----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus of the
Bible
> 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.
>
>
>
