Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:44:06 -0700

Lance do you believe there are talking ghosts out there in the ether someplace?
The Word of God contradicts your thesis; how in heavens name did the children of Israel lose the Word of the Lord
in just two generations if it is as easy as all that?  Please tell me since you have all the answers.
 
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:24:01 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Please, please, please take note David Miller and Judy Taylor! You don't have to have read someone to have been influenced by them. You don't even have to have known of their existence. I trust that at least David would agree on this point.The same principle would appear to historical events.
 
EG:You needn't have heard of Rene Descartes or, of Cartesian dualism to have been influenced by the thought/writings of Rene.
 
EG:You don't have to have heard of/read about the Crusades for the space/time event to have an influence on the events in the middle east today. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: July 19, 2005 02:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 
 
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:52:02 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim this is how it happened in my case. Bill
 
 
 
No Bill, you are not dishonest about yourself because you study these ppl.  However, you are being dishonest when you attribute the same to me and then accuse me of plagiarism and heresy.  I do not study the so called Church Fathers and so I am not getting  whatever light I am walking in from them.
 
You should know Bill that judging the motives of others is not a ministry assigned to you by the Lord. We are to judge ourselves primarily.  He can take care of others.  In this you are following your mentors who IMO got further and further away from the strait path the more they pointed the finger and hunted down the hereticks.  During his own earthly ministry Jesus said "Let them alone" and Paul wrote "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord."  Challenging a wrong teaching as is done on TT is one thing.  Condemning ppl is something else.  Much better to shine a light
than to curse the darkness.  
 
Izzy: Thanks so much for this note, you say it so well,  it is a keeper.  judyt
 
 

Just a note: If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the scriptures or direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not they also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else who learned and taught that same truth in previous generations? If so, that does not mean that the first one who learned it imparted it to the one who learned it later, does it? That also does not mean the second person who learned it owes anything to the first person.  And it does not mean the first one who learned it was an “authority” for the second one, who might never have even heard anything about the first one.  One can’t just assume that because a “famous” person wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone else who may have the same/similar doctrine.  Get my drift?  izzy

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
 

David writes  >  I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative,

I suppose in a narrow sense you are partially correct, David. I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much as a fleeting reference in his direction. Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting him.

This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must one cite another person, when using his words, before he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not, but I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite another's influence upon her theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I am wondering what you think. For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to the human condition? Stated another way, does it not act authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not. But again I am wondering what you think.

 

Or are you suggesting something different? Like, for instance, if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, because those are just my own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am setting forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs as authoritative, and that they have now become the "doctrines of men." Is that how it works? What if they were really Dake's beliefs all along -- and I mean his words verbatim -- but I just acted as though they were my own, would that make a difference as far as their "authoritative" quotient in your estimation?

These are the things that I am wondering about, because I am trying to understand what makes the espousal of one man's beliefs more "authoritative," in your eyes, than the espousal of another man's beliefs. In fact, I find it rather disturbing that you are so willing to give yourself and others a pass on this, but want to take issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. The truth is, I have written very sparingly concerning Barth, although I do esteem him highly. And I have been very candid throughout about both my appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation of my beliefs -- which is indeed quite significant. But David, I want to say, so what? It is obvious that Wesley has had a similar impact upon the formation of your beliefs. What's the big deal about admitting this? Why are you so set on equivocating at this point? I don't get it. 

David writes  > some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men.  Do you agree?

Yes, David, I do. But I would not agree that this is prima facie a negative thing.

Bill


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14


> JD wrote:
> >>> Not one person on this site believes in
> >>> "doctrines of men."
>
> David Miller wrote:
> >> I hope that you allow that some of us have a different
> >> perspective on this point.  Some here tout Joseph Smith
> >> while others tout Barth and Torrance.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > ... and others Wesley and Dake. What's your point?
>
> I don't think I have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as authoritative, at
> least not on the level of Joseph Smith, Barth, or Torrance, but in any
case,
> my point is that some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men.  Do you
> agree?
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "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.
>
>

 
 

Reply via email to