Jt can answer for herself, but I'd say no Spiritual person would relish being turned over to satan or being separated from the Father by the sins of the world. iz
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:Dualism - splitting apart that which ought not be split 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 >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. ---------- "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.
