date:20050413




Actually JD what we are saved from is the 
wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of 
men.
and since we are born into this world 
spiritually dead in trespass and sin we're sitting ducks but 
unaware
until God's Law shows us our need for 
Christ. judyt


On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:40:42 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Matt 1:21: For he shall save his people from their 
  sins. 
   
  Sin is something we do to ourselves. It brings death. We are dead 
  already. 
  He saves us from ourselves !!Matt 8:25 (in the 
  storm) Lord, save us. 
   
  Here, salvation is the work of the Lord from physical disaster.Matt 
  16:25 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose 
  it 
  Lose of life in this context is self denial. Again, salvation is 
  deliverance 
   
  FROM SELF. Matt 18:11 The Son of 
  Man came to seek and save the 
  lost. 
  Here, it means to me "recovery and direction." 
  (he goes out and recovers 
   a 
  sheep that is lost). I am saved when I received by the Shepherd and given 
  direction. This 
   
  direction (the road map) is within the flock -- (Heb 
  10:24 let us 
  stimulate 
  one another to love and good works -- that is our road 
  map) Lk 18:42 Thy faith hath saved thee (made 
  you well - same word as all of the 
  above) 
  Salvation, here, is physical healing because of our faith. I Pet 
  3:21 baptism doeth also now save us. 
   
  a personal effort offers "salvation" -- again from ourselves 
  -- a request for 
   
  good conscience through the resurrection. Without 
  Christ, we are lost, of course. I drive and drive, confident that 
  I can find my own way without directions from Another. In the end, 
  about to run out of gas (death on the highway) and confused -- He 
  seeks me out and gives me direction. Salvation is 
  different from reconciliation. Just as the Covenant is unilateral, 
  so is reconciliation. Salvation is somewhat different. 
  Salvation = the proper direction in life. Hence the need for 
  repentance. If we are headed in the wrong direction, we need to 
  turn around and go home. In the parable of the prodigal, the 
  Father WAS there -- in the pigpen  and the son 
  knew. He turned to his father in that pigpen. When he 
  left that pigpen HE WAS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. He 
  was saved. Jd out 
  loud

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

How does God determine what is
fornicationand what is not? I would think this would be
the important part because
fornicators DO NOT inherit his Kingdom. Adulterers don't
either. judyt

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:56:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know what I think about living
together without a legal ceremony. I suppose that if the couple
has made a conscious commitment to one another they are
"married." I mean, the state does not tell them to
separate. It seems to me that there is a difference between
living together and shaken up. I like what Caroline wrote,
below. JdIn a message dated 4/11/2005
5:36:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Pros for legal marriage1) legal protection and rights including survivor benefits,
inheritance, insurance etc.2) tax breaks3) teens can't contract serial marriages/divorces behind
their parents backs. Some are probably doing it anyway but they know such
marriages are not accepted.
When teens fall in love
they:- honestly and wholeheartedly
believe it'll last forever- honestly and wholeheartedly believe it's God's
will- will believe that stats that
say teen love and teen marriage is temporary does not apply to
them If the above three are not issues, then sure, no reason to
get marriage sanctioned by State. But then again, we have to remember that
everyone going to the altar never thinks they'll need State protection from
the person they are swearing to love forever and ever. Love, Caroline

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

Praise for 'The Last Word and The Word after That' (Brian McLaren, 2005 -
just released)

'Brian McLaren has written a remarkable book on hell and the grace of God.
And it is one hell of a book! The book is a narrative account, offered in a
winsome conversational mode. McLaren's work will be of immense help to those
who are rethinking fundamentalist, literalistic ways of God that, in his
judgment, have little to do with the Bible itself. The last word in the
horizon of this book is hell, taken as ultimate divine punishment. The
pastoral power of this book is that after that word, there is still the word
of divine grace and forgiveness that overrides all the threat. This is a
bold book that evades none of the hard questions. -Walter Brueggemann


- Original Message - 
From: Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: April 13, 2005 00:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance


 It seems that the majority of people here believe that Christ Jesus died
for
 the sins of all men and that God wills that all men be saved.

 The majority believes most men will end up in hell either through
 a) ignorance because they never heard
 b) disbelief - heard but didn't respond in faith
 c) rejection - knew it is true but didn't want Jesus as Lord and/or
Saviour
 d) stumbling - did not persevere in either obedience and/or faith to the
end

 The minority believe most/all will end up in heaven because
 a) God's will supercedes ours - He is sovereign and almighty

 There are biblical verses that support both positions.

 I'm pleased that we have more common ground than I originally thought. We
 disagree on the final destiny of most men but I think this is where we
have
 to allow one another to believe what he/she believes. Everyone has thought
 it through. Everyone has the right to change his/her mind at any time.
There
 are respected theologians who have written tomes that support either
 position.

 It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but there is a rising tide
 of Evangelicals who are switching from exclusivism to inclusivism,
 conditionalism or even universalism. Some say such a movment must be the
 work of the Spirit; others say it is the great apostasy of the end times.
By
 their fruit you shall know them.

 Love,

 Caroline

 --
 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

In a message dated 4/13/2005 1:42:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Actually JD what we are saved from is the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.
 and since we are born into this world spiritually dead in trespass and sin we're sitting ducks but unaware
 until God's Law shows us our need for Christ. judyt


Scripture for this? and by this question, I am asking how you establish the above in scripture? Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being "saved from His wrath" -- there may be but where is it? 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

Many are on the broadway Few are on the narrow way!
MANY are called but FEW are chosen!
Du 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Neither Lance, I understand that Jesus was born to a young Jewish girl and I'm not against Jews of any
generation. However, He is King of much more than the Jews and His Kingdom is not of this realm - He
said so. judyt

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:49:29 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

An interloper asks Jt:Are you antisemitic or confused about the Jewishness of Jesus? This is not, I repeat not, an accusation. The foregoing is a question.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: April 12, 2005 14:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:27:01 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, while we are proof-texting like a drunken sailor, we might consider this: Jews lived and died as the the King of the JEWS. Jesus didn't live and die as the "King of the Jews" that was a title given by the Romans; in actuality He is the Kingof the Kingdom of God which consists of ppl of every tribe and
 nation.Read Jere 23: 5,6 the Christ coming as King. You deny this scripture. 

The title given in Jeremiah 23:6 is The Lord our Righteousness - where do you get King of the Jews here?
Read Matt 2:2 The Magi looking for he who is "King of the Jews." 

Persian Magi are not the ones to look to for doctrine JD; astrologers and stargazers will lead you astray. His lineage was Jewish.His Father is God the Holy Spirit and God the Father is not Jewish. So, are you denying that He was a Jew? 

He was born as both son of God and son of man into that cultureunder the Jewish Law but the title "King of the Jews" was given asan accusation andnailed to the cross in derision; it is not one of His Redemptive NamesHe was killed by the Jews. Actually He was killed by the Romans at the insistence of the Jewish leaders (you didn't pay attn to Slade).Do you deny Acts 2:36 where Peter, speaking to the
 Jews of Jesus says, " whom ye crucified." 

He did say that but must have meant by association because the Romans drove the spikes in and crucifixion was a Roman rather than Jewish death.
The church was EXCLUSIVELY JEWISH THROUGH ACTS 7.How can you make this claim when the Church are the ecclesia or "called out ones" followers of The Way Are you denying that the church was Jewish in membership prior to Peter's vision? Then why the vision? And why on earth are you denying any of this. It is just rediculous. 

I don't believe the Church had a membership roll either before or after Peter's vision; having a membership roll is a modern day thing that probably has more to do with budgets than anything.
All of his immediate disciples were Jews. Everyone in the upper room (both occasions) were Jewish. God's Covenant was with Israel through Moses so the message was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel first. So you are now agreeing with me? This is exactly what I am saying. 

I read you saying a lot more than that JD - you've got this whole "King of the Jews" thing going on
The expansion of the ministry (to the Gentiles) is first given to Peter in a vision sometime after the cross. Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius who was a worshipperwho gave alms and who God knew about. HoweverGod was never completely exclusive and Jesus confronted the Jews with the fact that God passed over a lot of widows in Israel and Elijah was sent to one in the city of Sidon; also there were many lepers in Israel and Elijah healed Naaman a Syrian, (because the Jews were covenant breakers) which made the Jews so angry they wanted to push him off the brow of a hill. No kidding  but that does not change the fact of His (Chrsit) statement that His ministry was one to the Jew and not the Gentile AND JESUS SAID, I WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL MATT 10:24. Deal with it. 

I'm trying - Matt 10:24 says "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master" - did you mean to include that? and Mark 10:24 is about how hard it is for those who have riches to enter the Kingdom.
`When Jesus sends his 12 out on mission, they are sent to the Jews and "not to the Gentiles ) Matt 10:5,6. Lost sheep (covenant breakers) of the house of Israel. 

No kidding.

Are you being patronizing JD?
In Matt 15:24, Christ tells us that His mission is to the Jews and not to anyone else."He said healing was the children's bread (children of the covenant) but did he or did he not heal the woman's daughter? 

HE SAID I WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.

He said that but he healed the daughter of a Syrian woman because of her faith and the Jews rejected Him because of their unbelief so God is not as legalistic and locked in about this as you are it seems.
Why? How can this

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen




McLaren in Generous Orthodoxy posits that God saves 
by judging. If He did not tell us what, where, why, how etc when we're wrong, 
we'll never know. He says that God's judgment is very closely allied to His 
forgiveness and mercy, so close it's practically the same. After 
judgment-forgiveness comes teaching. McLaren also believes (as do I) that being 
judged and executed by God in the bible does not automatically mean the person 
is in hell. For example, Uzzah who reached out to touch the ark. I don't think 
Uzzah is in hell. All we know for sure is that he was removed from earthly 
existence. 

God is everywhere. God is the light and life of 
men. He could have withdrawn his presence or his life or light from rebellious 
people. I used to think that's what makes hell hell. But now I think we have to 
turn away and create a space of darkness for our chaos because God refuses to 
withdraw light and life from us. Now I think it is his constant presence in our 
rebellion that makes hell hell. 

The Kingdom of God and eternal life begins here and 
now. So does hell. Welcome to your future. 

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:18 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] 
  Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen
  Thank you Caroline. It 
  occurs to me that if salvation, for the most part, is being given Divine 
  Direction, finding our way. deliverance from self 
  --- then being "lost " is the very opposite. Nothing 
  more. If being lost is having lost our way, 
  wondering about with nothing to bounce off of except our own ideas, our own 
  misery -- hell is just that. There are 
  passages that tell us that we are "dead already" without Christ, 
  before death, before "hell." Could it 
  be?Hell is not "punishment" or "judgment" IN THE SENSE THAT SUCH 
  JUDGMENT IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE AND ARE DOING TO 
  OURSELVES. I believe it was Paul who said that we are "without 
  excuse." Judgment, i.e. the judgment of God, is merely a 
  recognition by God of what we have done to and for ourselves. 
  He might be angry -- but we do not "go to hell" because of 
  His wrath. We go to hell because of our own stupidy, our own 
  selfishness. We go to hell because of our total disregard for 
  OURSELVES. (God gave them over to the lust of their hearts 
  .. Ro 1:24ff). 
  God has no decision to make. He just recognizes our destiny. There 
  is no conflict between the Love of God and the Wrath of God, as I see, because 
  the wrath of God merely speaks to just how disappointed He is in us  AND 
  THAT IS AN ACTION OF LOVE.  
  The image of God is more than community. It is more than 
  relating to others. It is God within us !!! God talked with 
  Adam -- gave him direction, instruction. Maybe God 
  communicated with Adam via a still small voice..from the 
  inside. If the fall is the fall -- If Christ 
  reconciled us from this fall - then, He 
  became a part of us AGAIN (indwelling). I can't say 
  this for certain. But we do know that after the sin of the 
  tree, God was Another -- not a part of Adam. I mean, 
  God was here and Adam was over there, hiding in the bushes, was he 
  not? THAT was different. Today, God is not over 
  there -- He is "in here." 
  AnywayJD out loud again (out loud or out 
  to lunch, right JT ?)In a message dated 4/12/2005 9:10:42 
  PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Matt 1:21: For he shall save his people from 
their sins. 
 
Sin is something we do to ourselves. It brings death. We are 
dead 
already. 
He saves us from ourselves !!Matt 8:25 (in the 
storm) Lord, save us. 
 
Here, salvation is the work of the Lord from physical disaster.Matt 
16:25 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose 
it 
Lose of life in this context is self denial. Again, salvation is 
deliverance 
 FROM 
SELF. Matt 18:11 The Son of Man 
came to seek and save the 
lost. 
Here, it means to me "recovery and direction." (he goes out and recovers 
 a 
sheep that is lost). I am saved when I received by 
the Shepherd and given direction. This 
 
direction (the road map) is within the flock -- (Heb 
10:24 let us 
stimulate 
one another to love and good works -- that is our road 
map) Lk 18:42 Thy faith hath saved thee 
(made you well - same word as all of the 
above) 
Salvation, here, is physical healing because of our faith. I 
Pet 3:21 baptism doeth also now save us. 
 a 
personal effort offers "salvation" -- again from ourselves 
-- a request for 
 good 
conscience through the resurrection. Without 
Christ, we are lost, of course. I drive and drive, confident 
that I can find my own way without directions from Another. In 
the end, about to run out of gas (death on the highway) and

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen




You can biblically support exactly 
that:
We're all born sinners into the hands of an angry 
God. Some will become saved, stay saved to the end and escape their hellish life 
and destiny.

You can also biblically support this:
We're born ignorant of God's love and what He has 
done for us in Christ. We're born into a war zone. We are sinned against and we 
sin. Then somehow, people start to find out who God is, who the enemy is and who 
they are in God's eyes. They turn from what is not good to pursue what is good 
which is found in the perichoretic life of the Triune God. 

Choose you this day what you believe and how you'll 
live your life AND how you seek to bring another soul out of darkness and into 
the light. BTW, you can always change your mind on a future date. No penalty 
exacted except the chagrin of lost years -lost years that God 
paradoxically promised to redeem as well.

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:33 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] 
  Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen
  
  Actually JD what we are saved from is the 
  wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of 
  men.
  and since we are born into this world 
  spiritually dead in trespass and sin we're sitting ducks but 
  unaware
  until God's Law shows us our need for 
  Christ. judyt
  
  
  On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:40:42 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Matt 1:21: For he shall save his people from their 
sins. 
 
Sin is something we do to ourselves. It brings death. We are 
dead 
already. 
He saves us from ourselves !!Matt 8:25 (in the 
storm) Lord, save us. 
 
Here, salvation is the work of the Lord from physical disaster.Matt 
16:25 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose 
it 
Lose of life in this context is self denial. Again, salvation is 
deliverance 
 
FROM SELF. Matt 18:11 The Son of 
Man came to seek and save the 
lost. 
Here, it means to me "recovery and direction." (he goes out and recovers 
 
a sheep that is lost). 
I am saved when I received by the Shepherd 
and given direction. This 
 
direction (the road map) is within the flock -- (Heb 
10:24 let us 
stimulate 
one another to love and good works -- that is our road 
map) Lk 18:42 Thy faith hath saved thee 
(made you well - same word as all of the 
above) 
Salvation, here, is physical healing because of our faith. I 
Pet 3:21 baptism doeth also now save us. 
 
a personal effort offers "salvation" -- again from 
ourselves -- a request for 
 
good conscience through the resurrection. 
Without Christ, we are lost, of course. I drive 
and drive, confident that I can find my own way without directions from 
Another. In the end, about to run out of gas (death on the 
highway) and confused -- He seeks me out and gives me 
direction. Salvation is different from 
reconciliation. Just as the Covenant is unilateral, so is 
reconciliation. Salvation is somewhat different. 
Salvation = the proper direction in life. Hence the need for 
repentance. If we are headed in the wrong direction, we need to 
turn around and go home. In the parable of the prodigal, 
the Father WAS there -- in the pigpen  and the son 
knew. He turned to his father in that pigpen. When 
he left that pigpen HE WAS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
He was saved. Jd out 
loud

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

In a message dated 4/13/2005 4:28:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Many are on the broadway Few are on the narrow way!
 MANY are called but FEW are chosen!
 Du 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:



All Jews.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

JD sazs Scripture for this? and by this question, I am asking how you establish the above in scripture? Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being "saved from His wrath" -- there may be but where is it?
It is in the Holy BIBLE - Read it:Rom 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
1 Thes Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Rm 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
ye do err not knowing the scriptures.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/2005 1:42:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually JD what we are saved from is the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.and since we are born into this world spiritually dead in trespass and sin we're sitting ducks but unawareuntil God's Law shows us our need for Christ. judytScripture for this? and by this question, I am asking how you establish the above in scripture? Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being "saved from His wrath" -- there may be but where is it? JD
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

AND FEW at that, how about the others?
And all the SAVED today are Christians and Few but how about the others?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/2005 4:28:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many are on the broadway Few are on the narrow way!MANY are called but FEW are chosen!Du 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:All Jews. 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac and
Rebekah the morning after. For the longest time the State did not govern or
legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies got more complicated.
I haven't done any research in this area but when did State sanctioned marriages
happen? Was it because English law allows only legitimate sons to inherit with
the first born one getting the main title plus the lands that went with the
title? Someone should write a book about how primogeniture has shaped society.
King Richard II became king by declaring his brother's two sons illegitimate
because it was discovered thatKing EdwardVwas betrothed(!) to
anotherbefore his marriage.Apparently in those days, betrothed
people could have church approved sex and it was the equivalent of marriage
without the ceremony. I can see why that traditionhad to change. I can
imagine some cousin of Princes Will and Harry saying, "your dad was betrothed to
_ before he married your mom so you guys are illegitimate and I'm the heir
apparent." and they replying, "oh yeah and your grandfather.."

Love,

Caroline

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:35
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single
Young Man

How does God determine what is
fornicationand what is not? I would think this would
be
the important part because
fornicators DO NOT inherit his Kingdom. Adulterers don't
either. judyt

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:56:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know what I think about living
together without a legal ceremony. I suppose that if the couple
has made a conscious commitment to one another they are
"married." I mean, the state does not tell them to
separate. It seems to me that there is a difference
between living together and shaken up. I like what
Caroline wrote, below. JdIn a message
dated 4/11/2005 5:36:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Pros for legal marriage1) legal protection and rights including survivor benefits,
inheritance, insurance etc.2) tax breaks3) teens can't contract serial marriages/divorces behind
their parents backs. Some are probably doing it anyway but they know such
marriages are not accepted.
When teens fall in love
they:-
honestly and wholeheartedly believe it'll last forever- honestly and
wholeheartedly believe it's God's will- will believe that stats that say teen love and teen
marriage is temporary does not apply to them If the above three are not issues, then sure, no reason to
get marriage sanctioned by State. But then again, we have to remember that
everyone going to the altar never thinks they'll need State protection
from the person they are swearing to love forever and ever. Love,
Caroline

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

Rethinking Reimagining can not change reality.
Those that Remodel hell are fixing to move in.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Praise for 'The Last Word and The Word after That' (Brian McLaren, 2005 -just released)'Brian McLaren has written a remarkable book on hell and the grace of God.And it is one hell of a book! The book is a narrative account, offered in awinsome conversational mode. McLaren's work will be of immense help to thosewho are rethinking fundamentalist, literalistic ways of God that, in hisjudgment, have little to do with the Bible itself. The last word in thehorizon of this book is hell, taken as ultimate divine punishment. Thepastoral power of this book is that after that word, there is still the wordof divine grace and forgiveness that overrides all the threat. This is abold book that evades none of the hard questions. -Walter Brueggemann- Original Message - From: "Caroline Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
Sent: April 13, 2005 00:56Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance It seems that the majority of people here believe that Christ Jesus diedfor the sins of all men and that God wills that all men be saved. The majority believes most men will end up in hell either through a) ignorance because they never heard b) disbelief - heard but didn't respond in faith c) rejection - knew it is true but didn't want Jesus as Lord and/orSaviour d) stumbling - did not persevere in either obedience and/or faith to theend The minority believe most/all will end up in heaven because a) God's will supercedes ours - He is sovereign and almighty There are biblical verses that support both positions. I'm pleased that we have more common ground than I originally thought. We disagree on the final
destiny of most men but I think this is where wehave to allow one another to believe what he/she believes. Everyone has thought it through. Everyone has the right to change his/her mind at any time.There are respected theologians who have written tomes that support either position. It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but there is a rising tide of Evangelicals who are switching from exclusivism to inclusivism, conditionalism or even universalism. Some say such a movment must be the work of the Spirit; others say it is the great apostasy of the end times.By their fruit you shall know them. Love, Caroline -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend 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.orgIf 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

Was it three months ago when I came into your bookstore and asked, so what 
prevents us from being universalists? and you answering, tradition.

That book is exactly my journey. I wonder if it's the journey of countless 
others.

Love,
Caroline
- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance


Praise for 'The Last Word and The Word after That' (Brian McLaren, 2005 -
just released)
'Brian McLaren has written a remarkable book on hell and the grace of God.
And it is one hell of a book! The book is a narrative account, offered in 
a
winsome conversational mode. McLaren's work will be of immense help to 
those
who are rethinking fundamentalist, literalistic ways of God that, in his
judgment, have little to do with the Bible itself. The last word in the
horizon of this book is hell, taken as ultimate divine punishment. The
pastoral power of this book is that after that word, there is still the 
word
of divine grace and forgiveness that overrides all the threat. This is a
bold book that evades none of the hard questions. -Walter Brueggemann

- Original Message - 
From: Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: April 13, 2005 00:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance


It seems that the majority of people here believe that Christ Jesus died
for
the sins of all men and that God wills that all men be saved.
The majority believes most men will end up in hell either through
a) ignorance because they never heard
b) disbelief - heard but didn't respond in faith
c) rejection - knew it is true but didn't want Jesus as Lord and/or
Saviour
d) stumbling - did not persevere in either obedience and/or faith to the
end
The minority believe most/all will end up in heaven because
a) God's will supercedes ours - He is sovereign and almighty
There are biblical verses that support both positions.
I'm pleased that we have more common ground than I originally thought. We
disagree on the final destiny of most men but I think this is where we
have
to allow one another to believe what he/she believes. Everyone has 
thought
it through. Everyone has the right to change his/her mind at any time.
There
are respected theologians who have written tomes that support either
position.
It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but there is a rising 
tide
of Evangelicals who are switching from exclusivism to inclusivism,
conditionalism or even universalism. Some say such a movment must be the
work of the Spirit; others say it is the great apostasy of the end times.
By
their fruit you shall know them.
Love,
Caroline
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen




Thanks Kevin ... here's a few more NT verses, enough to 
meditate on JD:
Matthew 22:7
Romans 1:18
Ephesians 5:6
Colossians 3:6
Hebrews 3:11
Hebrews 4:3
Revelation 8:16,17
Revelation 14:10,11
Revelation 15:1,7
Revelation 16:19
Revelation 19:15

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  JD sazs Scripture for 
  this? and by this question, I am asking how you establish 
  the above in scripture? Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being 
  "saved from His wrath" -- there may be but where is 
  it? 
  It is in the Holy BIBLE - Read 
  it:Rom 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while 
  we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified 
  by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
  him.
  JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
  life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the 
  wrath of God abideth on 
  him.
  1 Thes Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they 
  might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the 
  wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
  Rm 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart 
  treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the 
  day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
  ye do err not knowing the 
  scriptures.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In a message dated 4/13/2005 1:42:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually JD what we are 
  saved from is the wrath of God against all ungodliness and 
  unrighteousness of men.and since we are born into this world spiritually dead in 
  trespass and sin we're sitting ducks but unawareuntil God's Law shows us our 
  need for Christ. judytScripture for this? and by this 
question, I am asking how you establish the above in scripture? 
Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being "saved from His wrath" 
-- there may be but where is it? JD 
  
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do 
  more. Manage less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

Rom 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
God commended His love but it is MUCH MORE important that we partake of that Love, sothat we not face His Wrath!
Trust in anything but the Blood and you will face His wrath.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Thanks Kevin ... here's a few more NT verses, enough to meditate on JD:
Matthew 22:7
Romans 1:18
Ephesians 5:6
Colossians 3:6
Hebrews 3:11
Hebrews 4:3
Revelation 8:16,17
Revelation 14:10,11
Revelation 15:1,7
Revelation 16:19
Revelation 19:15

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

In a message dated 4/13/2005 4:47:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JD sazs Scripture for this? and by this question, I am asking how you establish the above in scripture? Is there a N.T. scripture that speaks of being "saved from His wrath" -- there may be but where is it? 

It is in the Holy BIBLE - Read it:
Rom 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

 JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 1 Thes Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

 Rm 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

 ye do err not knowing the scriptures.




I will take these scriptures under advisement. Err? Me??? Thank God for grace, right?

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

In a message dated 4/13/2005 4:49:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

AND FEW at that, how about the others?
 And all the SAVED today are Christians and Few but how about the others?




Rev 7:9 -- let the scriptural wars begin !!! Kind of silly (?)

Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

Could it be, that the "Kingdom of God" is representative of something different than the "Kingdom of Heaven"?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The word "kingdom" is used in a number of differing ways in scripture. One of it's usages has to do with the present time reality IN THE DAYS AND LIFE OF CHRIST and the prophectical message of same in the Older scriptures. This is not the only way it is used, but many you all will conveniently forget that I said that as you counter the following heresy with "the truth." For those who are actually students of the scripture, I make this offering. I Tm 1:17 is a recognition that Jesus is the eternal king.Matt 2:2 The magi were looking for the King -- and with good reason: He was the King of prophecy.Jere 23:5,6 is talking about the first coming -- the incarnation - of
Christ. We know this because it was at the end of Incarnation that He was exalted to the throne of David (Acts 2:30-33). Is 9, 6-7 Presents this Christ of prophecy as the Almighty God, the everlasting Father, a Wonderful Counselor, the Prince of Peace, that "there will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom ..." John 12:14-15 : And Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written -- Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold your King comes sitting on a donkey's colt." John 18: 37 " . you say that I am king; for this was I born, and for this have I come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" and what is this truth -- THAT JESUS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Matt 6:33 "Seek ye first the kingdom of
heaven .. " IT IS A PRESENT TIME REALITY IN THIS PASSAGE..the kingdom is a now thing in 6:33. Luke 17:21 tells us that the coming of the kingdom will not be with signs and wonders, for the kingdom of God is within you. (or NASV is within your midst) Once again, the kingdom is a present time event during the Incarnation of the Christ. So, while you on the right think there is some kind of grand departure from the truth (we really do have our share of ignorant discussions, don't we ??), I remind you of the above scriptures. You have a choice: you can read and accept these scriptures; you can correct me in love and patience; you can evoke the name of the Accuser and bash away. But I am going nowhere and the truth will happen. Christ came as King. He was the Kingdom (the kingdom is in your
midst). He died as the King of the Jews and was raised to sit on the kingly throne of David. Praise be His name. Jd
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man






On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac and 
  Rebekah the morning after.
  
  What would bewrong with Isaac  
  Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth families and she went 
  willingly.
  
  For the longest time the State did not govern or 
  legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies got more 
  complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but when did State 
  sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law allows only legitimate 
  sons to inherit with the first born one getting the main title plus the lands 
  that went with the title? 
  
  They probably started it to get some kind 
  of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with power or money. 
  However we know that marriage is ordained by God and that the marriage 
  agreement is the closest ideawe have in our generation to that 
  ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a man lay with a maiden he had 
  married her.
  
  Someone should write a book about how 
  primogeniture has shaped society. King Richard II became king by declaring his 
  brother's two sons illegitimate because it was discovered thatKing 
  EdwardVwas betrothed(!) to anotherbefore his 
  marriage.Apparently in those days, betrothed people could have church 
  approved sex and it was the equivalent of marriage without the ceremony. 
  
  
  British Kings were for the most part 
  totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their carnality and lust and did 
  what they wanted to They were 'defenders 
  of the faith' in name only and took any female that appealed to 
  them.
  
  I can see why that traditionhad to change. 
  I can imagine some cousin of Princes Will and Harry saying, "your dad was 
  betrothed to _ before he married your mom so you guys are illegitimate and 
  I'm the heir apparent." and they replying, "oh yeah and your 
  grandfather.." 
  Love, Caroline
  
  No kidding; there is already speculation 
  about Harry's paternity and Charles' behavior has been disgraceful. Apparently 
  some uncles of his messed him up big time. One encouraged him to research the 
  occult and anothertold him to sow wild oats and play the field. 
  This along with his loveless childhood 
  produced an emotional wreck of a man who had nothing to give his bride in 1981 
  but his infidelity. How tragic and what a horrible example to his 
  sons.
  
  
From: Judy Taylor 

How does God determine what is 
fornicationand what is not? I would think this would 
be
the important part because 
fornicators DO NOT inherit his Kingdom. Adulterers don't 
either. judyt

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:56:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know what I think about living 
  together without a legal ceremony. I suppose that if the 
  couple has made a conscious commitment to one another they are 
  "married." I mean, the state does not tell them to 
  separate. It seems to me that there is a difference 
  between living together and shaken up. I like what 
  Caroline wrote, below. JdIn a message 
  dated 4/11/2005 5:36:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
   
Pros for legal marriage1) legal protection and rights including survivor 
benefits, inheritance, insurance etc.2) tax breaks3) teens can't contract serial marriages/divorces behind 
their parents backs. Some are probably doing it anyway but they know 
such marriages are not accepted. When 
teens fall in love they:- honestly and wholeheartedly believe it'll last 
forever- 
honestly and wholeheartedly believe it's God's will- will believe that stats 
that say teen love and teen marriage is temporary does not apply to 
them 
If the above three are not 
issues, then sure, no reason to get marriage sanctioned by State. But 
then again, we have to remember that everyone going to the altar never 
thinks they'll need State protection from the person they are swearing 
to love forever and ever. Love, Caroline

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

2005-04-13 Thread Charles Perry Locke

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DAVEH:  Perry.I intend to respond to one (or more) of your previous 
posts, but am getting behind on both my email and sleep!  However, your 
below post compels me to ask you a question.

   If you really believe that it is God's will that all be saved, why does 
God allow the Devil to exist to suck men into hell?  Wouldn't it be 
expedient if God just predestined all men to be saved instead?
  Dave, I believe that God has given us free will specifically so that we 
can choose to love him, or choose to reject him. Love that is forced, or 
programmed, is not love at all. I am sure that your children love you, and 
that you enjoy that fact. How would you feel if they were like automata, or 
robots, having no choice but to say they love you and go through the 
mechanical motions of showing it. I think you would agree that is not really 
love at all. While that may be entertaining for a while, it would bring no 
lasting joy. God wants us to choose to love him. but, we also have the free 
wil to reject him. I also believe that ALL men have the opportunity, and 
have since the creation, to love Him or reject him. Romans 1:19,20 reveals 
that.

I assume you believe God has the power to do that.abolish hell and 
Satan.  Yet he allows (or perhaps wants) him to exist.  Why do you think 
the existence of Satan and hell are important to God?
  Satan is a created being, an angel, in fact once an archangel. Evidently, 
he was given free will, too, but because of his pride he tried to place his 
throne above God's, and consequently was cast out of heaven to earth. His 
pride still causes him to interfere with God's plan by attempting to divert 
man's love away from God. I believe that God is sovereign over his creation, 
and that he could abolish Satan and hell, and indeed wil do that one day. 
But, I do not know why he has chosen to allow Satan have power on the earth 
for this period of time. Perhaps the Scriptures reveal that in some way I 
have not yet been shown. But, I accept that God, in his sovereignty, is 
perfect in his reasoning.

Perry
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King





JD writes:
So, while you on the right think there is some kind 
of grand departure from the truth (we really do have our share of ignorant 
discussions, don't we ??), I remind you of the above 
scriptures. You have a choice: you can read and 
accept these scriptures; you can correct me in love and patience; 
you can evoke the name of the Accuser and bash away. But I am going 
nowhere and the truth will happen. 

I don't do it unless 
someone consistently entertains him and his ministry comes my way JD; I'd much 
rather take the other option.
Christ came as King.

He came as Messiah to offer His ppl a 
Kingdom they were not part of just yet.

He was the Kingdom (the 
kingdom is in your midst).

Wait a moment - I thought 
you just said He was the King?Actually that scripture in Luke is 
referring tothe Holy Spirit - Jesus also said that when he cast out Satan 
with the finger of God ppl could know that the Kingdom of God had come upon them 
(Luke 11:20) - Let's stick with the Word here.

He died as the King of the Jews 

He died as a Suffering Savior - the 
Jews King at the time was Herod and they were all of the same 
spirit.

and was raised to sit on the kingly throne of 
David. Praise be His name. 
Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

2005-04-13 Thread Debbie Sawczak




I had this draft sitting in my Draft box, which 
I'll post now even though the poll has been counted. I am sure the gate to the 
fold is not locked yet.Paragraphs are answers to Caroline's 
questions.

Universal. For the whole cosmos. I think the 
limited atonement idea comes froma concern that any action of God's might 
be "wasted", but that's a misunderstanding of the atonement, as if Jesus' life, 
death, resurrection, and ascension were quantifiable legal tender.

I don't know the exact interplay of God's will and 
ours in coming to him, just as I don't know the exact interplay of our will and 
God's in anything that happens. I believe he desires everyone. I believe he 
takes initiative and that he persistently interacts with people, at different 
times and in different ways(hey, that's an echo of Scripture, isn't it?) 
with different people and this is what makes it possible for us to come at all. 
If we seem to be seeking, it is like the princess following the string in the 
George Macdonald story. The string was given to her by her grandmother who was 
tugging on the other end. But I also believe we can resist, or turn the other 
way.

Like JD, I think the "security" question depends on 
what we mean by salvation. My reconciliation has been entirely accomplished by 
another, is secure and cannot be undone. God will never have anything to hold 
against me. I do not believe it is up to me tohang on and keep myself 
acceptable to God (thank you God), just as it was not up to me to make myself 
acceptable. I guess if I persisted in apostasy,I would be living to 
myself, ignoringthat I can only be real inrelationship with God, and 
that would eventually destroy me. (Of course, as long as I consider the question 
at all, I am not apostate.)

Added this morning: Caroline, I think you are right 
that the inescapable presence of God in the midst of my disacknowledgement would 
be hellish. It would be nomore bearable than the hell described by 
fundies.

That's what I believe now. I might change my mind, 
but if I do, I won't consider any of the years wasted.

Debbie


- Original Message - 
From: "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can 
give Assurance
A quick poll for TT:  Who here believes in limited 
atonement or universal atonement? In other  words, did Jesus die for the 
sins of the saved or the sins of all men?  Who here believes in 
predestination, double predestination or universal  access? In other 
words, are some people predestined by God to be saved, some  to be 
damned or is it God's will that all be saved and it is our will that  
decides the final outcome?  Can one's salvation be lost? Why or 
Why not?   -- "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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

2005-04-13 Thread Terry Clifton

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
F
, I do not know why he has chosen to allow Satan have power on the 
earth for this period of time. Perhaps the Scriptures reveal that in 
some way I have not yet been shown. But, I accept that God, in his 
sovereignty, is perfect in his reasoning.

Perry

Possibly because if you did not know how evil Satan is, you could never 
know how good God is.
A matter of having something for comparison.  Darkness can only be 
described as absense of light.
Terry

--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
THEOLOGY.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:49 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up too. A 
  high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two wounded 
  children. We all need saving - every single day of our lives.
  
  True, but she was manipulated and duped 
  into thinking it was a love match at least for a short while.
  
  
  While we're at it, I think the rest of the family 
  was pretty messed up too. 
  
  I agree and they have been for 
  generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith 
  seriously.
  
  But there is so much good and so much glory in 
  that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and 
  theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came from 
  there. Our modernideas which includes no slavery, protection of workers, 
  education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be God. 
  
  They had their 
  day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of visition' 
  and I don't doubt that God still has 
  a remnant in those 
  countries in spite of how pagan they have become.
  
  I wonder if the Royal family is aware of 
  spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the nation. 
  Surely they must come in for more than the average person's share of spiritual 
  lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for them daily.
  
  Are you kidding? Philip and much of 
  the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted so far, possibly 
  because of the terrible relationship he has with his father but he has not 
  escaped. A close adviser by the name of VanDerPost introduced him to 
  pursuit of the occult many years ago and he read these books on his honeymoon 
  when he married Diana. Later he went to Africato investigate 
  native religions. Both Diana and Fergie were known to frequent psychics 
  and astrologers. Charles disdains 
  Christianity and has stated in the past that when he ascends the throne he 
  would like to be called "Defender of the 
  Faiths" - so there you go. The future King of England is a true 
  universalist. judyt
  
  

From: Judy Taylor 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac and 
  Rebekah the morning after.
  
  What would bewrong with Isaac 
   Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth families and she 
  went willingly.
  
  For the longest time the State did not govern 
  or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies got more 
  complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but when did State 
  sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law allows only 
  legitimate sons to inherit with the first born one getting the main title 
  plus the lands that went with the title? 
  
  They probably started it to get some 
  kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with power or 
  money. However we know that marriage is ordained by God and that the 
  marriage agreement is the closest ideawe have in our generation to 
  that ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a man lay with a 
  maiden he had married her.
  
  Someone should write a book about how 
  primogeniture has shaped society. King Richard II became king by declaring 
  his brother's two sons illegitimate because it was discovered 
  thatKing EdwardVwas betrothed(!) to anotherbefore 
  his marriage.Apparently in those days, betrothed people could have 
  church approved sex and it was the equivalent of marriage without the 
  ceremony. 
  
  British Kings were for the most part 
  totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their carnality and lust and 
  did what they wanted to They were 
  'defenders of the faith' in name only and took any female that appealed to 
  them.
  
  I can see why that traditionhad to 
  change. I can imagine some cousin of Princes Will and Harry saying, "your 
  dad was betrothed to _ before he married your mom so you guys are 
  illegitimate and I'm the heir apparent." and they replying, "oh yeah and 
  your grandfather.." 
  Love, Caroline
  
  No kidding; there is already 
  speculation about Harry's paternity and Charles' behavior has been 
  disgraceful. Apparently some uncles of his messed him up big time. One 
  encouraged him to research the occult and anothertold him to sow 
  wild oats and play the field. This along with his loveless childhood produced an emotional wreck of a 
  man who had nothing to give his bride in 1981 but his infidelity. 
  How tragic and what a horrible example to his sons.
  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

How does God determine

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

I started about 3 replies. One from Romans about
Paul's struggles. One from real life examples of how people's actions were
contrary of their beliefs. One from what we know about addictions. But I
realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out "if you fail, it's your
fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no
excuses!you worthless piece of " will drown all.

Love,

Caroline
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:55
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single
Young Man

A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS
THEOLOGY.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:49 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up too.
A high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two wounded
children. We all need saving - every single day of our lives.

True, but she was manipulated and duped
into thinking it was a love match at least for a short while.

While we're at it, I think the rest of the
family was pretty messed up too.

I agree and they have been for
generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith
seriously.

But there is so much good and so much glory in
that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and
theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came from
there. Our modernideas which includes no slavery, protection of
workers, education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be God.

They had their
day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of
visition' and I don't doubt that God still
has a remnant in those
countries in spite of how pagan they have become.

I wonder if the Royal family is aware of
spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the
nation. Surely they must come in for more than the average person's share of
spiritual lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for them
daily.

Are you kidding? Philip and much
of the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted so far,
possibly because of the terrible relationship he has with his father but he
has not escaped. A close adviser by the name of VanDerPost introduced
him to pursuit of the occult many years ago and he read these books on his
honeymoon when he married Diana. Later he went to Africato
investigate native religions. Both Diana and Fergie were known to
frequent psychics and astrologers. Charles disdains Christianity and has stated in the past that
when he ascends the throne he would like to be called "Defender of
the Faiths" - so there you go. The future King of
England is a true universalist. judyt

From: Judy Taylor

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac
and Rebekah the morning after.

What would bewrong with Isaac
Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth families and
she went willingly.

For the longest time the State did not
govern or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies got
more complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but when did
State sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law allows
only legitimate sons to inherit with the first born one getting the main
title plus the lands that went with the title?

They probably started it to get some
kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with power or
money. However we know that marriage is ordained by God and that the
marriage agreement is the closest ideawe have in our generation to
that ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a man lay with a
maiden he had married her.

Someone should write a book about how
primogeniture has shaped society. King Richard II became king by
declaring his brother's two sons illegitimate because it was discovered
thatKing EdwardVwas betrothed(!) to
anotherbefore his marriage.Apparently in those days,
betrothed people could have church approved sex and it was the
equivalent of marriage without the ceremony.

British Kings were for the most part
totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their carnality and lust and
did what they wanted to They were
'defenders of the faith' in name only and took any female that appealed
to them.

I can see why that traditionhad to
change. I

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

2005-04-13 Thread Dave Hansen

DAVEH: Thanx for sharing your thoughts on this, Perry.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DAVEH: Perry.I intend to respond to one (or more) of your
previous posts, but am getting behind on both my email and sleep!
However, your below post compels me to ask you a question.

Dave, I believe that God has given us free will specifically so that
we can choose to love him, or choose to reject him. Love that is
forced, or programmed, is not love at all. I am sure that your
children love you, and that you enjoy that fact. How would you feel if
they were like automata, or robots, having no choice but to say they
love you and go through the mechanical motions of showing it. I think
you would agree that is not really love at all. While that may be
entertaining for a while, it would bring no lasting joy. God wants us
to choose to love him. but, we also have the free wil to reject him. I
also believe that ALL men have the opportunity, and have since the
creation, to love Him or reject him. Romans 1:19,20 reveals that.

I assume you believe God has the power to do that.abolish hell
and Satan. Yet he allows (or perhaps wants) him to exist. Why do
you think the existence of Satan and hell are important to God?

Satan is a created being, an angel, in fact once an archangel.
Evidently, he was given free will, too, but because of his pride he
tried to place his throne above God's, and consequently was cast out
of heaven to earth. His pride still causes him to interfere with God's
plan by attempting to divert man's love away from God. I believe that
God is sovereign over his creation, and that he could abolish Satan
and hell, and indeed wil do that one day. But, I do not know why he
has chosen to allow Satan have power on the earth for this period of
time. Perhaps the Scriptures reveal that in some way I have not yet
been shown. But, I accept that God, in his sovereignty, is perfect in
his reasoning.

Perry
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man






On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:11:31 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
I started about 3 replies. One from Romans 
about Paul's struggles. One from real life examples of how people's actions 
were contrary of their beliefs. One from what we know about addictions. But 
I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out "if you fail, it's 
your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no 
excuses!you worthless piece of " will drown all. Love, 
Caroline

Where do I assign 
fault Caroline? When I wrote I was merely saying "this is the way it 
is" - are you into 'political correctness as well as universalism?" 
Yes Paul had struggles with his own flesh but he pursued 
righteousness
so that he could 
write younger believers to "follow him as they observed him following 
Christ" and yes, there is
a spirit of 
'addictions' - it runs in my family and I know about it first hand. 
That's the reality and the battle we find
ourselves in and 
this is why the answer is not a powerless 'universalism' 
judyt



A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
THEOLOGY.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:49 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up 
  too. A high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two 
  wounded children. We all need saving - every single day of our 
  lives.
  
  True, but she was manipulated and 
  duped into thinking it was a love match at least for a short 
  while.
  
  
  
  While we're at it, I think the rest of the 
  family was pretty messed up too. 
  
  I agree and they have been for 
  generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith 
  seriously.
  
  But there is so much good and so much glory 
  in that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and 
  theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came 
  from there. Our modernideas which includes no slavery, protection of 
  workers, education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be God. 
  
  
  They had 
  their day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of 
  visition' and I don't doubt that God 
  still has a remnant in 
  those countries in spite of how pagan they have become.
  
  I wonder if the Royal family is aware of 
  spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the 
  nation. Surely they must come in for more than the average person's share 
  of spiritual lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for them 
  daily.
  
  Are you kidding? Philip and much 
  of the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted so far, 
  possibly because of the terrible relationship he has with his father but 
  he has not escaped. A close adviser by the name of VanDerPost 
  introduced him to pursuit of the occult many years ago and he read these 
  books on his honeymoon when he married Diana. Later he went to 
  Africato investigate native religions. Both Diana and Fergie 
  were known to frequent psychics and astrologers. Charles disdains Christianity and has stated in the past 
  that when he ascends the throne he would like to be called 
  "Defender of the Faiths" - so 
  there you 
  go. The future King of England is a true universalist. 
  judyt
  
  

From: Judy 
Taylor 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac 
  and Rebekah the morning after.
  
  What would bewrong with 
  Isaac  Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth 
  families and she went willingly.
  
  For the longest time the State did not 
  govern or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies 
  got more complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but 
  when did State sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law 
  allows only legitimate sons to inherit with the first born one getting 
  the main title plus the lands that went with the title? 
  
  They probably started it to get 
  some kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with 
  power or money. However we know that marriage is ordained by God and 
  that the marriage agreement is the closest ideawe have in our 
  generation to that ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a 
  man lay with a maiden he had married her.
  
  Someone should write a book about how 
  primogeniture has shaped society.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance









It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but there is a rising
tide 

of Evangelicals who are switching from exclusivism to inclusivism, 

conditionalism or even universalism. Some say such a movment must be
the 

work of the Spirit; others say it is the great apostasy of the end
times. By 

their fruit you shall know them.

Love,

Caroline 





Youve got that part
right, Caroline. Izzy



Matt 3: 10The axe is already laid at the root of the
trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

Lance wrote concerning the third heaven:
 This scripture [2 Cor. 12:2] demonstrates nothing.

I was just wondering why you used the label unbiblical when the Bible does 
mention a third heaven.

Lance wrote:
 May I assume that you and Izzie are 'one' are the
 point of hell at the center of the earth?

Yes, of course.  That is what the Bible teaches us.  However, I do not 
expect to drill down there and record voices screaming.  :-)

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man









Exactly, Jt. Thats the crux
of the question. Any answers? Is a civil legal ceremony required by God? Is a
marriage more than that in Gods eyes? Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
2:35 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay
Single Young Man







How
does God determine what is fornicationand what is not? I
would think this would be





the important part because fornicators DO NOT inherit his
Kingdom. Adulterers don't either. judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

Caroline wrote:
 Consider all the people that Jesus cast demons
 out of. Were they happy go-lucky people?

It is the chicken and the egg, thing.  Do the demons cause pain and despair 
or do they find people who are in pain and despair and then feed off of that 
pain and despair?  Some of the people I have ministered deliverance to told 
me of past lives where they were extremely wealthy, then got led into drugs 
and sex addition, divorce, and it all went downhill.

Caroline wrote:
 Who said the parable about Lazarus and the rich man
 was about demonization? Was that even a secondary
 or tertiary point of Jesus' story?

I referenced it because he received the same fate of demons, so we might 
consider that he entertained them a bit more than those of us who have been 
set free from the power of the prince of the power of the air.

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance









Oh,
another goodie for the refrigerator door!!! Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
5:51 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only
this Message can give Assurance







Rethinking  Reimagining can not
change reality.





Those that Remodel hell are fixing to
move in.

RE: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen











Only if a merciful God gives us a future
datewe cant presume upon tomorrow. Izzy













BTW, you can always change your mind on a future date. 





Love,





Caroline

RE: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

















The Kingdom
 of God and eternal life
begins here and now. So does hell. Welcome to your future. 





Love,





Caroline



Yes, and no. We are on
one path or the other now. But we have NO CLUE how amazingly wonderful heaven
will be, or how incredibly hideous hell will be. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:05:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Could it be, that the "Kingdom of God" is representative of something different than the "Kingdom of Heaven"?



worth a study

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

John wrote:
 In Galatians, Paul makes clear the teaching
 on holy days  --   there are none.

David Miller wrote:
 Can you elaborate on this, John?  What specific
 passage did you have in mind?

John wrote:
 Gal. 2:19;  4: 9-11;  Romans 14 (where the weak
 or wrong brother is the one who honors one day
 over another)

I am very curious about your thinking on this.  I truly hope that my 
questions do not cause you to get upset with me.  Why is the weak brother 
the wrong brother in your eyes?  I don't see it that way.  The teaching of 
Jesus in Rev. 2:20 sides with the weaker brother so how could he be 
wrong.  Also, the Galatians passage does not condemn honoring holy days. 
Paul himself honored holy days.  Surely you recognize this in Scripture. 
What Paul was concerned about was the idea that disciples could be perfected 
in their Christian walk by observing holy days.

John wrote:
 The eating of meats?   No reason to NOT eat except,
 of course, the conscience of some believers.
 while eating in their presence, of course.

David Miller wrote:
 I hope you don't think Paul advocated eating meat
 offered to idols in private.

John wrote:
 Paul knows that an idol is a piece of wood or a stone
 --  it is not real.   there are not other gods   ---  I am quite
 sure that when Paul sat down to eat, he did not ask of the
 meats origins

Not asking about it is one thing.  I agree with you on that point.  However, 
if Paul knew that the meat was offered to idols, you don't think he ate it, 
even in private, do you?

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man









I share the sadness Judy expresses about
all of the Royal family. I watched the wedding of C and C and
wished I could be wishing them happiness, but instead I just felt great sadness
for them and despaired of God ever blessing their union. I also thought about
how very lost everyone in that family is, on both sides. And I thought that if
Queen E. is the head of the Church of England, that church must
be dead, indeed. Thank God that he can bring forth Believers out of such a
spiritually arid land, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
7:34 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay
Single Young Man







The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up too. A high
power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two wounded children. We
all need saving - every single day of our lives.











Love,











Caroline











While we're at it, I think the rest of the family was pretty
messed up too. But there is so much good and so much glory in that tiny nation.
Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and theologians came from there.
Some of the greatest social reformers came from there. Our modernideas
which includes no slavery, protection of workers, education for all came from
there. Remarkable. It has to be God. 











I wonder if the Royal family is aware of spiritual warfare?
They are defender of the faith and the head of the nation. Surely they must
come in for more than the average person's share of spiritual lies and attacks.
I hope English Christians pray for them daily.







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Wednesday, April
13, 2005 7:14 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Stay Single Young Man























On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac and Rebekah the
morning after.











What would
bewrong with Isaac  Rebekah's union, they had the blessing
ofboth families and she went willingly.











For the longest time the State did not govern or legislate
marriage. They had to do that when our societies got more complicated. I
haven't done any research in this area but when did State sanctioned marriages
happen? Was it because English law allows only legitimate sons to inherit with
the first born one getting the main title plus the lands that went with the title?












They probably started
it to get some kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with
power or money. However we know that marriage is ordained by God and that the
marriage agreement is the closest ideawe have in our generation to that
ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a man lay with a maiden he had
married her.











Someone should write a book about how primogeniture has
shaped society. King Richard II became king by declaring his brother's two sons
illegitimate because it was discovered thatKing EdwardVwas
betrothed(!) to anotherbefore his marriage.Apparently in those
days, betrothed people could have church approved sex and it was the equivalent
of marriage without the ceremony. 











British Kings were for
the most part totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their carnality and
lust and did what they wanted to They were 'defenders of the faith' in name
only and took any female that appealed to them.











I can see why that traditionhad to change. I can
imagine some cousin of Princes Will and Harry saying, your dad was
betrothed to _ before he married your mom so you guys are illegitimate and
I'm the heir apparent. and they replying, oh yeah and your
grandfather.. 





Love, Caroline











No kidding; there is
already speculation about Harry's paternity and Charles' behavior has been
disgraceful. Apparently some uncles of his messed him up big time. One
encouraged him to research the occult and anothertold him to sow wild
oats and play the field. This along with his loveless childhood produced
an emotional wreck of a man who had nothing to give his bride in 1981 but his
infidelity. How tragic and what a horrible example to his sons.













From: Judy Taylor












How
does God determine what is fornicationand what is not? I would
think this would be





the important part
because fornicators DO NOT inherit his Kingdom. Adulterers don't
either. judyt











On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:56:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:










I don't know what I think about living together without a legal
ceremony. I suppose that if the couple has made a conscious
commitment to one another they are married. I mean, the
state does not tell them to separate. It seems to me that
there is a difference between living together and shaken up. 

I like what Caroline wrote, below. 

Jd




In a message

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man









Good quote, jt. Where did it come
from? Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
6:55 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay
Single Young Man







A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS THEOLOGY.

[TruthTalk] Legalism




*Note subject change
Subject was "Jesus as King" and now it 
is"Legalism"

John wrote:
 god 
[sic]is not a legalist. 
I realize that 
thepopular concept today isthat God is not a legalist. Is 
there any Biblical reason for this concept? It seems to me that Jesus 
would not have had to die if God was not a legalist. God could just accept 
everyone without having made any sacrifice for them, couldn't he? What is 
all this whole idea of shedding the blood of the innocent, spotless lamb if not 
provoked by legalism?

Peace be with you.David 
Miller.

p.s. John passed on the 
opportunity to discuss this last time. Please, anyone who would like to 
offer thoughts on this, please do so. Thanks.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

Are you saying that Christians do not battle Satan or demons?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

Caroline wrote:
Consider all the people that Jesus cast demons
out of. Were they happy go-lucky people?
It is the chicken and the egg, thing.  Do the demons cause pain and 
despair
or do they find people who are in pain and despair and then feed off of 
that
pain and despair?  Some of the people I have ministered deliverance to 
told
me of past lives where they were extremely wealthy, then got led into 
drugs
and sex addition, divorce, and it all went downhill.

Caroline wrote:
Who said the parable about Lazarus and the rich man
was about demonization? Was that even a secondary
or tertiary point of Jesus' story?
I referenced it because he received the same fate of demons, so we might
consider that he entertained them a bit more than those of us who have 
been
set free from the power of the prince of the power of the air.

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. 
--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




I don't remember where it originated but I heard it 
from Bill Gothard years ago. jt

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:16:26 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Good quote, jt. 
  Where did it come from? Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Wednesday, April 
  13, 2005 6:55 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
  Young Man
  
  
  A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
  THEOLOGY.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




Knowing Nicky Gumbel and N.T. Wright from the 
Church of England, I'm not at all worried. 

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:12 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
  Young Man
  
  
  I share the sadness 
  Judy expresses about all of the Royal family. I watched the wedding of 
  C and C and wished I could be wishing them happiness, but instead I just felt 
  great sadness for them and despaired of God ever blessing their union. I 
  also thought about how very lost everyone in that family is, on both 
  sides. And I thought that if Queen E. is the head of the Church of 
  England, that church must be dead, indeed. Thank God that he can bring forth 
  Believers out of such a spiritually arid land, but there are fewer and fewer 
  of them. Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Caroline 
  WongSent: Wednesday, April 
  13, 2005 7:34 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
  Young Man
  
  
  The Princess of Wales was pretty 
  messed up too. A high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two 
  wounded children. We all need saving - every single day of our 
  lives.
  
  
  
  Love,
  
  
  
  Caroline
  
  
  
  While we're at it, I think the 
  rest of the family was pretty messed up too. But there is so much good and so 
  much glory in that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries 
  and theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came 
  from there. Our modernideas which includes no slavery, protection of 
  workers, education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be God. 
  
  
  
  
  I wonder if the Royal family is 
  aware of spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the 
  nation. Surely they must come in for more than the average person's share of 
  spiritual lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for them 
  daily.
  

- Original Message - 


From: Judy 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: 
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:14 AM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man







On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  LOL Judy! I wonder what God 
  said to Isaac and Rebekah the morning 
  after.
  
  
  
  What would 
  bewrong with Isaac  Rebekah's union, they had the blessing 
  ofboth families and she went 
  willingly.
  
  
  
  For the longest time the State 
  did not govern or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our 
  societies got more complicated. I haven't done any research in this area 
  but when did State sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law 
  allows only legitimate sons to inherit with the first born one getting the 
  main title plus the lands that went with the title? 
  
  
  
  
  They probably 
  started it to get some kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it 
  has to do with power or money. However we know that marriage is ordained 
  by God and that the marriage agreement is the closest ideawe have in 
  our generation to that ofcovenant. Under Levitical law if a 
  man lay with a maiden he had married 
  her.
  
  
  
  Someone should write a book 
  about how primogeniture has shaped society. King Richard II became king by 
  declaring his brother's two sons illegitimate because it was discovered 
  thatKing EdwardVwas betrothed(!) to anotherbefore 
  his marriage.Apparently in those days, betrothed people could have 
  church approved sex and it was the equivalent of marriage without the 
  ceremony. 
  
  
  
  British Kings 
  were for the most part totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their 
  carnality and lust and did what they wanted to They were 'defenders of the 
  faith' in name only and took any female that appealed to 
  them.
  
  
  
  I can see why that 
  traditionhad to change. I can imagine some cousin of Princes Will 
  and Harry saying, "your dad was betrothed to _ before he married your 
  mom so you guys are illegitimate and I'm the heir apparent." and they 
  replying, "oh yeah and your grandfather.." 
  
  
  Love, 
  Caroline
  
  
  
  No kidding; 
  there is already speculation about Harry's paternity and Charles' behavior 
  has been disgraceful. Apparently some uncles of his messed him up big 
  time. One encouraged him to research the occult and anothertold him 
  to sow wild oats and play

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:24
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single
Young Man

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:11:31 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

I started about 3 replies. One from Romans
about Paul's struggles. One from real life examples of how people's
actions were contrary of their beliefs. One from what we know about
addictions. But I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out
"if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the
bible! just do it! no excuses!you worthless piece of " will
drown all. Love, Caroline

Where do I assign
fault Caroline? When I wrote I was merely saying "this is the way it
is" - are you into 'political correctness as well as universalism?"
Yes Paul had struggles with his own flesh but he pursued
righteousness
so that he could
write younger believers to "follow him as they observed him following
Christ" and yes, there is
a spirit of
'addictions' - it runs in my family and I know about it first hand.
That's the reality and the battle we find
ourselves in and
this is why the answer is not a powerless 'universalism'
judyt

Are you the
oldest daughter of an alcoholic father who never drank
herself?

Love,

Caroline

A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS
THEOLOGY.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:49 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up
too. A high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two
wounded children. We all need saving - every single day of our
lives.

True, but she was manipulated and
duped into thinking it was a love match at least for a short
while.

While we're at it, I think the rest of the
family was pretty messed up too.

I agree and they have been for
generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith
seriously.

But there is so much good and so much glory
in that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and
theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came
from there. Our modernideas which includes no slavery, protection
of workers, education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be
God.

They had
their day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of
visition' and I don't doubt that God
still has a remnant
in those countries in spite of how pagan they have become.

I wonder if the Royal family is aware of
spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the
nation. Surely they must come in for more than the average person's
share of spiritual lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for
them daily.

Are you kidding? Philip and
much of the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted so
far, possibly because of the terrible relationship he has with his
father but he has not escaped. A close adviser by the name of
VanDerPost introduced him to pursuit of the occult many years ago and he
read these books on his honeymoon when he married Diana. Later he
went to Africato investigate native religions. Both Diana
and Fergie were known to frequent psychics and astrologers. Charles disdains Christianity and has stated in
the past that when he ascends the throne he would like to be called
"Defender of the Faiths" - so
there you
go. The future King of England is a true universalist.
judyt

From: Judy
Taylor

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to
Isaac and Rebekah the morning after.

What would bewrong with
Isaac Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth
families and she went willingly.

For the longest time the State did not
govern or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies
got more complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but
when did State sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English
law allows only legitimate sons to inherit with the first

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

























But I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out
if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the
bible! just do it! no excuses!you worthless piece of  will
drown all.





Love,





Caroline



Wow; how very condemning. Where did you
get that from what Judy said?
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

God promised the Jews a earthly King  KingdomGod promises us a Heavenly King  Kingdom
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



JD writes:
So, while you on the right think there is some kind of grand departure from the truth (we really do have our share of ignorant discussions, don't we ??), I remind you of the above scriptures. You have a choice: you can read and accept these scriptures; you can correct me in love and patience; you can evoke the name of the Accuser and bash away. But I am going nowhere and the truth will happen. 

I don't do it unless someone consistently entertains him and his ministry comes my way JD; I'd much rather take the other option.
Christ came as King.

He came as Messiah to offer His ppl a Kingdom they were not part of just yet.

He was the Kingdom (the kingdom is in your midst).

Wait a moment - I thought you just said He was the King?Actually that scripture in Luke is referring tothe Holy Spirit - Jesus also said that when he cast out Satan with the finger of God ppl could know that the Kingdom of God had come upon them (Luke 11:20) - Let's stick with the Word here.

He died as the King of the Jews 

He died as a Suffering Savior - the Jews King at the time was Herod and they were all of the same spirit.

and was raised to sit on the kingly throne of David. Praise be His name. Jd





		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




NO, jt

  

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:11:31 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
I started about 3 replies. One from Romans 
about Paul's struggles. One from real life examples of how people's 
actions were contrary of their beliefs. One from what we know about 
addictions. But I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out 
"if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the 
bible! just do it! no excuses!you worthless piece of " will 
drown all. Love, Caroline

Where do I 
assign fault Caroline? When I wrote I was merely saying "this is 
the way it is" - are you into 'political correctness as well as 
universalism?" Yes Paul had struggles with his own flesh but he 
pursued righteousness
so that he 
could write younger believers to "follow him as they observed him 
following Christ" and yes, there is
a spirit of 
'addictions' - it runs in my family and I know about it first 
hand. That's the reality and the battle we find
ourselves in 
and this is why the answer is not a powerless 'universalism' 
judyt

Are you the 
oldest daughter of an alcoholic father who never drank 
herself?

Love,

Caroline



A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
THEOLOGY.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:49 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  The Princess of Wales was pretty messed 
  up too. A high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of 
  two wounded children. We all need saving - every single day of our 
  lives.
  
  True, but she was manipulated and 
  duped into thinking it was a love match at least for a short 
  while.
  
  
  
  While we're at it, I think the rest of 
  the family was pretty messed up too. 
  
  I agree and they have been for 
  generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith 
  seriously.
  
  But there is so much good and so much 
  glory in that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, 
  missionaries and theologians came from there. Some of the greatest 
  social reformers came from there. Our modernideas which includes 
  no slavery, protection of workers, education for all came from there. 
  Remarkable. It has to be God. 
  
  They had 
  their day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of 
  visition' and I don't doubt that God 
  still has a 
  remnant in those countries in spite of how pagan they have 
  become.
  
  I wonder if the Royal family is aware of 
  spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the 
  nation. Surely they must come in for more than the average person's 
  share of spiritual lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray 
  for them daily.
  
  Are you kidding? Philip and 
  much of the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted 
  so far, possibly because of the terrible relationship he has with his 
  father but he has not escaped. A close adviser by the name of 
  VanDerPost introduced him to pursuit of the occult many years ago and 
  he read these books on his honeymoon when he married Diana. 
  Later he went to Africato investigate native religions. 
  Both Diana and Fergie were known to frequent psychics and astrologers. 
  Charles disdains Christianity 
  and has stated in the past that when he ascends the throne he would 
  like to be called "Defender of the 
  Faiths" - so there you go. The future King of England is 
  a true universalist. judyt
  
  

From: Judy 
Taylor 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:50:54 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to 
  Isaac and Rebekah the morning after.
  
  What would bewrong with 
  Isaac  Rebekah's union, they had the blessing ofboth 
  families and she went willingly.
  
  For the longest time the State did 
  not govern or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our 
  societies got more complicated. I haven't done any research in 
  this area but when did State sanctioned marriages happen? Was it 
  because English law allows only legitimate sons to inherit

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Only this Message can give Assurance

In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:52:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I think the "security" question depends on what we mean by salvation. My reconciliation has been entirely accomplished by another, is secure and cannot be undone. God will never have anything to hold against me. I do not believe it is up to me to hang on and keep myself acceptable to God (thank you God), just as it was not up to me to make myself acceptable. I guess if I persisted in apostasy, I would be living to myself, ignoring that I can only be real in relationship with God, and that would eventually destroy me. (Of course, as long as I consider the question at all, I am not apostate.)

A .. men !!!

JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Saved -- Salvation -- and the pigpen

Hell is a Horrible place and NO WARNING is too strong!ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:










The Kingdom of God and eternal life begins here and now. So does hell. Welcome to your future. 

Love,

Caroline

Yes, and no. We are on one path or the other now. But we have NO CLUE how amazingly wonderful heaven will be, or how incredibly hideous hell will be. Izzy


		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

Things that are different ARE NOT the same.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:05:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could it be, that the "Kingdom of God" is representative of something different than the "Kingdom of Heaven"?worth a study
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:42:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
JD writes:
 So, while you on the right think there is some kind of grand departure from the truth (we really do have our share of ignorant discussions, don't we ??), I remind you of the above scriptures. 

You have a choice: you can read and accept these scriptures; you can correct me in love and patience; you can evoke the name of the Accuser and bash away. But I am going nowhere and the truth will happen. 
 
I don't do it unless someone consistently entertains him and his ministry comes my way JD; I'd much rather take the other option.
 
Christ came as King. 
 
He came as Messiah to offer His ppl a Kingdom they were not part of just yet.
 
He was the Kingdom (the kingdom is in your midst). 
 
Wait a moment - I thought you just said He was the King? Actually that scripture in Luke is referring to the Holy Spirit - Jesus also said that when he cast out Satan with the finger of God ppl could know that the Kingdom of God had come upon them (Luke 11:20) - Let's stick with the Word here.
 
He died as the King of the Jews 
 
He died as a Suffering Savior - the Jews King at the time was Herod and they were all of the same spirit.
 
and was raised to sit on the kingly throne of David. Praise be His name. Jd




Your legalism even effects the way you search the scriptures. You want one defintion for a particular Greek word to fit all textual usages of that word. You miss so much. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

In a message dated 4/13/2005 6:23:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I started about 3 replies. One from Romans about Paul's struggles. One from real life examples of how people's actions were contrary of their beliefs. One from what we know about addictions. But I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out "if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no excuses! you worthless piece of " will drown all.
 
Love,



Not all, my dear theologian. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

In a message dated 4/13/2005 7:54:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

May I assume that you and Izzie are 'one' are the
point of hell at the center of the earth?

Yes, of course. That is what the Bible teaches us

Well, I have always defended myself as a bibilical literalist. That would lead me to agree with Miller and conclude that my spiritual destiny is a phyical place. I am no biblical literalist, as of this post. 

Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

Judy wrote:
 I believe that the seed was always spiritual in nature,
 ie Abraham had two sons only Isaac was the son of promise.

But Paul says that this concept of two sons was an allegory (Gal. 2:24), 
meaning that we should not adopt any idea of a literal spiritual seed.

Judy wrote:
 Jesus was Jewish in the sense that he was born under the
 Law in the nation of Israel - as for His blood. We are
 told in Heb 9:13,14 that the blood of bulls and goats
 sanctified the flesh - how much more shall the blood of
 Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without
 spot to God purge the conscience from dead works to serve
 the living God.  I don't believe it possible for a person born
 through natural generation to be born free from the iniquities
 of the fathers and Jesus was free from this since he was without
 spot.  I don't know what the difference would be between Jewish
 blood and His but I do believe His blood was different.

It seems to me that you are looking at the atonement in a magical sense. 
Aren't you kind of mixing physical and spiritual here?  First you say that 
the seed is spiritual, but then you insist that the blood Christ was 
different physically.

From my perspective, a DNA test on the blood of Christ would show him to be 
genetically related to Mary.  In fact, I suspect that he may very well have 
been 100% genetically related to Mary (received all his genes from her), but 
I don't really know this for sure.  Futhermore, if Jesus scratched his arm 
while doing his carpentry work, I believe his blood was red and would stain 
his clothing red instead of white, even though Rev. 7:14 speaks about saints 
making their robes white in his blood.

Now sin is not something that physically exists in either blood or any other 
part of our flesh.  We speak about sin being in the flesh, but with our 
modern understanding of genetics and biology, there really is no reason for 
anyone to misunderstand why the Scriptures speak of it this way.  We speak 
of sin being in the flesh because behavior is regulated by genes and 
expressed by our physical brains.  All such behavior that originates solely 
in the brain (the flesh) is inherently selfish and therefore sinful.  On the 
other hand, that motivation for behavior that comes from the Spirit of God 
is contrary to this behavior of the flesh and it is one of love and is 
righteous.  Therefore, Jesus did not have to have some alien kind of blood 
in order to be the spotless lamb of God.  He was spotless because his 
behavior emanated from the Spirit and he did not follow the dictates of his 
physical body.

When we begin to think about the Atonement as not being some magical hocus 
pocus act of splashing the physical blood of Christ in the right place and 
in the right manner and with the right words, we will begin to appreciate 
how it was not only allowable for the blood of Jesus to be normal human 
blood, but necessary.  The power of Christ comes to us in our realization 
that he was like us in every way.  He physically experienced exactly all the 
things we do, frailty and all.  When we see that he was one of us, and that 
his walk was a walk that each of us can do when we receive his Spirit, then 
the power of Christ comes upon us because our faith is solidified and 
established by this realization.  It is more the work of how our conscience 
and mind and heart is effected by Jesus Christ and his sacrificial life than 
any kind of magical powers inherent in his physical blood.  Without 
identifying ourselves with Christ, I fear that some will just be following a 
religious ideology that has no power to set them free completely from the 
power of sin in the flesh.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King




Did God actually promise them that Kevin or did they 
assume Jesus would be an earthly King and deliver them from the Roman 
oppression? I know they were disappointed when he burst their 
bubble. jt

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  God promised the Jews a earthly King  KingdomGod promises us a 
  Heavenly King  Kingdom
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


JD writes:
So, while you on the right think there is some 
kind of grand departure from the truth (we really do have our share of 
ignorant discussions, don't we ??), I remind you of the above 
scriptures. You have a choice: you can read 
and accept these scriptures; you can correct me in love and 
patience; you can evoke the name of the Accuser and bash 
away. But I am going nowhere and the truth will 
happen. 

I don't do it unless 
someone consistently entertains him and his ministry comes my way JD; I'd 
much rather take the other option.
Christ came as King.

He came as Messiah to offer His 
ppl a Kingdom they were not part of just yet.

He was the Kingdom 
(the kingdom is in your midst).

Wait a moment - I 
thought you just said He was the King?Actually that scripture 
in Luke is referring tothe Holy Spirit - Jesus also said that when he 
cast out Satan with the finger of God ppl could know that the Kingdom of God 
had come upon them (Luke 11:20) - Let's stick with the Word 
here.

He died as the King of the Jews 

He died as a Suffering Savior - 
the Jews King at the time was Herod and they were all of the same 
spirit.

and was raised to sit on the kingly throne of 
David. Praise be His name. 
Jd





  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business - Try 
  our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




An acquaintance of mine, a professional Christian 
counsellor, spoke of BGLT, (Bill Gothard Lag Time). The amound of time lapsed 
between those who had attended a conference and, their own need for 
counsel.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: April 13, 2005 11:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
  Young Man
  
  I don't remember where it originated but I heard it 
  from Bill Gothard years ago. jt
  
  On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:16:26 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Good quote, 
jt. Where did it come from? Izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:55 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
Young Man


A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
THEOLOGY.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

This is an uniformed assessment.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: April 13, 2005 11:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single
Young Man

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:27:01 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Knowing Nicky Gumbel and N.T. Wright from the
Church of England, I'm not at all worried. Love, Caroline

You should be Caroline if the assessment
of Nicky Gumbel below is anywhere near accurate. judyt

AN 'ALPHA' ASSESSMENT NICKY GUMBEL'S 'GOSPEL'
On Monday 25 September 2000 I went to hear Nicky Gumbel and his ALPHA
team in the Waterfront Hall in Belfast. According to the Belfast Telegraph
advert [16 September] this was 'An opportunity to explore the meaning of
life'. In this assessment I want to focus exclusively upon my first hand
encounter at the meeting with Nicky Gumbel's 'gospel' presentation.
1. The whole thrust of Nicky Gumbel's message focussed upon man and his
problems - there was nothing said about the world and mankind as seen from
God's perspective. Those attending were never made aware
that because of Adam's sin/mankind's fall, unsaved sinners in this world are
"dead in trespasses and sins" [Ephesians 2:1] with the "wrath of God abiding
on them" [John 3:36]. God's love was mentioned frequently but "the
fierceness of his anger" [Joshua 7:26] never got a mention. As a result
there was no attempt to induce 'reverent fear' of the Lord which is of
course the beginning of true "knowledge" [Proverbs 1:7].
2. There was studiously no reference to or use of the
word 'sin'. Man's problems were identified as 'wrongdoings' but never
was any yardstick identified [ie God's law, which of course is "the
schoolmaster" ordained "to bring us unto Christ" Galatians 3:24] in the
context and light of which mans actions could be classified as
'wrongdoings'.
3. The result of these 'wrongdoings' was apparently 'guilt' and
'addiction' and these are, we were told, what Christ can set people free
from. Again reference to or use of the word 'condemnation' as found for
example in John 3:19 was studiously avoided.
4. Jesus was presented as one who would be able to
'satisfy' people - Matthew 1:21 immediately sprang to my mind "Thou
shalt call his name Jesus for he shall SAVE his people from their sins".

5. The answer to what was being put across as what I can only call man's 'pity party' is according to Nicky Gumbel friendship and companionship with God. Whilst that is
in part true, the vital truth about the first step that can lead to such a
relationship was hardly mentioned at all. The real answer to happiness with
an ensuing friendship and companionship with God is found in Psalm 32:1
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered'. Friendship was elevated and exalted above forgiveness
as being the means to happiness for man.
6. A story was told of a man who retrieved a bottle from the sea and
inside was a 'will' bequeathing money to whoever found the bottle. The man
wasn't going to bother about it but others encouraged him to 'check it out'.
He did and ended up inheriting a small fortune. People were then encouraged
to likewise 'check Jesus out'. Never at any time
was the eternal consequence [ie a lost eternity in HELL
- another word never referred to or used] spelt out for those who
would not 'check Jesus out'.
7. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost those listening "were
pricked in their heart" [Acts 2:37]. There was no attempt made to likewise
confront people in the Waterfront Hall with the reality
of and consequences of their lost and sinful condition because the
truth was that Nicky Gumbel unlike Peter in Jerusalem and Paul in Ephesus
'shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God' [Acts 20:27].
8. Overall an inaccurate and incomplete view of God was presented and a
faulty diagnosis of man's problem was presented. Christ was presented as a
'satisfier' and not a 'Saviour'.
9. Throughout the message a blatantly 'free will', 'take it or leave it'
'Arminian' view was presented and Nicky rounded his talk off with a typical
easy-believism 'sinners prayer'.
10. I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity and loving zeal of Nicky
Gumbel. The problem is that he and Alpha are attempting
to 'evangelise' people their way [they don't offend people by confronting
them with the truth about SIN] and are not evangelising people in
God's biblically ordained way. They prefer the Robert Schuller approach [he
regards any attempt to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition
as being 'uncouth and unchristian'] as opposed to

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




Metaphors coming up

We areimmersed in a sea of voices - voices 
from the past - voices we have internalized - our parents, our teachers, our 
pastors. From the spiritual realm, Satan sows lies into our lives. From our 
inner being, the Holy Spirit speaks to us. 

Sometimes I feel the seeds I scatter will fall on 
thorny ground and I close my hand. The Lord says, scatter anyway like the sower 
who did not care what ground his seeds fell on.

Now, isn't it strange that both Izzy and Judy 
thought I was talking about Judy when I was talking about the condition of 
mankind in general. :-) BTW, ladies when was the last time you heard the Lord 
say well done! or felt His love. Let's talk about that for a while. 


Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:35 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single 
  Young Man
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

But I realize it will be 
fruitless. The voice that cries out "if you fail, it's your fault! shape up 
or ship out! it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no excuses!you 
worthless piece of " will drown 
all.

Love,

Caroline

Wow; how very 
condemning. Where did you get that from what Judy said? 
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

Screwtape should get bonus pay. I suppose it'll be
too much to hope he would get vacation instead.

Love,

Caroline

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:50
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single
Young Man

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:27:01 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Knowing Nicky Gumbel and N.T. Wright from the
Church of England, I'm not at all worried. Love, Caroline

You should be Caroline if the assessment
of Nicky Gumbel below is anywhere near accurate. judyt

[TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law

*Note subject change
Subject was Jesus as King and now is Paradigms concerning the law

John wrote:
 ... since we are not under law,  the qualifiying statements
 found in I Tim 3 are suggestions  --  not legal requirements.

Izzy wrote:
 Why not just let God's kingdom rule, instead of JD's?
 This seems to be the crux of our disagreements-not just
 between us but between the liberals and the conservatives,
 so to speak.

I do think you are hitting on something here, Izzy.  The Churches of 
Christ movement are among the biggest proponents of this dispensational 
perspective that John has concerning us no longer being under law.  I think 
some of this still effects his mindset in our discussions here.

Have you noticed how they often interpret our theology as something that WE 
WANT?  They think we want few to be saved, or that we are eager for people 
to perish in hell fire and damnation.  They cannot read us without having 
this baggage cloud their view, no matter how many times we correct their 
misunderstanding.  Apparently there is a different working paradigm at play 
here, one in which some of us approach theology with the mindset of what God 
wants regardless of whether or not it would be bad news for us, but others 
approach theology with the idea of what they want to be the outcome.

Now add to this the idea that there is no more law, no more legal 
requirements, but only guidelines.  Once we accept that, then nobody is 
condemned if they only once get drunk, or only once fornicate, or only once 
commit adultery, or only once divorce, or only once covet, or only once 
steal, or only once lie, etc.  I have no problem with the concept of mercy 
and grace being extended to those who have fallen short in these areas, but 
to say that the commandments of Christ are only guidelines that do not need 
to be strictly followed means to me that grace and mercy is not really grace 
and mercy because there is no longer any law.  If there is no longer any 
law, then nobody is condemned by anything they do.  In such a world, 
everyone could live lawless lives and it does not really matter because 
nobody of guilty of anything no matter what they do.  No repentance 
necessary.  Sin does not really exist in any tangible form because there is 
no longer any law.  Isn't this the end of their conversation?

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:12:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I truly hope that my 
questions do not cause you to get upset with me. 

I will answer your questions, but, regarding this comment: I do get angry with you -- no sense of humor in me for David Miller. It 's all gone ( my sense of humor for you) and I am just being honest. I do not get angry because you question or even challenge my thinking. When you treat me like I am some kind of idiot -- that is different. 

But go ahead and insist in your mind that simply questioning John pisses him off and you will never understand. 

By the way and for the record -- even Deegan has not effected my sense of humor. Perhaps it is because I see him as being more consistent, I don't know. You is de only one who robs me of my smile. Got to work on that. 

Not angy in this reply, by the way. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:20:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I realize that the popular concept today is that God is not a legalist. Is there any Biblical reason for this concept? It seems to me that Jesus would not have had to die if God was not a legalist. God could just accept everyone without having made any sacrifice for them, couldn't he? What is all this whole idea of shedding the blood of the innocent, spotless lamb if not provoked by legalism? 


As long as the two us function with differing definitions (regarding "legalist") , a continued discussion is really not possible. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man




So far as I know Lance, BG did not claim to be God in 
the lives of the ppl who came to his Seminar - I am
also sure that the problems these ppl had did not 
spring up overnite and I can't help but wonder what 
kind 
of counsel they would recieve that would be helpful 
from an acquaintance of yours (that is, if he thinks like you). 
I can report thatthe GothardBasic Seminar helped me immensely at the time. I had been sitting 
in a Church under mixture and his focus on God's Word 
was exactly what I needed. I have long time friends who have used his Home 
School Curriculum with their five children, three of 
whom are now young adults and the fruit is evident in their lives. 
jt

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:55:47 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  An acquaintance of mine, a professional Christian 
  counsellor, spoke of BGLT, (Bill Gothard Lag Time). 
  The amound of time lapsed between those who had 
  attended a conference and, their own need for counsel.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

I don't remember where it originated but I heard it 
from Bill Gothard years ago. jt

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:16:26 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Good quote, 
  jt. Where did it come from? Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  Taylor
  
  A MANS MORALITY DETERMINES HIS 
  THEOLOGY.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:28:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 I don't remember where it originated but I heard it from Bill Gothard years ago. jt


I was one of the better legalist in my younger days -- I was a proud disciple of sorts of Gothard. Whatever happened to the guy?

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:41:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

God promised the Jews a earthly King Kingdom
God promises us a Heavenly King Kingdom


You misunderstand the very words of Christ. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

John wrote:
 Rev 7:9   --
 let the scriptural wars begin  !!!

John, did you ever look up Rev. 7:14 in the Greek and see that this is 
talking about those coming out of THE TRIBULATION THE GREAT?  If we accept 
this literally, this means that this innumerable multitude are those coming 
out of the last 3.5 years of this age.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re [Truth Talk] Jesus as King

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Things that are different ARE NOT the same.



Some call me "Dad" and some call me Mr. Smithson. Same guy. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

Caroline wrote:
 ... if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out!
 it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no excuses!...

I like being kicked in the pants like this.  It sounds like maybe you don't?

I think a lot of my failures stem from lack of discipline and just plain 
laziness.  Exhortations to shape up or ship out, read the Bible, fail not, 
etc. are very encouraging to me.  It is discouraging to me, however, to hear 
others lament about others giving such exhortations.  Maybe you can help me 
understand how you are offended by such words.  I truly wish we could all 
appreciate such exhortations to do as we ought to do.

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

WATCH OUT for Rowan Williams archbishop of Canterbury who performed the wedding!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/02/nbish02.xmlsSheet=/portal/2005/01/02/ixportaltop.htmlArchbishop of Canterbury: This has made me question God's existence

Archbishop of Canterbury Is EnthronedLONDON -- March 2003 
Rowan Williams, a self-styled "hairy lefty" who has stirred the Church of England with high hopes for his charismatic intelligence and fears for his sometimes provocative views, was enthroned Thursday as the 104th archbishop of Canterbury. 
Williams, an academic theologian and formerly the archbishop of Wales, has generated controversy because of his protests against possible military action against Iraq, his decision to ordain a homosexual as priest and his advocacy of women bishops. He now leads a Church of England divided by such controversies and suffering a continuing decline in attendance -- down to about 2 percent of the nation on any Sunday. He also heads the worldwide Anglican communion, which is strong and growing in Africa but divided -- as within the U.S. Episcopal Church -- between traditionalists and liberals. 
Some evangelicals in the Church of England have said they are considering looking abroad for spiritual leadership because they believe Williams disregards the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and other issues. 
"The appointment of Rowan Williams marks a sad day because it means that the Church of England now has as its most visible person someone who holds wrong views about the Bible," said the Rev. Tim Chapman, one of seven clergymen who stood outside the cathedral wearing black armbands in protest. 
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who invaded the pulpit at Canterbury Cathedral at Easter in 1998 to protest church teaching on homosexuality, also was outside, supporting Williams. "The enthronement of Rowan Williams is the beginning of the end of Anglican homophobia," Tatchell said. The 900-year-old cathedral was packed with leaders of Christian churches and other faiths. Prince Charles and Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who appointed Williams -- led the lay dignitaries. 
Williams, who sports a bushy, graying beard, is a political leftist and has described himself as a "hairy lefty." 
There was gentle harp music from the archbishop's native Wales, thundering drums from South Africa and references to the 17th-century divine George Herbert, like Williams a poet and a priest. 
Addressing differences among the faithful, Williams said the church "can't believe and say whatever it likes, for the very sound reason that it is a community of people who have been changed because and only because of Jesus Christ." "But there is a further dimension," he added. "Living in Jesus' company, I have to live in a community that is more than just the gathering of those who happen to agree with me, because I need also to be surprised and challenged by the Jesus each of you will have experienced. 
"As long as we can still identify the same Jesus in each other's life, we have something to share and to learn." 
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page97.htmlCheck out the pics of Williamsin the DRUID outfit!http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page98.htmlArchbishop - or Arch-heretic?

SUPPORTS the ROCKY/DIPPER - FORNICATING "bible"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39114New Bible translation promotes fornicationArchbishop of Canterbury praises version for 'extraordinary power'"Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'" 

REIMAGINING THE SCRIPTURES?Here's how Williams, the top Anglican archbishop, describes the new Bible: "Instead of being taken into a specialized religious frame of reference  as happens even with the most conscientious of formal modern translations  and being given a gospel addressed to specialized concerns  we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshipping that is fully earthed, recognizably about our humanity." 
EXPAND your REIMAGINING!Williams, who is decidedly theological in this interpretation, is not proposing something radically new. He is appealing to us to expand how we think about the Resurrection.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:









I share the sadness Judy expresses about all of the Royal family. I watched the wedding of C and C and wished I could be wishing them happiness, but instead I just felt great sadness for them and despaired of God ever blessing their union. I also thought about how very lost everyone in that family is, on both sides. And I thought that if Queen E. is the head of the Church of England, that church must be dead, indeed. Thank God that he can bring forth Believers out of such a spiritually arid land, but there are fewer and fewer of

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

In a message dated 4/13/2005 8:56:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

An acquaintance of mine, a professional Christian counsellor, spoke of BGLT, (Bill Gothard Lag Time). The amound of time lapsed between those who had attended a conference and, their own need for counsel.


:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law

In a message dated 4/13/2005 9:07:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I do think you are hitting on something here, Izzy. The "Churches of 
Christ" movement are among the biggest proponents of this dispensational 
perspective that John has concerning us no longer being under law.

You really should not speak when you have nothing factual to say, Miller. The Churches of Chrsit are the biggest proponents of law -- second only to those who often write on this forum. Izzy's view has nothing to do with Chruches of Christ -- just another meaningless dig at Smithson .. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

In a message dated 4/13/2005 9:17:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John, did you ever look up Rev. 7:14 in the Greek and see that this is 
talking about those coming out of THE TRIBULATION THE GREAT? If we accept 
this literally, this means that this innumerable multitude are those coming 
out of the last 3.5 years of this age.


Are they without number or not?

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

Izzy wrote:
 Any answers? Is a civil legal ceremony required by God?
 Is a marriage more than that in God's eyes?

First of all, several times this phrase has been mentioned, civil legal 
ceremony.  There is no such thing.  The civil authorities don't care about 
or require a ceremony of any kind.  What they do is issue marriage licenses 
in order to recognize marriages from a legal standpoint.  This is necessary 
because of children, property ownership, and legal contracts.  The 
ceremonies are part of tradition and vary from religion to religion and 
culture to culture.  The State has little or no interest in marriage 
ceremonies.

Now to answer your question.  A State sponsored document is not required by 
God in order to be properly married in his sight.  Marriage is a life long 
contract, a commitment and vow, between two people of the opposite sex. 
That vow should be taken in the presence of witnesses.  If this is done, it 
is a valid marriage in the eyes of God.  HOWEVER, I have known some who 
marry without the legal aspects, and they have all divorced about just as 
quickly without any kind of legal recourse because in the eyes of the law, 
they were never married.  One such marriage involved a child for whom the 
husband now has absolutely no legal rights.

The government is meant to be the sword of God to keep people true to their 
vows and commitments.  In such a wicked society as we now live in, I would 
never advise anyone to marry without doing it properly in the eyes of the 
State.  This is not because the marriage would not be valid in the eyes of 
God, but because partners are fickle and if you think the divorce rate is 
bad even with a legal marriage, it would be worse if the State had no 
interest at all.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

It never works for me, David. Love works wonders. Criticize me and I rebel 
or shrivel up. Love me and encourage me and I climb mountains. Maybe that's 
why God handles us all so differently? :-) :-)

Love,
Caroline
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

Caroline wrote:
... if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out!
it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no excuses!...
I like being kicked in the pants like this.  It sounds like maybe you 
don't?

I think a lot of my failures stem from lack of discipline and just plain
laziness.  Exhortations to shape up or ship out, read the Bible, fail not,
etc. are very encouraging to me.  It is discouraging to me, however, to 
hear
others lament about others giving such exhortations.  Maybe you can help 
me
understand how you are offended by such words.  I truly wish we could all
appreciate such exhortations to do as we ought to do.

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. 
--
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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man









Caroline, then whose voice were you
referring to, saying such unkind things? And why is it fruitless?
Are you talking about something entirely unrelated to the post that you were apparently
commenting on? And why do you ask when is the last time we heard the Lords
well done or felt His love? That is something a Believer walks in
every day. But Im sure you knew that. So talk about it if you please,
as it isnt something I heard echoed in your comments to Judy. Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
11:02 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay
Single Young Man







Metaphors coming up











We areimmersed in a sea of voices - voices from the
past - voices we have internalized - our parents, our teachers, our pastors.
>From the spiritual realm, Satan sows lies into our lives. From our inner being,
the Holy Spirit speaks to us. 











Sometimes I feel the seeds I scatter will fall on thorny ground
and I close my hand. The Lord says, scatter anyway like the sower who did not
care what ground his seeds fell on.











Now, isn't it strange that both Izzy and Judy thought I was
talking about Judy when I was talking about the condition of mankind in general.
:-) BTW, ladies when was the last time you heard the Lord say well done! or
felt His love. Let's talk about that for a while. 











Love,











Caroline







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Wednesday, April
13, 2005 10:35 AM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Stay Single Young Man

























But I realize it will be fruitless. The voice that cries out
if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or ship out! it's easy! read the
bible! just do it! no excuses!you worthless piece of  will
drown all.





Love,





Caroline



Wow; how very condemning. Where did
you get that from what Judy said?
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

In a message dated 4/13/2005 9:33:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The State has little or no interest in marriage 
ceremonies.


Actually, when my wife and I were married by the State -- they brought employees into the area of the ceremony (and they called it a "civil ceremony") .We were "pronounced" by one having authority ( by the authority vested in me by the State of California). No big deal but things are not quite the way they are depicted by Miller. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Sounds of Hell

John wrote:
 I am no biblical literalist, as of this post.

I'm glad you are coming to know your true self, John.  We have known this 
about you for a long time, and have tried sometimes to communicate that, but 
sometimes it takes an indirect statement to make one realize such things. 
:-)

There is a lot of eisegesis in your writings.  When confronted with certain 
passages that are rather clear, rather than hearing what they are teaching, 
you find ways to rationalize them away and keep your own concept in play. 
This is eisegesis.  What we should do is hear and understand the passage as 
it speaks, in the context from which it speaks, and accept its message. 
Then when we merge these concepts of truth with other concepts from other 
passages, our greater understanding becomes more complete.  Then we will be 
able to forge ahead to that TOE (theory of everything), which ultimately is 
Christ himself.  :-)

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law









David, your comments are
SO trueespecially these
below! If they dont approve 

of what Gods word
has to say about it, they blame it on us and think evil of 

us for believing it. Id
rather be approved by God than by men any day.

Izzy



-Original Message-
Have you noticed how they often interpret our theology as something that WE 

WANT? They think we want few to be saved, or that we are eager for
people 

to perish in hell fire and damnation. They cannot read us without
having 

this baggage cloud their view, no matter how many times we correct
their 

misunderstanding. Apparently there is a different working paradigm at
play 

here, one in which some of us approach theology with the mindset of
what God 

wants regardless of whether or not it would be bad news for us, but
others 

approach theology with the idea of what they want to be the outcome.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law

In a message dated 4/13/2005 9:07:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Now add to this the idea that there is no more law, no more legal 
requirements, but only guidelines. Once we accept that, then nobody is 
condemned if they only once get drunk, or only once fornicate, or only once 
commit adultery, or only once divorce, or only once covet, or only once 
steal, or only once lie, etc. I have no problem with the concept of mercy 
and grace being extended to those who have fallen short in these areas, but 
to say that the commandments of Christ are only guidelines that do not need 
to be strictly followed means to me that grace and mercy is not really grace 
and mercy because there is no longer any law. If there is no longer any 
law, then nobody is condemned by anything they do. In such a world, 
everyone could live lawless lives and it does not really matter because 
nobody of guilty of anything no matter what they do. No repentance 
necessary. Sin does not really exist in any tangible form because there is 
no longer any law. Isn't this the end of their conversation?


How easy it is when things are established in monologue.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

 On Monday 25 September 2000 I went to hear Nicky
 Gumbel and his ALPHA team in the Waterfront Hall in
 Belfast.  ... snip ...

Lance wrote:
 This is an uniformed assessment.

Were you there?  Can you offer us a more informed assessment from someone 
who was there?  How about some presentation where Nicky did present these 
other important aspects of the gospel?

I noticed that in my reading of Tom Wright's commentary of Romans, there was 
little or no discussion of these important themes taught in Romans.  I just 
assumed he did not deal with these because others have, but after reading 
this analysis of Nicky Gumbel, I suspect the reasons for not discussing them 
go much deeper than that.  The so-called Church of England is in big 
trouble.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

John wrote:
 You is de only one who robs me of my smile.  
 Got to work on that.  

Yes, we do need to work on that, don't we.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

John wrote:
 As long as the two us function with differing definitions
 (regarding legalist) , a continued discussion is really
 not possible.

When you said that God is not a legalist, you said this in the context of 
how the commandments of Scripture are guidelines and do not necessarily have 
to be followed.

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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law











In a message dated 4/13/2005 9:07:31 AM Pacific Daylight
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




I do think you are hitting on something here, Izzy.
The Churches of 
Christ movement are among the biggest proponents of this dispensational 
perspective that John has concerning us no longer being under law.



You really should not speak when you have nothing factual to say,
Miller. The Churches of Chrsit are the biggest proponents of
law -- second only to those who often write
on this forum. Izzy's view has nothing to do with Chruches of
Christ -- just another
meaningless dig at Smithson .. 
JD



Thats what I understood DM to be
saying, JD, and I appreciate the background. And what a nasty, nasty attitude you do have towards DM.
I exhort you to repent. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man









Thanks for the interesting points, DM. Izzy



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:32 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man



Izzy wrote:

 Any answers? Is a civil legal ceremony required by God?

 Is a marriage more than that in God's eyes?



First of all, several times this phrase has been mentioned, civil
legal 

ceremony. There is no such thing. The civil authorities don't care
about 

or require a ceremony of any kind. What they do is issue marriage
licenses 

in order to recognize marriages from a legal standpoint. This is
necessary 

because of children, property ownership, and legal contracts. The 

ceremonies are part of tradition and vary from religion to religion and


culture to culture. The State has little or no interest in marriage 

ceremonies.

RE: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law























From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
11:04 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Paradigms
concerning the law

How easy it is when things are established in monologue. 



And what is that supposed to mean,
JD? Another meaningless dig from the King of Monologues?
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving






On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:53:06 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy wrote: I believe that the seed was always 
spiritual in nature, ie Abraham had two sons only Isaac was the son of 
promise.DM: But Paul says that this concept of two 
sons was an allegory (Gal.2:24),meaning that we should not adopt any 
idea of a literal spiritualseed.

There is no Galatians 2:24 David but I do recall 
anallegory - Oh I see it is Galatians 4:24 and 
Paul used this to make the point that the spiritual seed was persecuted back 
then as it is today by the seed of the 
flesh.God called Isaac the seed of Promise in Genesis 21:12 
so nothing has changed. 
Judy wrote:Jesus was Jewish in the sense that he was 
born under theLaw in the nation of Israel - as for His blood. We are told 
in Heb 9:13,14 that the blood of bulls and goatssanctified the flesh - how 
much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered 
himself withoutspot to God purge the conscience from dead works to 
servethe living God. I don't believe it possible for a person born 
through natural generation to be born free from the iniquities of the fathers 
and Jesus was free from this since he was without spot. I don't know what 
the difference would be between Jewish blood and His but I do believe His blood 
was different.DM: It seems to me that you are looking at 
the atonement in a magicalsense. Aren't you kind of mixing physical 
and spiritual here? 

It's not"magical" when it is God's Truth. 
Magic is the counterfeit - Yes I am speaking of both physical and spiritual here 
but I don't believe we can understand God's Revelation any other 
way.

DM: First yousay thatthe seed is spiritual, but then you insist 
that the blood Christ wasdifferent physically.

Scripture tells us that the life of the flesh is in the 
blood; God speaks of Abel's blood crying from the ground; families are 
identified by blood analysis. I'm not a medical doctor or a scientist but 
I do believe there is more to it than we are able to understand right now. 
How does Christ make all nations of "one blood"? 

From my perspective, a DNA test on the blood of Christ would showhim 
to begenetically related to Mary. In fact, I suspect that he may 
verywell havebeen 100% genetically related to Mary (received all his 
genes fromher), butI don't really know this for sure. 
Futhermore, if Jesus scratchedhis armwhile doing his carpentry work, 
I believe his blood was red andwould stainhis clothing red instead 
of white, even though Rev. 7:14 speaksabout saintsmaking their robes 
white in his blood.

Noone is ever going to get the opportunity to test his 
pre Calvary DNA and the post resurrection body He has now isflesh and 
bones so all we can do today is speculate about it.Now sin is not 
something that physically exists in either blood orany otherpart of 
our flesh. 

Sin is a being and Paul says it dwelt in his flesh in 
Romans 7 where he says he was in agreement with God's Law inwardly but at times 
he did what he didn't want to do and when that happened it was not him doing it 
but sin that dwelt in him.
(Romans 7:17-25) and in the next chapter he explains 
that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ and who walk after the 
Spirit because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ frees us from the law of 
sin and death.

We speak about sin being in the flesh, but withourmodern 
understanding of genetics and biology, there really is no reason 
foranyone to misunderstand why the Scriptures speak of it this way. 
Wespeakof sin being in the flesh because behavior is regulated by 
genes andexpressed by our physical brains. All such behavior that 
originatessolelyin the brain (the flesh) is inherently selfish and 
therefore sinful. 

I don't see the brain (organ) as sinful in and of 
itself. I guess this touches upon the Terri Schiavo saga. The brain is just 
another organ like the liver and pancreas and in her case it shut down. However, 
Terri herself is a spirit being who was
inside that body but could not communicate because that 
organ was so damaged. Sir John Eccles (Nobel Laureate) said "the brain is a 
machine that any ghost can operate"
On theother hand, that motivation for behavior that comes from 
the Spiritof Godis contrary to this behavior of the flesh and it is 
one of love andisrighteous. Therefore, Jesus did not have to 
have some alien kind ofbloodin order to be the spotless lamb of 
God. He was spotless becausehisbehavior emanated from the 
Spirit and he did not follow the dictates of hisphysical 
body.

I believe that he bled red just like us, but then so 
did Adam and Eve before the fall. They didn't have sin dwelling in their flesh 
before the fall and I don't believe Jesus did either. However his body had 
the same physical needs as ours so he would have been tired, hungry, and looking 
for some relief while out in the wilderness so those temptations were 
real.When we begin to think about the Atonement as not being some

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man






How about speaking the truth in love 
Caroline?
It's my personal belief that too much of the professing 
Church lacks being perfected in love and would rather 
expose than cover the multitude of sin in others while 
waiting forGod or leadership to deal with them. I used
to hear some call what you appear to be involved in 
"sloppy agape" but have since learned that God views
love without truth (and all that involves) as 
"spiritual harlotry". judyt


On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:40:45 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: It never works for me, David. Love works wonders. Criticize me 
and I  rebelor shrivel up. Love me and encourage me and I climb 
mountains. Maybe  that'swhy God handles us all so differently? :-) 
:-)  Love,  Caroline From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Caroline wrote:  ... "if you fail, it's your fault! shape up or 
ship out!  it's easy! read the bible! just do it! no 
excuses!..."   I like being kicked in the pants like 
this. It sounds like maybe  you   don't? 
  I think a lot of my failures stem from lack of discipline and 
just  plain  laziness. Exhortations to shape up or 
ship out, read the Bible,  fail not,  etc. are very 
encouraging to me. It is discouraging to me,  however, to  
 hear  others lament about others giving such 
exhortations. Maybe you  can help   me  
understand how you are offended by such words. I truly wish we  
could all  appreciate such exhortations to do as we ought to 
do.   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.   -- "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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law

John wrote:
 The Churches of Chrsit are the biggest proponents of law

I think you are talking about the way they read the New Testament, straining 
at the letter of it.  What I was talking about was how they approach Torah. 
If I had a nickel for every time I quoted an Old Testament passage to a 
Church of Christ man and heard back, that passage is Old Testament law, we 
are New Testament now... why, I would have a small fortune.

John wrote:
 You are closer to the truth than you think.
 Grace verse [sic] law.

The law has not been replaced with grace.  Grace has brought us out from 
being under law (under the covenant of law), but it has not abolished the 
law.

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving




John wrote:
 Are they 
without number or not? 

Not. The passage only says that no man could 
number them, meaning, that if a man looked at them all, there were so man that a 
mancould not assign a specific number to them. Surely you would 
agree that God cannumber them.

Peace be with you.David 
Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

John wrote:
 No big deal but things are not quite the way
 they are depicted by Miller.

I stand corrected on the way I depicted civil ceremonies.  The truth is that 
I have never been to one and the only people I have known to have been 
involved with such have described them as little more than a few employees 
in the building coming in to witness the Judge or notary establish the vows. 
From my perspective, religious and cultural backgrounds have determined 
marriage ceremonies and the State has allowed freedom for such.  I've never 
really seen any attention drawn to civil ceremonies.  I've never heard 
anyone say, Oh, I want a wedding ceremony to be like that civil ceremony! 
Upon a little more investigation, I see that the State is interested 
somewhat in an actual ceremony.  Interestingly, I found that the laws in the 
UK are such that civil marriage ceremonies are not allowed to have anything 
religious in them, no hymns, no religious readings, no prayers, etc. 
Furthermore, they then insist that religious ceremonies be done in a church 
and not outside!  Very strange.  Check out the links at:

http://www.webwedding.co.uk/articles/ceremonies/civil/civil.htm

http://www.webwedding.co.uk/articles/agony_aunt/ceremony.htm

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

GUIDELINES?
Like choose one from column A one from Column B?
If we are so much under grace, why was Jesus Christ tuffer than the LAW?
Why did he add to it?
MATT 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, (TEN CMDS EX 20:13) Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
 brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(TEN CMDS Ex 20:14)27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Law condemns Adulterers - Jesus condemns Adulterers  those who look to lust after
Law condemns Murderers - Jesus condemns Murderers  those that are angry w/o a cause with a brother
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John wrote: As long as the two us function with differing definitions (regarding "legalist") , a continued discussion is really not possible.When you said that God is not a legalist, you said this in the context of how the commandments of Scripture are guidelines and do not necessarily have to be followed.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.orgIf 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.
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

In a message dated 4/13/2005 10:13:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
As long as the two us function with differing definitions
(regarding "legalist") , a continued discussion is really
not possible.

When you said that God is not a legalist, you said this in the context of 
how the commandments of Scripture are guidelines and do not necessarily have 
to be followed.


Is this your definition? 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Paradigms concerning the law

In a message dated 4/13/2005 11:38:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How easy it is when things are established in monologue. 

 

And what is that supposed to mean, JD? Another meaningless dig from the King of Monologues? Izzy



Free pass # ! ated 4/13/05 wow - a full year of this !! Oh well. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

In a message dated 4/13/2005 12:29:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

GUIDELINES?
 Like choose one from column A one from Column B?


Nope, Large Man. Like "do this and don't do that."

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving

Judy wrote:
 God called Isaac the seed of Promise in Genesis 21:12
 so nothing has changed.

I don't see the word promise in Gen. 21:12.  Even if it did, Paul 
interprets for us that this understanding is an allegory.  Furthermore, 
consider Romans 4:13-16 and see how the seed has nothing to do with the 
physical at all, but of faith.

Judy wrote:
 Sin is a being

A being?  Do you mean that sin is literally a spirit or a creature?

Judy wrote:
 ... and Paul says it dwelt in his flesh in Romans 7 where
 he says he was in agreement with God's Law inwardly
 but at times he did what he didn't want to do and when
 that happened it was not him doing it but sin that dwelt
 in him.  (Romans 7:17-25) and in the next chapter ...

What I hear Paul describing here is what ethologists better understand as 
animal behavior mediated by genes.  In other words, there is an animal side 
to man that is physical, and the behavior that comes forth from the flesh is 
inherently selfish and therefore sinful.  He speaks about it as its own 
entity because he is trying to establish for us the dualism that exists in 
man, the distinction between flesh and spirit.  It takes the Word of God to 
divide spirit and flesh such that we can recognize how the flesh is 
inherently sinful and does no good thing.  This is what Romans 7 is all 
about, helping us recognize the concept of Greek dualism that existed in 
Paul's culture.  Paul was affirming this perspective by using the Torah, 
saying that with the flesh man served sin, but with the spirit, the law of 
God.  When he speaks about how it was not him doing it but sin within him, 
he was talking about his animal nature, how his flesh, had a mind of its 
own, that struggled against the mind of his spirit, which was struggling to 
live according to God's Torah.  This tension between flesh and spirit, 
material and immaterial, sinful and righteous, changing forms and unchanging 
forms, was very much discussed in philosophical circles because of Plato and 
the opposing views of his student Aristotle.  This is one reason that 
Christianity took off so successfully among the Gentiles.

Judy wrote:
 I don't see the brain (organ) as sinful in and of itself.

Neither do I, but the brain does motivate behavior.  Electrical stimulation 
can be provided to certain areas of the brain to produce emotions like anger 
and jealousy.  It is reasonable to conclude that evil emotions likes these 
actually emanate from the brain in response to certain stimuli, much like 
instinctive behavior in animals.  Such behavior is what Paul was talking 
about in regards to covetousness, wanting not to covet with his mind, but 
feeling compelled to covetousness by the instinctive nature of his body.  He 
then personifies sin, speaking about it as existing in his flesh and 
bringing him into captivity.  Paul does not mean that sin is a physical 
organ of the body that can be touched, but rather he is speaking about his 
nervous system creating sinful desires and behavior.

Judy wrote:
 Sir John Eccles (Nobel Laureate) said the brain is a machine that any 
 ghost can operate

I like this quote, but I don't think we need to suppose that without a 
ghost, the brain cannot function.  I think spirits can interface somewhat 
with the brain, but that the brain, in its own way, has its own activity as 
well.  When we talk about carnal behavior, the brain is probably the most 
important organ for us to consider.

Judy wrote:
 I'm not talking any magical hocus pocus David; nor do
 I have any rituals having to do with the blood of Christ.
 My belief is that it cleanses the consicence from dead
 works when we go to the sacrifice in time of need.

How does this cleansing work?  I perceive the personal cleansing as 
happening as a response to our consideration of the sacrifice of Christ.  It 
seems to me like you consider the cleansing to happen by Jesus taking his 
literal, physical blood and pouring it over your spirit or soul, and that 
there is some kind of power in this literal blood that removes sin much like 
water and soap removes dirt.  This is what I mean by magical.  There is 
some mysterious power in the literal blood of Christ that is applied to us 
and then removes sin from us.

Judy wrote:
 Why are you so adamant about this, why does his blood
 have to be just like ours?  If that were so then God could
 have just had Joseph be his biological father after all he
 and Mary were both from Levitical lines.

I do believe that Jesus could have been born to Mary and Joseph and still 
been our Savior.  The only reason I see in Scripture for the Virgin Birth 
was for a sign (Isaiah 7:14).  Although the Scripture does not say that it 
would be a sign specifically to Mary, I believe it was.  I imagine it was 
very difficult raising the Son of God, and she probably had to draw strength 
from the fact that she knew he was the Son of God because of the miracle 
birth.

Judy wrote:
 I don't have to have Him be like me in every way

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

2005-04-13 Thread Debbie Sawczak




That is just the point. Far fromdemonizing 
the law,the love of Christ, which we who are indwelt by him should expect 
to begin to embody,surpasses and hence supersedes the law. 

But by the same token, this law-superseding love is 
shown to us as well. Ourfailures to embody it arenot a question of 
an exchange of offences and penalties. If anything, they are more 
serious,but instead of alienating us from God theyare an invitation 
to him tocomplete his workin us.

Debbie



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:26 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism
  
  GUIDELINES?
  Like choose one from column A one from Column B?
  If we are so much under grace, why was Jesus Christ tuffer than the 
  LAW?
  Why did he add to it?
  MATT 5:17Think not that I am come to 
  destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to 
  fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot 
  or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be 
  fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, 
  and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
  heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called 
  great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your 
  righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye 
  shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it 
  was said of them of old time, (TEN CMDS EX 20:13) Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall 
  kill shall be in danger of the judgment:But I say unto you, That whosoever is 
  angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of 
  the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger 
  of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell 
  fire.
  (TEN CMDS Ex 20:14)27 Ye 
  have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit 
  adultery: But I say unto you, That 
  whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath 
  committed adultery with her already in his heart. 
  
  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and 
  cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
  should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if 
  thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is 
  profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy 
  whole body should be cast into hell.48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in 
  heaven is perfect.
  Law condemns Adulterers - Jesus condemns Adulterers  those who 
  look to lust after
  Law condemns Murderers - Jesus condemns Murderers  those that 
  are angry w/o a cause with a brother
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  John 
wrote: As long as the two us function with differing 
definitions (regarding "legalist") , a continued discussion is 
really not possible.When you said that God is not a 
legalist, you said this in the context of how the commandments of 
Scripture are guidelines and do not necessarily have to be 
followed.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.orgIf 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.
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business - Try 
  our new resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

Uninformed is as uninformed does, David. Hell at the centre of the earth? A
three decker universe? Six day young earth creationism?
Like I've said frequently: a fundamentalist with a Phd!

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: April 13, 2005 13:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man

  On Monday 25 September 2000 I went to hear Nicky
  Gumbel and his ALPHA team in the Waterfront Hall in
  Belfast.  ... snip ...

 Lance wrote:
  This is an uniformed assessment.

 Were you there?  Can you offer us a more informed assessment from someone
 who was there?  How about some presentation where Nicky did present these
 other important aspects of the gospel?

 I noticed that in my reading of Tom Wright's commentary of Romans, there
was
 little or no discussion of these important themes taught in Romans.  I
just
 assumed he did not deal with these because others have, but after reading
 this analysis of Nicky Gumbel, I suspect the reasons for not discussing
them
 go much deeper than that.  The so-called Church of England is in big
 trouble.

 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.

--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

God is not only NOT a legalist, He is also not RELIGIOUS!

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: April 13, 2005 13:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

 John wrote:
  As long as the two us function with differing definitions
  (regarding legalist) , a continued discussion is really
  not possible.

 When you said that God is not a legalist, you said this in the context of
 how the commandments of Scripture are guidelines and do not necessarily
have
 to be followed.

 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.

--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not Loving




Reminds me of that line in "Michael" where Michael 
says:"I created standing in line."

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: April 13, 2005 14:21
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow Way Not 
  Loving
  
  John wrote:
   Are they 
  without number or not? 
  
  Not. The passage only says that no man 
  could number them, meaning, that if a man looked at them all, there were so 
  man that a mancould not assign a specific number to them. Surely 
  you would agree that God cannumber them.
  
  Peace be with you.David 
Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Stay Single Young Man