jt: I'm still really curious about when God changed and
how? I've been reading scripture for a long time and have
yet to see a prophet write about God changing - have
you? Do you think it possible for some to be wilfully
deceived?
Don’t feel bad about
that, jt. Liberals think the US Consitution is a “living, breathing”
document as well (so they can change the original intent/meaning of it as well
as the Bible’s.) Izzy
I'm not seeking a pat on the back
Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the
same
language and don't forget I'm on the
static understanding side ...
Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant
post. Well done, young lady.
Forgot to mention
that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes
of expanding, and growing, however, are in us rather than on God's
side because His Truth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been
the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change
not"
Trying to
spiritualize differences which most often is the adversary sowing
discord and strife is calling evil good. Spiritual growth should never cause
division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able
to recognize it even when they do not fully understand it ..
We all press on together to aprehend
Christ.
Let me take at
shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not
veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the
Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is
in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording
"dynamic understanding"
would demand a difference of position
and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God,
a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of
Saints. We should expect
differences. They
are of God and are not necessarily evil or even
undesirable. A static
positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of
(I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND
MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points
of import within the Gospel of Christ. How did I do?
Smitty
jt: Has
Lance given you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you
are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was
neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they
taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the
following:
1 Corinthians
1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18,
Philippians 2:2.
The reason we must
be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind
of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and
forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we
will grow into
Him in all
things. jt
From: "Lance
Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jt:I'm
drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God
and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the
three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding.
thanks It might be
better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying
that your gospel has signs following, that is, the signs Jesus
spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic
gospel is one where the power of God is evident. Static is a form
of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on
the same page. jt
|