|
Why Lance? Because you are unwilling or unable to
discuss issues pertaining to life and godliness which are more in line with the
purpose for a Truth Talk list? There is nothing truthful about what you
and Jonathan write regarding the United States so why would you rather discuss
"the art of compromise" which is politics? At
this point I figure that you are repeating what you hear through the liberal
Canadian media which is not all that different from what my family in Australia
parrot which comes from the liberal Australian media. Both are much bolder
than what we hear coming from liberals in this country. Also I'm wondering why you are either unwilling or unable to
answer questions and why you are so hung up on the one liners?
Judyt: So, anyway, back to Larry King.....Follow
Izzy's example and, stick to politics.
I disagree with TFT's so called "gospel of free
grace" - What exactly is 'free' about it? God's interaction with man has
always been conditional and when one removes the "Ifs, ands, & buts" they
make "another gospel". The cross cost God God everything and our
part in the covenant of grace is dying to sin and living unto
righteousness. This is something we must do every day in our own
lives and it involves choice but ATST takes nothing away from God because
apart from the lamb slain before the foundation of the world
we have nothing to choose - so what's the problem?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judyt: "by introducing a subtle element of co-redemption".. This is quite true.
So, ask I,with what exactly are you disagreeing?
Sorry Lance, guess I got
caught up in what you fellows are doing - if it is not exactly the same it
is very, very close - see the following excerpt from your mentor TFT who has
come up with an unscriptural dichotomy:
Excerpt from God & Rationality - The theology of T.F.
Torrance: Quote ��Evangelical Protestantism has developed a way of
preaching the Gospel which distorts and betrays it by
introducing into it a subtle element of co-redemption. This happens
whenever it is said that people will not be saved unless they make
the work of Christ real for themselves by their personal
decision, or that they will be saved only
if they repent and believe, for this is to
make the work of Christ conditional upon what the sinner does, and so at the
crucial point it throws the ultimate responsibility for a man� salvation
back upon himself.
That is very far from being Good News for the sinner. . . . The message
of the New Testament quite different. It announces that God loves us, that
He has given His only Son to be our Saviour, that Christ has died for us
when we were yet sinners, and that His work is finished, and therefore calls
for repentance and the obedience of faith, but
never does it say: This is what God in Christ has done
for you, and you can be saved on condition that you repent and
believe. The Gospel must be preached in an evangelical way, that is,
in accordance with the nature and content of the
Gospel of free grace, lest it is �another Gospel.� It is not faith that justifies us, but Christ in whom we have
faith. But the history of Protestantism shows that it is possible to
speak of justification by faith in such a way that the
emphasis is shifted from �Christ� to �me�, so that what becomes
finally important is �my faith,� �my decision,� �my conversion,� and not
really Christ himself.� (God and Rationality, p. 58, his
italics.)
Judyt:You know not whereof you speak. All
raised in Christ does NOT=once saved always saved. All of us find it easier
to substitute a charicature for critical thinking. As to whether you're a 'fundie' or not?? If I (but that's
just me) were a 'fundie profiler' I'd say yes.
Lance,
You will need to send us a "Topical Index" of
your (and Jonathan's) definitions. I would not call anyone on
Jonathan's list a Fundamentalist (as I understand it); there are people in
this country who pride themselves on being "fighting fundies" They are
usually Bob Jones University graduates or people from legalistic type
sects, (some Southern Baptist though not all). I wouldn't put Izzy, Terry,
DavidM, or myself in that category. We don't agree on every detail,
fighting fundies would have to agree on doctrine and you are
sounding closer to their doctrine that us with your all encompassing
incarnation. They teach a type of Calvinism "Once saved, always
saved" that would go along with the TFT teaching that "all rose with/in
Christ"
G:I don't think that it is the Vatican that
produces 'fundamentalists'. Every group whether religious, political
or social has a 'fundamentalist' component/wing. In such there tends to be
a disdain for anything 'gray'. Black and white are preferred.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 19, 2004 11:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re:Fundamentalist
it's interesting that
the activism of both Protestant and Catholic conservatives closely
match on, e.g., abortion politics--jt and Izzy themselves are as
anti-abortion as the Pope
apparently the Pope is a
biblicist, too, and the match entails the conclusion that the
Vatican produces 'fundamentalists'... G
||
..feel free to add to the
list
|
