What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

Gee, isn't that what I was saying in my last post about Jesus? John McArthur isn't worth listening to -- I've heard him many times before. He's full of worthless balloon juice.

Hi Sojourner,

Then who do you think that is not worthless to you? Name it! You did not name anyone ever since, and you always evade it.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Continuing my analysis of Mr. MacArthur's criticism of meditation practices.....

at 1:08 in the video he refers to the Spiritual Formation movement (who apparently utilize meditation), that they are "Imposing forms of mysticism and self-help, and spiritual intuition imposed upon the Bible". And then he cites those going back into the Middle Ages who were mystics who taught that there is some mystical intuitive capability within the person that if they manipulate it 'correctly", as he puts it, that it will rise up from within them in spiritual formation.

There are many problems with this information he has. Firstly, mysticism or spiritual intuition is not a theology that you impose upon the Bible. It's nothing more mysterious than the fact that having any sort of life experiences will be brought into how you understand things from the place of that experience. It will change how you think about things, yes. But it's not a set of doctrines you "impose" upon the Bible. Experience is in fact a teacher. So his characterization of it as "imposing" a set of teachings or something, is false. Secondly, there are no mystics in the middle ages who taught "spiritual formation". That's a modern term, one that I only just learned about from your links a few nights ago! Thirdly, what is spoken of within the person that arises is simply nothing other than the very divine nature we are all created with, as we are created in God's image! It's not some 'spooky' thing that you "manipulate correctly", as he falsely states.

He adds the Bible idea is that the work of the Holy Spirit is "UPON" us, as he stressed, and "does not rise from within our human nature". Well, aside from the fact that the Bible does speak of the Holy Spirit "WITHIN" you on countless occasions, consistently throughout the NT, no mystic is claiming that this rises from within our fallen human nature, the nature of the flesh. None do. Yet MacArthur says we claim it comes from within our "human nature". What we do claim is that the Divine Nature resides within us, as well as our human nature, and that by opening to the Divine Nature, then our human nature is transformed. This is ALL entirely Biblical, and MacArthur is working of misinformation, which others as yourself simply mimic and parrot, not questioning their so-called sources of authority. He is not an authority on the subject. He doesn't even understand what it is or teaches.

Hi Windwalker,

Why? do you need all the Baptist and Protestant minister to speak in front to you to convince you about the danger of contemplative teachings. The mere fact that John Mcarthur is an evangelical pastor, and does not promote contemplative teaching is already a big proof that he is not under the line of that teachings. He knows what is his faith.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You're right. The video is full of holes. Right off the bat, he sets up "sanctification" as an "event" -- as something that "happens," that you "get." You either are "holy," or you're not. He sets this up by stating that sanctification is either "right" or it's "wrong." He doesn't conceptualize "sanctification" for what it is -- a journey toward transformation and wholeness, and that journey can take any number of paths, depending upon what's right for the context of the person undertaking the journey.

Second, he states that there's only one "true" biblical paradigm for sanctification. Yet, he never states what that paradigm is. I think his statement is a red herring, and that he either doesn't know what that "true biblical paradigm" is, or that there really is no "true biblical paradigm" in the way he imagines (which I suspect is the case).

Third, I agree with you. The path of spiritual formation he dismisses as false, because it doesn't "restrain the flesh," actually does "restrain the flesh." This leads me to believe that either he doesn't understand the nature of what he's dismissing, or he's so threatened by it that he has to malign it.

Fourth, he identifies "spiritual formation" as something that it's not. He creates a straw man around a misidentification of what spiritual formation is. Spiritual formation "imposes" nothing upon the bible -- nor upon the person who is so engaged. That's simply not what spiritual formation is. Of itself, it has nothing to do with mysticism, or self-help, or spiritual intuition. Spiritual formation seeks to help a person notice the Divine, and invites the practitioner to participate with God in the ongoing journey of transformation from brokenness to wholeness. Spiritual formation seeks to ground the whole human being within the paradigm of being created as the imago dei, containing the breath of God that we call Spirit. Which is fundamentally biblical. It only concerns itself with mysticism, self-help, and intuition to the extent that those things are included in one's faith-paradigm.

Fifth, he asserts that "spiritual formation" declares that there is some spiritual intuition within us which, if "manipulated correctly," causes us to "rise in spiritual formation." But, if one understands spiritual formation (or, indeed, the process of transformation in the Lord), one knows that spirit can't be "manipulated." So, again, either he doesn't really understand the spiritual processes, or he's intentionally misrepresenting and maligning the process of spiritual formation. Either way, he's incredibly disingenuous here.

Sixth, "'rising' in spiritual formation" isn't biblical?? Is he nuts?? What does he think the whole ascension scenario was about? The bible has Jesus physically rising into heaven, for Pete's sake! What does he think the transfiguration is all about? rising up onto a mountaintop, where Jesus becomes changed into some holy being, along with the two (now dead, BTW) great prophets? This man is such a weasel.

Hi Sojourner,

Col. 2:8
8. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Seventh, he states that sanctification is "entirely the work of the Holy Spirit on us." Which is precisely what spiritual formation invites us to notice -- the work of the Holy Spirit (although that work is carried out within us, not "upon" us).

He is not talking on his own understanding, but by the Word of God as his truth. Take a look with those Scriptures.

2 Thess. 2:13
13. But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

John 17:17
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

1 Cor. 6:11
11. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

Eighth, he states that sanctification doesn't "rise from within our human natures." Yet, Jesus says that we are the light of the world. Jesus says that we are salt. These concepts seem to be within our human nature of what it means for us to be (as human beings) the very image of God. This concept is biblical. What the Spirit doesn't do is "impose" itself from without, as he says here. The Spirit was breathed into us in creation -- it is that Spirit that is the breath of God within us, and it is that Spirit that is efficacious in setting us apart as the imago dei, according to the bible. That's what spiritual formation invites us to realize.

Yes, how could you be the light of the world, if you did not sanctified by the Spirit of God? How can a person who don’t accept that he is sanctified with the Holy Spirit, hence, will be called “light”?

Ninth, he states unequivocally that "spiritual formation is dangerous." It's a term that reflects "a non-biblical approach to sanctification." Yet, we've seen here that that's simply not the case. IMO, what's "dangerous" is listening to dishonest and misguided "experts" like this, who can't even understand or deal honestly with the issues they seek to defame.

He knows better what the Scripture had to tell, this is why he commented that is dangerous. Yes, you may not listen to him, but listen to the Word of God.
Psalm 119:105
105. Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.

How come that you declared and believed in your statement "Yet, Jesus says that we are the light of the world. Jesus says that we are salt,” but you did not believed in the Scripture as the light to your path?

It is really showing that there is lacking here, and contradicted with your statement. This is the reason why John Mcarthur say that it is dangerous.

Matt. 4:4
4. But He answered and said, "It is written, `Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

Tenth, he says that it comes mostly from "mysticism," and that it has been embraced by the mystical side of Roman Catholicism. Like Roman Catholicism and mysticism aren't legitimate and highly-regarded. Some of our preserved biblical texts were preserved by the Essenes, who were a mystical sect of Judaism, with whom Jesus may have been involved. But, as we've seen, it doesn't "come from mysticism." Although, if mysticism is one's path, spiritual formation can be used to help one along that path.

Col. 2:8
8. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

That was a great analysis. I don't know if you realized while you were working on this above response, I had posted a 2nd reply. It's funny how that what I said it that is unintentionally mirrored in your own in most of the points, with our own takes on the fallacies of his argument. I like your post better than mine, as you really nailed the character of this disingenuousness going on in what he is doing here. And you are right, what he is doing is simply misleading people for who knows what reason.

He is doing a grave disservice to those who are actually interested advancing their relationship with God in their lives, telling them to stick with his ideas. This sounds like an administrator who doesn't want people to step outside the bounds of his own teaching! A true teacher, seeks for the student to surpass himself. Jesus expected us to surpass him, "Greater works than these will you do!", he says. There is something deeply flawed and "dangerous" about this man's religion. I used the word anal the other night. Yes, anal. Anal religion.

In either case, he fails completely as an authority on this subject. I plan to analyze the other links, but can tell you from what I read over the weekend, it too is simply misrepresenting and incorrectly challenging what it fails to understand. If they cannot be accurate in what they critique, then are not authorities. I, on the other hand, do have authorities.

Hi Windwalker,

Whether there is an authority or non-authority, the mere fact that there is a basis which is the Word of God, that is the true authority (which you don’t like it). Take a look at the Scripture above.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

But lets take a step back for a moment from all this view of demons and Satan and "various orders of spiritual beings". Again, this is simply language to describe the dark parts of our own subconscious minds, externalizing them and mythologizing them as characters, symbols of darkness. YES, you in fact MAY encounter these "demons", these dark scary parts of our own subconscious minds, but make no mistake you NEVER mistake them for the voice of God! Ever. Even though I don't relate to the whole mythological framework that Richard Foster uses, he does have some things correctly stated, allowing for differences in language. The darkness is the "accuser", and it is the heaping of shame and fear, critical and condemning. It stands to prevent, to block, to distract, to discourage, and so forth. I know this from personal experience, and descriptions of this are clear in the Bible of the accuser.

On the other hand, when you are in the Presence of God, it is overwhelming, abundantly clear what it is. It is not merely some apparition that appears before you telling you stuff. That's not it at all, yet that is what I think these "apologists" imagine, conjecture in their minds as they speculate about something they have no experience of. On the contrary, this presence, does in fact draw you to itself with the overwhelming love and grace that of a child to the arms of his parents. It is the response of the heart to Love that tells the difference. It is the heart that knows its own Source. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me". Lacking such an experience, the apologist resorts to his own fears and speculations, clawing to find scripture to support his phobias. There is NO QUESTION who is speaking. But to be clear, this "speaking" is to the heart, and it says, "come".

So, I'll leave it here for the moment. But a picture is abundantly clear to me of these people who criticize this. They have no experience with it, they misconstrue what they hear others says, superimposing their own fears upon it, and they make poor biblical interpretations to support their own rejection of that call to "come", as that requires "selling all you have and follow me". All of it, is excuses, and irrational justifications.

Psalm 119:105
105. Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.

2 Tim.2:9
9. for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.

2 Tim. 2:15
15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I actually am going to respond to myself on something I just caught as I re-read this post. What I said is not entirely correct for everyone. Some people who have mental illnesses, could in fact mistake what is being presented to them, and the wiring of their brains may misinterpret these things. It could send wrong signals to them and they might interpret the dark voices as God speaking to them, telling them to do terrible things, and so forth. It is in fact their dark shadows, their repressed minds that in the face of such open communication between the subconscious and the conscious may lead to dysfunctional interpretations.

I have always said that someone should not practice meditation if they do not have a relatively stable psyche. You are in fact entering into the "secret places" of the mind, and unless you are prepared in the mind, soul, and spirit for such an encounter, you should probably not go there, at least not without those who are experienced teachers or guides who could help you navigate the many interior landscapes of the psyche.

Hi Windwalker,

Come On, Windwalker, you are making your own conjecture. It seems you turning those who don’t practice your way of contemplating as unstable psyche. I believed it is the lack of understanding the truth of the Word of God in exchange with their supernatural desire of the flesh. As I said before, contemplative claimed that they are Light and Salt; that is good, but when the Scripture say, Thy Word is the a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path (Ps. 119:105), they eventually turned into amnesia, to the point that they cannot accept the Word of God is the Light to their path. The question is Why? what is happening, and what holds you to restrain?

I honestly at the moment am considering why the fundamentalist is so frightened of the prospect of entering within, and I believe on an intuitive level it is a form of self-protection, knowing that they will not be able to handle it, that what they might see they are not prepared for. And so they built a wall of defense against it, "demonizing it", as it more than abundantly evident in all these criticisms of it, as irrational as they are, smashing bad logic into scripture to support a defense against it.

You are absolutely right that we build a wall, a barrier of protection against the enemy because Jesus even warned us about false teachings. The Bible always warned us: Be firm, Be strong, and Be vigilant. We followed.

2 Tim. 4:3-4
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;
4. and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

We can handle the enemy by the name of Jesus Christ. It is tested already, and that is an experience.

Luke 10:18-19
18. And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.
19. "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you.

Eph. 6:10-13
10. Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might.
11. Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
12. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
13. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

Those in fundamentalist thought generally are looking outside themselves for answers to believe in, for structures, for security. So suggestions of "inner truth" are the opposite of such things. "God's word", rather than being the living word of the heart, writing Truth in every moment, in choices of the heart, in action from itself in relationship with the Divine itself, is rather understood as a great External Code, upon which they lean and trust that if they "obey" they will be saved from darkness. One is the seeking of a Parent Authority to give peace to the troubled mind through promises of being there for them always, as a Parent who will never leave nor abandon you. The other is that of a Marriage, one of Lovers, one where the Spirit of the Lord provokes and evokes that which lives within to both know itself, and the One with which it Unites in Holy Love. One is seeking, the other is Realizing.

And so the voices I hear, are expressive of these places of where we are at on our respective paths. The voices of those in these apologist sites speak from the place of needing to trust in the external authority, which is in fact their own projection of their own hopes of knowing God beyond themselves. The other is the voice of those who have come to realize in themselves that the Word is written on the tablets of their very own hearts, quickened, made alive through a living relationship with the Source itself, as Creator, and as the very Ground of Being in which they live, move, breath and have their being.

Heb. 4:12
12. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I cannot throw away this Scripture in the trash can because the Word of god has great power like the two edged sword; it cuts and pierced the soul and spirit. I cannot disarm my sword because it is my weapon.

Eph. 6:17
17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Thanks

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you can offer credible sources of authority to back up this fearful claim that meditating opens you to Satan, that might offer some evidence of rationality behind the claim. What credible sources have demonstrated this happening through meditation practices.

This not an answer to my direct question. It's like the response of a politician that avoids the answer. 5th request: Please provide the names of the people who are your sources of authority you cite for this claim of yours that meditation practices, East or West, open people to demonic possession. Names of actual researchers. You say you need things fact-checked with sources of authority, and since the Bible has nothing to say on it, you have to have someone who is an authority. Names. No other response will be accepted. Names.

John Mcarthur of Grace to you website; www.qty.org
Spiritual Formation & Biblical Santification/video, this is a short message from him. I don't know how to paste it here.
Other soiurces:

Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Only the Bible as a whole can be treated as the written Word of God…. In any case we must certainly go beyond, though never around, the words of the Bible to find out what God is speaking to us.16

Yet, Scripture itself informs us of its sufficiency (2 Tim. 3:16–17), and of God’s final word and revelation to us in Christ (Heb. 1:1–2).

2 Tim says the law and prophets are inspired, nothing about today's Bible and nothing about The Word but is telling you to study the Law, but you have studied instead a man named Mcarthur. Hebrews 1 is also not talking about the Bible. The Word isn't the Bible. The Bible does not call itself the Word. It was not written by evangelicals.

Heb. 4:12
12. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

None of which applies to your concept of 'Absolute Truth', because the word is living not written in ink. By the way it discerns the thoughts of your own heart not that of others, so how can you tell others that their contemplative prayer is wrong?

Hebrews is the strongest, easiest example that the Bible isn't the Word. It says it twice. First its says it in Hebrews 1:2, then again it says it in Hebrews 4:12, both of which you quoted but did not listen to.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

Why? do you need all the Baptist and Protestant minister to speak in front to you to convince you about the danger of contemplative teachings. The mere fact that John Mcarthur is an evangelical pastor, and does not promote contemplative teaching is already a big proof that he is not under the line of that teachings. He knows what is his faith.

Thanks

Why on earth would more evangelical ministers parrotting more of the same misinformation make a difference? None of them are authorities on the subject. You do realize the logic fallacy in your argument here? It's what's known as the Bandwagon Fallacy. The appeal to the popularity of a point of view does not make it true or have any more validity whatsoever. It simply means they are all following the same mistakes. If anything it convinces me they don't do their own research or think for themselves.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

Whether there is an authority or non-authority, the mere fact that there is a basis which is the Word of God, that is the true authority (which you don’t like it). Take a look at the Scripture above.

Thanks

You have already stated the Bible does not teach anything about the meditation we practice. Therefore, according to your argument, the Bible does not say ANYTHING whatsoever about it. It also doesn't say anything negative, since it says nothing at all, according to you. You cannot then use the Bible as a source of authority to tell you our practices are bad, that the open you to the devil, or anything at all.

This is why I asked what your sources of authority against meditation were, since you seem to be saying things that are not in the Bible itself. Now you come back and say the Bible is your source of authority on this subject? OK then,where? Where does it expressly teach the claptrap you are parrotting from the ill-informed, speculating, fearmongering, irrational sources are teaching? Where? Chapter and verse for this one: "Meditation practice opens you to demonic possession". Let's start with this one, since you have no other valid source to back you up with here. Where does it say that the meditation we practice is "dangerous"?

As I said earlier, you lost this debate back on page one, but you just are just refusing to accept it. But by all means, let's continue though. I enjoy the platform to correct the ignorance taught from the pulpits of these ignorant ministers so others can see just what sort of baseless drivel is being taught by them.

 

[Windwalker]

Psalm 119:105
105. Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.

2 Tim.2:9
9. for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.

2 Tim. 2:15
15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Thanks

What does any of this have to do with me saying that we are able to clearly discern the difference between the voices of darkness and that of God in meditation practice? Are you back to this argument that "The Word" = The Bible? Phooey. We've been down this path many times, and yet you keep failing to address the many points showing the error of that. "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God....... and the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us." That's your version of what Logos looks like. That, or "And the logos became the Bible and sits on the shelf of your bookcase".

 

[Windwalker]

Come On, Windwalker, you are making your own conjecture. It seems you turning those who don’t practice your way of contemplating as unstable psyche.

I am never less than astounded at your ability to take what someone says and make it one extreme or the other, yet you manage, against all reason, to do so again and again. This is of course what is meant by black and white thinking. Extremist thought. Let's examine rationally what I said in the hopes it make put a chink in that mode of extreme binary thinking.

What I explicitly stated, and carefully chose my words as I did in a hope to avoid extremist thought like this, was this, "Some people who have mental illnesses, could in fact mistake what is being presented to them, and the wiring of their brains may misinterpret these things.... I have always said that someone should not practice meditation if they do not have a relatively stable psyche. " I am not saying that fundamentalists are mentally unstable (though "some" are I'm quite certain). I am in fact NOT saying fundamentalist should not practice meditation. I believe they should. I believe anyone, with a relatively stable psyche, from liberals to staunch conservative evangelicals, would benefit from it.

But those in that spectrum of beliefs who have mental instability should proceed with caution, or only by the direction and supervision of a healthcare professional or some qualified teacher who deals with those who have mental issues they struggle with, such as a clinical depression, suicidal ideations, schizophrenia, and so forth. But then I also don't believe those with issues like schizophrenia should be getting involved in religion itself! The issues of their mind can take the religious imagery and symbolism to extremes and go off the deep end in believing they are the messiah, or some special prophet with the secret message to share with the world of the lost. In other words they are already unstable to begin with. To expose them to the depths of their own psyches they do not have the stability of mind to be able to learn from and integrate into themselves, could do more damage than good.

I honestly believe that these fearmongerings of the Baptist preachers you cite, if they have any basis at all, at best maybe heard of some cases of people who "dabbled" in it and ended up going off the deepend, believing they have a "special message from the Christ" and whatnot. But if you look at these people as individuals, chances are very good that you will find some history of mental illness going on there, family history, unmedicated patients seeking for a "miracle" from God in the form of a magic healing, and the like. But these folks do these things regardless of meditation practices. So the basis "might" be there, but only by looking at the extreme cases, the very small percentage of the whole, seizing on the less than 1% while ignoring the data from the 99.9% who have extraordinarily positive results.

This is what I mean by "irrational" fearmongering. The only possible data they have is rare, and understandable as mental, or psychological problems. Some people, as I said, "some" should not practice it for those reasons. That does not irrationally therefore translate into "meditation opens you to the devil! It's an evil practice not supported by the Bible!!!". *sigh*

I believed it is the lack of understanding the truth of the Word of God in exchange with their supernatural desire of the flesh.

Well, this is irrational nonsense. "supernatural desire of the flesh"? What in the world does not garbage mean? Nothing that makes sense to me.

As I said before, contemplative claimed that they are Light and Salt; that is good, but when the Scripture say, Thy Word is the a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path (Ps. 119:105), they eventually turned into amnesia, to the point that they cannot accept the Word of God is the Light to their path. The question is Why? what is happening, and what holds you to restrain?

I would say it is because they substituted their reading of the Bible for actual spiritual awakening and awareness, substituting Christ for a book, and God for their religion. They no longer could hear and see with the ear and eyes of the heart and soul and spirit. Darkened in their own religious imaginations. "The letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive"

What holds us to restrain, you ask? The Spirit itself. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control"

BTW, I do believe the Word of God is a lamp unto my feet. I believe that Light of God is not restricted to words in a book. I understand the Word of God to be the illumination of Spirit in the world, through all things, heard and seen by those with ears to hear and eyes to see. You do not however. There is no Word of God to you that guides you outside of your worship of your Bible. All I can say is step outside and open your eyes and see what you can see, or at least see what you cannot see and acknowledge that to yourself.

You are absolutely right that we build a wall, a barrier of protection against the enemy because Jesus even warned us about false teachings.

No, no, no. It's not false teachers you fear, but your own psyche, the little you hiding in fear deep in the recesses of your subconscious mind which you see as the devil. You fear your own darkness, not others who preach whatever. If you want to be vigilant, then you need to get rid of that which blinds you to others first, that which blinds you to yourself, and that means you have to clean the floors of your own house through the Light of Spirit shining into the dark places of your own heart and mind.

 

[sojourner]

That's incorrect.

That's what it looks like to me. It's OK to talk to God. It's OK to study about God. But it's not OK to listen for God, or to wait for God to approach you in some intimate way. What it looks like to me is a fear of intimacy -- either with oneself or with God.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's what it looks like to me. It's OK to talk to God. It's OK to study about God. But it's not OK to listen for God, or to wait for God to approach you in some intimate way. What it looks like to me is a fear of intimacy -- either with oneself or with God.

Great.

 

[sojourner]

So you believe in a half truth, your faith is also half truth?

No, faith isn't a fractional proposition (and I think you know that). Truth may be partial. No one has the whole truth. We all have partial truth.

If the gospel is not a truth for everyone, what it concern to you?

It is a truth for me. That's why it concerns me.

If your/our truth is not the truth, then your way or ideas that you are doing in contemplative is not truth.

Not whole truth, no. It -- like other truths -- is only from my particular perspective and understanding. That's the best I can do.

then who’s truth is the truth?

No one's. Every truth is partial, according to our ability to understand truth.

No, I’m not talking about experience. Is the winter in you place an Absolute truth?

According to what source of reckoning?

Is God an Absolute Truth?

No. God is Truth, Itself -- not "a" truth.

Then you contradicted your own truth; how come you can quote biblical verses such as Light and Salt, taken from the Bible and does not believe about the original text.

No I haven't. The text we have is the text we have, and that's all we have to go on, textually, even though that truth isn't absolute or infallible.

Seems you believe all Scriptures are not authentic.

No, I said that no texts are original. The texts, as we have them, are as authentic as we've got.

Ok. If the Word of God (Bible) is the words of people, and the Quran is the word of people, what is the true Word of God?

The creative, life-causing Principle. That's the best I can do. It goes beyond text, personalities, objects, sounds, and contexts.

That is a new theology that seems no logic.

No, it's not "new."

Why would Jesus teach us to love, if there are people who don’t love?

Because there are people who don't love, is the reason Jesus teaches this. What planet are you on??

Satan is the devil; Jesus is the Son of God, and not the devil. Are they enemies or not?

Satan isn't part of the human family. Satan isn't a real, physical being of any sort.

God would not give the commandment “Thou shall not kill,” if people will not kill or have the tendency to kill because of our sinful nature.

That doesn't mean that we're not all one human family.

If a Christian believed that Jesus died for our sins, and Muslim did not believed that Jesus died for our sins, would they both be right?

Yes, according to their perspective of truth.

 

[sojourner]

Then who do you think that is not worthless to you? Name it! You did not name anyone ever since, and you always evade it.

J. Philip Newell, Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, Kenneth Leech, Anthony the Great, Francis of Assisi, Julian of Norwich, etc.

 

[sojourner]

Col. 2:8
8. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Well... that's what the MacArthur is doing, so the bible says we shouldn't listen to him.

2 Thess. 2:13
13. But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

John 17:17
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

1 Cor. 6:11
11. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

All of these support my position and my analysis of the video. Thanks.

Yes, how could you be the light of the world, if you did not sanctified by the Spirit of God? How can a person who don’t accept that he is sanctified with the Holy Spirit, hence, will be called “light”?

Everyone is so endowed. Remember: God breathed Spirit into humanity in creation, and it's that Spirit that causes us to be "living beings."

He knows better what the Scripture had to tell, this is why he commented that is dangerous

"Better" than who? Me? I've had the same biblical training he's had. And I've obviously also had way more experience with spiritual formation than he's had, given that he doesn't even seem to know what spiritual formation is.

How come that you declared and believed in your statement "Yet, Jesus says that we are the light of the world. Jesus says that we are salt,” but you did not believed in the Scripture as the light to your path?

Scripture is "a" light to my path -- but not the light. I've never said anything different.

It is really showing that there is lacking here, and contradicted with your statement. This is the reason why John Mcarthur say that it is dangerous.

The "lack" is your lack of having read and understood what I've been saying here all along.

4. But He answered and said, "It is written, `Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

And this has ... what, specifically, to do with some misguided sola scriptura stance? God speaks other than "in the bible." God speaks in our hearts. That's why we meditate -- to hear what God might have to say.

Col. 2:8
8. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Yeah, you already said that, and it still speaks against MacArthur's position, same as before.

 

[sojourner]

Great.

Actually, I think it's tragic that a whole segment of the church chooses to gravitate to the easy "answer" rather than strive to wrestle with the great questions and conundrums.

 

[sojourner]

Whether there is an authority or non-authority, the mere fact that there is a basis which is the Word of God, that is the true authority (which you don’t like it). Take a look at the Scripture above.

That "basis" is highly subjective, as we've already pointed out. Both sides use the bible as a basis -- one side sees great affirmation within the texts, the other doesn't. Which is why the texts really aren't the basis. Experience is more compelling in this instance.

 

[sojourner]

This seems to me like you are suggesting everyone should take the same approach to religious ideas; I don't feel that way, there are different kinds of people, and that is also why there are various types of teachings, imo. Do many 'Xians', have a messed up version of theology? Frankly, I think so, but that isn't going to solve anything. I don't believe that much of what you are proposing, is going to solve anything, either. That's my opinion, from a standpoint of knowing what meditation is, /I have experience with different types of meditation/.
On a more 'real' level, I am simply also not impressed with much of what is being presented both in the Xian aspect, and non=Xian aspect, of meditation, so that doesn't help.
//this issue is more complicated than it seems, imo. Just because I might disagree with certain things you are proposing, does not mean that I think some worse alternative is 'better'.

No, I only ask that reasonable approaches are taken. Spirituality is a multifaceted endeavor, with no easy, solid "parameters." From what I saw in the article, fear was driving the opinion, not reason. And it appeared to be some fear of intimacy, which indicates deeper psychological issues are in play. I have yet to hear one, single, solid reason why such spiritual practices are contraindicated by the bible. This article misses that target by five miles.

I, OTOH, have found great success and compelling factors within the framework of such spiritual practices. No one here is saying "Meditation is the only real way." All of us have said that it's not for everyone, but that just because it's not for everyone isn't a reason to think that it's not for anyone.

 

[sojourner]

you are making your own conjecture. It seems you turning those who don’t practice your way of contemplating as unstable psyche.

No, that's not what he said. Read it again.

As I said before, contemplative claimed that they are Light and Salt; that is good, but when the Scripture say, Thy Word is the a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path (Ps. 119:105), they eventually turned into amnesia, to the point that they cannot accept the Word of God is the Light to their path.

No, we've never said that, either. I think your filter is set too high.