Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth

[Lance Muir]

Judy, along with Linda and David reject neither community nor Bill's understanding of the relational. Each 'lives it' to the glory of God. Each even 'speaks it' from time to time. It's just that they have this way of detaching 'truths' (whatever they are) from the One Who Is The Truth. God is gracious and He understands. He cuts them some slack on this and, so do I. Sadly, when I 'read' them doing it, it is like the fingers on the blackboard thing but I look past it at their lives. God bless y'all.  ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 16, 2004 05:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth In a message dated 12/15/2004 5:22:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that we miss the point of BillyT's comments.  As his words speak to me, I am reminded that the avenue of understanding truth is relational, not "isolational."   jt: I don't see how you can make this a rule John. Abraham didn't have a committee to approve what he heard from God and he had to hear first before he could believe and have it counted to him for righteousness. Believing and understanding are two different things.   Why you reject the need for community is beyond me.   The Assembly continued steadfastly in the breaking of bread, the apostles doctrine, fellowship and prayer  -------  the infilling of the spirit occurs in and because of the worshipful fellowship of the Assembly.   I affirm, you deny??Do you think these community experiences were just good things to do, or were they praciticed because of NECESSITY.   I go with the later.  Tonight,  as the news services were busy interviewing members of the Peterson jury, there was a question addressed to one of the alternates:   "Did you agree with the verdict?"   His answer?  " I  really cannot voice an opinion.   I had access to all the testimony and evidence, but I was not involved in the deliberation  --   so I cannot have an opinion."  jt: Why can't he have an opinion? Sure he can and most likely he did only he wasn't willing to voice it on national TV right then because it did not represent the voice of the jury as a whole which is how the system works. Apparently you know better than he????? Get the point?   There the "truth" is, lying right there on the desk top, in the form of testimony and evidence --   but a conclusion about the truth imported via this evidence (read "written word")  cannot be arrived at apart from consultation with others  --   static limitations overcome by relational interaction.   And so, what is written will be misunderstood if it thought it bears "truth" apart from relational considerations (i.e., the Spirit, preachers, teachers, propehts, apostles, evangelists).   jt: The above is opposite to the example set for us by the more noble Bereans who examined the scriptures daily to see if what Paul (the apostle, teacher, evangelist, prophet who ministered to them by the anointing of the Holy Spirit) was telling them. (Acts 17:11) You are quoting an example I presented?   The Bereans prove or evidence the very opposite of autonomous revelatory interpretation.  They, as a group, looked at the evidence.  They studied the record.   I have no idea why you dispute this or what evil you see in what I said.   What is it that you fear in admitting to the need for the larger Community?  Thanks Bill for trying to put this whole matter into some kind of context.   And Judy  -- your responses do not convince me that you disagree that much.   I thought your comments have merit.   I see the disgreement to be one of semantics more than anything, at this point.  John the Beloved   jt: Ah! the semantic web ..... let's not get entangled in that.  judyt OK.   But a perceived disagreement is preferable to an actual disagreement.  Apparently you prefer the later.  Fine with me.