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.
