Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:42:45 -0700

Read the post, kevin --  it is self evident.    
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 05:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

How many Disciuples have you made?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
My wife and I cried and truly felt the Lord's pat on the back with this decision we have made.   At 60, it will be our last big deal in the Lord.   If we are granted another 10 years or 15  this is where we will be be (spoken by one with limited foresight).  And we will be asking this very question  How is it that human nature has such a hard time learning? If the easy answer is to give no answer  -- to work off your own  strategies come hell or high water.  --  then at the end of the day,  it will be obvious to most that we have not done all that we could.   A song I absolutely despise is the Frank Sinatra song,  "I Did it my Way."   The second we glory in the "conve rsion" of one without being grief stricken by the walking away of the many  --  that is the  day we become a part of the Enemy's Camp.  Too harsh a presentation?  Maybe.   That question you asked above is the key to effective ministry.   If we can stand over the neighborhood,  assume that the missed guide (the lost) are doing the best they can without
much help (how can they  hear-with-understanding without a teacher) and asked that question  -- the answers that come our way are more likely to be of God's will than ours.   We have a choice -- and you know this for sure  -- to add our faith to His (faith unto faith) or cover His will with our will.   Can one snuff out the Great God Almighty?   OOOOOhhhhh, you betcha!!  Not for ever.  But for a time  -- long enough to watch people fall through the cracks while we do it "our way" doing nothing  --  whether that nothing is done on the street corner or in the dark confines of an office or down at the mission.  
 
Your question is a great question  -- one that I will save and ponder, as it were.   The answer for this small 25,000  citizen community may be different from that of downtown Fresno or somewhere in Africa.
And, yes,  I am talking about the economy of the gospel message rather than  the  simple  proclamation of Immanent Domain. 
 
The commission given to the 12 in Matt 28 ASSUMED success!   Are you aware of that.   THAT presentation of the Last Word's has Jesus assuming the message preached will save  -- His request in Matthew 28 was to make disciples  (not to save the lost) !!!    A glorious Assumption is in the mind of the Master  -- WE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL in this business of saving the lost   --  making them disciples, ah, therein is the rub.  
 
 
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 tal king with you   ---   you actually have much to offer but you get all bunched up or whatever 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 vicodin.  jt
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:50:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.& amp; nbsp;
 
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 with it. You know all of this -- yet you ignore my explanation of this word, choosing instead to press on 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 be ing; 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
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to