Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Bill Taylor]

However I don’t know how else I would describe the lost—even Jesus said “Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead.”    Izzy et al,   Are you willing to admit to me that you have to add commentary to this statement of Jesus, in order for it to make sense (Izzy, you've already done this in your statement above); in other words you conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your commentary --  when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead."   If you are willing to admit this, then please be willing to extend to me the same courtesy. Jesus is speaking figuratively here. He means something on the order of "Let those who refuse to follow me, bury the dead. But you come with me."   Here I do what you do: I attempt to make sense of a statement which on its face is incomprehensible, in that there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the first use of "dead" and the second use of "dead."   Bill     ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 That's a fine conjecture, Izzy. But it is only that. Yours is not a definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstrate that you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true, you can do that, too -- as long as you realize that it is conjecture either way.   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 I understand your viewpoint.  However I don’t know how else I would describe the lost—even Jesus said “Let the dead (obviously not physically, but spiritually) bury the dead.”  izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the same name and this when the words themselves are not found in the Scriptures.    Moreover, one would have to have received her theology in a cave not to have heard of "spiritual death" on many occasions throughout her Christian experience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the tremendous impact he has had on Christendom.   I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am confident that she too has heard this language since her earliest experience with Christianity. And so I rather suspect that she has been taught this doctrine as if it were right there in the Bible. Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs.     Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didn’t.  Just because a teaching is “out there” doesn’t mean it necessarily affected someone who believes along the same lines.  Would you agree? iz   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case.   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That also does not mean the second person who learned it owes anything to the first person.  And it does not mean the first one who learned it was an “authority” for the second one, who might never have even heard anything about the first one.  One can’t just assume that because a “famous” person wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone else who may have the same/similar doctrine.  Get my drift?  izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   David writes  >  I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction. Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him. This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way, does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not. But again I am wondering what you think.   Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because those are just my own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am setting forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs as authoritative, and that they have now become the "doctrines of men." Is that how it works? What if they were really Dake's beliefs all along -- and I mean his words verbatim -- but I just acted as though they were my own, would that make a difference as far as their "authoritative" quotient in your estimation? These are the things that I am wondering about, because I am trying to understand what makes the espousal of one man's beliefs more "authoritative," in your eyes, than the espousal of another man's beliefs. In fact, I find it rather disturbing that you are so willing to give yourself and others a pass on this, but want to take issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. The truth is, I have written very sparingly concerning Barth, although I do esteem him highly. And I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs -- which is indeed quite significant. But David, I want to say, so what? It is obvious that Wesley has had a similar impact upon the formation of your beliefs. What's the big deal about admitting this? Why are you so set on equivocating at this point? I don't get it.  David writes  > some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men.  Do you agree? Yes, David, I do. But I would not agree that this is prima facie a negative thing. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > JD wrote: > >>> Not one person on this site believes in > >>> "doctrines of men." > > David Miller wrote: > >> I hope that you allow that some of us have a different > >> perspective on this point.  Some here tout Joseph Smith > >> while others tout Barth and Torrance. > > Bill wrote: > > ... and others Wesley and Dake. What's your point? > > I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, at > least not on the level of Joseph Smith, Barth, or Torrance, but in any case, > my point is that some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men.  Do you > agree? > > 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. > >