olger Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Well, to answer my question... Truth without love is constant confrontation with knowledge.. true Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
olger Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Neil, All of our reasoning is subjective... there is no objective reasoning. Since truth by definition is objective, i.e. outside of the scope of the subjective reasoning... it can still be in alignment with someone's subjectivity. Thus A=B=C. Objective does not exclude subjective necessarily. These two notions can overlap. For example, term "hot" is subjective description of the objective "hot" object. Hot could be interpreted differently by anyone you ask... it could be a "beautiful person" or "hot as fire" but it does not mean that the objective hot being described does not align itself with A subjective interpretation. Likewise, it bothers me when people say "we know the truth and we need to share with other people". I think a proper way to say it is "We BELIEVE to know the truth and we need to share the REASONS for our belief with other people." I believe that's the reason that our evangelism efforts land rock bottom in North America. We share the truth as "the truth" and not as "reasons for a belief in truth". Thus.... "You are a sinner", "You are going to hell without Christ", "Christ died for you", "Bible is true because it says so"... and we don't share the reasons... at least to some extend that we should. These arguments will be absurd to a reasonable person who does not have a solid grasp on Biblical theology of God's will and purpose. My parents are one of such people. Some of the questions they ask: 1) If being "good" is to obey the principles of "God's word" by "faith", then why would God punish those who obey the same principles outside of faith? There are repented villains, and there are charitable unbelievers... Bible states that the villains will be in heaven, and the charitable unbelievers will burn in hell fire. Is it just? 2) Let's say that you are a father, and your child does not know that he has a father. As a result of that separation he turns to drugs and life of crime. Can you blame the child for rejecting the father when he shows up at the door? Why couldn't the father be there every step of the way... and not just reveal himself through some human organization that claims to direct you to God in return for tithes? 3) What's the difference between believing in Mohamed or Jesus? Both are making supernatural claims that can not be verified. Will God punish me for an honest attempt at following truth as evidence of it was presented to me? If I told you "Go to the casino and put your life savings on number 35..." would you blame me for not doing so? So, if God did exist and wanted a personal relationship, why is that he hides himself... and instead people knock at your door asking you to join the church and pay 10th for their services? These are just few questions... and these are valid questions that I honestly have hard time answering. In Soviet Russia people have been "had" time, after time, after time. They don't easily trust people tell them about the "good life" after they've been through some ruff times. I honestly don't see how God can hold a child of drug addict accountable for following and learning from the father... And I trust and pray that my view of justice perhaps more true than what we have heard from pulpits today. Pull in your toes, please. Concurrent with what you have written above, we are witnessing a remarkable migration of religion among us. From objective to subjective premise. This exactly parallels the postmodern concept of individualized auto-developed reality. Adventist self-identity once rested on adherence to external truths found in and accepted from the word of God. The experiential element always has been there, but it was used to define my reaction, my surrender to a new birth, my response to the call of Christ. The submission of all my desires and plans and habits and perspectives and goals and hopes before the majestic truth that Christ has revealed to me. That’s an objective relationship, friends. The transaction was objective. There was a subjective element which dealt with my method and my surrender, but not with the elements of truth. The spirit leads me to accept God’s ways, whether it is convenient or not. Today’s Adventist church has moved measurably from the description I have just given you. Emphasis falls rather incidentally apart from objective truth (True because it was revealed by God). The stress today is falling on a relationship that relies no longer on revealed truth as it does on inner emotional experience. Hence we have all this feel-good preaching that’s coming from our pulpits, folk. It’s an effort on the part of our pastors to meet the needs that they perceive. At its popular level relationship suggests the coming together of mere equal parties, in a format suggesting negotiated agreement of some kind. Almost missing from this formula is the sense of awe — what it means to come into the presence of the Master of the universe. Curiously, the word relationship is all but absent from the Biblical text. An intimate walk between persons (us) and the Mighty Ruler of all is often presented, but always & only on the basis of overflowing grace. Never on the basis of cozy intimacy between equals. Related to the above, today’s church finds within it advocates of an ecumenism that downplays doctrine as divisive, substituting experience as the universal solvent that dissolves the differences. Rather than going to the Bible to work out what it actually is teaching, the rigors of such study can be avoided by referring the matter to experience. Not “What does the scripture say?”, but “How do you feel about it?” However, feelings are never the guide to what is right. They are the reward for doing right. `og Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Moderators Bravus Posted January 5, 2009 Moderators Posted January 5, 2009 Agreed in all points. Quote Truth is important
fccool Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Don't get me wrong... I'm not into the post modern thinking of "the truth is relative" and "what you believe is good for you, and what I believe is good for me". So, please don't chalk my argument up to post-modern thought. I hope that you can see a distinct difference. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. – Proverbs 14:15. Quote
Woody Posted January 5, 2009 Author Posted January 5, 2009 Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen Well, to answer my question... Truth without love is constant confrontation with knowledge.. And we all know who has the most accurate spiritual knowledge....Satan...He out does us every time....And he's not saved. Thank you Stan and Neil ... Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
messenger Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Originally Posted By: Neil D And we all know who has the most accurate spiritual knowledge....Satan...He out does us every time....And he's not saved.[/quote'] Yes, that is true. But it is not knowledge alone that saves anyone. The knowledge of Satan doesn't bring him faith and repentance. That's the big difference. Saving knowledge is mixed with faith and brings us to willing, loving obedience. 2 John 6-- "Love means that we should live by obeying His Word" (New Life New Testament). Amen, brother John317 good posting on the subject. I would just ad that saving knowledge is truthful knowledge, not all knowledge is truth. To get to know the love of God as revealed in Christ, we read the truth in the inspired word and behold the love of God, by behold we become changed, this is the saying truth of God. If we love Him we will keep His commandments, obey and trust him, it is a growing process but also a gift from God. Amen! Quote "Sanctify them by the truth"
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.