On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:43:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy -- can you give us the Old Testament teaching on the Fatherhood of God?jt: I am not sure what you mean by "the OT teaching" on this subject. I accept that God is the Father because He says so.I will not speak for Bill or Lance -- but as it concerns me, I have never claimed that eternal Sonship of Christ is other than a New Covenant teaching.jt: I don't see it clearly stated in the New Testament JD. I see ppl who want to believe this for whatever reason reading "eternal" into whenever the sonship of Christ is mentioned in the NT and using His OT attributes (before He layed aside the glory He had with the Father and took upon himself a body of flesh) to validate this assumption.Do you even understand that statement? It is the third or fourth time I have had to make that statement.jt: I probably can't relate to it JD because for me the Bible is One, just like the Godhead is One (a unity in plurality) and I want to see every doctrine validated by two or more witnesses. The NT is contained in the Old and this is the problem - the "eternal son" doctrine is nowhere to be seen in the OT.There are many teachings that are fully revealed in the NT exclusive of the Old. Understand???jt: No and I'd like to know what these teachings are JD, sounds spurious to me. Jesus never negated what had gone before.Eternal Sonship is one -- there will be little OT argumentation.jt: I'm not looking for argumentation, I would like to see some validation and I don't see any in either the Old or the New.The Fatherhood of God as it applies to all things is equally a NT doctrine.jt: God being an eternal Father does not necessarily imply that Jesus is/was always an eternal son.Do you reject each because of your imposed hermeneutical imperative "prove it in the OT or I will not believe!!!!"""jt: I just call it "being Berean" JD and the Paul you are trying to use to promote your groundless doctrine says that this is the "more honorable" way to be.You have no scriptural argument so you hide behind this pretend requirement. We are at an impasse, Judy - but not because of doctrinal variation!! JDjt: I have scriptural grounds to believe that this is a figment of someone's imagination that just got carried along because it was accepted by the rich and powerful. Jesus is all over the OT and never once is He called the "eternal Son"
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no need for impasse JD if you, Lance, or Bill Taylor can come up with OT scriptural evidence proving that the Sonship of Christ is eternal - show me your homework rather than just talk constantly like it is a "given". Not much fight in you to defend the faith is there? I would think it would bother you that there is no scriptural evidence for such a position. Noone has yet explained to me why it is of such importance and where John 1:1 fits in all of this. jtOn Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:07:54 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy, I have made that presentation. It was a rather simple matter. you did not see the point. I did the best I could do. That's just about it, then. You are right -- sonship has nothing to do with this subject matter. I did make the connection -- I read it to my boy. He understood my point. You did not. I do not know what else to say or do. But I do know this -- there will be no thoughtful consideration of any presentation on the eternal Sonship of Christ on your part coming from either myself or Bill Taylor. -- you have clearly made up your mind, as I have. Impasse is the order of the day.JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now you are being "cavalier" about it JD. I would like to know why the accusation? Show me where I was wrong.This had nothing to do with "eternal sonship" We were discussing "being saved from condemnation" which isimpossible aside from consistently walking after the Spirit. To be carnally minded is condemnation and death.To be spiritually minded is life and peace. jtOn Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:32:38 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I hasten to add that the miscommunication was perhaps my fault. The issue seemed simple enough to me -- somehow you missed. That failure should lie at my feet.JD
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy, my thinking on eternal sonship will come up again, sometime. If you got lost on the below posted issue - I can't imagine where we will end up with a more complicated or involved statement of faith.Jd
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where was I wrong JD?What was your answer? I don't remember having any question but that's OK.Still waiting for the other ...On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:27:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:You just can't admit that you are wrong, can you? I know what the text says, Judy. Full well.You asked a question. I gave you a answer. That is all I can do.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:35:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] liberal churches are dying (dead!)
Still doesn't say "we are saved from condemnation" JD. Romans 8:1 reads:"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk NOTafter the flesh, but after the Spirit" V.2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath mademe free from the law of sin and death."Anyone who continues to walk after the flesh had better believe condemnation will be their constantcompanion because the heart is not right before God. jtOn Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:48:28 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy said this: Where in scripture does it say we are "saved from condemnation?"I gave Romans 8:1. Can you imagine me giving a biblical explanation to the eternal sonship of Christ if this rather uninvolved issue has its difficulties. Simple question -- simpley answer.JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's right Kevin - thanks!Condemnation is what happens when we don't walk where we should be walking which is "in the light" as He is in the light. jtOn Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com> writes:And this IS THE CONDEMNATION that men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were EVIL
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not much different than what we find as typical in the First Church. The condemnation that we are "saved" from is that which we bring into our own lives.jt: Where in scripture does it say we are "saved from condemnation?" The wrath of God is what we are saved from (see Rom 5:9) and this is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.JD: You believe in an angry God. I believe in an angry Father. Big difference. But more to the point, Romans 8:1 presents to us a deliverance from "condemnation."jt: God is not anyone's Father until they have been born of the Spirit or born again and are found in Christ the Son; Romans 8:1 only promises deliverance to those who "walk after the Spirit" and do not fulfill the lust of the flesh (KJV)JD: I believe that the creation process begun in the Garden was to be completed in each of us as the Spirit indwells, placing us into God's community and into the community of those being saved - all as a result of the foundational work He committed to on our behalf with His birth, life , death nd resurrection (commonly called "incarnation")jt: Creation is/was not a "process" JD. God spoke the worlds into existence. He just says "let there be" and "there is"
The first man Adam wasn't just half baked before the fall. He was complete and held the "image of God" which he lost when he fell. Also where do you get that the cross is a 'foundational work?' He is a "once for all sacrifice" and the cross is a "finished work"JD: I do not agree with any of this. Is there one aspect of our disagreement you would prefer to discuss? We were all created in of the image of God - all of us.jt: What kind of wisdom do you base this on? The wisdom of God tells us in Genesis 5:3 that "Adam lived 130 years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth" Now Adam's fallen likeness and image was not like God's at all. Also we are not "created" beings JD. We are (all of us) born through procreation with an inheritance of sin going back for generations.JD: I do not believe in original sin. That God made all of us (through procreation or whatever) in His image is my point. See Gen 9:6.jt: Genesis 9:6 is a warning of judgement for shedding blood; it is not a statement of fact and it should be understood in light of Genesis 5:3. Yes man was originally made in God's image and Noah had found grace enough to come through the flood but by Gen 9:20,21 he had planted a vineyard and is getting drunk. Are you going to tell me that this is the image of God acting out here?JD: None of us have arrived. But our desired destiny (image of God) has been clearly demonstrated in the biblical message and in the life of Christ.jt: Yes the goal of the instruction is love from a pure heart which is us being conformed to the image of Christ.JD: As long as the church does not compromise the message of hope and righteousness, the presence of all them damned sinners is a good thing, right? We are encouraged with these words, "ye who are spiritual, help them who are weak."jt: It should be understood that the "weak" may be baby believers and not overcoming in their lives yet - but they are
born again believers rather than those you call "damned sinners". A Church full of them would not be a good thing.JD: You think our churches are not "full of them?"jt: I didn't say that did I?That works best when they (the weak ones) are in the same room, same fellowship, hearing the same message of grace and righteousness. The church will die in this day and time if it cannot learn to draw the carnal and the worldly into its influence. And the church will rot on the vine if it cannot influence without the compromise of the Message. JDjt: Without repentance noone is going anywhere; the carnal and worldly can come as they are but they can not stay as they are and continue in grace and the unpruned branch is the one that dies on the vine. God wants a ppl who look like Him.jt I do not deny your first and last sentence. Your transitional thought misses the mark, IMO. Jdjt: So we disagree on how to get from point A to point B?From: Terry Clifton <wabbits1234@earthlink.net>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] liberal churches are dying (dead!)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Two reasons I can think of: a praise-worship service that is contemporary and entertaining.and (2) a social aspect that is inclusive and tolerant. Conservative churches that major in the preaching of "truth" and doctrinal correctness and hang with the formal and traditional praise service have a different time in today's market ("market" -- you know what I am talking about, right Terry?).During the civil war era, the "liberal churches" were those who opposed slavery.JD
======================================================================== =====
I think seeker sensative is the term you are looking for. In our neighborhood, racism, divorce and remarriage on unbiblical grounds, adultry, crooked business deals and membership in secret organizations are the norm for church members. The only ones ever put out of the church are preachers who preach the truth. That is not tolerated. This is the Bible belt today.
TerryYahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
