So, when I say that we read the Bible, evaluate what it says and then accept its implications -- you agree !!! Silly me -- I thought you had actually said that you did not believe in evaluation. Thaniks for the correction.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:17:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Affect - Emotion - Holiness
No of course I don't think that JD. Being Berean is doing what the more noble Bereans did in Acts 17:11
which is to "receive teaching with all readiness of mind, and to search the scriptures daily, whether these things are so" The word Berean is in the Bible even though the words 'trinity and incarnation' are not - I have never advocated mindlessness and don't know of anyone on TT who does JD; where are you getting these ideas? jt
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:13:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"To Berean?" As unbiblical a word as "Trinity" or "incarnation," don't you think.You have recently argued that you simply "believe" the biblical -- apart from evaluation and acceptance. In your statement below, you seem to disagree with yourself. Which is it? Do we read, evaluate and accept - or do we just pick up the book and somehow "know" apart from mental involvement?Jd
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have appeared to disagree with this statement in the past.jt: When? It is my practice and belief to always be Berean; so when did I disagree?On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:14:51 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:So it looks to me as though ....... some ppl take the part of Edwards they agree with and ignore the rest. jtWe all do this. And no one disgards scripture on this forum, that I am aware of .... at last not in a purposeful way. All on this forum are honest and united in the desire to serve God. At least that is the grand assumption that best serves a real discussion group.. When people do not share this assumption, the resulting rhetoric bears the mark of disdain and and disrespect -- I have been the chief of sinners in this -- not respecting those who disagree. Emotionally, little has changed in this regard -- but on principle, I know that i must do better (read : be more consistent with the principle).
There is nothing wrong with evaluating said statement in the light of scripture is there?You have appeared to disagree with this statement in the past.
JDWhy so dramatic JD, noone is assailing anyone. There is nothing wrong with evaluation said statement in the light of scripture is there? Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God was just one of his sermons and a very effective one from the sound of it. But then you and Lance would have a problem with that because it would not fly with your "incarnational" teaching. So it looks to me as though - like with scripture - some ppl take the part of Edwards they agree with and ignore the rest. jtOn Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:54:03 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:You have the book? He wrote perhaps 60,000 pages of "book." It is interesting to me that a statement is posted and the response is (always) to assail the harmful effects of his contributing. Yes, I said that right. If is wrong for us to consider his writings (or Barth's, or Lances, or Taylors ) then it is wrong for him (or them) to even contribute. So, I look forward to the day when you and Deegan decide not to contribute !! (just kidding -- please notice the smile on my rather handsome face). JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have the book right here at the house JD; and I believe he was a well meaning, good, and honorable man.No problem there. However, he is not the fount of all truth. To begin with he is a Calvinist and very legalistic (which should be a concern for you JD). I don't reject Jonathan Edwards but it is dangerous to look for truth through a grid of his doctrine. jtOn Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:54:42 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Secondarily, you might read his "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" ......... one of the more famous sermons of all time. It's got to be online, somwhere. He died a young man -- 49 or 50 years old. He was expelled from his congregation in Northampton because he was too exclusionary -- forbidding communion to many who were acceptable to the larger congregation. His conclusions concerning the judgment of God are repulsive to me -- yet, Edwards was one of the better thinkers of the day (1700's) -- not to be put in a box, I think. He was (IMO) as important to his day as Barth was to the 1900's (and beyond).
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy -- do you know who Jon Edwards is? You make a habit of seeing danger where there is none. Jon Edwards would be someone you would absolutely love to listen.......a grand defender of the faith and the judgments of God. Just becasue Lance posted this does not mean that you are obligated to reject it.JD
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lance what is the scriptural foundation for this theory? jtOn Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:02:24 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:'There is a difference between affection and emotion. If one espouses a traditional head/heart dualism then, what follows will not be understood.The 'self' is to be understood as unitary, particularly when it comes to the understanding of affection. Affection always includes understanding and will. Understanding, will and, affect form a unit.What we love ultimately governs how we think and what we do, in the long run. In the short run you can always will against what you want to do and, love. Example of someone in school:Should you study tonight (you have a test tomorrow) or, should you watch the baseball game? In the short run you can always will against desire and, force yourself to study. But, in the long run we all end up doing what we are fond of or, what we love. (crave).In addition to what we love governing what we do, it also governs how we think. 90% of what we call reasoning (ratiocination) is rationalization.(doctrine of total depravity outlines the extent to which the structure of reason survives the 'fall' but, the integrity of reason on theological matters is forfeited in the fall.(The fallen sinner is as rational as ever but, now her reason serves, unconsciously, the legitimization of her sin. Conscious reasoning is served by unconscious rationalization.What we call reasoning is highly socially determined.How people think isn't simply the pure distillate of pure rational thinking Rather, how people think reflects their social formation. (If one polled TT in order to ascertain what some deem 'common sense' we'd discover it to be neither 'sensible' nor 'common'. What passes for common sense in any one society overwhelmingly is the mental pattern, the thought pattern of people who have access to social power.What we love will govern ultimately how we behave but, also how we think. The 'great commandment of Scripture' is 'You shall love the Lord your God'. We tend not to be as quick to identify the 'root' commandment in Scripture which is 'You shall be holy as I the Lord your God am Holy'.(Lev 19:2)Any commandment in Scripture is a covered promise. 'You shall' means that1. You had better2. By God's grace He will see to it that you do.Therefore the 'root' commandment and the 'great' commandment are both the root promise and the great promise namely, we are to be holy and we are to love the Lord our God with....The root commandment occurs in the Holiness Code (Lev 17-22)The HC may strike us as particularly mundane. The HC describes how God's people are to live. You don't bribe judges, you don't put your thumb on the scale when you're selling meat to the homemaker, you don't move boundary markers. Holiness is what you do, not how you feel. BUT, what you do, finally, is controlled by what or whom you love.Affection and emotion are to be distinguished from one another. Affection is a felt response for an object called for by or, grounded in an understanding of the nature of that object. Where there is no understanding there can be no affection regardless of how much emotion is present.Where there is no understanding of the nature of God there can be no affection for God.The above is an extract from a talk given by Dr. Victor Shepherd entitled 'Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections: An Aid to Spiritual Discernment' at Tyndale University College & Seminary in June of 2005Victor is a close acquaintance.
