Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dualism - splitting apart that which ought not be split

[Judy Taylor]

Hi Perry; I'd say it was a time of temptation, death is and has always been an enemy and his flesh sinless as it was would put up a fight.  Still he determined to finish the course.  I agree with you that this was not a joyous time for him.  Still it is written "then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will O God" (Heb 10:7)  jt     On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:14:57 -0700 "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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]> > >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 > >level—especially 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 doesn’t > 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 RCC’s 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. > >