Izzy’s comments in red:
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. I think that the “conflict”
between James and Paul is imaginary—a definite clue to the fact that Paul
is misunderstood.
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." The fulcrum of
my life changed when I decided to define myself by God’s Word, rather
than by the opinion of any human being.
I have been horribly independent since that day, many years ago. So
blame the Lord. He is the One to which I answer, and the only One whose
approval I seek. J 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.
John, I think the Bible teaches that
all are welcome to become children of God, but very few really are. And
when we seek other definition, we travel the road to nothingness and
destruction. Amen. We cannot be what we are
meant to be without God. Truly. 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. Only those who are
born again of the Holy Spirit. He is our partner. And He
can accomplish what we cannot. Hitler was a child of
God. When??? He served the devil. 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. Praise the Lord. 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. Could you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean you are
not happy with who you are right now, but have hope for your future in Christ? 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. That makes two
of us. It is in my
life providentially and is the key source of information for what I
do. It has taught me who I am PTL! and has convinced me that what I do is
important, critically important, because of who I am.
Essence? Nay. Again, I
don’t understand your meaning. (Duh?) Potential and
purpose? Absolutely. Unless, of course, the two concepts are
the same. Izzy
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
