From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:35:07 -0400
The perfect ending to "yes I do" - "No I don't." And because Lance said
it first -- HE WINS. Finally.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:27:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Don't X a very great number + 1 more than any number you choose to cite.
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: July 22, 2005 12:22
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Do! J
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: July 22, 2005 09:40
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
I do.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
NOBODY bases their beliefs on SCRIPTURE ALONE!
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: July 20, 2005 23:11
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Bill, I feel sorry for you if you cannot base your beliefs on scripture
alone, rather than on history or the accumulated opinions of men. izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Izzy, I know that to you it seems that I am belaboring the point, but your
assumption that we can address this in the abstention of two thousand plus
years of history and some mighty powerful and influential intellects along
the way, is erroneous. I just simply cannot go with you on that assumption.
It would be a grievous error to assume that we can. We are not blank
slates, influenced only by that which we consciously (spiritually) desire
to write into our beliefs. Hence I do not believe it is profitable to have
this discussion under the pretense that we are only doing "Bible talk" now.
If that is unacceptable to you, then I am very sorry but I must not violate
my conscience to accommodate you.
In what way DO you believe there is spiritual death?
I do not believe in "spiritual death" -- and this because of Christ's
resurrection. In his death Christ changed the nature of death for everyone.
Death could not hold him, and it cannot hold anyone, because our death is
in him. Therefore resurrection awaits us all. Hence, no one gets to die and
then cease to exist, which is the only way that I can conceive of anyone
being "spiritually dead."
There are only two literal deaths mentioned in Scripture: the one we all
face in Christ ("we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
and He died for all"); and the one on the other side of death which awaits
those who reject Christ in this lifetime, which is called the "second
death" (if you want to call this a spiritual death, then I will agree with
you that it is that, too, but not that only).
Hence, when one is alive, his spirit is alive with him; it is a living
aspect of his personhood. In similar manner, and were it not for
resurrection, I would believe that when one dies, his spirit dies with him
and his entire being would cease to exist. This is because we have no
ontological status in and of ourselves; our entire being -- mind, body, and
soul -- is totally dependent upon the sustaining power of someone else,
namely, Christ Jesus.
IYO, why did Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he would be ?with me
today in paradise?? What is your reading on that text?
Jesus said, "I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." I am
somewhat noncommittal here for the simple reason that there is no
punctuation in the original text. One's reading of this text is thus
contingent upon where he places the pause -- whether before the "today" or
after it. At the present I tend toward the reading above, and this because
I have not fully worked out my thoughts pertaining to time and its
relationship to the hereafter.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Please define it in your understanding. Please leave out Plato, Augustine,
etc. I have never read any of them and don?t care what they wrote.
Perhaps I have been influenced by their teachings; perhaps not. But please
let?s talk Bible talk only. J izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Well, I wouldn't say it like that. I do not believe there is "spiritual
death" in the way that you are setting it forth. But I do believe that when
a someone dies, the whole person dies with him. Were it not for
resurrection, we would die and our whole being would eventually cease to
exist: spirit, body, and soul. It is only in resurrection that death is
defeated and life restored. This idea that the spirit departs and the body
rots, is Plato through and through. This is not to say that those who are
under the influence of Plato and Greek philosophy, primarily via its
introduction into Christianity by Augustine, cannot go to Scripture and
find a way to support their position, but theirs is not the only "reading"
on these texts: hence theirs is not the only biblically plausible position
either.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Do you believe there is no such thing as spiritual death, Bill? iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Please see my immediately previous response to Judy. I address this
question in that post.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
So the ones who refused to follow Him were dead, as you correctly observe.
Were they physically dead? In what sense were they dead? izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:31 AM
To: [email protected]
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.
>
>
