Ep 2;1 And you hath he quickened, who WERE dead in trespasses and sins Quickened as in made ALIVE those that were DEAD....
problem is so many were never made alive --- Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a fine conjecture, Izzy. But it is only that. Yours is not a > definitive answer. There may also be other ways to address and > understand this statement. I am simply attempting to demonstrate that > you are calling upon a doctrine to explain that which is not stated > explicitly. If you want to call this a "doctrine of men," then that > is fine. If you want to call it the God's honest true, you can do > that, too -- as long as you realize that it is conjecture either way. > > Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ShieldsFamily > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > I understand your viewpoint. However I don't know how else I would > describe the lost-even Jesus said "Let the dead (obviously not > physically, but spiritually) bury the dead." izzy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > I agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to > similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I > find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the > same name and this when the words themselves are not found in the > Scriptures. > > > > Moreover, one would have to have received her theology in a cave > not to have heard of "spiritual death" on many occasions throughout > her Christian experience. This doctrine is one of the most commonly > touted beliefs in the church -- thanks to Augustine and the > tremendous impact he has had on Christendom. > > > > I am very content to believe that Judy did not know that Augustine > is the one who first articulated this belief, but I am reluctant to > accept that she came to it on her own. It is far too popular a > teaching for that to have happened. As with the rest of us, I am > confident that she too has heard this language since her earliest > experience with Christianity. And so I rather suspect that she has > been taught this doctrine as if it were right there in the Bible. > Thus it functions as an a priori in her beliefs. > > > > > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ShieldsFamily > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:54 PM > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > I was thinking of when people assume that jt or someone else got > their doctrines from someone else when perhaps they didn't. Just > because a teaching is "out there" doesn't mean it necessarily > affected someone who believes along the same lines. Would you agree? > iz > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest as to claim > this is how it happened in my case. > > > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ShieldsFamily > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 PM > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > 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 > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > 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. > > > > > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---------- "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.
