Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus of the Bible

[Debbie Sawczak]

> Also, if you believe that we can sometimes love, why would you not believe > that we can always love? OK, just taking this sometimes --> always thing on its own: I see what you mean about people saying "theoretically". Because of course, at any given moment we could love. Sure. It is ridiculous to say, "At 1:05 p.m. this Tuesday [or any other moment], I will be unable to love." So I see where you are going, but it is a bit of a trick of words, the play between "any" and "all". If it is true that one can say, about any given note in a Beethoven sonata, that I can read it and find it on the piano and play it, then theoretically I can sit down and play the whole sonata perfectly, but somehow I haven't managed it. If I can hit the ball sometimes, then that possibility exists on any given occasion, so theoretically I should be able to play baseball my whole life and never strike out once. But somehow I don't think anyone would lay any bets on me. I guess I am reasoning inductively, from all the particulars I have ever met to a generalization.   Now if we take the power of the Holy Spirit into account, your argument would seem to be airtight. But (and how to express this properly, when we have quoted the verse, "It is not I but Christ who lives in me"?) he does not bypass our person--our decision-making and will--which is as yet unresurrected and part of the groaning creation. We are the weak link in the chain. To the extent we are able to live out our reconciliation to God at all, it is because of Christ in us. But it is not Christ without us who lives.   I will say right now I am not completely satisfied with this account. I have not closed the file on it. But then I could say that about a lot of things I believe.     > 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.  OK. 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.   Yes, I understand; the "any of it might be" was a way of saying that we don't know which parts are error. (If we did, we wouldn't be embracing them.)   > 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. Actually, I think it is a safeguard. If we are prepared to think that we have no error in our interpretation, we would never be open to correction, nor even to entertaining other viewpoints (as you have advocated on other occasions). It goes against the doctrine of Christ which teaches us that the > Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.   Yes, and supposing this does mean propositional content, he is leading us there, which means we are on the way; it is a journey. I am wary of saying, at any point on the journey, "Ah! Here it is! The destination! I have reached it! Now I can stop!"  > 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,   I--ahem--think so. And I would say the same. But if I am honest I will acknowledge varying levels of confidence, more or less as you have above; it would take a heck of a lot more to tear me from some beliefs than others. But even then, here is a good example: I thought I had the doctrine of atonement completely nailed down, and I would've said that was a core doctrine, non-negotiable. Well, I still think it's a core doctrine, but I now have a different and deeper and richer understanding of it (you may question that, go ahead)--which may give way to a still deeper and richer understanding at a later point in my life. I do attach importance to the inner witness you have referred to a few times. When my love and worship and gratitude to God are increased, along with observable fruit in my life, it is a clue to me that the new understanding is from the Spirit.    > 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.   This doesn't work. You are saying, "I only say it's a doctrine of demons when it is." Yeah, well, I only say it's God's truth when it is. > > 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.  And you always know when. 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. > Well, it doesn't make it difficult for me to follow them, but it does make it impossible to agree with them. Reductionism by definition does injustice to reality. Reductionism by definition ignores the fundamental connections that make things what they are.   > 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? That's not diversity. You agree when you agree. So? A respect for diversity would be the ability to say, "Well, I disagree, at least right now, but it could be that you are capturing something I am not. There are things in your view that enhance my understanding even though they are different." Or, "Even though I can't see myself ever agreeing with any of this, I don't think it's BAD for you to think it." I am convicting myself here. I should probably say such things out loud more often to you. 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?   Yes, and I agree, although I'm a bit cautious because I think you are a little hasty to characterize things as anti-Christ. > > 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.   I shouldn't speak for him. > > 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.   Well, what can I say. By your own argument a few paragraphs above, we all have the Holy Spirit as our teacher if we are in Christ, but it could be that you are particularly gifted with discernment. I'm not convinced of that so far, but... > > 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.   I believed this LOOOONG before I ever heard tell of Torrance. I think I swallowed it with the breastmilk. To me it is intuitively obvious.  > 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.   See my comment a few paragraphs above re reductionism and connections. But, on the side, I am amused and impressed that you had that insight into my analogy. I chose the "cutting into squares and rearranging" image completely at random, and here it turns out to be quite appropriate to your reductionism! Either you are inspired, or I am without knowing it, or both! :-) > > 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!   To the glory of God the Father!   I salute you as a brother. > > 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. > > >