What do you see as the "Operation of God" as consisting of?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks for allowing God to work His will in me in the reading of this > text. > > JD > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:14:55 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]What is this Operation? Dead or Alive? > > > > Col 2 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made > without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by > the > circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye > are > risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath > raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the > uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, > having forgiven you all trespasses > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > I personally hope that BT will spend more time on this, as well. > I > > have been reading the posts and comparing what had been said with > > what scriptures come to my mind. I have been raised with the > notion > > of "spiritual life" and " spiritual death" as well. Eph > 4:20-24 > > presents the Chritian as one who has two natures -- the old man > > which is NOW being corrupted and the new man. Before the "new > man," > > all I had going for me was the old nature -- which is being > > corrupted. Anyway, I can see a point in BT's favor in that > > consideration. Further, I have always been taught that the > soul, > > the spirit and the body are very different things. A great deal > of > > what I have been reading does not agree with that understanding -- > > > something I have overlooked, preferring other considerations. > > > > Something to do this evening. > > > > JD > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:08:19 -0500 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > > > Jesus said, ?I am the Life?. There is no other way to become > > spiritually alive than to follow Him. If you don?t, well, you?re > dead > > already. iz > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:40 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > By the way, Izzy et al, > > > > Jesus said, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." And > > some did. > > > > My question for you is this: What about those who did follow Jesus, > > do you think that they were "spiritually" alive? > > > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill Taylor > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > 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 et al, > > > > Are you willing to admit to me that you have to add commentary to > > this statement of Jesus, in order for it to make sense (Izzy, > you've > > already done this in your statement above); in other words you > > conclude that Jesus was speaking about "spiritual death" -- your > > commentary -- when referencing the "dead" who would bury the dead; > > hence "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the dead." > > > > If you are willing to admit this, then please be willing to extend > to > > me the same courtesy. Jesus is speaking figuratively here. He means > > something on the order of "Let those who refuse to follow me, bury > > the dead. But you come with me." > > > > Here I do what you do: I attempt to make sense of a statement which > > on its face is incomprehensible, in that there is not a one-to-one > > equivalence between the first use of "dead" and the second use of > > "dead." > > > > Bill > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill Taylor > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ---------- > "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.
