Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • StAthanasius373@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/30/00 9:20:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, Saphy62@aol.com ... It was here that the German and the Swiss Reformations split. The Lutherans
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 30 7:16 PM
      In a message dated 11/30/00 9:20:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, Saphy62@...
      writes:


      Baptism is much more than some outward mode of symbolic gesture for
      separation of a believer. 1 Peter 3:21 states " There is also an
      antitype which now saves us  -- baptism..." This clearly teaches us
      the relationship of the sign of baptism and the reality it signifies.>>


      It was here that the German and the Swiss Reformations split. The Lutherans
      held that baptism and communion were united with what they signified
      (regeneration and Christ's body and blood), but the Reformed could never go
      there. The reason the Reformed could never hold to baptismal regeneration is
      that they saw, quite clearly, that they had no way to explain losable
      regeneration in light of their doctrine of reprobation (such as how a
      non-elect person can get regenerated and still end up in hell). Calvin went
      so far as presumptive regeneration based upon election, but could go no
      further.

      Don
    • Speranda62@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/27/2001 11:23:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I see we have a lurker and a new participant. How grand :) Welcome to the group SS2. SS2
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 27, 2001
        In a message dated 4/27/2001 11:23:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        solascriptura2@... writes:


        .  I have read most of the postings
        on this site so I can be caught up on the arguments, so that I might
        be able to join in on some theological discussion



        I see we have a lurker and a new participant. How grand :) Welcome to the
        group SS2.

        SS2 writes < "First off if you have read anything that Brandon
        has written you would know that he is not Lutheran, is a
        Presbyterian, that may not be a big difference to you, but in the
        Protestant faith they are as different as Buddhist are from Muslims" >

        In the Protestant faith, indeed there are innumerable differences regarding
        most areas of doctrine, but I don't see such a "big difference" between
        Presbyterian and Lutherans. Certainly, I wouldn't classify them as vast as
        Buddhists and Muslims. My question to you would be, why are there such "big
        differences" with both faiths professing the same God, the same Rule of
        Faith, the same Holy Spirit and the Same Scriptures. If both Presbyterians
        and Lutherans appeal to the same source of proof (Scriptures) for their proof
        of truth, why then are they so different? Is this a trickery of the Holy
        Spirit to guide them differently? Perhaps it lies in their presuppositions,
        as you are fond of. Maybe you could share some of their presuppositions that
        cause them to have such a varied understanding of theology.

        How is one deemed to be the correct understanding?

        You write <If I can get some one to question their world view, then the
        day is God's.>>

        Is the day not God's if you don't accomplish this? Is it your presuppositions
        that make God?
      • Dan Leaming
        When I stated that there is a difference between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians, that was true. Using the example of Budhist and Muslims, was an attempt
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 27, 2001
          When I stated that there is a difference between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians, that was true.  Using the example of Budhist and Muslims, was an attempt to show that the two are different in alot of areas.  Yes they do hold to the same God, Holy Spirit, and Scripture.   The difference however lies in their views of God, Holy Spirit and Scripture.  I disagree with the alot of the Lutherans doctrines.  As a former Southern Baptist, I now disagree with alot of the doctrine of the SBC, as well with several other denominations of the Protestant faith, some of which I am embarassed to be in the same Protestant faith or "sect".  Their is no trickery to guide them differently and I was not implying that at all.  But doesn't Paul state that tradition of man is to be avoided, so that Christ is not covered up or conveniantly pushed aside, kind of like the Saturday Night Live Real Video sketch with Linus.  How we do things in the name of Jesus, yet we push Him aside because He just gets in the way.   That's why I left the Baptist Church and the Pentacosal church.  Jesus needs to be in the foreground of all things, not just spiritual.
           
          Maybe it is your presuppostions that have told you this about the my presuppositions?  Presuppositional Apologetics acknowledges that God has given us all knowledge and that it is by His grace alone that we are able to logical explain to all who ask about the hope that is in us, yet with gentleness and reverence.  By making every thought captive to Christ and His authority, we are able to use scripture to interpret scripture, not just the Presuppositionalist, to debate, and defend ones faith.  I'm not sure if you know what Van Tillian Apologetics is, it is more than just a way of defending ones faith, it goes along with ones eschatology, epistomology, and theology.  Its not a replacement of God, or supplement, its away at which one acknowledges the One who has given us life, knowledge, and freedom.  After converting over from dispensationalism to reformation theology, my views on God changed, quite dramatically, not theaterically. 
           
          When I said that God would have then day, I meant, unlike you presupposed of what I meant, that God would recieve to glory not myself,  after all I am only the vessle in which the potter is molding  and creating.  It may take time to accomplish the questioning of ones world view, but it is all in acknowledgement to God's Divine wisdom that I am able to debate.  You see I don't look at Christ (God) in the light of just my Savior, I look at Him as my LORD, Prophet, Priest, and King.  God is the very director of my path, he leads me by His great plan to where He wants me, and He uses my where He desires to use my.  Can not the Maker use His vessles where He wishes.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:40 AM
          Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (unknown)

          In a message dated 4/27/2001 11:23:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          solascriptura2@... writes:


          .  I have read most of the postings
          on this site so I can be caught up on the arguments, so that I might
          be able to join in on some theological discussion



          I see we have a lurker and a new participant. How grand :) Welcome to the
          group SS2.

          SS2 writes < "First off if you have read anything that Brandon
          has written you would know that he is not Lutheran, is a
          Presbyterian, that may not be a big difference to you, but in the
          Protestant faith they are as different as Buddhist are from Muslims" >

          In the Protestant faith, indeed there are innumerable differences regarding
          most areas of doctrine, but I don't see such a "big difference" between
          Presbyterian and Lutherans. Certainly, I wouldn't classify them as vast as
          Buddhists and Muslims. My question to you would be, why are there such "big
          differences" with both faiths professing the same God, the same Rule of
          Faith, the same Holy Spirit and the Same Scriptures. If both Presbyterians
          and Lutherans appeal to the same source of proof (Scriptures) for their proof
          of truth, why then are they so different? Is this a trickery of the Holy
          Spirit to guide them differently? Perhaps it lies in their presuppositions,
          as you are fond of. Maybe you could share some of their presuppositions that
          cause them to have such a varied understanding of theology.

          How is one deemed to be the correct understanding?

          You write <If I can get some one to question their world view, then the
          day is God's.>>

          Is the day not God's if you don't accomplish this? Is it your presuppositions
          that make God?


          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Speranda62@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/27/2001 2:38:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Making the denomination rounds much like most Protestants I see :) How many have you gone
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 27, 2001
            In a message dated 4/27/2001 2:38:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            solascriptura2@... writes:


            As a former Southern Baptist, I now disagree with alot of the doctrine of
            the SBC, as well with several other denominations of the Protestant faith,



            Making the denomination rounds much like most Protestants I see :) How many
            have you gone through thus far in total?

            <<.  I'm not sure if you know what Van Tillian Apologetics is, it is more
            than just a way of defending ones faith, it goes along with ones eschatology,
            epistomology, and theology>>

            Yada Yada Yada.
            Yes, I know of Mr. Van Til, and others. So? Van Til thinks we cannot have a
            single thought which directly coincides with God's thought. According to VT's
            analogical theory, we actually never could know 'truth'. According to your
            presup position, you only know God analogically, and since you can only know
            of God through your sinful logic, your own sin nature distorts any knowledge
            you may think you have. "Can such pious stupidity really mean that a
            syllogism which is valid for us is invalid for God?"

            Do you know what the delightful Gordie Clark says about this? I quote for you:
            "..We must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally we may
            not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what
            we must know must be identical with what God knows" (IDENTICAL) God knows all
            truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is
            absolutely essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence
            between God's mind and our mind"

            So, whats correct? Direct contact with God's logic, arithmetic, truth or only
            'analogically' understanding. How do we know that we have any truth if it is
            only an analogy, as Van Til states. Is 2+2=4, the same for you and for God?

            Please don't insult me with what appears to be a recent fascination with
            Cornelius Van Til, as if none on this list have a clue to presupp
            apologetics. Its trifling.

            <<Presuppositional Apologetics acknowledges that God has given us all
            knowledge and that it is by His grace alone that we are able to
            logical explain to all who ask about the hope that is in us, yet with
            gentleness and reverence.>>

            Do you mean to say that you have *all* knowledge, as in you are lacking for
            no knowledge?

            <<
            After converting over from dispensationalism to reformation theology, my
            views on God changed, quite dramatically, not theaterically.  >>

            Been there done that :), and still converting..lol.
            Now, how do you know that you have a new 'truth' to understanding God now as
            opposed to when you were dispy? Your mind is continuously and only sinful and
            wicked above all things, how can you know it is right ? Indeed with your 'sin
            nature'( a theological not biblical term) how can you know that reformed
            theology is truth?


            <
            Can not the Maker use His vessels where He wishes.>

            Can not the Maker use his vessels even as he grants them freedom of the will?
            Is God himself a determined spirit unable to change or unable to act outside
            of his decrees? Have you boxed God into his eternal divine decrees yet? I'm
            sure you have. When you let him out, oh then the Joy that you may SEE!!

            Why are you going outside of scripture and finding any authority at all in
            your apologetics? It sounds more like, "I am saved by Grace through the
            understanding of presuppostional apologetics alone"

            <~~~~unimpressed with the newest Van Tilian on the block
            Tammy

          • Dan Leaming
            Oh wise one, please enlighten me even more on your knowledge of Van TIlian Apologetics. You obviously know nothing about the Van Til, if you had you would not
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 27, 2001
              Oh wise one, please enlighten me even more on your knowledge of Van TIlian Apologetics.  You obviously know nothing about the Van Til, if you had you would not be making the errors that you are making in your defense of Gordie.  
               
              By the way I'm not making my protestant denomination.  I was raised in the SBC, was hired as a youth director for a Pentacostal Church, and started studing Calvinism in the early 90's.  I have been studying Presup. Apologetics for 5 years.  I don't know all, I have never made the claim unlike, yourself in your last reply to me. 
               
              Isn't Gordon Clark also the one who claims that we aren't really here, because we cannot know experience.  Non-evidential presuppostionalism, sound logical to me.
               
              If presupp. apologetics is so trifling then why are you still in the group, and not ascended to your throne.  You seem to know absolutely everything.
               
              Been there done that :), and still converting..lol.   Now, how do you know that you have a new 'truth' to understanding God now as opposed to when you were dispy? Your mind is continuously and only sinful and wicked above all things, how can you know it is right ? Indeed with your 'sin nature'( a theological not biblical term) how can you know that reformed theology is truth?
               
              How can you know that your theology is truth, oh wait you already know everything, duh, stupid me.
               
              Why would I go outside of the scripture for any knowledge, it is the very words of God, or at least that is what I have read in the Bible.   In all actuallity, it sound like you are really not reading anything I have said, or if you have you just like to make things up and make yourself look like you know more than anyone else.  What does the BIBLE say about self righteousness?

              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:02 PM
              Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (unknown)

              In a message dated 4/27/2001 2:38:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              solascriptura2@... writes:


              As a former Southern Baptist, I now disagree with alot of the doctrine of
              the SBC, as well with several other denominations of the Protestant faith,



              Making the denomination rounds much like most Protestants I see :) How many
              have you gone through thus far in total?

              <<.  I'm not sure if you know what Van Tillian Apologetics is, it is more
              than just a way of defending ones faith, it goes along with ones eschatology,
              epistomology, and theology>>

              Yada Yada Yada.
              Yes, I know of Mr. Van Til, and others. So? Van Til thinks we cannot have a
              single thought which directly coincides with God's thought. According to VT's
              analogical theory, we actually never could know 'truth'. According to your
              presup position, you only know God analogically, and since you can only know
              of God through your sinful logic, your own sin nature distorts any knowledge
              you may think you have. "Can such pious stupidity really mean that a
              syllogism which is valid for us is invalid for God?"

              Do you know what the delightful Gordie Clark says about this? I quote for you:
              "..We must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally we may
              not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what
              we must know must be identical with what God knows" (IDENTICAL) God knows all
              truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is
              absolutely essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence
              between God's mind and our mind"

              So, whats correct? Direct contact with God's logic, arithmetic, truth or only
              'analogically' understanding. How do we know that we have any truth if it is
              only an analogy, as Van Til states. Is 2+2=4, the same for you and for God?

              Please don't insult me with what appears to be a recent fascination with
              Cornelius Van Til, as if none on this list have a clue to presupp
              apologetics. Its trifling.

              <<Presuppositional Apologetics acknowledges that God has given us all
              knowledge and that it is by His grace alone that we are able to
              logical explain to all who ask about the hope that is in us, yet with
              gentleness and reverence.>>

              Do you mean to say that you have *all* knowledge, as in you are lacking for
              no knowledge?

              <<
              After converting over from dispensationalism to reformation theology, my
              views on God changed, quite dramatically, not theaterically.  >>

              Been there done that :), and still converting..lol.
              Now, how do you know that you have a new 'truth' to understanding God now as
              opposed to when you were dispy? Your mind is continuously and only sinful and
              wicked above all things, how can you know it is right ? Indeed with your 'sin
              nature'( a theological not biblical term) how can you know that reformed
              theology is truth?


              <
              Can not the Maker use His vessels where He wishes.>

              Can not the Maker use his vessels even as he grants them freedom of the will?
              Is God himself a determined spirit unable to change or unable to act outside
              of his decrees? Have you boxed God into his eternal divine decrees yet? I'm
              sure you have. When you let him out, oh then the Joy that you may SEE!!

              Why are you going outside of scripture and finding any authority at all in
              your apologetics? It sounds more like, "I am saved by Grace through the
              understanding of presuppostional apologetics alone"

              <~~~~unimpressed with the newest Van Tilian on the block
              Tammy



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Speranda62@aol.com
              In a message dated 4/27/2001 6:29:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I did not defend Clark, LOL. Perhaps you should reconsider what you consider a defense. I
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 28, 2001
                In a message dated 4/27/2001 6:29:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                solascriptura2@... writes:



                You obviously know nothing about the Van Til, if you had you would not be
                making the errors that you are making in your defense of Gordie.  




                I did not defend Clark, LOL. Perhaps you should reconsider what you consider
                a defense. I merely pointed out only one of the varied apologetics at work
                within Reformed theology. Now you tell me the "errors" I have made in
                representing Van Til.

                <By the way I'm not making my protestant denomination.  >

                What did you mean to relate with this sentence? Taken on its own, I cannot
                interpret it.

                <I was raised in the SBC, was hired as a youth director for a Pentacostal
                Church, and started studing Calvinism in the early 90's.  I have been
                studying Presup. Apologetics for 5 years. >

                How do you know where you are today in your understanding of God is correct
                as opposed to your SBC background? Pentecostal background? Do you think you
                have arrived at a final resting point or are you still on a journey for truth?

                <I don't know all, I have never made the claim unlike, yourself in your last
                reply to me.  >

                Come on now, don't lose your cool so early on. We are just beginning :)
                Please show me where I made any such claim or retract your comment as grossly
                in error.

                Your comment was "Presuppositional Apologetics acknowledges that God has
                given us all knowledge " I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked for a
                clarification. You certainly do state that through your apologetic du jour
                that God has given you all knowledge.

                <<If presupp. apologetics is so trifling then why are you still in the group,
                and not ascended to your throne.  .>

                Read again amigo. I said nothing about presupp. apologetics being trifling,
                but your flag waving of it. What is trifling is one who assumes he is the
                first to discover some clever means of apologetics and thus enjoins him to an
                elitist club of theological superiority.

                <You seem to know absolutely everything...
                How can you know that your theology
                is truth, oh wait you already know everything, duh, stupid me>

                Ok, I will grant you this one, stupid you. Now, what was it your wrote in
                your opening letter to the group about self righteous attitudes, taking some
                chill pills, sitting back listening, etc., etc. It seems in only a short
                period you are failing to demonstrate your own declared proper  debate
                etiquette.

                A better question about what the Bible says about self righteousness, is what
                does the Bible say about Truth?

                Are you going to actually answer any question I posed to you or continue to
                try and dodge all the inquiries.

                Peace,
                Tammy

                PS - You might want to consider a spell and grammar check program.
              • Dan Leaming
                I think that the only one who is failing to understand, especially knowing a little more about your background, is you. Your still have not answered my
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 28, 2001
                  I think that the only one who is failing to understand, especially knowing a little more about your background, is you. Your still have not answered my questions. And yes you have come off, to me,  being self righteous, the very thing in which you seem to be accusing me of.
                  In response to your wonder of my journey for truth, yes I have reached a place of cognitive rest on most areas in the Presbyterian Church. Unlike yourself it seems who has gone on an extensive journey for the search for truth and landed up in limbo. Ups, I lost my cool. Sorry:)
                  I will not retract my claim that you come off as knowing everything, until you stop acting that way.
                  Again I have not made the statement that I have all knowledge, only the knowledge that God has given man, I which He has graciously given me some.  I acknowledge my knowledge from   God,  Where do you get yours?   Again if you are familiar with Presup. as you claim to you would have understood this.
                  What does the Bible say about truth? I can answer this, but you would not like my answer because it’s very basis is God’s ultimate authority, and according to other members of this discussion group, the church has ultimate authority.  Which I still don’t understand, when they exalt the incarnation, and deny the words of the Incarnate, which are written in the Bible, which are the Words of God.
                  If you were to ask question worthy of a response I would answer your questions. When are you going to answer the questions I have asked you?
                   
                   
                • Brett Eustace
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 28, 2001
                    <<Which I still don’t understand, when they exalt the incarnation, and deny the words of the Incarnate, which are written in the Bible, which are the Words of God.>>
                     
                    I do exalt the Incarnation just as scripture does, whats the problem?
                    Hebrews 2 should tell you quite plainly that we are all toast apart from Christ being made like those for whom He came to save. In what way does exalting the Incarnation deny the the words of God?
                     
                    I deny neither the Words of God or the Incarnation of THE WORD of God.
                     
                    Seriously, why does discussing this seem to bother you?
                    Isnt it as valid a topic as anything else such as the Trinity, predestination atonement etc? It certainly isnt secondary or non-essential..yet it seems to be affecting some folks on this group like some sort of repellent. I'm really suprised.
                     
                    Brett<><



                    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                  • StAthanasius373@aol.com
                    In a message dated 4/28/01 10:14:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Which flavor of Presbyterian? I think there are nine Presbyterian denominations in the U.S.,
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 28, 2001
                      In a message dated 4/28/01 10:14:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      solascriptura2@... writes:


                      In response to your wonder of my journey for truth, yes I have reached a
                      place of cognitive rest on most areas in the Presbyterian Church


                      Which flavor of Presbyterian? I think there are nine Presbyterian
                      denominations in the U.S., two of them are headquartered here in Pittsburgh.

                      <<Again I have not made the statement that I have all knowledge, only the
                      knowledge that God has given man, I which He has graciously given me some.  I
                      acknowledge my knowledge from   God,  Where do you get yours? >>

                      Apparently your knowledge does not find its only source in scripture if you
                      are a confessional Presbyterian. There are multiple extra-biblical items in
                      the WCF and the Westminster Catechism, as well as some blatantly unscriptural
                      doctrines enumerated there. Before we begin: Would you like to list your
                      exceptions to the Confession, as is customary in the examination of
                      Presbytery officers?

                      <<What does the Bible say about truth?>>

                      It's pillar and ground is the Church.

                      <<Which I still don’t understand, when they exalt the incarnation, and deny
                      the words of the Incarnate, which are written in the Bible, which are the
                      Words of God.>>

                      Like, "This is my body." Maybe I'll carve this into my table like Luther did
                      at Marburg, and beat on the table screaming at the top of my lungs, "Hoc est
                      corpus Meum!"

                      <<When are you going to answer the questions I have asked you? >>

                      I think you owe us a few posts, not the other way around. You said we didn't
                      even have the right to exist as a group, but your knowledge is by far the
                      weakest of the bunch so far. You challenged us; now put up or shut up.

                      Don
                    • Dan Leaming
                      I am not bothered by the incarnation, I never said I was. What I am saying and maybe I missed understood you when you said that it was the apologetics of the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 29, 2001
                        I am not bothered by the incarnation, I never said I was.  What I am saying and maybe I missed understood you when you said that it was the apologetics of the faith, that's what I got out a previous statement you had made to me.  I that was not what you meant I apologize.  But I do agree that the incarnation is an important part of my faith.  I just deny that is the foundation for apologetics, when God would be the final authority of apologetics.
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:29 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (unknown)

                        <<Which I still don’t understand, when they exalt the incarnation, and deny the words of the Incarnate, which are written in the Bible, which are the Words of God.>>
                         
                        I do exalt the Incarnation just as scripture does, whats the problem?
                        Hebrews 2 should tell you quite plainly that we are all toast apart from Christ being made like those for whom He came to save. In what way does exalting the Incarnation deny the the words of God?
                         
                        I deny neither the Words of God or the Incarnation of THE WORD of God.
                         
                        Seriously, why does discussing this seem to bother you?
                        Isnt it as valid a topic as anything else such as the Trinity, predestination atonement etc? It certainly isnt secondary or non-essential..yet it seems to be affecting some folks on this group like some sort of repellent. I'm really suprised.
                         
                        Brett<><


                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

                      • Brett Eustace
                        ... I am not bothered by the incarnation, I never said I was. What I am saying and maybe I missed understood you when you said that it was the apologetics of
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 29, 2001
                          >>From: Dan Leaming
                          I am not bothered by the incarnation, I never said I was.  What I am saying and maybe I missed understood you when you said that it was the apologetics of the faith, that's what I got out a previous statement you had made to me.  I that was not what you meant I apologize.  But I do agree that the incarnation is an important part of my faith.  I just deny that is the foundation for apologetics, when God would be the final authority of apologetics.<<
                           
                          It is An important cornerstone in understanding much within catholic theology...in both western and Orthodox traditions...as well as classic mainline protestant traditions. 
                          Not the only issue though, of course. It does however run through pretty much every doctrinal issue there is.
                          I apologize if i diatribed too much earlier but i do feel that the incarnation is an often misunderstood and ignored topic within modern evangelicalism which is largely the background im coming from. Many modern 'Protestant' churches today do not seem to pay the same attention to the finer points of Trinitarian and Christological theology, as their founders did. Perhaps this is why i am now so zealous to understand these things in their fullness and without cutting corners.
                           
                          Brett<><
                           



                          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                        • Dan Leaming
                          I completely understand where you are coming from. You have made me think about the incarnation a little more. I, like you hold the doctrine of the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 29, 2001
                            I completely understand where you are coming from.  You have made me think about the incarnation a little more.  I, like you hold the doctrine of the incarnation closely.  It is one of the key foundation of our faith, like you said early, if we didn't have the incarnation we would have a Savior.  I don't think that it however is all that much misunderstood as you think, I've been a Christian for quiet along time and the church I have visited, both mainline and non, have held the doctrine closely, but at the same time look at Mary as a woman who was being obedient to God, as we all should be, which I would assume you would hold true too.  It is true alot of the "Protestant" churches focus on other idealogies more than they should.  That is why I have regected allot of what the other denominations believe.  I was telling my room mate the other day that I'm more sturn against other "Christians" than I am to anyone else, because they should know better.  I appreciate our discussion over the last few days, it has been one of the more pleasant ones that I have had since signing on to this group.  I hope that we are able to keep the civility in our discussion like we have in this last one.  I pray the Lord keep well.
                             
                            Dan
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 4:45 PM
                            Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (unknown)

                            >>From: Dan Leaming
                            I am not bothered by the incarnation, I never said I was.  What I am saying and maybe I missed understood you when you said that it was the apologetics of the faith, that's what I got out a previous statement you had made to me.  If that was not what you meant I apologize.  But I do agree that the incarnation is an important part of my faith.  I just deny that is the foundation for apologetics, when God would be the final authority of apologetics.<<
                             
                            It is An important cornerstone in understanding much within catholic theology...in both western and Orthodox traditions...as well as classic mainline protestant traditions. 
                            Not the only issue though, of course. It does however run through pretty much every doctrinal issue there is.
                            I apologize if i diatribed too much earlier but i do feel that the incarnation is an often misunderstood and ignored topic within modern evangelicalism which is largely the background im coming from. Many modern 'Protestant' churches today do not seem to pay the same attention to the finer points of Trinitarian and Christological theology, as their founders did. Perhaps this is why i am now so zealous to understand these things in their fullness and without cutting corners.
                             
                            Brett<><
                             


                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.