----- Original Message -----
Sent: June 29, 2004 09:35
Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies
and Generational Sin
Your posts today remind me of a raccoon that has been backed into a
corner and knows only to fight back. You are not above reproach or
rebuke on this forum. Each time someone rebukes you, you bring out your
tired old line you don't know me. Blah blah blah.
jt: No Jonathan - You don't hear me. I may as well be
talking to a wall. You read the words but you do not have an understanding
heart. Your doctrine is like the two big blinders on a horse.
I know what you have written and will comment on it. You are
responsible for what you write on the forum. This must be a stretching
experience for you to realize that what you say matters and that you won't get
away with it.
jt: You must realize that the same holds true for you
Jonathan.
I must ask you to read your own post again, this time without the
blinders. You quote your esteemed teacher Wright and his ideas on
leukemia. Let me quote: "There is a pastor I know of in Georgia who
ministers in the light of this wisdom and many are healed from what is
considered incurable chronic disease. He has written a book called "The
More
Excellent Way" and in his experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted
bitterness coming from unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always
found a breach between the person who has that disease and their father. I've
never found a mother involved in the breach; abandonment by a father,
literally or emotionally, is also implicated" Our
son-in-law
is a good father, but he came out of a shocking situation
although he is an Annapolis graduate and a high achiever in everything he puts
his hand to. The chickens have a way of coming home to roost. If
we, as a family, can accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing
of all breaches and perfect peace in the Lord.
Now connect the dots. Leukemia is tied to deep rooted bitterness coming
from unresolved rejection by a father. I have always found a breach
between the person who has that disease (Jenna) and their father (your
son-in-law). (brackets mine they are there to help you understand what
you wrote) Therefore if you agree with Henry Wright's opinion (and
you
must or why else would you mention it and then connect it to your
son-in-law in the very next sentence?) Jenna must have
deep rooted bitterness, and you son-in-law must have contributed to a breach
between himself and Jenna. Are you so blind that you cannot see what you
have written?
jt: I know what I wrote Jonathan but the above dot
connecting is your own presumption. I had been discussing generational
sin (remember the man born blind?) Jesus said it was neither his sin or that
of his parents and the same holds true for my grandaughter. You don't
know about the rejection by a father that her own father experienced and this
is not the kind of atmosphere where I would want to go into all that.
Too much accusation and anger.
You then go on to talk about your son-in-law and how the chickens have a
way of coming home to roost.
jt: Yes sin. Be sure your sin will find you out is a
spiritual admonition. Noone gets away with anything.
You then mention how your family needs to work out its issues (accept the
truth and deal with it are you exact words). It is your connection
between what Wright says and what Jenna has here, not mine. It is your connection between what Wright says about your
son-in-law here, not mine. Own up to what you
post. Hiding behind your pleas that I listen to the devil will not help
ya here.
jt: Yes and it is your misunderstanding that perverts
what I have written here and the teaching of Henry Wright. I will
acknowledge my own words, I do not take ownership of your
interpretation.
Regarding the ad hominem card you played. Ad hominem arguments try
to discredit a claim or proposal by attacking its proponents instead of
providing a reasoned examination of the proposal itself.
jt: You are constantly judging and attacking me
personally Jonathan ie: You describe me as hard, not compassionate, hard
hearted. If I have time I will round up all of your adjectives and post
them. You never ask questions, you judge first and defend your judgment
later.
Hmmm, I attacked your viewpoint on this issue, not you. That your
viewpoint sickens me I have left no doubt. I have provided a reasoned
examination of my viewpoint, plus many resources for you to consider.
You in turn have not made a reasoned examination at all. Instead you
attack where people who wrote an article went to school.
jt: You have a strange idea of attack
Jonathan. I call an attack what you do with your adjectives describing
my person. Whereas what I sent to the List concerning Mr. Hampton Keithley and
his father were to show where he was coming from doctrinally - since he lost
his own father (after a years battle with cancer) 2yrs ago he may have been
completely closed to anything other than his present dispensational
doctrine along with his belief that at times "God sovereignly causes disease to come on people for their
growth"
You do an email of the Henry Wright review I posted that did not attempt
to argue even ONE point. It only says (i.e. what your review says to
me), this review is horrible; this man accuses my idol and I can't take
it.
jt: I didn't have time to make an argument
Jonathan. We have two grandchildren staying with us right now so my time is
limited. Also I don't believe anything I say to you would make a difference
because you are so set in your ideas. It would not be time well spent. I
would be glad to try to find time to search the scriptures and debate a
person who is genuinely interested.
I have no arguments against it, I don't know how to use scripture as the
reviewer did to make my point;
jt: The reviewer used his own opinion along with
accusation to make his points just like you do Jonathan, not only that he used
the exact same jargon such as "arguments from silence" etc. and the old tired
"Judas went out and hung himself, go do likewise" - almost like a canned
sermon. Didn't take long to locate him.
I guess I better just put this guy down (call him a dispensationalist,
ask God to forgive him etc.). It is exactly what you
do whenever you
encounter critique on this forum. You accuse those that disagree with
you as listening to Satan, spindoctors, etc. It is almost laughable if
it were not so pathetic.
jt: No Jonathan, anyone who wants to be a
dispensationalist has my blessing, that is not the problem with you. Your
problem is that you are constantly judging and accusing and you don't see that
you are doing it. But I recognize the voice of the accuser when I
encounter him.
What sickens me most is that only Lance has had the guts to stand up
against this aberrant teaching (actually Terry did come forth and say that you
may not always be right in your interpretation here you blasted him with
your, I didn't say it, God did line that is so tiresome). This is a 4
year old girl with leukemia and we are blaming her and her father for it and
we think we have scripture to back this up? Shame on the rest of the
group.
jt: Jonathan the above is entirely a figment of
your own imagination. I don't play the "blame game" this is your
thinking.
Jonathan "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the
house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of
animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to
overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and
to plant," declares the LORD. "In those days people will no longer say, 'The
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own
teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah." Jer 31:27-30
jt: I agree - everyone dies for their own sin; it is
how we respond to generational curses that determines the
outcome.
But I'm sure your spin will be
different.
It was established in the Law that children would not be punished for the
sins of their father (Deuteronomy 24:16, comp. II Kings 14:6). The idea
of generational sin does not come from a scriptural foundation, but from world viewpoint.
jt: What is YOUR point Jonathan? Are you saying
that Deut 24:16 and 2 Kings 14:6 negate the third Commandment?
Colossians 2:8 describes the process by which the world develops wrong
ideas with these three terms: philosophy (a wrong idea that has no basis in
truth), vain deceit (false reasoning to support the idea) and traditions of
men (wide acceptance of the wrong idea and false reasoning to support
it). This process has only one purpose: to take away personal
responsibility, create bondage to sin and deceive people regarding the nature
of God.
jt: This is rich. You and Lance are the ones who
defend tradition and quote theologians constantly and now you accuse me of
trying to take away personal responsibility. Who is the one who is
trying to put it all off on God? ME???
This same false line of reasoning has been spiritualized and there
are those who would twist the scriptures to try to promote the idea of
generational sins or curses. "My sin is not really my fault, it is the
result of a curse put on me because of my father's sin, there's nothing I can
do about it, I'm not responsible."
jt: You shouldn't talk about what you don't
understand Jonathan. The Bible is primarily a spiritual book and God Himself
is Spirit. Generational sin gets noone off the hook - It's our choice.
We can take responsibility for the iniquity of our fathers, own it, and
repent as the children of Israel did in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, or we
can deny responsibility, call the curse a blessing from the Lord and
wallow in self-pity over it.
But, there's nothing new under the sun. Israel in Ezekiel's day had
accepted the same world viewpoint, which prompted God to deal with it in
Ezekiel 18. When you read it, pay particular attention to verses 1-4, 20-24
and 30-32. Ezekiel 18:1-4 (NIV) The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you
people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The fathers eat
sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As surely as I live,
declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike
belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die."
jt: Yes this is the "righteous judgment of God" the
soul who sins is the one who will die.
Ezekiel 18:14-16,18-20 (NIV) "But suppose this son has a son who sees all
the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such
things: He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the
house of Israel... He does not oppress anyone... He does not commit robbery,
but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the
naked... He
will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will
die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and
did what was wrong among his people. Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share
the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and
has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who
sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father,
nor will the father share the
guilt of the son. The righteousness of the
righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will
be charged against him."
jt: And what do you think this changes? It
is the same righteous judgment of God as it has always been - The soul that
sins is the one who dies. An excellent reason to take responsibility, confess,
repent, and move on.
