|
When 'regulative beliefs' clash we can but praise
God then, continue to faithfully serve Him. IMO, those such as yourself,
DavidM, Kevin et al simply do not apprehend the issues under discussion. You
see, Judy, even having a Phd is of limited value outside of the historical
context of it's having been earned.(DM)
Bill, Gary and John has spoken with some clarity
and understanding on the issues under discussion.It is sometimes wise, when not
apprehending the content of a post, to either ask for clarification or, to leave
it alone.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 01, 2005 06:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein
& Karl Barth
Wait a minute - So the incarnation is for the whole
world and the resurrection is only for disciples?
Says who? Also who says the scriptures are not the "mind of God?"
Seems to me Jesus told the Jews they couldn't hear Him because they didn't
understand Moses - it might follow that ppl today don't hear God because they
didn't understand His Word (Jesus)
Why do Karl Barth and others like him think they must
come up with new ways of communicating so as to humanize God who is
Spirit? Paul told the Corinthians that his speech and preaching were not
with enticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power so that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the
power of God (1 Cor 2:4,5). God the Word took upon Himself a body of
flesh so that he could lay it down as a sacrifice for us.
He did not come into this world so that God could be
humanized. He became poor so that we through His poverty might be
rich. He paid the price so that we could become part of a New Creation
in Him. Our faith is not supposed to stand in the "wisdom of men" such
as Karl Barth. Paul didn't speak in the words which man's wisdom teaches
and he didn't promote the Hebrew mindset either; he spoke what the Holy Ghost
teaches comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13,14).
However, natural men don't receive the things of the Spirit of God - they view
them as foolishnessness and gnosticism because they are spiritually
discerned.
Karl Barth was a "natural man" - religious yes, but
natural. jt
Two really big thumbs up on this one, g.
Thanks. Bill
[Kevin's quote:]
<<Karl Barth
(himself)* [..asked CFH Henry responding to his question whether
the resurrection was newsworthy to the common man] : * 'Did you say
Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?' [Barth]
then continued by saying that 'the resurrection of Jesus had
significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no
significance to the world. >>
certainly it
is true that (the NT) resurrection HAS no significance for the
world (now)--why would it while the resurrection of Jesus HAS
significance only for His disciples?
ftr, i heard
CFHH tell K's story, above, in his own words, in person; and,
when i heard it i didn't think CFHH could understand what KB had told
him..but, that day, listening to CFHH himself, and despite the air of
animosity in circulation there, it registered to
me that the bible is not God's mind per
se , but God's mind in selected (sanctioned) ppl's
thoughts..they (therefore we, as their
listeners) are indispensible to God's Word..that this is God's
will..that it implies that there is something holy in
humanity, something of God himself in us
which has perhaps unfathomable implications for the meaning
of history..that, e.g., history is governed by
God 'in you', God in Christ, not in propositional
(nonpersonal) (head trip) truths--not by axioms of the Mind, but by
the Spiritual interaction of Persons and personalities, in
Christ..
"..if you
confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that
God
raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your
heart that you believe
and are justified, and it is with your mouth
that you confess and are saved. As the
Scripture says, 'Anyone
who trusts in him will never be put to shame.'" (Romans 10,
NIV)
|
