Speaking for myself, I have lighted remarks below. Just sharing what struct me as interesting -- no big deal.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:02:24 -0400
Subject: [TruthTalk] Affect - Emotion - Holiness
'There is a difference between affection and emotion. Hadn't really considered this before in terms of a systematic theology If one espouses a traditional head/heart dualism then, what follows will not be understood. What is Edward's meaning, here? The 'self' is to be understood as unitary, particularly when it comes to the understanding of affection. Affection always includes understanding and will. Understanding, will and, affect form a unit. What we love ultimately governs how we think and what we do, in the long run. In the short run you can always will against what you want to do and, love. Example of someone in school:Should you study tonight (you have a test tomorrow) or, should you watch the baseball game? In the short run you can always will against desire and, force yourself to study. But, in the long run we all end up doing what we are fond of or, what we love. (crave). In addition to what we love governing what
we do, it also governs how we think. 90% of what we call reasoning (ratiocination) is rationalization.(doctrine of total depravity outlines the extent to which the structure of reason survives the 'fall' but, the integrity of reason on theological matters is forfeited in the fall.(The fallen sinner is as rational as ever but, now her reason serves, unconsciously, the legitimization of her sin. Conscious reasoning is served by unconscious rationalization.What we call reasoning is highly socially determined.How people think isn't simply the pure distillate of pure rational thinking Rather, how people think reflects their social formation. (If one polled TT and suddenly I realize that we are reading parenthetically from Lance in addition to Edwards -- must go back and start over) in order to ascertain what some deem 'common sense' we'd discover it to
be neither 'sensible' nor 'common'.What passes for common sense in any one society overwhelmingly is the mental pattern, the thought pattern of people who have access to social power. Is there, then, no such thing as common sense? I do see the problem with "who decides" but perhaps this difficulty tells us that common sense has no value in determining a collective didache and is misused when we apply it to theological systems other than personal. Or maybe, common sense is just a figment. What we love will govern ultimately how we behave but, also how we think. Got to think about this one. How do we change the nature of our affections or have I confused affection with emotion. Anyway, what changes the content of "love?" That would be the controlling influence in our lives, would it not. Is it too simplistic to answer with "Jesus?" I m
ean, what is the practicality of that claim? The 'great commandment of Scripture' is 'You shall love the Lord your God'. We tend not to be as quick to identify the 'root' commandment in Scripture which is 'You shall be holy as I the Lord your God am Holy'.(Lev 19:2) Any commandment in Scripture is a covered promise. 'You shall' means that 1. You had better 2. By God's grace He will see to it that you do. Therefore the 'root' commandment and the 'great' commandment are both the root promise and the great promise namely, we are to be holy and we are to love the Lord our God with....The root commandment occurs in the Holiness Code (Lev 17-22) The HC may strike us as particularly mundane. The HC describes how God's people are to live. You don't bribe judges, you don't put your thumb on the scale when you're selling meat to the homemaker, you don't move boundary markers. Holiness is what you do, not how you feel. I am thinking
that "holiness" is the gifted (to us) consideration of God presenting us with time and motivation to accomplish His desires for us in the power of His Spirit -- ala Col 1:17-24 (?) . BUT, what you do, finally, is controlled by what or whom you love.
Affection and emotion are to be distinguished from one another. Affection is a felt response for an object called for by or, grounded in an understanding of the nature of that object. Where there is no understanding there can be no affection regardless of how much emotion is present.Where there is no understanding of the nature of God there can be no affection for God. there are so many ways this is a great observation, in my opinion.....the entire paragraph.
The above is an extract from a talk given by Dr. Victor Shepherd entitled 'Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections:An Aid to Spiritual Discernment' at Tyndale University College & Seminary in June of 2005
Victor is a close acquaintance.
