<snip>
>The second thread concerned the question whether 1 John 2:7-8
>contained two contradictory statements. Much of this discussion and of
the >earlier discussion on chapters 1 and 3 of 1 John had been quite
fruitful, or
>had seemed so, although it appeared to be getting repetitive at the time
>it was suggested it should be taken off-list. What was the peril in this
>question? Quite simply that it shifted its focus from what the text of
those two
>verses in 1 John could reasonably be understood to mean in their Greek
>formulation to the question whether there are contradictions in the
>Biblical text. But that's a matter of list-members' opposed and deep
>convictions and faith-commitments; it has to do with how one
>understands the nature of the Biblical text and the way it communicates
its
>message to readers. Once that area is entered, the peace of the list is
>disturbed and the passions of list-members become inflamed. And that's
why >the Edward Hobbs, as Chair of the BG-Staff, intervened to call a
halt to the
>thread.
I believe the archives will bear this out: 1) I was not the one who
brought up the issue of contradictions, rather, 2) two other list-members
brought it up. This is how it happened. One list-member, at least
several times, commented that 1 John has contradictions throughout.
Another list-member seemed to agree and suggested 1 Jn 2:7-8 as a good
example. That was when I responded and attempted to show
non-contradiction because of the two different ways KAINHN was being
used. Simultaneously, the thread on inerrancy was just dying down (a
thread, by the way, in which I did NOT participate) and one disgruntled
Briton decided to unsubscribe but not without playing his high trump
card, an alleged contradiction between Jn 3:22 and Jn 4:2, which I
attempted to refute. It was at this point that the staff stepped in and
requested a cessation. I say these things only to point out that I was
not the one who initiated either of these discussions, but I certainly
felt I had a right and responsibility (?) to respond because the
opponents (only in this area, mind you) had brought up something which,
as you say, probably should not have been brought up. If they should not
have been brought up, but were apparently being allowed, then it seemed
only fair that the other side should have its say. I certainly sensed a
strong bias coming from the staff, at this point.
>I hope what happened last week, if its implications are understood,
>may be instructive and conducive to better interaction on the list. We
can
>learn a lot from each other about Biblical Greek and the text of the
Greek
>Bible, if only we can refrain from affronting each other's convictions.
This
>doesn't mean that we should refrain from stating our own convictions
>where they make clear the reason why one sees a text in a particular
way,
>but when we state our convictions we need to do in a way that does not
>challenge and affront those who hold different convictions. May I ask,
>then, that we all seek to be more sensitive and respectful when we
>feel we need to state our own convictions. Ultimately the way of mutual
>respect is imperative if our interaction on the list is to remain
fruitful.
Yes, I hope both sides (I'm saying this only with respect to the issue at
hand, and am not impugning anybody's Christianity) can and will learn
from this. I heartily endorse your expressed desire. May our
interactions always be motivated out of love for God, love for the truth,
and love for one another.
Sincerely,
Paul Dixon