|
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lance, I think your point was missed. I think that is because jt missed the main point you were making (you know, the one the rest of us got). jt: Kevin did you get this point?
Do you mind if I jump in now? I am going to assume you don't mind and go
ahead and get involved with this one because I see the
distinction as too important to miss.
Judy writes
However, you and [Bill] are unified over some extra
Biblical concept that negates the judgment of God and you have yet to give
any scriptural grounds for such a belief. judyt
Judy, this is just simply untrue. I have gone farther in my exegesis of
Scripture than anyone one on this forum (since I have been here). I just do not throw verses around by the buckets full like you and
some others do.
jt: You should spend more time meditating in God's Word
Bill, it would give you a lot of peace (see Psalm 119:165)
I have exegete Luke 2.52, a great little passage that gets to the heart of
Christ's atoning work.
jt: How does the boy Jesus growing into manhood get to
the heart of Christ's atoning work?
I have exegete Philippians 2.5-11, another clear declaration of the
personhood of Christ. I have gone over the Hebrew understanding of oneness. I
have written extensively on the biblical use of go'el. I have written on Romans
5.12ff. I have given a brief commentary on Psalms 22. I have written on the
relationship between indicatives and imperatives in Scripture. I have exegete
Romans 7.7-13. I can go on.
jt: In all of these scriptures you claim to
have exegeted Bill, you use them to prove a doctrine you have already
fleshed out but you do not approach God's Word in humility submitting
your natural reason and asking His Spirit for understanding. The end result is
that the narrow way becomes a broad way same as with M Scott Peck,
different methods but the end result is the same.
The problem is not that we have failed to give any scriptural grounds for
such beliefs. The problem is that we understand Scripture to mean something
different in regards to certain points than what you understand it to mean.
There, I underlined it, made it bold, and italicized parts of it. That is
because this is the main point and I don't want you to miss it and get
side-tracked onto something else.
Judy it is not that you are the only one among us who actually reads
Scripture to draw meaning from it. I do too. So does Lance. Lance is saying that
something takes place between the reading of God's words and the interpreting of
them, the drawing forth of meaning from those same words. If the Bible did not
need to be interpreted, if it did that part for us, then we would all agree on
its meaning (And don't get side-tracked here either. I am talking about true
believers, people with the Holy Spirit indwelling them -- I am talking about you
and me and Lance and all true believers).
jt: The reason we don't all agree is because God
Himself closes His book to some and reveals it to others. (The Mormons know
about that scripture in Isaiah but they mistakenly believe Joseph Smith was
given the key) God is not mocked and whatsoever a man sows that is what he
is going to reap. God is Spirit and our walk is a spiritual walk; there are
also
a lot of religious spirits out there
sowing complicated doctrines that will never lead God's people into
righteousness and holiness causing them to try to get to heaven some other
way.
You want to know what it means.
jt: No I have peace about what it means and the
ministry of the Holy Spirit will give me understanding where it is lacking as I
am faithful to study (which BTW I need to go do right now). I don't need to
check things out with my local theologian.
I want to know what it means. Lance wants to know what it means. Yet there
is an interpretive task involved for each one of us, before any one of us can
say what it "means." At that point of saying what it means, it becomes at best
an approximation of Truth, maybe a very close approximation but an approximation
nonetheless.
jt: Wow! I'm sure glad Jesus was not that confused when
he confronted the adversary in the wilderness. He would never have been able to
say "It is written" "It is written" "It is written" and Bill this is the example
he left for us to follow.
It is this not because God's word is lacking, or because we do not have the
Holy Spirit, it is this because we are finite. We are limited. We bring
everything we are everytime we go to the text, whether it be the text of
Scripture, or the text that someone else has written about Scripture. Hence,
since we are limited, finite, human beings, we may not always agree on what the
Scriptures mean. We can only say, "this is what I understand it to mean."
jt: So being a finite being I can not overcome the
powers of darkness by using the sword of the spirit because in my finiteness I
can not know what it means? Lord have mercy!!
Judy, we all have extra-biblical concepts that we bring with us to the
text. It's called being human. Please, please do not get side-tracked here,
because if you do, it will mean that you have missed the main point once
again.
jt: Bill I think I've about given up on the "main
point" There are too many points and your system is way to complicated. Also you
have a flawed humanistic Jesus and the way you and Lance speak of the atonement
totally negates God's judgment which is the other side of His nature. He didn't
have a change of personality between Malachi and Matthew.
From: Judy Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:47 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the Meaning of God's Word(s)? From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NOT NECESSARILY OURS. Of course there's a meaning. If the Meaning of God's Word(s) were apprehended by all True Believers then...see my earlier posts concerning Unity, Division, Spot & Blemish, and on and on.. jt: The Church Jesus comes for will be unified. They will be
unified around His Word; they will have been cleansed by His Word without accompanying spot and or blemish etc. Speaking of spot/blemish didn't you say "whatever that means?" I showed you in God's Word what it means and you don't accept that. So does this mean IYO I am not a True Believer? Now, as an example ask Bill if he understood what my
meaning was in my last couple of posts to you. If he did and you didn't...Case closed..right? jt: I don't need to ask Bill as he keeps cheering you on like
half time at a ball game. However, you and he are unified over some extra Biblical concept that negates the judgment of God and you have yet to give any scriptural grounds for such a belief. judyt From: Judy Taylor
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy: "This is what my KJV says, Lance" Surely on this occasion and numerous others you've come to see that the differences manifested on TT HAVE NOT TO DO WITH WHAT IS SAID BUT OVER WHAT IS MEANT. I know from others posts from you Judy, that you're aware of this distinction. Lance jt: Are you telling me that the Word of God does not mean what it
says?
If this is what you are saying then "No, I don't have this distinction and the differences manifested on TT make no difference to me. I believe God says what He means and He means what He says. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
He comes to it? Just like TT, just like your local "garden variety" Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Charismatic etc. Church. SOME IN THEM WILL be without spot or blemish (whatever that actually means). There is no "grand transformation" about to take place (either to TT or to the Churches). Lance This is what my KJV says Lance
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it that he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Eph 5:26,27 Sounds to me like the issue is sanctification/holiness
Jesus was a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:19) Contrast Him with actual spots....
"These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage for if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Peter 2:17-20) "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts;
and
their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. " (Jude 16) |
