|
If I read you aright, I agree.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: November 23, 2004 16:21
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
David M was getting frustrated with me because I wouldn't give him a
"straight answer" to his passive/active question (like the only answer had to
be active or passive; like the question, "When did you stop
beating your wife"). I was referring to his reaction to my "nonanswer" which
in reality was the only right answer because of the structure of his
question.
--
slade
In a message dated 11/23/2004 2:50:13 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The logic you used in this post, John, is why I said it was
a matter of perspective whether the covenant requires passive or active
participation on Avraham's part. It's a matter of HOW one looks at the
data and what data they choose to incorporate. It was not an attempt on my
part to dodge the issue or to intentionally frustrate David M. The whole
basis of my unwillingness to pin down an absolute answer is in the
understanding that god GAVE the covenant promise to Avraham. This
indicates ABSOLUTE passivity on Avraham's part. Avraham obeyed God's Word
and this indicates active participation.
- slade
Slade, I hope you are not being desensive because of
something I said. I could not agree more with your words
above.
As is the case in all honest disagreements
(if, in fact, we are disagreeing), perspective is the reason. But I do
not cast "perspective" as the "bad guy" because it is shared perspective
that presents the possibility for growth. I have enjoyed your
and Jeffs stay on this forum for exactly that reason.
Gotta
go.
John
|
