Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judy Taylor]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD: 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 the "dead letter" - Jesus called His Words Spirit and Life, why don't you believe Him?   JD: 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 tablet of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri.    In Romans 2:16 Paul writes "In the day when God shall judged the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.  Jesus is the Word of God - There is no place that I know of in the NT where the Spirit is said to be our Judge.   JD: I should have said it this way:  the law is no longer the standard by which we are judged.  The Spirit is that standard in Christ.   We are judged in Christ.   JD     The standard remains the same since love is the fulfillment of the Law and love is the royal law (or the law of Christ), so how have things changed   JD: The Law is a set of words. The Spirit is a living "breathing" reality (so we believe) 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.    God's law, commandments, and statutes are all His Word.  Jesus is the Word of God.  God is Spirit and He is Life as are the other two members of the Godhead So how can you separate them into different entities?  Romans 2:29 speaks of circumcision of the heart rather than of the flesh because this is the New Covenant  and we have been given the power to obey and so become a son.  (John 1:12)   JD: I take the word "law" and impose this definition:   that  standard by which  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.   We are still judged by the Words Jesus spoke even after the incarnation JD according to John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day"     JD: Those who are judged "by the word I have spoken" are those who have rejected Christ  --  that does not apply to either of us.   This rejection of Christ is not a legal positioning but a matter of relationships.     I'm not speaking of "legal positioning" per se but he did say "If you love me you will do what I say.  I can't figure out how one can do what He says if they don't know what He says and aside from His Word we are ignorant and following our own heart/mind   JD: Some will reject He who is the author and finisher of his faith.  Outside Christ is the law, measured failure and a life without grace --  death.     Scripture defines sin as "transgressing the law" so how do you figure the law is outside Christ?  Shall we sin that grace may abound??   JD: This passage cannot be used to mean the re establishment of the rule of law. Why?  there is just so much in scripture that opposes such a conclusion. If we are to be judged by law, there would be no point in the coming of Christ.   How come since He has sent us power from on high so that we have the ability to walk in love and fulfill the law through Himself?   Why? God needed a permanent sacrifice for sin; the blood of bulls and goats was just temporary.  Jesus was born of Mary, died, and was raised by the eternal Spirit   JD: 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 circumstance" here JD?     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 believe 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.    I'm not sure what you mean by "limited knowing" vs "relational love" Where is this "relational love" clearly articulated in God's Word rather than the extra Biblical doctrines when God's Word clearly says in Isa 5:13 and other places "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished and their multitude dried up with thirst"?   JD: 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?     JD: 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 rely on my love for God and His promise to love me in return   (but, of course,   "He started it!!")   I understand 1 Cor 8:1-3 to be addressing those who are acting smart over knowing that idols and other gods have no power so that their own attitude would trip them up even if what they did know was right.   jt   Yes this is true.   But beyond the specifics of this passage, there is that principle thing  --  we should always guard against becoming puff up because of what we know.   And the "truth" we know,  I think will "puff" us up quicker than anything because such knowledge actually works !!   It doesn't work if we are unwilling to walk in it - I would say that King Solomon is a good example of the folly of this track.  He had more wisdom than any other person up to that point and look what he did with it. I'd say that is an example of "being puffed up"