|
It is right there in Genesis. God is the one
who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would SURELY
DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die that day? I
know I have asked you this before and you have ignored the
question.
No, Judy, Adam did not die that day, and God did not lie
that day either; rather he clothed Adam in the promise of the Seed. It was he,
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who "died" metaphorically
that day, in that the sentence of death was now upon him, he being the New
Adam, the Representative of the old.
I don't think so Bill; you need to rethink
this. Jesus is the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world so it
was not he who died that day. If you are
going to deal in that kind of metaphor then he was already dead before the
first Adam was ever created.
Now, the point is, Judy, that you can disagree with me if
you like, but you cannot point to Scripture and say, "Here it says, 'upon that
day Adam died spiritually.' It is not there.
Not in those exact words Bill but God did not tell
Adam that a substitute would day in the day that he ate, he didn't say
anything about a lamb dying either. No God said "In the day YOU eat of
it YOU will SURELY die" (Genesis 2:17) Read it. What you are doing
right now is the problem with Christendom today. You are wresting the
clear Word
of God to make it fit some preconceived
doctrine.
What you are dealing with is conjecture, nothing else. This
in itself is not wrong, as long as you realize that that is what you are
doing. But conjecture is not definitive in the way that explicit language is
definitive. Your position is not clearly articulated; yours is a
belief, just like mine is a belief. Yours just happens to find its source in
Augustine. I am fine with that: why aren't you? Bill
Mine Bill is as clearly articulated as you can
get. Yours is total conjecture. If Jesus died that day rather than
Adam then why were they kicked out of the
garden? It shouldn't have mattered whether or not they ate of the tree
of life ...
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.
You certainly excel in the art of exaggertion
Bill - what you call quoting at length was ONE paragraph, ONE time and
that only because I was in a hurry and it was
stated so well and was what I believed anyway and was attempting to
express.. I am not a disciple of Dake.
There are areas that I don't agree with him. I seem to remember you
raising a BIG fuss about it at the time for which I publicly repented and
I have made it a point to
stay away from anything like that since then.
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?
Bill when someone is saying what the
scriptures say it is hardly THEIR belief, that is, when they do not
add another spin to what is
written. When I agree with others on TT it is not because I am
swayed to THEIR belief, it is because we have both received the same light
in our personal study of His Word.
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.
Bill you can't seem to learn.
Augustine is not the one who came up with "spiritual death" It is
right there in Genesis. God is the one who told Adam that in the day he ate from the wrong tree - he would
SURELY DIE. Are you saying He lied and that Adam didn't die
that day? I know I have asked you
this before and you have ignored the question.
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.
She does not and never has read Augustine
Bill. Don't you think the Spirit of God can say the same thing to
two different people in different
generations? Do you believe Adam died physically the day he ate from
the wrong tree?
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?
Then I would be a liar and a heretick which is
what you accused me of Bill. You seem to entertain these kinds of
spirits quite often with
regard to those not in perfect agreement with your doctrine. But I
don't have to steal anyone's
light. God is big
enough for all of us and it has taken me a long time to get where I am
today. How sad to be treated this way by someone professing
godliness. I would probably do better on the street or in a bar.
This is sad, sad,
sad.
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.
>
>
|
