Mike, I appreciate a response from you.
crsschk said
Dorcas, you are as wrong as could be. You are making a lot of assumptions and turning this whole thing into one giant psychobabble.
Mike, believe me, I don't enter into this discussion with a lightness of heart. As I indicated in my last post, I have
[i]never[/i] felt so disheartened on behalf of SI, by the assumptions
[b]you[/b] have made in this case.
It is not as if you don't know Karl of longstanding - of his understanding of scripture and his spiritual gift of exposing the panorama of underlying truths. You [i]know[/i] he is a true brother in the Lord, and yet you have not treated him as one whom you hoped to win - not even posted a question to him privately; you felt so sure of your ground you deleted his post before even [i]contacting[/i] him?
Diane has written of the 'SI community', and many times we are falling over ourselves with each other to draw out the strands of a doctrine which will not make any difference to our salvation if we know the Lord already. Karl tried to draw out the [u]truth[/u] in the 'Jesus as lover' construct, and you did[u]n't[/u] 'see' it. You didn't [i]hear[/i] him. And you ab-reacted more strongly than I've ever seen.
As an observer of this moment in SI history, I [i]am[/i] in a positon to ask for some account, since you have [i]not[/i] followed the constraints you seek to place on everyone else in light of the many previous occasions of possible misunderstandings.
Please note, if Karl had been defending the concept as it was presented in Andrew Strom's article which headed the other 'Jesus as LOVER' thread, I would [u]not[/u] be contending this way.
I hope you know me better than this - that I, as much as you, (and Karl, and everyone else), am keen for the value of [u]scripture[/u] to be embraced by our [i]spiritual[/i] understanding.
(Young) 2 Timothy 3:15, 16
... the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make thee [b][u]wise[/u]--to salvation[/b], through faith [b]that [is] in Christ Jesus[/b];
every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, [b]for setting aright[/b], for instruction [b]that [is] in righteousness[/b],
How difficult is it to see that a continuation by way of over explanation is only serving to drive an issue that needs to die first before it can even be thought to have a corrective.
By my response so far, you see that I disagree. Being completely candid, the thing 'that needs to die' is your misapprehension of what Karl wrote.
Are you forgetting that I did [u]read[/u] Karl's post?
(And my post, (which you did not delete), tried to draw out the [u]distinction[/u] between his words and the matter under discussion in the first 'Jesus as LOVER' thread.)
This leads to another question:
[b]Do you still have access to Karl's original text?[/b]
If so, you will be able to note that he did [u]not[/u] use a certain word which both you and Greg have "quoted" him as using.
Of course, if you can't access his words any more, you won't be able to reconsider the validity of his meaning. But, I see the failure to restore his credibility on the point of how you've quoted him, as a very serious matter....... The more so, because what he actually said did not even [i][b]imply[/i] [/b]what you have represented it to.
As a text-based ministry, it should not be [i][b]possible[/i][/b] to misquote someone [i][b]ever[/i][/b]. But if it has been possible completely to lose access to his words - which at least you could have quoted accurately to him in private - this technical matter should be rectified asap for the sake of us all. I'm sure it could be, for it is unacceptable to misrepresent anyone like this - even if you continue to feel justified in your assumptions about a poster's meaning.
As I believe, I [i]did[/i] understand his post, and [i]know[/i] it was not saying what you are putting forth, I [i]will[/i] stand on the side of righteousness [i]on behalf of [u]your own[/u], as much as of his.[/i]
It applies foremost to the galling thing, this Jesus as 'lover' blaspheme
Earlier in the original thread, p2, Diane quoted Charles Wesley's hymn, 'Jesus, lover of my soul, let me to Thy bosom fly' and did not receive any comment about it.
[b]Why not?[/b] I will patiently wait for your answer.
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12282&forum=35&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=0]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12282&forum=35&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=0[/url]
When will you stop explaining what every one is thinking or saying?
Well, you are thinking and saying things which are from your own mind, and you are attributing them to Karl.
I comment because there is valid observation to be made.
I would like to see you take ownership of your concerns and [u]divide between[/u] what you [i]think[/i] Karl said and what he [i]did[/i] say.
[i]for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.[/i]
Mike, there is a world of difference between the relevance of this verse in scripture
[i]in context[/i] and what is happening here, in this thread.
Please note, I am not attempting to restate Karl's thought. I am driving at the issues which have arisen from your dealings with it: in the first instance, the need for [u]honesty[/u] regarding the misquote of the [u]content[/u] of his post.
Whereas Karl may be [i]willing[/i] to leave with his reputation in tatters because of how you've misrepresented him, I am not willing to let this pass. What may have passed between you guys in private, I have no idea and (obviously, I hope) cannot comment, but, on what I [u]have[/u] seen and [u]know[/u], I can and do. This is [i]not[/i] a matter of not savouring the things of God. This is about a standard of righteousness which can be seen and commended by all.