John wrote: > I never saw the Presbyterian post !! > Did that ever occur to you? > Take a pill and enjoy life for a change.
Oh, great! One of the guys who thinks I am too loose with my definition of sin is encouraging me to take drugs and enjoy life for a change! No thank you, John. It amazes me that intelligent people cannot see how your doctrine encourages sin. Judy has mentioned her church affiliation many times. Back in February you participated in a thread (meaning same subject line) where she very clearly outlined her affiliation there, using both the PCA acronym and using the word "Presbyterian." More recently, last month, you directly responded to posts where she mentioned it using her normal acronym of PCA. So no, it did not occur to me that you never saw the post, but it does occur to me that you did not comprehend the post, just like you do not understand most of her posts or mine. I suspect that both Lance and Bill Taylor understood that she attends a Presbyterian church. I'll tack that correspondence below for your consideration. She mentions PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) twice. I hope you consider what is below in the sense of realizing that you read posts much too superficially and fantasize all manner of stereotypes that are completely inaccurate. You think you know me, but your characterization of me is about 5% accurate, just like it was of Judy. Please consider talking about what you do know on this list, not about what you don't know. Peace be with you. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apocrypha If you are saying that we are to be like Him, conformed to His image -- I say "duh !!!!!" It appears, howeer that we have regressed into monologue. Jd I'm talking about Truth and what the PCA have done via the Shorter Catechism is what doctrines of men are doing constantly - you included JD. Since His works were done before the foundation of the world and it is written that we are predestined to be conformed to the "image of Christ" then it follows that this should be the 'chief end of man' doesn't it? - That is if God's Word means anything to us at all .... and this has everything to do with relationship with Christ = jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:56:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am talking about a realtionship with Christ and you are talking about what? Sorry, but I miss your point completely. Jd Interesting JD, I've been attending an introductory class at the church we have been attending which is PCA. They identify with the Reformation and they like the Shorter Catechism. I can't figure out why the first point in the Catechism does not say that the chief end of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ - after all this is what we have been predestined for and they believe in predestination. (Romans 8:29) jt On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:12:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not too bad of a question. Quite often growth may appear to be vacillation. If we define new birth as a putting on of Christ, emphasis on a relationship, then we might suppose that the resulting validation marking the difference between vacillation and growth is the benefit can see in the occurring changes. If I am a better person, growth has occurred. If I have become more distasteful, something is wrong with the relationship. After all, that is the way relationships work. Soooo, "truth" can be said to exist IN THE BELIEVER if that believer becomes more and more like Christ. JD From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD are you Growing or Vacillating? ---------- "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.
