Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment

[Knpraise]

Regarding the Indwelling:
Moving away from the personal to a theological theme  (what a concept !!),  I will make this assertion: 

In view of the obvious fact that Christ expected obedience to His word before the giving of the indwelling Spirit,  the Indwelling is not an offering from God for that purpose.   Certainly we defeat sin and obey God by His power , but this is a gifted presence in all of us.  

And so I say that if "no man comes to the Son except the Father draw him,"  that God is at work in us all to accomplish His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13),  that obedience was expected by God from His people down through the ages (pre-Pentecost), the Indwelling accomplished other purposes than obedience. 


Regarding the definition of "legalist: or "legalism"
Regarding David Miller's thinking that all are legalists,  he says this with a differing definition from others  --   certainly not my definition.  Legalism, to me, is the heart throb of Works Salvationists.   It is the imposition of their interpretations upon others and the elevation of their understanding to the status of Ex-Cathedra.   They are, at times,  fire breathing disrupters of the peace of the fellowship of the Saints and, when put on the spot, are rebellious to the working of God in the lives of us all.  They are exclusive (sectarian) in their determination of the Brotherhood and are not reasonable people.   BUT , they remain brothers/sisters in the larger Family of God.  In the parable of the Prodigal,  they are represented by the one who stayed at home.     

In counseling, we learn of such a thing as "flooding."   This oocurs when emotions take over.   The brain actually is incapable of reasoned thinking when experiencing "flooding."  This is why couples should discontinue discussion as soon as one or both get angry.  The legalist, as defined above, is flooded most of the time.   He/she CANNOT think rationally because their belief is emotionally MAINTAINED.    And "maintained" is an important word. 

Now, if David does not accept this definition, preferring to believe that "legalism" is a term that defines nothing in specific, fine.   That use of the word (legalism) as mentioned in Miller's writing is not my definition..................not that mine is sacro-sainted.   It is just my definition.