Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:24:13 -0700

Oophs!!  Forgive me, I guess the old flesh began to rise up a bit there and I know better
than to repay evil for evil.  However, Lance I do often wonder why you do not contribute
rather than constantly criticize.  How does this help the subject at hand?
 
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:02:21 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why do you continue to criticize when you pretty much know nothing about the spiritual
Why not stick to that which you do lay claim to knowing - movies and books???
 
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:50:56 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why do you continue to employ the names of persons about whom you know pretty much nothing?
Why not stick to that which you do lay claim to knowing, Scripture?
 
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:24:32 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spiritual death is a fact of life Bill and it isn't anything like what Calvin describes. jt
 
Judy, will you please explain to me how Calvin describes spiritual death and then differentiate between his view and your own?
Thanks, Bill
 
Calvin calls it TOTAL DEPRAVITY; "He says "The mind of man is so completely alienated from the righteousness of God that it
conceives, desires, and undertakes everything that is impious, perverse, base, impure, and flagitious. His heart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin that it cannot produce anything but what is corrupt; and if at any time men do anything apparently good, yet the mind
always remains involved in hypocrisy and deceit, and the heart enslaved by its inward perversity." (Calvin Institutes 11.V.19) - The "cadaver"
concept which puts the whole ballgame in God's court is Calvinistic and is in error.
 
Scripture teaches that men are condemned not because they can not seek God but because they don't want to and they love
darkness rather than light..  The scriptures also teach that God is loving and God is just.  What just and loving Father would condemn
the helpless and hopeless?.  Jesus never did teach this either - he said "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and
all these things will be added unto you" (Matt 6:33). 
 
 
 
Bill, what is it with you?  Do you live in a 3-4th century world or something?  Augustine has been
mouldering in the grave a long time.  I don't know how he lived or what he wrote.  Don't need to
read his book because I have a copy of THE BOOK which sadly ppl in earlier centuries were not
privileged to have... and when there is a plain meaning which is validated in several places there
is no reason to look for another meaning.  Spiritual death is a fact of life Bill and it isn't anything like
what Calvin describes.  jt
 
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:43:23 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 
And why do that when you can let Augustine do it for you?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 
Kevin - what are you doing?  Don't you know that when God spoke of death in the garden it was figurative.
When Jesus spoke to that man who wanted to bury his father in Luke 9:60 that was figurative too.
I'm sure certain persons will also claim that Paul is speaking figuratively here also (Ephesians 2:1)
Got to wrest it in a certain direction now.... with the right spin.  jt
 
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.
>
>
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to