John, I'm going to take a shot at this, but if you are tempted to attack me or prove me wrong, please don't.  I won't respond to that.  I am not interested in debate, but in truth.
 
I'm going to use different words for a reason, not to discredit you, but to engage you to explain your viewpoint with different words.  What you are trying to say is only approximated by the words you use, so being free to consider the use of different words to say what you are trying to say can facilitate communication.  If my choice of words is objectionable to you, then simply say, "I would not say it that way, I would say it this way..."  If your meaning is not being conveyed with the words you have already chosen, using other words might help convey what you are trying to say.
 
Now in your last post, you apparently perceive an important difference between having assurance in truth versus having assurance in one's personal interpretation of Scripture.  You need to expound upon this more, because you had also written that there is no other kind of understanding of Scripture except personal understanding.  Based upon how you have set this up, I see no room in your model for any difference between "assurance in the truth of Scripture" and "assurance in our understanding of the truth of Scripture."  How can there be a difference if you say that there is no understanding of truth except personal understanding? 
 
Keep in mind, that in contrast to you, my perspective is that there are many different levels of understanding, with personal understanding just being one of many.  You have defined pride as being a confidence in our personal understanding of truth, and that needs to be expounded upon.  If you are right, you may save me from the sin of pride by helping me see your perspective, but if you are wrong, I will save you from the sin of bearing false witness against someone who you think has pride but really just has Godly understanding, faith and integrity.
 
Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Reply via email to