From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:43:55 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

In article <Jul.26.15.48.36.1992.14908@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
(Michael Maas) writes:
>In article <Jul.21.03.58.32.1992.12218@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
>(Michael Maas) writes:

Mike::Alas, I too am afraid that little if anything will come of this. I can 
certainly see that we are on opposite sides of the fence.  Still I think 
some of the assumptions you appear to make bear questioning.  

-I've read your reply three times, even taking it home and discussing it with
my wife, and I'm still trying to find an end to this.  I think there is a big
misunderstanding happening.  I'd like to be a bit more blunt if I may,
1)  I do not condemn, nor have I ever condemned the individual who chooses to
practice homosexuality
2)  I do condemn, and will continue to condemn the act/lifestyle of
homosexuality on the basis of the reveal word of God.
3)  I work with those who have AIDS  because I look over the sin to help the
sinner, so don't put me down for being autocratic. "You shall know them by
their works."  

     These are human beings who like you and I who have been caught in our
secular society and its pluralism.  On the one hand, it (usually the liberal
press) says, hey come on out of the closet, we're all brothers, and on the
other it (rednecks, ultra conservatives, racist, etc.) seeks them out to
literally beat them to a pulp.  Society now operates without any transcendental
ethic to guide it.  So much so that even the "church" believes that "what is,
is right."  Sorry, but I don't buy that philosophy.

Mike::To begin with, what do you mean by "synthetic reasoning" and "God's
revelation
(sic) is propositional?"  

-Def.:  the combination of partial truths of a thesis and its antithesis into a
higher stage of truth.  cf. dialectic:  the principle of change which takes
place by means of triadic movement:   thesis  -  antithesis  = synthesis which
in turn becomes  itself a thesis -  antithesis  = synthesis which in
turn.....well I'm sure you get the idea.  Eventually everything is relative. 
However, society will not operate this way for long, for as I've said before,
"freedom without form soon becomes form without freedom."  Of course we're
talking about something much broader than the issue of homosexuality when we
get to this level. But the Scripture that reads, "As a man thinketh, so he is"
applies not only to the individual, but also to the community.

Mike:: Let me explain my attitude toward scripture as I am sure this will be a
very big difference between the two of us.  I see the Bible as a collection of
historical records of a small segment of the world's experience with God.

-It is precisely here that you lose me, or maybe, we part company.  You say you
are Xian, and yet you toy with His word.  This comes very close to a test of
fellowship I'm sorry to say.  Of course it would involve further examination,
but to set aside the didactic teachings of the Scriptures as you have is  the
beginning of heresy.  I can remember going door-to-door in Chicago sharing the
Gospel with those who were interested.  On one occasion, I remember coming to
this nice, sweet young lady  who invited me in to discuss Christianity.  She
prefaced our discuss with a statement much like yours saying, "I don't believe
in Bible."  What she meant was that it wasn't prepositional truth to her.  It
was a book among books.  I was alittle more taken back then than I am now
however.  Yet that being said, I still am somewhat of a loss for a basis to
communicate.  

Mike:: 
As a consequence the writings are by virtue of their human origin incomplete
and often incorrect interpretations of God and God's relating and revealing of
Godself.

-If their origin is human, then they can only be as you say, a relative
influence to those who read them.  By incomplete, do you mean inadequate,
non-exhaustive, not finished, imperfect, or what?

Mike::                                                
Nevertheless they have much of value to offer as well.  When I read the Bible
there are certain things I ignore, certain things I disagree with and certain
things that literally bring tears to my eyes.  But while reading it I always
read it as the experience of humans in relation to God.

-You sound like the Beatles song, "I, Me, Me, Mine."  How can you place "value"
to a finite book?  I mean of course, transcendental value, true truth.  If you
reduce the Scriptures in this way, what do you do with Christ's establishment
of them?  He didn't say that this part was incorrect and that part was just
man's wrong interpretation of the facts and therefore the text is wrong at that
point.  If there was such room for error in the Scriptures, then He was
unfaithful in not pointing it out.
     Though the Scriptures are not compilation of science, or history, or
anthropology, or psychology, it still does not allow you to reduce to being
untrue.  For when it does speak in the area of science, of history, etc., it
speaks truthfully.  You reveal your faith when you say that Scripture at this
pt or that pt is merely putting forth a mythological picture.  Even if you hold
that it only puts forth TRUTH in the area of the religious, you are faced with
the inescapable problem of, "When does it speak forth religiously and when
doesn't it?"  Your reduction of the Scriptures does not allow us to continue
our discussion because your position will be much like bobbing for apples,
ducking here and ducking there.  

MIKE::  
Because of this I cannot take the Bible as a wholly consistent document, a
blueprint on which to build a religion as it were.

-Then you are to be pitied.  At best you stand with those of Heb. 6, and
nothing I say will win you back.  God must reveal to you that you've made a big
mistake here.  My wife makes a simple statement that goes like this: "The New
in the Old proclaimed, the Old in the New explained."  To say as you have that
there is no link or thread through out the scriptures really calls your
exegesis into question.  It is Christ that ties it all together.

MIKE:: 
Now, I don't know who is twisting what scripture

-How can you? Your scripture is relative to your interpretation and you have to
gall to say that the writers where mistaken in what they wrote.  You're making
the very same error that you are accusing them of!!!
 
MIKE::                                                                
I only know that what I read of the actions of Jesus in the world of man, and
what I know of the actions of the risen Christ in my own life lead me to
believe that some of the scriptural prohibitions laid down in the far distant
past are incorrect, at least for our time.   

-Says who?  What is you basis for placing yourself in a position of authority
over the Scriptures to say that this one applies and that one does not.  I
really don't thing that you've thought through your conclusions.  I'll even bet
that you don't live by your conclusion.  This could lead us into a discussion
of "world-views" and how we come to have them and how we live them out and
change them, most often unconsciously.  However, I'm not going to get into that
now.

MIKE::
As regards elders of the Church, they would do well to look at the relationship
of Jesus to the pharisees and saducees in the bible.  These people were good
Jews, proper, upstanding, law abiding citizens but like most of us they focused
on propriety and appearance instead of the Love which they were called to.  

-"Law abiding."  hmmmmm.  Is this what you really think.  The Scriptures teach
that the Law is cold and hard.  It's not that it's untrue, but it like I have
said, theological answers are not always the correct answers at the time.  I'm
not talking about content, I'm talking application.  Christ came to fulfill the
Law, and Paul states that the Law is good, but only in regards to the fact that
it points out, or teaches us what is sin and what isn't.  It gives no power to
over come sin, this is where it was inadequate.  But of course, I don't know if
you accept those scriptures as being true to day or not!

Mike::
It is difficult to say what is false, and it is a great temptation 
to turn the decision over to someone or something else.  I suspect that this
is what lies behind the understanding of the Bible as inerrant.  

-"If you have no absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute."
 Let me ask you this,  "How effective is your witness?"  I mean to say, if
everyone believed as you do, you would have no basis for truth.  When a laywer
argues a case, he prepares a brief, but the only briefs that you have are the
ones that hide your nudity.  If you have no absolute truth by means of an
inerrant Scripture, then you havent a leg to stand on when challenged by the
question, "Why should I believe you?"  Why should a non-believer believe your
relative, religious gospel.  

REX>Again, again and again, its "either/or" not "both/and." 

MIKE::
Well, this really states it succinctly doesn't it?  I would say exactly the
opposite of what you have said here.  What is needed in the world is a lot 
more "both/and" and a lot less "either/or".  

-Christianity is exclusive not inclusive as our age is.  Yet our society cries
out for "either/or"ness.  I think it was Dag Hamer...(sp?) of the UN who said
it best, "We don't care whether he be from God or Satan, we need a man to
straighten us out"  or something to that effect. (anyone know of what I'm
speaking and can quote it as said?)  Our youth, our families, our schools, our
cities, our western society cries against the fruit of your "both/and"
philosophy.  And yet you continue to espouse it.  

>By repent, do you admit, yes or no, that homosexuality is wrong as revealed by
>God? 

MIKE::
I think you know better.  Repent means to reflect on your sinful nature and
come again to a state of metanoia where you are willing and able to accept the
Love and teaching of God. 

-You have missed an important part in repenting.  Yes it means to turn back to
the truth, but this necessarily involves turning away from the sin.  When we
are asked to repent, we turn to Christ and away from our sinful behavior.  Can
we accomplish this perfectly, no because we still have the stains of sin within
us, and we live in a fallen cosmos.  But there can be appreciable healing. 

>If God's love is in harmony with His other attributes, which by definition
they
>have to be, then God can love someone that is going to be sent to hell because
>His justice, righteousness, holiness, truthfulness demand it. 

MIKE::
I suppose this is true but I don't really have an opinion about hell.  In any
case, I find it unlikely that many go there if there is such a place.

- Mike, reread your Gospels and count the number of times Christ talked of hell
and the number He talked of heaven and you'll notice about a 4 to 1 ratio.  If
hell is illusionary to you, then what is your basis for heaven?

MIKE::
Ever heard of evolution?  The story of Adam and Eve is a myth.

-Unfortunately I hear you sounding like some of the physicist that I work
beside.  They dedicate their lives to studying the unity and the diversity of
the universe, to find its origin, its beginning, that which lies behind it all.
 And yet, all they have to do is read the first verse of Scripture.  

MIKE::
Now it is my turn to ask a question?  Do you believe that you are now, have
ever been or ever will be without sin?  

-The answer to this could be very involved as I talk about practice and
position,  state and standing.  In Christ I am without sin as the Father looks
at me.  I'm clothed in white garments washed white by the blood of the lamb,
through no merit of my own.  It is by His good pleasure that I now stand this
way before Him.  Yet that being said, I am a sinner.  If salvation only
involves the forgiveness of sins, then the very next moment I'm right back in
the place I had been originally, because I continue to sin.  This involves
willful as well as unknown sin.  I do not white wash this.  But salvation also
involves the forgiveness of all *sin* and *sins* (past, present and future) and
the act of putting on the righteousness of Christ in what ever terminology you
wish to couch it in. 

>As a fellow Christian I can love an individual who has come to Christ carrying
>his homosexual sins.  However, when that individual refuses to acknowledge
that
>this lifestyle is sinful and to repent, turn from it, then I will do as Paul
>did it I Cor. -"{I have decided} to deliver such a one to Satan for the
>destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
>Jesus." (1 Cor. 5:5)  Harsh, I think not.  When my child willfully disobeys,
he
>is disciplined.  

MIKE::
This doesn't appear to be very charitable.  Why not try imitating Christ 
instead of Paul?

-Michael, you decide what is charitable.  When my child, through natural
exploration, comes across a box of razor blades, is it more charitable to take
them away or is it more charitable to say,  "You know, you really shouldn't be
playing with those"  and then to go about my business?  

>The man who is asked by another what he thinks of his work, is put to the
>torture and is not obliged to speak the truth."  Samual Johnson
>
MIKE::
I hope you can take this in a spirit of love.  It is what I intend.

-It is commanded of me.  (Jn 13 & Jn 17)  I hope to post later an article
addressing this very point, as it has been noted of late.  I will post it under
the title "Mark of a Xian" and I ask you to kindly take the time to read it.  I
have written out 6 pages, put have no idea what its length will be in type. 
But I feel it is most important to all of us who call ourselves Xians and our
posting here on the board.

because He first love me,
Rex

[Nothing about either of these views is unusual -- they're pretty
classic expressions of conservative and liberal approaches to
Scripture. I'm surprised that you seem to be surprised.  The
discussion isn't all that different from that between a Protestant and
Catholics the first time the Protestant realizes that Catholics don't
take the Bible as their ultimate authority.  For the first few
exchanges we keep hearing "But it says in the Bible ...", until the
fact sinks in -- Catholics don't believe in "sola scriptura".  The
same kind of thing is going on here.  I can't speak for Mike, but for
many people who take the "liberal" position on Biblical
interpretation, talk about "propositional truth" is just irrelevant.
They of course accept God as an authority, but they simply don't
believe that the Bible is an independent authority.  Of course it
reports revelations from God, as well as the teachings and actions of
Jesus.  And that gives it an authority that other works don't have.
But there's a certain amount of work necessary to get from the Bible
to applications in the Christian life.

I understand that you think this is a disasterous position, because
you believe truth can only survive if there's an easy way to find out
what it is.  While I understand that it would in some ways be more
pleasant if it were easy to be sure about things, the fact that we'd
like something to be true doesn't mean it is.  God may not have chosen
to make things easy for us.  I think liberals are coming to think that
the inerrant Bible is just as much a dead end as the inerrant Church.
And you're right, it means we can't be absolutely sure about some
things.  A lot of us are beginning to think that this may not be such
a bad thing.  Particularly when the conservative certainties seem to
us so questionable.  Just as I think the immaculate conception is a
reductio ab adsurdum of papal infallibility, I think creationism is a
reductio ab adsurdum of inerrancy.

I wouldn't normally write this bluntly as moderator, since it's not
really my job to take a specific position.  But I'm trying to prevent
discussions from going off on tangents because people don't understand
each other.  Your arguments suggest that you may not have understood
quite how radically your position differs from the liberal one.  The
things you think are critically important may not seem important to
people who are coming from another perspective.  The whole
"propositional truth" thing just isn't going to strike a liberal as
being very interesting.  It suggests that we treat the Bible as a set
of logical statements.  That's very far from the way most of us deal
with it.  (Indeed I think *you* are more sophisticated in the way you
deal with it as well.  If you aren't, I certainly know plenty of
conservatives who are.)  I've read Shaeffer too.  I think it's just
another case of the typical human tendency to treat the "good old
days" as an ideal.  Applying the Bible has always been difficult.
It's always required work to see what it meant in its original
context, and to apply it to our own.  The idea that somehow things
used to be simple, and liberals have made us lose all certainty
doesn't match my understanding of history.  If God had intended it to
be simple and unambiguous, Jesus would have given us creeds instead of
parables.

I'm not sure what you mean by a test of fellowship.  I would hope that
at some level, we would all appreciate each other's dedication to
Christ, and that there would be situations where it would be
appropriate to meet and worship together.  On the other hand, my
experience is that the differences are serious enough that it's very
hard for a church to combine people from both perspectives.  It leads
to conflicts about too many practical issues.

--clh]