|
Judy, while it is helpful to look at
differences, communication also requires looking at areas of agreement.
Surely there is something in what Lance says that you can find agreement
with. Isn't there?
For example, Lance says that the Lord is
present in your gatherings. True?
Lance says God is present in the RCC.
Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen Athenians, "in him we live
and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), surely you can find some agreement
about God's presence in the RCC.
Lance says that no one comprehends
exhaustively. True?
Lance says that Scripture is to be held in
high regard. True?
Now please don't think that I am saying that
you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying to help you
communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and affirm that, then when
you tweak other areas, you might lead him to understanding your viewpoint a
little better. I think you have some good things to say to Lance, but I
also agree with Lance that what we have here is a failure to communicate.
This happens when one side stubbornly cannot hear the other side.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:24
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up front,
I am communicating where I am at.
Your problem is that you can not accept what I write - so why cloak it in devious terms. Why not
come right out and tel it like it
is Lance? God knows and after all He is
the "important One" It is
He who holds life and death in His hands. What is man
whose breath is in his nostrils?
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite
from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to
communicate'.
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
|
