|
Though it is difficult nay, nigh on impossible to
underestimate the ability of even "long-time" believers to articulate on The
Nature of God & The Nature of God's Gospel I will readily nay (once again)
acknowledge the following: 1. God is gracious. By His Spirit He takes the most
inarticulate expressions and changes lives. 2. When welcomed into His
Presence we ought not to expect "Good for you you figured it all out"; instead
"Well done good and faithful servant." Blessings, Lance Original Message
-----
Sent: April 01, 2004 08:56
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words
of the living God
I don't know that I would phrase it like that
Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the Holy
Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the doctrines of
men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many of them) and came
asking God for wisdom that things came together for me. I no longer need to
cut out some parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into my
doctrine. I love every Word, they are all life-giving, better and more
satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and Lance cheer each other
on because you have all read and follow some of the same theologians. I
recognize God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For
eg; I don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts
God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the
Lord. Does this make any sense to you? judyt
Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know
you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to
Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead
me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading"
different from the "leading" you receive. Does that
necessarily mean I am the one in error, the
one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it
necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please
listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning,
try to understand him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to
the heart of any discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread).
Bill
What about the HS giving
understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of
doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with
opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in context why the
scriptures I post are being wrongly used. By intrinsic do you
mean "inward"? (In the person or in the Word)? Both should be the
same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the latter at the 'eschaton'
because without understanding they will be the ones walking in lawlessness
who will say "Lord, Lord!!" judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Check archives re:the role
of the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this
site are actually "believers". They quote
scriptures intended to support an opposing
meaning to those you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya"
factor and, at its best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be
lead by the Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and
will be reflective of the latter position this side of the eschaton.
Lance
Correct me if I'm
wrong Lance but I'm reading you stating that I misread scripture
because of outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe
the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is
"intrinsically true and right" However, in saying this you are setting
yourself (or some theologian that you respect and follow) up as the
standard of what is true and right rather than God's Word. If I am
perverting truth here, you have the responsibility as a fellow believer to
show me in balance and in context why you think I am doing so (in love),
so that I may walk in all truth. judyt
Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to
do with your scripture quotations. Every one of
them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning
that makes whatever point you are about in that
conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you
too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read
etc) can be seen to have lead you away from
that which is intrinsically true and right.
Please don't respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect
one over the other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't.
Lance
Are you being funny
Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these
days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to
seek out the devil in order to receive
wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with
what these other theologians were about. judyt
Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda
thunk it. Yup, convictions arrived at concerning some matters
influence others. Lance
Now Bill, got to
tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were
evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in
theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and
racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological
liberals... What's so good about all that? As the old saying
goes, no smoke without fire...jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh please. When new manuscript evidence
is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower
margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the
evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning
authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated
evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory
details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN;
you can make anything sound seedy. Bill
Please do, I will
be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German
theologians
other than things began to change for the
worse when their textual criticism began to
permeate the Seminaries in this country. I
had heard of Westcott & Hort but not this
Nestle/Aland pair. jt
From: Kevin Deegan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> I
have a lot of problems with the NA text. When they finally get it
right I will give you a critique. Right now we are at revision 26
- revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott & Hort text -
Nest/Aland any edition
Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his
personal views from the task he is qualified
to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a
well educated sectarian. All you have proven
is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in
theory. That does not change the fact that he
and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and
the others). Do you have
some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no
reference to Aland's theology. Aren't you
the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version?
John
|
