Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

[knpraise]

You did not answer my question?    

 
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:56:40 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Understanding whether Jesus had the ability to be tempted in the flesh or not is NOT a test that will be given at heaven?s gate. iz

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:25 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

 

Who says this is not an esstential?  You?   DM?   And what are these "essentials/"  None of you fundies ever get around to answering that question.   Do you all think this goes unnoticed?    

 
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:07:10 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Lance, what you fail to ?apprehend? is that if DM and JT are truly seeking Truth (which they are), then eventually they will reach agreement.  The nice thing is that they are not disagreeing on anything of essential-to-being-saved issues.  izzy

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:38 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

 

At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).

 

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approach....HOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.