I would say what Martin Luther would say... show it to me by Scripture,
not
by quoting a church father or some dignified scholar in the
church. You
seem to have no firm standard to judge what is of God
and what is not, nor
do you seem to have any method whatsoever to discern
the truth of Scripture.
Your biggest mantra is, nobody knows the
truth! From your perspective, we
all speculate and sometimes we
accidentally overlap with truth and sometimes
we don't.
'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried so
hard
to get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You do not
see them
our (God's) way so, you do not see at all!
The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of
Scripture!!
This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis both
Scripture's
teaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some occasions, are
presumptuous
to the nth degree!!
> Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy and
the
> teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to get
you to see it.
> Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so hard
to get you to see
> it.
> You just don't get it. Orthodoxy
and the teaching of Scripture is not the
> same thing. We repent
if we walk contrary to Scripture. We do not
> necessarily repent
if we depart from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others
> to repent if
they depart from Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and
>
the
> standard of the Bible are two different things. Why can't
you see that?
>
> David Miller
>
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Lance Muir" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
<
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is
the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
>
>
>
David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning
the
> Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to be an
heresy
> that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE TRIUNE NATURE OF
GOD but,
> that
> does not change what it is in this
context.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David
Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative?
>
>
>> Excuse me, John,
but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how
>>
can
>> you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you
really think it is a
>> sin
>> for someone to think modalism
is useful in understanding the Godhead?
>>
>> David
Miller
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is
the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
>>
>> In short,
Modalism !!
>>
>>
Modalism
>> The error that there is only one
person in the Godhead who manifests
>> himself in three forms or
manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>> REPENT --
HURRY !!
>>
>> jd
>>
>> --------------
Original message --------------
>> From: Judy Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE"
>> More accurately,
one person in three manifestations
>>
>>
>> On Tue,
21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
writes:
>> ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS
>> From:
ShieldsFamily
>>
>> Unity in Diversity.
>> Fatness
in Skinniness.
>> Ugliness in Beauty.
>> Dumbness in
Intelligence.
>> Wisdom in Nonsense.
>> Jibberish in
Eloquence.
>>
>>
iz
>>
>>
>>
>> If your idea were so JD
then Jesus would have prayed "make them "unity in
>> diversity" just
as we are ...
>> I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if
someone had seen him they
>> had seen the Father
>> because
he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what
>>
he
>> first heard from the
>> Father. This is the kind
of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying
>>
around
>> rebellion is what the
>> end times "harlot church"
is all about.
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>>
>> We shall be one as He and the Father are one,
someday, Judy. Right now,
>> unity inspite of diversity
is all we've got.
>> Because you and I are not of the same Christ
does not mean that unity in
>> diversity does not exist.
jd
>> From: Judy Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies.
>> In fact
I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may
>>
recognize
>> the faith
>> once delivered to the saints and
"walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was
>> not
>>
referring to any
>> "Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they
would be One as He and
>> the
>> Father are One
>>
Is "Unity in diversity" how you see the Godhead or "Trinity?"
JD
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir"
<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
writes:
>> Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken
note of those who
>> so
>> identify others as sectarians
while their group (sect) is thus reflective
>> of
>> a
repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the
truth.
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>
It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is,
is
>> not
>> my real complaint. Henceforth and forever
more, I will be opposed to
>> sectarianism. The legal
content of the sectarian is often different --
>> but the
sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes.
>>
They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ
in
>> John
>> 17. There can be unity
in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only
>> unity
that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal.
jd
>>
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>
One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks
more
>> because
>> of Conor than for any other
reason. My comments can stand on their own,
>>
I
>> believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do
I beleive the
>> bible teaches such - for the reasons
stated. Could the earth be only
>> 6000
>> years
old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such,
IMHO.
>> Is
>> God the creator? Now that is the
real question. I would think we all
>> agree on the
answer to that question.
>>
>> End of the matter for
me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the
>>
character of the opponent is side tracked. Motivation be
damned --
>> in
>> a
>> biblical sense , of
course.
>>
>>
jd
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "David Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>
John wrote:
>>> > To your first question ,
"no."
>>>
>>> If I get time, I will try and present
some of it for you.
>>>
>>> John
wrote:
>>> > To your second question, either
you
>>> > did not read my post or you have
>>> >
decided to insult my presentation?
>>>
>>> I read your
post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.
>>>
Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using
a
>> & gt; figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from
most Bible
>> scholars,
>>> but the pressure for doing
this seems to come from science not good
>>> theology, in my
opinion.
>>>
>>> The strongest statement you make is
where you point out that Gen. 2:4
>>> uses
>>> the
word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be
figurative,
>>> but
>>> ; the uses of the word day
prior to this are numbered. The text says,
>>>
First
>>> Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist
that numbered days
>>> are figurative. It is the numbering of the
day as well as its coupling
>>> with
>>> the evening
and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive
>>>
it
>>> as
>>> being anything other than a specific
time period measured by evening and
>>> morning. You would have to
argue that evening and morning were greatly
>>> extended, or that
they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative
>>> chronology
that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having
>>>
plants
>>> created l ong before the sun, moon, and stars? Not
likely from a
>>> biologist's
>>> perspective. So, in
all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious
>>>
explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative
interpretation.
>>>
>>> What bothers me about the
approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is
>>> that rather
than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning
>>>
must
>>> be
>>> figurative, they just find ways to try
and show why it could be read
>>> this
>>> way. I have
no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I
>>>
have trouble with the idea that it should be read this
way.
>>>
>>> What is the motivation for making it
figurative? I believe the
>>> motivation
>>> is
cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and
the
>>> claims
>>> of science, theologians would not
be taking a figurative approach to
>>> Genesis
>>> 1.
Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from
the
>>> text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long
process o f
>>> creation?
>>>
>>> David
Miller
>>>
>>> ====================
>>>
John, I have a couple questions for you.
>>>
>>> 1.
Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment
concerning
>>> the
>>> length of the day in Genesis 1?
I have read his perspective and even
>>> discussed this perso
nally with him before, but he comes from a theology
>>> background
and I come from a science background, so I don't know how
>>>
well
>>> he
>>> is accepted as a "t heologian." His
arguments for why the day is not
>>> figurative made a lot of
sense to me.
>>>
>>> 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or
TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day
>>> figuratively? In other
words, I don't have a problem with someone saying
>>> that perhaps
we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if
>>>
there
>>> is any reason other than reconciliing with the
assertions of science
>>> that
>>> a
>>>
theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1
as
>>> figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit
guiding us,
>>> what
>>> would be the reasons to view
the day figuratively in Genesis 1?
>>>
>>> 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>>>
& lt; BR>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
----------
>> "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.
>>
>
>
> ----------
>
"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.
>
>
> ----------
> "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.
>
