[soundofgrace] Re: [soundofgrace] re: Christ as Law

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : November 2004 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:29:00 -0500
In My Humble Opinion. :-)

Chad

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jamie Houghton" <j_jamie@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] re: Christ as Law


> Chad, I've been reading your post for a little while now but I have no 
> idea what IMHO means.
> Sorry for my think headedness!
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] re: Christ as Law
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <malajaa@...>
>>>You overemphasize the presence of Law
>>> in the New Testament, and ignore, and even insult the use of Paul's
>>> statements in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and etc.
>>>The progress of
>>> revelation demands that we give Paul some priority in my opinion.
>>
>> So... in the progress of redemptive history, was 1 Corinthians 9:21 & 1 
>> Corinthians 14:34 written before or after Romans and Galatians and 
>> Colossians?   :-)
>>
>> I don't believe I have ignored anything.  It's the traditional/classic CT 
>> explanation that ignores Romans 6, IMHO (Kline does not, IMHO).  I'm 
>> merely suggesting that both are true at the same time... under the law of 
>> Christ/no longer under law.  But it's also true I'm not willing to ignore 
>> the numerous instances in which the OT law is referenced in present tense 
>> of the NT.  We have to account for them.
>>
>>>When Paul says,
>>> 'you are not under this, but you are under this' he sounds awfully
>>> 'Greek' doesn't he?
>>
>> It would not have sounded Greek to his original audience.
>>
>>>By the way are we talking
>>> about Buddah or Christ?  In answer to this question I suggest a single
>>> meaning hermeneutic.
>>
>> Christ.  I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, but at the very 
>> least, even Christ and the NT authors acknowledged the intended double 
>> meaning of the OT authors (1 Cor. 10:4, nearly all of Heb. 11 - esp. v. 
>> 26, Matt. 12:40, John 8:56, Matt. 2:15, Mark 14:34, etc.).
>>
>> Chad Bresson
>> Xenia, OH
>> --
>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
>> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>>
>> To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>