RE: [TruthTalk] Holy Hubert Lindsey

[ShieldsFamily]

Lance, Oh, so true!  (Surely, I am the exception!!!) J  But in all seriousness, that is one reason I don’t like to argue (versus polite, serious discussion) about doctrine—especially non-essential doctrine.  Who among us can say I am totally right and you are totally wrong?  (Well, other than a couple of you out there.) There are many ways to read and interpret the Word, and any sincere person can be half a bubble off. They don’t need human condemnation for that. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Holy Hubert Lindsey   Some of that which each teaches is true, some false. Some of that which is false is harmful, some not. Think of a center point out which comes a spiral. The center is a Person. The spiral is that which we say/teach concerning Him via the Word&/His Words  If the level of inexactitude reflected on TT were similarly reflected in "Rocket Science" well...(BOOM!!) Sadly (in my opinion) some on TT believe themselves to be THE exception. I addressed this in an earlier post which DM dismissed (mistakenly) with a verbal flourish. David, the little equation includes you like it or not. Lance  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 04, 2004 09:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Holy Hubert Lindsey   In a message dated 5/4/2004 2:43:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JT: And you folks rise up en masse denouncing Polanyi, Torrance and Capon?? Tradition rears its head again. Soon, I'm thinking, y'all gonna acknowledge the obvious. Lance Actually, Lance brings up a very good point.  Tradition.   A tough subject.   Why do we not support baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), foot washing, head coverings and the like while enforcing repentance for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), womans place in leadership, and the like  Is there a hermeneutical rule that gets rid of some and keeps others?  John