Indeed the girls were twins, but they were not twins, they were triplets and their other sister was not invited to the program.
_________________Mark Nash
Hi Nasher,The analogy only works if one is allowed to use the assumption you mentioned. Indeed there were [u]two[/u] offspring born at birth; what you are not told is that there is a third also. Example:If I have $50 in my pocket and you ask me if I have $5 and I say yes; then I have not lied to you. I [i]have[/i] [ed] told you the truth, but not the whole truth. Some things are on a need-to-know basis. It also demonstrates the limitations of yes and no answers during questioning.
And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?
Then you [u]lied[/u] when you answered yes to:And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?
_________________Robert Wurtz II
Robert, you have twisted the meaning of "One of two"The triplet is not one of two, but one of three.
Hi Nasher,I think to continue on would be unprofitable so I will relent and leave it at that and hope that the imperfect analogy has to some degree served the purpose of demonstrating that we are finite and must not lean to our own understanding. I heard that little riddle when I was in 7th grade and liked to have pulled my hair out (not literally). In many cases when we go to make life decisions we don't even know what the variables are and try to make decisions not knowing that there is some sort of 'x' factor or any number of unfathomable variables. The angel that announced the birth of Sampson asked the parents, Why is it that you ask me my name seeing it is [i]Wonderful?[/i]. This word could be interpreted "beyond your comprehension." If an angels [u]name[/u] could be beyond our comprehension, how wonderful are the mysteries of God? My mind staggers and stumbles to understand how it could be that an angel would essentially tell these folks, "It would be futile to tell you my name- because you wouldn't comprehend it anyhow."
I don't mean by that 'going forward at a meeting'. I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'.
_________________SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'.
Graftedbranch's
... the Written Word is the embodiment of the Spirit in words written.
_________________Ron Bailey
This would give the scriptures the same status viz a viz the Spirit as we give Jesus of Nazareth viz a viz the Son. Do you really want to make the scriptures an incarnation of the Spirit?
Did George Fox distinguish between the 'light of God' and the 'seed of God'?
Hi Katy, (Please note my EDIT at the end.)I've read your post to me on p10 of the General Topics thread 'Is speaking in tongues...' and it was helpful to my understanding better what is driving your thinking. I think personal experience drives us all (if we allow it) to seek a truer understanding of God Himself. We have common ground in that and I will answer the tongues thread much later today.Now that I've finished writing this post, I see it is long, but I do believe it is worthwhile to communicate in more depth. What I've shared is intended to clue you into the way I figure things out. Maybe you do it the same way, but if not, then from now on you'll know I'm a lateral thinker by training, not by nature.I noticed you had posted here, so here I am... trying to tune into what you are getting at in your statements against 'inner light'. The main reason I'm working on this, is that you seem to dispose of the whole terminology, despite its usefulness within Christianity, [u]if kept in line with scripture[/u].Perhaps it is more helpful to you if I define my terms, rather than expecting you to guess. It was helpful in the other thread that you have now made a statement which helps me to understand how you define your terms (there).OK: so what I am [i]always[/i] looking for in scripture, are principles which explain to me how a thing works. (Sorry for the vague language but it's simple and convenient. I like to try to condense truth out of the narrative, to understand God's mind, because this is how He has created man and the whole universe to work. Once I have a lead, I keep modifying it (usually this means making it simpler and simpler) until the template is applicable more universally.One of these, which is the most obvious in scripture, but probably the hardest to [i]see[/i] in 3D life, is the enemy's continual copying of things God did first. Satan, as a created being, cannot have any original thought beyond the capacity God gave him, [i]and[/i] he was the first fallen creature, so it was a [u]big[/u] fall which he has ministered to humanity. (Sorry... I'm drifting into lecture mode again.) So here, I'd like you to consider that there are two sets of parallels in operation in scripture. One is God and anti-God and the other is His revelation of Himself before Christ, and now Christ in us through the Holy Spirit. But, before Christ came the Law, which was an outward expression of the life the Holy Spirit comes to enable the believer from within. (I suppose that's a third parallel, actually.) I think we need to bear all three in mind, then, when setting ourselves to oppose another Christian's understanding, because we all have backgrounds; some are Christian, some are not, some are sequestered in an Old Covenant mindset, and some have captured New Covenant truth in more or less of its fulness, and some, as you also have observed, have abandoned the anchor of the written word of God - laying themselves open as a prey to unholy spirits; which can be even more difficult to disentangle, compared with simple pagan Godlessness. Since coming to SI, I've become much more aware of that mix of understanding, misunderstanding and personal experience of not knowing God and coming to know Him better. I brought my own brand of confusion with me, also, and am eternally grateful, literally, to those who have prayed for me, whom God heard and answered.So, in the tongues thread, we are sure there is a phenomenon of tongues as an outworking of the dynamic presence of the Holy Spirit and that also there is a counterfeit 'tongues' which cannot be testified to by the Holy Spirit in the hearer of them, nor (you pointed out,) does the [i]life[/i] of the tongue-speaker, show forth God. While through Christ, the New Covenant brings us an [i]internal[/i] demonstration of God's heart, which we must outwork, idolatry is still with us, [u]the[/u] alternative worship system of all time.Your quote from David saying Psalm 119:105Thy word is a lamp to my feetAnd a light unto my path is, then, an external picture of something which [i]becomes[/i] an internal truth when one moves from the Law (the Old Covenant) to the New Covenant.So, as the Word (Christ), now can be [i]in[/i] us, [u]this is not the same as the 'inner light' idea[/u] you are correctly resisting. But, objectively, that He [u]is[/u] Light to the believer is biblical and true, and any lingering concept of "inner light" coming [u]from the man himself[/u] [i]rather than Christ[/i], is at least obsolete historically for Christian believers, which I tried to show in the verses I posted in the other thread.Another verse (first below) also tells a slightly different truth (that God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul - Gen 2:7)), which also finds resonance in the (following) New Testament verses:Proverbs 20:27The spirit of a man [i]is[/i] the lamp of the LORD, Searching all the inner depths of his heart. Romans 826 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. [u]For we do not know[/u] what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.27 Now He who searches the hearts [Jesus?] knows what the mind of the Spirit [i]is,[/i] because He makes intercession for the saints (Heb 7:25) according to [i]the will of[/i] God. A further point I would like you to consider, therefore, is that there are also always [i]two[/i] sides of the saint's experience - [u]in Christ[/u], and [u]Christ in me[/u]. This is scriptural, and for the sake of all those who are searching the internet for fuller truth about God, I present them both as necessary. How you and I describe this truth has to be most carefully worded, so as to show both what you are saying (that there is an 'inner light' concept which [u]is counterfeit[/u], which I agree) and yet there is also a [i][b]true[/i][/b] Light which comes into a man [u]through believing into Christ as Saviour and LORD[/u].Or, how would express the truth of Christ within us?I ask, because you said:
And no where when we put on the whole armour of God is the "Inner Light even mentioned".