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: [email protected] ; [email protected]
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.
