Bill wrote: > I seem to remember Judy quoting Dake at length > and verbatim, yet she did it without even so much > as a fleeting reference in his direction.
One post? Bill wrote: > Hence I concur with you, in that, while she used his > beliefs authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it > in a way that can hardly be construed as that of touting > him. Exactly! She has never urged others to read Dake and to embrace his teachings. I suspect she would NEVER do so for fear of leading them astray. Do you now see the difference between her and someone like Lance? Bill wrote: > This raises some interesting questions, though, concerning > what it means to treat another man's beliefs as "authoritative." > Must one cite another person, when using his words, before > he or she is complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? > I think not, but I am curious what you think. I agree with you. Citing them is not necessary. Bill wrote: > And does one have to cite another's influence upon her > theology, before she has made his beliefs "authoritative" > in her frame of reference? Again, I don't think so, but I > am wondering what you think. Again, I agree with you. Not necessarily. Bill wrote: > For example, Judy espouses a "spiritual death" doctrine, > yet refuses to acknowledge that the doctrine she espouses > was first set forth by Augustine. My question is this: > Does this doctrine not govern her thoughts as it relates to > the human condition? Stated another way, does it not act > authoritatively in her belief system? I think it does. And this > whether she admits to Augustinian influences or not. But > again I am wondering what you think. The concept of "spiritual death" certainly plays into her reasoning upon the Scriptures, but I think it only holds authority for her in so much as it makes the reading of Scripture reasonable to her. Give her a better alternative way to read it, and I suspect you will find her dropping that view for the new view. One reason for this would be precisely because of what we are talking about: authority. I could be wrong, but it might be that she has no authority which would cause her to insist upon her present viewpoint. If she does have authority for it, then, of course, the converse would be true. She would not relinquish her viewpoint. As for attributing a historical perspective on this, I think it could be traced back further than Augustine. Furthermore, the concept is so intertwined with common perspectives about spirit and body that one would be hard pressed to single out Augustine as the responsible theologian here. Augustine no doubt was a serious historical influence, but there are many other factors that come into play in this particular situation. Bill wrote: > ... if I say, "This is how it is -- blah, blah, blah," then you > might say that there is nothing authoritative about that, > because those are just my own beliefs. No, I would not say such a thing just based upon this. You may have a basis for being an authority yourself. If you speak by revelation of the Spirit, that would be your authority. If you quote Dr. so-and-so, then that would be your authority. Bill wrote: > But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is how it > is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I > am setting forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs > as authoritative, and that they have now become the > "doctrines of men." Is that how it works? No, not exactly. I think you are missing the point. There are levels of authority that we all rely upon when weighing evidence. The greatest authority is Scripture. Beneath that are guys like Augustine. Therefore, if Augustine teaches something which is contrary to Scripture, we give way to Augustine's teaching and embrace the Scriptures. In this way, we do not allow any doctrines of men to permeate our thinking. On the other hand, those doctrines of Augustine which are found to have their source in Scripture or in the God himself, these we take to be not the doctrines of men but rather of God. Bill wrote: > What if they were really Dake's beliefs all along -- and > I mean his words verbatim -- but I just acted as though > they were my own, would that make a difference as far > as their "authoritative" quotient in your estimation? No, not at all. Not lending a name to it could possibly weaken its authority. When questioned, giving the source as being someone considered responsible and holy would yield more authority for our consideration. Bill wrote: > These are the things that I am wondering about, because > I am trying to understand what makes the espousal of one > man's beliefs more "authoritative," in your eyes, than the > espousal of another man's beliefs. The question here is wrong. The reason for my perspective here is not because one man's belief is more authoritative than another one. It is because some hold onto beliefs so tightly that even the Scriptures do not move them. Surely you have observed some of this in the Mormons. Quote the Bible all you like to Blaine, but because he believes that the Book of Mormon is more trustworthy than the Bible, he will yield to the Book of Mormon over the Bible every time. His reasoning is that the Bible must be translated incorrectly. We see the same phenomena with John. When pinned down, he runs to corrupted modern translations and commentaries on his desk and contextual hermeneutics to escape the force of Scripture. Bill wrote: > In fact, I find it rather disturbing that you are so willing > to give yourself and others a pass on this, but want to > take issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. > The truth is, I have written very sparingly concerning > Barth, although I do esteem him highly. And I have been > very candid throughout about both my appreciation of > Torrance and the influence he has had upon the formation > of my beliefs -- which is indeed quite significant. But David, > I want to say, so what? Most of my comments about Barth and Torrance were not directed so much to you as toward Lance. Again, the impression is that if Scripture says X, Y, Z, and Barth or Torrance says A, B, C, Lance will take Barth and Torrance and ignore the X, Y, Z. I see this same phenomena in the sciences with creation and evolution. It is simply adopting a paradigm and not budging from it, even if evidence is overwhelmingly critical of it. It is much safer to stay with the group think, the crowd of intellectuals who seem to have it all together. Bill wrote: > It is obvious that Wesley has had a similar impact upon > the formation of your beliefs. What's the big deal about > admitting this? Actually, Wesley had little to no impact upon my beliefs. I came to a nearly identical understanding as Wesley independent of ever reading him. I believed what Wesley did about holiness while I was still in high school and had never read a single word of Wesley anywhere. It was after I began teaching about Christian Perfection that others kept telling me that Wesley taught the same thing. At first I ignored it, but curiosity led me eventually to read his tract on Christian Perfection and I was amazed to find how closely we agreed. It has been a blessing too because when others misunderstand me, I can point to someone who articulates my views better than I do. Bill wrote: > Why are you so set on equivocating at this > point? I don't get it. I don't think I am equivocating. You just don't seem to see the hierarchy of authority the way I do. There is the testimony of the Bible, the testimony of the Spirit, and the testimony of men. These are listed here in order of decreasing authority. David wrote: >> some on TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of men. >> Do you agree? Bill wrote: > Yes, David, I do. But I would not agree that this > is prima facie a negative thing. Good, and I agree with you. Maybe you can get John on board with this. He said that the Spirit told him nobody on TruthTalk believes in doctrines of men, but then he said that he was echoing my view, whatever that means. Lance says the problem is in the phrase "believes in." It sounds to me like the three of you are all over the board with this. If you like, I will stick with talking with just you on this. You seem to make good sense to me. 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.
