When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied. David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here.
Lance wrote:
Terry: Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this expression is a liar)
I don't think Terry is saying that these are the only two possibilities. What he is saying is that if the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead you into truth, and someone comes along and says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, then the second person is obviously mistaken. If he wants to point out the concept of bias, he would have to modify his viewpoint to accept what God has said, that we can be led into truth.
Lance wrote:
'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant' (Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar)
If someone is teaching that there is only one unilateral covenant, and someone raises an objection to it by pointing out how Scripture speaks of many covenants, then there needs to be some explanation. Clearly there are some paradoxes in Scripture. Paul says we are justified by grace through faith, without works, but James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone. Such is understood only by considering the context of what they are saying; otherwise, on the surface they appear to be contradictory and opposite statements.
In regards to the covenant thing:
1. Nobody has established the idea of a "unilateral covenant." From my perspective, the phrase is nonsense. It is like saying, "unilateral agreement." There is no such thing as an agreement if it is unilateral. I may be all mixed up in my thinking here, but until someone explains a little more, it just does not compute You might as well be talking about a cold Sun or hot ice.
2. Paul clearly identifies two covenants, but Gary and others say there is only one covenant mentioned there. Again, explain what Paul meant or quit contradicting him. Guys like me and Terry read "two covenants" and we say, "oh, I see, Paul perceives there to be two covenants, and one was for someone else and this one is for me and I should not confuse the two covenants or it will mess up the one covenant that is for me."
Lance wrote:
Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way?
Anything is possible, but based upon the discussion thus far, it is highly unlikely that both are correct.
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.
