Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger

[Lance Muir]

Linda:Your 'logic' (the 'bishop' by the by made a wonderful distinction the other day between the revelatory over logic):   1. I don't care for Lance (reasons for not caring for Lance-'airtight' and, agreed upon)   2. Lance would appear to believe ...informed by...   3. JS appears to be moderately influenced by...   4. Warning to JS..If you believe...then you'll become like Lance whom I don't like. Further, anyone who begins to believe...will become like Lance...Flee from this strange belief before this happens to you   5. Same argument proferred inserting any name (i.e. Judy, Linda) and any belief..Find anyone informed by anything whom you don't care for thus....   Is this approximately correct? Sent: August 23, 2004 19:55 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger Lance, you are the perfect poster boy for your theology.  (Smithson, is this really where you want to end up???) Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   Jt:Actually we do but, many are brought on by our friends (?) just south of us.Ya know, 500lb gorilla and all. When you guyz sneeze we all catch cold. It's reall sad that Amerika is in such a state of decline (Gibbon wrote about it-Barbarians at the gate). Why not write a column in the local paper. I'm sure to could bring the nation back from the abyss.  ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 23, 2004 14:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   This is plain old nasty Lance. I don't consign my critics anywhere other than into God's hands. After all he is the one who justifies/condemns. I don't take on what is too high and wonderful for me - Neither do I get into political discourse with persons who have perverse opinions and who are not eligible to vote here anyway.  Why do you waste your time worrying about what goes on in the USA.  Don't you have enough problems over the border?     On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:01:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Iz:Actually I can and, it's huge. That however, was not the point you 'see'. In this instance the focus was on Judy and Linda. It's really not very nice is it? Judy is a little more thick-skinned and just consigns her critics to 'outer darkness'. You, being more sensitive are hurt so, in the future I'll take more care with you. (unless it's political and, you're paying homage to GWB - 'kissing his ring and such') ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 23, 2004 12:27 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   Right, Lance.  You can’t see the log in your own eye. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   Iz:Ouch!! What I undertook to accomplish the other day (more for Judy than yourself but you got caught up into it) were examples of 'caricature communiques'. You both exemplify this sort of thing on occasion with respect to politics & theology. Well, the way the two of you felt is the way that I and others have felt when subjected to same ill-informed and rather unkind comments.  From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 23, 2004 11:31 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   Lance, It would be nice if the beliefs that folks incorporate from Kruger and such made them more Christ like, as a testimony to their “truth”. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and Kruger   John:We read everything with the eyes of a pre-existing understanding. That 'reading' includes of vocabulary of our tradition. That 'reading' includes the distinctive meaning we invest into Scripture and, draw from Scripture.Standing under the scriptures in order that the Living Word (our man in glory) might speak to us of Himself by the Spirit is no mean feat.(only grace permits it)   To replace traditional doctrinal frameworks with the very person of the Living Christ is what we ought to be 'on about'     Baxter is a friend. He and four friends are driving up from Mississippi at the end of September (24-27) for a conference. That Pentecostal pastor of whom I spoke will also be leading a workshop. The whole conference is being "CD'd" should anyone want to hear BEFORE criticizing.     Just finished reading two books: one is The Great Dance, by Kruger and the second, the Letter to the Ephesians, by Paul.   -------   all of it is a little overwhelming.    Much insight and some questions.   I will say that Kruger is no theological liberal.   At least, not according to my understanding of such a label.   That is not to say that he is a "fundamentalist" either.   Perhaps he is just his own man in Christ.  His explanation for the differences and fallacies of both pantheism and deism is somewhat profound.   He cautions against a theology that finds the individual lost in the larger notion of God while, on the other hand,  embracing a theology that so separates the two (the individual and God) as to place God "up there" and the rest of us "down here."   If he has a working teaching of the indwelling Spirit, it is not as evident as it might be.  I have no idea how he handles the issue of "accepting Christ."  Because of his convincing presentation regarding the universality of the redeeming work of Christ, he leaves open a door for  criticism by those who do not carefully read his work or who have a working bias that prevents them from doing so.   He is a believer.   His background is "high church" and that reality  plays a larger role in his thinking that even he might suppose.  It is his bias.    We all have such.  Specifically, he does not speak of "justification" except to say that it is overplayed by many in the Western Church. He rejects the idea of an angry God who is isolated from his creation because of sin and can only deal with us through Christ.   He thinks that we have over emphasized the Cross TO THE NEAR EXCLUSION OF THE INCARNATE CHRIST.   His argument in defense of such is both effective and biblical.    He does not believe in universalism and clearly makes the point.   However, he spends no time dealing with the problematic issues of universality verses universalism.   It is not the purpose of his book to develop a systematic theology.  Rather, the more narrow issue of the communal essence of a triune God at work in this fallen world is his only real purpose.   And, he develops his essay in just less than 100 pages.      Paul's letter is even shorter.  But what he says is profound.   I had not realized it before, but Paul in this letter is making an effort to show how it is that Gentiles are equally included in the mission and purposes of God through Christ.   As this letter relates to Kruger's theme, chapter 1:4-5 are profound.   I am going to quote this passage from the New Living Bible.   Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes,  His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ     "Us" has a universal tone to it (just as does these words "For God so loved the world ....)    I found in these words supoortive of much of the theology of Kruger.   And just as importantly, I found a little justification for my thinking that Adam was never the complete picture without Christ.  I don't think anyone needs to be afraid to read Kruger  --- but it is not for the casual student.  By that, I mean that he will make you think.   He does not use the high tone words Torrance is fond of  --  but his theology is not what most of us are used to.  Demon Bias is everywhere. John