brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) (01/07/90)
In article <Jan.4.01.22.18.1990.13649@athos.rutgers.edu> Dave Mielke clears up some of his earlier comments, by explaining that he was using the word `believe' differently than I expected. He did not, however, reply to some of the questions which were actually the more important part of my last article. In declaring a belief in free will to be `self-serving', Dave implied that the people who believe in it are only seeking to comfort themselves, or for some other selfish motive. My questions were intended to address the situation where a person who has a headache snaps at someone else says "I'm sorry I said that, I have a headache" instead of "I'm sorry I said that, I'm a sinful human." In such a situation, do you claim that the belief that headaches sometimes promote short-tempered behaviour is a self-serving one, only held by people who do not want to face up to their own sinfulness? If so, how do you address the problem that many Evangeligal Christians hold that belief? (These being people who, presumably, accept that humans are sinful.) If, on the other hand, you recognise the people might believe that headaches can cause hostile behaviour do so for reasons other than the wish to salve their own egos, why do you claim that a belief in free will is `self-serving'? Focusing back on the question of Scripture for a moment, Dave wrote: > >While I merely believe with a high degree of certainty that all of those >things you have mentioned are true, I know with 100% assurence that each >and every detail declared within the Scriptures is true. This ignores the problem that it is _people_ who read the Scriptures and who interpret them. Imperfect people who read perfect Scriptures *can* make mistakes, and misunderstand them. (Even if they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit -- several of Paul's letters in the New Testament were to Christians that had gotten matters confused.) Your description of free will as `self-serving' implies that you don't believe it is possible for people to make errors in belief, possibly even by misreading the Bible. Also, you say that you "know with 100% assurence" that the things taught in Scripture are true, but does that mean that you are 100% infallible in reading them? It often appears that you are claiming to be infallible in your articles by saying that some idea is definitely false or true; without recognising that you can make mistakes. The Bible has many examples of God's servants who erred due to their being sinful, limited humans: do you believe that you are better than they were? Do you claim that you are not affected by your human nature in the way that others have been? If you do not consider yourself infallible, why do you insist that any who disagree with you are necessarily wrong, without recognising that you might be wrong and the others correct? This is not saying that they are right and the Bible is wrong, but that the Bible is right and _you_ are wrong; you speak as if that can never happen, which sounds rather arrogant. Your apparent claim to perfection (which many believe is only true of God) is rather abrasive, and may have something to do with the occasionally unhappy replies to your articles in this group. brandy@cs.umd.edu Brandy R. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!brandy "If you have played the fool and exalted yourself [...] clap your hand over your mouth!" -- Proverbs 30:32 [I think you may be creating a dicotomy where there isn't one. First, the fact that headaches exist is often attributed to sinfulness. Not that every headache is a punishment for some sin, but that if we were not fallen, we would not have illness. Second, even if we did, it would not result in snapping at other people. I admit that the sort of situaation you outline isn't generally considered to be indicative of great spiritual depravity, but in principle many would say that it is due to sin. I find your emphasis that it is _people_ who read Scripture as rather ironic, coming from you. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (01/16/90)
In article <Jan.6.22.47.24.1990.7346@athos.rutgers.edu> brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) writes: >My questions were intended to address the situation where a person who has >a headache snaps at someone else says "I'm sorry I said that, I have a >headache" instead of "I'm sorry I said that, I'm a sinful human." In such >a situation, do you claim that the belief that headaches sometimes promote >short-tempered behaviour is a self-serving one, only held by people who do >not want to face up to their own sinfulness? If so, how do you address the >problem that many Evangeligal Christians hold that belief? (These being >people who, presumably, accept that humans are sinful.) The correctness of a given doctrine is not determined by majority vote. It is, rather, determined by what God has actually told us within the Scriptures. Even the most devout Christians cannot help tainting God's truths with lies as they are still living within sinful flesh. God has told us that death, sickness, disease, discomfort, unpleasantness, etc. were not part of the original creation and that they only entered into the creation as a consequence of the curse which He invoked after man chose to sin. This means that the various weaknesses of our bodies which make us susceptable to health disorders, and this would include the average headache, are most definitely a result of sin. While God has been kind enough to permit us to have all sorts of medications which significantly alleviate the unpleasant side-effects of diseases, it would be wrong to attribute our diseases to anything other than the desire of man to be sinful. A perfect human body, e.g. those of Adam and Eve before their act of rebellion and that of Jesus, would not get sick. This is why people lived so long before and shortly after the flood. It took a while for our bodies to weaken to the point where our life spans are as short as they are. While any given instance of a disease is not necessarily a specific punishment for a specific sin, it certainly is a consequence of our self-inflicted rebellious conduct. There are some forms of pain, including headaches, which are not caused by disease. If, for example, a heavy object were to fall on my head, it would induce significant pain. While this pain in and of itself is not the consequence of sin, my ill-tempered response to it would be. As one of the attributes of sinlessness is selflessness, a sinless person would not dwell on any personal inconveniences for even an instant. I suspect that no one of us can imagine someone really having such an ideal attitude, but then we have become so accustomed to our sinful inclinations that we have begun to accept and even justify them as being normal. There is not one single excuse for sin. It is unacceptable before God, although so many of us do it all the time, to blame our bad behaviour on the actions of someone else or even the actions of some microbe. While I, too, often beg another's forgiveness and tolerance of my bad behaviour on the grounds that I am either physically or emotionally suffering, this ought only ever be merely to let them know that there are extenuating circumstances which are making it even harder for me to fight off the effects of sin in my life. Under no circumstances dare I even attempt to believe that any current source of affliction in my life is the actual cause of my disgusting conduct. >This ignores the problem that it is _people_ who read the Scriptures and who >interpret them. Imperfect people who read perfect Scriptures *can* make >mistakes, and misunderstand them. (Even if they are indwelt with the Holy >Spirit -- several of Paul's letters in the New Testament were to Christians >that had gotten matters confused.) You are absolutely correct. Only the original Scriptures as penned by their human authors are flawless. Any copy, translation, or human interpretation is far less than perfect. A little further on you indicated that you believe that I believe that my interpretation of the Scriptures is better than anyone else's. While many people may wish to make this claim of me in an attempt to justify their desire to ignore a lot of the things which I proclaim, I, myself, do not believe even for a moment that my interpretation is any better than anyone else's. I am well aware that each and every one of my attempts to interpret the Scriptures are frought with imperfections which are caused, among other things, by the sin with which I am infested. The interesting thing, however, is that most people who object to my interpretations of the Scriptures do not offer Scriptural support for their objections. >If you do not consider yourself infallible, why do you insist that any who >disagree with you are necessarily wrong, without recognising that you might >be wrong and the others correct? This is not saying that they are right >and the Bible is wrong, but that the Bible is right and _you_ are wrong; >you speak as if that can never happen, which sounds rather arrogant. I do not declare something to be true until I am sure that it will stand the scrutiny of the entire Bible. Many people read a few selected passages here and there which seem to agree with one another and then decide that they know what God is saying. This is a completely inadequate approach. We can only know that we have come to truth when we are also able to deal with all those passages that appear to contradict them. A far better approach is to realize that we need not necessarily understand, agree with, or even like the correct interpretation of any given point, to be aware of lots of different scenarios, and to constantly test each and every one of them with each and every verse that is read, and then to do a lot of serious Bible study, eliminating impossible scenarios on the basis that they cannot stand the scrutiny of the verses that are being read during this study. Only when coupling this approach with lots of prayer is it possible to really be assured of what God's actual plan is. >Your apparent claim to perfection (which many believe is only true of God) >is rather abrasive, and may have something to do with the occasionally >unhappy replies to your articles in this group. I, too, believe that God is the only one who is perfect. He Himself has declared that His message, when not tarnished with sinful human misinterpretations, is not pleasing to man. Galatians 1:10 says "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.". In so doing, He is giving us one way to measure how close we have come to truth. I know that I would be proclaiming lies if everyone would like what I am saying. I am encouraged by the fact that a lot of the negative criticism of my interpretations of the Scriptures is based on an attempt to impose perceived earthly wisdom on top of what the Bible actually says. The few times that people respond with Scriptural rebutals provide marvelous oportunities for me to reassess my own beliefs. All the others, which contain a lot of human reasoning, but usually not even one Scriptural quotation, convince me more and more that I am becoming more and more correct. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) (01/18/90)
Dave Mileke's reply to my last article, and the moderator's comments which were attached to it, indicate to me that my example of aspirin is not helping explain my question. I do not actually care about aspirin, and indeed I have never needed one. I care about one person claiming that another person's beliefs are `self- serving', and was attempting to use aspirin to illustrate the point. Mr. Mielke's claim that another's beliefs are `self-serving' seems to require knowledge that he does not have access to. Let me try another example, actually a pair of them: A few months ago, Virginia Whitten came to talk at Severna Park Baptist Church, and she told of some things she has been through in her life, and some of the obstacles she's overcome and how she did so. Ms. Whitten has a chemical imbalance in her brain, and she has been locked up for extended periods of time for her own protection. One of the things she said happens from time to time is that people come up to her, and explain that her illness is a result of an unconfessed sin. If she'll just confess that unconfessed sin, then she'll be healed. While I enjoy perfect health, Darren is nearsighted and wears glasses. He has never had anyone tell him that his nearsightedness is a result of an unconfessed sin. I see no operational difference between these two cases. I can see no reason why Ms. Whitten's problem is the result of an unconfessed sin and Darren's is not; and I can see no justification for claiming that another's illness is the result of an unconfessed sin. In the same way, I can also see no justification for claiming that another's beliefs are `self-serving'. What I have been trying (rather unsuccessfully) to find out is why Mr. Mielke feels it is okay to claim that someone holds beliefs for selfish motives. How does he know? Here is another example of what I mean. In his last article, Mr. Mielke wrote this: > >A little further on you indicated that you believe that I believe that >my interpretation of the Scriptures is better than anyone else's. While >many people may wish to make this claim of me in an attempt to justify >their desire to ignore a lot of the things which I proclaim, I, myself, >do not believe even for a moment that my interpretation is any better >than anyone else's. You've included lots of qualifications (`may wish', `many people', etc) in this paragraph, which you can claim are based on probablitity or a good guess, and therefore hold that this is true. However, the basic point that comes through is that you are attributing motives to other people. You've said that others claim that your value only your interpretation due to a desire to ignore it -- you have not in the least acknowledged that someone might make this determination based on their best reading of your words. For example, me. Your earlier claim that free will was `self-serving' essentially says that anyone who disagrees with you has made an inappropriate reading of the Bible. Guessing *why* others believe things does not seem likely to work; why don't you _ask_ them instead? You've now claimed that people believe in free will for some selfish motives, and that people claim you are unconcerned with other interpretations solely to ignore yours. Why don't you consider the possibility that people believe these things honestly, as a result of their reading and interpretation? There is nothing wrong with thinking that your interpretation is the best possible, of course -- if you thought there was a better one you would change to that. But your description of free will goes further, in saying that other readings aren't only worse, but are wrong. It seems to me that if you actually think that other opinions are valid, then the most you can say is "I disagree with a belief in free will based upon my understanding of Scripture". Claiming that a belief in free will is `self-serving' is saying that the other interpretations of Scripture are _wrong_, which is the same as saying that you know which one is Right. You quoted Galatians 1:10, and concluded: > >I know that I would be proclaiming lies if everyone would like what I am >saying. You seem to have lost the distinction between Christians and `the world': do _you_ like what you are saying? Do you think that when people got letters from Paul they were unhappy? What do you make of the fact that there are Christians who do not like what you are saying? In the event you don't care that it is Christians you are upsetting, let me try something else. I can show you an example of someone who said things that people don't like, and with whom you will not agree: Adolf Hitler.% Does you believe that he spoke the truth? I think that people dislike what Mr. Hitler said because lots of it was offensive. (Note that I am not saying Mr. Mielke is comparable to Hitler, I am only showing why I think his argument is flawed.) ------ % - I cannot know that Mr. Mielke disagrees with Mr. Hitler, but it seems a good guess. There are lots of other examples. ------ >I am encouraged by the fact that a lot of the negative criticism of my >interpretations of the Scriptures is based on an attempt to impose >perceived earthly wisdom on top of what the Bible actually says. The >few times that people respond with Scriptural rebutals provide >marvelous oportunities for me to reassess my own beliefs. All the >others, which contain a lot of human reasoning, but usually not even >one Scriptural quotation, convince me more and more that I am becoming >more and more correct. The problem with this is that you have to use your human understanding in order to produce your interpretations of Scripture. If a reply to one of your articles is an attempt to show why your reasoning is wrong, it may not have many Scriptural citations in it because it is not a discussion over whether Scripture is right, but instead about how reasoning is properly applied. (For example, the above paragraphs about Galatians 1:10 -- I accept that the verse is correct, but I believe your application of it to any words of yours that people dislike is incorrect. I am not criticising the verse, I am criticising an unthinking application of it to anything someone may write.) Let me summarise with a few questions that will get at my points: 1) What is your justification for claiming that another's beliefs are `self- serving'? 2) What is your justification for assuming that the perception you are overly confident is a result of wanting to ignore you? 3) Does it matter to you that it is Christians who are unhappy with your articles? 4) Do you believe that people dislike your words only because you are telling the truth? Do you not recognise that others may find your writing style rather abrasive? brandy@cs.umd.edu Brandy R. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!brandy
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (01/18/90)
In article <Jan.16.04.56.02.1990.16298@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > >If, for example, a heavy object were to fall on my head, it >would induce significant pain. While this pain in and of itself is not >the consequence of sin, my ill-tempered response to it would be. I suppose you're right, that anger in response to such an incident would be sinful -- although I can think of worse sins :-) But I don't agree that the incident itself is not likely the result of sin. On the contrary, I think it probably is. And that says something about my theology, being an example of (somebody help me with the right technical term here!) the belief that Chrsitianity involves us in society. Why did that heavy object fall on your head? If somebody dropped it on you deliberately, of course that's sin. If they dropped it accidentally because Joe was lazy and got back late from coffee break and they didn't have enough help to move something that was too heavy for them, that's sin (on the part of Joe). If the object broke loose from the roof because the contractor skimped on proper mortar for construction of the building, that's sin (on the part of the contractor, or on the part of the building inspector, or on the part of society which refuses to hire enough building inspectors). If the object fell from an airplane because the government doesn't impose adequate safety standards on airplane mechanics, that's sin. If it fell during a building demolition job, landing on an area where you were standing in spite of large signs that said "Danger, Falling Objects", that's sin (on the part of you, for endangering God's creation and wasting police officers' time). If an unsupervised two-year-old dropped it down the stairs, that's sin (on the part of whoever should have been supervising the child). You get the picture. I believe that practically all suffering in the world is, in one way or another, the result of sin, positive or negative -- the things we have done that we ought not to have done, and the things we have not done that we ought to have done. CAR credmond@watmath
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe Rossi) (01/18/90)
In article <Jan.16.04.56.02.1990.16298@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The correctness of a given doctrine is not determined by majority vote. >It is, rather, determined by what God has actually told us within the >Scriptures. Even the most devout Christians cannot help tainting God's >truths with lies as they are still living within sinful flesh. How can you, or anyone else determine if what you have just said is not tainted, or wrong? >There are some forms of pain, including headaches, which are not caused >by disease. If, for example, a heavy object were to fall on my head, it >would induce significant pain. While this pain in and of itself is not >the consequence of sin, my ill-tempered response to it would be. As one >of the attributes of sinlessness is selflessness, a sinless person >would not dwell on any personal inconveniences for even an instant. I >suspect that no one of us can imagine someone really having such an >ideal attitude, but then we have become so accustomed to our sinful >inclinations that we have begun to accept and even justify them as >being normal. I can imagine having such an ideal attitude. Bad things happen to me all the time, and I used to have all sorts of ill tempered responses towards them, but as time goes it seems that God has given me the tools to be able to not dwell on any personal inconvenience at all. He has taught me to instantly accept emotionally bad things when they happen. No anger. No hositlity. Just peace and love. I just want to point out that it *is* possible. And I'm not saying that I don't respond emotionally at times, or that I'm perfect, but just that as I grow older and change, I no longer accept these sinful inclinations as normal. >I do not declare something to be true until I am sure that it will >stand the scrutiny of the entire Bible. Many people read a few selected >passages here and there which seem to agree with one another and then >decide that they know what God is saying. This is a completely >inadequate approach. We can only know that we have come to truth when >we are also able to deal with all those passages that appear to >contradict them. A far better approach is to realize that we need not >necessarily understand, agree with, or even like the correct >interpretation of any given point, to be aware of lots of different >scenarios, and to constantly test each and every one of them with each >and every verse that is read, and then to do a lot of serious Bible >study, eliminating impossible scenarios on the basis that they cannot >stand the scrutiny of the verses that are being read during this study. >Only when coupling this approach with lots of prayer is it possible to >really be assured of what God's actual plan is. But what do you bring to and undertake this process with but your own faulty human reasoning? *Who* is studying the Bible, scrutinizing each individual scripture, assessing, judgeing, and determining what God has said in these imperfect, translated words? God? Or a flawed fallible sinful human? Your approach seems to presume that *You* can judge, and determine the correctness of doctrine and interpretation. Isn't this presumption ( or assumption ) arrogant? Prayer? Assuming that God, since you have prayed to him, has blessed you with divine understanding. Lots of people pray for understanding, and come up with different answers. Not praying for the right reason says you are of the confidence that *You* pray for the right reasons. But how can *You* know that without claiming that you are someone special? >I, too, believe that God is the only one who is perfect. He Himself has >declared that His message, when not tarnished with sinful human >misinterpretations, is not pleasing to man. I'm curious as to how you are privy to God's message untarnished, and and undistorted by human interpretation? >I am encouraged by the fact that a lot of the negative criticism of my >interpretations of the Scriptures is based on an attempt to impose >perceived earthly wisdom on top of what the Bible actually says. The >few times that people respond with Scriptural rebutals provide >marvelous oportunities for me to reassess my own beliefs. All the >others, which contain a lot of human reasoning, but usually not even >one Scriptural quotation, convince me more and more that I am becoming >more and more correct. It strikes me as odd that people want to see scriptures to support any kind of arguement. Does this not still require human reasoning? One must reason that the presented *evidence* ( scripture references ) supports the claim, much in the same way Scientists prove scientific theories. It still involves human reasoning. Worse, it addresses scripture, which is basically poetry, with a rational and methodical approach that is more fitting for scientists. Scripture, poetry, religious experiences, are very intuitive, and thus defy such analysis. -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...the love shack is a little 'ol place -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi where we can G E T T O G E T H E R. **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (02/05/90)
In article <Jan.17.23.59.26.1990.11389@athos.rutgers.edu> brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) writes: >Let me summarise with a few questions that will get at my points: > >1) What is your justification for claiming that another's beliefs are `self- > serving'? Although I do not believe that I have ever accused any specific person of having self-serving beliefs, I have most definitely made the completely accurate, general statement that the beliefs of many people are self-serving. I say this so confidently because God says this. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away {their} ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.". 2 Peter 2:1-3 says "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.". Isaiah 30:8-11 says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: That this {is} a rebellious people, lying children, children {that} will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.". These passages are not just referring to those beliefs which do not feature the Lord Jesus Christ. They are also referring to many corporate churches which profess Christianity. 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 says "But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such {are} false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore {it is} no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.". 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 says "Let no man deceive you by any means: for {that day shall not come}, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.". Matthew 24:23-25 says "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here {is} Christ, or there; believe {it} not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if {it were} possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before.". May each one of us thoroughly analyze his own beliefs to insure that he is not included among those to whom these passages apply. I especially make this admonition to those who are teachers as the Scriptures declare that an unforgiven teacher of lies is subject to greater damnation. James 3:1 says "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.". Let none of us just glibly assume that, while others may be wrong, he himself cannot be deceived as he is among the elect. It may very well be that any one of us is not among the elect yet has been so completely deceived into believing that he is. Let us thank and praise God for having given us His written, inerrant, unchangeable Word so that we can verify whatever anyone else tells us and so that we can correct our own faulty, sin tainted thinking with the only relentlessly perfect source of absolute truth. >2) What is your justification for assuming that the perception you are overly > confident is a result of wanting to ignore you? My actual statement was a declaration that there are many people who claim that I believe that my personal interpretation of Scripture is flawless in an attempt to justify their desire to ignore what I am proclaiming. I thank you very much for having questioned me regarding this statement because I believe not only that it is extremely easy for others to misunderstand it but also that I was thinking out of context when I wrote it. I beg any Christian who was offended by this statement to please accept my sincere apologies. While this statement has a partial application even to Christians (including myself) as we are still living within sinful flesh which all too often causes us to err on the side of self-justification, it really only fully applies to non-Christians. An unsaved person, as a number of the Scriptures which I have quoted in my answer to your previous question illustrate, hears only what he wants to hear and willfully ignores what God is actually saying. I'm sure that we all realize that there are many non-Christians who subscribe to this newsgroup. Some of them even submit articles with their own theories of reality. A fact that may not be evident on the surface is that I am also addressing these people even when I am responding to a statement made by a Christian. I would ask that all Christians understand that I really only intend to challenge the beliefs of non-Christians by such statements. I would also ask that no one single person ever interpret any of my remarks as a direct personal attack as it has never been my intention to do so. As my use of these sorts of statements is apparently so widely misunderstood, I shall endeavour to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, them. If I really feel the need to make such a statement in the future, I shall endeavour to clarify my intentions regarding its use. If I fail in these endeavours then I not only would greatly appreciate your forgiveness but also would welcome any and all cautionary warnings from anyone. >3) Does it matter to you that it is Christians who are unhappy with your > articles? When all is said and done, I stand accountable to God, and not to my fellow man (even my fellow Christian brothers and sisters), for what I say, do, think, etc. I would be no less than a devout liar if I were to consider it acceptable to compromise what I believe the Scriptures say just because I know that someone else (even if he is Christian) will be offended. This does not mean that I discount what others say when it pertains to the interpretation of Scripture, but it does mean that I do not just swallow it because it appeals to my sinful senses. It is my duty before God to test each and every statement made by others as well as each and every one of my own thoughts by what God has said within the Scriptures. It is also my duty to refrain from making a public statement unless I am sure that it is truthful. The reason that I am so definite when I finally make a statement is because I only make statements on subjects about which I am sure. You will never see me make an indefinite statement because I refuse to arbitrarily comment or publically theorize about something which I am not sure of. I reserve those activities for private discussions where there is no danger that they will mislead anyone. I'm sure that you all realize that this newsgroup is the furthest thing from a private forum. Each of us really ought to be extremely careful about what he proclaims to be truth as it is being read by many unsaved people. I think it would be really neat if God were to use our comments to draw others to Himself. We can hardly expect Him to do this, however, if we are careless with the knowledge, wisdom, and even computing equipment which He has made available to us. May each one of us consistently and continually insure that each one of his comments is always made such that it brings glory to God! >4) Do you believe that people dislike your words only because you are telling > the truth? Do you not recognise that others may find your writing style > rather abrasive? Those who assess the truthfulness of what I say by my writing style are demonstrating profound foolishness. The only source of truth is the Bible itself. This is why I endeavour to include Scriptural support whenever I make statements pertaining to God. People should not base their beliefs on what I say; they should, rather, prayerfully study those Scriptures which I quote, perhaps using my remarks as an aid to their interpretation. If they do not check out those Scriptures then they either are over-confident or do not really believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If they ignore what I say just because they do not like my writing style then they are merely doing themselves a disservice. Please permit me to deal with one last point which was not included within your list of questions. You used an illustration that indicates that you misunderstood why I quoted Galatians 1:10. For the benefit of those without, or without easy access to, a Bible, it says "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.". I, too, do not believe that I have made a truthful statement just because others find it unpleasant. The only criteria I use for the truthfulness of any given statement is its agreement with what the Scriptures say. Galatians 1:10, however, warns me that I should expect a great deal of opposition from my fellow man if I do not compromise the truth. It also warns me that I am probably wrong if I am only making statements which make everyone else happy. 1 John 4:1 says "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) (02/09/90)
In article <Feb.5.03.59.42.1990.25038@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > It is my duty before God to test each and every statement made by others > as well as each and every one of my own thoughts by what God has said > within the Scriptures. All the Scriptures, not just the displeasing, judgmental ones. I fully agree, actually, that God does not want people to sin. But I disagree with the idea, which most of Mielke's writings seem to communicate (I'd gladly have this corrected if it's a misimpression), that this is because He is a perfectionistic, judgmental, authoritarian, dictatorial, unloveable potentate. On the contrary, He Himself stated that He came that people might have life, and have it more abundantly (John 10:10) -- and sin destroys life, in every sense of that word; so, because it destroys that which God wants to give, it is not what God wants for us. Eternal life is much, much more than eternal fire insurance. It is, as its name says, *life* -- an aliveness, an alertness, an overflow of love and joy that cannot help but be attractive to the oppressed and unhappy ("My yoke is easy and My burden is light", "Whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life", and similar passages). Why do you think so many thousands were converted in the early days, as recorded in Acts? The chief reason surely was that they recognized that God loved them and wanted to give them *life* despite everything they had done, up to and including calling for the death of Jesus Himself. For that matter, even the Old Testament has clear indications of God's love sprinkled throughout -- one of them being the famous "watchman" passage in Ezekiel 33; clearly a call to repentance arises from the love and compassion of the Caller for the called, as seen in verses 10 and 11: "Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?"' Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, *I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and *live*.* [my emphasis -- jjs] Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'" > The only source of truth is the Bible itself. Perhaps; but what of Jesus's statement in John 16:12-13, "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." Did this promise apply only to His immediate audience -- i.e., the 11 apostles? No; Paul writes in Galatians 1:12 of his own knowledge of the Gospel, "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." So did Jesus's promise of the Spirit's guiding us into all truth cease at the end of the New Testament era? I fail to see why God would deliberately take away a gift of such great benefit, and I don't believe He has ceased providing us with truth directly, not just through the Bible. > This is why I endeavour to include Scriptural support > whenever I make statements pertaining to God. On the other hand (continuing my thought above), I don't believe any more than Dave Mielke does that the Spirit will come up with something that contradicts the Bible -- but God is an expert at coming up with stuff that contradicts people's interpretations of the Bible, as recorded all over the Gospels. Use and quote the Scriptures, certainly; they never cease to have edifying stuff in them, no matter how often you read them; but also pray that you may see through them what God intended you to see, not what you expect to see and thus perhaps read back into them. > Galatians 1:10...says "For do I > now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet > pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.". Consider the context of this verse. The immediately preceding verses, and much of that epistle, indicate that the people Paul was chiefly referring to were the Judaizers; he properly considered them utterly in the wrong, and he didn't let it faze him one whit that they opposed him bitterly. But in another context (I Corinthians 10:32-33), he writes, "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks, or the church of God -- even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.", and similarly his famous "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." (I Corinthians 9:22), followed by the curious 9:23, "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, *that I might share in its blessings*." [my emphasis -- jjs] Anyway, the point is that the grim, forbidding picture of God which one may so easily infer from the writings of Dave Mielke and many others hardly agrees with the picture of a God who is "gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love...good to all...has compassion on all he has made" (Psalm 145:8-9), who "heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds" (Psalm 147:3), who "is good -- His love endures forever" (Psalm 136:1), who "raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap" (Psalm 113:7), whose "love" is "great...higher than the heavens" and whose "faithfulness reaches to the skies" (Psalm 108:4), "who daily bears our burdens...who saves" (Psalm 68:19-20), of whom David would ask "that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the *beauty* of the LORD" (Psalm 27:4, my emphasis [jjs]), who says "Open wide your mouth and I will fill it" (Psalm 81:10) -- and while my quick scan of just that one book (Psalms) admittedly also found many verses, some in these same psalms, which speak of the wicked getting their just deserts, one gets the impression that God would much rather even the most wicked repent rather than be destroyed, or He'd blow them away quickly rather than giving them plenty of time in which, maybe, some of them might see what they've been doing and turn their lives around and find the blessings and love of God. In sum, life with God ought to be one of rejoicing (as indeed it is, all over both Testaments), not an existence afraid that God will be, like Queen Victoria, "not amused" at something we do. -- -- Jeff Sargent att!ihlpb!jeffjs (UUCP), jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Internet) AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 5A-433, Naperville, IL (708) 979-5284 PRAY NAKED