When was the last time you all read a lengthy and involved email from me? So give me some slack and allow this exception. You all are great. I have included the thread remarks of Slade and Lance.
Before we close the lid on the box in which we have place brother and dearly departed John Smithson, allow him self defense.
I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud. In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument." I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important -- from my point of view, of course.
And maybe, just maybe, I failed in my end of this exchange we call communication. Allow me to ramble a bit, hoping that I can tie it all together in some kind of meaning conclusion.
I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible. "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood. When James writes concerning "justification by works," I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (Jame's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors. And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined conflict -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western. I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker. As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions. What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind -- such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me.
When that kind of thinking is applied to the actuality of who we are, my view of man, I fancy to believe, is in complete accord with God's view because my view has come my way from God. But, of course, we all say that, don't we Chis Barr? I see in the biblical message, a god, the God, who created man in His image and seeks to provide for man;s arrival to that end. I see a god, the God, who valued His creation so much that He is willing to actually participate with His "offspring" in bring them back to Himself. God not only knew from the beginning that man would need help, He knew that man would respond to His ministry of reconciliation. He wants us to be new again. This exploitation of the old man by and through the gracious assistance of God Himself is a wonderful declaration by God of both the value and the confidence He has in His creation and in His ability to bring the task of creation to its desired conclusion.
When I counsel those who are not only messed up but broken to the point of not knowing their true value as a person, I often tell them "stop allowing what you do, your sins, your addictions, to define who you are." That advice, as it stands alone, is not good enough to effect any real and vital change. It must be combined another principle. We are defined by creation and the birthing event that extends from Adam and because we are all children of the Almighty God, our worth and who we are is defined by that reality. And when we seek other definition, we travel the road to nothingness and destruction. We cannot be what we are meant to be without God. Paul suggests that we can "work out our salvation ... because it is God at work within us both to will and to accomplish His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12,13). We are children of God. He is our partner. And He can accomplish what we cannot. Hitler was a child of God. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end. I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself. Life verses destruction.
It is not essence I see but potential and purpose. Nearly two thousand years after the fact, the Bible is what it is -- for me. I do not care how we got the thing nor do I care to defend it's present form. It is in my life providentially and is the key source of information for what I do. It has taught me who I am and has convinced me that what I do is important, critically important, because of who I am. Essence? Nay. Potential and purpose? Absolutely. Unless, of course, the two concepts are the same.
John
In a message dated 7/3/2004 11:54:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Slade:Non-dualistic, Hebraic, combining the empirical &the theoretical. I believe that's what you are affirming. The Hellenistic (Greek) model separates things that ought not to be separated.
----- Original Message -----
From: Slade Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: July 03, 2004 12:31
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
I agree. This has been a good discussion... and for the most part it has been discussed with level heads and calm hearts.
I would like to point out something in your opening paragraph that strikes me as interesting.
You said "I am thinking that when we define who we are by what we do rather than what we are and who we are attempting to become, its kind like the sample (apparently clear) while the pool is stinking."
For the most part, there are two ways of looking at life: with a Semitic mindset or a Hellenistic mindset. Now, I am not here to argue the superiority of one over the other, because there are positive things to hear from each one. I am one who is more in-tune with the Semitic mindset... and this tends to garnish me some grief here on TruthTalk. That's ok, though. This forum is no different than real life. John, here, is one who sees things with a more Hellenistic mind... and that's ok too.
John is concerned with the essence of the man. This is clear by his concern over "who we are attempting to become" and, for him, this defines the waters of the pool. From a Semitic mindset, what we do defines the waters of the pool.
Yeshua said, "You shall know [my disciples] by their love" (an action, not their essence). The essence is an important topic to the Hellenized mindset, so the question becomes: does the essence of a man define his works or does the works of a man define his essence. In like manner, "Did the egg come before the chicken or the chicken before the egg?
Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument. For me, the latter of both questions is the correct. For John, it is the former.
-- slade
