[TruthTalk] Hell
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy wrote: It is possible for things to be true and notGod's Truth - there are two kinds of wisdom you know. I would like you to elaborate a little more on this concept, Judy. Is the concept of gravity God's truth or another kind of truth? I'd say that natural law is true but that Truth in and of itself is a higher law. Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life. He is the Creator and natural law is part of the creation. If an atheist who is married thinks it would be good for him to love his wife, would this be God's truth or another kind of truth? If he's an athiest then he is walking in darkness anyway and who knows how he defines love to start with; we can know one thing, his perception would not be the all giving God kind of love because that would be counter to his fallen nature. I seem to remember a post way back there that I meant to reply to but did not have time. You said something about sin being a spirit being. I don't think I have ever heard that concept before. Can you elaborate on this too? Yes, sin is a spiritual problem. It was a being who spoke to Eve in the garden and when she agreed in her heart it entered and became part of her being. When God confronted AE after this event (all of a sudden they knew they were naked and they were in hiding); he didn't ask "How did you know?" He said "Who told you?" Sin is a who. Caroline pointed out God's words to Cain in Gen 4:7 about"sin lying at the door and desiring to have him but he must rule" which are similar to Jesus words to Peter about "Satan desiring to sift him like wheat" Cain was already angry and of course he didn't rule, sin got the best of him and he murdered his brother. Are there any passages of Scripture where you perceive sin as a spirit being? Is it only one spirit being, or are there many spirit beings called sin? I'm having trouble grasping exactly what you mean. Yes, I believe God is a Spirit and Satan is a spirit. There is a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. The powers of darkness all serve the same king so it does not matter whether he comes in person or sends one of his emissaries. The important thing is that we recognize who is speaking and act accordingly. Grace and Peace, Judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Caroline's Blog April 24
DAVEH: I think I can agree with you on all you've posted below, Kevin. That leads to the next question Is 100% of what is found in any specific edition of the Bible God's words? ...and, a follow up question to perpend Is 100% of what God wants us to know found in the Bible? Kevin Deegan wrote: God is 100% right God's judgements are 100% right All that issues from God is 100% right God's words are 100% right since they are His very words and issue from Him. The question is where would one find his word? Hint KJV Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: ButWere the translators 100% correct? ShieldsFamily wrote: 100% Sincerity won't get anyone anywhere with God. The Bible is 100% right, and if we believe it and do it that's all we need. God is correct 100% of the time. Izzy -- ~~~ 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- ~~~ 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.
[TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance
Lance, I would like to be able to agree with you and Jonathan about this man's teaching but from where I sit it is downright dangerous. His Good Newsis all God and none of us. So is this in line with the clear teaching of God's Word? I understand he is a super smart theologian but I can not find his terminology anywhere in scripture. Vicarious sacrifice and unilateral covenant are theological words as are the "Christ event" and "incarnational theology" I understand that in going to the Cross Jesus did for us what we could never have done for ourselves and he has provided a way for us to be free from the power and the presence of sin in our lives because he loves us. However, I can see no precedent in all of God's dealings with mankind for this "unilateral" idea. Sure it's always His power but even his power will not avail for disobedient children. For instance look at Israel's deliverance out of Egypt; God gave them specific instructions about housecleaning, killing a lamb for each household, putting blood on the lintels of the door etc. So what if some families resisted allthis becauseGod loved them anyway (since they were Abraham's seedand children of the covenant) andthey didn't want to kill the sweet little lamb who had been a household pet much less eat it when the children were so attached to it and anyway the wife did notfeel like cleaning house and throwing outall that leaven, what a waste.Would God's love and unilateral covenant cover them in thisor would these rebellious ones be cut off? IOW Does God really mean what He says or can we totally push the envelope and get away with it because He loves us? judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Jonathan Hughes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: April 25, 2005 19:38Subject: Torrance I know I sent this to you a few weeks ago but it is so good I am sending it again. JBH The covenant between God and Israel was not a covenant between God and a holy people, but precisely the reverse. It was a covenant established out of pure grace between God and Israel in its sinful, rebellious and estranged existence. Hence, no matter how rebellious or sinful Israel was, it could not escape from the covenant love and faithfulness of God There were evidently critical moments in Israels history when it seemed ready to do anything to flout the will of God in hope of breaking loose from the grip of his unswerving love and of escaping from the painful transformation of its existence that relations with the Holy One of Israel involved. No, the covenant was not made with holy people, nor did its validity depend upon a contractual fulfillment of its conditions on the part of Israel, for its was a unilateral covenant which depended for its fulfillment upon the unconditional grace of God and the unrelenting purpose of reconciliation which he had pledged to work out through Israel for all peoples. And therefore it depended upon a vicarious way of response to the love of God which God himself provided within the covenanta way of response which he set out in the liturgy of atoning sacrifice and which he insisted on translating into the very existence of Israel in its vocation as servant of the Lord. the more fully God gave himself to this people, the more he forced it to be what it actually was, what we all are, in the self-willed isolation of fallen humanity from God. Thus the movement of Gods reconciling love toward Israel not only revealed Israels sin but intensified it. That intensification, however, is not to be regarded simply as an accidental result of the covenant but rather as something which God deliberately took into the full design of his reconciling activity, for it was the will and the way of Gods grace to effect reconciliation with man at his very worst, precisely in his state of rebellion against God. That is to say, *in his marvelous wisdom and love God worked out in Israel a way of reconciliation* which does not depend on the worth of men and women, but makes their very sin in rebellion against him the means by which he binds them for ever to himself and through which he reconstitutes their relations with him in such a way that their true end is fully and perfectly realized in unsullied communion with himself. That is the way in which we are surely to interpret the Incarnation, in which God has drawn so near to man and drawn man so near to himself in Jesus that they are perfectly at one. In Jesus the problematic presence of God to Israel, the distance of his nearness and the nearness of his distance, which so deeply trouble the soul of the psalmists and prophets alike, was brought to its resolution (T.F. Torrance, /The Mediation of Christ/, pp. 28-29). --"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
[TruthTalk] Torrance
Debbie writes: Another "bicameral" statement madeon TTis thatlove is the sum of the commandments. I love "disobedient people" better when I focus on God's unquenchable love for us. Where else could our love come from? Just focusing or visualizing love or the "incarnation" will not make it happen in us outside of walking in his ways and dealing with our issues - this walk is supernatural. Our flesh nature recoils against loving enemies and blessing those who curse us. I also find that the more my faith revolves around the person of Christ and a relationship with him rather than insistence on a set of correct doctrines, the more genuinely alive and active it becomes. Life is relationships; it can't be built on less. I'm not understanding this "person of Christ" you all talk about because we have no way to know Him outside of His Word. He tells us that "if we continue in His Word" then we are His disciples and we will know the truth and the truth will make us free (Jn 8:31) and "if we love Him we will do what He says" - (would youconsider all of this "correct doctrine?) If so my question then is - "how does one have a relationship with Jesus aside from agreement? Today I had a new aquaintance tell methat "friends can agree to disagree" which is fine but I don't see this in God's Word applying to Jesus and I wouldn't say I have a "relationship" with this lady. Paul exhorted the Church to all be saying the same thing. And that brings me to your earlier post, about "majoring on"the inconclusivity of interpretation when we should be "confident in God's word". I know it doesn't seem this way to you, but acceptance of this kind of uncertainty IS confidence in God's word--as somethinggreater thanthe shape forced on it by our reason or traditions, able to continue to renew andchange our thinking (more than once, nudging us along a path). Do you reckon Satan would have left if during his time of temptation out there in the wilderness Jesus was full of this kind of "doubt and uncertainty" about what Deuteronomy really was saying to God's people? I mean there were plenty of years in there for reason and tradition to have come on in. Why wasn't that a problem for Him? It isconfidence in God and his ongoing covenant story rather than in the principles, generalizations, orjots-and-tittleswe try to extract from it. The canon in its entirety argues for greater diversity than any one piece of it, and if you take this seriously (So-and-So thinks differently, and may be right!), it makes for not-insignificant uncertainty. It's not hard toallow uncertainty at themargins of our thinking, butharder tosubmit our ideological "darlings".If you think that some of us who so loudly profess this aren't alwaysmuch good at carrying it out, you are right! Debbie Well Debbie. Jesus is our Lord and Master and He left us an example that we should follow in His steps. If he were looking for greater diversity and acting in "uncertainty" this may be an option - but He wasn't and He didn't. Faith is the name of the salvation game and without faith it is impossible to please Him. Our choice today is what our faith will rest in. The Word of God, or the words of men. Grace and Peace, judyt
[TruthTalk] FYI Anxious About Nothing
Anxious About Nothing by Donna L. Watkins Do not be anxious about anything ... Philippians 4:6a Our world has become an excellent place to fear all when God says, Fear Not! Advertising, media, news, and listening to other people's fears have caused many Christians to join the world in its quest for control. We've come to think we can control our daily lives and future by making choices based on fear. God tells us He will take care of us and that we are to trust in Him. When I am afraid I will trust in You. Psalm 56:3 I already know this writing is going to be a bit rough and tough, but hang in there with me. Together we may grab hold of something that will bring us to a better place in Him. When I approach an important event I begin to fear that I will miss some great detail. A few months back our son was coming to visit for four days. I had so many things I wanted to do during that time, such as specific foods to make, places to see, music for him to hear, topics to discuss, etc. I became anxious that it wouldn't go the way I'd planned, so I made meticulous lists to make sure I had my desires all laid out. I didn't count on a couple of rainy days. Isn't God good at showing us we can't control our own lives? Why do we keep trying when we know in our hearts and minds that He does a better job? The visit was better than any plans I could have because it rained the first day and I decided that I wanted the time to go God's way. He had better things than I could ever think of for my list. Those were the important things of the visit. I might have missed them in trying to keep to my schedule of how life should be for those four days. I certainly would have missed a lot of joy and peace while I stressed over making the list happen. Consider these words from Hanna Whitall Smith: Nothing so greatly hinders the work of God's unseen spiritual forces, upon which our success in everything truly depends, as the spirit of unrest and anxiety. Please read that again! A great believer once said, All things come to him who knows how to trust and to be silent. This is so true! Our anxiety creates an energy that 'pushes away' the great things in our lives that could happen. It also pushes away people. Peace attracts, but anxiety repels. We are so caught up in striving and worrying that we don't see the better things happening. God promises to make all things good for us if we love Him. Loving Him is obeying Him. He would rather have obedience than sacrifice. (I Samuel 15:22) Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:6 Present them! Give them to Him! Did you notice what you need to do before that? It says in EVERYTHING ... and it says WITH THANKSGIVING! Do we thank Him for everything? I Thessalonians 5:18 says, In every thing give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. We have become too controlling and self-centered in the way we deal with life. We think we can handle it and that we deserve better. All the time we are getting the best! Trials and tribulations are for our good and if we approach them that way, and thank God IN them (in every thing give thanks), not FOR them, we can rest assured God will use them for our good. In the worst of circumstances, if you will get still and ask God to show you, you will be able to list good things already happening from the bad. People purchase all kinds of things to find peace. More clothes, more cars, more furniture and decor items, more food, more security. People buy cell phones for themselves and children solely based on fear. Home security systems are installed. Antibacterial soaps are used. Chemical cleaners promising to kill germs on contact are sprayed without thought of what the chemicals are doing not only to us, but to our children and pets. Insomnia is a major problem. Why do we continue to think that if we worry long enough over something that it will make it better? The Bible says that we must trust in Him to have peace. Trusting in ourselves is what produces the anxiety and worry. We are a nation of debtors which causes much of the anxiety and insomnia, with people having to buy many things that are considered needs when they have only been pushed upon us by media and fear. Is it working? We are busily trying to eliminate God from the equation and nothing is getting better. The promises of the advertising are not coming to pass. God is being pushed further and further away. It's all about trust and belief. Do we believe God loves us and has the best for us? The best is not the picture we would paint for ourselves. We would not have thought that the best for Jesus was the cross. The strongest trees are those growing on the side of a mountain daily struggling with the heat and winds and cold of exposure. We have a purpose on earth before we
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Caroline Wong wrote: 3)In your opinion, why do bright and sincere Christians believe different doctrines? How do you decide who is right? Is it by how well they match your thinking? === BINGO! That includes everyone here on both sides. I expect that you agree? Terry
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: A young Nun]]
- Subject: A young Nun A young Nun who worked for a local home health care agency was out making her rounds when she ran out of gas. As luck would have it, there was a gas station just one block away. She walked to the station to borrow a can with enough gas to start the car and drive to the station for a fill up. The attendant regretfully told her that the only gas can he owned had just been loaned out, but if she cared to wait, he was sure it would be back shortly. Since the nun was on her way to see a patient, she decided not to wait, and walked back to her car. She looked through her car for something to carry to the station to fill with gas.She spotted a bedpan she was taking to her patient. Always resourceful, she carried it to the station, filled it with gasoline, and carried it back to her car. As she was pouring the gas into the tank of her car, two men watched her from across the street. One of them turned to the other and said:"I know that it is said that Jesus turned Water into Wine, but if that car starts, I'll become a Catholic for the rest of my life." image/gif
Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Judy, when I say "focus" I'm not talking about visualization or concentration. I'm talking about staking my life on the fact that God loves us, letting God's love be my "ground". Then that shapes how I see myself and other people. Yes, the walk is supernatural, and by faith. Thankfully, we have Christ's life given to us. (I think this is what David and others have been saying all along, actually.)But inyour post to Lance, didn'tyou insist on our cooperation/submission? How does this happen? Relationship: do you pray? To whom? Is there love between you and him, and does that alter you in real time? Is he actually alive and there for you to trust in, oris ita desription of him you are trusting in? Of course he is revealed to us in his Word. But he is also alive and present. The point about uncertainty/confidence did not come through; in fact, it got turned into its opposite. I will try to think of another way of saying it. BTW, I enjoyed the post about trusting, praying,and not being anxious.It was right on. Debbie - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:31 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Torrance Debbie writes: Another "bicameral" statement madeon TTis thatlove is the sum of the commandments. I love "disobedient people" better when I focus on God's unquenchable love for us. Where else could our love come from? Just focusing or visualizing love or the "incarnation" will not make it happen in us outside of walking in his ways and dealing with our issues - this walk is supernatural. Our flesh nature recoils against loving enemies and blessing those who curse us. I also find that the more my faith revolves around the person of Christ and a relationship with him rather than insistence on a set of correct doctrines, the more genuinely alive and active it becomes. Life is relationships; it can't be built on less. I'm not understanding this "person of Christ" you all talk about because we have no way to know Him outside of His Word. He tells us that "if we continue in His Word" then we are His disciples and we will know the truth and the truth will make us free (Jn 8:31) and "if we love Him we will do what He says" - (would youconsider all of this "correct doctrine?) If so my question then is - "how does one have a relationship with Jesus aside from agreement? Today I had a new aquaintance tell methat "friends can agree to disagree" which is fine but I don't see this in God's Word applying to Jesus and I wouldn't say I have a "relationship" with this lady. Paul exhorted the Church to all be saying the same thing. And that brings me to your earlier post, about "majoring on"the inconclusivity of interpretation when we should be "confident in God's word". I know it doesn't seem this way to you, but acceptance of this kind of uncertainty IS confidence in God's word--as somethinggreater thanthe shape forced on it by our reason or traditions, able to continue to renew andchange our thinking (more than once, nudging us along a path). Do you reckon Satan would have left if during his time of temptation out there in the wilderness Jesus was full of this kind of "doubt and uncertainty" about what Deuteronomy really was saying to God's people? I mean there were plenty of years in there for reason and tradition to have come on in. Why wasn't that a problem for Him? It isconfidence in God and his ongoing covenant story rather than in the principles, generalizations, orjots-and-tittleswe try to extract from it. The canon in its entirety argues for greater diversity than any one piece of it, and if you take this seriously (So-and-So thinks differently, and may be right!), it makes for not-insignificant uncertainty. It's not hard toallow uncertainty at themargins of our thinking, butharder tosubmit our ideological "darlings".If you think that some of us who so loudly profess this aren't alwaysmuch good at carrying it out, you are right! Debbie Well Debbie. Jesus is our Lord and Master and He left us an example that we should follow in His steps. If he were looking for greater diversity and acting in "uncertainty" this may be an option - but He wasn't and He didn't. Faith is the name of the salvation game and without faith it is impossible to please Him. Our choice today is what our faith will rest in. The Word of God, or the words of men. Grace and Peace, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead?
DAVEH: While the gospel was delivered once for all, I don't interpret that to mean once AND for all...never needing to be delivered again or your theory the action occurred once and will never occur again. Not only was the apostasy predicted (2Thes 2:3), but likewise the restoration was prophesied (Mt 17:11 Acts 3:19-21) Furthermore, an angel was seen in vision (Rev 14:6) having the everlasting gospel to preach to those on earthwhich would hardly be necessary IF it were already here as many assume. So for these and many other reasons, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, Perry. You have suggested that NEW revelation cannot occur. Why you would believe such is logically unscriptural in my opinion. Not only do you impose a limit on what God may have done since Bible times and what he may do in the future (what do you think the angel mentioned in Rev 14:6 is going to do with the everlasting gospel message that needs preaching?), Christians who believe as you do have painted themselves into a corner. God has always revealed himself through his servants, the prophets. By not allowing him to continue revealing himself, you preclude the necessity of prophets. It's a small corner, Perry. As to your claim to DavidM that we (LDS) attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith", I believe that traditional Christianity has already beat us to it. That too was prophesied (Acts 20:29-30). Not only had it begun in Bible times (Gal 1:6-7), but continued to change as men introduced misleading doctrines not included in the Bible such as infant baptism and the Trinity doctrine. As I see it, LDS theology has been a process of restoring that which was lost. Not only is it necessary, but it is Biblically mandated. As for your below comment about Jude 4, you've misunderstood that as well, Perry... For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousnesss, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. or, in the words of the NASB. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. .Obviously, he was speaking in the present tense back then, rather than foretelling Joseph Smith in the future. Jude 4 only adds to the mountain of evidence that the apostasy was already happening before the Bible was even written. So Perry.While you have suggested Mormons attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith", could it be that criticism applies to you? Perry responded to DavidM: None of this means that personal revelation can't occur, in the sense of revealing scriptural meaning to individuals, and possibly even revealing other thingsbut no NEW revelation, that is, nothing that contradicts "the faith" (which has been recorded in the New Testament) that was delivered ONCE FOR ALL to the saints. The mormon works fail this particular test because they attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith". Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, I think the post you responded to is mine, not Kevin's. Here is Jude 3 in it's entirety from the NASB: Jude 3: Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. The NASB gives a clearer rendition of "hapax" (clarifying, not reinterpreting) since "hapax" is an "aorist passive", indicating that the action occurred once and will never occur again. I am not a greek scholar; this description comes from John MacArthur. Also, S. Zodhiates, in "The Complete Word Study Dictionary - New Testament", describes the use of "hapax" in Jude 3, along with other verses, to mean "once for all", that is, it can never occur again. He gives the example that Christ's sacrifice will never occur again. Jude is essentially describing the closure in the delivery of the faith...that it was complete and over as delivered to the saints. And Jude does not have to have been the last book written in order for this his statement to be correct. He is only announcing that the faith was delivered once for all...not that the saints to whom it was entrusted could no longer write about that faith. Going one verse futher, Jude describes the likes of Joseph Smith: Jude 4: For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead? Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:13:48 -0700 DAVEH: You are losing me on this one, Kevin. Vs 3 says.. y*e should earnestly contend for the faith which
Re: [TruthTalk] baptism
DAVEH: Yes, KevinI believe they were Christians in that they were attempting to baptize people for the purpose of salvationto fulfill all righteousness, as our Lord and Savior set the example. Does the Bible tell us they were not followers of Christ? If not, then my assumption is just as valid as yours that they were not Christians. And, my theory is far more logical than yours in your efforts to discredit another's efforts to practice his Christian beliefs. I think this is an example where Occam's Razor applies. Why make some convoluted assumptions when the obvious makes much more senseunless it steps on the toes of traditional beliefs. Kevin Deegan wrote: I ask for one example you offer none. You are stuck in arut you go right back to "Then why do you think those early Christians" Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Hmm...After reading your below material, in a strict sense, aren't all baptisms (excepting that of Jesus) proxy baptisms in that are in a LIKENESS and REPRESENTATION of Jesus' birth, death/resurrection and baptism? BTW..Did you answer my below question... Then why do you think those early Christians who practiced proxy baptism were doing it, Kevin? Kevin wrote: When you give me ONE example of PROXY Baptism either in the Bible (not even 1 Co 15 says ANYTHING about a PROXY) or in the Book o Mormon. Then maybe we could discuss such as existing before 1834! Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Then why do you think those early Christians who practiced proxy baptism were doing it, Kevin? Do you think they believed was simply a REPRESENTATION? Or do you suppose they thought it might have more significance than simply being a "LIKENESS". While baptism is certainly symbolic, do you think it may also represent a covenant? BTW..Do you think a man of faith can be saved IF he does not repent? Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Hey KevinDo you have a problem with me using 1Cor 15:29 in support of other Biblical passages that become cumulative evidence that the Primitive Christians believed a water baptism was necessary for salvation? It does lead one to that logical conclusion, does it not? Christians of all ages accept the clear teaching that salvation is by Faith BAPTISM as a REPRESENTATION Baptism is a "LIKENESS" (Romans 6:5) a representation of something. While not directly called a sign, there are examples of representations throughout the scripture. Rom 6 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that LIKE as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection LIKENESS: 1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance. 2. An imitative appearance; a semblance. 3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image. Baptism pictures the burial and the resurrection of Christ and our identification with His death, burial and resurrection. Abraham recieved the sign of circumcision a representation of being right with god through faith RM 4 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: Baptism is called a like FIGURE 1 Peter 3:21 The Lord's supper is a representation also. Surely no one but the RCC believes you eat his literal body blood! SOME SUPPOSED PROOF TEXTS Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" The little Greek word eis is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: against 25, among 16, at 20, for 91, in 131, into 571, that 30, on 57, to 282, toward 32, unto 208, and upon 25. The catagories of meanings are Direction, Position, Relation, Cause, and Purpose. Restorationists interpret eis as for in Acts 2:38 to mean in order to, thus causing a person to be baptized in order to be saved or to receive remission of sins. The scriptures still teach that it is thru BELIEF that we are Justified, made righteous and saved. Acts 10:43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Lets take a look at some different usages in the English of the word "for" I called the doctor for some medicine (in order to) I called the doctor for my child (in behalf of) I called the doctor for my sickness (on account of) I called the doctor for the bill (with respect
Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:55:25 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, when I say "focus" I'm not talking about visualization or concentration. Hi Debbie: Sure am glad to know that I'm talking about staking my life on the fact that God loves us, letting God's love be my "ground". Then that shapes how I see myself and other people. Yes, the walk is supernatural, and by faith. Thankfully, we have Christ's life given to us. (I think this is what David and others have been saying all along, actually.) Yes, I can agree thatall of the above is good But inyour post to Lance, didn'tyou insist on our cooperation/submission? How does this happen? It happens as we receive the seed (Word) and act on it. Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word which is able to save our soul - and IMO this is where the division occurs between the two factions on TT. I would'nt be interested in scripture if I believed as some do that it is only the perception of men whichI may or may not be able to comprehend depending onhow much enlightenment thinking I have unconsciously absorbed. Relationship: do you pray? I do To whom? I pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus Is there love between you and him, and does that alter you in real time? Yes; he loved me so much that He sent His only begotten son to die for me; and I love and serve the Son by doing what He says so that I may fulfill the will of the Father by being conformed to His image. Is he actually alive and there for you to trust in, oris ita desription of him you are trusting in? I don't have a description of Him Debbie - do you? On my part it is totally a "faith" transaction. I believe His Word. Of course he is revealed to us in his Word. But he is also alive and present. This is what intrigues me. How do you mean "He is also alive and present" apart from His Spirit and His Word? The point about uncertainty/confidence did not come through; in fact, it got turned into its opposite. I will try to think of another way of saying it. BTW, I enjoyed the post about trusting, praying,and not being anxious.It was right on. I'm glad (I did too) and thanks for letting me know, Grace and Peace, judyt From: Judy Taylor Debbie writes: Another "bicameral" statement madeon TTis thatlove is the sum of the commandments. I love "disobedient people" better when I focus on God's unquenchable love for us. Where else could our love come from? Just focusing or visualizing love or the "incarnation" will not make it happen in us outside of walking in his ways and dealing with our issues - this walk is supernatural. Our flesh nature recoils against loving enemies and blessing those who curse us. I also find that the more my faith revolves around the person of Christ and a relationship with him rather than insistence on a set of correct doctrines, the more genuinely alive and active it becomes. Life is relationships; it can't be built on less. I'm not understanding this "person of Christ" you all talk about because we have no way to know Him outside of His Word. He tells us that "if we continue in His Word" then we are His disciples and we will know the truth and the truth will make us free (Jn 8:31) and "if we love Him we will do what He says" - (would youconsider all of this "correct doctrine?) If so my question then is - "how does one have a relationship with Jesus aside from agreement? Today I had a new aquaintance tell methat "friends can agree to disagree" which is fine but I don't see this in God's Word applying to Jesus and I wouldn't say I have a "relationship" with this lady. Paul exhorted the Church to all be saying the same thing. And that brings me to your earlier post, about "majoring on"the inconclusivity of interpretation when we should be "confident in God's word". I know it doesn't seem this way to you, but acceptance of this kind of uncertainty IS confidence in God's word--as somethinggreater thanthe shape forced on it by our reason or traditions, able to continue to renew andchange our thinking (more than once, nudging us along a path). Do you reckon Satan would have left if during his time of temptation out there in the wilderness Jesus was full of this kind of "doubt and uncertainty" about what Deuteronomy really was saying to God's people? I mean there were plenty of years in there for reason and tradition to have come on in. Why wasn't that a problem for Him? It isconfidence in God and his ongoing covenant story rather than in the principles, generalizations,
Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead?
Perry wrote: Yes, I am aware of John MacArthur's biases. Did you consider Zodhiates' position relative to the translation of Hapax? He also indicates that Hapax is used in a couple of different senses, but specifically references Jude 3 as being one of the instances similar to the sacrifice...it occurred once and it will never occur again. Yes, this is a popular concept among the modern Greek scholars, but these guys all read each other and this is one of those cases where they think they have something to support their Sola Scriptura bias (IMO). I am uncomfortable adding so many words in this particular situation. The words for all do not appear in the text, and their argument for adding them hinges upon the tense of the verb being modified and other passages in another letter (Hebrews) written by another author where contextual arguments indicate a once for all event. Please note that Zohiates himself indicates, whenever the aorist tense is used in any mood other than the indicative, the verb does not have any temporal significance. In other words, it refers only to the reality of an event or action, not to the time when it took place. Concerning the aorist participle which we have here, Zodhiates writes, It does not in itself indicate the time of the action. However, when its relationship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb. Too many times, green horn Greek students try to make th aorist tense a past tense, and while it works in some situations, it does not in others. One example is Mat. 8:17 where Matthew writes, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah. The verb here is in the aorist tense, so does this indicate that Isaiah spoke only of this one event where Jesus healed others? Not likely, IMO. I think the context of Jude is pretty clear that he is contrasting a faith that was delivered to the saints at one time that should then be preserved. He was not talking about a writing down of the faith in some Scriptural Canon and that the Canon should then be preserved. Certainly the Scriptures should be preserved, this is a truth, but I do not believe that either Jude or the Holy Spirit had this in mind when Jude penned Jude 1:3. Perry wrote: When this is related to the faith which has been entrusted, or delivered once to the saints, it will never be delivered, or entrusted, to the saints again. It is done. This is true. The faith is entrusted to them and they must keep it. If they mutiliate and adulterate the faith entrusted to them, they will not get a second chance. It will not be delivered to them again. Perry wrote: What is this faith for which they were to contend earnestly? Notice the definite article the. Not your faith or my faith. Personal faith is not being addressed. The faith refers to the whole gospel of Christ, delivered to the saints, and written about by them in our books of the New Testament. You have to be careful about the significance you place on the definite article in Greek. The Greek language often uses it for emphasis, even in personalized situations. For example, it is not unusual to find the Peter or the James when in English we don't speak this way (unless you are Lance :-)). Consider the Greek in passages like Rev. 2:13 and Rev. 2:19. The word faith in these passages is modified with a definite article even though it is not carried over into the English translation because it would make for awkward reading in English. The construction of the sentence in Jude 1:3 actually requires the definite article because faith is the word that comes at the very end of the sentence. Literally, the passage reads in the Greek something like, contend for the once delivered to the saints faith. As you can see, the definite article performs a function of helping the reader anticipate the word faith that comes at the end of the sentence. Perry wrote: BTW, I also believe that the saints refers to ALL believers, and that the delivery method IS the New Testament. This is how the Sola Scriptura adherents want us read the passage, but I remain skeptical of this approach. There was no New Testament at this time, so it seems more likely that the saints being referred to here had the faith delivered to them orally, through preaching, rather than through the written word. It certainly might extend to including the delivery method of the New Testament, but I think we need to focus upon the immediate saints that he has in mind here, which are those who have had certain men crept in among them unawares who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Perry wrote: None of this means that personal revelation can't occur, in the sense of revealing scriptural meaning to individuals, and possibly even revealing other thingsbut no NEW revelation, that is, nothing that contradicts the faith (which has been recorded in the New Testament)
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance
Debbie wrote: I think some of us conservative-type believers on TT dwell on God's love for the disobedient because we've experienced a severe neglect of this in our own conservative circles. Perhaps the other conservative-type believers have seen a terrible neglect of teaching about how Christ changes us in the here and now. I agree. Well written post. I wonder if Lance, John, Bill, and Jonathan agree too. Debbie wrote: P.S.: I think your post below might have been better appreciated by some if you hadn't seemed to imply that we could/should get rid of our bodies. But this is ultimately what we all should be looking forward to, the day when our bodies are discarded for new ones, built in the image of Christ, according to his new resurrected glory. Those who think that the discarding of these weak and contemptible bodies of flesh has nothing to do with Christianity are the ones who greatly concern me. When they know what the Scriptures teach about the evil nature that resides in these bodies, it is even more disconcerting that they would want to remove not only our hope of discarding these bodies, but also remove our confidence of victory over the flesh while we now live. This is not gnosticism. This is the apostolic doctrine of Paul, which is according to holiness. 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: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Caroline wrote: 1) How many of you guys believe - that you have 100% correct theology - that you have 100% truth - that this is easy for anyone I would say nobody on this list. Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? No, but I can name many believers who have much more than 2/3rds right in their theology. :-) Caroline wrote: 3) In your opinion, why do bright and sincere Christians believe different doctrines? Because they live the way they want instead of dying to self and walking in holiness. Caroline wrote: How do you decide who is right? Listen, question, study the Scriptures, prayer, compare spiritual principles, and walking in love. Caroline wrote: Is it by how well they match your thinking? No, although this is natural and a big temptation initially. It just does not carry any weight in the long run. 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] baptism
DAVEH wrote: I think this is an example where Occam's Razor applies. Why make some convoluted assumptions when the obvious makes much more senseunless it steps on the toes of traditional beliefs. I think Kevin's perspective is the more simple one. The hurdle that your perspective faces is the switch from we to they that Paul invokes. Considering that the word baptize was not an ecclesiastical term, but one that simply meant immersing and was used in the Greek secular writings often in this way, is it not possible to you that some people washed dead bodies before burying them? Why would they wash dead bodies? Maybe they believed that they would rise again? Maybe it was a common cultural practice just like we regularly preserve bodies with formaldehyde? What do you think? What is so complicated with this perspective? 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] Baptism 4 dead?
Well, I guess anything is possible in the realm of the heretical mormon system...but since the faith was indeed delivered once for all to the saints, the need further revelation (e.g., bible-contradicting revelation of the sort JS wrote) only denies the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, and the sovereignty of God relative to his ability of God to deliver His word to people for the last 2000 years. The Bible is the vehicle that continues to deliver the faith to the saints today. maybe your mormon once-a-man-now-a-god (one of an inifinite number of such non-existing false gods, i.e., polythism) is not. he had to change the faith, plaigerize the Holy Bible, steal masonic signs, tokens, grips, and symbols, devise prooftexts, and perform occult cereominies to appear to have power. Dave, my deepest thouhts about mormonism, to be totally open with you, is that the JS visions, the bom, the occult ceremonies, and all of it, was inspired by satan. JS was nothing more than satan's pawn in this grand plan. And, think about this...in order for you to lose your soul, satan does not have to produce evil in you...he only has to keep your mind from the real jesus. My first and most troubling question when I began to study mormonism was how such nice people can escape salvation...therein lies the answer. Repent, and seek the true Jesus, and be saved. Warm fuzzies buy you nothing. You can be extremely sincere in your false religion, while still being sincerely wrong. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead? Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:20:28 -0700 DAVEH: While the gospel was delivered *once for all*, I don't interpret that to mean *once AND for all...never needing to be delivered again* or your theory *the action occurred once and will never occur again*. Not only was the apostasy predicted (2Thes 2:3), but likewise the restoration was prophesied (Mt 17:11 Acts 3:19-21) Furthermore, an angel was seen in vision (Rev 14:6) having the everlasting gospel to preach to those on earthwhich would hardly be necessary IF it were already here as many assume. So for these and many other reasons, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, Perry. You have suggested that NEW revelation cannot occur. Why you would believe such is logically unscriptural in my opinion. Not only do you impose a limit on what God may have done since Bible times and what he may do in the future (what do you think the angel mentioned in Rev 14:6 is going to do with the everlasting gospel message that needs preaching?), Christians who believe as you do have painted themselves into a corner. God has always revealed himself through his servants, the prophets. By not allowing him to continue revealing himself, you preclude the necessity of prophets. It's a small corner, Perry. As to your claim to DavidM that we (LDS) attempt to /ADD TO AND CHANGE the faith/, I believe that traditional Christianity has already beat us to it. That too was prophesied (Acts 20:29-30). Not only had it begun in Bible times (Gal 1:6-7), but continued to change as men introduced misleading doctrines not included in the Bible such as infant baptism and the Trinity doctrine. As I see it, LDS theology has been a process of restoring that which was lost. Not only is it necessary, but it is Biblically mandated. As for your below comment about Jude 4, you've misunderstood that as well, Perry... *For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousnesss, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. * or, in the words of the NASB. *For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.* .Obviously, he was speaking in the present tense back then, rather than foretelling Joseph Smith in the future. Jude 4 only adds to the mountain of evidence that the apostasy was already happening /before /the Bible was even written. So Perry.While you have suggested Mormons attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE the faith, could it be that criticism applies to you? Perry responded to DavidM: None of this means that personal revelation can't occur, in the sense of revealing scriptural meaning to individuals, and possibly even revealing other thingsbut no NEW revelation, that is, nothing that contradicts the faith (which has been recorded in the New Testament) that was delivered ONCE FOR ALL to the saints. The mormon works fail this particular test because they attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE the faith. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, I think the post you responded to is mine, not Kevin's. Here is Jude 3 in it's entirety from the NASB: Jude 3: Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we
Re: [TruthTalk] baptism
What assumptions are my findings based on in your opinion?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Yes, KevinI believe they were Christians in that they were attempting to baptize people for the purpose of salvationto fulfill all righteousness, as our Lord and Savior set the example. Does the Bible tell us they were not followers of Christ? If not, then my assumption is just as valid as yours that they were not Christians. And, my theory is far more logical than yours in your efforts to discredit another's efforts to practice his Christian beliefs. I think this is an example where Occam's Razor applies. Why make some convoluted assumptions when the obvious makes much more senseunless it steps on the toes of traditional beliefs.Kevin Deegan wrote: I ask for one example you offer none. You are stuck in arut you go right back to "Then why do you think those early Christians" Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Hmm...After reading your below material, in a strict sense, aren't all baptisms (excepting that of Jesus) proxy baptisms in that are in a LIKENESS and REPRESENTATION of Jesus' birth, death/resurrection and baptism? BTW..Did you answer my below question...Then why do you think those early Christians who practiced proxy baptism were doing it, Kevin?Kevin wrote: When you give me ONE example of PROXY Baptism either in the Bible (not even 1 Co 15 says ANYTHING about a PROXY) or in the Book o Mormon. Then maybe we could discuss such as existing before 1834!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Then why do you think those early Christians who practiced proxy baptism were doing it, Kevin? Do you think they believed was simply a REPRESENTATION? Or do you suppose they thought it might have more significance than simply being a "LIKENESS". While baptism is certainly symbolic, do you think it may also represent a covenant? BTW..Do you think a man of faith can be saved IF he does not repent?Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Hey KevinDo you have a problem with me using 1Cor 15:29 in support of other Biblical passages that become cumulative evidence that the Primitive Christians believed a water baptism was necessary for salvation? It does lead one to that logical conclusion, does it not? Christians of all ages accept the clear teaching that salvation is by Faith BAPTISM as a REPRESENTATIONBaptism is a "LIKENESS" (Romans 6:5) a representation of something. While not directly called a sign, there are examples of representations throughout the scripture. Rom 6 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that LIKE as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection LIKENESS: 1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance. 2. An imitative appearance; a semblance. 3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image. Baptism pictures the burial and the resurrection of Christ and our identification with His death, burial and resurrection. Abraham recieved the sign of circumcision a representation of being right with god through faithRM 4 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:Baptism is called a like FIGURE 1 Peter 3:21The Lord's supper is a representation also. Surely no one but the RCC believes you eat his literal body blood! SOME SUPPOSED PROOF TEXTSActs 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" The little Greek word eis is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: against 25, among 16, at 20, for 91, in 131, into 571, that 30, on 57, to 282, toward 32, unto 208, and upon 25.The catagories of meanings are Direction, Position, Relation, Cause, and Purpose. Restorationists interpret eis as for in Acts 2:38 to mean in order to, thus causing a person to be baptized in order to be saved or to receive remission of sins. The scriptures still teach that it is thru BELIEF that we are Justified, made righteous and saved. Acts 10:43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Lets take a look at some different usages in the English of the word "for"I called the doctor for some medicine (in order to)I called the doctor for my child (in behalf of)I called the doctor for my sickness (on account of)I called the doctor for the bill (with respect to) The context of the sentence and it's structure determine the correct reading. Matt. 12:41.The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they
Re: [TruthTalk] baptism
What is so complicated with this perspective? It does not fit the LDS preconceived indoctrination mindsetDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH wrote: I think this is an example where Occam's Razor applies. Why make some convoluted assumptions when the obvious makes much more senseunless it steps on the toes of traditional beliefs.I think Kevin's perspective is the more simple one. The hurdle that your perspective faces is the switch from "we" to "they" that Paul invokes.Considering that the word "baptize" was not an ecclesiastical term, but one that simply meant "immersing" and was used in the Greek secular writings often in this way, is it not possible to you that some people washed dead bodies before burying them? Why would they wash dead bodies? Maybe they believed that they would rise again? Maybe it was a common cultural practice just like we regularly preserve bodies with formaldehyde? What do you think? What is so complicated with this perspective?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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? The ApostlesDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caroline wrote: 1) How many of you guys believe - that you have 100% correct theology - that you have 100% truth - that this is easy for anyoneI would say nobody on this list.Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology?No, but I can name many believers who have much more than 2/3rds right in their theology. :-)Caroline wrote: 3) In your opinion, why do bright and sincere Christians believe different doctrines?Because they live the way they want instead of dying to self and walking in holiness.Caroline wrote: How do you decide who is right?Listen, question, study the Scriptures, prayer, compare spiritual principles, and walking in love.Caroline wrote: Is it by how well they match your thinking?No, although this is natural and a big temptation initially. It just does not carry any weight in the long run.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: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Gnosticism
Put me on that list also Lance! Lance? Lance? Lance? Where did you go? David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: Take care, David, when saying 'If Christianity was not...' Jonathan being correct excludes neither you nor Izzy.You don't get it, Lance. If Jonathan is correct about Christianity, then please exclude me from it. I don't WANT to be part of it. Or does your theology give me no choice in the matter? Is everybody a Christian whether they want to be or not? Please tell me how I can make sure that you guys exclude me from your religion that denies the holiness that Izzy has expressed.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] Baptism 4 dead?
Not to get off the subject but I was wondering Dave. Being that you are a christian then, you may want to tell us a short Testimony of what Jesus is doing in your life. Christians are always testifying what the Lord has done for them, so go ahead praise the Lord! I would find this fascinating since I have never heard a Mormon give such.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: While the gospel was delivered once for all, I don't interpret that to mean once AND for all...never needing to be delivered again or your theory the action occurred once and will never occur again. Not only was the apostasy predicted (2Thes 2:3), but likewise the restoration was prophesied (Mt 17:11 Acts 3:19-21) Furthermore, an angel was seen in vision (Rev 14:6) having the everlasting gospel to preach to those on earthwhich would hardly be necessary IF it were already here as many assume. So for these and many other reasons, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, Perry. You have suggested that NEW revelation cannot occur. Why you would believe such is logically unscriptural in my opinion. Not only do you impose a limit on what God may have done since Bible times and what he may do in the future (what do you think the angel mentioned in Rev 14:6 is going to do with the everlasting gospel message that needs preaching?), Christians who believe as you do have painted themselves into a corner. God has always revealed himself through his servants, the prophets. By not allowing him to continue revealing himself, you preclude the necessity of prophets. It's a small corner, Perry. As to your claim to DavidM that we (LDS) attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith", I believe that traditional Christianity has already beat us to it. That too was prophesied (Acts 20:29-30). Not only had it begun in Bible times (Gal 1:6-7), but continued to change as men introduced misleading doctrines not included in the Bible such as infant baptism and the Trinity doctrine. As I see it, LDS theology has been a process of restoring that which was lost. Not only is it necessary, but it is Biblically mandated. As for your below comment about Jude 4, you've misunderstood that as well, Perry...For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousnesss, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.or, in the words of the NASB.For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you..Obviously, he was speaking in the present tense back then, rather than foretelling Joseph Smith in the future. Jude 4 only adds to the mountain of evidence that the apostasy was already happening before the Bible was even written. So Perry.While you have suggested Mormons attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith", could it be that criticism applies to you?Perry responded to DavidM: None of this means that personal revelation can't occur, in the sense of revealing scriptural meaning to individuals, and possibly even revealing other thingsbut no NEW revelation, that is, nothing that contradicts "the faith" (which has been recorded in the New Testament) that was delivered ONCE FOR ALL to the saints. The mormon works fail this particular test because they attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith". Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, I think the post you responded to is mine, not Kevin's. Here is Jude 3 in it's entirety from the NASB: Jude 3: Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. The NASB gives a clearer rendition of "hapax" (clarifying, not reinterpreting) since "hapax" is an "aorist passive", indicating that the action occurred once and will never occur again. I am not a greek scholar; this description comes from John MacArthur. Also, S. Zodhiates, in "The Complete Word Study Dictionary - New Testament", describes the use of "hapax" in Jude 3, along with other verses, to mean "once for all", that is, it can never occur again. He gives the example that Christ's sacrifice will never occur again. Jude is essentially describing the closure in the delivery of the faith...that it was complete and over as delivered to the saints. And Jude does not have to have been the last book written in order for this his statement to be correct. He is only announcing that the faith was delivered once for all...not that the saints to whom it was entrusted could no longer write about that faith. Going one verse futher, Jude describes the likes of Joseph Smith: Jude 4: For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:
Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? Kevin wrote: The Apostles The Apostles were theologians? Maybe the apostle Paul was, but were the Twelve Apostles theologians? 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: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
http://www.christianpost.com/article/editorial/332/section/is.this.evangelicalisms.terminal.generation/1.htm Evangelicalisms terminal generation EXCEPTS On the theological left, the Gospel had long ago been transformed into a social and political message of liberation from oppression. Now, among some who consider themselves evangelicals, the Gospel of Christ has been reduced to a form of self-_expression_ or therapy. Salvation is promised as the answer to low self-esteem and emptiness. Gone is any notion of a holy God who offers salvation from sin and its eternal penalty. Sociologist James Davison Hunter has long warned that younger evangelicals tend to go soft on this doctrine. Educated in a culture of postmodern relativism and ideological pluralism, this generation has been taught to avoid making any exclusive claim to truth. Speak of your truth, if you must--but never claim to know the Truth. Unless this course is reversed, there will be no evangelicals in the next generation.Charles Spurgeon stated it plainly: "We have come to a turning-point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children's children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word." Those words ring with prophetic urgency more than a century after they were written. Evangelicals must regain theological courage and conviction, or we must face the tragic reality that this may be evangelicalism's terminal generation.Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to do another quick post on TT: 1)How many of you guys believe - that you have 100% correct theology - that you have 100% truth - that this is easy for anyone 2)Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? 3)In your opinion, why do bright and sincere Christians believe different doctrines? How do you decide who is right? Is it by how well they match your thinking? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell We talked about how can we know when we're worshipping a false god. When we consider history from Augustine to today, it's not easy. It is VERY easy, this is exactly why God WROTE it down in Black White. We have a MORE SURE WORD 1Peter ya know [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're equating love without truth as idolatry. Many things can be idolatrous so I'll give you that. The reference for truth without love being noise is 1 Cor. 13:1-3.It is easy to err by worshipping a god of our own making. That error has been with us since man sought God. Isaiah's message to the people was that they were seeing but never perceiving, hearing but never understanding because they have become like the blind and deaf idols they worshipped. When Jesus came, he referred to that passage when he explained why he spoke in parables. He also began the reversal of idolatry by healing the blind, deaf, mute and lame and casting out demons. My pastor discussed that last Sunday at our bible study. We talked about how can we know when we're worshipping a false god. When we consider history from Augustine to today, it's not easy. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God. In the end, it's humility and grace which Jesus also personified. Love covers a multitude of sins. That Sunday, a missionary spoke about us being sheep following a shepherd. He said some consider themselves 'lambo'. He told of being in a part of Indonesia where the Christians boast of killing Muslims. They can back up their attitude and actions biblically. Meanwhile, this guy is going in there asking them to turn the other cheek, forgive, bless. :-) I'm amazed he made it back out alive!If I step back and look at the broad spectrum of Christianity from the holiness people like David to the liberals/liberation people (which I haven't seen at TT BTW) to the persecuted church to the persecuting church, it's quite a spectrum. Many factions say the others aren't Christians and some groups have drawn a very small circle around themselves. The Holy Spirit is at work in all to purify the Son's bride. It'll all work out in the end. As one of my pastors like to say: he is a panmillenialist. He believes it'll all pan out in the end.Love,Caroline From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/04/26 Tue AM 07:21:16 EST To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell It's all through the OT whenever God's ppl strayed by getting too tight with the nations around them He spoke through the prophets calling them adultresses and harlots. In the NT we can see it clearly in Romans 7. An adulteress is anyone who tries to follow Jesus while they still love and walk after the flesh and Paul writes "Or do you not know brethren - that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he
Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Point is please show me the ERROR in Pauls theology!David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology?Kevin wrote: The ApostlesThe Apostles were theologians?Maybe the apostle Paul was, but were the Twelve Apostles theologians?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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance
David wrote: But this is ultimately what we all should be looking forward to, the day when our bodies are discarded for new ones, built in the image of Christ, according to his new resurrected glory. Absolutely anticipating that Day (read on below), although it's transformed that our bodies will be, not "discarded". Transformation, and not discard, is the whole point of salvation. Don't forget, there was no body left behind by Jesus anywhere. When they know what the Scriptures teach about the evil nature that resides in these bodies, it is even more disconcerting that they would want to remove not only our hope of discarding these bodies, but also remove our confidence of victory over the flesh while we now live. This is not gnosticism. Interesting you should say this, David, because some of us (well, OK, I!) have written previously that we won't be through with sin until our salvation is complete, i.e., until the resurrection; we're part of a groaning creation. That's one reasonI am rather incredulous about your 'not sinning'. If sin resides in our bodies, then we will continue to struggle with it while we now live. How not? To pretend we can escapeour bodies now,is the gnosticism. Debbie
[TruthTalk] Torrance
Debbie Interesting you should say this, David, because some of us (well, OK, I!) have written previously that we won't be through with sin until our salvation is complete, i.e., until the resurrection; we're part of a groaning creation. That's one reasonI am rather incredulous about your 'not sinning'. If sin resides in our bodies, then we will continue to struggle with it while we now live. How not? To pretend we can escapeour bodies now,is the gnosticism. Hi Debbie: Walking after the Spirit so that we don't fulfill the lust of the flesh is not gnostic. That's how the apostle Paul walked would you call him gnostic? What is this fascination with gnosticism? The way I understand it, it's the soul that needs saving but body and spirit also need cleansing; so having a mindset that condones a little sin every day until we get to heaven because we can't help it is not conducive to "being conformed to the image of Christ" is it? This is supposed to happen while we are here so itaffects those around us, there is enough of Him in heaven. Grace and Peace, judyt
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance
Why is it, someone asks, that the two best theologians currently writing on TT are both female? Irony, subtlety and acumen seem to have absented themselves on the part of the more thickheadedmales. - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 14:29 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance David wrote: But this is ultimately what we all should be looking forward to, the day when our bodies are discarded for new ones, built in the image of Christ, according to his new resurrected glory. Absolutely anticipating that Day (read on below), although it's transformed that our bodies will be, not "discarded". Transformation, and not discard, is the whole point of salvation. Don't forget, there was no body left behind by Jesus anywhere. When they know what the Scriptures teach about the evil nature that resides in these bodies, it is even more disconcerting that they would want to remove not only our hope of discarding these bodies, but also remove our confidence of victory over the flesh while we now live. This is not gnosticism. Interesting you should say this, David, because some of us (well, OK, I!) have written previously that we won't be through with sin until our salvation is complete, i.e., until the resurrection; we're part of a groaning creation. That's one reasonI am rather incredulous about your 'not sinning'. If sin resides in our bodies, then we will continue to struggle with it while we now live. How not? To pretend we can escapeour bodies now,is the gnosticism. Debbie
Re: [Bulk] Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Theologian=Rational discourse concerning. Excluding myself, doesn't that include all of the Apostles and all TTers?? (I knew the use of the word 'rational' would 'cause' you to agree with me, David) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 13:12 Subject: [Bulk] Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? Kevin wrote: The Apostles The Apostles were theologians? Maybe the apostle Paul was, but were the Twelve Apostles theologians? 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] Torrance
myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
'God' (it's just God Talk folks) was the missing word. How appropriate that I was the one to have missed it ehh? - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 15:59 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell Theologian=Rational discourse concerning. Excluding myself, doesn't that include all of the Apostles and all TTers?? (I knew the use of the word 'rational' would 'cause' you to agree with me, David) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 13:12 Subject: [Bulk] Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology? Kevin wrote: The Apostles The Apostles were theologians? Maybe the apostle Paul was, but were the Twelve Apostles theologians? 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. -- 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: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
What was it the Little Red Riding Hood said regarding Grandmother's teeth? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 16:06 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Have no idea G, I've put away childish things jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:17:30 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What was it the Little Red Riding Hood said regarding Grandmother's teeth? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 16:06 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 18:10 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 18:54 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
I haven't a clue what you are looking for Lance; I don't pay much mind to hypothesis and/or the hypothetical and I don't ask the whole world to pray for me. What exactly are you trying to get at Lance? On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:08:39 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
I join Roseanne Roseannadanna in her famous rejoinder - 'Never mind' - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 19:19 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance I haven't a clue what you are looking for Lance; I don't pay much mind to hypothesis and/or the hypothetical and I don't ask the whole world to pray for me. What exactly are you trying to get at Lance? On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:08:39 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Right-O, no worries ... On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:41:37 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I join Roseanne Roseannadanna in her famous rejoinder - 'Never mind' From: Judy Taylor I haven't a clue what you are looking for Lance; I don't pay much mind to hypothesis and/or the hypothetical and I don't ask the whole world to pray for me. What exactly are you trying to get at Lance? On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:08:39 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Don't you believe there is anyone else who sees these thingsas I do Lance? Do you believe me to be an aberration? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:41:37 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I join Roseanne Roseannadanna in her famous rejoinder - 'Never mind' From: Judy Taylor I haven't a clue what you are looking for Lance; I don't pay much mind to hypothesis and/or the hypothetical and I don't ask the whole world to pray for me. What exactly are you trying to get at Lance? On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:08:39 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
God would convert the both of them to a third point of view. Debbie - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Don't you believe there is anyone else who sees these thingsas I do Lance? Do you believe me to be an aberration? Actually we do move in different worlds, not that the cultures are that far apart but our interests most certainly are. I wouldn't have a clue what Roseanne says or if it is well known or famous - never watch her... On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:41:37 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I join Roseanne Roseannadanna in her famous rejoinder - 'Never mind' From: Judy Taylor I haven't a clue what you are looking for Lance; I don't pay much mind to hypothesis and/or the hypothetical and I don't ask the whole world to pray for me. What exactly are you trying to get at Lance? On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:08:39 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you cannot take this hypothetical and project it into a real life situation? It's not the 'issue' but the means by which some resolution could be achieved that I'm interested in. From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
What would be the point of that since He has already given us His POV? My personal belief is that God wants us to be in wholehearted agreement with Him, laying all else aside, and gathering around His Word as in Malachi and thiswill happen before the end. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:13:53 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God would convert the both of them to a third point of view. Debbie From: Judy Taylor What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
No error, Kevin, but only the complexities of life. He agreed with his elders at the Jerusalem council that the Gentile converts should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. [Acts 15] but later wrote to the Corinthians that whatever they eat was a matter of conscience. He railed against the Galatians when they circumcised themselves yet he circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews who lived in that area" [Acts 16:3] He told the Corinthians that women should be silent in church but he later said women should cover their heads when they prayed or prophesied which means they weren't always silent in church. He also told Timothy that women would be saved in childbearing ifthey continued in faith, love, holiness and sobriety. BTW, Muslim women follow Paul's teaching better than the rest of us. Only the Amish do better because they also don't wear jewellery, perfume or make-up. Paul did not write systematic theology although his epistles are the closest we have to systematic theology in the bible. His letters were answers to pressing local problems and we try to figure out Paul's theology from that. Although he travelled with writing men (Luke, Mark, Titus,Timothy), few of his sermons got recorded.It takes great discernment and wisdom to come up with Pauline theology and we have the benefit of 2000 years of brilliant believers thinking and writing about what they believe to be systematic theology.These brilliant Christians don't always agree with one another. Paul also said for the believer, everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. He also said wedon't need anyone to teach us. In the end, sincere (meaning like the fine people here at TT) Christians have different ideas of what Paul is teaching and how to apply it to our lives. It is just as David said. No one here has 100% truth. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell Point is please show me the ERROR in Pauls theology!David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caroline wrote: 2) Can you name other theologians whom you believe have no error in their theology?Kevin wrote: The ApostlesThe Apostles were theologians?Maybe the apostle Paul was, but were the Twelve Apostles theologians?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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
keep in mind that jt's 'receiving the ingrafted Word' has nothin' to do with James, nor with JC On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:13:53 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God would convert the both of them to a third point of view. Debbie - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance What would you classify as "an issue of some substance Lance?" I don't go to ppl walking in unbelief and ask them to pray for me; every American it seems says that they pray, especially in times of trouble. jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? From: Judy Taylor Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance
Judy and I thank you. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance Why is it, someone asks, that the two best theologians currently writing on TT are both female? Irony, subtlety and acumen seem to have absented themselves on the part of the more thickheadedmales. - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 14:29 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance David wrote: But this is ultimately what we all should be looking forward to, the day when our bodies are discarded for new ones, built in the image of Christ, according to his new resurrected glory. Absolutely anticipating that Day (read on below), although it's transformed that our bodies will be, not discarded. Transformation, and not discard, is the whole point of salvation. Don't forget, there was no body left behind by Jesus anywhere. When they know what the Scriptures teach about the evil nature that resides in these bodies, it is even more disconcerting that they would want to remove not only our hope of discarding these bodies, but also remove our confidence of victory over the flesh while we now live. This is not gnosticism. Interesting you should say this, David, because some of us (well, OK, I!) have written previously that we won't be through with sin until our salvation is complete, i.e., until the resurrection; we're part of a groaning creation. That's one reasonI am rather incredulous about your 'not sinning'. If sin resides in our bodies, then we will continue to struggle with it while we now live. How not? To pretend we can escapeour bodies now,is the gnosticism. Debbie
RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance
Lance, what is your solution to that dilemma when it occurs? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance Jt:Do you have a friend who, on an issue of some substance, believes other than you do? If you are praying for one another over this then, how is there to be a satisfactory resolution? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: April 27, 2005 18:10 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Torrance Is there some reason why you do not believe James 1:21 to be Truth? jt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:06:45 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth [biblical salvation involves receiving the Kingdom of God in Christ who died at the hands of corrupt rivals tohis Throne where afterwards (e.g.) Stephen saw him 'standing' alone at 'the right hand of God' (Acts 7:56) FTR, in biblical thought there is no 'ingrafted Word', obviously a misguided synthesis of Romans 11 and underlying philosophical dualism designed tothwart the presence of the future in history; also, the (fundamentalistical:) 'ingrafted Word' notion circumvents theSpirit's record/s in which Jews and Gentiles actually are reconciled/unified in Christ--like swine, false teaching, since the earthly days of JC himself, prefers the/ir Satanic hostilities rooting into ignorance] g :: tt moderator On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:27:04 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripture teaches that we are saved by receiving the ingrafted Word ..
RE: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
But the Amish women do wear dresses. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Only the Amish do better because they also don't wear jewellery, perfume or make-up.
Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christians--real or imaginary, or, Baptism 4 dead?
BLAINE: It is ON-GOING REVELATION that Kevin does not believe in. His theme is, as always, that revelation ceased with the apostles' deaths. Can you or Kevin furnish me with any scripture that substantiates this false--VERY false--doctrine? Blaine, check out Jude 3. The faith was apparently delivered once for all. BLAINE: Wow, that is the cat's me-ow, huh, that you came up with one little ol' scripture!! Ha! Talk about making up a doctrine based upon one teeny-tiny scripture!! But that is about the speed we see on so-called Christian doctrines that are, like the cheap CZ on a teenager's ring, glittery in appearance, but MANMADE!! That doctrine has one thing and only one thing going for it--it is an easy-sell! The discussion between you boys and DavidH says it all. 'nuf said, let's get down to reality now and admit you evangelical boys are not true Christians, 'cuz you don't believe God can intervene in the affairs of men by speaking to a prophet, to reveal his mind and will concerning current conditions. What kind of faith is that? Even the Pope admits such. You evangelicals do not actually have a leg to stand on--it is either between the Catholic Church, which claims direct-line authority from the apostles, or it is the Mormons, who claim restored authority. Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, . . . (James 1:5) and I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to all . . (Rev. 14:6) etc, etc. -- 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: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell
Most holiness churches teach that women should wear dresses only. It's based on the idea that women should not wear men clothing. The Amish probably follow Paul's teaching best. Of course, there are Amish who are proud or who like to gossip. I know quite a few Mennonite ladies who faithfully cover their hair in church but who are also very bitter and unforgiving. Can't win them all. Here's something ironic. I like to wear dresses to work. It's so simple becaue I don't have to think about whether my outfit is coordinated. I just put on a dress and a cardigan and that's it. Then one day, I overheard someone say I only wear dresses because of my religion. Oy vey! I started to vary my wardrobe a little after that. Love, Caroline From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/27 Wed PM 11:57:43 EST To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Hell But the Amish women do wear dresses. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Only the Amish do better because they also don't wear jewellery, perfume or make-up. -- 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] baptism
BLAINE: As DavidH indicates, the truth should always be obvious, otherwise how could the common man be expected to recognize it? You evangelicals rely too much on those who are dressed in scholarly robes, and seek deep to manufacture doctrine. . . . for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:14) What is so complicated with this perspective? It does not fit the LDS preconceived indoctrination mindset David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH wrote: I think this is an example where Occam's Razor applies. Why make some convoluted assumptions when the obvious makes much more senseunless it steps on the toes of traditional beliefs. I think Kevin's perspective is the more simple one. The hurdle that your perspective faces is the switch from we to they that Paul invokes. Considering that the word baptize was not an ecclesiastical term, but one that simply meant immersing and was used in the Greek secular writings often in this way, is it not possible to you that some people washed dead bodies before burying them? Why would they wash dead bodies? Maybe they believed that they would rise again? Maybe it was a common cultural practice just like we regularly preserve bodies with formaldehyde? What do you think? What is so complicated with this perspective? 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: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christians--real or imaginary, or, Baptism 4 dead?
If there are no further revelations since 1st century AD, then all the visions David Miller has are false. Surely Kevin does not believe that. Perhaps what he meant is that God will never say or do anything that will contradict what has been revealed by Jesus and the bible. Love, Caroline From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 12:06:35 EST To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christians--real or imaginary, or, Baptism 4 dead? BLAINE: It is ON-GOING REVELATION that Kevin does not believe in. His theme is, as always, that revelation ceased with the apostles' deaths. Can you or Kevin furnish me with any scripture that substantiates this false--VERY false--doctrine? Blaine, check out Jude 3. The faith was apparently delivered once for all. BLAINE: Wow, that is the cat's me-ow, huh, that you came up with one little ol' scripture!! Ha! Talk about making up a doctrine based upon one teeny-tiny scripture!! But that is about the speed we see on so-called Christian doctrines that are, like the cheap CZ on a teenager's ring, glittery in appearance, but MANMADE!! That doctrine has one thing and only one thing going for it--it is an easy-sell! The discussion between you boys and DavidH says it all. 'nuf said, let's get down to reality now and admit you evangelical boys are not true Christians, 'cuz you don't believe God can intervene in the affairs of men by speaking to a prophet, to reveal his mind and will concerning current conditions. What kind of faith is that? Even the Pope admits such. You evangelicals do not actually have a leg to stand on--it is either between the Catholic Church, which claims direct-line authority from the apostles, or it is the Mormons, who claim restored authority. Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, . . . (James 1:5) and I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to all . . (Rev. 14:6) etc, etc. -- 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.
