Comments on: Some thoughts on labeling others’ theories http://trinities.org/blog/archives/85 theories about the father, son, and holy spirit Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:39:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Mike http://trinities.org/blog/archives/85#comment-12187 Mike Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:14:21 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/85#comment-12187 Lest I be misunderstood in my previous post: I did encourage that fellow to make the effort to understand, and although I disagree with his decision, we're still friends. Lest I be misunderstood in my previous post:

I did encourage that fellow to make the effort to understand, and although I disagree with his decision, we’re still friends.

]]> By: Mike http://trinities.org/blog/archives/85#comment-12185 Mike Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:10:17 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/85#comment-12185 Dale, Amen, and amen! I've often felt remarkably uncomfortable upon hearing character assassination or straw men or slippery slopes: rather than a patient attempt to demonstrate understanding. And then conclude with one's agreement or disagreement. By and large, I've felt comfortable reading this blog because the topic matters and the questions matter. Sure: I've felt uneasy with some of the proposals and the outcomes-as you cited, your use of "modalism" always flags my attention, but that is followed by the recollection that you're honestly investigating the doctrine. You're doing us a service by using a term that is apt. But, as you'll read below, there are other outcomes. I just finished reading a paper from Clark Pinnock-dated February 2003-on open theism. He begins the paper with no small amount of astonishment regarding the vitriol directed toward him and other open theists by "North American evangelicals." Pinnock noted then that some severing of relationships had begun in response to theologians who advanced open theism; what he was looking and listening for were those who took the time to understand the arguments for open theism. I realize that effort goes beyond "terms", but perhaps the best rendering at hand of the use of "terms" is yours on "modalism." Anyone dropping into the blog and failing to get your usage in context could conclude: hey, this guy is way off. So, getting the "terms" does have some ethics to apprehending the author. I recall asking a fellow in a little friendly theological conversation if it was alright to make that first step of understanding (on the proponents' terms) and then decide if one could commit to that theology. He said, no, because if he took the time to understand then he would have to make the commitment to it... Oh, well. I can't think of anymore additions to the schema you have above. The harder part is the mere application. :) Dale,
Amen, and amen! I’ve often felt remarkably uncomfortable upon hearing character assassination or straw men or slippery slopes: rather than a patient attempt to demonstrate understanding. And then conclude with one’s agreement or disagreement.

By and large, I’ve felt comfortable reading this blog because the topic matters and the questions matter. Sure: I’ve felt uneasy with some of the proposals and the outcomes-as you cited, your use of “modalism” always flags my attention, but that is followed by the recollection that you’re honestly investigating the doctrine. You’re doing us a service by using a term that is apt. But, as you’ll read below, there are other outcomes.

I just finished reading a paper from Clark Pinnock-dated February 2003-on open theism. He begins the paper with no small amount of astonishment regarding the vitriol directed toward him and other open theists by “North American evangelicals.” Pinnock noted then that some severing of relationships had begun in response to theologians who advanced open theism; what he was looking and listening for were those who took the time to understand the arguments for open theism.

I realize that effort goes beyond “terms”, but perhaps the best rendering at hand of the use of “terms” is yours on “modalism.” Anyone dropping into the blog and failing to get your usage in context could conclude: hey, this guy is way off. So, getting the “terms” does have some ethics to apprehending the author.

I recall asking a fellow in a little friendly theological conversation if it was alright to make that first step of understanding (on the proponents’ terms) and then decide if one could commit to that theology. He said, no, because if he took the time to understand then he would have to make the commitment to it…

Oh, well. I can’t think of anymore additions to the schema you have above. The harder part is the mere application. :)

]]>