From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] knowing Truth Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:17:15 -0500
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, When you read the scripture, I am sure you can tell an indicative
from an imperative, right?
jt: I don't know whether I can or not Perry, I never knew there were such animals. But I do understand scripture without having to know all of the parts and where they fit just like I function in my body without consciously having to know and name all the parts and tell them what to do. God gave me this body and God the Holy Spirit gives me understanding of His Word as I am faithful to study and seek Him.
Sure you can. You may not know them by name, but you can tell when Jesus is making a statement or when he is giving a command, right? That is what I am talking about...you do not have to know their grammatical names.
Then, I would like to suggest that you are already identifying the indicatives and imperatives, you just may not have thought consciously about it. But you probably know that already. If you do indeed know that, then why the negative statement about it? You could have just as easily have made a positive statement. Or none at all.
jt: You are right that I could have ignored this stuff - I certainly don't see much positive about the TT Classroom experiment so I was being honest.
I see Bill's post as merely suggesting that we begin consciously noticing the indicatives and imperatives.
jt: What for?
I answer this in the line below...
No more, no less. For many readers this may bring out a dimension that they had not previously consciously noticed.
jt: Will it make their walk with God any closer?
Yes, in some cases it will. For someone who reads with little or no analytical skills, this might just light up the text so they can better understand it. Yes, indeed. It is like learning HOW to study the text rather than just READ it. In fact, there are many ways to analyze text based on its structure that reveal MUCH MUCH more than just a casual reading of the text.
If it does for you, the you have learned something. if not, then you could have let it go. Your comment does not build up the body. It was not even a doctrinal issue...in fact it was a neutral issue.
jt: They say music is a neutral issue also - amoral (so they say)
Some is, some isn't...listen to the lyrics...do they bring Glory to God, or not? Read Psalm 150, then go bang a pan to God's glory! So much of it is in the heart of the musician, not in the sounds she makes. At a church I once attended there was a choir of mentally challenged adults. It was called the "Joyful Noise" choir. Once a month they got to perform at a service. By musical standards they were hard to listen to. But when one experienced the joy with which these beatiful people belted out their songs to God, there was no doubt in anyone's heart how He would receive the praise!.
An observation and suggestion. It has nothing to do with leading us to Bill's particular doctrine.
jt: Let's wait on this one Perry. I won't be surprised if Bill doesn't try to prove some of his scriptural concepts that have been refused by using these indicatives and imperatives.
He may, but I think he is sincere, and will give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, if by bringing my attention to these grammatical elements he leads to a doctrine that is correct, hooray! I've grown!
And, yes, even Israel had to understand the imperatives and declarations that Moses spoke.
jt: When Moses gathered Israel every 7yrs; men, women, and children; are you telling me that they first had to understand this stuff before they knew what God was talking about? I don't think so...
Indeed they did. They did not have to know their names, but they had to be able to tell whether Moses was giveing a command or making a statement in order to even pack for the trip!
You comment on everything, and many your comments appear to be negative.
jt: Yes I guess I do have a lot to say, noone can accuse me of being a passive listmember.
When you see doctrinal error, I can understand this as correction, but why be negative on neutral issues? Why introduce tension when it is not merited?
jt: Let's wait and see if this turns out to be a neutral issue in the end.
I prefer to trust him...if he has a hidden agenda, we will find out soon enough.
judyt
Thanks, Judy. Perry
_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
---------- "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.
