On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> 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.
>
>
