On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy - if I didn't know better, I'd say that you believe in
words and I believe in THE Spirit !!!
I certainly do not equate the words of Christ with God The Spirit, that is
for sure.
They work in sync John. Where there
is no Word the Spirit has nothing to work
with; too many words of men and no Spirit is a "dead letter" - Jesus
called His
Words Spirit and Life, why
don't you believe
Him?
Roman 2 makes it clear that we are no long
judged by the Law, but by the Spirit.
The law is "the letter." written on
tablest of stone and (of course) parchment/papyri.
JD in Romans 2:16 Paul writes "In the day when
od shall judged the secrets of
men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel. Jesus is the Word of God - There
is no place that I know of in the NT where the
Spirit is said to be our Judge.
The Law is a set of words.
The Spirit is a living "breathing" relaity (so we beleive)
that is no less than Goed Himself
!! In Romans 2:29 -- these two concepts, the
non-living Law of God and the Spirit are
contrasted.
Romans 2:29 is speaking of circumcision of the
heart rather than of the flesh
because this is the New Covenant. Yes the
Spirit is a member of the Godhead
and He is the Spirit of
Christ but He is not a lone ranger.
I take the word "law" and impose this
definition: that by whihc we are
judged.
Before the incarnation, the written Law
of God was that by which we were judged.
Now, after the incarnation, the law of the
Spirit (the rule of the Spirit) is that by
which we are judged. There is much
that is used by the Spirit IN ADDITION to
the written
message.
We are still judged by the Words Jesus spoke
even after the incarnation JD
according to John 12:48 "He that rejecteth
me, and receiveth not my words, hath
one that judgeth him; the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in
the last day"
Meats and the reproof of the world? Judy, In I Cor 8:1-3 you have a problematic
circumstance AND a principle that solves the problem. The
principle????
What do you read as the "problematic
circunstance" here JD?
In 1Cor 8:1-3, it is the insistence by
some of the brotherhood that their knowing
(these were those who did not have meat issues)
was the final word and was to
be considered as more important than the
relationship we have in Christ via
"love" and -- implied
-- their relationship with the brother who beleives there
to be more than one God. That MUST
BE and is the issue here in I Co 8. that
is why Paul invokes the principle of limited
knowing verse relational love.
I'm not sure what you mean by "limited knowing"
vs "relational love"
Where is this "relational love" clearly
articulated in God's Word rather than
the extra Biblical doctrines when God's Word
clearly says in Isa 5:13 and
other places "Therefore my people are gone into
captivity, because they
have no knowledge; and their honorable men are
famished and their
multitude dried up with
thirst"?
That knowledge puffs up -- that when we think we know something, we do
not yet know it as we ought. Now, if you do not care to
include that principle in
your theology, fine. But it should be there.
ATST we are not supposed to be ignorant
JD. God does not bless ignorance -
so how do you
reconcile the two in your own life? What in your words is this
principle?
If we think we know something, we do not know
it as we ought but if we love
God, we ARE KNOWN BY HIM. That is
how I justify those extremely rare
occasion when I am actually mistaken about
something -- I realy on my
love for God and His promise to love me in
return (but, of course,
"He started it!!")
I understand 1 Cor 8:1-3 to be addressing those
who are acting smart
over knowing that idols and other gods have no
power so that their own
attitude would trip them up even if what they
did know was right. jt
