I agree -- logic is not a final source. What is a postulate? In math, it is an essential assumption for which there is no demonstrable scientific evidence or proof. It is a truth that has never been proven wrong up to this point in time. Logic fails to give proof about something that must be true. But logic is right most of the time because truth is of that nature. When I say that Bill is moved by a progressive logic, I mean to say that he starts with the reasonableness of point A, moves to something he calls point B which leads him to C and so on. It is progressive because it takes him to a conclusion.
jt: Just like a road map - when the premise is wrong it never results in the correct conclusion.
John responds: Yes, exactly. We all do it. Some with biblical references, others with more of an emphasis on the apostles, prophets, pastors, evamgelists and teachers.
I have read enough of Bill's theology to know that the final test is whether the conclusion is affirmed in someway in scripture. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers all have one thing in common -- a primary aspect to their ministry is the presentation of Divine thought. As I see it, how they do this is personal preference.
jt: How is it personal preferece? We have examples in scripture where. Apostles travel and begin new works. Prophets prophecy giving words of edification, exhortation, and comfort (rather than fortunetelling), Evangelists do what Paul did at Mars Hill in Athens, Pastors are to be examples and care for the flock watching for their souls. Teachers are to teach God's Law which shines the light on sin and carnality so the Holy Spirit can convict the heart, but first these teachers need to learn themselves.
John responds: what I had in mind with"personal preference" is style of presentation. How I use words. Do I appeal to emotion. How much scripture is enough. Should I use the comments of past believers to help get the point across -- that sort of thing.
I do not read the Church Fathers. I have several books in my library -- just never have gotten around to that reading. But what I have read leads me to believe that even they, so many years ag0, concerned themselves with divine truth not philosophical bantering.
jt: I'm not quite so convinced John; the early Church went into heresy very quickly. What I see is a lot of mixture even before Constantine joined Church and State into some kind of hybrid.. and these controversies are ongoing... by Luther's generation this system had become so bad that this man risked everything to take a public stand against this corruption. Only after his breaking free and the Protestant revolt that followed did these other systems arise along with all of the isms Calvinism vs Arianism etc. Actually it is kind of like the Balkans. Tito suppressed everything through fear and once he was gone - all hell broke loose, literally. And this is so in Church circles today. Everyone professes Christ but they are all speaking different languages and all claim to be headed for the same place which is totally mind boggling. I'm glad it is Jesus who is in the process of building His Church and that He is the one who will direct the sifting of the wheat from the tares.
John responds: yes I see the point. It is just that I prefer to use the good stuff and ignore that which I think is wrong. I assume that most of them were doing the best that they could at the time -- God covering what they missed. I mean, where would we be without these Church Fathers that I never read? There was no printing presses. What if there was just nothing after John's death. Kind of scary I think. Of course God would provide something -- but that is the point Bill and Lance and Jonathan make -- God did provide a bridge to the present in the writings of these men and the beat goes on in the current crop of theologians. Again, I see their value, but I prefer burning the midnight oil with Lenski, Kittle, Robertson and so on. I enjoy the search. You and I are very much on the same page on this point. But I do understand Bill's respect for what has been written by others.
Nothing I am saying has anything to do with systems and the inventions of man. You have described the very reason for I Co 8:1-3. Our relationship with God is primarily one of love rather than a thoughtful correctness. And we can be led astray by our own thoughts or even the thoughts of others.
jt: I'm not talking about anything offered to idols John; I'm talking about the difference between truth and error. Spiritual discernment if you will. I agree thoughts can lead us astray if we let them, this is why they need to be taken into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
John responds: again, I agree but I would add this: in addition to a disciplined obedience we benefit from the natural process we can call "spiritual growth." In growth, we shed ideas that once appeared noble for ideas that now seem to be sanctioned by God, and, then in time, we might even move from those ideas to others -- all the while earnestly seeking God's wisdom; all the while depending on God's partnership and His forgiving and patient nature to see us through to maturity. We are constantly moving from error to light, aren't we? Thank you Jesus.
John D
But if we keep coming back to scripture to varify or affirm our mental wonderings, we cannot get far from the truth. Surely God can cover the slack!!
I see Bill and Jonathan and Lance and Perry and you and me and Iz and Chris and slade and ..... doing this very thing --- returning to scripture to affirm our position.
Jesus is the one who judges. We are not. I believe your last sentence above is saying that very thing.
Yes -- and I believe that Bill and Sir Lance a lot and Jonathan would agree.
jt: Church discipline appears to be non-existent in our day so we must be responsible to discern between good and evil and hold fast to that which is good; Paul warned about wolves in sheep's clothing (Acts 20:28-31) and some were of their own selves.
Yes but wasn't church discipline primarily used to deal with rank immorality? The "false prophet" was a danger to the church when he pressed his dogma to the point of division.
He was to be excluded for divisivenss. I don't think you are saying that Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, although I have heard some strange things about his manner of dress.
Christ summerizes His "word" when He tells us to (1) love God and (2) love our neighbor. We can do that.
jt: Loving God and loving our neighbor fulfills all the law and the prophets. Our old carnal mind will tell us this is easy until we look at love through the eyes of God and His holiness. The kind of love scripture speaks of is ONLY possible from a pure heart which is the goal of the instruction of scripture (1 Tim 1:5) along with a good conscience and unfeigned faith....
Amen. Absolutely right on. I might add that growth figures in the mix as well. I am much more inclined to holiness now than I was in my twenties. And I understand my God more than I did just 5 years ago.
To expand John 12:48 to include correct interpretation of the entire biblical text -- well, I doubt that you are saying that.
jt: How would you interpret John 12:48 JohnD?
We are getting ready to visit one of the kids and my wife just walked by the office with "taht look" on her face. I will get back to you on this last question.
a brother
John Smithson
