Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DouglasKC

Yes, it does mean they aren’t directly addressed. Both the claim and denial of the “meat” scripture’s applicability are inferences by definition. Neither is definitively endorsed, thus your claim about my understanding is without merit.

What i question about your version of the doctrine of the indwelling Christ is if it is specific enough for you to recognize any misunderstanding you may have of it.

How can those people be early in their Christian walks if they are being judged and rejected by Christ “in that day?” The text does not allow such an interpretation.


178 posted on 10/25/2008 2:39:45 PM PDT by papertyger (Chauvinists yell "racist" when they're embarr"ist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]


To: papertyger
Yes, it does mean they aren’t directly addressed. Both the claim and denial of the “meat” scripture’s applicability are inferences by definition. Neither is definitively endorsed, thus your claim about my understanding is without merit.

Sorry, but it's clear as a bell to me.

What i question about your version of the doctrine of the indwelling Christ is if it is specific enough for you to recognize any misunderstanding you may have of it.

Would you like me to step through my understanding? I recognize that it's of course going to be imperfect because I'm an imperfect man trying to explain perfect spiritual concepts, but I'm willing to give it a go if you have the time and inclination.

How can those people be early in their Christian walks if they are being judged and rejected by Christ “in that day?” The text does not allow such an interpretation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to? In what day?

221 posted on 10/25/2008 8:46:55 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson