From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative (was Re: Into the highways and hedges)
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:37:15 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In your posting you write:
>I did not say the truth system you believe in is relative, I said your 
>theology is a relative truth.  I can't make it any clearer than this: 
>
>The referrent of both our theologies is a transcendent unlanguagable
>truth.  Because this Truth, God, is unlanguagable, any languaged
>theology is by definition less than the referrent, God, that it is
>attempting to theologize.  Therefore it can only be relatively
>true.
> 
>Clear enough?


     Yes, and believe it or not, I agree and have agreed with that position all
my adult life.  Theology does develop, individually and corporately.  -"I am
amazed at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of
human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection...."   (Albert Einstein) 
Theology is, of course, just a technique to catalogue God.  Just as He has made
the universe with order, so His revelation has order and can be catalogued. 
There is no blasphemy in this.  I believe the reason that the book of Romans is
so popular among thesis writing is because it is so systematic already in its
theology.  The problem of cataloguing stems from the fact that we come with our
presuppositions formed prior to our interpretation of the facts.  This is where
eisegetical becomes a tyrant.   It is only when we have some kind of process
equating a form of Cartesian doubt, that we are faithful to the facts at hand. 
I think that this is part of the salvation processes.  We lay aside our thought
patterns and agree that they have been wrong.  We then take for ourselves those
that have been revealed by God unto salvation.  And how can this be you may
ask.  It is for us via the Scriptures.  Where else do we have a picture of
Christ and His salvational offer.  It's not natural revelation.  Natural
revelation points to the fact that in the end everything evolves down ward, not
up.  (2nd law of thermodynamics)
     Anyway, its just that I don't think that the didactic statements of the
Scriptures evolve, because I don't think the One that inspired their creation
to be evolving. I don't think that He gave us partial truths using the
definition of some true, some not so true. Are they exhaustive, no, neither our
minds, our state in sin, nor out language will support it as exhaustive.  It
never will.  We are finite and thats that.  We will ever learn from Him and
about Him.  The movie "Dune" made a provocative statement: "God created Arrakis
to train the faithful."   This is my understanding of earth.  It is also my
understanding of eternity.  Learning from one another is learning about God. 
All truth has its source in Him.  Heaven and earth are going to pass away,
along with its culture and its universals (which are nothing more than
sociological statistical averages).  But the truths of the Scriptures, because
they reveal something of the character of God, will never change.  His economy
may change, His displays of revelation may change, His dealings with some and
not the others may change, but not God.  By definition He can never change or
He simply becomes god and that's that too.
     I guess this is one of the pitfalls of electronic discussions.  One can be
so misunderstood.  If you are ever in Chicago, give me a call, I'd love to meet
you and buy you supper.  I'm sure we would still have our differences, but I
know that there would be an aire of fellowship.
> 

>Rex, I appreciate your forthrightness.  It would appear that we have 
>confronted fundamentally the same question and come up with radically
>different answers.  Indeed we may be at the opposite extremes of a 
>continuum.  However, I must say to you that if the results of my choice
>are having to live with a certain amount of uncertainty, they are also
>requiring of more inclusion, less exclusion, and less judgement of our
>fellows.  

     Did I say anything about certainty?  Hope is in the things not now seen. 
I believe *somethings* to be certain only because they are things that God has
specifically revealed to men of all ages to be true.  There is the absolute
truth that He exists.  There is the absolute truth that there is a heaven and a
hell.  (You can not have one without the other with an absolutely holy God) 
There is the absolute truth that I am "in Christ."  But there are many
allowances.  Also, we are all under the burden of sin and the consequences
thereof.  
     I work with AIDS patients not because of some superior utilitarianism,
Christianity is not that way.  Rather, because they are human beings in need. 
Its in the charter of the Good Sam club that those we help do not have to be of
like mind.  I do go there to "win some" to Christ.  But that is out of my
understanding that "it is appointed man once to die, and then comes certain
judgment."  This too I believe is an absolute truth.  
     Lets stop right here for a minute.  Judgment of man.  Its a revealed
historical event that is going to happen.  Man is made in the image of God,
therefore he has real freedom.  But freed om always come at a cost.  To be free
means that you are responcible.  Think about that.  Also, responsibility
necessitates accountablitity, thus judgment.  Therefore, Scripture is
infallible and absolute when it states that all men will come before God in
judgment.  However, just because it is absolutely true does not mean that that
truth is eternally applicable.  Wait a minute, wait a minute. . . . let me
finish before you jump to hit me over the head with my own conclusion (that
being, ie.e that homosexuality , or whatever, was wrong then but not now).  The
reason that some absolutes are not eternal is that they are no longer
applicable because the economy of God has changed.  Once having died and having
been judged, we will never be judged again.  It will be outside of the economy
of eternal life.  There is no change in the character of God.  We could also
look at the economy of God in the OT as opposed to the economy of God in the
NT.  God hasn't changed has He?  May ginointo (sp).  May it never be.  However,
in a case like, say adultery, it will always be wrong, because there is no way
that it can be made not to contradict the character of God.  Even eternity may
not do that as the angels themselves were able to leave their proper abode.
     There have been those who say that fear is a poor motivator, but the
writers of the Scriptures didn't think so.  Christ didn't think so.  Experience
doesn't teach that either, for how many of us are there that didn't bother to
take the time to look up until we where flat on our back?  I'm not referring to
an oppressive "hell fire,"  "love to tell them this" attitude.  I agree with
Spurgeon (I think it was him) who said that no message of hell should ever be
given without a tear in our eye.  This is so true.  If we are being lead by the
Spirit, the fruit of compassion should rise to the forefront.  
     But here again I have slipped into the area of certainty.  Area's of
uncertainty lay primarily in our existential living I suppose.  I make
decisions all day long without any regard to what the Scriptures say, because
often they don't address the specific issue.  But that being said, the absolute
ethic of 1) loving & serving the Lord with all our heart and 2) loving our
neighbor as ourselves, filters down to these existential moments.  So one could
say that we are influenced by these absolutes even in the small area's on our
life.  
     We are surrounded by the absolutes of the universe and don't even notice
them.   But I would differentiate the absolutes of the universe from those of
Scripture.  The universes absolutes many be done away with when the new heavens
and the new earth are created.  There may be a whole new set of laws then.  But
the absolutes of the Scriptures will still be absolute, because the character
of God never changes.  If He calls something sin 8-9000 yrs ago, you can be
assured that it will be called sin an eternity of eternity's from now.  Sin is
simply the rebellion against the character of God.  Seeing as how the character
of God does not change, the things that contradict it are always seen as
sin/rebellion.  God's character is the absolute of absolutes, if you will
permit.

>Moreover, I must point out that a real danger in an exclusive position such
>as yours is "taking up the wrong attitudes for the right reasons."  History is

>filled with the acts of the "righteous" that were later to be seen as evil. 
>The crusades, the inquisitions, the conversion of the "heathen" of other 
>countries, all are questioned by Christians today.  It is entirely likely, 
>that some of the things we presume to be sin today will not be considered so 
>in the future and our actions will be questioned in the same way.  History 
>teaches us that it is far too easy to dissemble hate and fear in the clothing 
>of righteousness.  

Yes I would agree, but I don't think the examples given were the result of the
absolute teachings of the Scriptures.  They have to do with the fallenness of
man and his evil heart that is able to justify just about anything.  This is
why we have to have an inerrant/ absolute guide.  We are so influenced by our
peer group, individually and culturally.  As it produced error in the crusades,
so it can produce error in acceptance of the cultural norms of today's society.
 How is the church to be the light of the world when man becomes his own
reference point?  How are we to be the salt of the earth when we have no
preservative ethic to give it?  If you do away with the absolutes put forth in
the Scriptures, then we are only joining those who have already drawn a circle
and called it the system of truth.  Is this not what the philosophers have
done?  The draw a circle and say "This is all there is."  The next philosopher
comes along, scratches out that circle, draws his own  and states, "This is all
there is."  ad infinitum   This is where man is reduced to when error is
allowed for in the Scriptures.  


>                            By and large, I think that Jesus and Paul were
both 
>inclusive in their attitudes.  Reasons for this include the unique position,
>for their time, in which women are presented, parables such a s the good
>sam, and the prodigal son, quotations like "neither Jew nor Gentile" etc.
>On the other hand, I think they both largely condemned exclusive attitudes.
>Think about it.

     Yes, but I think you're mixing oranges and apples here.  Lets take for
instance, women's head dressings.  This certainly was a cultural thing, was it
not.  But the principle being taught was not.  In this life, the female gender
has been given an office of vice-president, while the male gender has been
given that of president, if you will allow that analogy.  Just as Christ is the
"2nd" person of the Trinity, He is no less God than the Father.  However, there
is an order, and that has been given to us by God.  This is the way we have
been created, and in order to conform to the universe that He created us to
live in, we have to conform to its laws also.  This does not only include the
natural laws, but also the laws of life.  There is the law of how we are to
approach God. "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven."  "I am The Way."  Here again we have an absolute for
mankind.  It is not something that will change.  
     There are those who allow the Scriptures to become errant,  and they then
become inclusive in their understanding of God and all that follows there
after.  Whether it be who is saved, how one is saved, or what ethic we have to
follow.  Our society reveals the fact that without absolutes by which to judge
society, whether it be in the courts or in the cultural consciousness, society
is absolute which leads to formlessness, which leads to form without freedom. 
This is history and can be verified by studying it as such.
>
>By the way, "evangelical", as I am sure you know, means "bearer of good news".
>As a recent writer pointed out in other times and places evangelical was
>not restricted to the inerrant type of  Christianity.  I would prefer that it
>were not so today as well.  I too am evangelical for I proclaim the
>good news that Jesus Christ came to free the prisoners, feed the hungry
>and make well the sick, and that we, the church, as the body of Christ
>are his body in the world.  

As I have stated before, we can play all kinds of games with semantics in the
area of names of Christianity.  I hope you know that I don't mean to exclude
you from the inclusion of the term "evangelical"  as you understand it.  But it
is only a term.  I don't care what you call yourself or what you call me, just
so long as we understand ourselves.  In an earlier post I mentioned this in
regards to the term "born again."

>We are his hands, his feet and it is through
>our eyes that he looks compassion on the world.  (these words are from 
>a song by John Michael Talbot called the prayer of St. Teresa (if anyone
>knows where this prayer can be found please let me know.)) 

The prayer is found in Matt 25:35ff.

>The fundamental difference between you and I is that I don't need a certain
>unchangeable or immutable authority on which to lean.  God, Godself, and God's

>relationship to me are enough.  

But don't you see the logic of what you're saying.  What do you know about Him
if it weren't for you in some small way agreeing that the Scriptures are true
in what they say?  You would only know that such a person should exist
(Albert's quote for example) and that he has unimaginable power.  Look at our
Eastern friends.  This is the conclusion they have arrived at.  Their theology
is every bit as developed as ours, but would you say that they have a correct
theology?  I hope not.  You should get a copy of James Sire's "Universe Next
Door: A Catalogue of World Views" or Os Guiness' "Dust of Death" and the
chapter titled, "The East, No Exit." ("If you want to get the plain truth, be
not concerned with right and wrong.  Conflict between right and wrong is the
sickness of the mind."  Yun-Men, Zen Master)

>You, on the other hand, seem to need more, you 
>seem to need to believe that God laid down some unambiguous truths written in 
>the Bible.  This forces you to conform your beliefs to the limited scope of 
>scripture and of your even more limited understanding of that scripture.  I 
>don't accept the limitation, but neither do I reject the scripture.  I only 
>reject giving to it more than it deserves.  I cannot allow it to restrict my 
>understanding of God.
>
Maybe the posts that I am in the process of typing up quoting Rene Pache, will
help you and others in understanding that your perception of inerrancy is
wrong.  

>Rex, I would be lying if I said I didn't believe that my understanding of
>God and God's relationship to the world were superior to yours.  But I
>won't go farther than to say that I believe this for me, and I am willing
>to accept that you believe differently and that this is what you  are 
>called to believe.  What I am bound to do is to point out to you where I
>believe your understanding impacts others.  I have tried to do this in a
>fair and understanding manner.  But you must understand that the things
>I have said are what I believe to be true.  Likewise, I think that you
>have tried to do the same for me.  I appreciate your efforts as honest
>and as well founded and I thank you for them.

This I understand and accept.  Period.  Yet you must forgive me for trying to
persuade you to my way of thinking.  Here on the post you see me do it by means
of logic and rationalism, however poor they maybe.  But I tell you the truth, I
expect not one to believe what I am saying unless God so chooses to answer my
prayers that eyes may be opened.  Oh yes, I pray for this.      Now you're
thinking I am the one who is like the Harry Krishna's with spiritual
haughtiness.  No, because I pray also that my eyes would be opened, not just to
what you are trying to make self evident to me, but to the real truth of
things.  I'm not interested in systems of theology, I'm interested in truth. 
All our systems and catalogues, our denominationalisms will fall by the way
side when He returns for His own.  I would want it no other way.  But do
understand, the reason that I come across as being so_far_rto_right is that I
really am convicted that if one see's error in the Scriptures that it is only
time before one error's in seeing the Author of them.  Honest.  That is why.  I
say that with real tears in my eyes as I type.  I am burdened by the answer to
"Am I my brothers keeper."  If I have offended you or anyone else, that was not
my intention ever.  Who in their right spiritual mind ever wants to alienate? 
But like Paul, I wish to persuade you to what I am led to believe is the truth.
 I just can't see it being as you say it is.  Sorry.
>
>As I respond to this however, I have already read some correspondence from
>CLH to you.  I would simply like to point out that I think his viewpoint
>is quite accurate and forthright as well and I encourage you to take his
>words seriously and in the spirit of brotherhood and love that I am sure
>is intended.
>
Yes I owe you too, clh, an apology for the lack of tactfulness.  I apologize.
How do they say it, the means is not justified by the end.
>
>You can believe in anything you want to.  My attitude is to look at the
stories
>that are told about Christ and his action in the world.  From that I discern
>what Jesus believed, and that is what I believe.  What I do that is different
>from you, is accept the fact that some of what the reporters said may not
>have been accurate.  I also accept the fact that  they had different tools
>with which to express themselves.  I

THere is much discussion  now in the inerrant camp about the Bible as
literature.  They are looking at poetry, story telling, parables  & 
imagination as a means of grace.  That is why I think you have a poor view of
what inerrantist believe.  I have not been the best of information resource to
be sure, but I'm hoping to change that, given time and space.

>
>Well, I would say it has a lot more to say about your friends.  

A PhD from Marquette, or Trinity of Oxford, or from Scheffield, do not come
easily or without testing.  It's not just the piece of paper either.  Two of
these men I feel have a real lines of communication to the throne of grace. 
Have you never felt God's presence just being with someone who is a spiritual
giant.  They are so surrendered to Him that walking with them is like a walk in
the garden in the cool of evening.  I'm not making them equal to God, just that
when they pray you catch their coat-tails to stand before the presents of the
Holy One.  There are echelons within the church.  

>c                                                                             
                 If the
>biblical account of creation could account for all the physical data and
>phenomena I would be willing to accept it as scientifically or objectively
>true.  However, it doesn't and it can`t and therefore it does not fit the 
>requirements of Ockham`s razor.  Simplicity at the expense of truth is no 
>virtue.  While your assertion that the bible is inerrant may make you more 
>comfortable, that does not make it true.

Agreed, but it was only a point of argumentation, not a basis.  Does
creationism answer all the questions of science, of course not.  But I have
found, even here in a high energy research laboratory, that eveloution possess
more questions than creationism.  Also I have personally been to 5
creation/evelution debates.  Nothing changes.  THe evolutionist (by luck of the
draw) had the floor first. (at one debate that amonted to 90 min.)  When they
sat down, I was stunned.  Now way was this going to be disproved.  I was
shocked at the evidence they had presented.  I really mean that I had to
question myself.  Again, I was shocked.  However, as the creationist took each
issue point by point and showed how the conclusions of the evolutionist were
reached, the pendulum swung back.  After this one particualr debate at
Northwestern U in Chicago, most of the students who had hooted & hollored,
stamped their feet in applause when the evolutionist finished their inital
defense, most of them sat on the bleachers quietly at the end of it all.  They
had experienced what I had initially experienced.  They had it stuck in their
face that evolution is a bag of tricks.  At another debate, it was with a
liberal theologian and the chairperson of the philosophy department.  Theistic
evolution presented itself with the same audience responce of "you really stuck
it to them stupid creationist."  All that smugness.  But it was interesting to
see them as it started drawing to a close at the end of the open discussion. 
All of a sudden the questioning stop being "catch all" questions and stated
turn into personal calls for the simple truth of Christian creationism.  Five
times I have seen this at 5 differnt universities.  What can I say?

>I too have enjoyed the opportunity to evangelize you!  

If your view is the true view, then yes I pray that my eyes be opened.  Like in
Heb. 6 though, it will have to come from God, because my training in logic, my
foundation of presuppositions, my studies in Biblical theology and ancient
language have all led me to a conclussion that could best be illustrated
against yours as two lines that look like they have the same source, but as the
distance increases you see that they are not only from a different source, but
they are not even parallel lines.  

Again, I have enjoyed our "little" discussion.  I hope we can continue it.

pray for the peace of Jerusalem,
Loren