Hi Jonathan. I really enjoyed reading this post. We are truly having a civil conversation. Thanks. I hope we both have the patience to discuss our difference in approaching truth, and that we both gain some appreciation for the difference in emphasis that we both have.
Jonathan wrote: > You are correct in recognizing that I have illustrated > a major difference in our hermeneutic. I begin with > Christ, you begin with syntax. I naturally approach all problems through reductionism first. That is not the same thing as beginning with syntax, but I do see how some people might mistakenly think that. Approaching through syntax first, in my opinion, is not the best approach. Nevertheless, I think ignoring syntax also would be a big mistake. Jesus often focused on syntax in his discussions with the Jews. For example, when he said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34), this was a direction to the Jews to consider specific syntax in the Holy Scriptures. Likewise, the following passage did the same thing: Mark 12:26-27 (26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (27) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Jonathan wrote: > I have an overarching guide to interpretation (it must be > consistent with who God is as He reveals Himself in the > Person of Jesus Christ). What I see here is that you have an overarching guide to align any new knowledge with what your highly respected scholars highlight in their theology. In other words, you begin with your own interpretation of who Jesus is, and then you proceed to ignore syntax of Scripture and any arguments that might not appear to mesh easily with your own interpretation and working paradigm of truth. This causes you to become intolerant of other systems of belief and to exclude them as having much value toward our apprehension of God. Jonathan wrote: > You have texts to compare one with another. > Whoever makes the best argument wins. Considering that a working paradigm of mine is that truth is always logical and rational, there is some truth to what you say here. Nevertheless, there have been many times when I have sided with the intellectually inferior. In other words, I recognize that the intellectually superior and the most educated often get it wrong, and some uneducated hick from the back woods, or even some child in the midst of the congregation, gets it right. Sometimes we have to look past the arguments to the heart of matters, and I think we both agree on this point. However, I suspect that I do this more often than you might realize. Jonathan wrote: > The message of Christ is detached from > the Person of Christ. I do not believe that I am guilty of that, and I would respond to any clear example of this. I do not believe that the message of Christ should be detached from the Person of Christ. At the same time, we should not use the principle to cause us to ignore the message of Christ because we think it does not align with our prior understanding of the Person of Christ. Our understanding of Christ is not static, but continually growing, and I don't think any one person has the full comprehension of Him. Jonathan wrote: > God did not first give us the law. God first > gave His Son who was slain before the foundation > of the world. Do you take this syntax literally, as in the idea that he already had died before the foundation of the world, or do you take this as a figurative statement to mean that in the mind of God, it was an established fact? My thoughts were long the lines expressed in Hebrews 1. Hebrews 1:1-2 (1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Notice how it is IN THESE LAST DAYS that God has spoken unto us by his Son. Jonathan wrote: > According to the first chapter of Ephesians it was > always His plan. I agree that it was always his plan, but I would say that the transgression of Adam was just as clear in his mind. We cannot deduce that because it was his plan, it would have been done even if there was no need for it to be done (that is, we should not use this viewpoint to think that he would have been slain if nobody had ever sinned). Jonathan wrote: > God demonstrated His grace prior to the law. > Read the first few verses of Exodus 20. I agree that grace was demonstrated prior to the law. This does not mean that God's communication with us was first to establish grace, then to work on sin. It seems pretty clear to me that God's method of communication was first to convince us that we were sinners in need of a Savior, then to call us to repentance and reveal grace and truth to us. Grace operates all through this, from beginning to end, but the full understanding and realization of that grace comes after the source of blindness in us (sin) is cleansed from us. Jonathan wrote: > Romans also begins with Christ. > Read the first five verses. They set up > the entire letter, the prism of all that Paul > says in the following 16 chapters. No doubt it does, because he is writing to Christians and Christ is always our starting point. Nevertheless, in the first chapter, he immediately jumps to talking about sinners, warning them against the sin of idolatry and the sin of homosexuality, and giving 22 characteristics of the idolater and homosexual and those who indulge the fleshly appetites. Clearly, time and time again, when Paul approaches the subject of justification and God's grace, he starts with sin and moves from there to justification. Jonathan wrote: > Repentance and faith are not so easily divided as > repentance is a result of faith, or an exercise of faith. > I think you see repentance as a work that is a condition > for faith. Thankfully, I believe that God sees repentance > as a response to faith. Your understanding is the same teaching that Joseph Smith gave that has locked the Mormons away from the kingdom of God (IMO). I see repentance as a change of heart caused by God's grace. I also see repentance as a tearing down whereas I see faith as a building up. We do not tear down and build up at the same time. If someone has been building a house all wrong, we first tear down the bad work. This is repentance. We then build upon that house with the right materials and right workmanship. This is faith. Consider the following passage that gives an order to the law first, then faith. Galatians 3:23-25 (23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Jonathan wrote: > I used to hold the exact same hermeneutic > as you David. Begin with the problem and > move to the cure. The problem I have with your present hermeneutic is that it causes you to embrace a belief that is contrary to the teachings of Christ. For example, Jesus taught that there are few who find eternal life, and that most people are outside of the benefits of his covenant. Your teaching seems to reverse this teaching, yielding instead the perspective that most are saved and inside the covenant of God. Am I hearing you wrong on this point? Please clarify your position on this if I am misunderstanding. Jonathan wrote: > It is when we take our eyes off Christ and create > doctrines that are detached from Him that we get > into trouble. I agree, and I am not aware of a single doctrine that I embrace that is detached from the person of Christ. Jonathan wrote: > It is a dualistic way of thought to detach > God's message from His Person. I think you are stretching yourself with this statement to try and apply a derogatory term from your system of theology. As you know, I do not think the word "dualistic" is a dirty word, as your favorite theologians do. Nevertheless, I use the word "dualistic" primarily in reference to the nature of man having an actual spirit in addition to the physical body, which together form his whole person. Futhermore, just as the physical body can be better understood by focusing upon organs, tissues, and cells of the body, so the heart of man and the behavior of man can be analyzed by considering the aspect of his spirit and contrasting it with the aspect of his physical body (the flesh). Jonathan wrote: > Lance gave you a quote on Friday by James Houston: > "What we realize is that behind this lies the whole temptation > of the mind to control. But the nature of theology is that it > should be receptive rather than controlling, open rather than > grasping; a matter of delight rather than a matter of mastery. > Grasping, controlling, and mastery are faster and seem > surer. They are the shortcut to truth, but they produce a > reduced vision of the truth. So always be suspicious of > theological success." > > This is an amazing quote as it highlights our desire > to control even when it comes to our theology. The problem with this statement is that it confuses the sin of legalism and of being controlling with the aspect of reductionism and applying rational thought and logic to theology. It is absurd to suggest that we should be suspicious of theological success. We should push forward to theological success while at the same time beware of the sins of legalism and control. Jonathan wrote: > To step out and have Christ dictate what our theology > will be, to submit our thoughts to Him, to allow Him to use > scripture to point us to the truth held in Him is a very humbling > experience. It is Jesus that masters us, not us mastering Him. I agree with this paragraph completely. Jonathan wrote: > It is far easier to prooftext, compare one scripture with > another, and use the Bible to promote our desire for > control. I think this happens constantly and is > displayed everyday (by myself as well) on this forum. I think you confuse careful study and analysis with the desire to control. I personally have no desire to control anyone on this list. Surely that is evident by my asking someone else to moderate the list. I had even asked you to moderate the list, someone who is very different in theology from myself. Jonathan wrote: > My hermeneutic illustrates a desire to set > aside the scriptural logjams and to allow God > to continue the work He has for us. It is simple > to prove anything with the Bible. What is difficult > is to demonstrate that one's proof comes from the > heart of God. I agree that a person can easily twist God's Word to prove whatever a person wants to prove. However, I do not agree that you have seen too much of that on TruthTalk. Most of us sincerely desire to rightly divide the Word of God. We are to study to show ourselves approved unto God in this area. My primary concern about your hermeneutic of taking only a holistic approach to truth is that it denigrates and ignores reductionistic approaches to truth. It also seems to marginalize those who hold the Scriptures in high esteem as an authority for discernment of truth. In my opinion, that would be like a medical doctor who rejects the study of organs, tissues and cells, who rejects molecular biology, and instead believes only in studying the whole man. Such a medical doctor would be extremely limiting himself in his knowledge and understanding of the human body. Of course, the other extreme of only taking the reductionist approach also would be self limiting. When we approach an understanding of the person of Christ, it should correspond with every Scripture and with every accepted known fact that we have about Christ. The argument that someone is wrong because they are approaching the subject through Scripture first rather than through the person of Christ is not a strong argument (IMO). Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
