1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is
false.
Says who and upon what basis? Heresy
according to the "Church Fathers"?
2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I
count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does
also.
Then you and DM are the "authorities" and
your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment?
3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit
is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's
gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take
it up with the Lord and, not me.
The Lord has never made such a
statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt
7:21,22
4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to
comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone
comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same.
Where does God say those who follow
him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He say they would
be told what to speak in that
same hour? Once more, this is your
requirement, not his.
5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I just
don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would?
I have no idea Lance, I only know that where ones
treasure is their heart is also and that "out of the
abundance that fills the heart, the mouth
speaks.
The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow
have been making your own saints. How do you know who is
accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually
separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor
Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you
also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone
who represents God is that he not only is able to
separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles
of God which you claim noone is able to
comprehend so I guess you and God part company on this issue
which
is one of many. I have not ever noted you
holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so
I
am left wondering about the basis of your
discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful"
'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ
another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of
the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in
everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to
slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees
it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts
of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with
scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's
just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as having been
promised something more than that. That's not OK.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or
the Opinions of Men
For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth
means truth; no yours or mine about it.
Personalizing everything as you do leads to
gross deception.
May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not
convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about,
is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is
understood we can move on.
Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a
new Lance or what?
Exactly!
Walking in as much light as one has
been given so far is not the same as what you have been
promoting
Nor is it saying that ppl who have
chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the
other
because there is no concord between
Christ and Belial.
Exactly!
I was in too much of a hurry; I
meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some
choose to walk
in darkness; while others embrace
the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous
is like the
light of dawn it shines brighter
till the full day". It is possible to be walking in
all the light one has and
ATST not be in error. Noone
alive today has the whole loaf.
You said 'No I don't
disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe
say is error. Correct?
This is, IMO, being made
unnecessarily complex.
No Lance I don't because the
condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and
refuse to come.
I believe some walk in
complete and total darkness and there is little or no
fear of God in the land, yours
or mine.
THERE IS OBJECTIVE
TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the
planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all
of it. Do you disagree?
You speak as though there
were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears
as though this is where
you live. Not so for
me and others. We may be the minority but then
just because your opinion a majority or
ecumenical one; this
is hardly a
recommendation - is it??
I disagree. DH has
chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion
is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims.
If John Lennon were
to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly
receive that as an personal insult.
cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not
towards you-see the difference?If the truth
insults then that person needs to change not the
truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a
pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a
personal attack on you.But if I were to insult
you by calling you names then I have personally
attacked you and would be in error to do so
Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are
stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my
attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In
short-express your self but don't let it get
personal.
IFO took your, and
Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing
short of an insult. However, should you 'rule'
on this matter thus eliminating your/my
assessment to be off limits then, we would have
no ongoing dialogue.
By the way, wasn't
there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not
responding to posts with the above subject
heading?
No-there isn't any "new
rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If
I make the call that someone has broken the Ad.
Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal
assaults- then reply to that in private. If I
did not enforce this then the issue of that
person wrongs will become part of the debate and
become unsolvable as others got involved.-this
is for you protection as well as others. The
non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead
to many good minds leaving this site.If these
attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple
of people here and how long can two /three
people carry on the same
conversation?
----- Original
Message -----
Sent:
February 26, 2006 07:10
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] *********** To all list
members-Moderator Comment***************
----- Original
Message -----
Sent:
2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] *********** To all list
members-Moderator Comment***************
You spoke my
question "G"?????????
Moderator-This
simply means that the rules against insults and
personal attacks are going to be unforced by
me-others are under my protection and will get
fair treatment-I owe that to God not to those
who will not keep their agreement and abide by
the rules.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent:
February 25, 2006 18:07
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] *********** To all list
members-Moderator Comment***************
ftr, what does this
mean?
I plan on enforcing the rules of protection
on TT against those who love
ch[ao]s
