John S. wrote: > ... my Brief paid equal attention to all aspects > of the text
No it did not. I asked you a very specific question about verse 23, and you spent several paragraphs talking about everything but this verse. Then when you finally got to this verse, you gave only a very short paragraph. You never really addressed my question. John S. wrote: > ... It is Paul who emphasizes the fact of reconcilation > in the first part of the text and its purpose in the remaining > text. LOL. This coming from the man who had just wrote: John wrote: >> It is never "this is what the Bible says." Rather, the truth >> of the matter is found in these words, "this is what I believe >> the Bible says." Please don't forget that we are discussing what we believe that Paul meant when he wrote these words. More importantly, we are discussing what we believe the Holy Spirit is meaning to communicate through this passage. For someone who rails upon others who say, "the Bible says...," I find it strange that you would try and establish your perspective by claiming that IT IS PAUL who emphasizes the fact of reconciliation. Yes he does emphasize this fact of reconciliation, but not without connecting it to Holiness, Unblameableness, Unreproveableness IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH. John S. wrote: > Your omission remains a critical error, > in my estimation. I don't see how you can think this when we agree already upon that omitted phrase. You just keep rehashing the same old same old, perhaps hoping that nobody will notice that you are not dealing adequately with the rest of the passage. I entered this discussion because you kept arguing that people needed to just read this passage. Now it appears that you do not want them to read the entire passage. John S. wrote: > Actully, [sic] you do have a problem with this concept > because you do not think this event, the fact of reconciliation > to be a sovereign event. Nonsense. Stop telling me what I believe. Reconciliation is a completely sovereign event that results in transformed individuals. John S. wrote: > In just a few sentenses, [sic] you are going to write " ....... but if > the > purpose is not accomplished then we might question the fact upon > which the purpose supposedly springs forth. Here, you allow for > the possibility that the fact is somehow contingent upon my activity. Nonsense. The fact is contingent upon HIS activity in us. What I believe is that the sovereign act of God is reflected in us. The evidence of his work is what he does within us, transforming us from the children of Satan into children of God. Any good that I do is not me. It is not MY activity but rather it is God's activity within me. John S. wrote: > You simply must have your performance as (nearly) important as God's. Nonsense. Stop trying to tell me what I believe. My performance always leads to death. Only when I die and consider myself dead in Christ can he then find his expression through me. Only when I stop trying to perform can God then live and work within me John S. wrote: > By definition, legalism is a dependence upon > personal performance. What definition is that? I use the term legalism in the sense of being a strict adherence to laws or rules, and in regards to Scripture to refer to being strict to particular phrases, sometimes without adequate consideration of other qualifying phrases. This is why I have tried to communicate that from my perspective, you appear to be very legalistic in your approach to Scripture. You seem to be very concerned, even pedantic, about making everyone reconciled to God based upon certain key phrases in the Bible, even to the point of being blind to wickedness on the part of those you consider reconciled to God. John S. wrote: > In this allowance, you actually suggest that God > did not reconcile the world unto Himself. Nonsense. You continually misrepresent my theology. I believe that God has reconciled the world unto himself, but the manifestation of that reconciliation is only experienced by those who believe. John S. wrote: > And that is why I said that we are world's apart. > Our theologies are not the same. You seem to strain real hard to make us world's apart. I still do not see much difference in our theology. I don't think there is anything you believe passionately that I do not believe. The problem is that there are some perspectives that I have that you seem to be oblivious toward. John S. wrote: > You are not a grace based student. Nonsense. John S. wrote: > The fact that you resist every statement posted in > regards to our continuing sin situation is proof of that. Nonsense. Grace is God's enabling power. Grace is what God bestows upon us when found in the condition of sin, not so that we might continue to wallow in sin, but that we might be delivered from it. What kind of grace is this that you seem to believe in that leaves us helpless and without ability to rise above the power of sin? John S. wrote: > I most definitely believe that Christ in us produces changes Sometimes it is hard to remember this with some of the things you write. John S. wrote: > but you believe that these changes occur all at once, upon the > reception of the indwelling Spirit, and I accept that the Spirit > accomplishes this change a bit at a time - and does so in each of us. Nonsense. Stop telling me what I believe. We are all growing in Christ. I do not believe that we are all full grown and mature the moment we believe in Christ. How foolish it would be for anyone to think that I would ever have such a mindset. David Miller wrote: >> I see holiness and manifested by living like Christ. >> You seem to see it as a legal position in Christ. John S. wrote: > David, it is not going to work - you casting me > as the legalist. Good try, however. I'm just trying to explain to you how you appear from my perspective. You seem to be focused almost completely upon our legal position in Christ based upon the work of Christ, and you manipulate favorite proof texts from Scripture to make yourself feel good about your perspective. John S. wrote: > I would say that the fact of reconciliation has a purpose. I agree. That is my point as well. John S. wrote: > And that is important. You say that the fact of reconciliation > has a result (the performance of the individual) -- > and because the individual fails, you question the fact. > I would never do that. I say that if the purpose of God is not accomplished, then we might question whether we have understood the fact correctly. If I understood you to tell me that you had 10 children ages 1 to 12 and I went in your house and found no pictures of children, no toys, no bikes, no beds for children, no evidence whatsoever that you have children, then I would question the assertion that you had 10 children. You seem to want to throw out reason and accept your understanding of what God says even if facts were contrary to your understanding. John S. wrote: > You do not believe in the fact of reconciliation as a sovereign > act of Divine Intervention for the whole of creation, things visible > and things invisible, things in the earth and things in the heavens. Au contraire. I do believe this. Stop trying to tell me what I believe or don't believe. John S. wrote: > You believe that this is somehow conditional. I believe that our experience of it is conditional upon faith. The work is entirely of God, but we must believe God to experience it. Jesus taught us, "he that believeth not shall be damned." Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
