Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 8:24:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like too many think it too rude to tell David Miller that he is wrong about this and why he is wrong. Hasn't been my problem. When ignored, however, I leave well enough along. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Children
In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:59:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shirley has had migraine headaches with this pregnancy. Please pray for their protection, and for the Lord to bless, prosper, and use them mightily. Thanks so much. I just did and my sweetie and I will continue to do so. Keep us up dated. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:23:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We all come up a little short, and we hate that. So, before the cross we practiced sin and committed acts of righteousness. Now we practice righteousness and commit acts of sin. I thought that sounded pretty good John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 3:41:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WhewâI thought you were regressing, there, John. J Izzy I keep trying, Izzy. In fact, my mother said I was always trying. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Bill wrote: > I bring my knowledge of these truths from the > Gospels of Christ with me to my translation of > John's epistle. I do not apologize for that. Yes, it does seem to me that you let your theology force itself upon the passage. We all bring such with us, but we should try to let the passage speak for itself. I certainly do not disagree with the theology you bring, but when it blinds you to other issues being brought forth, that is troublesome to me. Bill wrote: > And so you or any Greek scholar are welcome > to disagree with my rendering of these Greek > words. I ask only that you be honest enough > to consider what you are bringing with you > when you go to the same text and begin > to translate. I think I am well aware of what I bring with me, but if not, it seems like nobody will step up to the plate and tell me about it. Seems like too many think it too rude to tell David Miller that he is wrong about this and why he is wrong. Look, you never addressed my main question. I never objected to word order at all, but you gave a long lecture about how word order does not matter. Fine. No problem there. My problem was with how you perceived "pas" to be modifying "oidamen." I have been taught and have observed in the Greek Bible that adjectives always agree in case, gender, and number with the words they modify. So if this word was being used to modify "oidamen" as you say, it should be plural instead of singular. In other words, the word would have been rendered "pantes" instead of "pas." Therefore, I reject your translation on this basis. If you say fine, and leave it at that, then I guess life goes on. However, I think a truly honest discussion would consider this point and attempt to help me understand my error, or you would recognize that you have brought too much of your theology into play here and are missing the aspect that John is bringing out here, and that is how Christ becomes incarnated within us, how we partake of his divine nature, and how it finds expression through us. We truly receive power to become sons of God, as John mentions in his gospel. I also asked you to show some passages which use "pas" as a modifier in the way that you suggest, but your response offered none. This is a very common word, used more than 1200 times. I have checked many and I can't find any. I can only assume from your silence that you have never seen it either. I have brought to you other passages that have used "pas" in connection "ho" and seems to translate it well as "whosoever." No comment from you about that. In this last post, you seem to want to force "pas" as a modifier and do not realize that adjectives often stand alone. Mounce terms this being either "adjectivally" or "substantivally." Obviously I take the position that "pas" is used substantivally here, but you seem to see no option for that. I presented the interlinears, hoping for you to provide your own, and perhaps from there lead to a translation that is appreciative of the words used in the text. I was a little confused by your reference to "transliteration" when it seemed that you perhaps meant the interlinear translation. You seemed to agree with the interlinears I provided, yet your translation strays very far away from it. You claim liberty to do this because a transliteration is not a translation. Ok. How about then providing me with other Greek scholars fluent in Greek who would translate this passage as you have. I have searched dozens of translations and I can't find one. Many do try and mangle this verse to keep it from saying what it obviously says. Their theology, which is similar to yours, is obviously being pushed into their translations, yet none of them are so bold as to translate this first phrase as speaking about Christ rather than all of us who are born of God through faith in Christ. You may be tired of this whole thing and if so, no big deal. I'm ready to move on too, but if we leave it at this, I must admit to being a little dissatisfied. At the very least, you should say something about how an adjective in the singular can be used to modify a word that is plural. Why use "pas" instead of "pantes"? I don't know if you have Mounce's grammar, "Basics of Biblical Greek." I decided to pull it off my shelf and take a look because you had mentioned that you had met Mounce and appreciated him. Anyway, in chapter 9 on adjectives, Mounce says in 9.8, "An adjective has case, number, and gender, and will always have the same case, number, and gender as the noun it modifies." I realize that this is kind of being technical with one authority here, but if what Mounce says is true, on what basis do you claim that "pas" in 1 John 5:18 modifies "oidamen"? Do you think Mounce is wrong, or is there some other explanation? "Oidamen" is plural while "pas" is singular. If you could at least consider this one important point, I would appreciate it. Peace be with you. David Miller, Bev
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Children
That's some really neat stories, Izzy. I'm excited for your family. I hope everything goes well now. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Christian Children TT’ers, My son, Todd, and his wife, Shirley, have 3 daughters. Gretchen (to be 6 this July 4th), Heidi (just turned 4), and Sofie (just turned 2). When Shirley was pg. with Sofie two years ago (Gretchen was 3 ½) they were all hoping for a boy (weren’t sure what it would be), and talking about a baby boy, etc. Shirley said all of a sudden one day when they were talking like that, Gretchen looked at her seriously and said, “No, Mommy. This baby is going to be a girl. The next one will be a boy.” Now Shirley is pg. again, and this time they asked ultrasound tech to tell them the sex. It’s a boy! J Question: Can a 3 yr old girl have a prophetic gift? (Or did she just have a 50:50 chance, and got it right?) Also, last year they explained the gospel clearly to Gretchen, and she prayed to be born again. Then they said she started asking about their neighbors, one by one, wanting to know if they are saved, too. Todd & Shirley said they weren’t exactly sure whether the neighbors were saved or not. Gretchen then cried and begged until they gave her permission to go to each neighbor’s house, knock on the door, and tell them that Jesus loves them, and they needed to ask Jesus into their hearts. Then she was happy. What a pure heart children have when they are raised in a godly home! Todd & Shirley don’t allow the girls to watch TV, they homeschool, (Gretchen was reading at 4 yrs, now Heidi is reading, too), and they of course are very involved in church and homeschooling groups. Last week they were not able to go on their usual trip with the church group to visit and minister at the local nursing home. Gretchen cried, heartbroken, about it. She just loves going! Please pray for Todd’s whole family, including the new baby boy (due in October). Shirley has had migraine headaches with this pregnancy. Please pray for their protection, and for the Lord to bless, prosper, and use them mightily. Thanks so much. Izzy
[TruthTalk] Christian Children
TT’ers, My son, Todd, and his wife, Shirley, have 3 daughters. Gretchen (to be 6 this July 4th), Heidi (just turned 4), and Sofie (just turned 2). When Shirley was pg. with Sofie two years ago (Gretchen was 3 ½) they were all hoping for a boy (weren’t sure what it would be), and talking about a baby boy, etc. Shirley said all of a sudden one day when they were talking like that, Gretchen looked at her seriously and said, “No, Mommy. This baby is going to be a girl. The next one will be a boy.” Now Shirley is pg. again, and this time they asked ultrasound tech to tell them the sex. It’s a boy! J Question: Can a 3 yr old girl have a prophetic gift? (Or did she just have a 50:50 chance, and got it right?) Also, last year they explained the gospel clearly to Gretchen, and she prayed to be born again. Then they said she started asking about their neighbors, one by one, wanting to know if they are saved, too. Todd & Shirley said they weren’t exactly sure whether the neighbors were saved or not. Gretchen then cried and begged until they gave her permission to go to each neighbor’s house, knock on the door, and tell them that Jesus loves them, and they needed to ask Jesus into their hearts. Then she was happy. What a pure heart children have when they are raised in a godly home! Todd & Shirley don’t allow the girls to watch TV, they homeschool, (Gretchen was reading at 4 yrs, now Heidi is reading, too), and they of course are very involved in church and homeschooling groups. Last week they were not able to go on their usual trip with the church group to visit and minister at the local nursing home. Gretchen cried, heartbroken, about it. She just loves going! Please pray for Todd’s whole family, including the new baby boy (due in October). Shirley has had migraine headaches with this pregnancy. Please pray for their protection, and for the Lord to bless, prosper, and use them mightily. Thanks so much. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance Muir wrote: In an earlier post I referred to words(language) as a blunt instrument. They(words) don't possess the level of exactitude that say, mathematics possesses. Pattern and its signification is useful. Hatred, when used of sin in the life of this believer (yikes! am I revealing too much?) seems a touch unrealistic. As you cannot picture in a picture how a picture pictures what it pictures so that which is certain is not true and that which is true is not certain. What you find in dictionary definitions are references to further definitions.Most truth is better felt than telt. Blessings, Lance Based on what I read in the Bible, I believe that once a person has committed him/her self to follow Christ, sin will no longer be the PATTERN of their life. If they are in Christ, they will hate sin as He does. If they are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will have the ability to never sin again. Still, hating sin and having the ability to live a perfect life does not guarantee a sinless life; as most of us can testify. That is why we need a Savior. If you hate sin and still screw up on occasion, you have an advocate to plead your case, and mercy and grace are available. If sin is the pattern of your life, to me that is an indication that you are not right with your creator and you are very likely bound for Hell. Terry == It would probably be best if I gave you examples so that the picture you picture will be a true picture as well as certain. 1.When you turn on the computer each and every morning and click on favorites or bookmarks, multiple porno sites pop up and you spend hours lusting over the tender young maidens pictured thereon. 2. When you divorce for reasons other than adultery, then remarry and live day after day in an adulterous relationship. 3. When you scheme and lie and manipulate daily to get to the top in your chosen field. Those are three instances in which sin is the pattern of the persons life. They are doing what they want to do with no regard for what the Lord would have them do. 4. when you turn on the 'puter and a porno ad pops up unexpectedly, and you study it a few seconds longer than it takes to determine that it is ungodly filth. 5. You have a dollar. You also have a neighbor in need, and at the same time, you have a desire to buy a lotto ticket. You decide to buy the ticket and if you win you will help your neighbor. 6. You eat lunch at the same burger barn every day. There is a dope dealer there every day also and you see him actually give small packets of some substance to students in exchange for lunch money, but you mind your own business and do not report this to anyone. These are not admirable actions. They are sins, but they are not the pattern of your life. The Bible plainly teaches that there are degrees of sin. None are good, but some are worse than others. Get the Picture? :-) We all sin, some worse than others. No golfer hits a hole in one off every tee. No pitcher throws nothing but called strikes. No doctor cures every patient. No Christian is perfect.. We all come up a little short, and we hate that. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Whew—I thought you were regressing, there, John. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection In a message dated 4/10/2004 9:41:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't betoo hard on yourself -- without your imput (Izzy -- check it out) we would be at greound zero on this point. I got it right this time (input rather than impute -- right? ) The other is the fault of my computer, obviously. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Oh, I guess I missed that. Actually, I was thinking about how our relationships change and grow as we age (hopefully). So, at what age did you become a “person”? (Only kidding!) As I alluded to, one thing I really like about my TT relationships is that I can turn the computer off! J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Izzy: The "sainted" Bill Taylor wrote on this recently. Using a SciFi scenario imagine the "Amazing diminishing Person". To the extent that we are comprised of relationships from the womb forward; the removal of any one of them makes us into someone less than we are. God wouldn't be God if He were not Father, Son & Spirit. That's macro. Micro would be Lance without Izzy (seriously) Lance Help/Hurt?? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 10:29 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, I’m asking YOU not to be so simplistic. I like the thoughts that you brought up, but you did not expand on them very much. In what way do you think that we only persons in relation with other persons? For example, my dog and cat are very relational. They follow me around the house, up and down the stairs, and into every room I’m in all day long. They want to be with me, hear my voice, see what I’m doing. They even love being just with each other when there are no people around. There are people who think they are very relational who are just like my dog and cat. They have to be with someone all the time or they aren’t happy. They are, in fact, terrified of being alone. Why? Because they have no concept of being themselves apart from who they are in relation to others. They look to other people to define who they are. They think that, alone, they are nobody. I think a well-adjusted human being is both relational (needing someone to relate to, talk to, listen to, care for, etc.) AND needs also to have time apart, alone, by themselves, isolated, etc. You can get warped in one direction or the other. I MUST have time alone, and large doses of it, in order to get back into relationship with others (which can be very depleting.) I must have time alone in order to read, think, create, commune with the Lord, contemplate His Word, listen to His voice, or just listen to the grass growing in the back yard. So, I do not think “relationship” entirely defines us as human beings; only one aspect of our personhood. Nor do I think it defines God, entirely. He probably needs as much “space” from us, at times, as we need from each other. And thank God for the “delete” button on TruthTalk. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Anyone out there old enough to remember Burns & Allen? Say goodnight Gracie. Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 09:19 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection So, If a person were stranded on an island with no one to commune with, they would cease to be a person? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does “in communion” mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 9:03:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why cling to doctrines that will never conform you to godliness and/or holiness? Who said that I did this? Nothing I believe in or teach leads me away from life's attempt at righteousness. Why do you say that salvation by grace apart from works is a false doctrine? jt: Because the root of this belief system is Calvin's Institutes rather than God's Word the definition of grace as unmerited favor is wrong. Also ppl who ascribe to this way of thinking and believing usually define works and obedience as one and the same which is also in error. When Paul says that we are "saved by faith and not by works of the law" what in the world is "works" in that statement if not obedience? I don't go out and live like hell knowing that God will save me anyway. jt: We don't need to "go out and live like hell" We have hell within us (see Mark 7:20-23) and this is what we need to be dealing with on a daily basis before the Lord. Who said anything about "needing" to live like hell. In fact I said I did NOT act that way. And If I am arguing that I am not perfect, then I must be talking about what is inside. So what was your point? When James speaks of justification by works, he has in mind something very different from Paul's use of "works." I believe that James knows that faith comes first and works are an extension of that faith, proving it (faith) to be alive and viable. But salvation is secured at the point of faith. jt: I don't have a problem with James; he is saying that faith without corresponding actions is dead which makes sense to me. judyt Of course you don't. But you sure do have one with Paul. At the beginning of this post, I asked why you rejected salvation by faith apart from works. I was using Paul's very words in this question. You don't have sin in your life such as bigotry, pride, lust, conceit, degrees of anger, laziness, sins of omission and so on? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 9:41:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't betoo hard on yourself -- without your imput (Izzy -- check it out) we would be at greound zero on this point. I got it right this time (input rather than impute -- right? ) The other is the fault of my computer, obviously. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Izzy: The "sainted" Bill Taylor wrote on this recently. Using a SciFi scenario imagine the "Amazing diminishing Person". To the extent that we are comprised of relationships from the womb forward; the removal of any one of them makes us into someone less than we are. God wouldn't be God if He were not Father, Son & Spirit. That's macro. Micro would be Lance without Izzy (seriously) Lance Help/Hurt?? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 10:29 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, Im asking YOU not to be so simplistic. I like the thoughts that you brought up, but you did not expand on them very much. In what way do you think that we only persons in relation with other persons? For example, my dog and cat are very relational. They follow me around the house, up and down the stairs, and into every room Im in all day long. They want to be with me, hear my voice, see what Im doing. They even love being just with each other when there are no people around. There are people who think they are very relational who are just like my dog and cat. They have to be with someone all the time or they arent happy. They are, in fact, terrified of being alone. Why? Because they have no concept of being themselves apart from who they are in relation to others. They look to other people to define who they are. They think that, alone, they are nobody. I think a well-adjusted human being is both relational (needing someone to relate to, talk to, listen to, care for, etc.) AND needs also to have time apart, alone, by themselves, isolated, etc. You can get warped in one direction or the other. I MUST have time alone, and large doses of it, in order to get back into relationship with others (which can be very depleting.) I must have time alone in order to read, think, create, commune with the Lord, contemplate His Word, listen to His voice, or just listen to the grass growing in the back yard. So, I do not think relationship entirely defines us as human beings; only one aspect of our personhood. Nor do I think it defines God, entirely. He probably needs as much space from us, at times, as we need from each other. And thank God for the delete button on TruthTalk. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Anyone out there old enough to remember Burns & Allen? Say goodnight Gracie. Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 09:19 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection So, If a person were stranded on an island with no one to commune with, they would cease to be a person? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:33 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does in communion mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In an earlier post I referred to words(language) as a blunt instrument. They(words) don't possess the level of exactitude that say, mathematics possesses. Pattern and its signification is useful. Hatred, when used of sin in the life of this believer (yikes! am I revealing too much?) seems a touch unrealistic. As you cannot picture in a picture how a picture pictures what it pictures so that which is certain is not true and that which is true is not certain. What you find in dictionary definitions are references to further definitions.Most truth is better felt than telt. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 14:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Judy Taylor wrote: From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Based on what I read in the Bible, I believe that once a person has committed him/her self to follow Christ, sin will no longer be the PATTERN of their life. If they are in Christ, they will hate sin as He does. If they are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will have the ability to never sin again. Still, hating sin and having the ability to live a perfect life does not guarantee a sinless life; as most of us can testify. That is why we need a Savior. If you hate sin and still screw up on occasion, you have an advocate to plead your case, and mercy and grace are available. If sin is the pattern of your life, to me that is an indication that you are not right with your creator and you are very likely bound for Hell.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Conference and Street Preachers
Sorry I missed you Blaine maybe next time.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have been on Spring Vacation, which for me started right after LDS Conference in Salt Lake City last Sunday, and now have a catchup of around 250 messages, mostly TT messages. I walked over to the conference Center to see the Street Preachers before the afternoon session on Sunday, wanting to see ol' Kevin Deagan and whoever else might be around. Kevin had apparently just walked off carrying his sign a few moments before, however, so I did not get to meet him personally. But I did visit a moment with my old friend and TTr, Ruben Israel. I think I also saw Dean there, but he seemed busy and I wasn't sure it was him, and then I guess he left, because when I looked around for him after talking to Ruben, I couldn't spot him. There were many people walking past, and it was easy to get lost in the shuffle, I suppose. I very much enjoyed my short visit with Ruben, who was talking to a minister wearing standard attire--black suit with a high white collar. The minister seemed very friendly, and complimentary of one of the the LDS speakers from the morning session, President Faust, the second couselor to President Gordon B. Hinckley, but unfortunately, I could not discuss much because I had not been watching TV during Faust's speech earlier in the day. I should have hung around for awhile because when I drove past about a half hour later, I saw Kevin (I think it was him--a stout fellow with a ruddy face) rolling up his sign--but the traffic was moving steady, so could not stop. I was wearing cutoffs, so actually felt a little out of place there anyway. Most people except the Street Preachers were wearing Sunday-best--the people mostly looked friendly, happy and cleancut. Beautiful young Mormon women were omnipresent, all over the place. I have to say Mormon women are among the most attractive in the world!! They are so clean and virtuous looking, and look very much as if they are also smart and well-educated. I spoke to one young woman who was walking alone, and she was graciously friendly. She looked a lot like a lot of young Mormon women I have known--almost a stereotype, in fact. The fact that I was wearing cutoffs and casual clothing didn't seem to phase her. But because of my attire, she might have thought I was one of Kevin and Ruben's group, so may have been trying extra hard to be inoffensive. (:>) I have seen Mormon girls do that, especially with a minority person, such as a Black man or woman. The boys (Street Preachers) were pretty much confined to certain areas, and the police were all over the place, mostly in the streets directing traffic, but apparently also there for security purposes. I also saw a lot of men dressed in suits, just sort of hanging around--some had "security" writting on badges, but many apparently were just there for whatever reasons, maybe undercover men.. . I did not see anything offensive being done by anyone. Most of the Street Preachers were standing around with small groups talking quietly, or just standing silently by themselves. I asked one of them his name and he would not divulge it--I then asked him if he knew Kevin Deagan, and his face brightened up, and he pointed West of where he was standing--just then the Police officer directing traffic started yelling, so I stepped on the pedal and moved on around the corner. I went around again, and this time the cop was grinning at me with an apologetic _expression_ on his face--he said, as I drove past him with my window down, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!!" That was an allusion to the movie, Cool Hand Luke, but I took it to refer to the Street Preachers. But he may have just been trying to make up for being heavy handed and yelling at me earlier? BlaineBorrowmanDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Judy Taylor wrote: From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Based on what I read in the Bible, I believe that once a person has committed him/her self to follow Christ, sin will no longer be the PATTERN of their life. If they are in Christ, they will hate sin as He does. If they are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will have the ability to never sin again. Still, hating sin and having the ability to live a perfect life does not guarantee a sinless life; as most of us can testify. That is why we need a Savior. If you hate sin and still screw up on occasion, you have an advocate to plead your case, and mercy and grace are available. If sin is the pattern of your life, to me that is an indication that you are not right with your creator and you are very likely bound for Hell. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Huh??? Don't betoo hard on yourself -- without your imput (Izzy -- check it out) we would be at greound zero on this point. John
Re: [TruthTalk] The faithfulness of Christ
Good morning, Judy. What Jesus did in his faithfulness to the Father is what restored our humanity and gives us now the possibility of following in his steps. Of course, he is our example. Who could ask for better! But he is that and more. Said differently, Christ's atonement offers more than just a good example for us to follow. This is where Pelagius got in trouble. He limited atonement to a moral theory. We are saved not by being good but by the goodness of him who saves us. Being good is walking in obedience to Christ. It is not that obedience which saves us. Please do not misread what I have argued in my "faithfulness of Christ" post. I did not argue there that every occurrence of pistis is in reference to Christ. If you insist on continuing to insinuate that I did, then at least know that I know what you are doing. I believe the Bible does teach that salvation is entirely of the Lord. It is in appreciation of his love for me that I am obedient of him. I would be irresponsible to be anything less than appreciative and thus obedient. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The faithfulness of Christ Good Morning Billt; Since some on TT have a tendency to call anything but wholehearted agreement "being disagreeable" and Lance has already taken his ball and gone home. I hope you will receive this in the spirit in which it is written. I have read and thought about this "faithfulness that is not our own" you have been writing on and it does not bear witness with other scripture. To me it is like Calvinism dressed in different clothes because it puts ALL responsibility on God and none on us. I don't have the time right now to do a thorough search of the scriptures but even without this along with the knowledge of Greek tenses and verbs your hypothesis would not stand the scrutiny of the rest of scripture. Two scriptures that come to me just now are 1 Peter 2:21 "For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his steps" 1 Peter 1:9 "Receiving the end of YOUR FAITH (note: not His faithfulness), even the salvation of your souls." judyt From: Wm. Taylor Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:45 AM John, I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like theelders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your gracedoctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole ofScripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that there was a transferenceof righteousness which took place between Christ and us. I just have asmall question about the substitution of our faith for Christ'srighteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness thatstands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As youwould, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the fleshand is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that weare saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthlylife -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness.Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and isthus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, isjustification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinctionis important, I believe, because it leaves room for other aspects ofatonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonementpost below). Allow me now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relationto pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eightoccasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or itsequivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to thecentral issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation byhumans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, thefaith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from our faith inhim), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are otheroccurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to thefaith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is,after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness ofChrist" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ... in theseeight verses and just see what it does for your understanding of Christ'satoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basicoccurrences are: Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a man is not justified from worksof law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis IesouChristou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus,
Re: [TruthTalk] Trinity
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:05:07 -0700 Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes to DavidM: Why does everybody in TT want to argue??? hmmm.. G ~ P 235
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why cling to doctrines that will never conform you to godliness and/or holiness? Why do you say that salvation by grace apart from works is a false doctrine? jt: Because the root of this belief system is Calvin's Institutes rather than God's Word the definition of grace as unmerited favor is wrong. Also ppl who ascribe to this way of thinking and believing usually define works and obedience as one and the same which is also in error. I don't go out and live like hell knowing that God will save me anyway. jt: We don't need to "go out and live like hell" We have hell within us (see Mark 7:20-23) and this is what we need to be dealing with on a daily basis before the Lord. When James speaks wof justification by works, he has in mind something very different than Paul's use of "works." I believe that James knows that faith comes first and works are anextention of that faith, proving it (faith) to be alive and viable. But salvation is secured at the point of faith. jt: I don't have a problem with James; he is saying that faith without corresponding actions is dead which makes sense to me. judyt John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
JT: Have a blessed Easter. Praise God! He is Risen! Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 10:59 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance wrote > I believe our Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) is a relational God. I believe that His Being is in Communion. I believe that we are made in God's image. jt: You didn't say with whom His Being is in communion Lance Adam WAS made in God's image but Adam fell; so the image of God has been marred since then. Seth was not made in God's image. See Genesis 5:3 and all of us from Seth on have been made in the image of the first Adam (fallen) rather than the image of God. Let's keep our doctrine straight here I believe that our being is in communion. I believe that introspection is the least effective means of knowing ourselves. I believe this "love" to be imperfect and progressive in us but perfect and complete in Him. jt: What is ourbeing in communion with Lance? Where is love? How do we know of a certainty that we are in Him? judyt
[TruthTalk] The faithfulness of Christ
ï Good Morning Billt; Since some on TT have a tendency to call anything but wholehearted agreement "being disagreeable" and Lance has already taken his ball and gone home. I hope you will receive this in the spirit in which it is written. I have read and thought about this "faithfulness that is not our own" you have been writing on and it does not bear witness with other scripture. To me it is like Calvinism dressed in different clothes because it puts ALL responsibility on God and none on us. I don't have the time right now to do a thorough search of the scriptures but even without this along with the knowledge of Greek tenses and verbs your hypothesis would not stand the scrutiny of the rest of scripture. Two scriptures that come to me just now are 1 Peter 2:21 "For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his steps" 1 Peter 1:9 "Receiving the end of YOUR FAITH (note: not His faithfulness), even the salvation of your souls." judyt From: Wm. Taylor Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:45 AM John, I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like theelders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your gracedoctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole ofScripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that there was a transferenceof righteousness which took place between Christ and us. I just have asmall question about the substitution of our faith for Christ'srighteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness thatstands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As youwould, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the fleshand is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that weare saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthlylife -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness.Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and isthus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, isjustification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinctionis important, I believe, because it leaves room for other aspects ofatonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonementpost below). Allow me now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relationto pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eightoccasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or itsequivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to thecentral issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation byhumans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, thefaith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from our faith inhim), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are otheroccurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to thefaith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is,after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness ofChrist" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ... in theseeight verses and just see what it does for your understanding of Christ'satoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basicoccurrences are: Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a man is not justified from worksof law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis IesouChristou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we mightbe justified from the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and notfrom works of law." Gal 2.20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I thatlive, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh Ilive by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who loved me and gavehimself up for me. Gal 3.22 -- "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that thepromise from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou)might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)." Rom 3.22 -- "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... therighteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou)unto all who believe (pisteuontas)." Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same section) -- "to display hisrighteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just andthe justifier of the man who is from the faithfulness of Jesus (pistisIesou)." Phil 3.9 -- "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having myown righteousness which is from law, but that which is through thefaithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on theground of that faith (pistis)." Eph 3.12 -- "according to the eternal purpose which he determined inChrist Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access withconfidence through the faithfulness of him (pistis autou)." John, I know you are aware of thi
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 8:28:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: john: What do people in your church do for fellowship -- just sit around quoting scripture. John jt: True fellowship ONLY happens when we receiving understanding from God so that we can agree from the heart and gather around God's Word in obedience to Him; this is what is happening in the Genesis 49:10 prophecy and it is what will happen in the last days. judyt This does not answer my question. How do the members of your church relate to each other -- simply through the quoting of scripture? This is a serious question. Anyway -- have a great Easter and forget about the bunny. It is all about Jesus. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 8:17:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why cling to doctrines that will never conform you to godliness and/or holiness? Why do you say that salvation by grace apart from works is a false doctrine? I don't go out and live like hell knowing that God will save me anyway. When James speaks wof justification by works, he has in mind something very different than Paul's use of "works." I believe that James knows that faith comes first and works are anextention of that faith, proving it (faith) to be alive and viable. But salvation is secured at the point of faith. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 8:05:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John: With apologies-Onto-relational, perichoresis. Both closer to the mark vis a vis "Being as Communion". Your mission should you...Lance Don't betoo hard on yourself -- without your imput (Izzy -- check it out) we would be at greound zero on this point. John
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]j[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Lance what difference does it make what you, I, or anyone thinks? What should be important to all of us is what God thinks. Why are you threatened by scripture? What's wrong with finding out what these terms mean in God's vernacular. You don't need a Phd, He explains it very clearly. So am I free to show you BY scripture? judyt john: What do people in your church do for fellowship -- just sit around quoting scripture. John jt: True fellowship ONLY happens when we receiving understanding from God so that we can agree from the heart and gather around God's Word in obedience to Him; this is what is happening in the Genesis 49:10 prophecy and it is what will happen in the last days. judyt
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believe in "Christian Perfection" "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14) john: This completely begs the question and insults everyone on this list who disagrees. It is an assertion that there is no such thing as honest debate on this issue. John jt: I can't imagine why the Word of God would insult anyone other than a reprobate, or for that matter be accused of begging the question. We can find out what the fruit are in Galatians 5:22,23 and from the above we can know that when God's Word falls among thorns in a person's heart no fruit will be brought to perfection in that person's life. No debate about it. Why cling to doctrines that will never conform you to godliness and/or holiness? Sure you can debate until the cows come home but for what purpose? It's possible to be honestly deceived. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
David wrote > Ok, so I share this information from the Interlinears so you can criticize them or correct them where you think it appropriate. Also, I share it so that we can be on the same page in discussing this phrase. It now seems to me that you have not dealt with that word hoti which both translators render as that. Perhaps you can give us your own translation of this entire Greek phrase. If you omit translating any of the words other than the definite article modifying Theou, please explain. David, I am happy with either of the transliterations you provide. Let us remember though that a transliteration is not a step in the process of translation. Transliteration is something like DOS For Dummies: it's a decent way to get Greek over into English font, but it is inferior in every way to an actual reading of Greek; in other words, there is much more to reading Greek than simply knowing how to identify symbols. The same holds true for translating Greek into English. Word order is important to English syntax, but much less so to Greek. Those who knew how to write well in Greek were much more intuned to assonance and alliteration than we are in our writing. Word order in Greek is always secondary to grammatical rules. Many times the nominative appears after the predicate and sometimes even after the accusative. Greek allowed for this because of case endings. No matter where the word appears in a statement the case ending signifies its use. For this reason writers of Greek could be much more creative in there use of other literary devices. It makes for beautiful Greek, but it causes problems for translators of Greek. We English speakers sometimes have to break some of our conventions to get to the thrust of a Greek thought. One of those problems presents itself in this verse. It is a question of what do we do with pas: Which way do we go with it in our translation? Pas is nominative. It modifies nominatives. There are two nominatives in 18a; the verb oidamen, which is first person plural and carries the subject of the sentence, and the participle gegennamenos. The interpretive task in translating this clause is to decide which of the two nominatives to modify. In regards to this, I was quite upfront with you in my earlier post. Allow me to be upfront with you again. I chose to modify the first person plural because of the question raised later in the verse concerning who it is who "keeps himself." Not even the born-from-above, Spirit-filled Christian keeps himself from the evil one. Christ is keeps him through the indwelling strength of the Holy Spirit. This is always, always true. John knew this better than anyone. I do not believe him to be suggesting anything to the contrary -- he was after all one of the disciples whom satan had asked to sift. He saw with his own eyes how quickly Peter had denied Jesus. He got the object of the lesson: strength and protection against the wicked one are in Christ through the Holy Spirit. I bring my knowledge of these truths from the Gospels of Christ with me to my translation of John's epistle. I do not apologize for that. And so you or any Greek scholar are welcome to disagree with my rendering of these Greek words. I ask only that you be honest enough to consider what you are bringing with you when you go to the same text and begin to translate. Blessing, Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:48 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Bill, I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. It went much deeper than was actually needed. I hope you did not spend too much time on it, but I do appreciate you explaining more thoroughly your perspective here. I have a much better idea now of what is going on in your mind to translate the text as you have. Your perspective on this verse actually came up on TruthTalk some years back, but nobody understood Greek enough to justify the translation. You have brought this much further along than I have ever seen it dealt with before. I cannot thank you enough for doing that. One matter that helped clarify things was your identifying ho as a definite article that you associate with gegennemenos. It also helped for you to explain that you view pas as a modifier of oidamen. I will have a criticism of this to express a little bit later. There still seems to be one word in the passage that you seem to ignore, and I have a follow up question about your understanding of pas. Let's consider the entire Greek phrase now so I can more fully appreciate your viewpoint. I don't want to miss out on anything going on in that great mind of yours. :-) The Greek phrase that we seem to need to focus on is: Oidamen hoti pas ho gegennemenos ek tou Theou ouch hamartanei This
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
John: With apologies-Onto-relational, perichoresis. Both closer to the mark vis a vis "Being as Communion". Your mission should you...Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 10:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection In a message dated 4/10/2004 5:34:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lanceafter thinking about it, my word would be "community." But, maybe community does not imply the intimacy of communion. Back to think tank. John
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance wrote > I believe our Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) is a relational God. I believe that His Being is in Communion. I believe that we are made in God's image. jt: You didn't say with whom His Being is in communion Lance Adam WAS made in God's image but Adam fell; so the image of God has been marred since then. Seth was not made in God's image. See Genesis 5:3 and all of us from Seth on have been made in the image of the first Adam (fallen) rather than the image of God. Let's keep our doctrine straight here I believe that our being is in communion. I believe that introspection is the least effective means of knowing ourselves. I believe this "love" to be imperfect and progressive in us but perfect and complete in Him. jt: What is ourbeing in communion with Lance? Where is love? How do we know of a certainty that we are in Him? judyt
Re: [TruthTalk]ON EASTER, Answering a fool according to his folly ...
In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:31:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: quote the "Elsman comments" when referencing such, it would make your statement meaningful & not just a baloney blunderbuss allegation. I did not accuse anyone of being stupid, by the way I just said that nothing in anyone's life would change after reading your emails. I think you probably have much to offer. But slander and such are not tools of enlightenment. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:51:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have a blessed Easter Judy. Praise God, He is Risen. Lance Yes -- it is a great time. Lift Him up this weekend. John
Re: [TruthTalk] The faithfulness of Christ
Bill -- thanks for the repost. I am all excited again. I do have a couple of thoughts but I have to take off. John In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:10:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Wm. Taylor Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:45 AM John, I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like the elders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your grace doctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that there was a transference of righteousness which took place between Christ and us. I just have a small question about the substitution of our faith for Christ's righteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness that stands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As you would, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the flesh and is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that we are saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthly life -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness. Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and is thus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, is justification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinction is important, I believe, because it leaves room for other aspects of atonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonement post below). Allow me now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by humans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from our faith in him), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is, after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness of Christ" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ... in these eight verses and just see what it does for your understanding of Christ's atoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basic occurrences are: Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and not from works of law." Gal 2.20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. Gal 3.22 -- "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou) might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)." Rom 3.22 -- "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) unto all who believe (pisteuontas)." Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same section) -- "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from the faithfulness of Jesus (pistis Iesou)." Phil 3.9 -- "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on the ground of that faith (pistis)." Eph 3.12 -- "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the faithfulness of him (pistis autou)." John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. The phrase pistis Christou is a genitive construct and can be translated either "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The first translation is what would be called an objective genitive, and the second translation a subjective genitive. It is the same distinction we have to make when interpreting the phrase "the righteousness of God." Is this God's righteousness bestowed upon us, i.e. "righteousness from God"? or is it the righteousness God demands of us? or might it be something else? We can only commit to and answer this question, and hence draw a distinction, in prayerful interpretation. If you are interested I will be glad to expand and clarify. Bill Taylor Appendix. From 03
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:16:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Lance what difference does it make what you, I, or anyone thinks? What should be important to all of us is what God thinks. Why are you threatened by scripture? What's wrong with finding out what these terms mean in God's vernacular. You don't need a Phd, He explains it very clearly. So am I free to show you BY scripture? judyt What do people in your church do for fellowship -- just sit around quoting scripture. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 5:50:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believe in "Christian Perfection" judyt "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14) This completely begs the question and insults everyone on this list who disagrees. It is an assertion that there is no such thing as honest debate on this issue. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 5:34:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance after thinking about it, my word would be "community." But, maybe community does not imply the intimacy of communion. Back to think tank. John
Re: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 5:14:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: H! When the son of man returns, will He find faith in the earth? judyt You bet He will -- that is all any of us have going for ourselves. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
In a message dated 4/10/2004 3:18:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. Great idea, Lance. Since I have had a lot to say in the past on this, I will be brief. Romans 7:25 and the preceding verses is my primary reason for believing that my imperfections are both understood and covered. I see Romans 8:5 defining walking in the spirit as a state of mind rather than an alignment with all that is legally right. I have counseled a number of addicts --- many of them cry when they read the closing verses of Romans 7. They do so because they see that someone (God) understands. Its pretty amazing. My message to them is this: "Accept the Lord now. You don't have to be clean before you are saved. The cross gives you all the time in the world to get your screwed up life straight." The message works. Couple that with the fact that I have never personally known a perfect Christian. Add to the mixed sin issues such as conceit, envy, bigotry, hatred and the like -- issues that are clearly with us all continually and you pretty much have the whole argument from me. John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance, I’m asking YOU not to be so simplistic. I like the thoughts that you brought up, but you did not expand on them very much. In what way do you think that we only persons in relation with other persons? For example, my dog and cat are very relational. They follow me around the house, up and down the stairs, and into every room I’m in all day long. They want to be with me, hear my voice, see what I’m doing. They even love being just with each other when there are no people around. There are people who think they are very relational who are just like my dog and cat. They have to be with someone all the time or they aren’t happy. They are, in fact, terrified of being alone. Why? Because they have no concept of being themselves apart from who they are in relation to others. They look to other people to define who they are. They think that, alone, they are nobody. I think a well-adjusted human being is both relational (needing someone to relate to, talk to, listen to, care for, etc.) AND needs also to have time apart, alone, by themselves, isolated, etc. You can get warped in one direction or the other. I MUST have time alone, and large doses of it, in order to get back into relationship with others (which can be very depleting.) I must have time alone in order to read, think, create, commune with the Lord, contemplate His Word, listen to His voice, or just listen to the grass growing in the back yard. So, I do not think “relationship” entirely defines us as human beings; only one aspect of our personhood. Nor do I think it defines God, entirely. He probably needs as much “space” from us, at times, as we need from each other. And thank God for the “delete” button on TruthTalk. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Anyone out there old enough to remember Burns & Allen? Say goodnight Gracie. Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 09:19 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection So, If a person were stranded on an island with no one to commune with, they would cease to be a person? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does “in communion” mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
John Smithson wrote: > This kind of debate is a problem. There is a > difference between debate and capitulation upon > demand. Miller seems overly concerned with winning > the debate rather than entering a discussion. Ugh. I don't care about winning any debate. I truly hope to be shown wrong. When that happens, my knowledge grows. If I just go on believing the same thing I have always believed, there is no growth in knowledge. John Smithson wrote: > David should not care if BillT "mangles" the greek. > Why not simply present your greek argument and allow > the other to present his? I am trying to accept his perspective, but I can't do that if he does not deal with the Greek properly. This same subject came up several years ago on TruthTalk, and when I said something similar to what I said here, it was just ignored and the subject did not go anywhere. I didn't want Bill to avoid dealing with the problems I encounter with his perspective on the passage. By the way, your aversion to the "repent or else" attitude is very misplaced. The Scriptures teach that in the last days men will not be able to endure sound doctrine, and this aversion to the attitude of repent or correct the other person is part of this apostasy from sound doctrine. Jesus very clearly taught that we either repent ourselves or we teach and correct others. Be careful not to judge righteousness from a position of unrighteousness. Whoever is not perfect in righteousness cannot always fully appreciate righteousness in others. I'm sure there were many who considered Jesus to lack perfection when they saw what he did in the Temple during the Passover season. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance wrote: > Would BT & DM tell us the process by/through which > they came to hold this view? When I was a teenager in high school, the Holy Spirit was upon me for several days. I kept reading Romans 6, 7, & 8 over and over again. God was dealing with my flesh. I was struggling with wanting to lean on the flesh and its pleasures. The Lord was dealing with me and communicating with me that the flesh and its appetite and desires was sinful. That week changed my life. The understanding came and I surrendered to the Lord my flesh, stomping on it like Jesus stomped on that snake in the movie The Passion. I started dying daily to the appetites of the flesh. Not too long after that, the whole book of 1 John made perfect sense to me. I understood it all in light of Romans 6, 7, & 8. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Have a blessed Easter Judy. Praise God, He is Risen. Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 09:14 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy: Will you please, without quoting scripture, tell me in your own words what you mean by Christian Perfection and, how it manifests in your own life as an illustration? Thanks, Lance jt: Lance what difference does it make what you, I, or anyone thinks? What should be important to all of us is what God thinks. Why are you threatened by scripture? What's wrong with finding out what these terms mean in God's vernacular. You don't need a Phd, He explains it very clearly. So am I free to show you BY scripture? judyt From: Judy Taylor From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believein "Christian Perfection" judyt "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard,go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, andbring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Anyone out there old enough to remember Burns & Allen? Say goodnight Gracie. Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 09:19 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection So, If a person were stranded on an island with no one to commune with, they would cease to be a person? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:33 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does in communion mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Bill, I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. It went much deeper than was actually needed. I hope you did not spend too much time on it, but I do appreciate you explaining more thoroughly your perspective here. I have a much better idea now of what is going on in your mind to translate the text as you have. Your perspective on this verse actually came up on TruthTalk some years back, but nobody understood Greek enough to justify the translation. You have brought this much further along than I have ever seen it dealt with before. I cannot thank you enough for doing that. One matter that helped clarify things was your identifying ho as a definite article that you associate with gegennemenos. It also helped for you to explain that you view pas as a modifier of oidamen. I will have a criticism of this to express a little bit later. There still seems to be one word in the passage that you seem to ignore, and I have a follow up question about your understanding of pas. Let's consider the entire Greek phrase now so I can more fully appreciate your viewpoint. I don't want to miss out on anything going on in that great mind of yours. :-) The Greek phrase that we seem to need to focus on is: Oidamen hoti pas ho gegennemenos ek tou Theou ouch hamartanei This phrase appears to be the same in both the Majority Text Greek Bible and the Nestle Aland Greek Bible. I have a Greek Interlinear from the United Bible Societies Fourth Edition, translated by Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, which renders it this way: Oidamen hoti pas ho gegennemenos ek tou Theou ouch hamartanei We know that everyone having been born of – God does not continually sin I have underlined the Greek and English words that go together since it is difficult to try and line the text up. I have another Greek Interlinear by George Ricker Berry which is based upon Stephens’ text. He renders the passage this way: Oidamen hoti pas ho gegennemenos ek tou Theou ouch hamartanei We know that anyone that has been begotten of God not sins Berry numbers the words so that it should actually read as: "We know that not anyone that has been begotten of God sins." Ok, so I share this information from the Interlinears so you can criticize them or correct them where you think it appropriate. Also, I share it so that we can be on the same page in discussing this phrase. It now seems to me that you have not dealt with that word hoti which both translators render as that. Perhaps you can give us your own translation of this entire Greek phrase. If you omit translating any of the words other than the definite article modifying Theou, please explain. In regards to pas, I have a criticism in that its number does not agree with the noun you claim it modifies. Isn’t it true that Oidamen is plural whereas pas is singular? Don’t you see this as a problem? Some explanation here would be appreciated. If you have an explanation for the number not agreeing, maybe you can do the following for me. Pas is a very common Greek word translated over 1200 times. Can you give me one or two verses where this word is used in the elative sense that you consider it to be used here? You said that you consider it to modify oidamen in this passage. Maybe by looking at some other verses where it is used this way will help me accept your perspective. I consider 1 John 5:1 to have a similar construction of Greek words, and so I would like to see you translate the first part of it. The Greek reads: Pas ho pistenon hoti Iesous estin ho Christos I see this as saying literally, "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ" or "Everyone that believes that Jesus is the Christ." How would you translate this passage? Notice the pas ho phrase similar to 1 John 5:18. You might also compare 1 John 3:6, 9, 15 which also have this pas ho construction. I look forward to your comments when you have time. I will be gone most of the day today. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance wrote > I believe our Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) is a relational God. I believe that His Being is in Communion. I believe that we are made in God's image. I believe that our being is in communion. I believe that introspection is the least effective means of knowing ourselves. I believe this "love" to be imperfect and progressive in us but perfect and complete in Him. Well put, Lance. I like it when you go ahead and express yourself. You're always able, it seems, to shed new light on a discussion. More, more, please write more! Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.A second is equally important. "Love your neighbor as yourself."All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." I believe our Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) is a relational God. I believe tha tHis Being is in Communion. I believe that we are made in God's image. I believe that our being is in communion. I believe that introspection is the least effective means of knowing ourselves. I believe this "love" to be imperfectand progressive in us but perfect and complete in Him. Just musing. Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Very few of us have come to a belief on this issue simply through the reading of the "text". Would BT & DM tell us the process by/through which they came to hold this view? Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection A professor of theology said of a colleague who had just completed a commentary on the book of Matthew, "Does anyone here think that this will be the last..(of its kind)? Language is a blunt instrument. BT and DM are providing us with a commentary on 1 John. Each reads this book on this issue differently. I'd be interested to hear the questions in the minds and hearts of others on this site . They've both made an impressive case for their respective understandings of Christian Perfection and I'm confident that they could and, perhaps will, supplement their arguments. Long ago I attended a Creation vs Evolution debate. At its conclusion we were asked to vote on who won the debate not on who we believed was right. I found myself giving the nod to the person with whom I disagreed. If any here do not possess either the debate skills or the facility in Greek how then might they determine not "who's winning" but what the Scriptures as a whole tell us. God knows, of course. May we? I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Sent: April 09, 2004 22:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection David writes > Furthermore, your rendering of the 1 John 5:18 passage mangles the Greek. I know that you understand Greek, so please read the Greek text here. You have rendered "pas ho" as "the One," seemingly ignoring the word "pas" which means "all." The first part of verse 18 should read, "We know that everyone who has been born of God sins not," yet you translate it as, ""We know most assuredly that the One who has been born from (Gk. ex = out of or from) God does not sin." Surely you can see that you do not do properly handle the Greek phrase "pas ho." I would very much like to see you either justify your handling the Greek this way, or acknowledge your mistake. I'm not jabbing at you. I wish you could see my demeanor. I truly desire to see some serious consideration and explanation. We are just talking here, so let's not get our feathers ruffled. We are learning together. Actually, David, I did not render pas ho as "the One"; instead I rendered ho gegennamenos as "the One who has been born." The word ho is the definite article nominative masculine singular; the word gegennamenos is a participle. This particular participle is a perfect passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the perfect passive across into English I translated it as "has been born." The KJV fails to convey the perfect passive i
Re: [TruthTalk]ON EASTER, Answering a fool according to his folly ...
In a message dated 4/10/2004 1:29:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Knpraise writes: > a message dated 4/9/2004 4:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > > So, David, in accordance with Matthew 7:1-6 ... we "know" the truth about you from > Elsman ... RIGHT?!? > > > > And you were doing so good Chris. If anyone was stupid before reading Elsman's > comments, he will still be stupid after > reading them. > > John JOHN SMITHSON, This is Easter weekend. If you would be so kind as to quote the "Elsman comments" when referencing such, it would make your statement meaningful & not just a baloney blunderbuss allegation. You do this on a regular basis---give a short editorial ad hominem, without quoting the "target language", thus leaving the reader without the facts to assess whether your comments have meaning. Please practice up on the "drag and copy" method before you hit Reply. Thank you for your indulgence, Brother Smithson, & Happy Easter to all, and, as we play with our children and grandchildren, let us all remember what happened to that big, fat & overblown Humpty Dumpty. ---ELSMAN -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
So, If a person were stranded on an island with no one to commune with, they would cease to be a person? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does “in communion” mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy: Will you please, without quoting scripture, tell me in your own words what you mean by Christian Perfection and, how it manifests in your own life as an illustration? Thanks, Lance jt: Lance what difference does it make what you, I, or anyone thinks? What should be important to all of us is what God thinks. Why are you threatened by scripture? What's wrong with finding out what these terms mean in God's vernacular. You don't need a Phd, He explains it very clearly. So am I free to show you BY scripture? judyt From: Judy Taylor From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believein "Christian Perfection" judyt "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard,go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, andbring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14)
Re: [TruthTalk] The faithfulness of Christ
From: Wm. Taylor Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:45 AM John, I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like the elders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your grace doctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that there was a transference of righteousness which took place between Christ and us. I just have a small question about the substitution of our faith for Christ's righteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness that stands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As you would, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the flesh and is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that we are saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthly life -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness. Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and is thus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, is justification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinction is important, I believe, because it leaves room for other aspects of atonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonement post below). Allow me now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by humans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from our faith in him), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is, after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness of Christ" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ... in these eight verses and just see what it does for your understanding of Christ's atoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basic occurrences are: Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and not from works of law."Gal 2.20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.Gal 3.22 -- "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou) might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)."Rom 3.22 -- "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) unto all who believe (pisteuontas)."Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same section) -- "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from the faithfulness of Jesus (pistis Iesou)."Phil 3.9 -- "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on the ground of that faith (pistis)."Eph 3.12 -- "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the faithfulness of him (pistis autou)." John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. The phrase pistis Christou is a genitive construct and can be translated either "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The first translation is what would be called an objective genitive, and the second translation a subjective genitive. It is the same distinction we have to make when interpreting the phrase "the righteousness of God." Is this God's righteousness bestowed upon us, i.e. "righteousness from God"? or is it the righteousness God demands of us? or might it be something else? We can only commit to and answer this question, and hence draw a distinction, in prayerful interpretation. If you are interested I will be glad to expand and clarify. Bill Taylor Appendix.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Judy: Will you please, without quoting scripture, tell me in your own words what you mean by Christian Perfection and, how it manifests in your own life as an illustration? Thanks, Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:45 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believe in "Christian Perfection" judyt "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14)
[TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance jt: I'd like to submit the following as the reason why so many don't believe in "Christian Perfection" judyt "And that which fell among the thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
It is the difference between a monad and a person. It is the relational. God is God ONLY as Father, Son & Spirit. We are who we are ONLY as persons in relation with other persons. Clear/Muddy? Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 08:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Lance, what do you mean by that? What does in communion mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I not only do not believe in perfectionism, I do not see it expressed in the life of Miller or anyone else." jt: I can say then with equal authority that I don't believe in "salvation" or in being "conformed to the image of Christ" for the same reason - which is because I don't see this expressed in the life of anyone that I know, and most especially the ones who are in Church? H! When the son of man returns, will He find faith in the earth? judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Lance, what do you mean by that? What does “in communion” mean to you? Izzy I believe that our being is in communion.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.A second is equally important. "Love your neighbor as yourself."All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." I believe our Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) is a relational God. I believe tha tHis Being is in Communion. I believe that we are made in God's image. I believe that our being is in communion. I believe that introspection is the least effective means of knowing ourselves. I believe this "love" to be imperfectand progressive in us but perfect and complete in Him. Just musing. Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Very few of us have come to a belief on this issue simply through the reading of the "text". Would BT & DM tell us the process by/through which they came to hold this view? Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection A professor of theology said of a colleague who had just completed a commentary on the book of Matthew, "Does anyone here think that this will be the last..(of its kind)? Language is a blunt instrument. BT and DM are providing us with a commentary on 1 John. Each reads this book on this issue differently. I'd be interested to hear the questions in the minds and hearts of others on this site . They've both made an impressive case for their respective understandings of Christian Perfection and I'm confident that they could and, perhaps will, supplement their arguments. Long ago I attended a Creation vs Evolution debate. At its conclusion we were asked to vote on who won the debate not on who we believed was right. I found myself giving the nod to the person with whom I disagreed. If any here do not possess either the debate skills or the facility in Greek how then might they determine not "who's winning" but what the Scriptures as a whole tell us. God knows, of course. May we? I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Sent: April 09, 2004 22:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection David writes > Furthermore, your rendering of the 1 John 5:18 passage mangles the Greek. I know that you understand Greek, so please read the Greek text here. You have rendered "pas ho" as "the One," seemingly ignoring the word "pas" which means "all." The first part of verse 18 should read, "We know that everyone who has been born of God sins not," yet you translate it as, ""We know most assuredly that the One who has been born from (Gk. ex = out of or from) God does not sin." Surely you can see that you do not do properly handle the Greek phrase "pas ho." I would very much like to see you either justify your handling the Greek this way, or acknowledge your mistake. I'm not jabbing at you. I wish you could see my demeanor. I truly desire to see some serious consideration and explanation. We are just talking here, so let's not get our feathers ruffled. We are learning together. Actually, David, I did not render pas ho as "the One"; instead I rendered ho gegennamenos as "the One who has been born." The word ho is the definite article nominative masculine singular; the word gegennamenos is a participle. This particular participle is a perfect passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the perfect passive across into English I translated it as "has been born." The KJV fails to convey the perfect passive in v.18a; instead it conveys a present active. In 18b the participle gennatheis is an aorist passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the aorist passive across into English I translated it as "was born"; again the KJV fails to convey a proper aorist passive meaning; instead it conveys a perfect passive. To get to the nominative masculine singular I translated the first participle as "the One who" with the masculine emphasis coming through in the rendering of the second participle as "He who." Oidamen is a first person plural perfect active indicative. It carries the idea of seeing or perceiving, which is closely related to knowing or comprehending, and so I translated this verb as "We know"; I could have equally accurately translated it as "We perceive." Pas is used here with an e
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Very few of us have come to a belief on this issue simply through the reading of the "text". Would BT & DM tell us the process by/through which they came to hold this view? Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection A professor of theology said of a colleague who had just completed a commentary on the book of Matthew, "Does anyone here think that this will be the last..(of its kind)? Language is a blunt instrument. BT and DM are providing us with a commentary on 1 John. Each reads this book on this issue differently. I'd be interested to hear the questions in the minds and hearts of others on this site . They've both made an impressive case for their respective understandings of Christian Perfection and I'm confident that they could and, perhaps will, supplement their arguments. Long ago I attended a Creation vs Evolution debate. At its conclusion we were asked to vote on who won the debate not on who we believed was right. I found myself giving the nod to the person with whom I disagreed. If any here do not possess either the debate skills or the facility in Greek how then might they determine not "who's winning" but what the Scriptures as a whole tell us. God knows, of course. May we? I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Sent: April 09, 2004 22:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection David writes > Furthermore, your rendering of the 1 John 5:18 passage mangles the Greek. I know that you understand Greek, so please read the Greek text here. You have rendered "pas ho" as "the One," seemingly ignoring the word "pas" which means "all." The first part of verse 18 should read, "We know that everyone who has been born of God sins not," yet you translate it as, ""We know most assuredly that the One who has been born from (Gk. ex = out of or from) God does not sin." Surely you can see that you do not do properly handle the Greek phrase "pas ho." I would very much like to see you either justify your handling the Greek this way, or acknowledge your mistake. I'm not jabbing at you. I wish you could see my demeanor. I truly desire to see some serious consideration and explanation. We are just talking here, so let's not get our feathers ruffled. We are learning together. Actually, David, I did not render pas ho as "the One"; instead I rendered ho gegennamenos as "the One who has been born." The word ho is the definite article nominative masculine singular; the word gegennamenos is a participle. This particular participle is a perfect passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the perfect passive across into English I translated it as "has been born." The KJV fails to convey the perfect passive in v.18a; instead it conveys a present active. In 18b the participle gennatheis is an aorist passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the aorist passive across into English I translated it as "was born"; again the KJV fails to convey a proper aorist passive meaning; instead it conveys a perfect passive. To get to the nominative masculine singular I translated the first participle as "the One who" with the masculine emphasis coming through in the rendering of the second participle as "He who." Oidamen is a first person plural perfect active indicative. It carries the idea of seeing or perceiving, which is closely related to knowing or comprehending, and so I translated this verb as "We know"; I could have equally accurately translated it as "We perceive." Pas is used here with an elative significance, modifying oidamen and denoting the highest degree; it should therefore be translated in a way which conveys the idea of all, full, supreme, greatest, or most. In this instance pas elevates the idea of knowing to a status of certainty; hence "We know with all assurance" or "We know full well" or "We know with great confidence" or "We know most assuredly." David, I hope this will be helpful. I'll leave the rest of your comments to bear their own weight for the time being. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection > Bill wrote:> > The question, as I see it, if we are to understand this > > verse, is this: Who is it that keeps you from the wicked > > one? Does this verse teach us that you keep yourself from > > t
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
Would the two primary participants on the issue of CP kindly provide in a paragraph or two their belief on this matter. Please use language that, though not reductionist, is plain. Lance - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2004 06:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection A professor of theology said of a colleague who had just completed a commentary on the book of Matthew, "Does anyone here think that this will be the last..(of its kind)? Language is a blunt instrument. BT and DM are providing us with a commentary on 1 John. Each reads this book on this issue differently. I'd be interested to hear the questions in the minds and hearts of others on this site . They've both made an impressive case for their respective understandings of Christian Perfection and I'm confident that they could and, perhaps will, supplement their arguments. Long ago I attended a Creation vs Evolution debate. At its conclusion we were asked to vote on who won the debate not on who we believed was right. I found myself giving the nod to the person with whom I disagreed. If any here do not possess either the debate skills or the facility in Greek how then might they determine not "who's winning" but what the Scriptures as a whole tell us. God knows, of course. May we? I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Sent: April 09, 2004 22:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection David writes > Furthermore, your rendering of the 1 John 5:18 passage mangles the Greek. I know that you understand Greek, so please read the Greek text here. You have rendered "pas ho" as "the One," seemingly ignoring the word "pas" which means "all." The first part of verse 18 should read, "We know that everyone who has been born of God sins not," yet you translate it as, ""We know most assuredly that the One who has been born from (Gk. ex = out of or from) God does not sin." Surely you can see that you do not do properly handle the Greek phrase "pas ho." I would very much like to see you either justify your handling the Greek this way, or acknowledge your mistake. I'm not jabbing at you. I wish you could see my demeanor. I truly desire to see some serious consideration and explanation. We are just talking here, so let's not get our feathers ruffled. We are learning together. Actually, David, I did not render pas ho as "the One"; instead I rendered ho gegennamenos as "the One who has been born." The word ho is the definite article nominative masculine singular; the word gegennamenos is a participle. This particular participle is a perfect passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the perfect passive across into English I translated it as "has been born." The KJV fails to convey the perfect passive in v.18a; instead it conveys a present active. In 18b the participle gennatheis is an aorist passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the aorist passive across into English I translated it as "was born"; again the KJV fails to convey a proper aorist passive meaning; instead it conveys a perfect passive. To get to the nominative masculine singular I translated the first participle as "the One who" with the masculine emphasis coming through in the rendering of the second participle as "He who." Oidamen is a first person plural perfect active indicative. It carries the idea of seeing or perceiving, which is closely related to knowing or comprehending, and so I translated this verb as "We know"; I could have equally accurately translated it as "We perceive." Pas is used here with an elative significance, modifying oidamen and denoting the highest degree; it should therefore be translated in a way which conveys the idea of all, full, supreme, greatest, or most. In this instance pas elevates the idea of knowing to a status of certainty; hence "We know with all assurance" or "We know full well" or "We know with great confidence" or "We know most assuredly." David, I hope this will be helpful. I'll leave the rest of your comments to bear their own weight for the time being. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection > Bill wrote:> > The question, as I see it, if we are to understand this > > verse, is this: Who is it that keeps you from the wicked > > one? Does this verse teach us that you keep yourself fro
Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection
A professor of theology said of a colleague who had just completed a commentary on the book of Matthew, "Does anyone here think that this will be the last..(of its kind)? Language is a blunt instrument. BT and DM are providing us with a commentary on 1 John. Each reads this book on this issue differently. I'd be interested to hear the questions in the minds and hearts of others on this site . They've both made an impressive case for their respective understandings of Christian Perfection and I'm confident that they could and, perhaps will, supplement their arguments. Long ago I attended a Creation vs Evolution debate. At its conclusion we were asked to vote on who won the debate not on who we believed was right. I found myself giving the nod to the person with whom I disagreed. If any here do not possess either the debate skills or the facility in Greek how then might they determine not "who's winning" but what the Scriptures as a whole tell us. God knows, of course. May we? I for one would appreciate comments & questions from all participants. I firmly believe that the "heart of God" may be known on this matter. Lance Sent: April 09, 2004 22:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection David writes > Furthermore, your rendering of the 1 John 5:18 passage mangles the Greek. I know that you understand Greek, so please read the Greek text here. You have rendered "pas ho" as "the One," seemingly ignoring the word "pas" which means "all." The first part of verse 18 should read, "We know that everyone who has been born of God sins not," yet you translate it as, ""We know most assuredly that the One who has been born from (Gk. ex = out of or from) God does not sin." Surely you can see that you do not do properly handle the Greek phrase "pas ho." I would very much like to see you either justify your handling the Greek this way, or acknowledge your mistake. I'm not jabbing at you. I wish you could see my demeanor. I truly desire to see some serious consideration and explanation. We are just talking here, so let's not get our feathers ruffled. We are learning together. Actually, David, I did not render pas ho as "the One"; instead I rendered ho gegennamenos as "the One who has been born." The word ho is the definite article nominative masculine singular; the word gegennamenos is a participle. This particular participle is a perfect passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the perfect passive across into English I translated it as "has been born." The KJV fails to convey the perfect passive in v.18a; instead it conveys a present active. In 18b the participle gennatheis is an aorist passive nominative masculine singular. In order to carry the aorist passive across into English I translated it as "was born"; again the KJV fails to convey a proper aorist passive meaning; instead it conveys a perfect passive. To get to the nominative masculine singular I translated the first participle as "the One who" with the masculine emphasis coming through in the rendering of the second participle as "He who." Oidamen is a first person plural perfect active indicative. It carries the idea of seeing or perceiving, which is closely related to knowing or comprehending, and so I translated this verb as "We know"; I could have equally accurately translated it as "We perceive." Pas is used here with an elative significance, modifying oidamen and denoting the highest degree; it should therefore be translated in a way which conveys the idea of all, full, supreme, greatest, or most. In this instance pas elevates the idea of knowing to a status of certainty; hence "We know with all assurance" or "We know full well" or "We know with great confidence" or "We know most assuredly." David, I hope this will be helpful. I'll leave the rest of your comments to bear their own weight for the time being. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection > Bill wrote:> > The question, as I see it, if we are to understand this > > verse, is this: Who is it that keeps you from the wicked > > one? Does this verse teach us that you keep yourself from > > the wicked one? > > ...> > We only get into trouble with this passage when we assume > > something about ourselves that is only true of our Savior. > > Jesus Christ is the one who is without sin; he is the one > > who has power over the evil one; he is the one who keeps us. > > We understand this and know that it is true.> > We are agreed on this. He is the one who keeps us. We have no power to> live holy without the Spirit of Christ living through us and doing it by> the power of the Holy Spirit.
Re: [TruthTalk] What about this William Penn, Quaker writing?
Can you get a copy of the writings that you referred to and post them? - Original Message - From: Chris Barr To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What about this William Penn, Quaker writing? \o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings Marlin et al in the Matchless Name of YahShua !! I, too, have had the privilege of knowing some Quakers through the years and becoming somewhat close to a few.
