This response is a good example.
In one post the writer is using clouds and sunshine as an example. The responder, responds by changing to gravity, as an example, without acknowledgment of the writer's example. Then closes by asking how he could make this understood by some one with a weak palate (ability to understand).
Clouds vary from place to place. They are relative.
But gravity is not.
The gravity that works here in Mississippi works the same way in China.
It is universal.
That is the point.
With relative truths there can be a lack of authority since what is true here in Mississippi is not true in China concerning the clouds.
But I can say with authority that a ball will fall to the earth in China. Why? Because gravity is a universal truth. It exists here and there.
When we speak of Scripture, we speak with authority. What God says clearly we can say clearly and authoritatively.
Would you want a doctor who refuses to speak authoritatively about your treatments?
Would you want a lawyer who speaks with no authority concerning your case?
No.
And neither does anyone in their right mind want a theologian to speak in trite, weak, bland, language.
Of all people, theologians ought to speak with authority.
It is one thing for you to get sick and die because you doctor has no confidence in his knowledge of your condition.
It is one thing for you to lose your case because your lawyer is a cream puff pie pusillanimous worm-
But it is another thing altogether for people to lose their souls and Christians to suffer spiritual malnutrition because no one has the backbone to say- Thus saith the Lord.
The responder could be going the wrong way. It is not who he is talking to that has the weak palate, but maybe he should develop his own palate to be stronger so he can continue to converse at the same level.
?