Hi David, A few (ok, seven) things to consider:
1) Lance typed up the Karl Barth quote as an addendum to the post he wrote before it. It was not offerred up on its own although I can see why it could be construed that way. Lance attempted to make it clear that it belonged with his earlier post of the day by entitling it Addendum. Lance should have noted who the quote was from as well as its publication. 2) The 4 responses given below apply just as much to what one of us says as it does to that which has been written by someone else. 3) I personally have more confidence in other people's writing than my own. They often phrase something in a way that I am not capable of. They supply certain nuances that make a concept come 'alive' to me. I like to use quotes for this type of occurrence. 4) This forum, in my mind, is for discussing our interaction with what others have written. It is based upon discussing truth, no matter where we find it, but most importantly in scripture. Scripture was written by others. All of them are dead. None of them can appear on this forum to tell us what they really meant. Hence, the differing views presented. I do suspect that the Holy Spirit is present but most of us keep yelling over His quiet voice. 5) Since you have returned to TruthTalk I believe you have made only one original post. All others have been in response to something someone else has said. Many of them, I would suggest, have been you in 'attack' mode. Others have been you attempting to help solve some conflicts in their communication. The former have been less effective than the later. 6) What I think John is pointing out below is that when you responded to Lance you responded with a closed instead of an open concept. It wasn't just "This is what I think about what you said/quoted. Let's discuss it." It was - this is anathema and denies not only the gospel but Jesus Christ Himself. Being clear and exact is good. But by reacting in a violent textual manner you immediately place Lance on the defensive. What you could have done was state your opinion, perhaps using less 'charged' words and ask Lance if what you had gotten out of the paragraph is consistent with what Lance got out of the same paragraph. For the record I do not believe you apprehended Barth correctly. I do believe you took one of your own 'pet' doctrines (perfection) and read a disgreement into Barth's words. I may be able to see this because I have read the context around the quote or because I am more familiar with Barth or another reason that I have not thought of. I also may be off my rocker. 7) You mention that "there will be no discussion if the other party has no arguments for his position." I would like to suggest that this is one of the reasons there is a disconnect between you, Lance, John and myself. It does appear that you are here to argue, to make logical arguments, have them rectified, and to then move onto the next logical step. Each of your posts is constructed in a very logical manner --> point 1, point 2, if point 1 is true point 2 must also be true etc. A number of scripture bombs are placed usually at the end of the email to enforce that it is not just your opinion, but God's. This is one way of discussing something. The expected conclusion is that if one agrees with each point made then one will come to the same conclusion as the author. This of course does not occur. It can be very frustrating to the logical speaker to have his/her argument pushed aside regardless of how logical it may be. I believe that there is a relational aspect that needs to be forged prior to the logical being effective. It is this relational aspect that you lack with John and Lance. If they do not feel that you are giving credence to their thoughts or 'listening' it becomes a tit for tat, back and forth argument. I personally enjoy theological ping-pong. Lance often tells me that he is too old for it. What I think you truly desire on this forum is discussion, not argument. Although logic can be used in this type of setting the relational aspects are worth focusing on. Proving that somebody is wrong using a logical argument rarely leads to the other person changing. I liked what John said the other day about the difference between unity and unison. We on this forum can be united even if we do not agree on each person's interpretation of a certain doctrine. Judy and I often disagree; yesterday, although we were not in unison, we were united. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception John wrote: > Could it be that KB expresses that which Lance believes? > David, you might try responding to those words, included by Lance, and > see what Lance has to say rather than resorting to the kind of > criticism, disguised as honest (no doubt) advice., > as is recorded above. You the Teacher -- Lance the elementary > student is not condusive to meaningful debate. I did respond to the first sentence, John. The problem with responding to what someone else wrote are numerous. They include: 1. Oh, but I don't agree with everything he wrote. 2. I don't think he meant that. What he means to me is ... 3. How dare you insult the greatest theologian who ever lived! 4. You are such an idiot to disagree with someone so great as ... And the list goes on and on. In Lance's case, I am certain to insult a favorite theologian of his and the discussion would become emotional and go nowhere. This list is not about discussing what others have written. We allow some latititude for people to quote others, either as an authority for what they believe or as some kind of supportive explanation, but this list is primarily for discussing views which each of us hold. My comments were meant to help Lance keep on this track, and your comments detract from the purposes for which this list was designed. Those who want to read others are free to browse and surf the web. This forum is for discussing views between people who have viewpoints that they want to discuss. It is especially for divergent viewpoints with a wide variety of world views and opinions. It is a place where you can challenge other people's views and have your own viewpoint challenged. This provokes study and an examination of hidden assumptions that we all make in our reasoning process. John Smithson wrote: > In view of such statements as "Such a viewpoint is anathema. > It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ," > why would Lance do anything in terms of response except to say "I > repent" and why would you want to continue a discussion with one who > is so clearly (by your judgment) outside the revelatory will of God? Wow, you really have no latitude for people disagreeing with one another and discussing differences. Sometimes people do change their minds. I have many times. The response Lance might have to my comments is varied. He might say that he agrees with my analysis, that it is anathema to say that men cannot receive the Spirit of God and become faithful to God and to each other. On the other hand, if he did think it is impossible for men to be faithful to others and to themselves, he might realize that we have a serious point of disagreement here and know that we need to discuss it further. My point is that depending on how the sentence is interpreted, we might have exact agreement or we might be miles apart. We have to start somewhere and I was trying to make my position clear. Why do you have such a hard time with people being clear and exact about their positions? In my opinion, being clear makes the discussion easier, but there will be no discussion if the other party has no arguments for his position. As for why I would want to discuss with someone outside of God's will, well, that is because this is what God has called me to do. As for Lance, however, you AGAIN <sigh> clearly misread what I wrote because I do not consider Lance to be "clearly ouside the revelatory will of God." Peace be with you. David Miller. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
