5 (LXX). Are you suggesting that God doesn't hate the wicked; he just loves them less than he would if they were righteous? Hmm. I didn't think so }:-) jt: BT: Chill out, Judy. It was meant as a joke. I am sorry you did not catch it. Please accept my apology and let it go. As for Luke 14:26 - We need to understand that God is not double minded, nor does He contradict Himself. How is one to honor their parents (which is the only Commandment with promise) and hate them ATST? The Amplified Bible puts it this way "If any one comes to Me (Jesus) and does not hate his (own) father and mother (that is in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God) and (likewise) his wife and children and brothers and sisters, (yes) and even his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." BT: Yes, Judy. I am aware of this translation. I think it is connotatively on the mark (Terry said something quite similar in his response a couple days ago). I do not think, however, that this calls for a redefinition of hate. The point is, this is hyperbole. Jesus is not attempting to add new meaning to hate; he is setting up a contrast by way of exaggeration. IF we will allow that Jesus was fully given to using literary conventions, then a lot of redefining will go by the wayside. IF we do not allow ourselves to think that Jesus would use hyperbole (for example) to make a point, then we will be forced to redefine certain words to make them make sense with other words that he spoke. In a similar situation a disciple who had been called by Jesus wanted to go and bury his father before following Him and Jesus told this man to "let the (spiritually) dead bury their own dead, but you come and follow Me" (see Matt 8:21 and Luke 9:59,60) BT: Judy, I would like to challenge you to show me one verse in the Bible that sets forth in explicit language your concept of spiritual death. This dualism is absent in Hebrew thought. The idea was introduced into Christianity through Augustine, who was deeply influenced by Greek philosophy and religious Manichaeism. It was later picked up and reinforced by the Federal Calvinists. It is only in the last century or so that the church has begun to shed itself of this dichotomous harangue and get back to speaking in holistic \ biblical terms of personhood. What you did with this verse is a good example of what I was just cautioning about. Why add to Scripture? Why not let the first reference to "dead" be a metaphor for the futility of human activities when those activities are given priority status over following Jesus? The problem is, this same word is used a couple hundred other places too, always translated as "hate." Friberg's Lexicon says it may be a Hebraism in Lk 14.26, but if it is, it's not used as such elsewhere in the NT or LXX, not at least that I can tell. And so, while I'm sure you checked your trusty Strongs, this love-em-less-than definition is woefully without supportive precedent. What it is, is a theologically infused interpretive opinion, one made with the greatest of intentions, I'm sure -- but not much more than that. jt: Oh? Can you tell me then what kind of theology this interpretive opinion is infused with Bill? BT: It is the very theology that you are espousing (and if there's any solace, you're not alone). It's the kind that wants desperately to make sense of tough sayings, so it can set forth a consistent presentation of Scripture, but in the process it misses the simpler \ obvious linguistic-type explanations. I trust your absence has reinvigorated you and hope your little granddaughter is responding well to her treatments. jt: Jenna is responding well to her treatments and this week she had no blastocytes in her bone marrow which is a good sign only what she has to go through at fou
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
I wrote > This we must return to over and over again: whatever the sin that ensnares these people, Christ carried it with him to the cross. For their sins he died. And when he died, they died. And when he rose again, they too rose with him. They are included in him, just like you are and I am; this because God so loves them. Terry responded > Bill, you just totally lost me. Maybe you could say it some other way that is more understandable. I see those who are wicked, as I once was, nowhere near the cross, not covered by the redeeming blood. That is why they are called lost. I included this passage > "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus," (Eph 2.1-6). Terry responded > You might also want to tell me what you think this means since it seems to go with the above paragraph. Hi Terry, The wicked are lost because of unbelief. Yet their unbelief does not exclude them from the reality of the cross. They simply -- yet blatantly -- refuse to believe the truth of their inclusion in Christ. If this unbelief \ rejection continues unto death, they will be damned -- perhaps better stated, they will have damned themselves. How do we know that they are included in Christ Jesus? Because, as we see in Eph 1.13, salvation was made a reality in Christ at the cross, i.e. it is real and true and complete before people believe it: "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, . . ." The word of truth, the good news of their salvation was already true and real and complete before they heard it, before they trusted in Jesus Christ, and before they believed and were sealed with the Holy Spirit. The same is true for us; it is also true for those who because of unbelief have become utterly wicked. I included the passage above (Eph 2.1-6) because it shows quite clearly the inclusive nature of Christ's atoning work. The Christians to whom Paul refers were as messed up as they come. It is evident that there is nothing causative that these believers did to bring about their salvation. They were as dead in sin as the next guy when Christ went to the cross. Yet while they were dead (and, like dead people, could do nothing!), God made them alive together with Christ in Christ's resurrection. Since these Christians did nothing of themselves to gain status or inclusion in Christ, we may know that all humans are included in Christ, and raised up together, and made to sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus. I hope this helps you to understand what I was attempting to say. Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates Wm. Taylor wrote: Greetings, Terry. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. My AC adapter died on my Laptop and so I did not have a computer for a few days. Yes, I have come across this verse on occasion. Psalm 5.4-6 is a another passage with equally strong language. I must tell you that these passages are unsettling to me: I do not like to think that our God hates anyone. Nevertheless I must be willing to take them under consideration and seek God's heart in trying to understand them. I think first I would like to tell you what I do not think this is saying about God. God does not will to hate certain people, while at the same time will to love others, and this in an indiscriminate way that can only be described from our perspective in terms that appear arbitrary at best, as if he created ABCs to love and XYZs to hate. If you happen to be from the first group, great, God loves you and will call you to himself; if you are from the latter group, too bad, God hates you and you're toast, and this because he has created you for a different end. This sort of theology forces a dichotomy within the Godhead, dueling wills, if you will -- a split personality. A condition like this should not be considered anything other than the deep psychosis it is. Why would a
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
I wrote: Jesus tells us we must "hate" our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even our own life, or we cannot be his disciples (Luk 14.26). Yet certainly we are to love them too. What kind of hate is this? Judy responds: The word hate here means (love them less than) for if we put them ahead of God we are making idols out of them and unbelieving family members can certainly exert a lot of pressure at times. Judy, It's interesting that you would say this. The same word (miseo in Greek) is used in both Psa 5.5 and 11.5 (LXX). Are you suggesting that God doesn't hate the wicked; he just loves them less than he would if they were righteous? Hmm. I didn't think so }:-) The problem is, this same word is used a couple hundred other places too, always translated as "hate." Friberg's Lexicon says it may be a Hebraism in Lk 14.26, but if it is, it's not used as such elsewhere in the NT or LXX, not at least that I can tell. And so, while I'm sure you checked your trusty Strongs, this love-em-less-than definition is woefully without supportive precedent. What it is, is a theologically infused interpretive opinion, one made with the greatest of intentions, I'm sure -- but not much more than that. I trust your absence has reinvigorated you and hope your little granddaughter is responding well to her treatments. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:05 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God Hates Greetings Bill, glad to see you were able to get back online... From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes, I have come across this verse on occasion. Psalm 5.4-6 is a another passage with equally strong language. I must tell you that these passages are unsettling to me: I do not like to think that our God hates anyone. Nevertheless I must be willing to take them under consideration and seek God's heart in trying to understand them. I think first I would like to tell you what I do not think this is saying about God. God does not will to hate certain people, while at the same time will to love others... jt: Right and we can know this because "God wills for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth" (1 Timothy 2:3,4) ATST in His omnipotence He knows they won't be. When Paul wrote this letter to Timothy in 62/67AD he was encouraging the infant Church to pray for the evil Nero who God already knew would die insane. bt: and this in an indiscriminate way that can only be described from our perspective in terms that appear arbitrary at best, as if he created ABCs to love and XYZs to hate. If you happen to be from the first group, great, God loves you and will call you to himself; if you are from the latter group, too bad, God hates you and you're toast, and this because he has created you for a different end. This sort of theology forces a dichotomy within the Godhead, dueling wills, if you will -- a split personality. A condition like this should not be considered anything other than the deep psychosis it is. jt: The above concept is Calvinistic theology which distorts the sovereignty of God, it is not the teaching of scripture. bt: Why would a sane God command us to love our enemies when he himself does not? and more to the point, from where would the goodness and persuasion come to love our enemies if not from him whose wondrous love compels us to love even those who hate us? jt: Our enemies are primarily the principalities, powers, and wicked spirits in the heavenlies who blind the minds of people and compel them to act in certain ways. To walk in love toward these people we must separate them from what controls them. It is possible for us by the grace of God to hate the sin that binds them yet love the sinner. bt: Jesus tells us we must "hate" our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even our own life, or we cannot be his disciples (Luk 14.26). jt: The word hate here means (love them less than) for if we put them ahead of God we are making idols out of them and unbelieving family members can certainly exert a lot of pressure at times. bt: When we read passages that say God hates certain people -- whether evil, or violent and wicked -- does this mean that he does not love them? Is his hate for them anti-love, or is it some other kind of hate that he holds for those people, maybe something similar to the hate we are to have for ourselves, and mom and dad? jt: I don't believe we are supposed to hate ourselves because Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourself and He is not double minded and unstable. In
Re: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] Religious Books
TFT is Thomas F. Torrance, who taught Historical Theology and Christian Dogmatics for many years at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He is retired now but continues to write (he is 91 years old). Lance, Jonathan, and I have been greatly influenced by his thought. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:07 PM Subject: RE: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] Religious Books What is "TFTY?" -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Thursday, 15 July, 2004 07:21To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: PROBABLE SPAM> [TruthTalk] Religious Books Lance, What's wrong with the Bible? How do you know that Gregory A. Boyd knows the difference between religion and walking after the Spirit himself? Have you read this book of his? Is it in line with the theology of TFT? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Slade: Amen again! Recommended reading:Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of God Baker, 2004 From: Slade Henson Have a hard line against divorce, Terry. I wish it didn't have to exist... but don't allow the hard line against the person. Divorce was given to us because we have hard hearts... and our hard hearts causes divorce. Since we cannot get into the hearts and minds of our fellow humans (THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!), we need to give them room to grow and love to heal. Yeshua seeks the one lost. We need to do the same. If they divorce for the arms of another person, we cannot allow that kind of behavior in the Ekklesia. THAT is adultery and that needs to be excised from the Ekklesia. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] God Hates
Greetings, Terry. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. My AC adapter died on my Laptop and so I did not have a computer for a few days. Yes, I have come across this verse on occasion. Psalm 5.4-6 is a another passage with equally strong language. I must tell you that these passages are unsettling to me: I do not like to think that our God hates anyone. Nevertheless I must be willing to take them under consideration and seek God's heart in trying to understand them. I think first I would like to tell you what I do not think this is saying about God. God does not will to hate certain people, while at the same time will to love others, and this in an indiscriminate way that can only be described from our perspective in terms that appear arbitrary at best, as if he created ABCs to love and XYZs to hate. If you happen to be from the first group, great, God loves you and will call you to himself; if you are from the latter group, too bad, God hates you and you're toast, and this because he has created you for a different end. This sort of theology forces a dichotomy within the Godhead, dueling wills, if you will -- a split personality. A condition like this should not be considered anything other than the deep psychosis it is. Why would a sane God command us to love our enemies when he himself does not? and more to the point, from where would the goodness and persuasion come to love our enemies if not from him whose wondrous love compels us to love even those who hate us? Is it possible to love and hate the same object at the same time? If we define hate as the antithesis of love, I think it would be impossible to do this, because that kind of hate would exclude love. Some hate is anti-love, that is sure, but I think there must also be hate that is something other than this. Jesus tells us we must "hate" our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even our own life, or we cannot be his disciples (Luk 14.26). Yet certainly we are to love them too. What kind of hate is this? and how can we love our neighbor as ourselves and at the same time be disciples of Christ if this hate is anti-love? We can go into what I think this "hate" is in another post if you wish, but for the purpose of this discussion, it is obvious that hate does not have to exclude love. It must be possible to love one's father and mother, etc. and hate them at the same time. When we read passages that say God hates certain people -- whether evil, or violent and wicked -- does this mean that he does not love them? Is his hate for them anti-love, or is it some other kind of hate that he holds for those people, maybe something similar to the hate we are to have for ourselves, and mom and dad? This is a fair question and we should try to answer it. We need to be honest, though, when we do, and recognize that our answer will be shaped by our present view of God. The way we "see" God determines the way we think about him. This is true for me; it is true for you too. Let me tell you what I do think. Love is the heart of God. It speaks to that eternal relationship between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. When we talk about the "essence" of God, love is in the center of it. "God is love." Everything else, whether it be his holiness or justice or whatever, everything else that is essence must be understood only as it relates to his love, as disclosed by the incarnate Word himself. There are other things that God does that are not things which describe him in his essence. Forgiveness, for example, is something that springs from his essence, but is not itself of his essence. I say this because there was nothing to forgive when all there was was God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Wrath is not of the essence of God; there was nothing to be wrathful about until there was sin. Just as those things that are of the essence of God must be defined in relationship to love, so also must those that are not. God is patient, and kind, and merciful, and gracious, and forgiving, because he is love. These things flow forth from his love. The same must be said about wrath. Wrath is God's love in action against anything that sets itself to destroy his creation or diminish his worth. Hate is not of the essence of God. When all there was was that triune relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there was no hate (no matter how it is defined) in God. Yet we must say that within the makeup of God (his essence) there is potential to hate, just like there is potential to forgive. We find in Scripture in the verse you mentioned and elsewhere that God does hate, and he hates not only sin but in some cases (at least) the sinner too. God is love; he wills to hate. This gets back to my initial complaint. We dare not stand the love of God side-by-side over against his hate, as if he could go one way as willfully as the other. Whatever it means
Re: [TruthTalk] Love your neighbor as yourself
Yeah, Slade, this is a tough one. If we could choose our neighbors, we would not likely face this sort of dilemma. It goes against all we "know" to extend ourselves to people whom we know are of evil -- or even questionable -- character. The moment we do we rock our world; we become vulnerable and any security we have is immediately at risk. Yet I agree with you: we must treat them as we would any other "neighbor." We are to love them as we love ourselves. Anyway, your thoughts are well-taken. Thank you, Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Love your neighbor as yourself BT SAID -- I do not know how I would get along with [Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer]. They may not be receptive to getting along. Still I do know this: no matter who moves next door, Jesus' commandment will not change. I am to love them the way I love myself -- or put another way, treat them the way I would like to be treated. SLADE SAYS: The act of "loving" from Leviticus (which is quoted by Yeshua in his famous "love your neighbor" sermon) has nothing to do with warm fuzzies. Hebrew is a culture and a language of action... not of essence. We are commanded to LOVE which means we are commanded to ACT. I would ACT by speaking civilly to them, by helping them if they are ever doing something that looks like a second pair of hands would make the job a bit easier, or by opening up my home if they ever came a-knocking.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love your neigbor as yourself
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:06 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Love your neigbor as yourself Izzy writes: How do I do it? Well, I guess I like me. J (If I dont, who else will?) Tell me, how would you get along with Hitler if he lived next door? Or Jeffrey Dahmer? BT responds: I do not know how I would get along with them. They may not be receptive to getting along. Still I do know this: no matter who moves next door, Jesus' commandment will not change. I am to love them the way I love myself -- or put another way, treat them the way I would like to be treated. Izzy writes: But then on occasion you run into someone who is a lying, cunning, cheating, person who loves to inflict pain onto others. Do I think they are worth much more than a hill of beans? Not much. But my opinion is not what matters. Gods opinion is the ONLY thing that matters. BT responds: "I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" -- Jesus Izzy writes: Furthermore, I believe that respect must be earned. I dont believe in rewarding bad behavior with warm fuzzies. If my neighbors start throwing rocks at my house Im not likely to bake them a cake. BT responds: "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two." -- Jesus Izzy writes: But maybe Im just a grouchy cat. J Izzy BT responds: Yeah, maybe.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love your neigbor as yourself
Izzy wrote: I agree with you that I do not ascribe unsurpassable worth to gross sinners. What are the scriptural commands to do that, I wonder? Izzy, I don't know what Jonathan would say in response to your question, but if you don't mind, I'll offer a thought or two. Why not start with Jesus' commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"? We hear this one all the time, but how many times have we asked ourselves what it really means? I would like to suggest that we ascribe unsurpassable worth to ourselves all the time, and not only that but we do it in a way that is appropriate when directed toward those around us. The question is, how does self-love manifest, and what would it look like if we loved our neighbor in this way? The first thing that I think of is the way that I always find a way to live with myself. When it comes to me, there always seems to be a 'next time.' No matter what I do, I always find a way to 'get over it,' to get on with getting along with myself. Think about it, I think you do too. When I judge myself (and believe me, I am my own worst critic), the sentence is light; although I always deserve to 'pay for it,' I am merciful instead. And so I find it within myself to say, Well, it's not the end of the world; I can get through this one, too. And then I go about the conciliatory act to ease the tension. No matter what it is, and this is the point, I always seem to find a way to forgive myself. I am sooo forgiving, in fact! I may still be upset when I think about it (and the truth is, I've done lots of things that I will never feel good about), but I find enough forgiveness in my heart to say, It doesn't have to end here; I can go on. That, it seems to me, is unsurpassable love. Is it not? I am not always as good as I should be at ascribing this kind of worth to my neighbors, some of whom are gross sinners, but I am much better now than I was before actually defining what it meant to love myself. Now that I have begun to do that (it seems to be inexhaustible), I think much about what it would look like if we were all to extend the same kind of love to those around us. We would not be perfect (I've loved myself for a long while, but I still mess up from time to time), but we would be merciful; we would be forgiving; we would be considerate; we would be kind. No matter what the trespass, we would be willing to 'work it out,' no matter what the cost: We would have to, because the alternative would be to horrible a loss -- the thought of killing another person, any other person, even a gross sinner, why that would be tantamount to suicide. Ask me: I know! It might do us all some good to go ahead and post some of the ways we love ourselves. Then maybe we could make a deliberate effort to ascribe that same -- dare I say -- unsurpassable worth to each other. How about it, Izzy? I see you are very good at getting along with yourself. Tell me: How do you do it? Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:14 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article Dear Jonathan, I agree with you that I do not ascribe unsurpassable worth to gross sinners. What are the scriptural commands to do that, I wonder? Perhaps I should. Im really not sure about that. How can I even consider the possibility if you are not here to champion it? I suggest that you just take a weeks rest and give yourself an emotional break from all of us fomenting Right Wingers. Then come back and help us further our understanding. But lets steer clear of politics while doing it. PS to everyone; when I ask a question in a TT post, please assume that I really want an answer. I often get frustrated when I respond to a post (from anyone) with a sincere question, and they seem to think Im just making a rhetorical snide remark. Please assume that I am REALLY trying to hear what you mean. Sometimes I think my writing style is too forceful, as I am not skillful enough with words to be diplomatic; I just throw it out there and it may seem more emotional than I am intending. Love and hugs from your friend, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 6:57 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article Hi Izzy, It is not politics that upsets me; it is the frame of the conversation when something like politics is being covered. It is when we (including me) place ourselves above others in our judgments and do not ascribe unsurpassable worth to those we are critiquing. My reason for taking a break is that I feel the forum feeds on judgment, that most of our posts come out of us attempting to meet a need in ourselves using judgment instead
Re: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article
I hate to see you go, Jonathan -- but I understand why you would. Oh! wait a second! Let me see: If I hate to see you go, does that mean, by extension, that I hate you? Hm. I hope not. Bill - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:03 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article John, Izzy, Terry, Lance et al, I will not argue with you guys. I will be taking a break from posting on this forum; whether this is long-term or not I am not sure. When people keep leaving Truthtalk because of the judging when will any of you look in the mirror? Regarding my last two posts: I posted what I believed to be an interesting article (hence the incredible title). I did not make any value judgments or even claim to agree with the article. I merely thought the article to be interesting. Secondly, I never stated that Clinton was a Christian or that he even says that he was a Christian. I put a quote out that stated he believed he had some sort of relationship with God. I pointed out that you (the respondents) would use his lying and hypocrisy in his life as your defense for your own hypocritical attitudes. All three of you did. Clinton is easy to judge and you have all jumped on board. I never tried to defend Clinton or give my own opinion of him or his party. All three of you completely missed the point. You badgered Lance and I with verses about saying anything critical about your current president. You claimed we were anti-American. Your holier than thou attitudes were all on display. Now those verses mean absolutely nothing to you when speaking of a past president, one not in your party of choice. When the leader is not one you like you use your bible in a different way, to judge. All three of you are loving and Christian-like when it revolves around someone you would include in Christ. When it comes to anyone outside this rather small circle (a different political party, homosexuals (Terrys favourite), etc.) you put on your judgment hats and go to work. You think you have a biblical basis to do this. You think it is Christian. It is called hypocrisy. It is what Jesus hated in the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day; it is what Jesus hates in my own heart (I am just as much an offender here). Lance, I apologize for leaving you alone on this forum but you know my heart and the struggles it has been having with the hypocrisy and judging that this forum feeds on. You know how I have fed on it as well. Thank you for forgiving me. John, a man who commits adultery (even 60 times which of course in Clintons case is hogwash) can still be a Christian. It is no worse a sin than your own hypocrisy. You have confused moral behaviour with salvation. Note that I am not claiming that Clinton was/is a Christian, just that your reasoning is flawed. I expect a lot from you John. You could be the leader on this forum. Many of your posts express the heart of God. If only this same heart would beat in love with your political views. The compassion you had for Judy is completely missing when you speak politically. The same thing happens with Izzy and Terry. Where does your love go? Why isnt Christ allowed there? Why eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? It isnt filling, and it wont satisfy your hunger for long. Izzy, you have a delightful heart; if it wasnt for politics and the non-Christian love you display when discussing them you and I would have gotten along much better. Thank you for your kindness regarding my illness. Terry, your version of Christianity that hates sin AND the sinner is the sickest and most satanic form out there. Nevertheless, you are still included. May God help you to love not only sinners but Christians that sin. Be safe. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article In a message dated 7/7/2004 9:38:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The latest effort to marshal religious support also drew fire from civil liberties activists concerned about the constitutional separation of church and state."Any coordination between the Bush campaign and church leaders would clearly be illegal," said a statement from the activist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. One more thing -- apparently it is ok for Democrats to court the religious black vote, attend their service for single purpose of gaining their endorsement and then rejoining their true white and non religious friends. Tel
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
Ah yes, Chris, I was aware you had done
this.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:16
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
\o/ !HALALU YAH!
\o/Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua!
Once I comprehended the Trinity (no
mystery to me), and discovered it as appended to "the faith once delivered" I
did then understand that it was pretend to say 1+1+1 = 1. It was
then that I apprehended it and rendered this Babylonian amendment to its
appropriate place in the pantheon of the gods i.e. the pit from whence it
came.
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
Chris Barr
a servant of
YHVH
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/01/2004 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
"The more one attempts to answer and
codify the position, the higher the risk for heresy and
wrong-positioning."
Oh? and what happens when one does
not attempt to apprehend the Trinity . . .
"There are other 'Characters' within the Tanakh
who claim the status of YHVH that we cannot ignore simply because it doesn't
fit the Trinitarian mode."
. . . Never mind. J I think
I know.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Slade Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:38
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
[Formerly -- Prayer Request]
I hope you all don't mind, but I have renamed this thread
more appropriately
I think understand the following:
DAVEH's position: I
believe Jesus existed as a spirit being in the OT. His spirit body
then became clothed in a body of flesh and blood for a brief span some
2000 years ago. At his death, the spirit and physical body departed,
only to be reunited a short time later in a resurrected form of flesh and
bones. I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is clothed
with physical body of flesh and bones to this day.
Charles Perry Locke's position:
The aspect of the Trinity referred to as "the Son" became a man, was
crucified, and was raised from the dead.
Slade, deconstructing what DAVEH has said, sees that there
seems to be some sort of "evolution" in Yeshua from the Tanakh period, to
the Gospel period, and finally to the post -Gospel period. Do you believe
that Yeshua is now GOD (or a GOD?")
since He was resurrected from the dead? It seems you do not believe He
held that "position" before that event. I agree with the pre-existence of
Yeshua before His physical birth, but I must qualify that Yeshua was GOD
before His physical birth (i.e., incarnation). This explains why Yeshua
pre-existed... because He is GOD. More on that later. (I am intentionally restating facts in order to try to make this
perfectly clear because nomenclature problems have existed in the past
between DAVEH and I and I want that to stop.)
Deconstructing Perry's position, I see what appears to be
a standard "orthodox" Christian position passed down from the later Church
fathers (i.e., Aquinas and Austustine). I also know from other positional
references Perry has made, he does not believe in three gods (a common
perverse argument used against the Trinitarian position). While I do not
quite understand the Trinity I don't think anyone else does. The more one
attempts to answer and codify the position, the higher the risk for heresy
and wrong-positioning.
Slade's position: Throwing
myself out on a limb for you all to effectively hew so I can fall, I see
the manifold aspects of YHVH through the grammar of the Hebrew language
when the Deity is described or mentioned. I see plural words used for a
single Entity (I am sorry for such a bland term) used with singular verbs
-- a highly interesting aspect of Hebrew grammar used exclusively with
YHVH. I also see singular nouns/pronouns used for YHVH with plural verbs
-- again, highly intriguing. We also know that there is but one GOD and
besides Him there is not one god. Yeshua, throughout the texts, is given
Divine status in multiple ways (outright references, strings of pearls,
innuendos, etc.) Yeshua, being GOD is accredited with being the same
yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe that "yesterday" in t
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
"The more one attempts to answer and codify the position, the higher the risk for heresy and wrong-positioning." Oh? and what happens when one does not attempt to apprehend the Trinity . . . "There are other 'Characters' within the Tanakh who claim the status of YHVH that we cannot ignore simply because it doesn't fit the Trinitarian mode." . . . Never mind. J I think I know. Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:38 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature [Formerly -- Prayer Request] I hope you all don't mind, but I have renamed this thread more appropriately I think understand the following: DAVEH's position: I believe Jesus existed as a spirit being in the OT. His spirit body then became clothed in a body of flesh and blood for a brief span some 2000 years ago. At his death, the spirit and physical body departed, only to be reunited a short time later in a resurrected form of flesh and bones. I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is clothed with physical body of flesh and bones to this day. Charles Perry Locke's position: The aspect of the Trinity referred to as "the Son" became a man, was crucified, and was raised from the dead. Slade, deconstructing what DAVEH has said, sees that there seems to be some sort of "evolution" in Yeshua from the Tanakh period, to the Gospel period, and finally to the post -Gospel period. Do you believe that Yeshua is now GOD (or a GOD?") since He was resurrected from the dead? It seems you do not believe He held that "position" before that event. I agree with the pre-existence of Yeshua before His physical birth, but I must qualify that Yeshua was GOD before His physical birth (i.e., incarnation). This explains why Yeshua pre-existed... because He is GOD. More on that later. (I am intentionally restating facts in order to try to make this perfectly clear because nomenclature problems have existed in the past between DAVEH and I and I want that to stop.) Deconstructing Perry's position, I see what appears to be a standard "orthodox" Christian position passed down from the later Church fathers (i.e., Aquinas and Austustine). I also know from other positional references Perry has made, he does not believe in three gods (a common perverse argument used against the Trinitarian position). While I do not quite understand the Trinity I don't think anyone else does. The more one attempts to answer and codify the position, the higher the risk for heresy and wrong-positioning. Slade's position: Throwing myself out on a limb for you all to effectively hew so I can fall, I see the manifold aspects of YHVH through the grammar of the Hebrew language when the Deity is described or mentioned. I see plural words used for a single Entity (I am sorry for such a bland term) used with singular verbs -- a highly interesting aspect of Hebrew grammar used exclusively with YHVH. I also see singular nouns/pronouns used for YHVH with plural verbs -- again, highly intriguing. We also know that there is but one GOD and besides Him there is not one god. Yeshua, throughout the texts, is given Divine status in multiple ways (outright references, strings of pearls, innuendos, etc.) Yeshua, being GOD is accredited with being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe that "yesterday" in this reference is an idiom for "forever in the past"). Therefore, there cannot be an "evolution" of Yeshua from man to God. Also, since YHVH knows of no other god, there cannot be some "evolution to godhood" for anyone else either. I do not hold to the standard Trinitarian position because I see YHVH as far, FAR bigger than a Trinity. There are other "Characters" within the Tanakh who claim the status of YHVH that we cannot ignore simply because it doesn't fit the Trinitarian mode. HOWEVER... I do find it interesting that there are three "persons" in writing... First Person, Second Person, and Third person. Is that coincidence? Alright, DAVEH... there ya go! You wanted to know my position, and you have it in a very small nutshell. Anything more will take a lot more typing. (please be kind) -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles PerryLockeSent: Thursday, 01 July, 2004 10:03To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson: Kruger is the man.. Smithson waxes an elephant
John, I am so glad you are excited. Please keep us updated on your study. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson: Kruger is the man.. Smithson waxes an elephant Some of Kruger in review with embelishment from Smithson:Started my study with Kruger. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy this guy. I like the sound of bible verses quoted -- he doesn't much care for that but I am a big boy, I can fill in the blanks. I have never considered the teaching of the Trinity to be of any great importance. I have seen the teaching as a description of God like red hair, short, stocky, rugged good looks, and an intellectual prowess that is bordered only by the ends of the galaxy --that sort of thing but enough about me. (substitute "Father Son and Spirit" for other description detail)Kruger assumes the Trinity for a number of reasons (biblical and historical) and presents the idea that central to the reality of the Father, Son and Spirit is the relationship of the three to each other. We tend to think of fellowship as something that you seek to encounter or restore or to flee from; with God (the Father Son and Holy Spirit) fellowship is something of a life source, it is that which joins the Three. Kruger describes this fellowship as the womb of human history. Applied to humans (Let us make man in our image), I am thinking that God gives birth to that which also requires fellowship, and more specifically, fellowship with Him. And so here we are. The drag is this, many try to find meaning in their life without God. In a sense, God is our birthing parent. We are in His image as a matter of creation. We have no choice. and when we seek other definition, we resist the reality that fully explains who we are. When we seek other definition, we are a mess we kick against the pricks. When we are involved in passionate fellowship with each other, when our search for God is centered in our outpouring for others (Isa 58:9-11), we find God, we see Him, we realize His presence because He is what we are doing. We do love -- He is love. We do fellowship -- his very existence is fellowship (Father Son and Holy Spirit). In accepting His nature, we move from doing to becoming. And when we stand in the fulfillment of that "becoming," when we are full grown we shine forth His light into this world -- like Father, like son. Such is the impact on my thinking from my first real visit with Kruger. Sounds fantastic. pastor JohnSorry about the sermon but I will be doing this through my time with these authors (Kruger and Torrance) . Get the delete button warmed up.
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Well, Judy, I must say you have surprised me with this one. There will certainly be a void in your absence. You are a strong person; you evoke strong responses from others -- too strong sometimes. Perhaps if you take a few days reprieve you may want to reconsider. If not, I want to wish you and yours the very best. I truly hope Jenna is healed. She is in our prayers. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin OK folk: I guess I know when I've had enough. Maybe things are a bit raw for me right now but today I've been called a cornered badger, a witch, and a sorceress and I can't remember what else - this is love? It feels more like religious abuse - even an old dog knows to get under the couch rather than be beat over the head all the time - so I'm choosing to exit at this point leaving you all to enjoy your peace and pet doctrines. jt. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jonathan, As you know I dont correspond with jt, as experience has proven that it is the road to endless conflict. To keep peace I keep quiet. If you would like to discuss my personal ideas about sickness/illness please let me know. I dont like to butt into others conversations. Dont assume anything due to silence. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:01 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi John, I accept your mild rebuke and think that it is well said. Thank you. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:43 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin In a message dated 6/29/2004 6:34:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What sickens me most is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up against this aberrant teaching (actually Terry did come forth and say that you may not always be right in your interpretation here you blasted him with your, I didnt say it, God did line that is so tiresome). This is a 4 year old girl with leukemia and we are blaming her and her father for it and we think we have scripture to back this up? Shame on the rest of the group. Jonathan Please do not assume that since we did not weigh in, we must necessarily agree with Judy. I, for one, do not agree with Judy. I also read her post concerning her son-in-law and came away with the same impression as you. She is cornered and must find someone to blame for her granddaughter's illness. I did not respond, quite frankly, because I am tired of arguing with Judy. Perhaps a chorus of voices is what is needed to change some people's minds; I do not get that impression with Judy. If the sound doctrine and reproof of one brother can not teach her, nothing will reach her. Her mind is set. Bill Jonathan, I have taken a more subtle stance than in the past regarding this forum. There are so many good exchanges that I find it beneficial to read, listen to what I have read, and ask more questions. I do not view JudyT and her comments as heretical. I do not agree with her understanding of scripture on the point in question. Jenna is receiving the kind of attention she needs. Her grandmother's views have nothing to do with the little one's prognosis and recovery. To press the matter is to do what you say you dislike in many of JudyT's responses. JudyT is extremely well read but often a little hard with her rebuttals. She certainly is family (a sister in Christ) and needs the patience of the rest of us --- especially at such a time as this. More than this, she remains in the TT forum. That should say something about her regard for the rest of us. In fact, I seem to remember a time or two when she has given this forum it's positive due. Be that as it may -- our response to her and each other is not fashioned as a causal circumstance to others but to Christ within us. I can't even count the number of times I have forgotten that rule of new life, but it is in full memory as I write. The full miracle of God in partnership with each of us is seen in the absolute fact that His will is working in us IN SPITE OF even our mistaken opinions about the meaning of scripture. You of all will agree with this last s
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Who's the third leg of this "Canadian Trinity"? I thought Chris was from Arizona. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:01 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Good to hear your words, John. J Re: the Canadian Trinity, knowing they are good at heart encourages me personally, as I know they wont give up easily when I challenge the heck out of their ideas. (I know they are cahoots, and encourage each other!) Some folks cant take it so well. J Izzy One more note -- I know of some of the kindness that is a part of Lance. His heart is in the right place and I am certain that this is true with Jonathan, Bill and others. Assume this to be true. And when the boys get on your case, just smile, knowing that you have challenged them once again. Look at Jonathan. At least your discent offers him a chance to test his evolving belief. May God bless this forum. I have taken a closer walk with the Lord specifically because of my association with you all (Chris ? -- aaahhh maybe). Thank you John
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Blessings, John. Well said. Your brother, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin In a message dated 6/29/2004 7:08:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: am thankful for your note of kindness on this thread John; at times a gentle word is sorely neededand you appear to be our gift from the Lord in this area... Of course you are right when you say thatthat what I believe with regard to divine health and healing will have no impact at all on the protocol used to treat Jenna and as her grandmother I will encourage and pray for her. But please tell me if youcan - what is wrong with believing that Jesus came to heal and that "the more excellent way is God's ideaand that He wants us well" - why does this stir up so much animosity? Grace and Peace, Judyt I was with a friend. He drove and I was the passenger. He was late and needed to find a parking place in a hurry. Wouldn't you know it, he found a space right in front of the door of his destination. He looked up and said, "Thank you Jesus." I indicated a surprised disbelief at his conduct to which he asked, ""Even if God did not give me this space, what is wrong with my thanking Him." You can imagine the lesson I was taught.More to your point -- I do not understand the animosity. Perhaps, what you see as animosity is, in fact, exhuberance saddled with confidence. I really am not trying to sound preachy, but the Lord gives us instruction that says "think of others more highly than yourself" and "love does not seek its own [way]). I Co 13 is the passage. We so often use that passage to define inter-personal relationships, especially that of man and wife, when, in point of fact, this passage is about how we are to get along with the brethren!! I mean, the chapter before and the chapter after 13 is clearly about the functioning of the congregation and its members. TT is governed by this thinking. When I came to this group, I was in need of a much greater sense of peace. And that has happened. I think Lance was the first to notice a two-sided John. And the Lord has made it clear that He also noticed. My advice is to assume the best and forgive the rest. God does this, right One more note -- I know of some of the kindness that is a part of Lance. His heart is in the right place and I am certain that this is true with Jonathan, Bill and others. Assume this to be true. And when the boys get on your case, just smile, knowing that you have challenged them once again. Look at Jonathan. At least your discent offers him a chance to test his evolving belief. May God bless this forum. I have taken a closer walk with the Lord specifically because of my association with you all (Chris ? -- aaahhh maybe). Thank you John
Re: ORIGINAL THOUGHT -- Re: [TruthTalk] God the time traveler
ï There is no "future" time for Him to look down upon from outside. Time is just a system of measurement for our finite purposes as a point of reference. In "The End" there will be no more time for there will be no more need for it. Our only point of reference will be The Almighty ... should be that way now for those who are His. This came to me by The Ruach and The Word. Perhaps Lance, Jonathan or Bill know of some other man who has written of such things in their vast readings? I don't get out much as it were re readings other than Scripture. In any case that is of little (?no?) matter as this came to me of Divine origin. Chris, I will not claim divine origin here, but I do have an elementary understanding of "time" and its makeup. Time is the experienced difference between the speed of light and that of matter. At the speed of light, there is no time. Light itself is timeless; it does not age as it moves through space. The experience of time is relative to the velocity of matter in relationship to the speed of light. The faster the movement of matter, the slower the experience of time. As the velocity of matter decreases, the passage of time increases proportionately (exponentially, actually). To help us get a handle on this idea, Einstein told a story of a set of twins. One twin he set in a spaceship and blasted off at nearly the speed of light. The other twin he left behind on earth. The twin in the spaceship returned to earth one hour later, spaceship time. At his return he was one hour older, yet his brother had aged 85 years. Time, then, is experiential in its nature. It can only really be measured as it is being experienced in the present. When we speak of the age of a rock, for example, we can only measure its "age" in accordance with time as we experience it now, in the present. We may conclude, by our methods of measurement, that the rock is many millions of years old, perhaps even billions of years old. This measurement may be fairly accurate, too -- but no matter how accurate the measurement, it is relative to time in its present experience. In other words, if time had always been experienced the way that it is right now, and if that rock had in its makeup the ability to record time, it would tell us that it is so many million, or billion years old, just like our measurements say. BUT we know that this is not actually the case. The universe is winding down. The velocity of matter is slowing. Time is experienced faster now than it was at the moment that rock was created. If that rock could talk, it would tell us a different, much younger, "age" than our measurements can concur. Its experience of time, throughout much of its existence, has been different than ours in our present experience of time. Physicists can only "really" set an age for the rock in relation to time as we experience it, as if it had always experienced time the way we do now. And so, looking back on time, as it were, they may conclude that that rock is 4.5 billion years old -- and they would be correct, if time had always been experienced as it is right now. AND that's really all they can conclude, because they cannot experience time differently than they do right now. BUT what they do not tell us is the rest of the story. They also know that the rock itself, experiencing time each moment along the way, experienced much of its time more slowly than we, and therefore may actually have experienced only a few thousand years, moment by moment, throughout its entire existence. They tell the rock it is 4.5 billion years old, and they are as right. Yet the rock, if it could talk, would tell them it is 10,000 years old (or something close to that), and it too would be right. Time is a relative measure. What does this have to do with what you said, Chris? As long as there is light and matter, there will be time (I will come back to this in a moment). Light is timeless, matter is not. Matter cannot travel at the speed of light, thus there must be time. I agree with you: There was no time before God created the heavens and the earth; and this because before then there was no matter. Time came as a result of the creation of the first proton (which, wonderfully enough, light will create if stretched to the proper wavelength). From that moment on, matter moved at a rate slower than the speed of light and thus "produced" time. And I do not have a problem with what you say concerning the "future." There is no future as it relates to time. There is only the present and a record of present occurrences in what we call the past. The future, if it is to be, is necessarily contingent upon something which transcends time, in other words, a non-physical being. That something we call God (atheists have a real problem here: either they have nothing to hope for, or no basis for that in which they hope). All of this is fine. What I do not understand about that which
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
What sickens me most is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up against this aberrant teaching (actually Terry did come forth and say that you may not always be right in your interpretation here you blasted him with your, I didnt say it, God did line that is so tiresome). This is a 4 year old girl with leukemia and we are blaming her and her father for it and we think we have scripture to back this up? Shame on the rest of the group. Jonathan Please do not assume that since we did not weigh in, we must necessarily agree with Judy. I, for one, do not agree with Judy. I also read her post concerning her son-in-law and came away with the same impression as you. She is cornered and must find someone to blame for her granddaughter's illness. I did not respond, quite frankly, because I am tired of arguing with Judy. Perhaps a chorus of voices is what is needed to change some people's minds; I do not get that impression with Judy. If the sound doctrine and reproof of one brother can not teach her, nothing will reach her. Her mind is set. Bill - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Judy, Your posts today remind me of a raccoon that has been backed into a corner and knows only to fight back. You are not above reproach or rebuke on this forum. Each time someone rebukes you, you bring out your tired old line you dont know me . Blah blah blah. I know what you have written and will comment on it. You are responsible for what you write on the forum. This must be a stretching experience for you to realize that what you say matters and that you wont get away with it. I must ask you to read your own post again, this time without the blinders. You quote your esteemed teacher Wright and his ideas on leukemia. Let me quote: There is a pastor I know of in Georgia who ministers in the light of this wisdom and many are healed from what is considered incurable chronic disease. He has written a book called "The More Excellent Way" and in his experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted bitterness coming from unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always found a breach between the person who has that disease and their father. I've never found a mother involved in the breach; abandonment by a father, literally or emotionally, is also implicated" Our son-in-law is a good father, but he came out of a shocking situation although he is an Annapolis graduate and a high achiever in everything he puts his hand to. The chickens have a way of coming home to roost. If we, as a family, can accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing of all breaches and perfect peace in the Lord. Now connect the dots. Leukemia is tied to deep rooted bitterness coming from unresolved rejection by a father. I have always found a breach between the person who has that disease (Jenna) and their father (your son-in-law).(brackets mine they are there to help you understand what you wrote) Therefore if you agree with Henry Wrights opinion (and you must or why else would you mention it and then connect it to your son-in-law in the very next sentence?) Jenna must have deep rooted bitterness, and you son-in-law must have contributed to a breach between himself and Jenna. Are you so blind that you cannot see what you have written? You then go on to talk about your son-in-law and how the chickens have a way of coming home to roost. You then mention how your family needs to work out its issues (accept the truth and deal with it are you exact words). It is your connection between what Wright says and what Jenna has here, not mine. It is your connection between what Wright says about your son-in-law here, not mine. Own up to what you post. Hiding behind your pleas that I listen to the devil will not help ya here. Regarding the ad hominem card you played. Ad hominem arguments try to discredit a claim or proposal by attacking its proponents instead of providing a reasoned examination of the proposal itself. Hmmm, I attacked your viewpoint on this issue, not you. That your viewpoint sickens me I have left no doubt. I have provided a reasoned examination of my viewpoint, plus many resources for you to consider. You in turn have not made a reasoned examination at all. Instead you attack where people who wrote an article went to school. You do an email of the Henry Wright review I posted that did not attempt to argue even ONE point. It only says (i.e. what your review says to me), this review is horrible; this man accuses my idol and I cant take it. I have no arguments against it, I dont know how to use scripture as the reviewer did to make
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Hey Judy, Is there any news on your grandaughter. We're all praying for her and the family. I am terribly sorry for all they\you must be going through. Our Prayers, Bill -- "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] Christians and violence
The NT Canon was closed in 367AD at which time the professing Church was hopelessly mired in mixture. Judy, You surely do not think that there were any epistles being written after, say maybe, AD 85-95, do you? That is what I meant by the "closing of the Canon." - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 3:20 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JT > By the second century the early church was off into heresy BT: You've said this on numerous occasions, Judy: I am wondering, what was that heresy? jt: Heresy either adds to or takes from the Word of Truth and it grows as time goes on. The apostles built upon the foundation of Christ the cornerstone and the Church are to be living stones - a nation of kings and priests. However, by the 2nd Century the elders were being called priests following which there were prayers for the dead, veneration of angels, dead saints, and the use of images and on and on to where the Church founded by the apostles is unrecognizable today. JT > and when Constantine tried to blend church with state it made things much worse. BT: On the one hand, Constantine is to be thanked for putting an end to Roman sanctioned persecution of Christians; on the other hand, he opened the door to no end of violent crimes on the part of Christians against humanity -- whether it be in wars against their Christian brothers or against worldly opposition. And so, I agree with you -- in part. Nevertheless, I am surprised he is not your hero. Were it not for him, your doctrine may have still been consistent with the early NT church. jt: I don't agree that Constantine should be thanked for anything. The fires of persecution are what purifies the Church. Constantine started a bastardized hybrid that is full of mixture and that calls itself the church. JT > Paul exhorts his hearers to obey those who have been given Governmental authority Yes, you are right: he did. Please allow me to set a couple questions. The early church was under persecution, sometimes quite intense, throughout the Second and Third centuries. These Christians lived in Rome or Roman provinces. They were under Roman rule -- a rule which was truly tyrannical. Nevertheless, they did not consider it a Christian alternative to take up arms and fight for the right to govern themselves as they saw fit. In other words they did not seek to declare their independence from Rome and establish a separate nation of their own. Theirs was not a call to take up weapons: they were to take up their crosses daily. jt: For the Church headquarters is in heaven. Jesus did not come to start another earthly kingdom. However, the people of God are to resist evil which is not exactly 'peace at any price' BT: On the other hand, this is precisely the opposite of what our American forefathers found in the counsel they were receiving. They lived in English colonies, as English citizens, under English rule. Rather than live peaceably under the prescribed laws of their governing authorites, they cried tyrany, rebelled, declared their independence, took up arms, and in a bloodly war fought their way to nation status. All of this they did in and under the name of Christ. jt: If I understand American history correctly the people who left Holland on the Mayflower came to these shores to escape religious oppression in England because they were being forced to be part of a system they considered corrupt. I don't believe God expects his people to be led about by a corrupt system any more than he expects a wife to be in submission to a corrupt husband.My question is this: If, as you rightly observe, Paul exhorts Christians to obey those who have been given Governmental authority, why was it a "Christian" thing to do for our founders to disobey those who had been given Governmental authority over them? (I would very much like an answer to this question -- and not only from you, but from Izzy also). jt: God makes a way of escape when there is unbearable oppression and apparently the Colonists believed this was so in 1781 - their cry was against taxation without representation. Do you believe they should have "put up and shut up?" What about abused wives? Should they do the same? If it was so clearly upon Christian principles that our nation was founded (a claim that Izzy and others here on TT are so fond of making), why did the Christians of less than one hundred years after the closing of the NT Canon not find those same "principles" inscriptuarated in their study? Why didn't those "principal
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence JT > By the second century the early church was off into heresy BT: You've said this on numerous occasions, Judy: I am wondering, what was that heresy? JT > and when Constantine tried to blend church with state it made things much worse. BT: On the one hand, Constantine is to be thanked for putting an end to Roman sanctioned persecution of Christians; on the other hand, he opened the door to no end of violent crimes on the part of Christians against humanity -- whether it be in wars against their Christian brothers or against worldly opposition. And so, I agree with you -- in part. Nevertheless, I am surprised he is not your hero. Were it not for him, your doctrine may have still been consistent with the early NT church. JT > Paul exhorts his hearers to obey those who have been given Governmental authority Yes, you are right: he did. Please allow me to set a couple questions. The early church was under persecution, sometimes quite intense, throughout the Second and Third centuries. These Christians lived in Rome or Roman provinces. They were under Roman rule -- a rule which was truly tyrannical. Nevertheless, they did not consider it a Christian alternative to take up arms and fight for the right to govern themselves as they saw fit. In other words they did not seek to declare their independence from Rome and establish a separate nation of their own. Theirs was not a call to take up weapons: they were to take up their crosses daily.On the other hand, this is precisely the opposite of what our American forefathers found in the counsel they were receiving. They lived in English colonies, as English citizens, under English rule. Rather than live peaceably under the prescribed laws of their governing authorites, they cried tyrany, rebelled, declared their independence, took up arms, and in a bloodly war fought their way to nation status. All of this they did in and under the name of Christ.My question is this: If, as you rightly observe, Paul exhorts Christians to obey those who have been given Governmental authority, why was it a "Christian" thing to do for our founders to disobey those who had been given Governmental authority over them? (I would very much like an answer to this question -- and not only from you, but from Izzy also). If it was so clearly upon Christian principles that our nation was founded (a claim that Izzy and others here on TT are so fond of making), why did the Christians of less than one hundred years after the closing of the NT Canon not find those same "principles" inscriptuarated in their study? Why didn't those "principal" jump out to them as a strong point of consideration? Why did those principles not drive them to the same conclusions as our founding fathers? Why did they not fight to establish a country of their own, one wherein they could vote (to answer Izzy's indescretion) to uphold the supposedly Christian "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? JT > and it appears (at least once) that [Paul] valued and used his Roman citizenship to get himself out of trouble. BT: Yes, he did. And he did it in a non-violent way -- a difference which, in light of this discussion, I am noting. JT > Passivism early on led to monks, religious orders, quietism, pietism etc. BT: It was not early "passivism" which led to these things, Judy. These were all non-violent, post-Constantinian reactions to Constantinian "Christian" madness. JT > Do you see the "image of Christ" in any of them Bill? BT: Yes, to some extent, I do; however, not completely. These witnesses -- characteristically appealing primarily to the NT and the example of Jesus -- have spoken out firmly against all war and killing and have declared such practices incompatible with following Jesus. In this they are to be admired and do reflect the "image of Christ." Nevertheless, as movements they all moved away from Christ and into insignificance the more they removed themselves from participation in the world. Never as Christians are we called to enact a fortress mentality. Allow me to state the obvious: history teaches that violence simply begets violence. The long history of Christian "just wars" has wrought suffering past all telling. Might it be that reason and sad experience could disabuse us (read Christians) of the hope that we can approximate God's justice through killing? Reason must be healed and taught by Scripture, and our experience must be transformed by the renewing of our minds in conformity with the mind of Christ. Only thus can Christians overcome their Constantinian warring madness. And let me clearly state that the reasons for choosing Jusus' way of peacemaking are not prudential. In cal
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence
Judy, Hitler's army was made up of German citizens. Those citizens were members of one or the other of Germany's churches. They were baptized Christian. Why didn't those baptized "Christians" refuse to fight? As for you comment, "I know Hitler made a Concordat with Pope Pius but that does not make either of them Christian." It's smoke and mirrors, Judy, and you know it. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence > > Bill: > > Why would you call the Third Reich "Christian?" They were into all kinds of occult practices. Do you know much about what was involved in being a member of the German Army during WW2. I know Hitler made a Concordat with Pope Pius but that does not make either of them Christian. > > Grace and Peace, judyt > -- > "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] Christians and Violence
The devil ... has on occasion controlled men in positions of authority. Hitler is one example and the Jews pacifistic response to him cost them a lot of lives. I wonder how many Jewish lives pacifism would have cost if every Christian in Germany would have taken Paul's words seriously and refused to fight in Hitler's army? Maybe when Paul said to Christians, "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world," he meant it. No, Judy, it was Christian militancy that cost the Jews "a lot of lives." Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:02 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence It's not a viable option in the spiritual warfare. Do you have any examples of how it has helped in the world at large? The devil is pleased when we make our backs a broad road for him to walk on and he has on occasion controlled men in positions of authority. Hitler is one example and the Jews pacifistic response to him cost them a lot of lives. jt [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy:Pacifissism is a viable option. From: Judy Taylor Terry writes: Still, the real question has not been addressed. We know what happens when the Lord returns, but what do we do until then? Do we take our place and kill the enemy if that is what our government decides is right, or do we love our enemy and turn the other cheek? Does it make any difference if we are the agressor or if we act in self defense? Can we live to please God and men? Terry jt: We judge sin in ourselves and repent of it daily which is the process of sanctification and this will eventually purify our whole being, spirit, soul, and body. There were many, many Christians in the Navy while we were there, in fact, without the example of their godly behavior I might never have chosen to return. If our country had gone to war during those years we would have been involved. So long as we are not the aggressor I don't believe it wrong for our leaders to defend us. As for Iraq, I know there are those who do not agree but I see it as part of the "war on Terror" a war that still rages. There are Christian police officers who may some day have to shoot and prison guards who are also Christian. I've done temporary work and have been able to discern believers by their conduct in every place I've been sent to. They are not the majority but they are there as works in progress and this, IMO, is the way God would have it because these are His ambassadors. Just ordinary every day people. I don't think a true believer chooses violence but a man should defend his family and a decent leader defends his people. Grace and Peace, Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence
If I murder someone, I think that's wrong, as it says in the Commandments. If I kill someone, in self-defense, I think it's different. I think there is a difference. I wonder why the early church did not see it that way? Maybe they didn't hear God's voice telling them to kill people. - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence Good questions. I think there's a difference between "kill" and murder. God did tell His people to kill others in Scripture, but that was God, not man. If I murder someone, I think that's wrong, as it says in the Commandments. If I kill someone, in self-defense, I think it's different. I think there is a difference. Regarding your question on if we can live to please both God and man...I don't think so. I think this is why we have so many problems today. We began to please man (and ourselves) and not God. People are persecuted today for refusing to please man. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Thursday, 24 June, 2004 08:22To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence May I say that everything that both you and Izzy said in response to my post was on target. I appreciate both of you and thank you for giving me things to consider. ( There is a time for war, and a time for peace. There will be wars and rumors of wars until our Lord returns as a mighty warrior and judge. God deals with reality, we are still growing, still being conformed.God has given government the responsibility for protecting it's people, etc.)Still, the real question has not been addressed. We know what happens when the Lord returns, but what do we do until then?Do we take our place and kill the enemy if that is what our government decides is right, or do we love our enemy and turn the other cheek? Does it make any difference if we are the agressor or if we act in self defense? Can we live to please God and men? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence
From Lifes Little Instruction Book, #1559 Remember that all important truths are simple. If that is so, Izzy, why must their be 1559 instructions preceding them? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:07 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence Just once will someone help Judyt understand ambiguity. You, and perhaps Terry, want for someone to say: "here's the answer, here's the verse(s), this is what you are to think" Neither Scripture nor life can be reduced to this sort of formulaic thinking (in my opinion, of course). - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 23, 2004 08:59 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christians and violence Right about what Lance? Right to be a pacifist or right to attempt to assassinate Hitler? What about the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller who wrote: In Germany they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time noone was left to speak up. From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Dietrich Bonhoeffer was, by conviction, a pacifist. After a great deal ofinner turmoil, he decided to participate in an attempted assassination ofHitler. It failed. He was arrested. He was hanged a few days prior to theend of the war. I believe Bonhoeffer was right. From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Good morning family:> Let me start by saying that there are things I know to do and when I do> them God is pleased.> There are things I think that I should do because I think God would be> pleased.> There are things I dare not do because I know it would not please God.> This is called fundamentalist by some. Others call it legalism. I call> it denying self and following Him.> Whatever it is called, it works well when you have the answers. It even> works fairly well when you think you have the answers. The big problem> comes when you have a desire to live a life pleasing to the Lord, but> you are not certain how to do it. He plainly says "I hate divorce". He> commands us not to steal. or covet. or commit adultery. No gray areas.> Easy to follow instructions. Do what He says. Don't do what He hates..>> Then we go to war!>> Bill reopened this can of worms for me a couple of days back. Judy> responded to it. Both made some points, some good points, yet I was> left wondering, as I have been for a long time, as to just what God> expects of His people in time of war. Jesus and Peter and Paul all> dealt with military men . A couple of centurions and a prison guard as I> remember. None of them were told to give up their careers as a> condition of salvation, so it would seem that there is a place for> Christians in the military. Still, I cannot picture Jesus leading a> bayonet charge. He said,"Love your enemy-do good to those who hate> you-turn the other cheek.>> Somehow, this all has to fit together or it makes no sense.> Your thoughts please, with verses if possible.> I would appreciate hearing, even if, like me, you don't have the answer.>> Terry>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend 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] On how to win the war
Regarding the topic of fighting the war on terrorism, Lance wrote > On a personal (community) level we need to be 'living' this truth we 'talk'. John's response > What bothers me in this reply is that I honestly do not see a plan for dealing with those who are bent on our physical harm and intend to accomplish this in the very near future. John John, the following quotes are from the Second century. I thought them relevant to your comment. "For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, ... nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. ... But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all; they beget children; but they do not needlessly cast of fetuses [destroy their offspring]. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. ... They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred. ... Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny their Lord, and yet are not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are evidences of His manifestation." -- Mathetes "But the Christians show kindness to those near them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly; ... they do good to their enemies; ... if one of them have bondsmen and bondswomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. They do not worship strange gods, and they go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. Falsehood is not found among them; and they love one another. ... And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their own homes and rejoice over him as a very brother. ... And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously minister to his necessity. ... And if there is any among them that is poor and needy, and they have no spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply to the needy their lack of food. ... Such, O King, is their manner of life. ... And verily, this is a new people, and there is something divine in the midst of them." -- Aristides "We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many too have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others." -- Clement of Rome "But among Christians you will find ignorant persons and artisans, and old women who, though they are unable in words to prove the benefit of their doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give of those who ask of them, and love their neighbor as themselves." --Athenagoras. It may not look like a plan, John, but it is the life we are called to live. In the Fourth century Rome wearied of its war against Christianity -- and promptly joined it. Not long after that, Christians were acting like Romans, a truth born out many times over the following centuries. I know the Jihadists hate us, but I am not convinced it's because of our Faith. If we are to win this war, my friend, it will not be with M1s and Daisy-cutters. Islam will have to go the way of Rome. I pray
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anyway, do you think our trip into Iraq might parallel this idea, perhaps as a judgment on Iraq? It's possible, Perry. I know that Iraq was a very unhappy and tortured place under Hussein. He is a bad man. Bill -- "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] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
I wonder, Perry, Do you think that this is how God gets "godly" leaders to do his will -- i.e., he removes his hand of restraint, that they will do what comes natural to them? - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move > In Habakkuk 1 we are told that God raised the Chaldeans (today known as > Iraq) against Judah. Are we to believe that the Chaldeans knew they were > doing God's will? I suspect not. God may have just removed his hand of > restraint, and the Chaldeans did what came natural to them. And they were > judged for it, too. > > It is also possible that Iraq (formerly the Chaldeans) has been judged and > God has raised America against them, that God may have just removed his hand > of restraint, and that America may be judged for it as well? > > Perry > > > >From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move > >Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:54:35 -0400 > > > >DavidM:'any student of prophecy in Scripture..'would what??agree with your > >'reading' on the matter? In my opinion, many 'students of p' have lead many > >down many 'garden paths' Any student of history/culture would acknowledge > >this. > > In my opinion God had no agenda. Bush decided on his own 'hook' to invade > >Iraq. > > - Original Message - > > From: David Miller > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: June 16, 2004 07:49 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move > > > > > > Bill Taylor offers the following emphasis on David's post: > > > > "George Bush did not decide to invade Iraq. God did. God simply used > >Bush as his pawn." > > > > > > > > I hope you understand my use of hyperbole here. I was saying it this > >way to stress that God had a plan that he was accomplishing through Bush. > >I do recognize that Bush decided to invade Iraq, just as I recognize that I > >have decided to follow Christ. Ultimately, however, God has a plan and > >directs us toward that plan. Do you understand what I am trying to say? > > > > > > > > My point was that God used Bush to invade Iraq just as he used Cyrus to > >invade Iraq thousands of years ago. The idea originated with God, not with > >George Bush. Any student of prophecy in Scripture surely ought to be able > >to grasp this. > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > > > > > > -- > "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] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
From: David Miller Bill Taylor offers the following emphasis on Davids post: "George Bush did not decide to invade Iraq. God did. God simply used Bush as his pawn." I hope you understand my use of hyperbole here. I was saying it this way to stress that God had a plan that he was accomplishing through Bush. I do recognize that Bush decided to invade Iraq, just as I recognize that I have decided to follow Christ. Ultimately, however, God has a plan and directs us toward that plan. Do you understand what I am trying to say? BT: Yes, I think I do.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mosaic Authorship
ï Moses wrote it. There is indication (without going back over my notes, I forget the details) that Noah took some written documents with him on the Arc. I personally think that Moses had some very early hardcopy accounts from which to draw. I'm goin' with Jesus; I think he probably got the author thing right }:>) Bill - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:38 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Mosaic Authorship I many books (both secular and religious), I've noticed a tendency to for these authors to refer to the Pentateuch (Torah) as being strictly oral until around the time of its "codification under Ezra." What do you all think about that concept. Do you buy it or do you think it really was written by Moshe? -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
Did God ever make you do anything that you did not decide? Iz Well, I didn't realize this until now, but he must have made me vote for George W. Bush; and if Bush doesn't make decisions, he being the president and all, then I suppose there's no good reason to think that I decided to vote for him. So I guess you've made your point -- make that one of your points: I still don't get the free-will thing. hehe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:55 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move Izzy opines > .but not against his will. J How, if "Bush did not decide," could you ever know, Izzy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move Hi David, This question is as much for Izzy as it is to you. A while back Izzy made some very definite statements concerning the importance of free will and the moral imperative on God's part that he not violate it.* I am wondering, in light of those comments and the apparent unanimity of your theologies, how might you reconcile the above statement with free will -- Izzy's given that we have it and that God will not violate it in anyone? Just curious, Bill * The following is a quotation from Izzy, dated 4-26-04: "[Free will] is one of those givens in Gods universe. It is why there is sin and sickness, children tortured and abused, and the Holocaust, and everything else that God hates: He will not violate free will in anyone (Believers or not), because He is not a puppeteer." >
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
ï
I hope, John, that you have stayed in tuned enough
to notice the quotation marks around my comment. I'm still tryin' to decide if
my vote matters. Shoot, I'm still tryin' to decide if I can decide if my vote
matters. In the meantime I kind of like what you say -- I think.
H
bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:37
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered
in his preemptive move
In a message dated 6/15/2004 6:14:34 PM Pacific
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
â.but not against his will. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm.
TaylorSent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move "George Bush did not
decide to invade Iraq. God did. God simply used Bush as his
pawn."Maybe the solution is this:
that God uses circumstances, events, calamities, celebrations, prosecutions
and the like ("all things") to accomplish His will. I know that Ro
8:28 is a promise to those who are His disciples, but maybe 8:28 is true for
the disciples because that is the way He works. Whether He orchestrates
the event itself (the flood) or allows it to happen (i.e. Job), the end result
is for the good. And, so it is not Bush per se that is the subject
of God's handling but the event. Whether it (the Iraq war) proves
out in Bush's favor or not, God has used the event to accomplish His will
against Saddam. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] fyi~g : D. Brooks/NYT on the current 'civil war'
Very interesting, G. Thanks for posting. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:44 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] fyi~g : D. Brooks/NYT on the current 'civil war' June 15, 2004By DAVID BROOKS | NYTimes.com It's been said that every society has two aristocracies.The members of the aristocracy of mind produce ideas, andpass along knowledge. The members of the aristocracy ofmoney produce products and manage organizations. In oursociety these two groups happen to be engaged in a bitterconflict about everything from S.U.V.'s to presidents. Youcan't understand the current bitter political polarizationwithout appreciating how it is inflamed or even driven bythe civil war within the educated class. The percentage of voters with college degrees has doubledin the past 30 years. As the educated class has grown, ithas segmented. The economy has produced a large class ofaffluent knowledge workers - teachers, lawyers, architects,academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on -who live and vote differently than their equallywell-educated but more business-oriented peers. Political scientists now find it useful to distinguishbetween professionals and managers. Professionals, mostlythese knowledge workers, tend to vote for Democrats. Overthe last four presidential elections professionals havesupported the Democratic candidate by an average of 52percent to 40, according to Ruy Teixeira and John Judis,authors of "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Managers, who tend to work for corporations, brokeragehouses, real estate firms and banks, tend to voteRepublican. Thanks to their numbers, George Bush still wonthe overall college-educated vote. This year the Democrats will nominate the perfectembodiment of an educated-class professional. John Kerrygraduated from law school and plays classical guitar.President Bush, however, went to business school and drivesa pickup around his ranch. So we can watch the conflictbetween these two rival elites play itself out in almostcrystalline form. This educated-class rivalry has muddied the role ofeconomics in shaping the political landscape. Republicansstill have an advantage the higher you go up the incomescale, but the correlation between income and votingpatterns is weaker. There is, for example, this large classof affluent professionals who are solidly Democratic.DataQuick Information Systems recently put out a list of100 ZIP code areas where the median home price was above$500,000. By my count, at least 90 of these places - fromthe Upper West Side to Santa Monica - elect liberalDemocrats. Instead, the contest between these elite groups is oftenabout culture, values and, importantly, leadership skills.What sorts of people should run this country? Which virtuesare most important for a leader? Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders whopossess what may be called university skills: the abilityto read and digest large amounts of information and discusstheir way through to a nuanced solution. Democraticadministrations tend to value self-_expression_ overself-discipline. Democratic candidates - from Clinton toKerry - often run late. Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see assimple, straight-talking men and women of faith. They prizeleaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas.They are more likely to distrust those who seem overlyintellectual or narcissistically self-reflective. Republican administrations tend to be tightly organized andcalm, in a corporate sort of way, and place a higher valueon loyalty and formality. George Bush says he doesn't readthe papers. That's a direct assault on the knowledge classand something no Democrat would say. Many people bitterly resent it when members of the othergroup hold power. Members of the knowledge class tend tothink that Republican leaders are simple-minded, unculturedmorons. Members of the business class tend to think thatDemocratic leaders are decadent elitists. In other words,along with the policy and cultural differences that dividethe groups, there are disagreements on these crucialquestions: Which talents should we admire most? Which pathto wisdom is right? Which sort of person deserves thehighest status? That's the kind of stuff that really gets people riled up. This contest between rival elites certainly doesn't explaineverything about our politics. But with their overwhelmingcultural and financial power, these elite groups do framethe choices the rest of the country must face. If not forthe civil war within the educated class, this country wouldbe far less polarized. -- For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Copyright 2004 The New York Tim
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
Izzy opines > .but not against his will. J How, if "Bush did not decide," could you ever know, Izzy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move Hi David, This question is as much for Izzy as it is to you. A while back Izzy made some very definite statements concerning the importance of free will and the moral imperative on God's part that he not violate it.* I am wondering, in light of those comments and the apparent unanimity of your theologies, how might you reconcile the above statement with free will -- Izzy's given that we have it and that God will not violate it in anyone? Just curious, Bill * The following is a quotation from Izzy, dated 4-26-04: "[Free will] is one of those givens in Gods universe. It is why there is sin and sickness, children tortured and abused, and the Holocaust, and everything else that God hates: He will not violate free will in anyone (Believers or not), because He is not a puppeteer." >
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
"George Bush did not decide to invade Iraq. God did. God simply used Bush as his pawn." - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move Bill, Dont you think that the Lord knows ahead of time who He can depend upon to do His will on any given issue? He certainly knows who listens and obeys. That is different from the issue of Him forcing someone to obey Him. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move Hi David, This question is as much for Izzy as it is to you. A while back Izzy made some very definite statements concerning the importance of free will and the moral imperative on God's part that he not violate it.* I am wondering, in light of those comments and the apparent unanimity of your theologies, how might you reconcile the above statement with free will -- Izzy's given that we have it and that God will not violate it in anyone? Just curious, Bill * The following is a quotation from Izzy, dated 4-26-04: "[Free will] is one of those givens in Gods universe. It is why there is sin and sickness, children tortured and abused, and the Holocaust, and everything else that God hates: He will not violate free will in anyone (Believers or not), because He is not a puppeteer." >
Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
"George Bush did not decide to invade Iraq. God did. God simply used Bush as his pawn." Hi David, This question is as much for Izzy as it is to you. A while back Izzy made some very definite statements concerning the importance of free will and the moral imperative on God's part that he not violate it.* I am wondering, in light of those comments and the apparent unanimity of your theologies, how might you reconcile the above statement with free will -- Izzy's given that we have it and that God will not violate it in anyone? Just curious, Bill * The following is a quotation from Izzy, dated 4-26-04: "[Free will] is one of those givens in Gods universe. It is why there is sin and sickness, children tortured and abused, and the Holocaust, and everything else that God hates: He will not violate free will in anyone (Believers or not), because He is not a puppeteer." > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Sent: June 14, 2004 14:30> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move> > > > Lance wrote:> > > I've read and, do read the book of Daniel. I do not see> > > a connection between it's meaning and present day events.> >> > Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and> > twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help> > me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.> > ...> > Dan 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and> > now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone> > forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.> > Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of> > truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but> > Michael your prince.> > Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to> > confirm and to strengthen him.> > Dan 11:2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand> > up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than> > they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all> > against the realm of Grecia.> > Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great> > dominion, and do according to his will.> > Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and> > shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his> > posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom> > shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.> >> > These verses speak of spiritual warfare between angels as being> > responsible for the Greek leader Alexander the Great fighting against> > the Persian empire and destroying it, then dying as a young man and his> > kingdom was divided among his four generals. In other words, God is> > orchestrating the political boundaries that exist between countries, who> > is in power and who is out of power.> >> > The historical event of our invasion of Iraq was orchestrated by God> > Almighty, to judge Sadaam Hussein for the many evil atrocities which he> > orchestrated against his own people and against others in the world. If> > you understand the book of Daniel, you will see how obvious this> > perspective is. George Bush did not decide to invade Iraq. God did.> > God simply used Bush as his pawn.> >> > Peace be with you.> > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.> >> > --> > "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] President George Bush
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] President George Bush Bill, Not being one of you "big thinkers" I doubt I can answer these questions to your satisfaction. Ah Izzy, no big thoughts here. I was just wondering how you thought we could determine such things. I think your answers are satifactory -- quite so, in fact. Only God knows who He considers "righteous", as He can see the heart as well as all of a person's actions/intents that we cannot. However the Bible tells us that (Gen 15:6) Abraham "believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Deuteronomy 6:25 "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us." So it seems to me that if one Believes and, as a result, Obeys the Lord, they are counted as righteous by Him. One problem in stating that someone is "stupid" in their actions is that you cannot know what the Lord has told him to do (unless it is obviously sin according to God's laws). However, one indicator of whether someone is a righteous man is the comportment of his life. For example, is he truthful, loyal, trustworthy, faithful, and does he give honor to his Lord? If he displays integrity over a long period of time, with no obvious sin, one can assume that he is living righteously. How will God judge us if we are not righteous? Your question, as I understood it, was a bit more specific than this. You asked, ". . . do you think that God will judge us for making erroneous/libelous judgments against those that He considers righteous?" I was just wondering what you were thinking this judgment from God -- if it were to be made -- might involve. I was turning the question back on you, in other words, hoping to draw out of you what you were thinking. I would assume in both this life and the next. In this life by the natural consequences of a sinful life, which are often not seen by the outside world. In the next by either lack of rewards or even by hell itself. That's about as much as I have figured it out so far. I'd appreciate any further help on the subject myself. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] President George Bush I'm curious, Izzy, Who is it whom God considers "righteous" and how is it that we can tell? Another question, When you ask if "God will judge us," what kind of judgment do you have in mind; are you thinking in terms of something specific -- e.g., like maybe he will send us to hell? Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] President George Bush > Lance, One final note on this. If you only watch the biased Liberal media, > you will only get a biased view of GWBush. And I'm wondering--do you think > that God will judge us for making erroneous/libelous judgments against those > that He considers righteous? Izzy >
Re: [TruthTalk] President George Bush
I'm curious, Izzy, Who is it whom God considers "righteous" and how is it that we can tell? Another question, When you ask if "God will judge us," what kind of judgment do you have in mind; are you thinking in terms of something specific -- e.g., like maybe he will send us to hell? Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] President George Bush > Lance, One final note on this. If you only watch the biased Liberal media, > you will only get a biased view of GWBush. And I'm wondering--do you think > that God will judge us for making erroneous/libelous judgments against those > that He considers righteous? Izzy > > -Original Message- > > > > > Lance wrote: > > > My 'opinion' of his brightness or, lack of same, > > > is simply based on many (many) hours of interviews > > > & talks which have been televised over the last > > > several years. > > > > Do you really think that we can judge intelligence based upon hours of > > interviews made for television? I wonder how Albert Einstein would come > > across on television interviews. His photos sure make him look dumb. > > > > I use to think like you did when I first saw Bush speaking, but his > > intelligence is very evident in the decisions he makes and his strong > > leadership in spite of political pressures. I now consider Bush to be > > VERY intelligent. > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > > > > -- > "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] Mediation of Christ -- question
Yes, and they enjoy a very good reputation. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mediation of Christ -- question In a message dated 6/6/2004 10:57:34 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Woodman Valley is the only church I know of in the Springs with those kind of numbers. I do not know if it is charismatic though. Our Children's Ministry director just left to take a Children's ministry position there. They are a huge church! Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Mediation of Christ -- question
Hi John, thanks for the kind remarks. I am very happy to hear about your mother-in-law and her new-found passion for Christ. Woodman Valley is the only church I know of in the Springs with those kind of numbers. I do not know if it is charismatic though. Have you listened to Jesus and the Undoing of Adam yet? Session three, "A Critique of Evangelical Theology," is particularly relevant, especially as it pertains to some of today's comments. Check it out and see if Kruger doesn't flick on a light or two. Blessings, Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mediation of Christ -- question Bill,Two brief thoughts and thanks for responding. One of our daughters lives in Colorado Springs and attends a very large charismatic congregation (15,000 to 20,000 members). She loves it there. I have entered some brief thoughts below. I have forgotten the name.In a message dated 6/5/2004 7:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Obedience, it seems to me, is not a problem: those who love Jesus find it their hearts' desire to please him. What is the role of obedience? Obedience is what love looks like; it's our loving response to him who loves us.Certainly this is the very point of James, chapter two, relating to the faith/works issue. The benevolent caring actions described by James (as works) are, obviously, the natural _expression_ of [the rule] of faith. Your point is well said. Why evangelize the lost? because the Gospel is good news. Without the word of truth, the good news of their salvation, people are basically adrift, sometimes bordering on truth but never finding that unifying center, the one thing through which the whole aligns and begins to make sense. I believe that people are desperate for someone in whom they can trust. Jesus Christ is completely trustworthy. When the Gospel is presented in terms of the indicatives of grace --"This is Jesus Christ . . . ; this is what he has done for you . . . ; this is who you are in him . . ."-- repentance flows quite naturally (and before you pounce, I say "naturally" not in a humanistic closed-system sense, but in the sense that all of a sudden repentance is the only thing that makes sense in your life). All of a sudden you cannot wait to change your mind, to begin to take captive every thought to the obedience of Jesus Christ.As I read your words, here, I could not help but think of the recent "conversion" of my mother-in-law and the power of the gospel message existing within itself. Gibson's movie, the Passion, was so well attended because of the power of the message -- it portrayed the heart of the gospel message. But back to my mother-in-law. She recently visited our daughter in Colorado Springs during the passion season. The congregation there puts on a passion play involving nearly 1,000 of its membership. It is "narrated" by the apostle John. Not a spoken word from "the Christ." It is just a moving picture of the trail, death and resurrection. My mother-in-law (a Mormon born and raised) had never been exposed to the full impact of the gospel message (how true for so many Christians). At the conclusion of that passion play, she prayed a prayer of commitment and confession What she does regarding her "Mormonism" is of little concern to me. She is no scholar but very intelligent, not pious but well mannered as so many of generation, wanting to be right but afraid to be wrong. She may never "leave" the Mormon church because of who she is, but she is definitely a child of God. The point is this: when you speak of the natural response, you have described the very circumstance experienced by Mom. Again, well put with the ring of truth-in-reality. We all need the lesson that when we fail, it is not because we have disobeyed, per se, but that we have not loved and believed enough. Thanks for putting it in a such a way that I could say those words with some confidence and a grand sense of divine approval. We (I) need to accept that Christ has given us the ability to reclaim the sovereignty of the God's influence in our lives. GraceJ David Smithson God bless the Reagans
