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.
>
>
