Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I agree with your analogy. The question is, do you agree with mine? David. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Actually, David, I think I will go with my analogy if it is alright with you. It makes my point and says exactly what I want it to say. Again, either you are saved by works or you are not. Jd -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:24:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections.Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month ...and never ever forget, it's all FREE.Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not ... many on this forum try to have it both ways. If you are going to use the free home analogy, I see it more like someone in authority giving you a home to stay in free without giving up his own authority. Then if you get in the home and tear it up and show disrespect for it, he comes back and kicks you out (e.g., see Luke 12:45-46). Was the home free? Sure, but there were some responsibilities and expectations that came with you receiving this free gift. Do you see it differently? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
"Home" in my analogy is "salvation." I do not know what "home" represents in your analogy. JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:06:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I agree with your analogy. The question is, do you agree with mine? David. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Actually, David, I think I will go with my analogy if it is alright with you. It makes my point and says exactly what I want it to say. Again, either you are saved by works or you are not. Jd -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:24:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections."Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month ...and never ever forget, it's all FREE."Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not ... many on this forum try to have it both ways. If you are going to use the free home analogy, I see it more like someone in authority giving you a home to stay in free without giving up his own authority. Then if you get in the home and tear it up and show disrespect for it, he comes back and kicks you out (e.g., see Luke 12:45-46). Was the home free? Sure, but there were some responsibilities and expectations that came with you receiving this free gift. Do you see it differently? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Youre absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
kids are like dogs the first few years...ever seen a G-m at work in bAwana? Pavlov'd love it (and he reallyknew how togivehis Bowser a belly ache) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Often, little dogs grow up to be -- alas--- big dogs. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:21:23 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 kids are like dogs the first few years...ever seen a G-m at work in bAwana? Pavlov'd love it (and he reallyknew how togivehis Bowser a belly ache) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
let's be Frank and Ernest...no, let's be Paul and Silas..(it's the 1st grader in me..when i grow up, someday, i'm gonna kick Pavlov's dog...among other of his pets:) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:33:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Often, little dogs grow up to be -- alas--- big dogs. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:21:23 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 kids are like dogs the first few years...ever seen a G-m at work in bAwana? Pavlov'd love it (and he reallyknew how togivehis Bowser a belly ache) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
he's got his own zoo..spans from Australia to America and back..andinto even where no man's gone before.. On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:40:30 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: let's be Frank and Ernest...no, let's be Paul and Silas..(it's the 1st grader in me..when i grow up, someday, i'm gonna kick Pavlov's dog...among other of his pets:) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:33:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Often, little dogs grow up to be -- alas--- big dogs. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:21:23 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 kids are like dogs the first few years...ever seen a G-m at work in bAwana? Pavlov'd love it (and he reallyknew how togivehis Bowser a belly ache) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
..andcarte blancheat the Disneyland Hotel.. On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:53:11 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: he's got his own zoo..spans from Australia to America and back..andinto even where no man's gone before.. On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:40:30 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: let's be Frank and Ernest...no, let's be Paul and Silas..(it's the 1st grader in me..when i grow up, someday, i'm gonna kick Pavlov's dog...among other of his pets:) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:33:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Often, little dogs grow up to be -- alas--- big dogs. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:21:23 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 kids are like dogs the first few years...ever seen a G-m at work in bAwana? Pavlov'd love it (and he reallyknew how togivehis Bowser a belly ache) On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow -- you really know how to hurt a guy!! I have several grandchildrenwhouse the every same tactic -- and it seems to be just as effective. JD On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:53 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You?re absolutely right, JD. G. writes at a first grade level. iz.. (..Even a little child should be able to grasp the truths that are essential to salvation.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, David, I think I will go with my analogy if it is alright with you. It makes my point andsays exactly what I want it to say. Again, either you are saved by works or you are not. Jd == As you say, John it makes YOUR point and says what YOU want it to say, but there is a higher authority. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Seems like from G-m's perspective Godwill windup with a pack of wild dogs JDin heaven On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com judytBut we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18)
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
One positive from your expressed inability (below) -- at least there is no logical way you can be critical of Denver's resident theologican. That s good. JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I kinda of like your perspective on G's perspective. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:48:35 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Seems like from G-m's perspective Godwill windup with a pack of wild dogs JDin heaven On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com judytBut we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Are we all mad because Professor Ottoson does not write at a 4th grade level? I like it for just that reason. I have to sit and think about it for a while. It is almost always good - and at times profound. JD-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:28:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. Debbie - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Are we all mad because Professor Ottoson does not write at a 4th grade level? I like it for just that reason. I have to sit and think about it for a while. It is almost always good - and at times profound. JD-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:28:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Amen (this coming from one who is about to see a Batman movie ). JD-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak debbie@kest.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:18:50 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. Debbie - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Are we all mad because Professor Ottoson does not write at a 4th grade level? I like it for just that reason. I have to sit and think about it for a while. It is almost always good - and at times profound. JD-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:28:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I would read it if it was understandable. We need a Translator, I think we have one on TT.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD wrote: Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections.Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month ...and never ever forget, it's all FREE.Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not ... many on this forum try to have it both ways. If you are going to use the free home analogy, I see it more like someone in authority giving you a home to stay in free without giving up his own authority. Then if you get in the home and tear it up and show disrespect for it, he comes back and kicks you out (e.g., see Luke 12:45-46). Was the home free? Sure, but there were some responsibilities and expectations that came with you receiving this free gift. Do you see it differently? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Kevin Deegan wrote: I would read it if it was understandable. We need a Translator, I think we have one on TT. = Maybe if you were on the right medication you could understand. You need to be able to see what normal people cannot. Just let it float around in your mind for a while as you float around the room and it will become awesome. -- 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] Re:John 16:13,14
O so he writes way above our heads? Next thing you know you will be telling us to approve of the Emperor's new clothes! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we all mad because Professor Ottoson does not write at a 4th grade level? I like it for just that reason. I have to sit and think about it for a while. It is almost always good - and at times profound. JD-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:28:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Get on board the Magical Mystery Tour BusDebbie Sawczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. Debbie - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Are we all mad because Professor Ottoson does not write at a 4th grade level? I like it for just that reason. I have to sit and think about it for a while. It is almost always good - and at times profound. JD-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:28:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 It only makes sense to those in the right Klingon time travelwave length, Kevin. That's why I don't even bother to read the stuff. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:44 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Do you have a secret decoder ring? Maybe if I quickly blink my eyes as I am reading[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
n na NA Noow I gaA itTerry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: I would read it if it was understandable. We need a Translator, I think we have one on TT. =Maybe if you were on the right medication you could understand. You need to be able to see what normal people cannot. Just let it float around in your mind for a while as you float around the room and it will become awesome.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Terry wrote: Maybe if you were on the right medication you could understand. You need to be able to see what normal people cannot. Just let it float around in your mind for a while as you float around the room and it will become awesome. ROTFLOL! You crack me up, Terry. I guess the medication of choice would be Vicodin? :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. This kind of reminds me of some of my preaching adventures in the nightclub districts. I sometimes wear this all black T-shirt with red flames on it. The words say, REPENT OR PERISH. When I'm walking to my preaching spot, these clubbers sometimes stop me to read my shirt. Wait, let me read your shirt. They are expecting to read some vulgar joke or something, then when they read out loud, RE-PENT OR PER---ISH OH MAN! UGH...! They act like I just slugged them or something. Not what they were expecting to find. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy.DM wrote: What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. Abad song or poem is onewhose meaning upsets you?? But in any case, as I understood them, G's detractors were complaining about the accessibility, not the value,of the meaning of his posts. Of course, few things are accessible to the lazy, who then have nothing to evaluate. Debbie
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
However, speaking of T-shirts not saying what you expect them to say: last summer I saw someone in a parking lot whose T-shirt read, in large black caps, PERPETUAL CONJECTURE. I thought that was a pretty intriguing thing to put on a T-shirt and I also liked the sound of the words (as in, their aural effect. I amreminded of the poet Annie Dillard's mother who heard a baseball umpire on the radio say "Terwilliger bunts one!" and often repeated it just for love of its sound.). BUT then when I looked at the T-shirt again, it said nothing of the kind! There were large black caps, it was definitely the same T-shirt on the same person facing the same way, but it said something completely different which I don't even remember. It was the weirdest thing. No doubt some people who like to think of me as an agnostic (who wants her ears tickled) would attach great significance to this... but no, such I'm not. Maybe it was a temptation... Debbie - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. This kind of reminds me of some of my preaching adventures in the nightclub districts. I sometimes wear this all black T-shirt with red flames on it. The words say, "REPENT OR PERISH." When I'm walking to my preaching spot, these clubbers sometimes stop me to read my shirt. "Wait, let me read your shirt." They are expecting to read some vulgar joke or something, then when they read out loud, "RE-PENT OR PER---ISH OH MAN! UGH...!" They act like I just slugged them or something. Not what they were expecting to find. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
G's detractors were complaining about the accessibility, not the value,of the meaning of his posts. Of course, few things are accessible to the lazy, who then have nothing to evaluate. "When Bernie stood up, he was reborn, and he yelled, Thank you, Jesus! over and over, tears pouring down his cheeks - Now there was what I call preaching! says Johns Uncle Val, Bernies brother, a deacon and Pastor Ingqvists faithful critic. He says of the pastors sermons, He mumbles. He murmers. Its a lot of on-the-one-hand-this, on-the-other-hand-that. He never comes straight out. He never puts the hay down where the goats can get it. Its a lot of talk, and many a Sunday Ive walked away with no idea what he said. Cant remember even where he started from. You never had that problem with the old preachers. There was never a moments doubt. It was Repent or Be Damned. We need that. This guy, he tries to please everybody. Just once I wish hed raise his voice and pound on the pulpit. That way Id know he wasnt talking in his sleep" Keillor 320.Debbie Sawczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy.DM wrote: What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. Abad song or poem is onewhose meaning upsets you?? But in any case, as I understood them, G's detractors were complaining about the accessibility, not the value,of the meaning of his posts. Of course, few things are accessible to the lazy, who then have nothing to evaluate. Debbie Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Or reefers? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:35 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Terry wrote: Maybe if you were on the right medication you could understand. You need to be able to see what normal people cannot. Just let it float around in your mind for a while as you float around the room and it will become awesome. ROTFLOL! You crack me up, Terry. I guess the medication of choice would be Vicodin? :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Perpetual Conjecture? That's funny. I think that's the place where Lance dwells isn't it? izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie SawczakSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:48 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 However, speaking of T-shirts not saying what you expect them to say: last summer I saw someone in a parking lot whose T-shirt read, in large black caps, PERPETUAL CONJECTURE. I thought that was a pretty intriguing thing to put on a T-shirt and I also liked the sound of the words (as in, their aural effect. I amreminded of the poet Annie Dillard's mother who heard a baseball umpire on the radio say "Terwilliger bunts one!" and often repeated it just for love of its sound.). BUT then when I looked at the T-shirt again, it said nothing of the kind! There were large black caps, it was definitely the same T-shirt on the same person facing the same way, but it said something completely different which I don't even remember. It was the weirdest thing. No doubt some people who like to think of me as an agnostic (who wants her ears tickled) would attach great significance to this... but no, such I'm not. Maybe it was a temptation... Debbie - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy. What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. This kind of reminds me of some of my preaching adventures in the nightclub districts. I sometimes wear this all black T-shirt with red flames on it. The words say, "REPENT OR PERISH." When I'm walking to my preaching spot, these clubbers sometimes stop me to read my shirt. "Wait, let me read your shirt." They are expecting to read some vulgar joke or something, then when they read out loud, "RE-PENT OR PER---ISH OH MAN! UGH...!" They act like I just slugged them or something. Not what they were expecting to find. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Debbie, let me go on record as complaining about the value and meaning of G's posts. Mercifully, they also cannot be understood. :-) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie SawczakSent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:23 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Debbie wrote: Like good song lyrics or a poem. You can't be lazy.DM wrote: What about a bad song or poem, where you take the time to try and understand, but then you are upset with the meaning you uncovered. Abad song or poem is onewhose meaning upsets you?? But in any case, as I understood them, G's detractors were complaining about the accessibility, not the value,of the meaning of his posts. Of course, few things are accessible to the lazy, who then have nothing to evaluate. Debbie
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Actually, David, I think I will go with my analogy if it is alright with you. It makes my point andsays exactly what I want it to say. Again, either you are saved by works or you are not. Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:24:18 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections."Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month ...and never ever forget, it's all FREE."Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not ... many on this forum try to have it both ways. If you are going to use the free home analogy, I see it more like someone in authority giving you a home to stay in free without giving up his own authority. Then if you get in the home and tear it up and show disrespect for it, he comes back and kicks you out (e.g., see Luke 12:45-46). Was the home free? Sure, but there were some responsibilities and expectations that came with you receiving this free gift. Do you see it differently? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
John says, in so many worfs, Jesus is wrong Terry Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections. "Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month...and never ever forget, it'sall FREE." Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not .. many on this forum try to have it both ways. jd -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:39:18 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I hear you loud and clear, Terry.From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netReply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:37:13 -0500Just found this note from you, Perry. I don't know where it has been for the last two days. To answer your question, I do not consider all of John's comments to be pitiful. What is pitiful is that Jesus says in so many words is that if you do not obey, you are not one of His, and John says, in so many worfs, Jesus is wrong. Obedience means nothing. Just have faith.Satan knows that Jesus is the Savior, but Satan's disobedience has eliminated him forever from Heaven. It is pitiful that John and many other libs cannot see that simple truth.Terry=Terry, can you take comment on these points one by one and let me know why you think each is pitiful. Thanks.PerryFrom: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netReply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:22:24 -0500Pitiful.===knpraise@aol.com wrote:To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allo w for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5. It denies that obedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6. It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness t;(Rom 4). JD -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14knpraise@aol.com wrote:Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following the advice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD ===They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there."Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?"Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. ; Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that.Terry---"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to se nd 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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, tha t you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Are you the Apostle of Lawlessness? Lawless: Not subject to law; unrestrained by law You preach The theology of "lawless grace" Have you power then to absolve all responsibility for your actions? Are we then to "sin that grace may abound"? Is the Law of God illegal in your eyes? A Christian has Liberty from Sin Death, not Liberty to be LAWLESS Antinomianism is Flawed 1 JN 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law 1 JN 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" Ps 19:7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John says, in so many worfs, Jesus is wrong Terry Now, Terry is just making up stuff without giving a response to my objections. "Come on in -- its FREE -- but you can't stay in our FREE home unless you pay $750 a month after the first month...and never ever forget, it'sall FREE." Terry Either you are saved by works or you are not .. many on this forum try to have it both ways. jd -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:39:18 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I hear you loud and clear, Terry.From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netReply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:37:13 -0500Just found this note from you, Perry. I don't know where it has been for the last two days. To answer your question, I do not consider all of John's comments to be pitiful. What is pitiful is that Jesus says in so many words is that if you do not obey, you are not one of His, and John says, in so many worfs, Jesus is wrong. Obedience means nothing. Just have faith.Satan knows that Jesus is the Savior, but Satan's disobedience has eliminated him forever from Heaven. It is pitiful that John and many other libs cannot see that simple truth.Terry=Terry, can you take comment on these points one by one and let me know why you think each is pitiful. Thanks.PerryFrom: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netReply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:22:24 -0500Pitiful.===knpraise@aol.com wrote:To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allo w for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5. It denies that obedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6. It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness g t;(Rom 4). JD -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14knpraise@aol.com wrote:Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following the advice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD ===They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there."Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?"Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. ; Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that.Terry---"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to se nd an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscrib
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
This bears repeating -- so here it is again -- let it sink in. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:06:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 by contrast, G-m's apply(theoretical) obedience training, manipulating a dog to a certain behavior, to the subjects of NT because they never volunteered to love Love.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:00:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..volunteeringto loveLove, like the Ap John does,to lovehim who volunteers to love me perpetually, unconditionally, isthe normal modern response to the NT it's rooted in(his) healing.. On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.1 John 3 acc to the Ap john, JC voluntarily removessin--all of it, perpetually i volunteer tolove them guys mycommittmentto them has nothin' to do with the superficial results of involuntary compliance the truth isthatJCscommand no one can keep--heal! -- is saving me i believe this healing is not conditioned on obedience and, since God himself, whocan't bemanipulated to heal,heals voluntarily, perpetually, (then) allobedience training is a farce.. On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
You stand against the spirit of unity and function as if love of the brethren was a meaningless concept. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:50:52 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 No needto put anyone "out" JD. The Word of God is divisive and people who are not willing to do things His way get offended and eventually separate themselves. That is, unless there is a compromising preacher who wants to please ppl more than he wants to please God. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:11:14 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Legalists, when "holding office" in the Church of Right Teaching, do IN FACT require agreement on (their) pet issues or you are out. Such happens every week of every yearin the U.S. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Since I've been accused of being one of the God manipulators - might I put my 2 cents in here please. Let me say that I am not requiring anything of anyone. So far as I'm concerned you Gary and everyone else can do whatever they want - but your blood will not be on my hands, nor on that of anyone else who has tried to speak truth to you. Those who reject truth judge themselves as unworthy and eventually God Himself gives them over to strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I hear you loud and clear, Terry. From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:37:13 -0500 Just found this note from you, Perry. I don't know where it has been for the last two days. To answer your question, I do not consider all of John's comments to be pitiful. What is pitiful is that Jesus says in so many words is that if you do not obey, you are not one of His, and John says, in so many worfs, Jesus is wrong. Obedience means nothing. Just have faith. Satan knows that Jesus is the Savior, but Satan's disobedience has eliminated him forever from Heaven. It is pitiful that John and many other libs cannot see that simple truth. Terry = Terry, can you take comment on these points one by one and let me know why you think each is pitiful. Thanks. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:22:24 -0500 Pitiful. === [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allow for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5.It denies that obedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6.It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness (Rom 4).JD -Original Message- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following the advice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD === They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there. Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you? Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that. Terry - -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Since I've been accused of being one of the God manipulators - might I put my 2 cents in here please. Let me say that I am not requiring anything of anyone. So far as I'm concerned you Gary and everyone else can do whatever they want - but your blood will not be on my hands, nor on that of anyone else who has tried to speak truth to you. Those who reject truth judge themselves as unworthy and eventually God Himself gives them over to strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Who on TT has ever compelled anyone to do anythingas far as I can tell everyone still does his own thing. Heeding truth has never been compelling to most on TT. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:41 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Legalists, when "holding office" in the Church of Right Teaching, do IN FACT require agreement on (their) pet issues or you are out. Such happens every week of every yearin the U.S. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:18:42 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Since I've been accused of being one of the God manipulators - might I put my 2 cents in here please. Let me say that I am not requiring anything of anyone. So far as I'm concerned you Gary and everyone else can do whatever they want - but your blood will not be on my hands, nor on that of anyone else who has tried to speak truth to you. Those who reject truth judge themselves as unworthy and eventually God Himself gives them over to strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Thats what happens after being in an Abusive "Church" you end up seeing "Legalists" hiding behinfd every tree[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Legalists, when "holding office" in the Church of Right Teaching, do IN FACT require agreement on (their) pet issues or you are out. Such happens every week of every yearin the U.S. JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:18:42 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Since I've been accused of being one of the God manipulators - might I put my 2 cents in here please. Let me say that I am not requiring anything of anyone. So far as I'm concerned you Gary and everyone else can do whatever they want - but your blood will not be on my hands, nor on that of anyone else who has tried to speak truth to you. Those who reject truth judge themselves as unworthy and eventually God Himself gives them over to strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' || Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
No needto put anyone "out" JD. The Word of God is divisive and people who are not willing to do things His way get offended and eventually separate themselves. That is, unless there is a compromising preacher who wants to please ppl more than he wants to please God. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:11:14 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Legalists, when "holding office" in the Church of Right Teaching, do IN FACT require agreement on (their) pet issues or you are out. Such happens every week of every yearin the U.S. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Since I've been accused of being one of the God manipulators - might I put my 2 cents in here please. Let me say that I am not requiring anything of anyone. So far as I'm concerned you Gary and everyone else can do whatever they want - but your blood will not be on my hands, nor on that of anyone else who has tried to speak truth to you. Those who reject truth judge themselves as unworthy and eventually God Himself gives them over to strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. jt On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:41:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for humans biblicalsalvation is purely voluntary, like the Alamo--you wannadefend the KoG in history withJC, crosshis line in the sand this is obedience to him--salvation (via 'a crucifixion')you volunteer for is just that,voluntary who, then,as a volunteer, has any right to compel the involuntary religious obedience of another? while the G-m's (God-manipulators)among usdo exactly that requiring y/ourcompliance by a certainforce, ask 'compliance? to whom?' i'd say theseG-m typesnever volunteered for nothin' worth volunteerin' for and that's theirrealproblem; FTR,neither God's nor mine On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: || 6. [re: pronouncing] 'that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !!' ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
e the source. Accusation is never
ablessing.
i DON'T NEED TO DISCERN ANYTHINGIN THIS
PRESENT DISTRESS. ALL I NEED TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO
READ. If you do not see the source in my life as being the Spirit
of God, you and all who agree with you are have nothing to do with God
in that consideration. Nothing. And you transgress I don't
know how many scriptures - thank God we don;t
have to be right to be saved.
jt: Accusation is destructive. It is never
from God - it's source is always the accuser of the brethren. I
am
not saying that you are serving Satan.
We all must deal with accusing spirits but we don't have
toallow
them to use our mouths and this is what I am
trying toget you to see. The Holy Spirit convicts and
that
is entirely different allowing us to deal
withpersonal transgression in the right way.
DM actually does
not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so
writing. The point, here, is that
G will speak and write from his
passion.He will see associations between your words and what you
are that may
not be pleasant to you. So what.
jt: So why are you defendingGary and his one
word comments? It's not good to partake of another man's
sin.
This last phrase is exactly why I do defend
Gary and resist you on this -- sin, Judy. You are in serious
error on this matter.
jt: I don't think so JD. If Gary thinks Izzy
and I are full of myth or that we are practicing
manipulation
so far as God is concerned then he is
obligated to spell it out and show us by God's Word where
we
are missing the mark. Scorn and mocking
stand in the way of the sinner.
All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a
week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with
us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline
Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan
-- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for
Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept
his response as an honest response.
jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth
can and is being used by the wrong spirit?
Because such is a lie
it is not moment of ignorance on
the part of those who claim such, it is a lie. I KNOW WHOM I
SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve Satan except
a liar. Hopefully that is not your position. If anyone
from the left or the right thinks for a second that I am going to back off on
this - well you are wrong. But, I am ready to
move on to matters of biblical substancejust
ftr.
jt: I never accused you of serving Satan JD;
this is another accusation and comes from the same
source.
I am saying that you can unknowingly be used
by him the same as James, John, and Peter were and I
don't believe for one moment that those three
were serving Satan any more than I believe that you
are intentionally serving
Satan.
Jesus said the same
to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know
what spirit they were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said
"Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man
rather than the things of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience
is not works it is normal christianliving.
"not justified by works
of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to
law."
jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If
you love me you will do what I say"
Scripture please
--- preferably a scripture that does not need to be
reworded.
"If ye love me keep my commandments" (John
14:15)
judyt
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor
jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
JD David is
right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for
your/Gary's sake as much
as ours because not only doescontinual
accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so
long as
you are allowing the adversary to use you this
way.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's
very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that
Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as,
in reality, an attempt to manipulate God.
jt: We are not
entirely stupid JD; why would you think
we are trying to manipulate God?
"If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that
and this." Such can be considered manipulation --
jt: No
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
e --- preferably a scripture that does not need to be reworded. "If ye love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15) WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS THAT WE NOT SAVED UNTIL WE OBEY? judyt -----Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
: Oh? So we can be totally wrong and still be saved?What is the point of evangelizing or the faith once delivered to the saints that we are supposed to guard? False accusation is destructive. It is never from God - it's source is always the accuser of the brethren. ATST I am not saying that you are serving Satan. jd: YOU Deceive YOURSELF ! WHO IS THE "SOURCE" IN THIS SENTENCE OF YOURS: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and recognize the source. jt: Hebrews 5:14, it is part of having senses exercised to discern between good and evil and false accusation is always evil. jd: AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ADDRESS G WITH THESE WORDS - "YOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER?' YOU FOOL NO ONE ON THIS MATTER. jt: I mean G is acting as his mouthpiece. We all must deal with accusing spirits but we don't have to allow them to use our mouths and this is what I am trying to get you to see. The Holy Spirit convicts and that is entirely different allowing us to deal with personal transgression in the right way. jd:The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion. He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. jt: So- there is a way that seems right to a man but the end therof is the way of death. It is all natural reasonings. Why are you defending Gary and his one word comments? It's not good to partake of another man's sin. jd: This last phrase is exactly why I do defend Gary and resist you on this -- sin, Judy. You are in serious error on this matter. jt: I don't think so JD. I have learned that God does not look kindly upon one taking up an offense for another. If Gary thinks Izzy and I are full of myth or that we are practicing manipulation so far as God is concerned then he is obligated to spell it out and show us by God's Word where we are missing the mark. Scorn and mocking stand in the way of the sinner. (if in fact we are the sinners). jd: FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE, HE HAS DONE SO. YOU TWO DO NOT USE Scripture ANYMORE OR LESS THAN G. WORKS SALVATIONISM IS MANIPULATIVE FROM A GRACE POINT OF VIEW. jt: Do you have G's permission to speak for him jd? I don't believe you or he have a quote "grace point of view" because grace is what enables us to do what God required of us. It is not a cover for sin. jd: All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Slade nor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being used by the wrong spirit? jd: Because such is a lie it is not moment of ignorance on the part of those who claim such, it is a lie. I KNOW WHOM I SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve Satan except a liar. Hopefully that is not your position. If anyone from the left or the right thinks for a second that I am going to back off on this - well you are wrong. But, I am ready to move on to matters of biblical substancejust ftr. jt: I never accused you of serving Satan JD; this is another accusation and comes from the same source.I am saying that you can unknowingly be used by him the same as James, John, and Peter were and I don't believe for one moment that those three were serving Satan any more than I believe that you are intentionally serving Satan. jd: YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF IN THIS VERY SENTENCE -- WHO IS THE SOURCE, JUDY, IF NOT SATAN???IN FACT I CANNOT BE UNKNOWINGLY USED BY SATAN. IF THAT WERE TRUE, WE WOULD HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION AT ALL. A SILLY AND IMPOSSIBLE TEACHING. AND I DON'T SERVE HIM BY ACCIDENT, EITHER. jt: Jesus said the same to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said "Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather than the things of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience is not works it is normal christian living. jd: "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will do what I say" Scripture please --- preferably a scripture that does not need to be reworded. "If ye love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15) jd: WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS THAT WE NOT SAVED UNTIL WE OBEY? jt: I'll answer the above in another thread this is long. judyt -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
heal! On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:08:10 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jd: WORKS SALVATION IS NOT THE GOSPEL JD jt: You..argue against obedience [training] constantly JD.. renamed it "works salvation"
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
(a command which is impossible to obey) On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:26:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: heal! On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:08:10 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jd: WORKS SALVATION IS NOT THE GOSPEL JD jt: You..argue against obedience [training] constantly JD.. renamed it "works salvation"
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
An excellent point G. But so is your comment equating obedience to training. In a time when it is admitted that righteousness does not come by the Law, the place of obedience is, perhaps, better understood as a "fitting" or a "training. Thanks. You got the juices flowing once again. Et al: a few comments from Bonhoeffer: He does not have the power of being for me; He is the power Christ stands for His new humanity before God. But if tht is so, He is the new humanity...therefore in Him, mankind is crucified, dead and judged." D Bonhoeffer, Christ The Center, p 48. Bonhoeffer was murdered in 1945. I believe this was written in 1906. Anyone with a better guess? JD -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:59:22 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 (a command which is impossible to obey) On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:26:57 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: heal! On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:08:10 -0400 Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com writes: jd: WORKS SALVATION IS NOT THE GOSPEL JD jt: You..argue against obedience [training] constantly JD.. renamed it "works salvation"
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Actually, when John said, ...I would make you jealous, I thought he was using a metaphor to say I have many blessings, or you would be surprised at how much I have been blessed. I didn't think he was really assuming any other believer would be jealous. We use similar phrases all the time. I have more blessings than Carter has pills. (How many pills does Carter have?) I have more blessings than you can shake a stick at!. (Exactly how many is too many to shake a stick at?) Was I being naive in reading his comment that way? Do you think he seriously meant that you would really be jealous? Maybe he did...I don't know. Perry From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:56 -0400 This is so true Izzy - I hope and pray for many more blessings on both JD and Bill . Judyt On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:05:42 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I find it interesting the JD would assume that another Believer would be jealous of his blessings. That is a mighty sour assumption for one walking in love. Love rejoices at the blessings of another, and such is what we Believers walk in. Love also assumes the best of others unless there is a compelling reason not to. I wish only many more blessings to you JD, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:42:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get that idea. To each his own. Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt My life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy. jt: Not surprising since He blesses both the just and the unjust. I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Oh! You are calling obedience manipulation - what a travesty. We truly are in the last days when men will not endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a hat you know. As for Gary -: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying The travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel that simply does not work. jt: What do you mean does not work? Does God have to work for us before we choose His way? Rather we serve Him... No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing this right and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain old pure false teaching IMO. jt: You do argue against it constantly JD and you have even renamed it works salvation Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walk that is no different from the core beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's.. jt: Plain old unadulterated nonsense JD. What I believe and practice has nothing at all to do with any of the above which are all exclusive man made hierarchies. I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still call that honest? Where is discernment? What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused to consider what if when it comes to those on this forum.even with our Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to be honest and Gary to be something else. jt: I don't think you should be judging either of us personally JD and if you are unable to recognize whether or not a person speaks truth by God's Word then it is worse than a pointless endeavor. Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. jt: Nobody I know of on TT has been discussing works salvationism JD so this is a construct of your own mind. Do you know why you resist works salvationists ? Because you know that works salvationism is false doctrine. jt: Works salvationism is a non Biblical term that I never have any reason to have to deal with. I don't go to those places - but then you would probably define the PCA Church I do attend that way since they teach that true faith will have corresponding actions or fruit that are evident in the lives of thos who profess to have it. Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and always has been a God of Covenant and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has some pie in the sky idea that for us the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go on our merry way. His doctrine may back this up but the scriptures certainly do
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Thank you. And if any on this forum were to respond by saying, "On yeah, I have more blessings than you" I would smile,nod my head in agreement and say "praise the Lord." JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:41:59 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Actually, when John said, "...I would make you jealous", I thought he was using a metaphor to say "I have many blessings", or "you would be surprised at how much I have been blessed". I didn't think he was really assuming any other believer would be jealous. We use similar phrases all the time. "I have more blessings than Carter has pills". (How many pills does Carter have?) "I have more blessings than you can shake a stick at!". (Exactly how many is too many to shake a stick at?)Was I being naive in reading his comment that way? Do you think he seriously meant that you would really be jealous? Maybe he did...I don't know.PerryFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comReply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:56 -0400This is so true Izzy - I hope and pray for many more blessings on both JDand Bill . JudytOn Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:05:42 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy, I find it interesting the JD would assume that another Believerwould be ?jealous? of his blessings. That is a mighty sour assumptionfor one walking in love. Love rejoices at the blessings of another, andsuch is what we Believers walk in. Love also assumes the best of othersunless there is a compelling reason not to. I wish only many moreblessings to you JD, IzzyFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorOn Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:42:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confusedyou really are. On many occasions,I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, Iwould make you jealous. I will leave it at that.jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would getthat idea. To each his own.Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jtMy life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy.jt: Not surprising since He blesses both the just and the unjust.I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments youadmitted. Why you did not readthem is beyond me.jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. Wetruly are in the last days when men will notendure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of ahat you know . As for Gary -: Honest?Most of the time noone knows what he is sayingThe travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel thatsimply does not work.jt: What do you mean "does not work?" Does God have to "work for us"before we choose His way?Rather we serve Him...No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing thisright and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain oldpure false teaching IMO.jt: You do argue against it constantly JD and you have even renamed it"works salvation"Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walkthat is no different from thecore beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's..jt: Plain old unadulterated nonsense JD. What I believe and practice hasnothing at all to do with anyof the above which are all exclusive man made hierarchies.I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM.jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you stillcall that honest? Where is discernment?What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused toconsider "w hat if" when it comes to those on this forum.even withour Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to behonest and Gary to be something else.jt: I don't think you should be judging either of us personally JD and ifyou are unable to recognize whether or not a person speaks truth by God'sWord then it is worse than a pointless endeavor.Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe.jt: Nobody I know of on TT has been discussing "works salvationism" JD sothis is a construct of your own mind.Do you know why you resist " works salvationists" ? Because you knowthat "works salvationism"is false doctrine.jt: Works salvationism is a non Biblical term that I never have anyreason to have to deal with. I don'tgo to those places - but then you would probably define the PCA Church Ido attend that way sincethey teach that true faith will have corresponding actions or fruit thatare evident in the liv
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Why don't you ask John. He has made this same statement many times, and I think he really means it, as if to gloat or something. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:42 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Actually, when John said, ...I would make you jealous, I thought he was using a metaphor to say I have many blessings, or you would be surprised at how much I have been blessed. I didn't think he was really assuming any other believer would be jealous. We use similar phrases all the time. I have more blessings than Carter has pills. (How many pills does Carter have?) I have more blessings than you can shake a stick at!. (Exactly how many is too many to shake a stick at?) Was I being naive in reading his comment that way? Do you think he seriously meant that you would really be jealous? Maybe he did...I don't know. Perry From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:56 -0400 This is so true Izzy - I hope and pray for many more blessings on both JD and Bill . Judyt On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:05:42 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I find it interesting the JD would assume that another Believer would be jealous of his blessings. That is a mighty sour assumption for one walking in love. Love rejoices at the blessings of another, and such is what we Believers walk in. Love also assumes the best of others unless there is a compelling reason not to. I wish only many more blessings to you JD, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:42:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get that idea. To each his own. Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt My life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy. jt: Not surprising since He blesses both the just and the unjust. I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Oh! You are calling obedience manipulation - what a travesty. We truly are in the last days when men will not endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a hat you know. As for Gary -: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying The travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel that simply does not work. jt: What do you mean does not work? Does God have to work for us before we choose His way? Rather we serve Him... No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing this right and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain old pure false teaching IMO. jt: You do argue against it constantly JD and you have even renamed it works salvation Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walk that is no different from the core beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's.. jt: Plain old unadulterated nonsense JD. What I believe and practice has nothing at all to do with any of the above which are all exclusive man made hierarchies. I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still call that honest? Where is discernment? What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused to consider what if when it comes to those on this forum.even with our Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to be honest and Gary to be something else. jt: I don't think you should be judging either of us personally JD and if you are unable to recognize whether or not a person speaks truth by God's Word then it is worse than a pointless endeavor. Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. jt: Nobody I know of on TT has been discussing works salvationism JD so this is a construct of your own mind. Do you know why you resist works salvationists ? Because you know that works salvationism is false doctrine. jt: Works salvationism is a non Biblical term that I never have any reason to have to deal with. I don't go to those places - but then you would probably define the PCA Church I do attend that way since they teach that true faith will have corresponding actions or fruit that are evident in the lives of thos who profess to have it. Probably a roll
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following theadvice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD === They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?" Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that. Terry -
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allow for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5. It denies thatobedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6. It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness (Rom 4). JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following theadvice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD===They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there."Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?"Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that.Terry -
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Pitiful. === [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allow for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5. It denies thatobedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6. It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness (Rom 4). JD -Original Message- From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.net To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following theadvice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD === They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?" Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that. Terry -
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Most definitely -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:22:24 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Pitiful.===[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allow for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5. It denies thatobedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6. It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness (Rom 4). JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following theadvice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD===They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there."Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you?"Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that.Terry -
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Terry, can you take comment on these points one by one and let me know why you think each is pitiful. Thanks. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:22:24 -0500 Pitiful. === [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To argue that salvation is free but after the initial event, we must obey to maintain this salvation is wrong on several levels: 1.. Such denies the unmeritorious gift of salvation by faith through grace and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God. 2. It does not allow for failure -- we must obey all of the law (cf. #4) 3. It creates a system that is essentially the same as that of the Mosaic Covenant. 4. The blood of Christ, which replaced the continuing sacrifices of bulls and goats, is replaced by by repeated confession of sins --- the disciple being lost until confession is presented and repentance is evidences. 5.It denies that obedience extend from saving and vital faith -- demanding a soteriological value be attached to works, in and of themselves!!! 6.It pronounces that what God could not do for man, man must do for himself !! 7. It denies the need for the exchange of faith for righteousness (Rom 4).JD -Original Message- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically (if you know), what is the point here? Who denies that we are blessed in following the advice of the Lord? Where, pray tell, is it said that we are not saved until and unless we accomplish this task? Where are those words? (Hint - they are not there). JD === They may not be there in the words you have chosen to use, John, but they are there. Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I tell you? Hint: Faith saves, but fruit is the proof of salvation. You produce fruit by doing as you are told by your Lord.. That is why He is called Lord. He is the guy in charge. We are His slaves. He orders, we obey. Put another way, if you do not do as He says, you are not His. It is important to understand that. Terry - -- 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] Re:John 16:13,14
JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
"Yes John, it is " means that I am right in my stated view above. "But ... " means that you are about to counter your own admission oerhaps. "she istryingto help and ... correct his misbehaviour." means that, in fact, youdid counter yourself. Not much I can say to someone who uses this method of "reasoning." My comments stand as writtenand will be understood by all who are not into "rebuking ministries. Thnaks for you comments, anyway. JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. Smithson, JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying jt I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course.We cannot help but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to be a disciple of Satan and that you should tellthem this -- evenfrequently. Ditto for kevin and shields. DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so writing. The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion.He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. obedience is not works it is normal christianliving jt "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get that idea. To each his own. Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. We truly are in the last days when men will not endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a hat you know. As for Gary -: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still call that honest? Where is discernment? Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. jt: Nobody I know of on TThas been discussing "works salvationism" JD so this is a construct of your own mind. Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and always has been a God of Covenant and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has some pie in the sky idea that for us the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go on our merry way. His doctrine may back this up but the scriptures certainly do not. I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course.We cannot help but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to be a disciple of Satan and that you should tellthem this -- evenfrequently. Ditto for kevin and shields. jt:: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and recognize the source. Accusation is never a blessing. DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so writing. The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion.He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. jt: So why are you defendingGary and his one word comments? It's not good to partake of another man's sin. All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being used by the wrong spirit? Jesus said the same to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said "Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather than the things of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience is not works it is normal christianliving. "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will do what I say" -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now,
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve Satan except a liar. Hopefully that is not your position. If anyone from the left or the right thinks for a second that I am going to back off on this - well you are wrong. But, I am ready to move on to matters of biblical substancejust ftr. Jesus said the same to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said "Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather than the things of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience is not works it is normal christianliving. "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will do what I say" Scripture please --- preferably a scripture that does not need to be reworded. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-----From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Sorry about that JD, I must have thought for some reason DM or you were talking to me. and incidentally you are misrepresenting me right here. I have never claimed that Jesus was not God in the flesh. What I deny is that He was wholly God because before He took the body upon himself He divested Himself of divine attributes. Please don't put words in my mouth. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, why are you answering posted comments to David?I already know and have rejected what you believe about Christ not being God Incarnate.I had somehow missed DM's point. Jd-Original Message-From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:51:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judyt: My point is that he was not fully God in the flesh and neither was he fully man because he is constantly referred to as a "holy child" He was holy from birth Mankind is not and this is why we so desperately need him and why he diedfor us He is what He is and we need to be open to receive that revelation from the Lord rather than die for some creed that misrepresents Him for fear of heresy. The important thing is that we be conformed to His image before he returns for us. On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:34:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely? Your point? Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: He was on earth as the Son of God. ... God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent etc. When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater than I". JD wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man. Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than being God? Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man makes him man? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Now you are putting words in both my mouth and that of
DavidM. I have never argued that we are saved by
keeping commandments and neither has DM because the Law
was not given for this reason to begin with.
From what you have written it is obvious that you are
not walking in His victory either because you are still in
bondage to what he has defeated. jt
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:01:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, the victory we walk in is Christ's victory over sin. All spiritual blessings are IN
HIM. HE HAS OVERCOME THE WORLD.there
is nothing else to do. Your teaching , logically, has no
middle ground. Do you know this. Ditto for David.
As soon as you argue that we must obey the commandments to
be saved,you must include ALL the commandments in order to be
saved and you must all the commandments RIGHT NOW in order to be saved
-- because Christ sacrifice only includes "past sins." Your
teaching is impossible. JD From: Judith H Taylor
jandgtaylor1@juno.com
judyt: Not entirely true JD. Yes he won the victory for us but it
does take effort to walk in that victory
This is what it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling" and "continuing in hope"
or not letting go. We must overcome the world, flesh, and devil
because of our faith in His victory.
This takes effort. Studying to show oneself approved and rightly dividing
the Word of Truth takes effort.
He can not present us holy and blameles without our cooperation. It does not work by
magic. jt
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The reason we are not comdemned has
nothing, ultimately, to do with our effort. Rather, in Christ we
escape judgment altogether (John 3:18; 5:24).
Because of the fact of reconciliation, we are presented as ones who
cannot (read: CANNOT) be called into account - cf. Col
1:22 and the word "blameless").
JD-Original
Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:57:30
-0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Judy wrote:
Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human
nature as per Galatians 5:19
Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been manifested
in Jesus if he had followed his flesh. The behavior listed there does not
describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh. The point
is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here. Jesus had victory
over them. If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had
victory over these temptations.
Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of Christ, we
have all these things abiding in our flesh. Why aren't they alive? Why
aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder,
drunkenness, and partying on weekends? The reason is because we reckon our
flesh dead by the power of the Spirit's operation in our life. The
existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and prevent us
from being holy. Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy. Rather, the
existence of this within his body illustrated his great power over sin.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Then you are one with the "accuser of the brethren" and I don't think he needs any help On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:15:50 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: about ppl like you On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:29:33 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are speaking for yourself. iz whileone loves God, he is learning, simply, to have nothing to do with sin; however, as we see, for mankind this is impossible
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
If you want to identify with world, flesh, and devil JD- OK but please don't include me. Also I am redefining nothing Nor am I qualifying anything; I allow the Word of God to speak for itself. You may use complicated and fuzzy theological jargon all you like but this will not change the reality which is that you need to reconcile these scriptures because God is not confused nor areHis Wordscontradictory. If not you will be spreading the confusion. For a start the fullness of the Godhead would not call the Father "greater" than henow would he? There is no greater thanthe fullness of the Godhead bodily.. You need to reconcile John 14:28 - (these are the words of Jesus) with Col 1:19 because all are truth and all areinspired by the same Spirit. Note: I'm curious - how does one verse by itself alone become a monologue? jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:51:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have talked plenty about what we are saved from - OURSELVES. God is already at work in us to will and to doHis good pleasure (Phil 2:13). Christ has ALREADY reconciled us to Himself (Col 1:19ff). The fact that this Colossian passage does not fit into your theology, written as it is, is no fault of mine. I refuse to change the basic wording of any passage to get it to fit into a theological construct. You use the phrase "in balance and context" to forecast the fact that you are going to redefine a given (problematic) passage by quoting other scripture rather than deal with those posted concerns that present the weakness of your position.. i.e. you completely ignore what I have written below. What we have here, is one monologue verses another monolgue. JD From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Judyt: Much as I hate to disagree with you and Terry I've got to on this one because it promotes the "incarnational" thing. Colossians 1:22 is the reality of the "risen Christ" John. It is not how he walked amongst Israel and reading scripture in balance and context would demonstrate this. Why would the "fullness of the Godhead bodily" say "My Father is greater than I?" Also IMO you carry this "representative" thing too far on the other end. We had no choice but to be born into the first Adam. We do have a choice as to whether or not we embrace the second and if we do not receive the Word of Godembrace reality by agreeing withHis assessment and obey Him - we will continue on in our wretchedness and His Kingdom will be alien to and unavailable to us because God's wrath continues to abide on us (John 3:36) We don't talk about what we have been saved from. Why not? On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:27:39 -0500 Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.net writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my posted comment below, I say "God and man." He is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself (John 5:18). He is the Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself. As Son of God, He is the fullness of the very nature of God, the visible presentation of the invisibleGod. As Son of Man,He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !! As a result, in Him, mankind, full of faith,escapes judgment (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called into account" - Thayer).PTL !! JD===You have said well.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
From your perspective only you have that; it seems. I guess Izzy and I will find out who is accepted and who is rejected when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats won't we? If you think we are missing it, pray for us. On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:14:42 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you project this injt's 'B-I-B-L-E'the child of a beer drinker is going to hell--apparently neither of you (God-manipulators)are searchg for the truth On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:14:43 -0500 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || When you drink enough to get drunk, God is angry with you.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
You arn't God either and the new word is getting
boring.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:17:09 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you
aren'tGod--you're a God-manipulator
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:57:10 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Youve obviously
never been married to a drunk. iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:13
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
'you
shall die', anyway--beer drinking
is irrelevant, not a
life or death issue except to the
God-manipulators
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:02:39 -0400 Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
||
I stay away from that and am
thankful that
husband and children are not
involved with it. jt
||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Anthropos is the Greek word. Lexicon definition includes this nuance: [with regard to the article, generically] all human individuals [without regard to male and female] -- Thayer. (Arnt and Gengrich, Liddle and Scott add to this presentation). The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are not specific references to God the FAther and Mary the Mother .In a nutshell, these phrases present to us a Christ who belongs to, is the full embodiment of, all that isGod /all thatis man. He belongs to God. He belongs to man(kind).He represents God. He representsman. JD -Original Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:43:57 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 DAVEH: Why did you change man to mankind, John? Is the root word the same? I'm out of town, and don't have my reference books, nor do I have time to look into it at the moment. But it sure seems to me that there is a big difference between man and mankind. If they were originally meant to be the same, I would have thought the Bible translators would have been anxious to use the same term, yet they chose a different one. So..what am I missing here? Is your assumption based on something other than traditional Protestant thought?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my posted comment below, I say "God and man." He is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself (John 5:18). He is the Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself. As Son of God, He is the fullness of the very nature of God, the visible presentation of the invisibleGod. As Son of Man,He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !! As a result, in Him, mankind, full of faith,escapes judgment (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called into account" - Thayer).PTL !! JD-Original Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:41:11 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 DAVEH: And..the Son of man as well. Do other TTers not find that immensely important?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD, the word Christ means "anointed" and this is what I
have been saying - that He represents God and He
represents man - But isn't all of either in human
form. jt
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:54:57 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthropos is the Greek
word. Lexicon definition includes
this nuance: [with regard to the article, generically] all human
individuals [without regard to male and female] --
Thayer. (Arnt and Gengrich, Liddle and Scott add to this presentation). The
phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are not specific references to God
the FAther and Mary the Mother .In a nutshell, these phrases
present to us a Christ who belongs to, is the full embodiment of, all
that isGod /all thatis man. He belongs to
God. He belongs to man(kind).He represents God.
He representsman.
JD
-Original Message-From: Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23
Jul 2005 20:43:57 -0700Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
DAVEH: Why did you change man
to mankind, John? Is the root word the same? I'm out of
town, and don't have my reference books, nor do I have time to look into it at
the moment. But it sure seems to me that there is a big difference
between man and mankind. If they were originally meant to
be the same, I would have thought the Bible translators would have been
anxious to use the same term, yet they chose a different one.
So..what am I missing here? Is your
assumption based on something other than traditional Protestant
thought?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In my posted comment below, I say "God and man." He
is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself (John 5:18). He is the
Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself. As Son of God, He is
the fullness of the very nature of
God, the visible presentation of the invisibleGod.
As Son of Man,He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !! As a result,
in Him, mankind, full of faith,escapes judgment (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word
translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called
into account" - Thayer).PTL !!
JD-Original
Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:41:11
-0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
DAVEH: And..the Son of man as
well. Do other TTers not find that immensely
important?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ
was God and
man.--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I do want to get this right. I remember you saying that He was only the "representative of God" while on this earth. Not God but His representative -- understanding that He was God before and after (I guess). Are you saying, below that He was, in fact, God on earth? I do not understand "[not] wholly God." When God manifested Himself in a burning bush or a pillar of fire, was He not wholly God in a different form? JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:55:00 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Sorry about that JD, I must have thought for some reason DM or you were talking to me. and incidentally you are misrepresenting me right here. I have never claimed that Jesus was not God in the flesh. What I deny is that He was wholly God because before He took the body upon himself He divested Himself of divine attributes. Please don't put words in my mouth. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, why are you answering posted comments to David?I already know and have rejected what you believe about Christ not being God Incarnate.I had somehow missed DM's point. Jd-Original Message-From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:51:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judyt: My point is that he was not fully God in the flesh and neither was he fully man because he is constantly referred to as a "holy child" He was holy from birth Mankind is not and this is why we so desperately need him and why he diedfor us He is what He is and we need to be open to receive that revelation from the Lord rather than die for some creed that misrepresents Him for fear of heresy. The important thing is that we be conformed to His image before he returns for us. On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:34:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely? Your point? Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: He was on earth as the Son of God. ... God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent etc. When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater than I". JD wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man. Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than being God? Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man makes him man? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Your OCD is showing in your repetitive use of the same wordthere is treatment for this condition. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:11 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 ftr, 'cute' is purely speculative; the archives show uncontested the truth that such speculation is the mother of all manipulation On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:20:11 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whered you pick up the big new term, G? Is that going to replace myth for a while? Really cute. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:17 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 you aren'tGod--you're a God-manipulator On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:57:10 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Youve obviously never been married to a drunk. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:13 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 'you shall die', anyway--beer drinking is irrelevant, not a life or death issue except to the God-manipulators On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:02:39 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || I stay away from that and am thankful that husband and children are not involved with it. jt ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Gary wrote: the hostility to JC is noted--not unusual.. 'His way' is always the fatality of your way Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
And Ad Nauseum. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:22:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do want to get this right. I remember you saying that He was only the "representative of God" while on this earth. Not God but His representative -- understanding that He was God before and after (I guess). Are you saying, below that He was, in fact, God on earth? I do not understand "[not] wholly God." When God manifested Himself in a burning bush or a pillar of fire, was He not wholly God in a different form? JD I was saying the same thing that you are saying below - how neat that we can agree JD :) Anthropos is the Greek word. Lexicon definition includes this nuance: [with regard to the article, generically] all human individuals [without regard to male and female] -- Thayer. (Arnt and Gengrich, Liddle and Scott add to this presentation). The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are not specific references to God the FAther and Mary the Mother .In a nutshell, these phrases present to us a Christ who belongs to, is the full embodiment of, all that isGod /all thatis man. He belongs to God. He belongs to man(kind).He represents God. He representsman. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:55:00 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Sorry about that JD, I must have thought for some reason DM or you were talking to me. and incidentally you are misrepresenting me right here. I have never claimed that Jesus was not God in the flesh. What I deny is that He was wholly God because before He took the body upon himself He divested Himself of divine attributes. Please don't put words in my mouth. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, why are you answering posted comments to David?I already know and have rejected what you believe about Christ not being God Incarnate.I had somehow missed DM's point. Jd-Original Message-From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:51:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judyt: My point is that he was not fully God in the flesh and neither was he fully man because he is constantly referred to as a "holy child" He was holy from birth Mankind is not and this is why we so desperately need him and why he diedfor us He is what He is and we need to be open to receive that revelation from the Lord rather than die for some creed that misrepresents Him for fear of heresy. The important thing is that we be conformed to His image before he returns for us. On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:34:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely? Your point? Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: He was on earth as the Son of God. ... God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent etc. When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater than I". JD wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man. Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than being God? Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man makes him man? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
You don't believe that works (obedience)are necessary for salvation? What in the world have we been arguing about for tha last year or so?Where does obedience fit into your theological picture? JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:07:31 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Now you are putting words in both my mouth and that of DavidM. I have never argued that we are saved by keeping commandments and neither has DM because the Law was not given for this reason to begin with. From what you have written it is obvious that you are not walking in His victory either because you are still in bondage to what he has defeated. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:01:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, the victory we walk in is Christ's victory over sin. All spiritual blessings are IN HIM. HE HAS OVERCOME THE WORLD.there is nothing else to do. Your teaching , logically, has no middle ground. Do you know this. Ditto for David. As soon as you argue that we must obey the commandments to be saved,you must include ALL the commandments in order to be saved and you must all the commandments RIGHT NOW in order to be saved -- because Christ sacrifice only includes "past sins." Your teaching is impossible. JD From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com judyt: Not entirely true JD. Yes he won the victory for us but it does take effort to walk in that victory This is what it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" and "continuing in hope" or not letting go. We must overcome the world, flesh, and devil because of our faith in His victory. This takes effort. Studying to show oneself approved and rightly dividing the Word of Truth takes effort. He can not present us holy and blameles without our cooperation. It does not work by magic. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The reason we are not comdemned has nothing, ultimately, to do with our effort. Rather, in Christ we escape judgment altogether (John 3:18; 5:24). Because of the fact of reconciliation, we are presented as ones who cannot (read: CANNOT) be called into account - cf. Col 1:22 and the word "blameless"). JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:57:30 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human nature as per Galatians 5:19 Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been manifested in Jesus if he had followed his flesh. The behavior listed there does not describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh. The point is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here. Jesus had victory over them. If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had victory over these temptations. Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of Christ, we have all these things abiding in our flesh. Why aren't they alive? Why aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder, drunkenness, and partying on weekends? The reason is because we reckon our flesh dead by the power of the Spirit's operation in our life. The existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and prevent us from being holy. Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy. Rather, the existence of this within his body illustrated his great power over sin. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
You must obey Jesus before God will give you the Holy Spirit JD. He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. The doctrine of the "incarnation" alone won't cut it no matter what Lance says - jt On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:36:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You don't believe that works (obedience)are necessary for salvation? What in the world have we been arguing about for tha last year or so?Where does obedience fit into your theological picture? JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:07:31 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Now you are putting words in both my mouth and that of DavidM. I have never argued that we are saved by keeping commandments and neither has DM because the Law was not given for this reason to begin with. From what you have written it is obvious that you are not walking in His victory either because you are still in bondage to what he has defeated. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:01:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, the victory we walk in is Christ's victory over sin. All spiritual blessings are IN HIM. HE HAS OVERCOME THE WORLD.there is nothing else to do. Your teaching , logically, has no middle ground. Do you know this. Ditto for David. As soon as you argue that we must obey the commandments to be saved,you must include ALL the commandments in order to be saved and you must all the commandments RIGHT NOW in order to be saved -- because Christ sacrifice only includes "past sins." Your teaching is impossible. JD From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com judyt: Not entirely true JD. Yes he won the victory for us but it does take effort to walk in that victory This is what it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" and "continuing in hope" or not letting go. We must overcome the world, flesh, and devil because of our faith in His victory. This takes effort. Studying to show oneself approved and rightly dividing the Word of Truth takes effort. He can not present us holy and blameles without our cooperation. It does not work by magic. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The reason we are not comdemned has nothing, ultimately, to do with our effort. Rather, in Christ we escape judgment altogether (John 3:18; 5:24). Because of the fact of reconciliation, we are presented as ones who cannot (read: CANNOT) be called into account - cf. Col 1:22 and the word "blameless"). JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:57:30 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human nature as per Galatians 5:19 Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been manifested in Jesus if he had followed his flesh. The behavior listed there does not describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh. The point is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here. Jesus had victory over them. If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had victory over these temptations. Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of Christ, we have all these things abiding in our flesh. Why aren't they alive? Why aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder, drunkenness, and partying on weekends? The reason is because we reckon our flesh dead by the power of the Spirit's operation in our life. The existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and prevent us from being holy. Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy. Rather, the existence of this within his body illustrated his great power over sin. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
These two statements do not mesh, especially in view of the fact that you have stated that one cannot do anything good beforeor apart from the Holy Spirit - because of the fallen nature of man. Now you are putting words in both my mouth and that of DavidM. I have never argued that we are saved by keeping commandments and You must obey Jesus before God will give you the Holy Spirit JD. He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him.-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:41:08 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 You must obey Jesus before God will give you the Holy Spirit JD. He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. The doctrine of the "incarnation" alone won't cut it no matter what Lance says - jt On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:36:56 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You don't believe that works (obedience)are necessary for salvation? What in the world have we been arguing about for tha last year or so?Where does obedience fit into your theological picture? JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:07:31 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Now you are putting words in both my mouth and that of DavidM. I have never argued that we are saved by keeping commandments and neither has DM because the Law was not given for this reason to begin with. From what you have written it is obvious that you are not walking in His victory either because you are still in bondage to what he has defeated. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:01:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, the victory we walk in is Christ's victory over sin. All spiritual blessings are IN HIM. HE HAS OVERCOME THE WORLD.there is nothing else to do. Your teaching , logically, has no middle ground. Do you know this. Ditto for David. As soon as you argue that we must obey the commandments to be saved,you must include ALL the commandments in order to be saved and you must all the commandments RIGHT NOW in order to be saved -- because Christ sacrifice only includes "past sins." Your teaching is impossible. JD From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com judyt: Not entirely true JD. Yes he won the victory for us but it does take effort to walk in that victory This is what it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" and "continuing in hope" or not letting go. We must overcome the world, flesh, and devil because of our faith in His victory. This takes effort. Studying to show oneself approved and rightly dividing the Word of Truth takes effort. He can not present us holy and blameles without our cooperation. It does not work by magic. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The reason we are not comdemned has nothing, ultimately, to do with our effort. Rather, in Christ we escape judgment altogether (John 3:18; 5:24). Because of the fact of reconciliation, we are presented as ones who cannot (read: CANNOT) be called into account - cf. Col 1:22 and the word "blameless"). JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:57:30 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human nature as per Galatians 5:19 Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been manifested in Jesus if he had followed his flesh. The behavior listed there does not describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh. The point is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here. Jesus had victory over them. If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had victory over these temptations. Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of Christ, we have all these things abiding in our flesh. Why aren't they alive? Why aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder, drunkenness, and partying on weekends? The reason is because we reckon our flesh dead by the power of the Spirit's operation in our life. The existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and prevent us from being holy. Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy. Rather, the existence of this within his body illustrated his great power over sin. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you apparently miss. JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Do you believe that he represents God AS GOD? That He represents MAN(KIND) AS MAN?? Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:12:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD, the word Christ means "anointed" and this is what I have been saying - that He represents God and He represents man - But isn't all of either in human form. jt On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:54:57 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anthropos is the Greek word. Lexicon definition includes this nuance: [with regard to the article, generically] all human individuals [without regard to male and female] -- Thayer. (Arnt and Gengrich, Liddle and Scott add to this presentation). The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are not specific references to God the FAther and Mary the Mother .In a nutshell, these phrases present to us a Christ who belongs to, is the full embodiment of, all that isGod /all thatis man. He belongs to God. He belongs to man(kind).He represents God. He representsman. ; JD -Original Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:43:57 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 DAVEH: Why did you change man to mankind, John? Is the root word the same? I'm out of town, and don't have my reference books, nor do I have time to look into it at the moment. But it sure seems to me that there is a big difference between man and mankind. If they were originally meant to be the same, I would have thought the Bible translators would have been anxious to use the same term, yet they chose a different one. So..what am I missing here? Is your assumption based on something other than traditional Protestant thought?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my posted comment below, I say "God and man." He is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself (John 5:18). He is the Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself. As Son of God, He is the fullness of the very nature of God, the visible presentation of the invisibleGod. As Son of Man,He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !! As a result, in Him, mankind, full of faith,escapes judgment (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called into account" - Thayer).< SPAN class=correction id="">PTL !! JD-Original Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:41:11 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 DAVEH: And..the Son of man as well. Do other TTers not find that immensely important?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
If you believe that He represents God as God on earth, then yes we agree. I would like tht very much. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:35:47 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:22:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do want to get this right. I remember you saying that He was only the "representative of God" while on this earth. Not God but His representative -- understanding that He was God before and after (I guess). Are you saying, below that He was, in fact, God on earth? I do not understand "[not] wholly God." When God manifested Himself in a burning bush or a pillar of fire, was He not wholly God in a different form? JD I was saying the same thing that you are saying below - how neat that we can agree JD :) Anthropos is the Greek word. Lexicon definition includes this nuance: [with regard to the article, generically] all human individuals [without regard to male and female] -- Thayer. (Arnt and Gengrich, Liddle and Scott add to this presentation). The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are not specific references to God the FAther and Mary the Mother .In a nutshell, these phrases present to us a Christ who belongs to, is the full embodiment of, all that isGod /all thatis man. He belongs to God. He belongs to man(kind).He represents God. He representsman. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:55:00 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Sorry about that JD, I must have thought for some reason DM or you were talking to me. and incidentally you are misrepresenting me right here. I have never claimed that Jesus was not God in the flesh. What I deny is that He was wholly God because before He took the body upon himself He divested Himself of divine attributes. Please don't put words in my mouth. jt On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, why are you answering posted comments to David?I already know and have rejected what you believe about Christ not being God Incarnate.I had somehow missed DM's point. Jd-Original Message-From: Judith H Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:51:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judyt: My point is that he was not fully God in the flesh and neither was he fully man because he is constantly referred to as a "holy child" He was holy from birth Mankind is not and this is why we so desperately need him and why he diedfor us He is what He is and we need to be open to receive that revelation from the Lord rather than die for some creed that misrepresents Him for fear of heresy. The important thing is that we be conformed to His image before he returns for us. On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:34:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely? Your point? Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Judy wrote: He was on earth as the Son of God. ... God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent etc. When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater than I". JD wrote: Don't be fooled. The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man. Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than being God? Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man makes him man? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
John, an ad hominem argument is still ad hominem regardless of whether it is true or false. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400 Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you apparently miss. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Perhaps Gary should have said that her wording manipulates the will of God.I view much of this continuing discussion on ad hom as one of the grandest examples of legalistic manipulation presented on TT. We separate words from personage and pretend that criticism of one is ad hom while criticism of the other is not. A meaningless distinction to my way of thinking. JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:06:02 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 John, an ad hominem argument is still ad hominem regardless of whether it is true or false.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you apparently miss.JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulatorArgumentum Ad HominemPeace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know howyou ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend ;who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] andhe 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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps Gary should have said that her wording manipulates the will of God. Not quite. Gary should have provided evidence that demonstrates that the position she was arguing attempts to manilulate God. Big difference. I view much of this continuing discussion on ad hom as one of the grandest examples of legalistic manipulation presented on TT. Why do you view it this way? Is it because we don't want you to behave badly when discussing truth? If one can't make a point without name calling or personalizing the argument, then he either has a weak argument (one that the facts do not support) or is too lazy to present the facts supporting his postition. We separate words from personage and pretend that criticism of one is ad hom while criticism of the other is not. A meaningless distinction to my way of thinking. The fact that you cannot see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the argumenter in no way makes the practice acceptable. John, proper argumentation and presentation of facts is entirely possible without maligning the individuals in the discussion. We are trying to encourage individuals to that standard. Your confusion may be because the ad hominem argument is not enforced uniformly on TT. Some are allowed (or missed), while others are pointed out. In a formal moderated debate there is one argument, and one moderator, and each statement can be considered. But, in a forum where comments are being made in mutiple threads simultaneously, 24-7, and one moderator that has limited time to consider and respond to each, it is impossible to catch them all. So, some decision has to be made as to which ones are allowed to pass, and which ones get comments. I try to catch the ones that are intentionally hurtful, or are very obvious. This is a personal decision based on my own understanding about what constitutes an ad hominem and what does not. I am sure no one agrees 100% with my decisions. Some are gracious about it, though, and some are resentful. Hope this helps you understand, John. Perry the Moderator JD -Original Message- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:06:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 John, an ad hominem argument is still ad hominem regardless of whether it is true or false. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400 Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you apparently miss. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:17:35 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Perhaps Gary should have said that her wording manipulates the will of God.Not quite. Gary should have provided evidence that demonstrates that the position she was arguing attempts to manilulate God. Big difference. I understood her statement to be evidence in and of itself. How come you didn't?I view much of this continuing discussion on ad hom as one of the grandest examples of legalistic manipulation presented on TT.Why do you view it this way? Is it because we don't want you to behave badly when discussing truth? If one can't make a point without name calling or personalizing the argument, then he either has a weak argument (one that the facts do not support) or is too lazy to present the facts supporting his postition. Whether you name call the wording or the author proves the same -- a weakness in the opposing debate.We separate words from personage and pretend that criticism of one is ad hom while criticism of the other is not. A meaningless distinction to my way of thinking. The fact that you cannot see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the argumenter in no way makes the practice acceptable. John, proper argumentation and presentation of facts is entirely possible without maligning the individuals in the discussion. We are trying to encourage individuals to that standard. Let's say that this presentation from you is idiotic, moronic on point and heretical to the core. Would any of this qualify as ad hom? I think so. One cannot write something that is idiotic, moronic and heretical WITHOUT BEING SUCH AT THE TIMETo separate wording from characteris only a legaistic maneuver. Why in the world do you think so many have been offended by those who hold to this above definition? But this is not the point of this discussion. Gary offered a criticism that meets the criteria of those who do the same but scream the loudest when the tables are turned IMO. The "evidence" was the very wording of the participant - Gary, as a teacher, actually believi ng that we will read and figure it out for ourselves. Has he misguessed as to theintuitive abilities of his audience -- perhaps so. Your confusion may be because the ad hominem argument is not enforced uniformly on TT. Some are allowed (or missed), while others are pointed out. In a formal moderated debate there is one argument, and one moderator, and each statement can be considered. But, in a forum where comments are being made in mutiple threads simultaneously, 24-7, and one moderator that has limited time to consider and respond to each, it is impossible to catch them all. So, some decision has to be made as to which ones are allowed to pass, and which ones get comments. I try to catch the ones that are intentionally hurtful, or are very obvious. This is a personal decision based on my own understanding about what consti tutes an ad hominem and what does not. I am sure no one agrees 100% with my decisions. Some are gracious about it, though, and some are resentful. I don't think this is my problem. I have watchedothersinsult one person after another while defendingthemselves from attack by referencing this convoluted definition. Anytime I write something that is "heretical," I, myself, am a heretic at that point. It simply cannot be otherwise. And when you (editorially speaking) call my teaching heretical (as I have of others) or meaningless tautology, you have insulted me or anyone and not just our writings. And why, pray tell, is heretical, or carnal minded, or doctrine of men, or meaningless tautology even necessary ? It NEVER is important to the discussion at hand. Never. So why argue for a rule that allows such? What are we protecting , here? Nothing of value to a forum such as this. So why use the biblical concept, for a change, of avoiding the very appearance of wrong doing? JDad hominem regardless of whether it is true or false. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400 Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you apparently miss. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Gary wrote: you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator Argumentum Ad Hominem Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlo ry.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 h
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
similar tothe second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. And so, what will they conclude that this metaphor is representative of? They will conclude that it is representative of their condition in refusal of him. Yes, this condition includes a spiritual aspect, but not only that. They were entirely helpless and hopeless without him; and it was very important for them to draw that conclusion; hence they needed to realize that he was telling them that in a state of denial,they were as good as dead, as hopeless and helpless as the guy who was about to be buried. Please tell me that you are able to draw these distinctions and that you agree with me. Bill ----- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy, I'm not sure where the miscommunication lies, perhaps on both our parts. It's not that I cannot base my beliefs in Scripture, I think I do that as well as anyone, but we are discussing a theological construct: a doctrine -- terminology, which does not appear in Scripture. We are trying to work our way from the use of that term to its basis. You seem to think that we ought to be able to leap-frog back to the Bible and ground this doctrine squarely in Scripture, without taking into consideration from where the terminology came. I think that that is naive. I think it is looking for trouble. Sure we could wink at each other and pretend that it was there all along, but that would be to concede one of our points, namely, mine :) because I do not believe it is grounded in Scripture, nor do I think you and Judy and a few million other Christians over the ages have just come to this terminology on your own. God bless you, Izzy. I am sorry we could not come to a working paradigm on this one. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
ad hom and offered without evidence !! And WHO CARESabout Judy Taylor's judgments? What important contribution does such bs have to do with the discussion at hand? Nothing. And so we have yet another post that contributes nothing to the. Linda is the queen of this type of posting -- literallyscores of judgmental one liners per year, adding precisely NOTHING to the discussion. Do I need to offer evidence of this? JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:57:36 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Then you are one with the "accuser of the brethren" and I don't think he needs any help On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:15:50 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: about ppl like you On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:29:33 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are speaking for yourself. iz whileone loves God, he is learning, simply, to have nothing to do with sin; however, as we see, for mankind this is impossible
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
And, Perry, think about this: what Judy has done is exactly why I have written kevin and Linda off my list of people who have anything important to conributeas brethren -- Judy writes this YOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSERThat sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. It is out of place and and just plain evil. I like Judy the disciple. I really do not like Judy the Judgmentalist. Ditto for DM - a brillant yound man at times. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:57:36 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Then you are one with the "accuser of the brethren" and I don't think he needs any help On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:15:50 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: about ppl like you On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:29:33 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are speaking for yourself. iz whileone loves God, he is learning, simply, to have nothing to do with sin; however, as we see, for mankind this is impossible
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:04 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in bold blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill in green. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in pink! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:44 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill in red. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I know Im not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit. Id appreciate it. izzy There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine,Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime. True. Paul tells us thatJesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin andhe did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior. I dont follow you here, Bill. We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I understand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this. I know you think that, but that is nonsensical to me. In your viewpoint everyone is born born-again? Yes, in Christ in his resurrection,BUT not everyone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that comes by way of belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we call our "conversion experience" does happen in this lifetime, and sometimes this can beaprofound and life-altering experience; other times it is not so profound for people who have grown up in the church and spent their lifetimes worshiping the Lord. Bill I see your response as unbiblical. Jesus told Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So we are not born again when we are born. Please reconsider this and tell me again, Do you really think we are born (in the natural flesh as newborns) already born again of the Spirit? Being born again IS our conversion experience. If you grew up in the church you still need to be born again, as this is not something that comes over you by osmosis. Izzy, I have a different understanding concerning the thrust of Jesus' words to Nicodemus than you do. I have explained it to you before. You are co
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. Ive never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spiritwhat affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. Im intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Well stated, BillyT. -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:43:24 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Bill it looks like you are ducking out on me on this one. If it cannot be supported scripturally you can explain why can?t you? And when I ask you something I don?t want to know what someone other than you thinks/says about it, if you don?t mind. My simple question, which I have asked at least 3 times now, is still waiting for an answer. What kind of ?dead? was Jesus referring to when He said let the dead bury the dead? Please answer IYO. Thanks, izzy I am sorry it looks that way to you, Izzy. I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day. And in response to her, you wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long pro cess with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going'" (John 12.35). Do you agree with me that the "darkness" in which the rebellious man walks is not literal darkness; in other words he may be walking in daylight, yet still be walking in darkness in accordance with this passage? If you agree with me, it is because you are able to recognize a metaphor in Jesus' statement. "Darkness" here refers to a state other than literal darkness. Do you agree with me? Allow me to quote aportion fromthe following verse:"While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."Do you recognize the metaphorical thrust in these words? Jesus is not asking these people to worship lightas an abstract energy, nor does he want themto be fire worshipers or children of the sun; he expects them to worship instead that which is represented by the word "light." In other words, he expected them to draw a correct inference from the metaphorical language he employed. He expected them to pick up on the metaphor and understand by it that he wants them to believe in him, that they might become his followers. Do you agree with me? This is the same thing which is happening with the verse you are asking me about: "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." Jesus knows quite well that he has employed a metaphor in this statement. He knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
The prison? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:58:10 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. I?ve never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spirit?what affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the ?organic? connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. I?m intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
The prison thing? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:58:10 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Thanks Izzy. I am sorry but I do not have time right now to get started on another long discussion. I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be really swamped for a while. Maybe when time permits, we could come back to this. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Good post, Bill, and I think I agree with you basically on your points about the spirit aspect of humans. I?ve never been one to think we can compartmentalize body/soul/spirit?what affects one affects all. Please do, however, discuss your views on the ?organic? connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect. I?m intrigued. izzy Furthermore, a"spirit" does not have any physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is a discussion for another day) Bill
