Debbie wrote: > If by "always" you understand "as long as we > are in this life, on some occasions", then yes, > you do hear that. But someone might misapprehend > your representation of our position as "on every occasion".
Well, I'm sorry for being a poor writer. I thought context would make it clear what I was saying. Help me out here. How would you word it tersely to communciate the idea correctly? Also, if you believe that we can sometimes love, why would you not believe that we can always love? Debbie wrote: > I am saying that I (and you) will fail to love, will act > out of something other than unadulterated love, > numerous times between now and death. Why? I hate this thought. It is as anti-God, anti-Holy Spirit as anything I have ever heard. Why do you not believe that the Spirit of God will always abide in our hearts and lead us into truth and righteousness every moment of every day? If he has been with you in the last minute, why not the next? If he has been with you the last five minutes, why not the next five minutes? If he has been keeping you for the last hour, why not the next hour? If he has been keeping you pure the whole day, why not the next day? Debbie wrote: > What you said was, "[The statement that all teaching is > interpretation] is not the same as saying that all interpretation > is error." And I am saying, of course it isn't, nobody was > claiming that it was the same. Nobody has claimed that all > interpretation is error, but rather that any of it might be. First of all, I think this is another situation where I was counting on context to communicate my meaning as I was being terse with my words. I did not mean to imply that Lance's position was that any interpretation on any point is error. Rather, I see his view is that everyone has error somewhere in some of their interpretations. Secondly, the idea goes further than what you are expressing here. The claim was not just that any of it MIGHT be, but that some of it IS error. He has repeatedly taught that ALL of use believe some error, and ALL of us make error in some of our interpretations. This is a very dangerous teaching. It goes against the doctrine of Christ which teaches us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Debbie wrote: > The practical upshot of this is not that we should > have no confidence at all as interpreters, This would be a BAD thing, not a good thing. Debbie wrote: > but that we should stop short of considering our interpretation > as oracular, on the same level with Scripture itself. > There has to be the possibility of changing one's mind. The possibility of changing one's mind depends on what it is. For example, I don't want anyone to change my daughter's mind that being sexual pure until marriage is God's will for her. I don't want anyone changing her mind that following Jesus is the right thing to do. I don't want anyone changing her mind that Jesus died for her sins. Etc. Etc. It is VERY important for people to learn integrity concerning those things that are true. On the other hand, when we speculate about things, we should be open to changing our minds, even when we become rather confident in our speculations. The key here, in my opinion, is to separate what we know to be true from what we are investigating or considering to be true. I suspect that Lance's position is that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, so that might make all that I just said difficult for him to accept. Maybe he can comment for us about that. David Miller wrote: >> ...if Christine and I both tried to draw a picture >> of an object, Lance would look at each picture >> and say that each picture had it wrong in this way >> or that way. I look at both pictures and point out >> how they both are interpreting the same object, but >> differently for different reasons. From my perspective, >> neither picture is wrong or faulty. They just differ because >> of the varying talents, abilities, and perspectives of the painters. Debbie wrote: > But David, that is not what you say in practice. You actually > call the other person's picture a "doctrine of demons". In some situations that is true, but that is different from what I was talking about above. In the above, I was reconciling viewpoints where Lance was not embracing a doctrine of devils. Not all his perspectives come from doctrines of devils. In certain situations, Lance does embace a demonic doctrine. It is good to point out these false concepts and call them for what they are. I would hope that Lance would not want to embrace a demonic doctrine and so he would carefully consider the source of his interpretation. Debbie wrote: > You seem to me to speak out of both sides > of your mouth on this. Context, Debbie. There are only a few situations where I have identified doctrines of devils being spouted by Lance. Sometimes Lance is in error, but sometimes he is not. Sometimes Lance claims others are in error when they are not. Perhaps your reluctance to take a reductionistic approach and consider each situation separately makes it difficult for you to follow my comments on this. Debbie wrote: > Your subscription to diversity, it turns out, is > strictly an abstract ideal; I haven't seen it in practice > where a person's picture differs noticeably from yours. Not even when you see me express agreement with both Bill and John in the last few days? When was the last time they expressed complete agreement with a post that I wrote? I have a very strong commitment to diversity, but it might not take exactly the same form that your commitment does. I believe that believers are all called to conform to the image of Christ. There will be diversity among us, but it is confined by this admonition to live like Christ. In other words, divesity does not mean that we allow for drunkenness, homosexuality, stealing, lying, gossiping, adultery, pride, arrogance, hatred, etc. It means that we allow for varied expressions of love, joy, peace, kindness, meekness, humility, patience, etc., all within the confines of conforming to the image of Christ. Anything anti-Christ needs to be condemned and not tolerated. Do you understand what I am saying? Debbie wrote: > Meanwhile, since Lance doesn't claim to have superior > access to the object, I think maybe what he would say > is more like, "Careful now; let's keep in mind they're both > only pictures". He has said MORE than this. He has repeatedly made the argument that everybody on TruthTalk has error. He has specifically said that I am in error in my doctrine of holiness. Debbie wrote: > But I agree with something I think you have been suggesting > at other times, though, which is that the perspective problem > is not so much with perspective on the object (we don't have > "perspective" on the object, in this analogy, since it is invisible) Ah, but those who are spiritual DO have perspective. It is not invisible in the spirit realm. This accounts for some of the problems in that those who have the spiritual sense describe it one way, and those who are blind to it might be describing based upon the accounts of others. Debbie wrote: > as with "perspective" on the pictures. Sometimes, I am > looking at yours upside down through a green lens, and > you have cut mine up into little squares and rearranged > the squares. --Or at least the part about you is true! :-) LOL. How I wish you were more practiced in reductionism. Unfortunately, guys like Torrance have convinced so many of you that reductionism is bad. What appears to you to be a rearrangement is not at all. It is an isolation that helps us get to a more thorough understanding of the object under discussion. The reason it is distasteful is because this process removes what might be called the statistical noise that keeps one from discerning the error contained in the picture. Debbie wrote: > Here's my attempt at a statement that could be unanimously > amenned: "Jesus Christ is Lord." (If it ain't unanimous now, > it will be one of these days!) AMEN! 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.
