|
Well said, John.
To answer David: No, I do not think there
is a place for legalism, as defined by John (which is the definition I used when
asking my question), ought to have its place among us.
If you want to make it -- the definition of
legalism -- so loose as to be all inclusive, then I guess we can all have our
cake and eat it too: anything goes.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:57
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Judgment
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.
|
