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.
>
>
