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

[knpraise]

WE WOULD ALL APPRECIATE THAT  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:22:28 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

I will let God be the judge of that if you don?t mind. iz

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 7:45 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

 

And IF you, David, Judy and Iz are, it is in spite of MANY OF YOUR ERRANT BELIEFS.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kevin Deegan

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: July 04, 2005 09:42

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

 

Lance Many present day 'rcc' believers are your brothers and sisters in christ.

 

And IF they are, it is in spite of the RCC.

I could more readily accept "SOME"

Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 Everyone is entitled to their own opinion Lance.  Here in the US this is our first ammendment right.  I don't personally know any of the rcc church fathers and I don't believe you do either.  The little I have read of them has been enough for me.  They are as bad as or even worse than TT about agreeing amongst themselves and if others of them were godly I am certain they will be rewarded according to what they have done. This is no reason for us to make idols of them or to hold their teachings equal with scripture when many times they contradict and complicate the simplicity of the gospel of Christ.

 

Scripture teaches us that Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him rather than religious spirits.  When he encountered people out there who were not with him and/or ppl teaching error he did not convene a counsel to condemn them. Of some he said noone could do a work in his name while speaking ill of him.  Of others he said "let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind"  Either way he left judgment and vengeance up to God the Father who we are assured will repay.

 

Another reality we need to consider is that Jesus never ever set up a Nicolaitan system and neither did his followers; but one has arisen from the foundation of these church fathers.  Eventually the Bible was removed and ppl no longer had access to God's Word - hence the dark ages.  The rcc today is full of all kinds of evil; I'm not saying that God will not redeem some out of it, I know many of the best christians who have come out of it so I leave judging ppl up to God.  We are responsible however, for examining/judging their public teachings and IMO the ones you revere so highly don't stand the test.   jt

 

 

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:06:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

DM and JT seem to have aquired a profound distaste for the 'rcc church fathers'. I'd guess that you've both 'googled' locations but, have either of you read them? Some are among the most godly of your brothers in christ over the centuries. Please believe me when I tell you that the 'community of the saints' extends far beyond Virginia and Florida geographically. It also goes further back than J Finis Dake and Immanuel Kant.

 

Many present day 'rcc' believers are your brothers and sisters in christ. Many of their brothers and sisters in christ dwell in Virinia, Florida, California and, Colorado. Take care you who would speak ill of that which the Spirit of God indwells. 

From: Judy Taylor

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Miller wrote:
I think the problem here, Bill, is that you are changing
the context of Judy's statements when you critique them
as evidence of hypocrisy.  Judy is trying to bring back
that context in her paragraph above.

 

jt: This is right on DavidM but is rejected along with everything I write since Bill

has made a character judgment which he adds to rather than backs off from.

Bill Taylor wrote:
Not so, David. Her statements above are a smokescreen.
She is attempting to find a way to get away from the context
of our discussion.

 

jt: The context of OUR discussion was never my hypocrisy and smokescreens.

These make it a "new" discussion the original focus being long gone..

Hmmm.  Might I suggest, then, that perhaps you both are approaching the
discussion from different contexts?  In other words, you have a foundation
and goal for speaking which differs from Judy's?

 

jt: Exactly; my context has been and will continue to be the Word of God. I am

not interested in rcc church fathers or what they had to say about anything much

less revering their writings and allowing them to be my interpreters.

Bill Taylor wrote:
This has been a discussion on one subject and one only
throughout: her unreasonable standard of precluding the
use of non-biblical terminology to speak of biblical matters;
the criticisms which grow out of this; and her own violation
of this standard.

>From where I sit, there is much misunderstanding between you two.

 

jt: I'll say there is.....

Bill Taylor wrote:
The evidence of hypocrisy is her unwillingness to admit that
she does the very thing she criticizes others for doing. She
has on many ocassions criticized me, as well as others here
on TT, for using the term "perichoresis" to describe the inner
relationships of the Trinity. She knows this and you know it,
David. Yet she uses the word "symphony" in her description
of the same inner relations. When confronted about it, she
skirts the question and makes excuses, instead of taking
responsibility for her comments. This is hypocrisy.

 

jt: Symphony is my word; I am not quoting some 4th century rc father or some

other theologians doctrine and yes I take responsibility for using the word

symphony.

Perhaps, or perhaps she considers the use of such terms differently and
does not know how to communicate that to you. 

 

jt: I am past thinking I could hit "Bill Taylor" with a water hose, he is too far

out there and is breathing some rarified air along with Lance that normal

every day believers are not privy to.

 

I certainly think there is a lot of difference between her use of the word "symphony"

and your use of the word "perichoresis."  For starters, symphony is a word which

most people are familiar with and therefore has some ability to communicate a

thought. "Periochoresis," on the other hand, has absolutely no meaning to most
people and must be thoroughly stuided before even beginning to use the word. 

The uneducated are likely to think, "why bother."

 

jt: Exactly - At one point I took rc instruction myself because in searching for truth

I thought that because it was an old system and so mystical that there were things

there that would lead me to God.  Suffice it to say 'I'm over it'  That was a broken

cistern and I'm through poking about in those places.  The mystery has been

revealed and you don't need a certificate in Greek to understand it.

Bill Taylor wrote:
My only request has been that she recognize this and change
her unrealistic expectation of others, concerning the language
they use to speak about God.

I think you misunderstand exactly what she is asking of you in regards to
the language you use to speak about God.  I doubt Judy would have had any
problem with you using the word "symphony."

 

jt: Of course not; I would not object to any way that Bill would want to express his

own thoughts but just don't try and pass all of this other stuff off on us like it is some

great revelation that only the learned are privy to.

Bill Taylor wrote:
... this is not about "creeds." It is about her disdain for the use of theological terminology

to speak of biblical concepts and her refusal to acknowledge that she too uses

theologically loaded terms to speak of the same.

 

jt: Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT without theological terminology - in fact he used 'great

plainness of speech' - so how is it that you can not communicate without making

things so very complicated?

You seem to have a point here.  Perhaps there is another issue at work
here, and that is Judy's bias against intellectualizing and complicating simple
matters. 

 

jt: Admittedly I have a bias about this. IMO it is totally unnecessary and hinders rather

than helps in sharing the Good News.  Ordinary street ppl understood Jesus and they

understood Paul.  They should be able to understand us also.

 

As a scientist, I had experienced this for all the scientific words and terminology

we used.  In fact, my language became such that I could barely communicate well

on biological issues with anyone who was not a scientist already familiar with the

terms and concepts with which I worked.  The language that assisted me with in

depth study and analysis isolated me from those who I wished the most to share

it with.

 

jt: This is true for every one of the disciplines. I used to do Medical Transcription and

the same is true in that field, education, whatever.  This should not be so for the

believer.  Maybe for dead professional  religious systems and forms of godliness.

Sorry to cut this short.  I'm being called away right now.  I did want to
say thank you for the suggestion about "non-Biblical" rather than
"un-Biblical."  That does better communicate the meaning.  Thank you.

jt: Thanks for your input DavidM - you definitely are gifted in the area of insight

and peace making.  

 

Blessings,

judyt

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com