Judy, how does the fact that Jesus asked if the cup could be removed, but
then said thy will be done? Was that a moment of weakness or resistance,
followed by submission? That does not sound like rejoicing to me.
Perry
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Dualism - splitting apart that which ought not be
split
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:42:26 -0400
I should add that a person who is born of the Spirit has a new nature
along with new desires. I do not
believe that God's only begotten son had two natures; taking on a body
of flesh limited him in that he
got hungry, and weary causing him to be tempted in those ways but this is
far from a fallen flesh nature.
He rejoiced to do the will of the Father during his time on this earth -
whereas a natural carnal man
recoils from it. jt
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:35:00 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Temporal - both the belly and ice-cream cones are in the process of
passing away..... as we speak..
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:27:07 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Should you and your grandchild go out today for an ice cream cone, would
your enjoyment of this be spiritual/carnal?
From: Judy Taylor
Thanks Debbie,
No I would call both thinking and behavior coming from a worldly spirit
"carnal"
But I do appreciate you explaining the label Gary has pinned on me for so
long
and that Lance now refers to here. I have never advocated
double-mindedness
as anyone who pays the least bit of attention to my posts would know. My
belief is that when we are born again we receive a new nature and agree
to walk after the Spirit and die to the lust of the old carnality - so
there should be no dichotomy and/or dualism involved in the real.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:04:27 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I think you are misunderstanding the sacred-secular dualism. The idea
behind that dualism is that there are some parts of life that have
nothing to do with God or his claims or faith. The opposite is "Whether
you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God."
I think we would agree there is a spirit of the world which is opposed to
God, and a behaviour which comes out of that, which is what I think you
mean by "the secular".
Hope that helps--
Debbie
From: Judy Taylor
And so it ought - the secular is not sacred by any stretch of the
imagination and as Iz so clearly notes
Good sense needs to be separated from nonsense. jt
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 07:56:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Christ from God, Christianity from Christ and the sacred/secular
dichotomy...I perceive that dualism prevails with some.
From: ShieldsFamily
One cannot apprehend nonsense.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
When you say'making no absolutely no sense on any level', do you mean
that you cannot apprehend my meaning?
From: ShieldsFamily
This is a perfect example of why I can never hope to have any meeting of
the minds with you whatsoever. You make absolutely no sense on any
levelespecially the spiritual. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Not entirely from you guys but, partially. You and, David appear to
believe that God 'ordained' the invasion of Iraq. That is in no way less
idolatrous than the former.
From: ShieldsFamily
Where do you get the idea that the idolatry of Mariology doesnt matter
to God?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Since before each of the aforemention commenced speaking for Him. (I'm
older)
From: ShieldsFamily
How do you figure? Since when do you speak for Him? iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
As to the former neither have you, Judy, David or Kevin. As to the latter
it'd appear to matter less to God than to you or I. Go figure!
\
From: ShieldsFamily
The RCCs in local charismatic prayer groups have still not put aside
their religious spirits and Mariology. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
You say 'I leave judging people to God'. You wrote the post below which I
just read. Are you able to read, objectively, that which you just wrote
then say "I leave judging people to God'?
Why is it that you believe that I don't know (do you mean that I haven't
actually read them? do you mean that I don't know the content of their
work? do you mean that I don't know the historical context?) any of the
church fathers?
Keep an open heart, Judy. It is even possible (I said possible) that the
Spirit of God is being responded to in some local Catholic Charismatic
prayer group than in the BSF chapter in your home town).
From: Judy Taylor
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
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
