Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants?

[Lance Muir]

ï Ya know the old saying:'I couldn't have said it better'? Well 'chore-man', I couldn't have said it even nearly as well. Nicely don! ----- Original Message ----- From: Hughes Jonathan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 19, 2004 13:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants? Hi Izzy,   Hope this helps:   Wikipedia defines the TOE as: A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena (i.e. "everything").   This is a scientific construct designed to encapsulate all of our scientific knowledge.  Lance is asking what the theological counterpart of this scientific theory would be.  Actually he may even be taking a step beyond this.  I think he would say that the scientific theory of everything (TOE) would become a predicate (become part of, or a subset) of the theological theory of everything (TTOE).  What is the meaning of the cosmos, of creation?  We can sum up that meaning in the Person of Jesus Christ.  As we do not separate God's acts from God's being we can substitute the incarnation (God with us in space and time as the Godman, fully God and fully human) for the words Jesus Christ.  Lance is suggesting that we define all that we do and think through the lens of the incarnation.  The incarnation being the focal point out of which we come to understand our lives.  What we tend to do is use our theology to define our lives.  Lance is suggesting that we allow God to define our theology.  Lance goes on to suggest that in order to do this two things may need to occur:   1)  Move past (not ignore) external relations to think of internal relations, or onto-relations as he likes to call them when we speak.  The human person is defined by relationality.  To be fully human is to relate.  Out of these relations comes change and growth. 2)  Indwell the Scriptures.  The Word of God is capable of setting us free.  When we allow God's Word to indwell us in light of who He is we come into this internal relation.   Hope this helps.  Based on what I have said, can you see why Slade's response this morning came out of 'internal relations'?    Unfortunately my lunch break is over :)   Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants? Question:What is the theological counterpart to 'The Theory of Everything'? Answer:The Incarnation   It is well and wise to think of  internal relations. Do not stop with the external. Indwel the Scriptures.   Example of 'internal' thinking:Slade's post this morning. I cna think of a number of scriptures that support the above  --   soooooo, why is it imcumbant upon Lance to quote them.  Is it not enough that he incorporates the scriptures as he understands them into his writings?    John   Iâm not sure who you are asking, John.  But my answer would be that he should quote scriptures at least for those of us who might not understand or agree with what he says.  For instance, I have no idea what he means by what he said above.  And I donât recall what the Theory of Everything is. Izzy This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ.