On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:24:16 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To the
Enlighteded:
jt: I consider myself a believer, so that makes
me"enlightened, right?"JD: If no one cometh to Christ
except the Father draw him - then Christ is NOT the "draw."
Something else is going on.
jt: Right.
To the Enlighteded:
If no one cometh to Christ except the Father draw him - then Christ is NOT the "draw."
Something else is going on. If Philip 2:12,13 (work out your own salvation for it is God at work within you both to will and to do His good pleasure) is part of the answer to the question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the Enlighteded:
If no one cometh to Christ except the Father draw him - then Christ is NOT
the draw.
Something else is going on. If Philip 2:12,13 (work out your own salvation
for it is God at work within you both to will and to do His good pleasure) is
part
John wrote
Objections? Acts 2:38 seems to suggest that if we repent and are
baptized, we will, then, receive the Holy Spirit. Mankind individually
would not have the Spirit unless and until a certain response that "gets us
saved" is committed to.
Acts 2.38 -- "Then Peter said to them,
John wrote:
I have noticed over the years --- some
41 years of ministry I might add and proudly
so, that those who claim sinless perfectionism
by the power of the Indwelling are the very
one's who exhibit the most severe of sin problems.
John, who specifically are you talking about when
In a message dated 2/1/2005 5:34:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey John,
If you will allow the word eis to be translated the way that it is on hundreds of times (perhaps over one thousand times) in Scripture, you will discover that we are not repenting and getting
In a message dated 2/1/2005 6:28:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
I have noticed over the years --- some
41 years of ministry I might add and proudly
so, that those who claim sinless perfectionism
"by the power of the Indwelling" are the very
one's who exhibit
Cool.We're on the same pageon this
one.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:46
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed
by one of the greats
In a message dated 2/1/2005
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:11:04 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, Izzy. Yeah, I hear you and agree with
much of what you say here. My problem is, I don't really know where my
agreement with you shifts and turns into disagreement, and how I should
understand that
I think realizing that we dont all
agree is simply indication to pray for ourselves and one another. Not to get
into disagreements. Discussion is fine. But in the end, we are accountable to
God for listening for His voice, not the consensus of others. And we dont
have the excuse that we
Good points, jt.
Excuse my butt in Izzy
and Bill - I think we have some helpful examplesin scripture, the first
being Peter's epiphany where Jesus told him flesh and blood had not revealed
this to him, it had come from the Fr in heaven. The second is Paul's gospel
which he said
Bill Taylor wrote:
If we have this God's eye view of reality that
you and David are suggesting, why can't we,
those of us who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit,
not agree upon what we are looking at?
I know that pride has something to do with it ...
Yes, pride often does have something to do
Paul Tillich one said this: " ...anyone who has a degree of ultimate concern is a theologian. One's life is, after all, is an _expression_ of all his 'ologies, including his private theology."
I have noticed over the years --- some 41 years of ministry I might add and proudly so, that those
Thanks, JD, for the great example of hate
speech. Read my last post and see how controlling I
am. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005
6:22 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Thank you, Judy. I am very excited by your
post.
I will continue to give you reasons why I consider
the eternal Sonship of Christ to be so important. Perhaps I will try to put
together a post to directly address your question; however, I know that to do so
in just a short post would be to
John wrote:
None of us stand above the forest.
Bill Taylor wrote:
Well said, John. No doubt about it, in this
age of enlightenment that is a difficult truth
to learn.
Difficult for the spiritually minded perhaps. The statement by John, None
of us stand above the forest, is completely
Either I have missed the context of John's comment, David, or you have
missed the context of one or both of our statements. I am saying that none
of us has a God's-eye view of reality. We may have very good, spiritual,
reasons to interpret reality in one way and not another, but we do this by
In a message dated 1/30/2005 6:29:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Difficult for the spiritually minded perhaps. The statement by John, "None
of us stand above the forest," is completely false. It is not truth. It is
error.
Why don't you tell us what John was talking
-Original Message-
Either I have missed the context of John's comment, David, or you have
missed the context of one or both of our statements. I am saying that
none
of us has a God's-eye view of reality. We may have very good,
spiritual,
reasons to interpret reality in
Bill wrote:
I am saying that none of us has a God's-eye
view of reality.
And I am saying that some DO have a God's eye view of reality.
Bill wrote:
We may have very good, spiritual, reasons to
interpret reality in one way and not another,
but we do this by participating IN that reality,
Thanks, Izzy. Yeah, I hear you and agree with much
of what you say here. My problem is, I don't really know where my agreement with
you shifts and turns into disagreement, and how I should understand that
"leaving off." Did the Spirit lead me to some truth and you to some truth, but
he does
Debbie:
Better said than my post, I think.
Another way of looking at is this: In the "forrest and the tree" illustration - it is the forest that is "truth" not the tree. the question is not "is this a tree." We CAN figure that out for ourselves with a high degree of certainty. The question is
John wrote None of us stand above
the "forest."
Well said, John. No doubt about it, in this age of
enlightenment that isa difficulttruth to learn.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:56
In a message dated 1/29/2005 6:11:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote None of us stand above the "forest."
Well said, John. No doubt about it, in this age of enlightenment that is a difficult truth to learn.
Thank you, sir. I am off to work. Got to save my
Do you have any ideee how much material I
have to review before going? Sure glad I have a CD player in my
truck! E h. Smithson -- out !!
Not really. Maybe Lance would have some
suggestions. He has a better idea than myself what the format is going to be.
Hey Lance, any
Bill TaylorFri, 28 Jan 2005
08:56:44 -0800
A hardy AMEN on this one, John. I am
confident that others will read this and agree.
As it pertains to Judy's statement, "[Jesus]wasn't a son before the incarnation and he
hasn't
been thatsince
Greetings Judy,
Please refer to the portion of your quote which I
underlined: "[Jesus]wasn't a son before the
incarnation and he hasn't been thatsince the resurrection."That is the portion I surmised you may
want to take back if given the grace to do so. I went ahead and emphasized a
'Prep' suggestions:
1. Theological Instinct by TFT (CD)
2. Mediation of Christ by TFT (CD
print)
3. Gospel Mental Health by Bruce
Wauchope (CD)
NB:Well 'John-boy', AE will play a central
part so, come prepared to raise your creative thesis vis a vis
AE.
Terminological 'brushing up'
1.
Good Morning Bill:
I have no problem with the fact that Jesus will always
be the lamb of God, firstborn from the dead, and the
ONLY begotten Son of the
Father; neither do Idispute that he is ever called the son of the Father
following the resurrection. Possibly I should have
phrased the
In a message dated 1/29/2005 7:31:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'Prep' suggestions:
1. Theological Instinct by TFT (CD)
2. Mediation of Christ by TFT (CD print)
3. Gospel Mental Health by Bruce Wauchope (CD)
NB:Well 'John-boy', AE will play a central part so, come
Although I share this belief (which we've talked about before), I did not
recognize it as the main point of your post, despite its being underlined and
appearing in the first paragraph! Thanks.
Debbie
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:52:05 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It
is my contention that an awareness/assurance of "truth" is not
possible apart from the sharing of ideas (read "truth"). In this
remark, obtaining truth and having the
===
To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying
that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by yourself. I
realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less than kind, but that
is not
In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by yourself. I realize that when cut down to the basics, this sounds less than
A hardy AMEN on this one, John. I am confident that
others will read this and agree.
As it pertains to Judy's statement, "[Jesus]wasn't a son before the incarnation and he hasn't
been thatsince the resurrection," I'm sure
she made it in the heat of the moment and upon reflection would want
Are you comparing the Bible to a drivers manual?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/28/2005 5:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To reduce this to a few easy to understand words, John, you seem to be saying that you do not have the ability to recognize truth by
Bill wrote:
As it pertains to Judy's statement, [Jesus] wasn't
a son before the incarnation and he hasn't been
that since the resurrection, I'm sure she made it
in the heat of the moment and upon reflection
would want to be able to take some of it back.
I hope that is the case too, Bill. I
Kevin Deegan wrote:
Are you comparing the Bible to a drivers manual?
Somewhat, I suppose, but much more. A better way to put it is that is
my only source of absolute truth; about God, about morality, about
community, about
Did you learn your trade by simply reading a book? Have you become a caring husband via the same process? Driving a car? Learning to walk -- Terry the Sufficient learning to walk on his own. Terry -- there is nothing that you know in this life that has come your way apart from your association
You
can use me as an excuse to meditate anytime.
By
defining truth in terms of time/history (past, present, future), you seem to be
saying that it is
events/acts rather than principles, hence
particulars rather than universals;
more like narrative, and less like
science.
Well,
Annie
In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is my contention that an awareness/assurance of "truth" is not possible apart from the sharing of ideas (read "truth"). In this remark, obtaining truth and having the assurance that I possess the "truth"
In a message dated 1/27/2005 11:17:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, Knpraise writes:
In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is my contention that an awareness/assurance of "truth" is not possible apart from the sharing of ideas (read "truth"). In
42 matches
Mail list logo
