Hi David, Due to time constraints I can only give a quick reply at the moment. (My intention was to be quick. It has now been over two hours since I started my response - sigh). The reason you are still waiting to hear from us (well I can only speak for myself but I would be surprised if my reaction is not the same as the others) is because I disagree with your chosen method of argumentation here. It has been pointed out to you (by Lance) that it appears that this is a 'gotcha' question. In other words, once it is answered (as the question is really rhetorical - I do not know anyone that would disagree) it is expected that you will pounce with something like, "Ah Ha! I can now prove your entire theory wrong." There is a place for 'leading' questions if they are going to lead to dialogue. I am afraid that I interpret this as one that will result in your judgment, as opposed to you actually wrestling with Torrance's ideas.
I consider myself quite good at arguing. I have often 'won' an argument even though I have been completely in the wrong. One of the techniques I have used is the one mentioned above. Another is one you have also used. You will posit a question and then put Yes/No at the end of it. I find that this does not lead to discussion that goes anywhere. Instead it allows one person to be able to pounce on the other (Gotcha). The problem with my use of such methods in arguing is that I am not really appreciating what the other person is trying to say. Rather I spend all my time breaking down their side of the argument. There is no true dialogue, no give and take and very little understanding. A few people have pointed out a perceived tone or arrogance in some of your posts (others have pointed out that they do not see this). I would suggest that those who have seen it may be picking up on some of my points above. Communication is hard enough in person let alone in email. I hope you do not consider what I am saying as me attempting to put you down; I am just trying to explain why I have not responded to your question. Now to the rest of your email which I do consider attempts at dialogue with us. Time is running out on me tonight so my comments will probably be far too short to be of much use. My numbers will correspond to the numbers you used as sections in your post below. 1. There are indeed many passages that seem to say that faith puts us in right relationship with God. As has been shown to you there are also many passages that seem to assert that faith is not necessary. The question that this will always come down to is the following: Who do you think God is? If one believes that God is the white-haired judge looking down eager to smite sinners then you will create conditions to make sure that you are removed from this wrath. If God hates sinners like you say He does than we better create a complex religion to ensure that we are not one of those sinners He will smite (or somehow become sinless). If one believes that the Father lovingly accepts all of His creation through Christ and desires to share the relationship He has with his Son and Spirit then you will read the Bible entirely differently. Theologically, if one starts with the Fall of Adam (the problem of sin) you will end up with a much different view of the gospel than if you started with the loving relationship that the Triune God enjoys prior to creation. Starting with sin one views Christ as the one who deals with sin and as the Judge. If you start with who God is you end up with adoption, or the cry of God saying absolutely NO to you not being included. My point here is that we are speaking out of different paradigms. One is a product of man attempting to make oneself right with God, the other the biblical model of who God is and communicates Himself to be. You state, "It seems foolish to me for anyone to remove the faith of the believer from the gospel message." From my perspective it seems foolish for anyone to add faith of the believer to the gospel message. Faith is always a response to grace, never a precursor for grace. Making the presence of faith a condition is to make faith into a law. I think that the Bible makes it clear that we will always fall short of the law. In fact the law exists in order to point this out! Without grace we are all sunk on the bottom of a very deep sea. You state, "If I believed this stuff that Torrance teaches, I would never challenge anyone." I would suggest that this is a rather unbiblical view of evangelism. The good news that we have to tell others is what God has done to put us in right relationship with Himself (2 Cor 5:19), not what we can do (have faith, repent etc) to be put in right relationship with Him. The gospel is NOT a challenge. It is a declaration! It is a declaration of God's radical (and scandalous) grace. Amen. 2. David says, "Jesus is presented as a Judge, which means that Jesus casts people into hell. He does so from anger, from "the wrath of God." God is angry with the wicked and hates them." This is such a sad and pitiful view of God that I am almost at a loss for words here. What I have to say here will have to wait for my posts on hell. Suffice it to say God's anger is never eternal while his love is. God's mercy and faithfulness are forever, His wrath and anger but for a minute. 3. Just a few points here. David, I would be very careful of creating doctrine (what we dogmatically say about God) from the Psalms. It can lead to all sorts of hi-jinks and certainly does here. This is the Psalmist saying what he thinks of God, not to be confused with who God actually is or what God would say about Himself. Contrast this with the Psalmist saying that even in death God would be with him (Psalm 139) or Paul's announcement that nothing, and I mean nothing (Romans 8:35-39) can separate us from the love of Christ. Note verse 7 of Psalm 5 which refers to God's "unfailing love." He hates sinners and still loves them unfailingly? I think your views on God's anger and wrath are skewed and do not portray an accurate representation of the God Christians worship. The other point I would make is that you seem to confuse judgment with eternal punishment in hell. They are vastly different (one biblical, the other not). A post on God's judgment will have to be forthcoming. As I mentioned elsewhere I have a stereotype of street preachers. Part of it is that I think that street preachers enjoy the judgment or wrath side of God. In fact it seems as if there is even a nuance of it (mostly always from the Old Testament) there arises a certain eagerness and even glee when discussing these texts. They become the lens through which they interpret much of scripture. The non-street preacher succumbs to this just as easily in their pronouncements against all types of people that they do not believe should be allowed to be included in Christ (gays, women teachers, and torah breakers are favourite targets on this forum). I once had a response on this forum that said, "How dare you say that [certain political leaders] are included in Christ?" My answer would be, "How dare you not hope that they are?" I think that one of these responses is ungodly. I do appreciate you taking the time to read one of Torrance's books. What I would like to see is that we take a chapter at a time and discuss it, emailing what we liked and don't like. If we do it that way the chance for an honest dialogue is heightened not only because it allows others to see a summary of a work they do not have but because otherwise it begins to turn into a bit of a nitpicking fest. If you have any suggestions on how we can have honest fruitful dialogue here please speak up. Saddened, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ I'm still waiting to hear from you all on the following question: David Miller wrote: > Ok, if we agree now upon the fact that we can be > displeasing to God by what we might say, think or > do, then would not the converse also be true? > > Do you each agree that we can please God by what > we say, think or do? > > Bill, Lance, Jonathan, Sherrie? Comments please. I also would like to point out another quote from Thomas Torrance that seems unbiblical. On p. 94, Torrance writes: "Jesus Christ ... has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease." The problems that I have with this statement is as follows: 1. Many passages, such as the following, indicate that it is our receiving of Christ and our faith in him that puts us into Christ. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13 KJV) Also, John 3:16 says, "whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Mark 16:16 says, "he that believeth not shall be damned." It seems foolish to me for anyone to remove the faith of the believer from the gospel message. Even when the Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized into Christ, Philip made sure that he first believed with all his heart. Those who do not believe are unworthy of Christ. After baptizing a man in a park fountain, another man came up to me and asked if he could be sprinkled. I told him he could die and go to hell. Jesus died public on a cross, and he didn't want to get all wet. I told him that his faith was not serious, and that he needed to get right with God. His faith told me where he was at. If I believed this stuff that Torrance teaches, I would never challenge anyone. I suppose Torrance would tell even Simon Magus that he is accepted by God before he even believes. Peter told Simon that he would perish with his money. He told him that his heart was not right and that he needed to repent of his wickedness and be forgiven before God would accept him. 2. Jesus is presented as a Judge, which means that Jesus casts people into hell. He does so from anger, from "the wrath of God." God is angry with the wicked and hates them, but Torrance claims that God continues to love them even when they "damn themselves." It is bogus to think that anyone in their right mind would choose damnation of hell. Consider the rich man in Luke 16. He didn't want to be in Hades. He begged for Abraham to allow Lazarus to go warn his brothers. If God had offered him a way out of there, he surely would have took it. To suggest that sinners choose hell and that God is such a sissy that he would never cast anyone into hell as a form of judgment makes a mockery out of Scripture. 3. Psalm 5 describes the judgment of God in the following way: "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." (Psalms 5:4-6 KJV) Clearly, it says that GOD HATES ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY. As the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards has pointed out, the object of God's wrath is the sinner, not the sin. God casts the sinner into hell. It seems to me that Torrance makes the judgment of God unintelligible. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "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.
