|
1. Yes I will. I trust that Bill and John would say
the same.
2. IMO, Dean, Judy is a 'Christian' heretic. Such
is not an oxymoron.
3. I defer to Bill on this one, Dean.
4. I was referencing your request to read JND
further once you'd stated his heretical position christologically.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 21, 2006 09:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance,
Bill, John, David?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/21/2006 9:26:25 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance,
Bill, John, David?
1. Yes
cd:Then if I prove myself right you will
have to live with your hersery or repent to God and others whom you called
Heritics? Right?
2. I'd call them 'Christian' heretics,
Dean.
cd: Then you would be in error
Lance.
3. We speak of Jesus Incarnating as A man
but, in reality, he was a baby to begin with so, yes a child can understand
what Bill Taylor is teaching.
cd: Not so Lance -A Child can only understand
Jesus was a good man sent from God that will help forgivetheir bad
things.
4. That would be like me saying to DM
'practicing homosexuals are believers who fall a little short. Thereafter,
I'd ask him to read the balance of what I said.
cd: You have lost me one this
one.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 21, 2006 09:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance,
Bill, John, David?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/21/2006 8:26:24 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy,
Lance, Bill, John, David?
Ahhhhh! This then would put JND in the
position of denying that which Bill Taylor is affirming. Allow me to
suggest that if JND's understanding were wrong then, one might come to
understand better how it is that the Brethren and, their offspring
preach the 'gospel' that they do. This, in reality, is that to which I
was alluding when I addressed David Miller on the 'homosexual question'.
IFF your christology is fundamentally wrong (I'm with Bill on this one)
then, the 'gospel' you preach is wrong on pretty much
everything.
cd: But if I am right them the opposite is
also true and yours is therefore wrong ? True? If so why do we have to
jump to others being non Christian heretics because they fail to
understand the deeper meaning of scripture-could a child understand what
we are discussing Lance? No? Yet a child can be saved-so cut it out
and be nice. Read the words of Darby below and notice what I
have underlined-Heck why not read the entire short
artical-I first gave the longer form because Darby explains
this well for understanding this topic?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 21, 2006
08:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy,
Lance, Bill, John, David?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/21/2006 7:17:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy,
Lance, Bill, John, David?
One would assume, Dean, that herein
lies something of your own understanding on the matter at hand. Why
not draw that 'something' from the Darby quote, put it in your own
words then, await a reply?
cd: Christ did not lower himself to
become as the state of lost men-whom serve Satan. The divinity in
Him would not allow it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 21, 2006
07:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
cd: Bill I have condenses article written by
Darby: Do you agree with it?If not why?
This shews us the Christ standing in the midst of those who
are saved, whom God brings to glory, although at their head.
It is this which our epistle sets before us He who
sanctifies (the Christ), and they who are sanctified (the
remnant set apart for God by the Spirit) are all of one: an
_expression_, the force of which is easily apprehended, but
difficult to express, when one abandons the abstract nature of
the phrase itself. Observe that it is only of sanctified
persons that this is said. Christ and the sanctified ones
are all one company, men together in the same position before
God. But the idea goes a little farther.
It is not of one and the same Father; had it been so, it
could not have been said, "He is not ashamed to call them
brethren." He could not then do otherwise than call them
brethren.
If we say "of the same mass" the _expression_ may be
pushed too far, as though He and the others were of the
same nature as children of Adam, sinners together.
In this case He would have to call every man His brother;
whereas it is only the children whom God has given Him,
"sanctified" ones, that He calls so. But He and the sanctified
ones are all as men in the same nature and position together
before God. When I say "the same," it is not in the same
state of sin, but the contrary, for they are the
Sanctifier and the sanctified, but in the same truth of human
position as it is before God as sanctified to Him; the same as
far forth as man when He, as the sanctified one, is before
God. On this account He is not ashamed to call the sanctified
His brethren.
This position is entirely gained by resurrection; for
although in principle, the children were given to Him
before, yet He only called them His brethren when He had
finished the work which enabled Him to present them with
Himself before God. He said indeed "mother, sister, brother;"
but He did not use the term "my brethren," until He said to
Mary of Magdala, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God an your
God." Also in Psalm 22 it is when He had been heard from the
horns of the unicorn, that He declared the name of a
Deliverer-God to His brethren, and that He praised God in the
midst of the assembly.
He spoke to them of the Father's name while on earth,
but the link itself could not be formed; He could not
introduce them to the Father, until the grain of wheat,
falling into the ground, had died; until then He remained
alone,
|
