My comments will be in capitals, once agains. David, if you would shorten your posts
to me, I would appreceiate it. Just pick one or two points of departure. It is
easier on those who follow the thread and -- fir or six posts down the road, it thread
does not rival War and Peace in terms of volume content. I will give a brief answer
to the following.
John
David writes:
if it is not important, we can just move on.
Some comments to help you understand what I don't understand:
1. What are you referring to with the phrase "authoritative appeal"? I have no idea.
I WROTE THE FOLLOWING WHICH, FOR SOME REASON, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND --
IF THE AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL IS THE LIFE AND
EXAMPLE OF THE LIVING CHRIST
> WITHIN (and I agree fully)
IF THE AUTHORS OF NT SCRIPTURE DO NOT QUOTE OR REFER TO THE WORDS OF CHRIST AS OFTEN
AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT (THERE IS NO SUCH APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS FOR
EXAMPLE), IS THEIR AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL DRAWN FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE OR HAVE
BEEN QUALIFIED BY THE LIVING CHRIST WITHIN? tHE ELDERS OF THE FIRST CHURCH WERE TO
GOVERN THROUGH AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LIVED THEIR LIVES (AS EXAMPLES I PET 5:3).
THE PRIMARY AUTHORITY FOR THEIR "RULE" WAS AND IS THE APPROPRIATION OF THE LIVING
CHRIST IN THEIR LIVES -- THIS PASSION FOR THE CHRIST THAT JONATHAN SPEAKS OF.
2. From my perspective, for the most part, whatever was true then holds true today,
so I don't understand your assumption that something does not hold true today.
SUCH IS NOT TRUE FOR MANY. WHEN I WRITE, I DO IT NOT SIMPLY FOR YOUR REVIEW, DAVID.
IN FIRST CENTURY TIMES, LUKE, MATTHEW, PAUL, PETER, ETC ARE BELIEVEABLE BECAUSE OF
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LIVING AND INDWELLING CHRIST. PAUL ENCOURAGES HIS
AUDIENCE TO "FOLLOW ME AS I FOLLOW CHRIST." APPEAL TO SCRITPURE, WHILE USED, IS
CERTAINLY NOT THE AUTHORITIVE APPEAL USED TODAY IN OUR INTERPRETATIONS AND GLEANINGS
FROM SCRIPTURE (AND I AM "BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE" AS MUCH ANY ON THIS FORUM.) BILL,
LANCE, JONATHAN, KRUGER, EACH APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE FOR THEIR AUTHORITY BUT, ALSO,
INCLUDE THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS WHO LIVE THE LIFE AND PRACTIVE THE INDWELLING. WHY ARE
THEY WRONG TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS WHILE PETER, LUKE, PAUL AND THE FIRST CHURCH WERE
DOING THE SAME THING -- GIVING HONOR AND PLACE TO BOTH SCRIPTURE AND BRETHREN OF THE
LIVING AND INDWELLING CHRIST?
3. I don't understand the comment that Paul believed that we were perfected by
"another." And why would this be an unusual conclusion?
RMANS 4 TELLS USE THAT THE FAITH (OF CHRIST, I BELIEVE) IS EXCHANGED FOR AND
CONSIDERED IN THE PLACE OF OUR RIGHTEOUS ACTIVITY. wEW HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS BY
"NOTHER'"
I PER 1:2 TELLS US THAT THE WOPRK OF SACNTIFICATION IS THE WORK OF "ANOTHER' (THE
SPIRIT). II PETER 1:1 GIVES US THE REALIZATION THAT FAITH COMES TO US FROM "ANOTHER"
("to those who have RECEIVED a faith the same kind as ours ... NASV). pHILIP
2:12,13 TELLS US THAT THE POWER AND WILL FOR DOING COMES FROM "ANOTHER." i DO NOT
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS.
4. I don't understand why you say that the Bible cannot be understood "by others than
those infilled."
ACTUALLY, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS NOR DID I SAY THIS.
5. I don't understand why you would think that your question was without
merit just because I pointed out how you had overstated the case. I thought
your questions were very good, and I have thought long and hard on these
very same questions years ago.
DAVID, WHEN YOU FANTACIZE THAT I SIMPLY "LIKE" ONE PASSAGE MORE THAN ANOTHER, THUS MY
THEOLOGY, YOU OFFER A STRANGE AND TRULY UNIQUE WAY OF ASSERTING THE GOODNESS OF MY
QUESTION. iN OTHER WORDS, TO SAY WHAT I MEAN TO SAY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE ON THIS WHO
THINKS AND WRITES THIS WAY. I WILL HAVE TO ACCUSTOM MYSELF TO YOUR "STYLE" OF WRITING
AND PROBING. fORGIVE ME WHEN I TAKE OFFENSE AT WHAT IS NORMALLY CONSIDER OFFENSIVE.
6. I disagree with how you characterize the idea that there were not
"theologians" who referred to texts the way modern ministers do. Modern
ministers today correspond more closely with the "scribes and Pharisees" of
Jesus' day. They did study the texts in this way and wrote about them, but
their writings were never canonized just as modern ministers do not have
their writings canonized.
YOUR POINT IS WELL WRITTEN. BUT I DO NOT SEE THE POINT. THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT
'CONONIZED" IS OF NO IMPORT TO ME. WHO "CANONIZED' THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE? GOD OR
THE CHURCH OR GOD THROUGH THE CHURCH? THREE CHOICES. ONE HELPS YOU APPARENT CASE.
THE OTHER TWO SEEM TO MAKE MY POINT. AND WHAT IS MY POINT, FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY?
WELL, IT IS THAT SPIRITUAL AND TRULY DIVINE LESSONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THOSE WHO ARE
FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST. PERHAPS BILLY-T IS RIGHTEOUS IN HIS THINKING THAT THE cHURCH
fATHERS HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE WAY WE UNDERSTAND GOD.
7. The phrase, "is there more to a conclusive answer" is confusing somewhat
to me. However, I assume that perhaps you are asking if there is more to
it. Yes, there is. I not only know in part, but I speak in part too.
Never expect to find my entire viewpoint about a subject in any post. There
is just too much in my mind to write down in any one sitting, and most
issues are complex with multiple factors to consider. I never offer the
full answer, and I like the idea of synergism in discussions, the concept
that when I share a little and others share a little, in the end we all come
to know the answers much better than we ever did before.
8. Why the ranker over misapplying Scripture?
ACTUALLY, I DID NOT SAY THIS. I WROTE " .. so why the ranker when one is SEEN as
misapplying scritpure?' MY QUESTION FOLLOWED YOU COMMENT AND ACCURATE OBSERVATION
(IMO) STATED IN THESE WORDS: ".... they lived it and represented it in person. They
themselves became first hand testimony to the Word of God." I ASSERT THAT THIS
PROCESS CONTINUES TO THIS DAY -- IN THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF
LIVING OUT THE WORD OF GOD (READ INDWELLING CHRIST). IF WE HONOR THEIR PRACTICE OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THEIR APPROPRIATION OF THE DIVINE SPIRIT, WE WILL RESPOND
DIFFERENTLY TO THEM WHEN THEY ARE SEEN TO MISSAPLY SCRIPTURE. IF I DISAGREE WITH
JONATHAN OR BILL OR SLADE,OR JUDY OR LANCE OR WHOEVER, ON A GIVEN SUBJECT OR
INTERPRETATION, MY RESPECT AND HONOR DOES NOT CHANGE. THAT IS WHY I LISTEN TO THEM
AND, OFTEN, CHANGE MY ACTIONS OR THINKING, BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY I SENSE IN THEM AS
THEY TRY TO APPROPRIATE THE LIVING CHRIST.
Because our path of knowing
the Living Word is subjective, and we need an objective element to help keep
us within that narrow path. Scripture is what God has chosen to help us
sort out false subjective evidence from true. I think it should be basic
Christian understanding that part of our responsibility to each other as
fellow believers is to challenge and provoke one another to love, using
Scriptures as the baseline for how we speak. Did not even Paul often argue,
"as it is written..." Did not Jesus argue in the same way? Then so should
we.
9. Bonhoeffer -- just to let you know, I am about as impressed with
Bonhoeffer as I am with Joseph Smith. Bonhoeffer taught lying and deception
by a student in the classroom as a valid, moral position. He vascillated on
his position of pacifism and found himself choosing to plan the
assassination of Hitler (not understanding Romans 13 and the concept of how
God raises up and tears down). He did not regard that even David would not
raise his hand against Saul. Martyred? His assassination plot was foiled,
and he was tried, found guilty, and then hung by his enemies for attempting
to murder their ruler. That is hardly giving his life for Christ. I'm sure
the Mormons believe that Joseph Smith gave his life for Christ too, but I
don't buy that one either.
DISGRACEFUL ANALYSIS IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
Well, I meant to tell you what I didn't understand, but I guess I offered
more than that once I started typing. I do appreciate you and your interest
in Christ and your fellow disciples of Christ.
Peace be with you.
-�r���眅�������
�q� j�'y�"���ajܨ�f��z0��2��.�m�����޽��¢Z,�&�������
0"yƖ��*.v�����+yǢ��h�� ����+%��lzwZ�隊[h-�y:�ږB'�ih�*+���ʋ��Y[z�칻 �&�t���Z�柮'�wh�����#�)�zYa�kh���jw�j)m��"�:�ږB'�ih�*+��݅�"�V޲��r��y
