Allow me to give you a
resent example of one of your smears. Depending how you do with
it, I may go further:
"BTW you are included in the triad along with Lance, and
Jonathan."
Can you say to me
with a clear conscience and your hand on the Bible that yours is not a
pejorative use of the word "triad"?
jt: I don't swear
on anything Bill, my yes or no should be enough and I can say with a clear
conscience that I was not intentionally being "perjorative" in using the
word triad which has become a kind of internet shorthand for you,
Lance, and Jonathan, kind of like an endearing emoticon - I don't consider
them perjorative. Do you?.
Now allow me
to give you an example of misrepresentation from a recent post:
Don't you believe that all
mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all headed for
heaven whether or not they overcome anything.
I underlined
the portion of your statement which is a true representation of things I've
said. The second part is not accurate and cannot be linked to what I
actually believe and have stated. I am confident (and this because I have
had to defend and clarify myself so many times) that I have written more
about the potential of humans to lose their salvation, than anyone on this
list. I do not damn people to hell, like, say, you
do, but I have written many substantive words expressing the
possibility of people rejecting Christ and damning themselves to hell. You
know this, so why do you continue to misrepresent my
position?
jt: There you go Bill,
doing exactly what you are accusing me of. I want you to go as
far back as you can and find someone I have damned to hell either on or off
this list. And as for the second part of what I wrote above. I can say
with a clear conscience that I don't remember any fo the "substantive words"
you have written about anyone damning themselves to hell
either.
Now let me give you an example of your
caricatures from a recent post?
However, this is subject to change if anyone
can show me in the scriptures that I am in error and so far none of the
"eternal son" people have done so.
While I admit that on
this occasion the infraction is slight, it does stand as an example of a caricature. I have written at length in
the last few weeks explaining the orthodox doctrine of
Christ and the relational nature of our triune God. I have
deliberately refrained from doing a lot of outsourcing. I have stuck to the
exegesis of Scripture to make this clear, even though there is some really
wonderful, and informative, and authoritative stuff out there from which to
draw, and I have done this because I know that you, if you are to see the
light, will only see it via an exposition of Scripture.
jt: "Outsourcing"
Bill? Sounds like problems US trade is having right now. I agree that you
have tried to explain the above but I don't see the Godhead as three ppl all fixed and
relating to one another throughout eternity, neither do I accept what you
term as the "orthodox" doctrine of Christ - He has been, is, and will
be so much more ...
And Judy, don't deceive
yourself: I have stated it in a coherent and cogent way. You have no excuse for not understanding what I am attempting
to convey. This doctrine has stood the test of time. It is essential
to a right understanding of God. Yet you belittle that effort and shun your heritage with your derogatory
characterization of us as the "'eternal son'
people."
jt: Bill just because
something is old does not make it either good or true. I don't know that I
don't understand what you are saying. I do know that I don't accept that
Jesus is locked in to being an "eternal son"
You have been shown in
Scripture the basis for this belief. It is a strong enough basis to have
convinced millions upon millions of Christians over the
centuries.
jt: I don't
believe I have been given a scriptural basis for this belief Bill -
and do you really believe that these millions upon
millions of Christians over the centuries did their own homework? Or
have they been taught creeds and even at times given
ultimatums?
You have been shown the
error of your theology, yet you mock us with words and titles
like: "'eternal Sonship'
- relationship - community thing." This is a caricature; it is a derogatory
imitation of our beliefs san the substance of
content.
jt: I am sorry that you
feel this way Bill. I'm not against relationship, community, or in
sonship - if they are in the right balance and
context.
By the way, if you want any references you may
check your comments below. Except for the last two, they were made in
your post prior to this one. Bill
jt: Thank you Bill for this
response... and I plead "not guilty" as charged..
Now Bill, let's not rush
to judgment here. You have me convicted and sentenced while the jury
is still out.
Are you certain that what I describe below is not
you? Can you prove that you don't believe these things and have never promoted them on this list?
Let's take care of these questions before we worry about whether I am
ready to repent. You may be the one
needing to repent for accusing the brethren.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:57:23 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Judy, if you want me to do this, I will. But when I do,
are you really going to be ready to repent? I rather doubt it. But I would
be thrilled if you are. Bill
To the contrary, Judy, I have no
problem believing that the names of those who do not reject the
Christ will remain unblotted from the Lambs Book of Life. How about
if you let me and the triad articulate our own beliefs. When you
feel compelled to smear us with caricatures and
misrepresentations, just think of how you like it when others
do that to you. Then if you want to go ahead and do it, then go
ahead and do it. You don't bother me so much anymore; I'll
still forgive you. Your friend,
Bill
jt: Very dramatic
Bill. But please tell me in what way I have smeared,
misrepresented and caricatured you? BTW you are included in
the triad along with Lance, and Jonathan. Before you
forgive me please tell me what I have done wrong. Don't you believe
that all mankind is included in the incarnation which makes them all
headed for heaven whether or not they overcome anything and weren't
you writing about the perils of enlightenment thinking and how it
keeps one from being able to understand scripture? If you
don't believe these things then at least give me the opportunity to
repent.. judyt
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:49:40 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the really
important thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser. Interesting
teaching.
jt: Not
my "teaching" John it is in the Book and the really important
thing should be what God says even if it does conflict with your
ontological model.
Unscriptural John.
----- I would not
have so written if it were unscriptural, JudyT. You
might refer to Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some
of Paul's interpretation of
Christ;s - oh, never mind
!!!!! JD
jt: Oh, I see. We are
back to this is just my interpretation and I can't know anything
because of my "enlightenment thinking?" Please yourself
John. It's your future. I knew you (and the triad)
wouldn't want "overcoming" on the front burner since the
theological theories are so much easier.
judyt
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
jt: Unscriptural John. How
did he get born saved since everyone is born into a "fallen
creation" (sin) in the first Adam. The scriptures teach that God
saw us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and
everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life at the
beginning because Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation
of the world. However, this does not negate the fall nor does it
insure salvation unless one keeps their name from being blotted
out. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Is an eternal
truth So rather than get so tangled up with saved, not saved,
saved, not saved. Wouldn't we be wiser to learn what God call's
sin and stop doing it?
John: Interesting scripture, Judy. Our names are
in that book from the beginning. Wow. I had forgotten
this passage. Do you see God erasing some of these
names? I don't.
jt: Yes I do, only the ones who overcome make
it. Moses was aware that one could be blotted out (Exodus
32:32) and so was David (Ps 69:28). Jesus Himself says of the one
who "overcomes" - I will not erase his name from the book of life
(Rev 3:5).
So, the really important
thing is not the book of life but the Divine Eraser.
Interesting teaching.
Unscriptural John. -----
I would not have so written if
it were unscriptural, JudyT. You might refer to
Kay's interpretation of my interpretation of some of Paul's
interpretation of Christ;s
-------------------------------------------------
oh, never mind
!!!!!
JD
