Allow me to give you
a resent example of one of your smears. Depending how you do
with it, I may go further:
"BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance,
and Jonathan."
Can you say to
me with a clear conscience and your hand on the Bible that yours is
not a pejorative use of the word "triad"?
jt: I don't
swear on anything Bill, my yes or no should be enough and I can say with a
clear conscience that I was not intentionally being "perjorative" in using
the word triad which has become a kind of internet shorthand for you,
Lance, and Jonathan, kind of like an endearing emoticon - I don't consider
them perjorative. Do you?.
Now allow
me to give you an example of misrepresentation from a recent post:
Don't you believe that all
mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for
heaven whether or not they overcome anything.
I
underlined the portion of your statement which is a true representation of
things I've said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to
what I actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because
I have had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written
more about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on
this list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say,
you do, but I have written many substantive words expressing
the possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell.
You know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my
position?
jt: There you go Bill,
doing exactly what you are accusing me of. I want you to go as
far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or
off this list. And as for the second part of what I wrote above. I
can say with a clear conscience that I don't remember any fo the
"substantive words" you have written about anyone damning themselves
to hell either.
Now let me give you an example of your
caricatures from a recent post?
However, this is subject to change if
anyone can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of
the "eternal son" people have done so.
While I admit that on
this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length
in the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine
of Christ and the relational nature of our triune God. I have
deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to
the exegesis of Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some
really wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from
which to draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to
see the light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture.
jt: "Outsourcing"
Bill? Sounds like problems US trade is having right now. I agree that you
have tried to explain the above but I don't see the Godhead as three ppl all fixed and
relating to one another throughout eternity, neither do I accept what you
term as the "orthodox" doctrine of Christ - He has been, is, and will
be so much more ...
And Judy, don't deceive
yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding what I am
attempting to convey. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It
is essential to a right understanding of God. Yet you belittle that effort
and shun your heritage with your derogatory
characterization of us as the "'eternal son'
people."
jt: Bill just because
something is old does not make it either good or true. I don't know that I
don't understand what you are saying. I do know that I don't accept that
Jesus is locked in to being an "eternal son"
You have been shown in
Scripture the basis for this belief. It is a strong enough basis to have
convinced millions upon millions of Christians over the
centuries.
jt: I don't
believe I have been given a scriptural basis for this belief Bill -
and do you really believe that these millions upon
millions of Christians over the centuries did their own homework? Or
have they been taught creeds and even at times given
ultimatums?
You have been shown the
error of your theology, yet you mock us with words and titles
like: "'eternal
Sonship' - relationship - community thing." This is a caricature; it is a derogatory imitation of our beliefs san the substance of
content.
jt: I am sorry that you
feel this way Bill. I'm not against relationship, community, or in
sonship - if they are in the right balance and
context.
By the way, if you want any references you
may check your comments below. Except for the last two, they were
made in your post prior to this one. Bill
jt: Thank you Bill for this
response... and I plead "not guilty" as charged..
Now Bill, let's not
rush to judgment here. You have me convicted and sentenced while
the jury is still out.
Are you certain that what I describe below is
not you? Can you prove that you don't believe these things and have never promoted them on this list?
Let's take care of these questions before we worry about whether I am
ready to repent. You may be the one
needing to repent for accusing the brethren.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:57:23 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Judy, if you want me to do this, I will.
But when I do, are you really going to be ready to repent? I rather
doubt it. But I would be thrilled if you are. Bill
To the contrary, Judy, I have no
problem believing that the names of those who do not reject the
Christ will remain unblotted from the Lambs Book of Life. How
about if you let me and the triad articulate our own beliefs. When
you feel compelled to smear us with
caricatures and misrepresentations, just think of how you
like it when others do that to you. Then if you want to go ahead
and do it, then go ahead and do it. You don't bother me so much
anymore; I'll still forgive you. Your friend, Bill
jt: Very dramatic
Bill. But please tell me in what way I have
smeared, misrepresented and caricatured you? BTW you are
included in the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan.
Before you forgive me please tell me what I have done wrong. Don't
you believe that all mankind is included in the incarnation which
makes them all headed for heaven whether or not they overcome
anything and weren't you writing about the perils of enlightenment
thinking and how it keeps one from being able to understand
scripture? If you don't believe these things then at least
give me the opportunity to repent.. judyt
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:49:40 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
So, the
really important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting
teaching.
jt:
Not my "teaching" John it is in the Book and the really
important thing should be what God says even if it does conflict
with your ontological model.
Unscriptural
John. ----- I would not have so written if it were
unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to Kay's
interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's
interpretation of Christ;s - oh,
never mind !!!!! JD
jt: Oh, I
see. We are back to this is just my interpretation and I can't
know anything because of my "enlightenment thinking?" Please
yourself John. It's your future. I
knew you (and the triad) wouldn't want "overcoming" on the front
burner since the theological theories are so much
easier. judyt
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
jt: Unscriptural John. How did
he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen
creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God
saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4)
and everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at
the beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the
foundation of the world. However, this does not negate the fall
nor does it insure salvation unless one keeps their name from
being blotted out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is
an eternal truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved,
not saved, saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what
God call's sin and stop doing it?
John: Interesting scripture,
Judy. Our names are in that book from the
beginning. Wow. I had forgotten this
passage. Do you see God erasing some of these
names? I don't.
jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make
it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus
32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the
one who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of
life (Rev 3:5).
So, the really important thing
is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser.
Interesting teaching.
Unscriptural John. -----
I would not have
so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You
might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of
some of Paul's interpretation of Christ;s
-------------------------------------------------
oh, never mind
!!!!!
JD