Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:47:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in words and I believe in THE Spirit !!! I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is for sure. They work in sync John.Where there is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him? Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The principle What do you read as the "problematic circunstance" here JD? That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to include that principle in your theology, fine. But it should be there. ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant JD. God does not bless ignorance - so how do you reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this principle? Meats and this principle are two very different things. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com His (Jesus) Words are Spirit and they are Life John and they are far reaching includingthose who will believe through the words of Hisdisciples as well. So putting Jesus in a box is not contextual fact nor is it spiritual reality. Tell me what eating meat offered to idols has to do with the Holy Spirit being sent to reprove the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment? jt On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:29:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John 16 is about a meeting Christ had withthe disciples who had known Him "from the beginning." The result of that meeting is the record found in John 16. Ditto for Mark 16.To build from those scriptures a theology that is corporate in application is a denial of this contextual fact .. and, in a way, proves the very point I am making.DM has all the confidence in the world that he is correct in this confusion of biblical nuance but that does not prevent God from working adidache in his life as a result. Down the road, someday, hopefully before the snake bite, he will see the passage(s) differently and the truth of I Cor 8:1-3 will be rekindled in his thinking. JdFrom: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: I have no understanding of why the second paragraph is even included vis a vis John. Not one of us who has read him would ever believe that his theology denies the operation of the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to us (real truth which cannot be wrong). You apparently are not reading him very well, Lance. I think you see what you want to see in his writings. His response to me concerning this second paragraph was: John wrote: John 16 does not apply to us today, David. We really do not need to take him too seriously, though, because according to this author, neither he nor anyone else can be confident about whether his statement is true or not. For anyone to be confident about whether the Holy Ghost can reveal truth to us (real truth which cannot be wrong) would be, according to John, the sin of pride. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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] Re:John 16:13,14
The point of my post is this: why do you think your interpretation of the "truth" IS the truth? Here is your understanding of what I have written:
My answer was yes, I do, but what I hear from John is that anybody who has any assurance regarding this truth that cannot be wrong, DM
Your words above speak of assurance! I do not attack the assurance of your "knowing." I have the same !!! My words were these:
when we confuse our beliefs with that which "simply cannot be wrong" - it is pride IN EVERY INSTANCE, whether the presentation happens to make sense or not, that goes before us. JD
And you challenge what I have just written (and you misunderstanding of same) thusly: You present the case that the presence of assurance in a truth that cannot be wrong A comparison of the the two messages shows that we are not talking about the same thing! to demonstrate that difference, go to your explanation immediately above ("you present ."). God to " . assurance in a truth ..." and change that to read "assurance in my personal interpretation of scripture .."
Hoping that this helps.
Jd
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:39:18 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
John wrote:
i say that you know this is misrepresentation: what
I hear from John is that anybody who has assurance
regarding truth is operating in pride. Now, what will
happen next. I will challenge you to produce my words.
You will not be able to do this
Here are your words, John:
... when we confuse our beliefs with that which
"simply cannot be wrong" - it is pride IN EVERY
INSTANCE, whether the presentation happens
to make sense or not, that goes before us.
I am saying that when you or anyone (myself) equate
personal understanding (there is no other kind)
with THE biblical message or with "scripture," that
is pride which is talking and nothing else.
...
when we present our interpretations as being
without the possibility of being wrong, we
speak out of pride.
Now the context of my quote is a response to Lance who was asking:
2. Do either of you not anticipate some truth,
absolute in nature (God's Truth), to be forthcoming
through the Spirit-facilitated reading of His Holy Word?
So truth is defined in this context as that which is absolute in nature,
God's Truth, which cannot be wrong. Do we anticipate such truth to be
forthcoming through the reading of His Holy Word? My answer was yes, I do,
but what I hear from John is that anybody who has any assurance regarding
this truth that cannot be wrong, this absolute truth of God, would be
operating in pride. Your comments I quote above speak of this, do they not?
You say that there is no understanding except personal understanding. You
warn against confusing this "personal" understanding we glean from reading
the Word with the Biblical message itself. You present the case that the
presence of assurance in a truth that cannot be wrong would be a sin, it
would be pride raising its ugly head.
If I have misunderstood you, John, then please teach us what you believe.
There is no need to accuse me of dishonesty. Tell us straight. If I have
assurance regarding an absolute truth of God which I gleaned through reading
the Holy Word of God, and I teach this according to my assurance,
representing that this truth is God's truth and hence has no possibility of
being wrong, is this pride?
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
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] Re:John 16:13,14
John, I'm going to take a shot at this, but if you are tempted to attack me or prove me wrong, please don't. I won't respond to that. I am not interested in debate, but in truth. I'm going to use different words for a reason, not to discredit you, but to engage you to explain your viewpoint with different words. What you are trying to say is only approximated by the words you use, so being free to consider the use of different words to say what you are trying to say can facilitate communication. If my choice of words is objectionable to you, then simply say, "I would not say it that way, I would say it this way..." If your meaning is not being conveyed with the words you have already chosen, using other words might help convey what you are trying to say. Now in your last post, you apparently perceivean important difference between having assurance in truth versus having assurance in one'spersonal interpretation of Scripture. You need to expound upon this more, because you had also written that there is no other kind of understanding of Scripture exceptpersonal understanding. Based upon how you have set this up, I see no room in your model for any difference between "assurance in the truth of Scripture" and "assurance in our understanding of the truth of Scripture." How can there be a difference if you say that there is no understanding of truth except personal understanding? Keep in mind, that in contrast to you,my perspective is thatthere are many different levels of understanding, with personal understanding just being one of many. You have defined pride as being aconfidence in our personal understanding of truth, and that needs to be expounded upon. If you are right, you may save me from the sin of pride by helping me see your perspective, but if you are wrong, I will save you from the sin of bearing false witness against someone who you think has pride but really just has Godly understanding,faith and integrity. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Reflecting Theologically on Popular Culture as Meaningful by Turnau.htm
Reflecting Theologically on Popular Culture as Meaningful by TurnauLance, if you would, please provide only a link to the articles you desire for us to read, and then give us at least a line or two concerning what you would want us to see in that article. Including the entire articles has a tendency to bog down email systems for those of us who keep the posts rather than deleting them. Saving many posts with lots of HTML code and graphics uses up a lot of resources. I think this article by Turnau illustrates some of the problems on TruthTalk between those who lean toward the Calvinistic view of sin and those who lean toward the more evangelical view of sin. Obviously, I think Turnau is walking off the straight and narrow path with his discourse. I actually burst out in laughter here at work when I read one of his introductory paragraphs. Here is the paragraph: Turnau wrote: Withdrawing from certain cultural texts and replacing them with others will not render the audience less sinful. Rather, the compulsive and organic nature of sin means that in eschewing certain cultural idolatries by disengaging ourselves from the surrounding culture, we are probably only setting up more socially acceptable idolatries that will be harder to detect and repent of (e.g., materialism, or the family, or pride in our own holiness). In other words, if we withdraw from the sinful engagements of this world, we will not become less sinful, but rather we will only disguise our own sin (which can never be avoided), replacing it with idolatries which are simply harder to detect and repent of. LOL. Right. Avoiding sin and separating ourselves from this world system in which we live only makes us self righteous and would never make us holy. Do you really believe this stuff? I don't mean to sound antagonistic, and I probably disappoint you by commenting in this way, but most of the article was a sleeper for me, except for this humorous paragraph. It was a lot of the same-old, same-old, worldly, brain-washing philosophy I find in virtually every college. It facilitates an ivory tower mentality of being engaged with and involved with this world while maintaining an air of superiority in Christ. Somebody needs to explain to Turnau what real self righteousness looks like. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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] What's wrong with a Bold witness to Mormons?
http://mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=207 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
Re: [TruthTalk] Nukes in US?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:47:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in words and I believe in THE Spirit !!! I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is for sure. They work in sync John.Where there is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him?Roman 2 makes it clear that we are no long judged by the Law, but by the Spirit. The law is "the letter." written on tablest of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri. The Law is a set of words. The Spirit is a living "breathing" relaity (so we beleive) that is no less than Goed Himself !! In Romans 2:29 -- these two concepts, the non-living Law of God and the Spirit are contrasted. I take the word "law" and impose this definition: that by whihc we are judged.Before the incarnation, the written Law of God was that by which we were judged. Now, after the incarnation, the law of the Spirit (the rule of the Spirit) is that by which we are judged. There is much that is used by the Spirit IN ADDITION to the written message. Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The principle What do you read as the "problematic circunstance" here JD? In 1Cor 8:1-3, it is the insistence by some of the brotherhood that their knowing (these were those who did not have meat issues) was the final word and was to be considered as more important than the relationship we have in Christ via "love" and -- implied -- their relationship with the brother who beleives there to be more than one God. That MUST BE and is the issue here in I Co 8. that is why Paul invokes the principle of limited knowing verse relational love. That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to include that principle in your theology, fine. But it should be there. ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant JD. God does not bless ignorance - so how do you reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this principle? If we think we know something, we do not know it as we ought but if we love God, we ARE KNOWN BY HIM. That is how I justify those extremely rare occasion when I am actually mistaken about something -- I realy on my love for God and His promise to love me in return (but, of course, "He started it!!") JD Meats and this principle are two very different things. JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com His (Jesus) Words are Spirit and they are Life John and they are far reaching includingthose who will believe through the words of Hisdisciples as well. So putting Jesus in a box is not contextual fact nor is it spiritual reality. Tell me what eating meat offered to idols has to do with the Holy Spirit being sent to reprove the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment? jt On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:29:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John 16 is about a meeting Christ had withthe disciples who had known Him "from the beginning." The result of that meeting is the record found in John 16. Ditto for Mark 16.To build from those scriptures a theology that is corporate in application is a denial of this contextual fact .. and, in a way, proves the very point I am making.DM has all the confidence in the world that he is correct in this confusion of biblical nuance but that does not prevent God from working adidache in his life as a result. Down the road, someday, hopefully before the snake bite, he will see the passage(s) differently and the truth of I Cor 8:1-3 will be rekindled in his thinking. JdFrom: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: I have no understanding of why the second paragraph is even included vis a vis John. Not one of us who has read him would ever believe that his theology denies the operation of the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to us (real truth which cannot be wrong). You apparently are not reading him very well, Lance. I think you see what you want to see in his writings. His response to me concerning this second paragraph was: John wrote: John 16 does not apply to us today, David. We really do not need to take him too seriously, though, because according to this author, neither he nor anyone else can be confident about whether his statement is true or not. For anyone to be confident about whether the Holy Ghost can reveal truth to us (real truth which cannot be wrong) would be, according to John, the sin of pride. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:35:16 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 John, I'm going to take a shot at this, but if you are tempted to attack me or prove me wrong, please don't. I won't respond to that. I am not interested in debate, but in truth. Fair enough. Monologue is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm going to use different words for a reason, not to discredit you, but to engage"Engage ?? !!" you to explain your viewpoint with different words. What you are trying to say is only approximated by the words you use, so being free to consider the use of different words to say what you are trying to say can facilitate communication. If my choice of words is objectionable to you, then simply say, "I would not say it that way, I would say it this way..." If your meaning is not being conveyed with the words you have already chosen, using other words might help convey what you are trying to say. Now in your last post, you apparently perceivean important difference between having assurance in truth versus having assurance in one'spersonal interpretation of Scripture. You need to expound upon this more, because you had also written that there is no other kind of understanding of Scripture exceptpersonal understanding. Based upon how you have set this up, I see no room in your model for any difference between "assurance in the truth of Scripture" and "assurance in our understanding of the truth of Scripture." How can there be a difference if you say that there is no understanding of truth except personal understanding?Think of it this wise (and this is much over simplified): The Bible contains the Word of God - a body of truth that is absolute and without contradiction (believers are allowed to think such is the case -- I do). There it is, this Bible, laying over there on the desk, right next to my AT Robertson Greek grammar and a stack of other noteworthy reference books. That is over there -- I am over here. I have read this book many times. I have literally thousands of hours of study vest in this written message (at 60 years of age, no big deal !). Absolute truth over there. Me and my brain over here. Absolute truth over there on the desk, me and educational bias, by pathetic childhood, my disappointments and the many wonderful experience that are a part of me -- all of that over here. Over there verses over here. I know that "over here," all of those influences mentioned above make it impossible for me to say that my understanding of what I read in the Bible rises to the level of infallibility !!! . Absolute truth over there - the conceit of the claim of infallibility over here. Thank God for the definition given to us in Heb 11:1 ff. My relationship with God is not the result of a pretense at rationalism. It is based on who I understand Heb 11:1ff . Faith is my substance and my assurance. Even when the subject of that faith might be considered unreasonable. That being true, it is a timely question : then why study or go back to he written message? Because this faith of which I speak has me believing that the biblical message contains that which is absolutely true. Knowing my limitations causes me to WANT to go back to the Good Book, time after time -- b ecause I know that could have missed something or actually gotten something very very wrong. Pride prevents me from making this journey for this reason !!! Keep in mind, that in contrast to you,my perspective is thatthere are many different levels of understanding, with personal understanding just being one of many. You have defined pride as being aconfidence in our personal understanding of truth that rises to the level of infallibility (always say this when presenting MYopinion on this subject)and that needs to be expounded upon. If you are right, you may save me from the sin of pride by helping me see your perspective, but if you are wrong, I will save you from the sin of bearing false witness against someone who you think has pride but really just has Godly understanding,faith and integrity. A truly wonderful set of options !! Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm
Hi JD, how is my father's post out of context? I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this. Blessings! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like I said David -- you are way out of context here and you know it. Shall I take time to prove the contextual point of John 16 and Mark 16? I can and will be happy to do so. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:20:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm John wrote: No -- somebody forgot to tell you. Because you have no resepct for context in this case is of no matter to me. But context is very important. Without it, we have the fantasy that accompanies snake handling and ex-cathedra spiritual pronouncements brought, forever, into modern times. Sorry, John, but you are not going to sneak by with the lame out of context argument. The point is that the Holy Ghost continues to operate this way whether you recognize it or not. You are free to testify to us that the Holy Spirit does not operate in your life the way it is promised in John 16:13, but you cannot testify to others that he does not operate in the lives of anybody else like that. Jesus gave promises about the Holy Spirit and how he would operate in the lives of believers. Peter made it very clear that this promise was not restricted to just the eleven apostles at that moment in time. Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them ... ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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] Communicating Understanding....Joint participants in a story
Lance wrote: What do you think of story as a vehicle for the communication of truth? Lance, Jesus was fufilling prophecy when He spoke in parables: Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. ... Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. I am not saying I think stories are useless for communication, but I would say it would be faulty to use Jesus' use of parables as evidence for doing so. Jesus' use of stories made the Spirit an important participant in His speaking. He was speaking symbolically of spiritual things, forcing the listener to rely on the Spirit for their understanding. It looks like I'm jumping in late, but would you mind defining your use of the word stories here, Lance/Judy? I notice you mention Lord of the Rings below. Are we exploring the potential witnessing power of these morally ingonito storylines? What a juicy topic, if I do say so myself. :-) Judy wrote: I told you what Jesus said about His own parables Lance I have a feeling I'm probably repeating a former post of yours, Judy. But I am not weary and it sounds like maybe Lance could benefit from hearing it again. :-) Eh, Lance? Blessings --- Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I told you what Jesus said about His own parables Lance; I didn't think I could improve on that. Actually I am not into storytelling because my belief is that Jesus and His Word are reality. Myth is what gets passed on from generation to generation around campfires. jt On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:57:11 -0400 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or, more accurately in your case, who knows what he says also? Did you tell me what you made of Jesus' stories (parables)? What do you think of story as a vehicle for the communication of truth? From: Judy Taylor Judyt did not say any such thing Lance - this is either your cultural or common understanding or else it is a Canadian type joke. Either way it's a figment of your imagination. On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:57:14 -0400 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt, surprisingly says that the parables are no different (than the Lord of the Rings). Now, there's a step forward. Jt as for an explanation of the expression 'out of hand'. Rather than that just let me say that you might consider not adopting a 'Jesus vs the Pharisees' stance when speaking of him, others, Nicea, Church Fathers, theology per se and the like. As Judy Taylor says: 'stick to the Scriptures'! You little to nothing of the foregoing so, why not just give 'em a pass when you see 'wm? Jesus vs the pharisees is not my stance toward Torrance After all the pharisees did sit in the seat of Moses and Jesus said to do what they said - however they were hypocrites so noone was to follow their example - As for Torrance I don't receive what he says - and who knows what he does. jt. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:21:12 -0400 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, sort of like LOR, Judy. Good observation. But, Jesus' parables (stories) certainly come closer. What is your understanding of the parables, Judy? The parables are no different, they are given to illustrate spiritual realities to which common understanding is blind. When the disciples question Jesus about why he spake in parables he said nothing about common understanding In fact he used them as a type of judgment ie Because it is given unto you (disciples) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables because they seeing see not and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand (Matt 13:10-17) As an aside, Judy. Feel free not to pursue the 'content of TFT'. Just make an attemp not to critique him out of hand in the future, please? What do you mean by out of hand? From: Judy Taylor Lance Muir wrote: Each living person draws upon two quite distinct sources of meaning. The current 'vulgate' or common understanding. This is that which enables us to communicate with one another. Hidden beneath this is a 'private thesaurus'. What any two people mean when they speak or hear will overlap only to a certain extent by virtue of their sharing the 'vulgate' of a particular human group. The above is myth. No person ever receives revelation from God through cultural or common vulgate/understanding and the Bible is a closed book to those who possess that alone. No reader comes to a text as a 'cultural virgin'. Our readings are affected at the outset by pre-understanding and private thesaurus.The meaning which we retrieve from a text will never be absolutely identical with the meaning which it had for its
Re: [TruthTalk]Re: John 16:13-14
Hello, Christine.John 16:13-14 does not apply to the general Christian population -- that is a position I affirm and your farther apparently denies. I defend my point by appealing to the actual context of John 16 -- noting the fact that Christ is speaking to his disciple (especially the 12) and to no one else in that passage. Your father goes out of this passage and appeals to Acts 2:38-39. I believe that Acts 2:38-39 applies to us today and John 16 to the disciples who knew Him from the beginning (John 15:27).Our discussion also applies to Mark 16: 15-18. JD -Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm Hi JD, how is my father's post out of context? I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this. Blessings! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like I said David -- you are way out of context here and you know it. Shall I take time to prove the contextual point of John 16 and Mark 16? I can and will be happy to do so. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:20:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm John wrote: No -- somebody forgot to tell you. Because you have no resepct for "context" in this case is of no matter to me. But context is very important. Without it, we have the fantasy that accompanies snake handling and ex-cathedra spiritual pronouncements brought, forever, into modern times. Sorry, John, but you are not going to sneak by with the lame "out of context" argument. The point is that the Holy Ghost continues to operate this way whether you recognize it or not. You are free to testify to us that the Holy Spirit does not operate in your life the way it is promised in John 16:13, but you cannot testify to others that he does not operate in the lives of anybody else like that. Jesus gave promises about the Holy Spirit and how he would operate in the lives of believers. Peter made it very clear that this promise was not restricted to just the eleven apostles at that moment in time. Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said unto them ... ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "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]Re: John 16:13-14
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Does this mean that only the disciples may preach the gospel and baptize for the salvation of the lost? Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Don't we see people lay hands and heal the sick today? Wouldn't this seem to indicate that those 11 disciples are not privy to the working of the Holy Ghost in their lives, but all who believe are meant to be used by the Holy Spirit? Blessings --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Christine. John 16:13-14 does not apply to the general Christian population -- that is a position I affirm and your farther apparently denies. I defend my point by appealing to the actual context of John 16 -- noting the fact that Christ is speaking to his disciple (especially the 12) and to no one else in that passage.Your father goes out of this passage and appeals to Acts 2:38-39. I believe that Acts 2:38-39 applies to us today and John 16 to the disciples who knew Him from the beginning (John 15:27). Our discussion also applies to Mark 16: 15-18. JD -Original Message- From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm Hi JD, how is my father's post out of context? I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this. Blessings! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like I said David -- you are way out of context here and you know it. Shall I take time to prove the contextual point of John 16 and Mark 16? I can and will be happy to do so. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:20:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm John wrote: No -- somebody forgot to tell you. Because you have no resepct for context in this case is of no matter to me. But context is very important. Without it, we have the fantasy that accompanies snake handling and ex-cathedra spiritual pronouncements brought, forever, into modern times. Sorry, John, but you are not going to sneak by with the lame out of context argument. The point is that the Holy Ghost continues to operate this way whether you recognize it or not. You are free to testify to us that the Holy Spirit does not operate in your life the way it is promised in John 16:13, but you cannot testify to others that he does not operate in the lives of anybody else like that. Jesus gave promises about the Holy Spirit and how he would operate in the lives of believers. Peter made it very clear that this promise was not restricted to just the eleven apostles at that moment in time. Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them ... ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm
Have you taken any literature courses at University? Do you intend to. I esteem the works of Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, GKChesterson, Dorothy Sayers, CSLewis, JRRTolkien, Susan Howatch along with many others. Short stories are an excellent vehicle for life's narrative (the story we find ourselves in) IMO it is far superior to more didactic, propositionally structured forms of communication. - Original Message - From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: July 12, 2005 15:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm Hi JD, how is my father's post out of context? I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this. Blessings! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like I said David -- you are way out of context here and you know it. Shall I take time to prove the contextual point of John 16 and Mark 16? I can and will be happy to do so. JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:20:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm John wrote: No -- somebody forgot to tell you. Because you have no resepct for context in this case is of no matter to me. But context is very important. Without it, we have the fantasy that accompanies snake handling and ex-cathedra spiritual pronouncements brought, forever, into modern times. Sorry, John, but you are not going to sneak by with the lame out of context argument. The point is that the Holy Ghost continues to operate this way whether you recognize it or not. You are free to testify to us that the Holy Spirit does not operate in your life the way it is promised in John 16:13, but you cannot testify to others that he does not operate in the lives of anybody else like that. Jesus gave promises about the Holy Spirit and how he would operate in the lives of believers. Peter made it very clear that this promise was not restricted to just the eleven apostles at that moment in time. Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them ... ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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. -- 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] Re:John 16:13,14
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in words and I believe in THE Spirit !!! I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is for sure. They work in sync John.Where there is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him? Roman 2 makes it clear that we are no long judged by the Law, but by the Spirit. The law is "the letter." written on tablest of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri. JD in Romans 2:16 Paul writes "In the day when od shall judged the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Jesus is the Word of God - There is no place that I know of in the NT where the Spirit is said to be our Judge. The Law is a set of words. The Spirit is a living "breathing" relaity (so we beleive) that is no less than Goed Himself !! In Romans 2:29 -- these two concepts, the non-living Law of God and the Spirit are contrasted. Romans 2:29 is speaking of circumcision of the heart rather than of the flesh because this is the New Covenant. Yes the Spirit is a member of the Godhead and He is the Spirit of Christ but He is not a lone ranger. I take the word "law" and impose this definition: that by whihc we are judged. Before the incarnation, the written Law of God was that by which we were judged. Now, after the incarnation, the law of the Spirit (the rule of the Spirit) is that by which we are judged. There is much that is used by the Spirit IN ADDITION to the written message. We are still judged by the Words Jesus spoke even after the incarnation JD according to John 12:48"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The principle What do you read as the "problematic circunstance" here JD? In 1Cor 8:1-3, it is the insistence by some of the brotherhood that their knowing (these were those who did not have meat issues) was the final word and was to be considered as more important than the relationship we have in Christ via "love" and -- implied -- their relationship with the brother who beleives there to be more than one God. That MUST BE and is the issue here in I Co 8. that is why Paul invokes the principle of limited knowing verse relational love. I'm not sure what you mean by "limited knowing" vs "relational love" Where is this "relational love" clearly articulated in God's Word rather than the extra Biblical doctrines when God's Word clearly saysin Isa 5:13 and other places "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished and their multitude dried up with thirst"? That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to include that principle in your theology, fine. But it should be there. ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant JD. God does not bless ignorance - so how do you reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this principle? If we think we know something, we do not know it as we ought but if we love God, we ARE KNOWN BY HIM. That is how I justify those extremely rare occasion when I am actually mistaken about something -- I realy on my love for God and His promise to love me in return (but, of course, "He started it!!") I understand 1 Cor 8:1-3 to be addressing those who are acting smart over knowing that idols and other gods have no power so that their own attitude would trip them up even if what they did know was right. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
myth (anyone interested in the truth would neither write this nor respond to it) On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:35:16 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not interested in debate, but in truth. || What you[JD] are trying to say is only approximated by the words you use, so being free to consider the use of different words to say what you are trying to say can facilitate communication. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
LOL --- Gary, we would make the best of neighbors Jd-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:08:53 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 myth (anyone interested in the truth would neither write this nor respond to it) On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:35:16 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not interested in debate, but in truth. || What you[JD] are trying to say is only approximated by the words you use, so being free to consider the use of different words to say what you are trying to say can facilitate communication. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:06:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in words and I believe in THE Spirit !!! I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is for sure. They work in sync John.Where there is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him? Roman 2 makes it clear that we are no long judged by the Law, but by the Spirit. The law is "the letter." written on tablet of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri. JD in Romans 2:16 Paul writes "In the day when od shall judged the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Jesus is the Word of God - There is no place that I know of in the NT where the Spirit is said to be our Judge. I should have said it this way: the law is no longer the standard by which we are judged. The Spirit is that standard in Christ. We are judged in Christ. JD The Law is a set of words. The Spirit is a living "breathing" reality (so we believe) that is no less than Goed Himself !! In Romans 2:29 -- these two concepts, the non-living Law of God and the Spirit are contrasted. Romans 2:29 is speaking of circumcision of the heart rather than of the flesh because this is the New Covenant. Yes the Spirit is a member of the Godhead and He is the Spirit of Christ but He is not a lone ranger. I take the word "law" and impose this definition: that standardby which we are judged. Before the incarnation, the written Law of God was that by which we were judged. Now, after the incarnation, the law of the Spirit (the rule of the Spirit) is that by which we are judged. There is much that is used by the Spirit IN ADDITION to the written message. We are still judged by the Words Jesus spoke even after the incarnation JD according to John 12:48"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" This passage cannot be used to mean the re establishment of the rule of law.Why? there is just so much in scripture that opposes such a conclusion. If we are to be judged by law, there would be no point in the coming of Christ. JD Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The principle What do you read as the "problematic circumstance" here JD? In 1Cor 8:1-3, it is the insistence by some of the brotherhood that their knowing (these were those who did not have meat issues) was the final word and was to be considered as more important than the relationship we have in Christ via "love" and -- implied -- their relationship with the brother who beleives there to be more than one God. That MUST BE and is the issue here in I Co 8. that is why Paul invokes the principle of limited knowing verse relational love. I'm not sure what you mean by "limited knowing" vs "relational love" Where is this "relational love" clearly articulated in God's Word rather than the extra Biblical doctrines when God's Word clearly saysin Isa 5:13 and other places "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished and their multitude dried up with thirst"? That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to include that principle in your theology, fine. But it should be there. ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant JD. God does not bless ignorance - so how do you reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this principle? If we think we know something, we do not know it as we ought but if we love God, we ARE KNOWN BY HIM. That is how I justify those extremely rare occasion when I am actually mistaken about something -- I realy on my love for God and His promise to love me in return (but, of course, "He started it!!") I understand 1 Cor 8:1-3 to be addressing those who are acting smart over knowing that idols and other gods have no power so that their own attitude would trip them up even if what they did know was right. jt Yes this is true. But beyond the specifics of this passage, there is that principle thing -- we should always guard against becoming puff up because of what we know. And the "truth" we know, I think will "puff" us up quicker than anything because such knowledge actually works !! Example: the most obnoxious carpenters in the trade are those who know what they are doing and use this knowledge as a mark of superiority. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:JD: Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in words and I believe in THE Spirit !!!I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is for sure. They work in sync John. Where there is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him? JD: Roman 2 makes it clear that we are no long judged by the Law, but by the Spirit. The law is "the letter." written on tablet of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri. In Romans 2:16 Paul writes "In the day when God shall judged the secrets ofmen by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Jesus is the Word of God - Thereis no place that I know of in the NT where the Spirit is said to be our Judge. JD: I should have said it this way: the law is no longer the standard by which we are judged. The Spirit is that standard in Christ. We are judged in Christ. JD The standard remains the same since love is the fulfillment of the Law and love is the royal law or the law of Christ, so how have things changed JD: The Law is a set of words. The Spirit is a living "breathing" reality (so we believe) that is no less than Goed Himself !! In Romans 2:29 -- these two concepts, the non-living Law of God and the Spirit are contrasted. Romans 2:29 speaks of circumcision of the heart rather than of the fleshbecause this is the New Covenant. Yes the Spirit is a member of the Godheadand He is the Spirit of Christ but He is not a lone ranger. JD: I take the word "law" and impose this definition: that standard by which we are judged. Before the incarnation, the written law of God was that by which wewere judged.Now after the incarnation the law of the Spirit (the rule of the Spirit is that bywhich we are judged. There is much that is used by the Spirit in ADDITION to thewritten message. We are still judged by the Words Jesus spoke even after the incarnation JDaccording to John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hathone that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him inthe last day" JD: This passage cannot be used to mean the re establishment of the rule of law.Why? there is just so much in scripture that opposes such a conclusion. If we are to be judged by law, there would be no point in the coming of Christ. Why? God needed a permanent sacrifice for sin; the blood of bulls and goats was just temporary. Jesus was born of Mary, died, and was raised by the eternal Spirit Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The principle What do you read as the "problematic circumstance" here JD? In 1Cor 8:1-3, it is the insistence by some of the brotherhood that their knowing (these were those who did not have meat issues) was the final word and was to be considered as more important than the relationship we have in Christ via "love" and -- implied -- their relationship with the brother who beleives there to be more than one God. That MUST BE and is the issue here in I Co 8. that is why Paul invokes the principle of limited knowing verse relational love. I'm not sure what you mean by "limited knowing" vs "relational love"Where is this "relational love" clearly articulated in God's Word rather thanthe extra Biblical doctrines when God's Word clearly says in Isa 5:13 andother places "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished and their multitude dried up with thirst"? That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to include that principle inyour theology, fine. But it should be there. ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant JD. God does not bless ignorance -so how do you reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this principle? If we think we know something, we do not know it as we ought but if we love God, we ARE KNOWN BY HIM. That is how I justify those extremely rare occasion when I am actually mistaken about something -- I realy on my love for God and His promise to love me in return (but, of course, "He started it!!") I understand 1 Cor 8:1-3 to be addressing those who are acting smartover knowing that idols and other gods have no power so that their ownattitude would trip them up even if what they did know was right. jt Yes this is true. But beyond the specifics of this passage, there is that principle thing -- we should always guard against becoming puff up because of what we know. And the "truth" we know, I think will "puff" us up quicker than anything because such knowledge actually works !! Example: the most obnoxious carpenters in the trade are those who know what they are doing
