| Author |
Message |
    
J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 3:08 am: |       |
Well Tom usually has some very good points. But I just can't wade through all his verbage to get to them 
Perhaps you could coalesce his post down to about 4 paragraphs, instead of 8 post? |
Denise Gilmore (Denise)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Now J.R.,
You know just how I could manage to screw things up if left in my hands to do that! Yipes....that's frightening even for me to think about!
But, I will say this much, he gave me alot of food for thought. Now I have even more questions. Sheesh, will these questions in my head ever stop?
Soon enough I hope to come up with a post with my questions.....IF I can figure out how to word the thing so it is somewhat logical in it's entirety. (think that's possible??).
I know, I know........that really helped huh?
Sorry......
Denise Gilmore, your ever so helpful one......::::sigh::::: |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:19 am: | |
Denise Gilmore, your ever so helpful one......::::sigh:::::
Denise, have you been working on the assignment I gave you??????
Remember, Solomon said, "A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer."
Sorensen |
Daniel J. Rzodkiewicz (Djrz)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
Now Bill, please don't imply that Denise is a fool just because you refuse to answer her questions.
tsk tsk. |
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Tom,
I took a deep breath and waded through your eight posts. I'm not sure why I did that - I've skipped a number of them before.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that I have to commend you for this one. Your arguments are lucid and to the point and, for once, not redundant and tiresome. You have reawakened some strains of thought that I had abandoned in my attempt to find something more satifying than what has been my experience within the SDA church. You make some very good points, not the least of which is the irony that evangelical theology embraces - God's grace (forgiveness) for the sinners tresspasses of a law that doesn't exist anymore.
I do have to question one point you tried to defend - denying the importance of the "relationship" aspect of the Gospel. Strictly speaking, the Gospel, (good news) is that because of Christ, my sins have been forgiven and I have met the requirements of the law through Christ. But, this is not a one time ritualistic experience, but an ongoing status for the christian and therefore, requires a relationship (much overused term, I agree) with Christ - an experience that is not based on time being linnear where justification has taken place and sanctification is currently taking place. Justification is a state of existance and can happen only within a relationship with God. Only by a continual acknowledgement of the lordhsip of God and our indebtedness in comparison, can the proper assent on our part come about. Otherwise we fall into the same legalistc quagmire as did the Jews. God represented Himself as a person with whom relationships must be formed. He did not throw down another contract from heaven. No one can look at the cross and see only a legal document. It must be heart as well as head involved here.
In any case, my congradulations, for some good writing (thinking). Everyone else is free to begin throwing stones.
Sirje |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 3:09 pm: | |
Tom runs around the block sideways and backwards and only adds to his own confusion. In some ways, he actually defended our historic SDA faith as some of you can see. His defense of the third use of the law leaves him out in left field in his ongoing attacks of bible Adventism.
Poor Tom, he keeps falling down and then gets up and runs backward.
JR is incredibly tolerant of all the space Tom wastes on the forum.
All Tom would have to do is carefully read the Great Controversy and would soon see he could not refute a single line of the book if he is willing to defend historic Protestant confessions of faith.
But if he keeps falling down and getting up he may yet come to a knowledge of the truth. He is bound to see his own inconsistency eventually.
Sorensen |
J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hmmmm, if Sirje compliments Tom, and Sorenson dis's him....must be very interesting. I'll have to read it now, particularly as "Sorrenson the Brimsmeadian Perfectionist" doesn't agree! That's alway a plug for something said, if Sorenson doesn't like it
J.R. theantinomianwhateverthatmeanstosorensonandthe3rduseofthelaw |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:09 pm: | |
J.R. theantinomianwhateverthatmeanstosorensonandthe3rduseofthelaw
Better ask Tom......
Sorensen |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page