RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:15:33 -0800

No, I’m afraid I don’t understand a “Christian” school that teaches about Bahai, but not critically; or a Christian school teacher who “does not prescribe conclusions” for 16 year olds who are at the age where they should decide on such issues for themselves.  Are they being taught to think or just to accept “whatever”? Do they have any concern for the lost? If so, why would they not ask the Bahai if they would like to understand what Christians believe?  Would you be disappointed if your son decided to become a Bahai? Or is your/their approach that every road leads to God? I think it was good to be open to understanding and listening to others’ beliefs, but the lack of non-judgmental Christian outreach and critical comparisons for the students leaves me very surprised—sorry! Maybe I’m not getting the whole picture??? Izzy

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:34 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

 

The presentation itself was just about Bahai. It had no other purpose. Sort of along the lines of, "OK, after all this, this is what we hear you saying. Are we hearing you right?" But yes, the whole unit of study (not to mention the rest of the curriculum) included comparison and discussion of Christian faith. The teacher does not prescribe conclusions, however. Nor was the point of the unit This Is What is Wrong with Bahai, or Watch Out for Bahai. It was really about genuine communication with people who think differently. I know you understand! 

 

Debbie  

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:07 PM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

 

I am wondering if your son’s Christian school encouraged the children to examine why they do not believe in the Bahai religion.  Did the children explain, in person or on their slide show, the differences between the Christian and Bahai beliefs, and why they chose the Christian beliefs? Izzy

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:25 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

 

On the heels of the whole discussion about misrepresenting one another's positions: I heard something from my son Cas last night that kind of humbled me. He is in Grade 11 at a Christian high school and one of his subjects this semester is World Religions; most recently they studied Bahai, and as a culminating exercise the class (in groups) made a thorough presentation on various aspects of that faith. Adherents and leaders from the faith community in question are always invited to these presentations so they can answer questions, correct errors, and otherwise engage. Afterwards, the teacher got a call from the Bahai folk who attended, saying how impressed they were by the fairness and integrity of the class's presentation. They were surprised by what little they needed to add or clarify and by how much respect had been shown them. One of them is taking courses in Bahai at the university and said that the student presentation dealt with the content better than any of the lectures he had had. Another wondered if he could use the slide show made by some of the students to help explain Bahai to people.**

 

I don't think I have always been so fair or so intellectually honest in processing TT views I am not inclined to agree with. I could learn from that group of 16-yr-olds.

 

Debbie

 

**P.S.: Might this pose a moral dilemma to some Christians?

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Lance Muir

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:54 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

 

Yesterday Bill found one of David's posts helpful in clarifying David's use of the word 'perfect'. Bill  exhibited a heart/mind  prepared to change. There are other examples of this on Bill's part.

 

Jt:IFF the posts of Jonathan & Caroline spoke of God as He actually is then, how would we account for the inability to 'see' it?

 

How can we get beyond 'camps'? Kevin cited a verse from John with the understanding that no correct interpretation of it could be other than the one that he and, I assumeyou, Linda & David hold to also. IFF the understanding that you, collectively, hold on this and, on other matters is cognitively incorrect and, IFF no amount of Scriptural support for another understanding will EVER see any one of you alter your position then, how are we to engage one another? Obviously, this could be written to us by you also.

From: Judy Taylor

Sent: March 31, 2005 06:51

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Torrance and Sin - Holy People?

 

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:34:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

TF Torrance quote to follow.  Keep in mind the short discussion we had today regarding whether the real problem we face is sin.  Torrance does a beautiful 180 here and states that through our sin God (Jesus the Mediator) brings us into reconciliation.  This is great stuff.  Makes the heart sing.  JBH

“The covenant between God and Israel was not a covenant between God and a holy people, but precisely the reverse. It was a covenant established out of pure grace between God and Israel in its sinful, rebellious and estranged existence. Hence, no matter how rebellious or sinful Israel was, it could not escape from the covenant love and faithfulness of God…There were evidently critical moments in Israel’s history when it seemed ready to do anything to flout the will of God in hope of breaking loose from the grip of his unswerving love and of escaping from the painful transformation of its existence that relations with ‘the Holy One of Israel’ involved. No, the covenant was not made with holy people, nor did its validity depend upon a contractual fulfillment of its conditions on the part of Israel, for its was a unilateral covenant which depended for its fulfillment upon the unconditional grace of God and the unrelenting purpose of reconciliation which he had pledged to work out through Israel for all peoples. And therefore…it depended upon a vicarious way of response to the love of God which God himself provided within the covenant—a way of response which he set out in the liturgy of atoning sacrifice and which he insisted on translating into the very existence of Israel in its vocation as ‘servant of the Lord.’

jt: And what about all the people who perished because they broke the covenant?  Let's see, how many were there who perished in the wilderness?  How many died in one day for fornicating with the Moabite women?  The son of the high priest perished for bringing strange fire before the Lord.  The earth opened and swallowed up Korah and his family for hiding in his tent things that were under the ban.  I could go on and on....

“…the more fully God gave himself to this people, the more he forced it to be what it actually was, what we all are, in the self-willed isolation of fallen humanity from God. Thus the movement of God’s reconciling love toward Israel not only revealed Israel’s sin but intensified it. That intensification, however, is not to be regarded simply as an accidental result of the covenant but rather as something which God deliberately took into the full design of his reconciling activity, for it was the will and the way of God’s grace to effect reconciliation with man at his very worst, precisely in his state of rebellion against God. That is to say, in his marvelous wisdom and love God worked out in Israel a way of reconciliation which does not depend on the worth of men and women, but makes their very sin in rebellion against him the means by which he binds them for ever to himself and through which he reconstitutes their relations with him in such a way that their true end is fully and perfectly realized in unsullied communion with himself.

jt: So the fall was a good thing?  Are you sure this guy is not a member of the LDS?

“That is the way in which we are surely to interpret the Incarnation, in which God has drawn so near to man and drawn man so near to himself in Jesus that they are perfectly at one. In Jesus the problematic presence of God to Israel, the distance of his nearness and the nearness of his distance, which so deeply trouble the soul of the psalmists and prophets alike, was brought to its resolution” (T.F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, pp. 28-29).

jt: Just wishful thinking.....

 

 

Reply via email to