David writes: If she has the Holy Spirit
within, she will probably be ok.
within, she will probably be ok.
I 'spect so, although she scares me
sometimes by how vigorously she seems to resist the idea of 100%
grace, as below. Notice I say "seems". I realize it may be my perspective. But
she sounds exactly like some groups I have heard who do definitely
preach a badspel of works. [And my sincere apologies to you, Judy, for
discussing you in the third person like this, as if you weren't there. So
uncouth. David started it! :-) ]
Debbie
1 Corinthians 1:30
Is what every believer should be presently walking
in rather than glorying in from a "do nothing" stance of fear
of being accused of some kind of co-redemption
attitude.
...[Y]ou should also be aware that God has extremely
bad eyesight so that he does not see any imperfection in these ppl with the
eschatalogical salvation. All he can see is the "eternal son" - so this kind of
christianity doesn't have to do anything but exist in their fallen state.
They will make it because of his faith, his righteousness, his obedience, and
his resurrection. The main problem with all this
is that this is NOT the Jesus of the
Bible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal
sonship of Christ
>> Mostly differences that make for messier slogging
>> when I am wading through Judy's. More lily pads,
>> duckweed, that sort of thing.
>
> LOL. Oh, Debbie, you do realize that you are talking to a Florida boy here,
> don't you. :-) I love your picturesque way with words. You are delightful
> to read. If you are ever in Florida, we really must do lunch together
> sometime.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> No difference as to the fundamental nature
>> of the beast, though.
>
> Well, I see quite a bit of difference in how they go about their respective
> theologies. Judy starts with the premise that the Bible is God's Word. She
> believes in sticking to it as closely as possible and not being distracted
> by the those who have studied it before her. She believes that the Holy
> Spirit is her teacher of the Bible rather than professors or other smart
> men. In fact, she knows that the scribes of today are like the scribes of
> Jesus' day, so she is very reticent about hearing them.
>
> In contrast, the others start with the premise that the intellectuals and
> professors of today are the most likely ones to have the best understanding
> of the Bible. Therefore, these others study theology primarily from their
> words rather than directly from the Bible. They learn from them the proper
> principles Biblical interpretation, and then seek to apply them in a way
> that would cause them to reach the same conclusions.
>
> The approach of Judy causes her to look within, to the Holy Spirit, the
> author of the words she is reading in the Bible. If she has the Holy Spirit
> within, she will probably be ok. Who better to interpret the Bible than its
> author? The other approach focuses upon books and the writings of others,
> and principles of hermeneutics that are accepted by a particular school of
> thought. Such an approach can arrive at similar conclusions even without
> any Holy Spirit residing within.
>
> So, as you can see, I think the dynamics of theology for Judy is somewhat
> different from the others with which you would compare her. I realize that
> you might see it differently.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
