OK, David. Thanks. I think we agree that the means
of lighting is not the source, that the ultimate source is God,
and that we need revelation. That's far enough. The thinking
continues!
Debbie
> Yes, I understand that he once was not there
as he now was, but in what way
> did you finally perceive him? Was it external, as by one of the five senses
> of your physical body (touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight), or was it
> internal, in your heart?
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> If anything, the candle/lamp/whatever seems
>> to be showing God the person, not the other
>> way around.
>
> Yes...
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> ... I'm just saying the verse does not argue unambiguously
>> that we can arrive at the truth without revelation.
>
> Oh, I think it does take revelation. Perhaps you have been misunderstanding
> me. In talking about the conscience, and also about the spirit in which the
> conscience exists, I am only mentioning a doorway through which all this
> operates. I view the conscience like a candle, that has been lit all along.
> Revelation is like a shining light, but is in agreement with the candle.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> I think it's interesting that the word candle is used (or
>> lamp in some translations), not the light or flame itself.
>> Maybe the candle or lamp does show the person who
>> she really is in the sight of God, but is something that
>> gets lit by the Lord--i.e., there is nothing shining until
>> he lights it. Hm?
>
> That's not how I read the evidence nor the Scriptures, but I agree that the
> light becomes much brighter after he has revealed himself to us.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> John 7:38 is given explicit interpretation by the apostle
>> in the very next verse. Rivers of living water flowing from
>> within refers to the believer being indwelt by the Holy Spirit
>> (a state of affairs, moreover, that was still anticipated, since
>> the Spirit had not yet been given); no problem for me.
>
> You mentioned how you had problems with the rest of the verse (Prov. 20:27).
> I thought you were talking about the "searching all the inward parts of the
> belly" aspect. You seemed to think this was contrary to something I was
> saying? We are having some major disconnects in communicating here. I
> think you think I am saying something that I'm not saying.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> Does this verse teach that rivers of living water (equivalent
>> to understanding of the truth, since that's what's in question
>> in this discussion) are inherent within every human, before
>> an encounter with Christ? No.
>
> I do not think understanding of the truth is the "equivalent" of rivers of
> living water. Neither do I think such is inherent within every human.
>
> Another analogy concerned a well of water springing up into life
> everlasting. This is somewhat different than rivers of living water. We
> start with a candle, but we eventually get great light. That's my
> perception.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> As for I Cor. 2:10-11, it too supports what I am saying!
>> It talks about things (v 9) which have not entered our
>> hearts ("things beyond the mind of man" in the translation
>> I am reading) until the Spirit has revealed them to us.
>> We can know our own spirit, according to this passage,
>> but none of us knows the thoughts of God--only the Spirit
>> of God does, hence he has to reveal them to us. Isn't this
>> what I've been saying?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you. I am trying to augment your understanding.
> The 1 Cor. passage speaks of the spirit of man which "knows" and how the
> Spirit of God reveals, searching all things, the deep things of God (compare
> Prov. 20:27, 'searching all the inward parts of the belly.').
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> About conscience: the conscience of devout Hindus I have
>> met tells them they ought to have sacrificed to Hanuman that
>> morning. The conscience of some Muslims tells them they
>> ought to give their lives to blow up infidels. What did Paul's
>> conscience prompt him to do before he met Christ on the
>> road to Damascus?
>
> The voice of the conscience is distorted in these cases. The conscience
> affirms the need to sacrifice to God, but people who hold this truth in
> unrighteousness will sacrifice to false gods and even offer human
> sacrifices. The conscience affirms the need to deny self and to give one's
> life for the good of others, but those who hold the truth in unrighteousness
> blow themselves up to kill the infidels. Paul's conscience surely affirmed
> his need to zealously do God's work, but holding that truth in
> unrighteousness, he persecuted Christians, not because of what his
> conscience told him, but because of his ignorance.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> did you finally perceive him? Was it external, as by one of the five senses
> of your physical body (touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight), or was it
> internal, in your heart?
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> If anything, the candle/lamp/whatever seems
>> to be showing God the person, not the other
>> way around.
>
> Yes...
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> ... I'm just saying the verse does not argue unambiguously
>> that we can arrive at the truth without revelation.
>
> Oh, I think it does take revelation. Perhaps you have been misunderstanding
> me. In talking about the conscience, and also about the spirit in which the
> conscience exists, I am only mentioning a doorway through which all this
> operates. I view the conscience like a candle, that has been lit all along.
> Revelation is like a shining light, but is in agreement with the candle.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> I think it's interesting that the word candle is used (or
>> lamp in some translations), not the light or flame itself.
>> Maybe the candle or lamp does show the person who
>> she really is in the sight of God, but is something that
>> gets lit by the Lord--i.e., there is nothing shining until
>> he lights it. Hm?
>
> That's not how I read the evidence nor the Scriptures, but I agree that the
> light becomes much brighter after he has revealed himself to us.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> John 7:38 is given explicit interpretation by the apostle
>> in the very next verse. Rivers of living water flowing from
>> within refers to the believer being indwelt by the Holy Spirit
>> (a state of affairs, moreover, that was still anticipated, since
>> the Spirit had not yet been given); no problem for me.
>
> You mentioned how you had problems with the rest of the verse (Prov. 20:27).
> I thought you were talking about the "searching all the inward parts of the
> belly" aspect. You seemed to think this was contrary to something I was
> saying? We are having some major disconnects in communicating here. I
> think you think I am saying something that I'm not saying.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> Does this verse teach that rivers of living water (equivalent
>> to understanding of the truth, since that's what's in question
>> in this discussion) are inherent within every human, before
>> an encounter with Christ? No.
>
> I do not think understanding of the truth is the "equivalent" of rivers of
> living water. Neither do I think such is inherent within every human.
>
> Another analogy concerned a well of water springing up into life
> everlasting. This is somewhat different than rivers of living water. We
> start with a candle, but we eventually get great light. That's my
> perception.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> As for I Cor. 2:10-11, it too supports what I am saying!
>> It talks about things (v 9) which have not entered our
>> hearts ("things beyond the mind of man" in the translation
>> I am reading) until the Spirit has revealed them to us.
>> We can know our own spirit, according to this passage,
>> but none of us knows the thoughts of God--only the Spirit
>> of God does, hence he has to reveal them to us. Isn't this
>> what I've been saying?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you. I am trying to augment your understanding.
> The 1 Cor. passage speaks of the spirit of man which "knows" and how the
> Spirit of God reveals, searching all things, the deep things of God (compare
> Prov. 20:27, 'searching all the inward parts of the belly.').
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> About conscience: the conscience of devout Hindus I have
>> met tells them they ought to have sacrificed to Hanuman that
>> morning. The conscience of some Muslims tells them they
>> ought to give their lives to blow up infidels. What did Paul's
>> conscience prompt him to do before he met Christ on the
>> road to Damascus?
>
> The voice of the conscience is distorted in these cases. The conscience
> affirms the need to sacrifice to God, but people who hold this truth in
> unrighteousness will sacrifice to false gods and even offer human
> sacrifices. The conscience affirms the need to deny self and to give one's
> life for the good of others, but those who hold the truth in unrighteousness
> blow themselves up to kill the infidels. Paul's conscience surely affirmed
> his need to zealously do God's work, but holding that truth in
> unrighteousness, he persecuted Christians, not because of what his
> conscience told him, but because of his ignorance.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
