What you are doing right now is the problem with
Christendom today. You are wresting the clear Word of
God to make it fit some preconceived doctrine.
If this is so, Judy, then you are guilty of doing the same thing.
If Jesus died that day rather than Adam then why were
they kicked out of the garden?
Gen 3.22 Then the LORD God said,
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest
he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of
the garden of Eden . . .
Why were
they kicked out of the garden? So that they would die, Judy, that they might be
resurrected in Christ, restored: lest in their evil state they reach out their
hand, and eat, and live forever.
It shouldn't have mattered whether or not they ate of
the tree of life ...
It mattered greatly, Judy. God's desire for humanity is not that we live
forever in fallen state. There had to be restoration before humanity could
once again eat of the tree of life; hence it will be in resurrected bodies that
we next reach out our hands, and eat, and live forever.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:47
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
It is right there in Genesis. God is the one
who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would SURELY
DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die that day? I
know I have asked you this before and you have ignored the
question.
No, Judy, Adam did not die that day, and God did not lie
that day either; rather he clothed Adam in the promise of the Seed. It was
he, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who "died"
metaphorically that day, in that the sentence of death was now upon him, he
being the New Adam, the Representative of the old.
I don't think so Bill; you need to rethink
this. Jesus is the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world so it
was not he who died that day. If you are
going to deal in that kind of metaphor then he was already dead before the
first Adam was ever created.
Now, the point is, Judy, that you can disagree with me if
you like, but you cannot point to Scripture and say, "Here it says, 'upon
that day Adam died spiritually.' It is not there.
Not in those exact words Bill but God did not tell
Adam that a substitute would day in the day that he ate, he didn't say
anything about a lamb dying either. No God said "In the day YOU eat of
it YOU will SURELY die" (Genesis 2:17) Read it. What you are
doing right now is the problem with Christendom today. You are
wresting the clear Word
of God to make it fit some preconceived
doctrine.
What you are dealing with is conjecture, nothing else.
This in itself is not wrong, as long as you realize that that is what you
are doing. But conjecture is not definitive in the way that explicit
language is definitive. Your position is not clearly articulated;
yours is a belief, just like mine is a belief. Yours just happens to find
its source in Augustine. I am fine with that: why aren't you? Bill
Mine Bill is as clearly articulated as you can
get. Yours is total conjecture. If Jesus died that day rather
than Adam then why were they kicked out of the
garden? It shouldn't have mattered whether or not they ate of the tree
of life ...
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.
You certainly excel in the art of exaggertion
Bill - what you call quoting at length was ONE paragraph, ONE time and
that only because I was in a hurry and it was
stated so well and was what I believed anyway and was attempting to
express.. I am not a disciple of Dake.
There are areas that I don't agree with him. I seem to remember
you raising a BIG fuss about it at the time for which I publicly
repented and I have made it a point to stay away from anything like that since
then.
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?
Bill when someone is saying what the
scriptures say it is hardly THEIR belief, that is, when they do not
add another spin to what is
written. When I agree with others on TT it is not because I am
swayed to THEIR belief, it is because we have both received the same
light in our personal study of His Word.
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.
Bill you can't seem to learn.
Augustine is not the one who came up with "spiritual death" It is
right there in Genesis. God is the one who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he
would SURELY DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die
that day? I know I have asked
you this before and you have ignored the question.
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.
She does not and never has read
Augustine Bill. Don't you think the Spirit of God can say the same
thing to two different people in different generations? Do you believe Adam died physically
the day he ate from the wrong tree?
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?
Then I would be a liar and a heretick which is
what you accused me of Bill. You seem to entertain these kinds of
spirits quite often with
regard to those not in perfect agreement with your doctrine. But I
don't have to steal anyone's
light. God is big
enough for all of us and it has taken me a long time to get where I am
today. How sad to be treated this way by someone professing
godliness. I would probably do better on the street or in a bar.
This is sad, sad,
sad.
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.
>
>
|
