On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:38:23 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 9/29/2004 5:40:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Notice I use the word "appear" John. I am not intentionally rude but I do have to be honest, you
may be more sensitive because you are on the verge of or have already embraced the same doctrine as
Jonathan is involved with which doctrine so far as I can tell erases each and every condition from scripture.
All right but I still do not see how such comments lend themselves to the discussion. It seems to me that such speech actually closes the door to meaningful exchange. Regarding my perceived "sensitivity," I can say this: I am not a sensitive type when it comes to open discussion. Until I left the Church of Christ, my brethren would track me down, search me out and then kick me out. I was disfellowshipped twice and disallowed graduation from their version of "seminary." On one occasion, I preached in one town and was disfellowshipped by a church in another town -- fifty miles away!! Did not attend that church. Letters were written to every other congregation in the valley and I was "fired" by my home boys but with great regret (they were afraid of the other churches.)
I have gotten used to hate speech and "rejection" and it continues to some degree even here on TT (and I am not referencing you in that comment.) So much for the battles with the truly redeemed.judyt: I'm sorry to hear of the above John; apparently the Church of Christ is not long on love but this is true for many of today's denominations. I've left churches and never had anyone to call and see if anything was wrong so I'm not surprised - sadly....
I would be interested in Jonathan's approach to the conditional passages of the Message. This was the big question I gave to Kruger via Lance when he was up this past weekend.judyt: I'm interested in the answer to that question also...
But, Jonathan's most recent post comparing your view with his regarding the Christ is something that I do agree with. Christ died for the world. The gift in John 3:16 is not eternal life. Rather, it is the Son.judyt: He died so that we might live and God's love for the world was the reason He came to die. However the gift is "eternal life" and salvation is "being saved from the wrath of God" which still stands against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.I believe that conditional phrases, if obeyed, do two things: they continue our walk with God and they give us markers that engender confidence. How many times does John speak of confidence as he writes his first epistle?judyt: Conditions are the difference between life and/or death. God's salvation is on His terms not ours and the disagreement here is about what these terms involve.
The parable of the prodigal has no meaning if it is not giving illustration to the notion that we are all family members. As such, we have choices to make. But God is the father and the skid row junkie is my brother. If you believe that, you are compelled to save your brother, knowing and believing that your Father yearns for The Return. I have waxed eloquent before with this parable and the response was a negative one. But the fact remains that the prodigal parable gives us the overview of God and the world. If not, why not.judyt: You and I can save noone John. The best we can do is speak when the Holy Spirit says speak. As for the Prodigal Son. I've always noticed that noone chased him into the pigpen or tried to persuade him to come out - He went in by his own volition and came out through his own choice. The Father rejoiced when he made the decision wherein he could receive blessing rather than the curses of poverty and eating with pigs.
judyt
John
