Do you still consider yourself a Trinitarian leaning towards Modalism? --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so > how can > you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it > is a sin > for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? > > David Miller > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? > > In short, Modalism !! > > Modalism > The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who > manifests > himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. > REPENT -- HURRY !! > > jd > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" > More accurately, one person in three manifestations > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS > From: ShieldsFamily > > Unity in Diversity. > Fatness in Skinniness. > Ugliness in Beauty. > Dumbness in Intelligence. > Wisdom in Nonsense. > Jibberish in Eloquence. > > iz > > > > If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed "make them > "unity in > diversity" just as we are ... > I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him > they > had seen the Father > because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only > what he > first heard from the > Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying > around > rebellion is what the > end times "harlot church" is all about. > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right > now, > unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. > Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity > in > diversity does not exist. jd > From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. > In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may > recognize > the faith > once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus > was not > referring to any > "Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He > and the > Father are One > Is "Unity in diversity" how you see the Godhead or "Trinity?" JD > > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those > who so > identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus > reflective of > a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the > truth. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, > is not > my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed > to > sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different > -- > but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her > stripes. > They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ > in John > 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the > only > unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more > because > of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their > own, I > believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive > the > bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be > only 6000 > years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, > IMHO. Is > God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we > all > agree on the answer to that question. > > End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into > the > character of the opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned > -- in a > biblical sense , of course. > > jd > > > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > John wrote: > > > To your first question , "no." > > > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > > > John wrote: > > > To your second question, either you > > > did not read my post or you have > > > decided to insult my presentation? > > > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at > all. > > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using > a > & gt; figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible > > scholars, > > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > > theology, in my opinion. > > > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. > 2:4 uses > > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be > figurative, but > > ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text > says, > > First > > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered > days > > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its > coupling > > with > > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to > perceive it > > as > > being anything other than a specific time period measured by > evening and > > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were > greatly > > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the > figurative > > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having > plants > > created l ong before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a > > biologist's > > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most > parsimonious > > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis > 1 is > > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the > meaning must > > be > > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be > read this > > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this > way. I > > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the > motivation > > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the > claims > > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach > to > > Genesis > > 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from > the > > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process o f > > creation? > > > > David Miller > > > > ==================== > > John, I have a couple questions for you. > > > > 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment > concerning the > > length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and > even > > discussed this perso nally with him before, but he comes from a > theology > > background and I come from a science background, so I don't know > how well > > he > > is accepted as a "t heologian." His arguments for why the day is > not > > figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > > > 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the > day > > figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone > saying > > that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder > if > > there > > is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of > science that > > a > > theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis > 1 as > > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding > us, what > > would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? > > > > 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 > > & lt; BR>> 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. > > > > ---------- > "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. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "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.
