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 including those who will believe throughthe words of His disciples as well. So putting Jesus in a box is not contextual fact nor is it spiritual reality. Tell mewhat eating meat offered to idols has to do with the Holy Spirit being sent to reprove the world of sin, righteousness,and judgment? jtOn Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:29:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John 16 is about a meeting Christ had with the 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 a didache 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.Jd
From: 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.
