dolfan,

The rub to your position is I cannot count the believers I have spoken with that wanted to walk in loving obedience to God, be carried by the Spirit and bless every person they meet. But can't.

I have read some good things in this thread but it's theory. Churches are full of saints that would nod in agreement with most of it but snap at their husbands at the first little thing or fill in the blank__________

It requires a power and that power is not in the Logos word. It's in the Rhema. The church is buried in the bible, the Scribes and Pharisees could qoute most of the Old Covenant verbatim and then crucified the Living Word they had read about.

Splitting hairs over the level of our involvement is pointless. Do rude strangers come back and apologies to you? Do people stare at you with amazement at your unconscious reactions in your day to day life because they have never witnessed it before. That's God once again manifesting HIS HESED through flesh. And that is the fruit through you that glorifys the Father! And for me, one day it wasn't there and the next day it was. That's the power of a Rhema from God. One Word and your a different person forever.

marcmc

marc,

I'm sorry but you are spouting gnostic hogwash and I have to point it out even if no one else will.

Luke_22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless NOT MY WILL (Not what I choose or desire), but thine, be done.

Even Jesus shows us, at the end of His ministry that He had to consciously, through prayer bring His will into harmony with His Father's. He subjected Himself to a fleshly body, which we also live in and to think that at some point in our life things will be "automatic", will only build a horrible pride in us. We never arrive.

Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Let's look at the spiritually mature Ephesian church, also.

Don't tell me they unconsciously "left their first love". No, they consciously left their first love. No accident here. And Jesus wants them to consciously return to it.

How, could the Ephesian church, so mature and accomplished leave their first love. Maybe, they too grew in gnostic pride over their "revelation knowledge" and the great things God was doing in their midst.

It does not matter how "senior" you are in the Lord, (and Jesus showed us this in the garden of Gethsemane), you must consciously, continue to choose His will over your own desires. Yes, we should all be maturing in the "love walk", as Jesus gains more and more of our heart but He only gains more and more of us as we stayed surrendered and submitted to Him.

The Ephesian church had to be told by their Lord and Savior, to "return to their first love" and consciously choose to repent and do the "first works". These first works are abiding in Christ.

Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because THOU HAST LEFT THY FIRST LOVE.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Brother we are talking about two different things altogether.

Those who have an ear to hear know exactly what I'm talking about in my post.

Be blessed

marcmc

Ok, sorry I must not have my ears on today.

dolfan wrote : RE: ///Even this language of "making ourselves available" and "saying" things like "I am not willing but I am willing for you to will through me" admits of choosing and doing. It pretends not to, but no one "makes" or "says" or thinks without actually doing the making or saying or thinking. That is why all of that is what I called sophistry. The only rejoinder to that is to semantically argue that you are not choosing and doing by "making available" and all that jazz.///

I am not convinced that it is sophistry,
I see a difference between deciding or else choosing that I am going to be loving or do loving actions from that of seeking and waiting patiently for a filling of love that than will move me to action.

As I asked Julius previously I want to ask Tim, What do you feel is the danger with what Tuc has been posting ?

dolfan wrote : RE: ///Even this language of "making ourselves available" and "saying" things like "I am not willing but I am willing for you to will through me" admits of choosing and doing. It pretends not to, but no one "makes" or "says" or thinks without actually doing the making or saying or thinking. That is why all of that is what I called sophistry. The only rejoinder to that is to semantically argue that you are not choosing and doing by "making available" and all that jazz.///

I am not convinced that it is sophistry,
I see a difference between deciding or else choosing that I am going to be loving or do loving actions from that of seeking and waiting patiently for a filling of love that than will move me to action.

As I asked Julius previously I want to ask Tim, What do you feel is the danger with what Tuc has been posting ?

---------------------

I say so papa because to say that we are "making ourselves available to release God's abilty" doesn't actually mean anything. And, I do not want to be unkind or abrasive, but even your respinse to me doesn't mean anything. See your own words: "seeking and waiting patiently" (which are actions that are deliberate, i.e., choices) "that will move me to action". Acts that lead to acts. The "difference" is artificial. It is not self choosing or self deciding and acts of love from self of which I spoke, but love born of God in a believer. You say we deliberate, I say we make a choice. You say act, I say act. But you say that your alternate phrasing proves that the "make available/release ability" idiom is not sophistry because it is somehow saying something different. It isn't. This is the kind of semantic breakdown I told you this would lead to. In this case you are setting up a syntactical distinction without a substantive difference but calling it different. And, you are using the artificial difference to support something that in itself is nothingness ("making ourselves available to release God's ability"). That is, by definition, sophistry.

It is the whole of hyper-grace thinking as mastered and marketed by Joseph Prince and others like him. That is the kind of thing tuc is posting in this thread.

_________________
Tim

Thank you for your question Proudpapa

I would also like to express my concern. Whether it is dangerous or not, let everyone judge very carefully, my concern is the extreme statements that are sprinkled through much of his posts. Statements like - "I have nothing to do with it at all." (not sure if this is an exact quote) These kind of statements are a leaven that affect the whole nature of his posts.

Statements like these that go this far are not consistent with the understanding and expressions found within the New Testament.

There is a grammatical tool that the New Testament writers specifically chose to express "our involvement" and "participation" in the completion of an action.

This grammatical tool is called "the Middle Voice". Some scholars call it by another name - "Subject Focused". When the writer chooses to write using the Middle Voice, he did so specifically to draw attention to the reader to the importance of the subject's participation in the action of the verb.

There are many examples of these in the New Testament. When writers of the New Testament consistently chose to use the "Middle Voice" or "Subject Focus" verb forms, they were underscoring the importance of the subject's participation in the action of the verb.

Statements like "I have nothing to do with it at all" are inconsistent with what we read in the New Testament.

Perhaps our involvement and participation could be expressed as "I have very little to do with it", but some spices are very small in their proportion to the amount of ingredients in a recipe, but their participation is dynamic and very intentional.

If you are interested in looking deeper into the subject of "the Middle Voice" or "Subject Focus" verb forms. Then I encourage you to look into it further.

Here are a list of New Testament words that clearly fall into the category of "Subject Focus" or "Middle Voice" verbs. These words make the list because it is so intrinsically clear that the subject is vitally involved in the action of the verb that they only appear in the "Middle Voice" form.

Some of the words in this category are "Come", "pray", "receive", "put off", "forbear", "become", "obtain", "work", .

These are examples of words where the subjects participation in the action of the verb is understood to be vital. They are not simple grammatical non-essentials, they are the very means the writer chose to express the understanding he had received and sought to convey.

makrothumia

_________________
Alan and Dina Martin

That is very interesting Mak. I never heard that but it makes a lot of sense.

I would think that "put on", also falls into the same category.

By the way, I have a question and it is in no way intended to ignite a KJV, debate, but since you are familiar with this linguistic tool of the "middle voice", would you say that it has been preserved in contemporary Bible versions? (I am assuming you read several versions)

Hi Julius,

I will look into your question regarding the KJV. For some time now I have only used the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint as the bible I read.

I am so grateful for the men who devoted their lives to help make it possible for myself and others to have such a clear understanding of what the New Testament writers intended to say. This is especially true in light of the trend to "read into" the text our own experience, especially the reactionary kind.

That's what I sense in some of the responses in the recent threads. Experientially, some feel very strongly about relieving others of the burdens that they themselves became free of. While I rejoice in their freedom, some of the expression of their understanding contradicts the understanding and what I believe is spiritually guided writing of the New Testament writers. All of the writers of the New Testament exhorted action, warned of inaction, and did so with authority. They often used the Greek Imperative - the mood of command. We have not even touched upon how often they chose this grammatical tool to call their readers to act or abstain.

I will say this about the KJV, the translators did an excellent job of committing themselves to the text. It is clear that they attempted to submit themselves to what the original writer meant to say. The KJV is a sound and noble attempt to reproduce in another language what was conveyed originally in Greek.

I realized that you asked about other bible versions. What I can say is that not every bible version available has shown the same commitment to the limitation of the grammar found in the original texts. The more liberty that is taken to express what the translator "thinks" is being said, the more subjective the version becomes and the more vulnerable to missing the specific intent of the original author. Some men mistakenly think being concerned about how it was specifically written is "bibliotry", but not for those who believe the writer chose to convey their thoughts very specifically and that being careful to insure that thought is preserved is preserving the original understanding given the author by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Careful study and spiritual insight are a perfect marriage.

Makrothumia

_________________
Alan and Dina Martin