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
