|
Judyt:"there is nothing truthful about what you and
Jonathan write regarding the United States" WOW!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: June 19, 2004 16:20
Subject: [TruthTalk] Truth Talk or
Politics
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
|
