On Jun, 03 Jul 2005 10:24:48 -0400 knpraise@aol.com writes:
 
One other thing, Judy.   Changes are not possible apart from community and our participation in same. 
 
jt: Depends what kind of community it is.  When Abraham believed God he had to come out of his community. Moses also for quite a long time.
 
I speak of  changes that go beyond changing one's mind.   I do think, however, that we agree.    The truth of what I am saying is seen in the fact that God in Christ gave each of us unto the other in a thing we call THE CHURCH.    
 
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.  
 
jt: Only for those who are called "according to His purpose" which would mean they are renewing their minds in His
Word and conforming their lives to His Way. Does the NIV leave the end of that verse also?
 
Who love God and are called  (in accord with His purposes  -- that of saving man from himself).     Who love and are called   --   that is it.    Do you understand why I would think that more words and additional "conditions" are "adding to the word" at this point.   If God had meant to say all that you just did, why didn't He do so?  
 
But my point is this  --  there is no good in this world apart from God.   Every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights.  
 
 
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
 
jt: The well you are speaking of is the "heart" for it is "out of the abundance that fills the heart that the mouth speaks" and before we come to Christ our hearts are "deceitful above all things" (Jer 17:9) because of our spiritual
inheritance in the first Adam.  However, in Christ things are supposed to begin to change.  
 
Actually, this is not what I had in mind.   I am talking about how language - what we say - comes to us.   Jer 17 has nothing to do with what I am saying.    I am talking physiology
 
 
It is not simply full of "truth." In fact, there is no truth there at all!!!  (This is admittedly the Gospel according John Smithson). 
 
jt: No, I agree.  Humans have to be taught and since we are all born with a sinful inheritance - the truth that
there is none righteous, no not one. 
 
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; 
 
jt: I see the unregenerate heart as more of a stagnant pool than a running well.  The enemy begins to build his
strongholds in children early on and just keeps adding to the pile of offenses, resentment, and bitterness.  We
learn to deceive others like that song "Oh yes I'm the great pretender"
 
I use "running water" to describe the dynamic of changing influences that come into our lives from the beginning and continue to the end of this life on earth.   You have influences, experiences that influence your life and your theology  --  the way you think about God and His will.   It is inescapable.   It is the thoughtless and  the bigot that refuses this truth  (NOT including anyone on TT).  You never know what is in there, way down deep.  But such influences our perceptions  -  the Lord through His Spirit works around this  --  else we would all be robot in appearance. 
 
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.
 
jt: How sad.  It sounds as though the first lesson your mother learned was self preservation and that she received
little or no nurturing herself and so was unable to nurture you.  
 
Something like that.   I was competition.  Whatever. 
 
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!!
 
jt: Was she a member of the denomination you came out of?  I didn't find any answers in my denomination either but that one was not legalistic - far from it - mine was extremely liberal - either way the arm of flesh is what prevails.     
 
Yes, same church.   So we might agree that "liberal" or "conservative" is not the issue. 
 
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.   
 
jt: I don't believe "truth" is ever dry and useless.  God's Word is light and life and He has promised it will never come back void.  (However, you use the same term as Lance did - "stone" is this where it came from and is theology supposed to make the stones float or am I missing something?)  Getting back to "truth"  When we receive God's Word and act on it we draw nigh to God and resist the enemy causing him to flee.  This kind of deliverance is what will give
us victory in our lives making us free to love others because we are born with the same kinds of bondages we see in our parents - like it or not.  But unlike Lance, I don't believe we have to stay that way.
 
I might not be using the right words -- conceptual truths (stones - in this case) and relational truth.   I wish I could get this across.   I really do not think you would disagree.  Look  --  there is a whole set of emotions and perceptions tied to any relationship.   They are dynamic  -  ever changing  -  yet at any given moment, absolutely true.  My sons know me well.   They know where I am,emotionally, and what buttons to push.   But those "buttons' have not always be the same.    But the relationship has been there  --- they know their dad.   Relational truth.   Jesus is the Truth.   That is very different to my way of thinking from saying that He knows the truth and will share it with us.    since there is such a thing as  truth unique to a relationship  -- I see no need to resist that understanding. 
 
 
 
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. 
 
jt: Faith is the substance of things hoped for ie We lay hold of God's promises by faith.  Now Lance's confession that we must stay the same until we die will get nothing from God.  It is unbelief no matter how fancy the doctrine he holds to.  Double minded men get nothing from God.
 
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.
 
jt: The "vegetarian" was from all accounts a baby believer and in other places we are told that it is not what goes into the belly and comes out in the draught that makes the difference.  What defiles the man comes from the heart.  
 
I don't know from all accounts.   What I do know is that he was wrong and Paul said LEAVE HIM ALONE.   Ditto for the hOlyDay boy.    They are wrong in their doctrine  -- leave them alone.   They serve their Master  --  NOT YOU. 
 
Jesus is the "...truth ..."   Truth, then is not a concept, per se.  It is the Sovereign Influence helping and healing. JD
 
jt: Jesus prayed "Sanctify them through Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17); so His Word both cleanses and  heals.
 
Yes, of course,  Aren't you the one who has been faithful in pointing out that He is the Word.    In that sense,  we had the Word long before anything written came along. 
 
 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 others
and we ignorant ones are not worthy to commune with the "more informed" but I thought you knew all that since you
run with them.  - but then maybe it's the vicodinjt
 
On 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 - Hav e a nice day.  jt
 
On 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 -----

 
Bill in red below.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

This term is in both creeds more than once Bill
 
So? 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 left
us 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 w ith 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 st ill relevant to us today, as witnessed in our recent exchanges.
 
Bill
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to