One other thing, Judy. Changes are not possible apart from community and our participation in same. Whether this community is you and the Spirit or you and the church or you and a couple of people from the church or you and a couple damned sinner-friends (I have have several). God works all things together for good. I don't know Newbigin, but I know of Torrance and I know Kruger much better than you think. No one is perfect or even close. The spoken word, yours - mine - others , comes from deep within my person. It springs out of an emotional well - not from an analytical reserve buried deep within the recesses. And the contents of that well is very different from one person to a
nother. It is not simply full of "truth." In fact, there is no truth there at all!!! (This is admittedly the Gospel according John Smithson). What is there, in that emotional well, is that which receives what is thrown at us for consideration. Our life -- experiences, family, fears, all that has harmed us, all that has given us a sense [an emotional sense] of belonging -- all that is there. It is from this well of running waters (a dynamic influence) that our responses are forthcoming. A person who is rescued and nurtured by the queerest of persons will see that person for what he is and not for the troubling uniqueness that surrounds him -- that enters the room ahead of himself.&nbs
p; My Mom was a nutcase. Very selfish --- someone who was more interested in self than in, well, me!! But I understand her (she died way back when) and I have forgiven my understanding of her. Her father offered severe beatings with a pair of horse reins, often She was the youngest of many children and the older sisters gave her no rest. So what !!!?? Such input gives me reason to be understanding. And, she lived in a time when the church was full of the kind of legalism I now despise. No answers. NOt one damn answer!!
If we go through life thinking of truth as only conceptual, complete with substance and boundaries (and nothing more), you know, similar to a stone, and we start throwing these "truths" into that emotional well of living waters, soon or later we will so fill that well with "truth" as to render it dry and useless. THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN CREATED, IMO. This "irrational" quality we find ourselves arguing about, here on TT is the emotional knowing of truth -- perhaps we can call it "faith." I do see faith as an emotional conviction that goes far beyond the rational. I
believe Paul saw the same vision. And, so, the holy day fellow and the "vegetarian" (both grossly wrong in their thinking) had a viable faith so alive that Paul demanded we allow room for this emotional knowing called faith, knowing that, in the end, it is not Truth as a well defined concept that wins the day, but Truth as a changing dynamic defined by the Kingdom of God that is the answer. Jesus is the "...truth ..." Truth, then is not a concept, per se. It is the Sovereign Influence helping and healing.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 06:57:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ
I didn't know all that JD - but thanks for letting me in on it :)
Admittedly I don't have a whole lot of patience with the seemingly endless parade of theologians and all of their high
thoughts and ideas - I can identify with Luther in his frustration with the Universities of his time and the "learned" ones of our
day carry on that tradition also it seems. How is it that human nature has such a hard time learning? We have the Book. It has already been written and we have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. If we spend all of our time and effort in it (rather than arguing over Greek words and translations) we would not even touch the surface. Let Torrance, Newbigin, Kruger et al. work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.
Hope you are recovered today. jt
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:45:17 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:
Judy -- you and I are both educated Okies. Did you know this? Hear me out -- I am proud of that distinction. You have studied as much as anyone I know -- and I do not think all of your response come from the internet -- despite a word or two in that direction. The Torrence brief? Immanent trinity and all that ------- I was clueless until Lance wrote his piece. I get so frustrated in talking with you --- you actually have much to offer but you get all bunched up or what ever you call it -- "aggravated" with the likes of me and Bill and Lance.Look -- after a year or two of this forum, we both know what to expect. I have sworn off deegan and shield -- they couldn't care less and no longer do I. But you and Miller do care in some ways -- both of you in your opposition force guys like me to consider and reconsider. I know that you did not agree with my article on eternal Sonship -- but I wrote it because of your probing!!!Anyway -- I hear there is another game planned for tomorrow. Bring your helmet. You are a pretty good old lady..JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not of my own choice JD - hadn't you noticed I've been kicked off the playing field. Some are just smarter than othersand we ignorant ones are not worthy to commune with the "more informed" but I thought you knew all that since yourun with them. - but then maybe it's the vicodin. jtOn Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:50:16 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:Taking your ball and going home, huh? JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll be glad to leave you well informed genius' with Athanasius, his creed, the Nicean creed and every one of the rcc church fathers including all the popes Lance. I am not interested in studying them or knowing the root of every word they used in Greek IMO this is the kind of study that is boring - is useless in value and is weariness to the flesh. No wonder you turn to movies and comedy for some relief. As Bill would say - Have a nice day. jtOn Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:40:46 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Lance the uninvited enters the fray. Earlier today Judy, I spoke of conversations that might be out of your league. Well, this is one of 'em. If David Miller thinks otherwise then, I'd suggest that he attempt to translate Bill into 'Judyese'. (He actually did that with something recently 'Imageless images' and he got part of it correct) Neither you two (Bill & yourself) nor we onlookers need tolerate your ill informed responses to Bill's well informed communiques.I thoroughly respect your attempts at understanding and responding. This is a conversation that David Miller could handle. You simply cannot. I'd advise Bill to leave it be. He has said enough to make some stones float. Some stones simply aren't bouyant.----- Original Message -----From: Bill Taylor
Bill in red below.----- Original Message -----From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:25 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of ChristThis term is in both creeds more than once BillSo? If you are going to make reference to it, as you have and continue to do, shouldn't you also want to understand its meaning; this for your own benefit as well as the benifit of others, in order that you not mislead them?and you must believe all of it - according to the creeds to be saved.This is another topic altogether, and is irrelevent to the definition of the homoousion and its pertinance to your refusal to acknowledge having been made aware of its meaning.You can explain till the cows come home and it won't change anything. If creeds were necessary Jesus would have leftus with something more than what is known as the Lord's Prayer.... But why make this into a personal thing??You crack me up, Judy. Please go back now and answer my questions:For example, you might explain to us why you refuse to acknowledge my explanation to you, concerning the homoousion. You know very well that I explained to you the meaning of this Greek word: that it means "of the same being"; that it contains the root for such to-be verbs as "is," "are," and "am." You know I explained to you further that Athanasius makes reference to Jesus' "I AM" statements in conjunction with the Old Testament name of God and his declaration, "I am who I am" and concludes from this that the Son is of the same being as the Father. And so you know as well that his reasoning is indeed quite biblical, even if you happen to disagree with it. You know all of this -- yet you ignore my explanation of this word, choosing instead to press o n with your inflammatory rhetoric, stating today that the word "means substance but since God is Spirit I do n't know how that flies. I notice that some have changed it to essence." You do this knowing even as yo u are writing it, Judy, that the root meaning of this word has been explained to you. Why did you do this, if not to be contrary?Moreover, Judy, "substance" is not Athanasius' word. He never spoke it. He was a Greek speaker. "Substance" is an arguably poor translation of Athanasius' term ousia, but a translation nonetheless. You do a disservice to yourself and others when you attempt to argue that this is the word which the Nicene theologians used; for they did not use it. I told you if you are having difficulties thinking of it in terms of "substance," to think of it instead as "being": the Son is of the same being as the Father. Yes, this is in reference to a Spirit being; however, not all spirits are the same Spirit as God. Do you recognize this? Some of them are created beings, which is what Arius claimed the Son to be; i.e., a created being. Athanasius said No, he is not created; he is of the same being as the Father. Hence, the topic at hand at Nicea was the specific nature of the "being" of the Son as he relates to the "being" of the Father -- a very important discussion indeed, and one, I might add, which is still relevant to us today, as witnessed in our recent exchanges.Bill
