What is Contemplative Christianity?

[InChrist]

Again, I am not saying that those who are in fundamentalism all have mental illness. You're yanking out of context my words, which actually have meaning in the correct contexts in which I used them. The core of the discussion began with me saying that the sorts of materials you and he were citing, and the approach to understanding the nature of spirituality in general are laced with conspiracy theories and paranoia. A point of view I still stand behind. Then Yoshua responded with this logic in post 1086, "How can we become a paranoid and a phobia, if we are not afraid to dwell on the Scriptures?"

The rest of what I said was to refute that fallacious notion that just because you are reading the Bible it makes you immune to problems like paranoid thinking. Those are psychological in nature, and in fact are dysfunctional. The Bible doesn't magically fix these problems, which is what he seems to be suggesting in his response. That's how I read it to be sure, "How can we be if we dwell on scriptures". I then further explained that "dwelling on scriptures" in the manner he suggested, or what my funny image of the guy with the Bible strapped on his face would convey, a possible obsessive compulsive disorder. Not that everyone who values, cherishes, or reads, ponders, etc scripture is obsessive! But some in fact are. That's a fact. Some with disorders like this find religion quite attractive to them. That does not mean ALL who find religion attractive have mental disorders! I'm attracted to religion, and I'm quite stable psychologically.


So now to clarify what I mean when I say fundamentalism is a pathology, a spiritual-disease. First, I am not saying everyone within it is pathological or diseased. I was in it, and did not have a disorder. I'm saying the system itself is cancerous. This is a recent understanding that is occurring to me the deeper I look at it and understand it in context of the whole. People may be able to function within it, may even be helped by it, but at a point I believe it will begin to negatively affect those within it, or reinforce negative qualities they may already have rather than liberate them, or transform them on a path of spiritual growth.

I'll just lay this out there for those who are interested in my thinking on this and the context I'm saying this in. I believe there are stages of growth we all, without exception, must go through in order to move into more mature stages. This is true in stages of spiritual growth, or "stages of faith", as it is in lines of development for cognitive thought. One can be at a high stage of cognitive development, but a very low stage of moral development, or a stage of spiritual development. There are different lines of development, and they all follow stages of growth in each largely independent of other lines of development.

In spiritual development, or stages of faith we have various stages that people pass through as they progress in their growth. The basic stages are taken from the following link: http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

1. Intuitive-Projective: This is the stage of preschool children in which fantasy and reality often get mixed together. However, during this stage, our most basic ideas about God are usually picked up from our parents and/or society.
2. Mythic-Literal: When children become school-age, they start understanding the world in more logical ways. They generally accept the stories told to them by their faith community but tend to understand them in very literal ways. [A few people remain in this stage through adulthood.]
3. Synthetic-Conventional: Most people move on to this stage as teenagers. At this point, their life has grown to include several different social circles and there is a need to pull it all together. When this happens, a person usually adopts some sort of all-encompassing belief system. However, at this stage, people tend to have a hard time seeing outside their box and don't recognize that they are "inside" a belief system. At this stage, authority is usually placed in individuals or groups that represent one's beliefs. [This is the stage in which many people remain.]
4. Individuative-Reflective: This is the tough stage, often begun in young adulthood, when people start seeing outside the box and realizing that there are other "boxes". They begin to critically examine their beliefs on their own and often become disillusioned with their former faith. Ironically, the Stage 3 people usually think that Stage 4 people have become "backsliders" when in reality they have actually moved forward.
5. Conjunctive Faith: It is rare for people to reach this stage before mid-life. This is the point when people begin to realize the limits of logic and start to accept the paradoxes in life. They begin to see life as a mystery and often return to sacred stories and symbols but this time without being stuck in a theological box.
   
6. Universalizing Faith: Few people reach this stage. Those who do live their lives to the full in service of others without any real worries or doubts.

The simplified list by Peck following the above combines Fowler's stages 1 and 2 together, and stages 5 and 6 together:

1. Chaotic-Antisocial : People stuck at this stage are usually self-centered and often find themselves in trouble due to their unprincipled living. If they do end up converting to the next stage, it often occurs in a very dramatic way.
2. Formal-Institutional: At this stage people rely on some sort of institution (such as a church) to give them stability. They become attached to the forms of their religion and get extremely upset when these are called into question.
3. Skeptic-Individual: Those who break out of the previous stage usually do so when they start seriously questioning things on their own. A lot of the time, this stage ends up being very non-religious and some people stay in it permanently
4. Mystical-Communal: People who reach this stage start to realize that there is truth to be found in both the previous two stages and that life can be paradoxical and full of mystery. Emphasis is placed more on community than on individual concerns.

Each person must pass through the earlier stages in order to move to the next stage. No stage may be skipped. But not everyone progresses to the next stage above it. Those at the more developed stages, understanding the thinking of the earlier stage as they experienced it themselves. Those at earlier stages are incapable of understanding the thinking of the higher stages because they have no experience with it, Modes of thought and understanding to them which are above it hierarchically, are seen as foreign and or a threat to them. Those at the synthetic-conventional stage 3, may see those at stage 5 as opening themselves to Satan, as is being demonstrated in this thread. And so forth.

It is my view that a healthy spiritual system is one which emcompasses all the higher and lower stages and promotes and facilitates growth through the stages, encouraging and supporting growth to the next more developed stage. Each individual must pass through the mythic-literal and conventional stages. And in each of these earlier stages something vitally important is learned. Each stage offers a new, greater foundation for faith on which to build. Each stage needs to be supported and taught, until the individual has sufficiently learned the positive lessons, the necessary lessons of that stage in order to continue growing beyond it into the next.

Here is why I say Fundamentalism is not a stage of growth, but a dysfunction. It is a system that actively represses growth beyond an earlier stage, taking a normal, natural, and healthy "traditionalist" stage, and violently locks those in it to strict conformity through fear. It fruits becomes cultish in nature, exclusivist, distorting natural growth hierarchies, into a caricature of a stage of growth as absolutistic. It is not simply the mythic-literal stage, or the traditionalist stage, but is created around exploiting and reinforcing fears, distrust of others, an "us versus them" mentality, taking the healthy parts of the stage and not allowing them to grow. This is the behavior of a cancer cell. It kills healthy tissue. It is not part of the whole in healthy development, but acts to dissociate the individuals within it away from becoming more than itself.

In normal healthy growth an individual passes through a given stage of development, learning its lessons, making them a part of themselves, then they transcend that stage into a new one, bringing with them the best of what the previous stage taught them, while jettisoning the negative baggage that comes along with any stage of development. They "negate" the previous level, while preserving its valuable lessons as it begins a new stage of development, which is then repeated moving into the next stage beyond that stage, and so forth. Dissociation happens when one is unable to integrate what the current stage they are in, and the body, in this case the spiritual body, fails to thrive. It does not lead to growth, but repression and dissociation. This renders the individual unable to move to the next stage of growth. It distorts them psychologically, or spiritually as the case may be. Though they may learn how to function within the system, to 'cope' as it were, it is not the same as a healthy integration.

Is everyone who is in fundamentalist churches (as opposed to traditionalism) dysfunctional? No, of course not. Some may be simply at the traditionalist stage of growth, the mythic-literal and synthetic-conventional stages. But the structure of the system, the fundamentalist structure is such that it is itself geared to exploit and reinforce the negatives, rather than seek to heal them or help the individual grow beyond itself. You could call it traditionalism gone rancid.

Historically fundamentalism was a response of the traditionalist system to modernity. It shifts healthy traditionalism into a negative reaction to something. Rather than being about integration and growth, it becomes about a posture of defense. And it is the exact same thing you see in the neo-atheist movement. It too is fundamentalist in nature, being "right" contrasted with the the other as "wrong". The religious fundamentalist defines itself against progress. The atheist fundamentalist defines itself against religion. The atheist is actual moving into modernity, but doing so by rejecting the baby with the bathwater. The Christian fundamentalist is rejecting a movement into modernity, distorting traditionalist modes of faith into an "anti" movement wholly rejecting anything associated with modernity. It's the flip side of the exact same coin. Eventually, such a system designed around such a mentality will in fact infect those within it, either moving them from healthy traditionalist stages into unhealthy dissociation and blocking growth, or that it will require a break with the system wholly. The modern neo-atheist movement in all it's anti-religious sentiments, is the byproduct of the fundamentalist dysfunction.

But this goes deeper than just that. Fundamentalism itself is a product of a destabilized system of culture at large. It is a symptom of an implosion of the mainstream heralding its demise. For now, I just leave this at this, as it is really early thoughts about it. I know I'll be able to refine my thoughts into more concise points later. I'm not entirely satisfied with this at the moment, but I'm just putting it out there and see what sticks. Except some revision and clarification of thought. And least it lays the basic foundations of why I am saying what I am.

Wow! It took all that to basically say the same thing you said before concerning your perspective of those who hold to the fundamental truths of the biblical scriptures. It just sounds like a lot of lofty words and psychological jargon you are using to appear spiritually superior to those you consider beneath you. It is also the opposite of what the scriptures say regarding one who has their faith in Jesus Christ and trust His word...

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

 

[sojourner]

Wow! It took all that to basically say the same thing you said before concerning your perspective of those who hold to the fundamental truths of the biblical scriptures. It just sounds like a lot of lofty words and psychological jargon you are using to appear spiritually superior to those you consider beneath you. It is also the opposite of what the scriptures say regarding one who has their faith in Jesus Christ and trust His word...

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

It has nothing to do with "considering" someone "beneath" someone else. Fowler's stages are widely, if not universally, accepted as authoritative and reasonable psychological and developmental phenomena.

There are no absolute "fundamental truths of the bible." There are only fundamental truths as different people accept such differently. To wit: you and I probably disagree as to what those "fundamental truths" are. Doesn't mean that you're "right" or I'm "wrong." It only means that we differ. What's really telling is how one treats the multivalent reality of the scriptural texts and deals with them in healthy and meaningful ways.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree that a mystical work occurs and continues to occur through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in Jesus Christ, as one is transformed and conformed to His image.

Do you have to actively open yourself to this internal work of the Holy Spirit, becoming attuned to its direction, its voice, its guidance in order to grow, mature, and be transformed? Or is this "mystical work" as you call it something that just happens behind the scenes "magically"? You see I think there is a difference in how you understand the mystical. I believe you see it more on the order of the magical. For myself, I understand the mystical as that which transcends our modes of thinking and understanding and ways of relating to ourselves and the world, and as we open ourselves to its Truth, with the soul, its Light informs our mind, and transforms our being into its Image. In other words, this transformation requires us to engage ourselves with it, through discipline, through intent on our parts, through participation with. Without our action, without an actual practice, little to nothing may happen.

What I am disagreeing with is that practicing meditation is a valid method to achieve this

And my point is based on what valid reason? Any actual data, or is it your fear superimposing itself onto your reading of the Bible that you distort to say that an evil tree in fact produces good fruit? Think of it like the anti-vaxers out there right now. They do the same thing. It's no different. This anti-meditation business of certain fundamentalists is identical to the anti-vaxers who start with misinformation, allow their fears to turn into paranoia, and then distorting and ignoring reason and facts as they build their "cases" against having nothing but their mind's fears accepted as facts.

That actually makes me think of what Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) points out, how that one having a strong emotional reaction to a negative or fearful thought, actual reinforces the perception, reinforces the thought itself as valid. The mind tricks itself into "belief" of the validity of the thought because it "felt" it to be true. Fear, phobias, negativities, paranoia are all powerful emotions, and the distort the thought processes into believing itself, which then seeks out validation to support itself! This is a psychological phenomena. One's interpretations of the Bible would very much reinforce this delusional process. Absolutely! The process seeks to reinforce itself, this negative feedback loop, by finding "evidence" to support its delusion wherever it can find it. This is why another looking at the same thing sees something entirely different, something that is positive.

So you have both negative feedback loops, and positive feedback loops. Don't kid yourself, how one sees the world and interprets reality is very much tied into this subjective process. It's is delusion to believe you have "objective" truth because your read it in the Bible! You read yourself in there.

and the perspective that (1) anyone can have this transformation, whatever path or spiritual method they choose, without coming to Jesus Christ first, repenting of their sins and receiving forgiveness from Him as their Savior

Let's put it this way, if one opens themselves to Spirit, or God, what one finds is that Unconditional Love. They don't find a fundamentalist there checking their theological checklist to see if they will be accepted or not! When one encounters God, they do receive acceptance. You betcha. It just doesn't have to act like and look like your theological ideas. They are coming to "Christ", even if they don't attach YOUR theological symbol set to it.

and (2) the idea that a human being actually is or is transformed into the Identity of the Person of Christ, which I think is taking the concept of being conformed or transformed into His image to an unbiblical extreme and is, in fact, blasphemy.

Well, some while back in this thread I explained how I see "Jesus" as the human being, like me, like you. But I see Christ as the eternal Logos, the Manifestor of Godhead. The "Christ" is not an individual human being. And the "Person of Christ" as you state it is not a human person, nor an individual being. I think you distort the theological term of "person" applied to Godhead, as in the Trinity, to be like three guys sitting at a conference table. That's a very inaccurate, very mythic-literal view or understanding of the Trinity.

You're right, to say I am one of the "guys" or "persons" sitting at the table is a violation of that theological notion of God. It's a theological notion I challenge, not the "Person" of God. Personhood applied to God does not mean some "guy". In simple terms it means a being with intelligence. The Christ is Being itself, manifesting in form. To identify oneself with that, is not blasphemy, but the fulfillment of your human form, realized in the Divine. "I and my Father are One". It is recognizing yourself as form which "proceeds from the Father", "Christ in you".

The Hebrew word for “likeness” (demuth) means similarity or resemblance, not identity. Furthermore, the term itself actually “defines and limits” the word “image.”

And so when it speaks of Christ being the express image of the father, does that make him limited, lesser than God? These are dualistic words, attempting to express what is understood beyond words. Nondualism cannot be "defined" by words because words are dualistic.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying and this is precisely why we, as individuals or groups, need to submit our eyes, lens, filters, thoughts, etc. to the word of God and let it transform and conform our minds and interpretation to His mind, thoughts, and will.

Nonsense. You do not understand what I am saying based on this response.

I do see it and I have already acknowledged that I see the Bible as the word of God, while you see it as the work of fallible humans. I admit this does make for difficult communication on these matters we are discussing.

Yes indeed. We agree. We are sitting in different contexts, and subsequently how we understand these things will reflect the limits of those contexts. Your truth is not absolute truth because of that, nor is mine.

For years and years science has been saying “low fat” to prevent heart disease, but not only has cardiovascular disease increased, diabetes and obesity have skyrocketed. There is such a thing as bad science. Science is not the know it all, end all authority. The authority from my perspective is God’s word and anyone who denies the revealed truths of the Bible which exalt and distinguish God as the One God and Creator over His creation and Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and Savior of humanity has no claim on those fruits of the Spirit listed in the pages of the same Bible. This same Bible says the Holy Spirit comes to indwell only those who have expressed repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Trying to discredit science this way is a lame argument. It also says an enormous amount of things, far, far, far more things that are reliable and accurate. Are you going to selectively ignore these for convenience sake? But moreover, the benefits of it has been known for ages, through countless generations of humans engaging in the practice. It's only in the last couple years that science is verifying what people report, and showing the reasons why it works! Countless individuals all report the same thing, and there are very few cases comparatively speaking where anyone is affected adversely. Arguments to the contrary are unsupported, irrational, and paranoid like the basis for the anti-vaxers paranoia.

I'll pick up the rest of my response later...

 

[Windwalker]

The fruits of the Spirit, those character/behavior qualities of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control are revealed truths of the scriptures concerning those born again through Jesus Christ.

No, they are not "revealed truths of the scriptures", they are the manifest fruits of a person whose heart is in tune with Spirit. Do not conflate these fruits with "scripture", which you then take further to mean "right doctrine". This is a distortion of meaning which you are doing.

I don’t believe anyone can receive or display fruits of the Spirit if they are not indwelt by the Spirit of truth

And so when they do display the fruits, then you should accept that there are indwelt by the Spirit. Why don't you then?

As a footnote here, one does not "receive" the fruits of the Spirit. One manifests them, from within. From the heart, flows truth or deceit.

... But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14-16).

While I agree with this, this has nothing to do with the fruit of the Spirit we are discussing. This has to do with spiritual discernment, or Wisdom. What I see here in your quoting this is again your conflation of the Fruit of the Spirit, with correct doctrine as you define it (rather what you say the Bible says). If one has Love, one knows God.

I definitely think the heart and emotions are important gifts from God, yet they are always to be submitted to the Lord’s revealed will (2 Cor, 10:5; Romans 8:7).

I'm not speaking of our human emotions, but Spirit. Yes, human emotions should be tempered by Wisdom and Knowledge, which is why you need to open the heart, our emotions, to the Ground of Being, to Spirit, to Knowledge, to Wisdom. Your approach to these is to read external authorities who you look to tell you from outside yourself what to believe, to think, to feel, and to act. Our approach it to learn from Spirit within ourself, how to make wise choices in accord with the Spirit of Truth, from within ourselves.

Your approach is not the stopping point on other's spiritual path, and when they go beyond that it should not be seen as falling into deception. You shouldn't attempt to block others, or teach others either when you yourself have not developed beyond that in yourself.

I have noticed those into contemplative/mystical practices seem to think “love” makes everything right.

I'd like to clarify that I don't think it's "love" that makes everything right, rather it is "Love", with a capital L which is the beginning of wisdom, which when we know that within ourselves, becomes the Source of the outflowing of God into the world through our fallible beings as humans. This Love, is not a human emotion. It is in a word, Abundance. From Abundance, flows Life. It is spontaneous, creative, dynamic, not fixed and static truths recorded in a book and mythologized as some type a deity form that we have to deny progress in order to 'align' ourselves with.

At least Sojourner certainly comes across that way.

You'll have to ask him if he agrees with the way I just stated it. My guess is he will.

I'll get to the rest later as I want to spend some time on your distorted interpretation of the "heart is decietfully wicked". This bears some close examination.

 

[Windwalker]

But I believe the scriptures, which say that the heart is deceitful.

It saddens me when you selectively choose scriptures to reject listening to your own heart. It leads in my opinion to a disconnect from a balanced approach to being human, a sort of disconnected positivism where the heart is repressed, suppressed, and denied in favor of trying to know truth outside of ourselves, not having to know ourselves first or at all. This is a dissociation in all those who do this, whether religious or secular.

What of the other verses which speak of the need and necessity to listen to the heart? "For with the heart one believes and is justified". ~Ro. 10:10. If the heart is only "deceitful above all things", then you must not have listened to your heart when you decided to become a Christian. If you did, you should not have trusted it, and should be convinced your heart deceived you, if self-deception is all the heart it about - according to you.
,
The Bible says to trust in the Lord with all your heart. If it's only deceitful above all things, why should it tell us to listen to the heart, to trust with the heart? Jesus said, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good". But yet, if the heart is deceitful, Jesus is wrong and the fruit it produces if "false fruit", according to the both of your's theologies. Ecclesiastes tells us to "Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes." Is this instructing us to walk into self-deception? It is according to how you interpret that one verse to tell us to not trust the heart.

No, you are wrong. The heart can both guide us into truth, or it may trick and deceive us, such as fear turning into paranoia, distrust, and suspicion, convinced through fear of many unfounded ideas. It's not one or the other. This is why scripture says to, "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life." This keeping of the heart is NOT denial and suppression, submitting it to other's rule over you. Faith, is found in the heart. It is not found in the eye of reason. The keeping of the heart is not burying your head in denial, but is found through knowing it, through grounding it in Spirit, not in what your mind thinks. The mind is misguided by the heart that does not know itself. And that, is the meaning of scripture when it says the heart is deceitful.

If you listen to your heart, you let the heart speak to the mind of truth. But if you don't listen to it, then your undisciplined, and unbridled impulses of lust and desire will deceive you. This is where you are mistaken, not understanding the difference, seeing it all as bad and repressing it, unwilling to know it, or listen to its own voice. It is how you are able to ignore what others say about the fruits of Spirit they enjoy and deceive yourself it must be the devil at work. As I said if I ask what does your heart tell you, your response is, "It doesn't matter". Yes, it does matter. "Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered." Wisdom is known in the knowledge of the heart.

It is a sick theology that teaches us not to listen to the heart. It is a sure recipe for dissociation, psychologically and spiritually.

All you have to do is look at reality in yourself and others to know we do deceive ourselves for a variety of reasons.

And we also lead ourselves into truth as well. Why conclude if you can't listen to your heart your should repress it, rather than doing something healthy like learning how to hear it and listen to it without deceiving yourself? Why not fix the source of the problem which is a lack of discernment, a lack of knowing your own heart? You have to understand, from someone who has a healthy relationship with his own heart, one which produces good and not-self deception, to hear someone who has run into trouble with themselves in the past conclude they should never again trust themselves is seen not as a solution, but an unhealthy repression?

It's like saying, "I made a bad choice in this relationship with this woman. Therefore I will never again open myself to relationships because I can't trust myself". That is simply unhealthy. I most assuredly is not a teaching of scripture to conclude or do such things. So what are you doing that and citing Jeremiah to justify it? That's not faith. Faith is of the heart.

The Bible and Jesus said there is only one path to God, plain and simple.

Really? Where? When Jesus says "I am the Way", that is not a spiritual path. That has nothing to do with that. He saying in effect "I am the Door". Lots of paths lead up to the door. But the path, the narrow gate, as it were, is the path of love. "Love works no ill". There are lots of ways that is realized and expressed in the world. But show me anywhere it says you have to do it this one way and no other, meaning spiritual practices. I'll show you the contrary.

This does not negate the fact that each person’s walk with the Lord is personal and unique within the context of that one path (Jesus Christ) because as you have pointed out, no two people are alike.

So then, why is it you say we have to do it your way? Why are you saying we cannot eat meat? Why are you offering up your lists of prohibitions, when the Bible teaches not to judge another for how they choose to serve?

I am not judging YOU. I am judging a METHOD.

And who exactly appointed you to do this, and what are your qualifications as a spiritually awakened teacher? Considering everything you have said about meditation practice is false information, I think that shows your are in fact judging from your own ignorance. And you in fact did judge me. You said my experiences of God were me engaging with Lucifer. That's pretty damned personal to me, don't you think?

I certainly do not, nor can I deny you anything!

You try to persuade me through fear to walk away from that which I have very openly and clearly said is helping me. Why would you try to convince me to stop if it's helping me? Why? Who is that about?

And exactly who am I over as Grand Inquisitor?

In the past I referred to you as a Heretic Hunter. You feel it is your job as self-appointed judge to tell others that what they are doing is either right or wrong according to how you believe. Fortunately you are not actually over anyone nor have power over them. But historically there were those who were, and God help the poor souls who had their judgement fall on them with the same sort of justifications manufactured here. If anything I am doing, it is showing your words are powerless as they come from fear, not knowledge or insights of any kind.

 

[Windwalker]

Wow! It took all that to basically say the same thing you said before concerning your perspective of those who hold to the fundamental truths of the biblical scriptures.

This is an interesting twisting of what fundamentalism is to make it sound so "innocent". I believe in the fundamental truths too, but in no way,shape or form, am I a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is as I laid out in detail in my lengthy explanation. You cannot just swipe that away and say, "All we are are just simple folks who believe the simple truth". No, it's a lot more complex than that!

Again, fundamentalism is a regressive reaction against modernity. It flies the flag that it's just 'believing the fundamentals of the Bible', but in reality it is only a type of retro-romantic idealism, a nostalgia for a mythological idea that represents to them traditional beliefs and value structures. Emblazon that explanation in bronze. It's not a return to the "fundamentals" at all, but a distortion of ideals in reaction to modernity in religion. And all that I said about it being a dissociation in form, and not actually traditional truths, holds true.

Your response does not address any of that.

It just sounds like a lot of lofty words and psychological jargon you are using to appear spiritually superior to those you consider beneath you.

Oh yes, here we go! It's because I'm puffing up my ego that I cite developmentalist theory and psychology in a hope to understanding truth. Hell, that's why the whole world of science and modern and postmodern research does what they do. They're just trying to sound smart! Oh my. By the way, it's not "jargon". There is actual depth of meaning to everything I said. I'm sorry if you interpret education as just others trying to appear "superior to those they consider beneath them". You do realize this speaks about yourself and not others?

It is also the opposite of what the scriptures say regarding one who has their faith in Jesus Christ and trust His word...

So.... anti-intellectualism is the path to faith? Not in my reality!

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

Study to show thyself approved. That means develop your mind through education.

 

[Yoshua]

How can you prove your theories? Is it something someone told you? Because that's all the bible is -- a written message by some person or persons. The only authority the bible carries is that it is the written "sense of the community."

Hi Sojourner,

Ok. Then. Let us hear what the Bible Scholar and historian has to say with the Bible.

Old Testament
We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. 1, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them-, but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid., p. 609).

Jesus spoke about the Scriptures as being complete.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life (John 5:39).

These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me (Luke 24:44).

Canonizing & Collecting
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).

The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affects no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. (The New Testament Documents F. F. Bruce, p. 20)

Of course they're "counted." Except that I don't "share Christianity." I share the love of God.

How come Christianity differ from the love of God?

Where love is fostered, there God is.

So, Jesus truth is about love; how about other beliefs like Buddhism, Muslim and Hindus?By Yoshua

So Buddhist look unto God, and Hindus look unto how many God?

God's love is shown through compassion, mercy, forbearance, justice, freedom, hospitality, welcome, kindness.

And it showed in His action through Jesus Christ, His Son by subjecting Himself in the crucifixion as atonement for our sins. Right?

From forgetting who we are.

God saves humanity from what?By Yoshua

I think it is not forgetting; it is denying ourselves as disowning or disregarding ourselves first to follow Jesus.
God saved humanity from the penalty of sin. Did you agree with that?

God isn't the God of any particular belief. God is God.

If God is not of any particular belief, why God was mentioned since the first book of Genesis until the last book of Revelation (the Bible)? Who is that God of the Bible in your perspective?

It's neither "right" nor "wrong." It's merely simplistic and underdeveloped.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

My interpretation to John 3:16 is because of the love of God, He will save people from perishing by sending His only begotten Son Jesus Christ so people will have the hope of eternal life by believing Jesus as the Son of God, Saviour and Lord.
Is the interpretation right or wrong?By Yoshua

What is right and wrong with my interpretation regarding John 3:16? Can you pls. specify?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

1) John saw the church as a "microcosm" for all humanity.
2) So,, people who love wholeheartedly are following what Jesus commanded: that we love each other.

The primary emphasis coming from the word of Jesus is to “follow” Him. Did you follow to hear his words aside from loving God?

To love is to follow Jesus, for Jesus is the way of love.

This is how the Scripture works from seeing the light of truth. Obedience is the key. This is the example on how I’m not the one who saying it, but the Scripture. Not my own words, we just duplicate and repeat God’s word.
John 14:15
15. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

John 14:21
21. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."

His word never change, and will not pass away. Are those statement is true to you or not?

One follows by loving as Jesus loved.

Then , how you will show that you’re following, it is by keeping/obeying His words as love for Him. Can you say to someone you love, and not follow him? Of course not!

The man was not "one of them," IOW, was not a disciple. He wasn't a "believer." But yes, he did do what they did, and so was counted as "for" Jesus. It answers your question perfectly. Those who love in the way Jesus loved -- whether they are "believers" or not -- are "for Jesus."

Mark 9:38-40
38. John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us."
39. But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40. "For he who is not against us is for us.

Ok. I don’t think we should'nt argue about the identification of that man who cast out demons. As stated in v.39, 'that do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.' Jesus knows who are his and who are not his sheep. A test for a believer—is filtered and refined by means of obedience, and not by an act of casting out and just doing things in His name. I believed this is why Jesus stated this : Matt. 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." This still boils down to following the will of God rather than the will of men. Thy will be done.

You're confusing "genealogy" with "genetically." Genetically, all human beings are the same.

Doesn't matter. They are still just as human and are, therefore, just as much part of the human family, as are Christians.

Yes, I know that. This is why I used the word “First” as my starting word. If by genealogy, we can’t prove (first) that Buddha is in the lineage of Jesus Christ--as specified in Matthew. This is how we can check the Christianity in the family of Buddhism.

Your answer "by genetically," we are all the same (human) is to broad to justify that the family of Jesus Christ--is the family of Buddha. We should get near to the lens of the truth; this is the same principle in the biblical interpretation.

Therefore, in reality, the spirituality between Jesus and Buddha is entirely different, and separated. Wikipedia can simply tell us their differences:

Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity
Since the arrival of Christian missionaries in the East in the 13th century, followed by the arrival of Buddhism in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, similarities were perceived between the practices of Buddhism and Christianity.[1][2] During the 20th century the differences between these two belief systems were also highlighted.[3]

Despite surface level non-scholarly analogies, Buddhism and Christianity have inherent and fundamental differences at the deepest levels, beginning with monotheism's place at the core of Christianity and Buddhism's orientation towards non-theism and its rejection of the notion of a creator deity which runs counter to teachings about God in Christianity; and extending to the importance of Grace in Christianity against the rejection of interference with Karma in Theravada Buddhism, etc.[4][5][6]

The central iconic imagery of the two traditions underscore the difference in their belief structure, when the peaceful death of Gautama Buddha at an old age is contrasted with the harsh image of the crucifixion of Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the atonement for the sins of humanity.[3] Buddhists scholars such as Masao Abe see the centrality of crucifixion in Christianity as an irreconcilable gap between the two belief systems.[7][8]

Most modern scholarship has roundly rejected any historical basis for the travels of Jesus to India or Tibet or influences between the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism, and has seen the attempts at parallel symbolism as cases of parallelomania which exaggerate the importance of trifling resemblances.[9][10][11][12]

Irreconcilable foundations
There are inherent and fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity, one significant element being that while Christianity is at its core monotheistic and relies on a God as a Creator, Buddhism is generally non-theistic and rejects the notion of a Creator God which provides divine values for the world.[4]

The Nicene Creed, the most widely used Christian creed, states that "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen".[5] However, the notion of theistic creation is generally foreign to Buddhist thought, and the question of the existence of God is perhaps one of the most fundamental barriers between the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism.[4][6] Although Mahayana Buddhism expresses belief in Bodhisattva this is very different from the notion of Creator God in Christianity.[6][25] While some variations of Buddhism believe in an impersonal eternal Buddha or creative force, in general Buddhism sees the universe as eternal and without a starting point of creation.[26][27]

There are inherent differences in the Christian and Buddhist beliefs regarding the End Times and eschatology.[28] Jan Nattier states that while Buddhism has a notion of "relative eschatology" that refers to specific cycles of life, the term "Buddhist eschatology" does not relate to any "final things", or that the world will end one day - Buddhist scripture routinely referring to the "beginning-less Saṃsāra" as a never ending cycle of birth and death with no starting point.[29] However, Christian eschatology directly involves the concept of "end to all creation" at the Last Judgement when the world will reach its conclusion.[30] Scholars generally regard the Buddhist and Christian views of the End Times as incompatible.[28]

There are other fundamental differences, e.g. while Grace in Christianity is part of the very fabric of theology, in Theravada Buddhism no deity can interfere with Karma and hence the notion of any type of grace is inadmissible within these teachings.[25] Mahayana Buddhism however, differs on this issue.[31]

The crucifixion of Jesus as a single event in history that acts for the atonement of sins is a central element of Christian belief.[3] This, however, produces a strong difference between Christian and Buddhist teachings.[3][7] Buddhist scholar Masao Abe pointed out that while "the event of the Cross" is central to Christianity, it is not possible for Buddhism to accept its importance.[7] Buddhist philosopher D. T. Suzuki stated that every time he saw a crucifixion scene it reminded him of the "gap that lies deep" between Christianity and Buddhism.[8]

This inherent difference in the belief systems is also reflected on the iconic imagery of the two traditions.[3] The depiction of the harsh crucifixion of Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the atonement for the sins of humanity is central to Christian iconography, and is totally different from the peaceful death of an eighty-year-old Gautama Buddha lying between two trees as he accepts final Nirvana.[3]

Moreover, modern scholarship has generally rejected suggestions of an influence from Buddhism on Christianity as fanciful and without any historical basis.[9][10][11] Paula Fredriksen states that no serious scholarly work places Jesus outside the backdrop of 1st-century Palestinian Judaism.[32]wikipedia

Doesn't matter. They are still just as human and are, therefore, just as much part of the human family, as are Christians.

They are not Christians whether you like it or not. The truth is reality. This statement is not reconcilable with the truth stated in wikipedia. It says they have a deep differences level, irreconcilable gap beliefs and incompatible.

No it's not. Christ had a much better grasp of truth than you do.

The truth that I know is the truth confessed by Christ.By Yoshua

Yes, I know that, and I did not say that I have the truth. It is your concept that was repeatedly said before (not mine) that people have its own truth. Now, what is Christ's truth?

You're confused because you're seeing divisions that are relatively unimportant. The divisions are divisions of perspective, not substance.

The differences between Christianity and Buddhism proved that your assumption of Buddhist and Christians—are false. There is divisions of perspective for the sake of reality/truth.

He says that to all humanity -- not just to individuals.

He said “Come and Follow Me,” that is absolutely personal and internal.By Yoshua

Yes, no one is countering with that. My question is: Did all followed Him? Not all. Isn’t it? Because In the first place God already knows--not all will follow Him. In John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 10:14
14. "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own.

I believed that Jesus will not say this statement if they (Father) both know that all humanity will follow Him. By the way, why need Jesus to come if all human are designed to follow God already? Logical.

You're still not getting it.

That is an answer to your “Truth is truth.” If the truth of Jesus will wear with different clothing (belief system), that truth will be tainted with the untruth because Jesus claimed He is only the truth. Logical. By Yoshua

Truth is truth, with different "clothing" for each belief system. By Sojourner

I got your perspective. Truly there are different clothing for each belief system, but not the same God. This is already proved in the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. The irreconcilable gap of belief system and incompatibility of their principles/teachings. In relation to the believers, I believed that it is either one of them will be transformed to a follower of Christ or a follower of Buddha. In exception with my experience before as believer in Buddha and Roman Catholicism, I may say that it is my own will that I tried to absorb, and adhere both of them as my faith. But in reality and the truth side, I’m just living and hiding in a lie, and not the truth itself.

So ... to sum up, the book saves. Got it.

I think we both know what is faith? When we dine in a restaurant, we eat the food that was served—is an act of faith; when we seat in our chair; walking down the narrow street; traveling and others. All the things that we do is by faith. Now, if we read the Bible—knowing Jesus’ teachings and promises—is also by faith. Not only that, since this is an inspired word of God (if you’ll believe or not), there is power of His word; it can change lives and bring people in His righteousness. Therefore, faith comes from listening/reading the word of God.By Yoshua

I got your point. The book does not saved us. It is the word of God that transcends and bring us our faith in Him. Faith saves. His word is just printed in a book as of this time. It is not the book itself, it can be in our cellphones, radios, multi-media, and other technology that will come. If I can memorize all the Scripture without having a book, then it is not the book—it is the word of God after all. The important thing is His word cannot be change nor pass away. I believed this is why Jesus said this statement: Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

God is infinitely fragile, infinitely tender, infinitely vulnerable. Just as God is infinitely strong, infinitely absolute, infinitely transcendent.

Can you explain why God is fragile? What do you mean by fragile in relation to God?

Did you also know that, when the emperor published news of a military victory, that bulletin was also called a "gospel?" "Gospel" or the Greek euangelion, is a generic term that means more than the message of 1 Cor. The gospel of Jesus was that the kingdom of God had come near.

But still, it is a good news. The good news is “basar” (Heb.) and "evangelion" in NT for Jesus Christ. If the kingdom of God had come near, people should be prepared especially His believers.

Of course love involves those things. But love is the impetus for those things. Those things aren't the impetus for love.

Absolutely by the Holy Spirit indwelling, for we can be able to work out that love with believing, submitting, surrendering and obeying.

God is love. God's will is existence and that existence is based in love. God isn't "mind renewal" or "nonconformity." God is love.

No doubt that God loved the world. God’s will is to renewing our mind. There should be transformation, this is why Jesus said we must deny ourselves. There is also repentance.

Acts 2:38
38. Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 12:2
2. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

God also chose McLaren.

Let us check if truly God chose him.

I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."---Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260

“Western Christianity has (for the last few centuries anyway) said relatively little about mindfulness and meditative practices, about which Zen Buddhism has said much. To talk about different things is not to contradict one another; it is, rather, to have much to offer one another, on occasion at least.”8

It is very clear that Buddhism and Hindus does not believe in Jesus Christ, they are not follower of Christ. Mclaren’s statement is totally different with Jesus Christ’s command. Becoming a follower of Christ is not to remain in Buddhist and Hindu belief, but denying himself, take up his cross to follow Jesus. Is he chosen by God for that? Maybe the other god.

Matt. 16:24
24. Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

John 10:4-5
4. "And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
5. "Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.''

“The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat” --Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy McLaren, p.254

Of course, there will be no threat when you welcome a friend from other beliefs. This is the reason why he should suggesting to remain in someone’s faith, and at the same time, a follower of Christ. Obviously, this is a purely ecumenical which leads to one world religion whether you like it or not.

"Isn’t hell such a grave ‘bottom line’ that it devalues all other values? It so emphasizes the importance of life after death that it can unintentionally trivialize life before death. No wonder many people feel that ‘accepting Jesus as a personal Savior’ could make them a worse person — more self-centered and less concerned about justice on earth because of a preoccupation with forgiveness in heaven. Again, although I believe in Jesus as my personal savior, I am not a Christian for that reason. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world."
––Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 100

I haven’t see Jesus’ disciples applying such kind of definition of “believing Jesus as their personal Saviour.” Mclaren’s “believing in Jesus” is differed from what the disciples applied in the New Testament. Same with Paul who suffered all hardships, persecutions and struggle in proclaiming the gospel of Christ. How come accepting Jesus—as personal Saviour become self-centered, if Jesus Christ is the center—to all follower of Christ? Obviously, a different twist of Scripture by Mclaren.
He has its own reason in making Jesus as his personal Saviour rather than what the Scripture had said. Where is the commitment here if he is just believing Jesus is the Saviour of the whole world? Additionally, Mclaren is saying non-christians were included as having a personal Saviour, thus, started to promote universalism.

"To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuff, and mounted on the wall...That, to me, is orthodoxy -- a way of seeing and seeking, a way of living, a way of thinking and loving and learning that helps what we believe become more true over time, more resonant with the infinite glory that is God."2

There is an absolute truths in the word of God; there is a God that exist. I don’t think he understand what orthodoxy is. Jesus came to save us from sins; to atone us from the penalty of death. His definition about orthodoxy is superficial and not the truth itself.

"Jesus comes then not to condemn (to bring the consequences we deserve) but to save by shining the light on our evil, by naming our evil as evil so we can repent and escape a chain of bad actions and bad consequences to forgiveness, and so we can learn from Jesus the master teacher to live more wisely in the future." 4

1 Peter 2:24
24. who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness by whose stripes you were healed.

2 Cor. 5:21
21. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Those are reason why Jesus come, and not to save by shining the light on their evil. Not consistent again with the Scriptures.

Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell]."
--Brian McLaren’s Inferno 2, Out of Ur, May 2006

Universalism is an unbiblical and anti-Christian teaching that everyone will be saved. This is contrary and contradicted with the scripture.

Matt. 25:46
46. "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.''

John 3:36
36. "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.''

Matt. 7:21
21. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23. "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'?.... I don't think the liberals have it right. But I don't think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy." Brian McLaren, The Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today, 2004

Mclaren does not know what it means to be saved, and did not know what is the gospel of Christ. If he does not know it, then that proves he is not chosen by God.

The "word of God" was given to us by biased people in particular circumstances.

Like what we see above with Mclaren’s statement. When the statement of Christ match with his statement, it traces swiftly if a person is in Christ or not. This is how to test the spirit by means of Scripture.

1 John 4:1
1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Everything you're saying is your take on the texts. Any time you use a text to prove a point, any time you say, "What that means is...", you're giving your take.

If you think that these texts does not apply, kindly prove it to me. You may produce your text and enumerate it to prove that it is my church (not Christ’s church) based on these Scriptures.

1. A soldier committed his life to serve his country—as Christian committed his life to Jesus/God.

John 1:43
43. The next day He purposed to go forth into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me.

Matt. 16:24
24. Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Mark 8:35
35. "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's shall save it.

Mark 1:20
20. And immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away to follow Him.

John 14:15
15. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

2. A soldier report & submit to his superior or authority—as Christian report & submit to Jesus.

James 4:7
7. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

Luke 22:42
42. saying, "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done."

John 5:19
19. Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Heb. 13:17
17. Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Rom. 13:1
1. Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Eph. 5:22-24
22. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
24. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

3. A soldier follow orders—as Christian follow God’s commandments.

John 15:14
14. "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.

John 14:15
15. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

2 John 1:6
6. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Luke 11:28
28. But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it."

Rom. 5:19
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

4. A soldier is loyal to his country—as Christian is loyal to Jesus/God.

5. A soldier is loyal to his superior—as Christian is loyal to Jesus/God.

Matt. 6:24
24. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

James 1:7-8
7. For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8. being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Luke 9:61-62
61. And another also said, "I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home."
62. But Jesus said to him, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Gal. 5:1
1. It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Ps. 31:23
23. O love the Lord, all you His godly ones!
The Lord preserves the faithful, And fully recompenses the proud doer.


Matt. 25:21
21. "His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master.'

Matt. 24:44-47
44. "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45. "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46. "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47. "Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Heb. 10:22-23
22. let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;

yeah, that's the real problem here, all right. The bible isn't "God's words." It's the words of people, from a biased and particular stance and set of circumstances.

Can we say that the statement of Jesus that Mk. 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” and at John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.” is not the word of Jesus/God?? Is it a lie or people’s words??

They aren't directly reading Jesus' words. They're having a Mark, a Luke, a Matthew, a John tell them about Jesus. Or a Pope Francis, or a McLaren, or a Tickle, or a Pagitt.

If someone makes his testimony reflected on a book (not the Bible), can you say that what he is narrating is a lie and not true? Is that your perspective?

How about the historian like Josephus as testified that there is man so called Jesus? Is it a lie? I posted this last time.

People seek love because love is our natural state. Love doesn't "fill a hole created by fear." Love casts out fear -- it doesn't replace fear. People fear because they've forgotten to love, and fear is the absence of love.

No. People are born seeking love because they have insecurities and fear. How many children will you count in the whole world that will confessed he love their parents, and yet insecure?

This logic that “love as the natural state” failed to be consistent with the reality on why people had their religion or beliefs. They have their own faith/beliefs as having peace and love. If we applied “love as the natural state” then, why you need to be a Roman Catholic, a mystic and in contemplative? If people have love (already) since they were born, why subjected to a religion? He should felt peace and did not fear. See my point.

Mclaren should not be preaching and teaching those quotations if we applied the logic of “love as the natural state.” This is simply pointing people to be their own god because they don’t need love. That’s out of bound in the truth--of true Christianity.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Here is where you greatly err. No only do you ignore the testimony of those who tell you unequivocally their own experiences of how it greatly deepens and awakens the fruits of the Spirit as listed in the Bible, "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control," effectively calling all of us a liar because you can't reconcile this fact with your beliefs. You additionally reject or ignore all the scientific research which shows the long list of positive benefits to those who practice it amplifying those fruits of the spirit in their lives as well, and conclude against scripture that an evil tree bears good fruit.

But here's the deeper problem even than that. You mistake beliefs with the fruit of the Spirit. I pointed this out to you before. You equate theological points of view, with spiritual fruit! That is a very deep problem. A serious problem in your thinking, and moreso a disconnect between the heart and the mind. To ask the question "What does your heart tell you", very likely will be met with an answer by you of, "It doesn't matter what my heart says because the Bible says the heart cannot be trusted! What matters is what the Bible says!". Am I right?

Aside from that profoundly glaring problem I just pointed out, who says there is only one path to God? Scripture doesn't say that! Your path has been a different one from your friend in this thread here, hasn't it? Don't you learn in different ways, through different means? Come on, be serious and reasonable here. No two people are alike! Therefore, there are as many paths as there are people. Each person learns a different way. These are very, very common sense things here. Can you at least agree with this?

This is an example of taking the scripture as needed to fit-in with the contemplative belief. The fruit of the Spirit that was stated in the Scripture are the fruits that comes the Holy Spirit--as the promised Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ. How could the Holy Spirit indwells a person if he does totally apply the following:
1. Submitting to God's word.
2. Obedience to God's word.
3. Committing himself to God.
4. Believe in God's word.

I believed a person who does not make God as the controller of his life means that his will is prioritized rather than God's will. The only path to God is the statement of Jesus Christ in John 14:6-7, Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me 7. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

Acts 4:12
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

The salvation is only through Christ. Therefore, it is also only through Him that saves people's soul in eternity. I firmly believed that no other entity that can offer man's eternity in the after life. He is the true path.

Anyone who knows that there is a true path aside from Jesus, a path that surpass the death & suffering of Christ, or claimed that he is the truth are my question which I'm still waiting here.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

So, it "interpreted itself" for you, but apparently not forMartin Luther, the Bible failed to interpret itself properly? How logical is this, really?

Again, I really don't care what the word Christian really means. It's not relevant to my points. It was an ironic point I was making, based on how many understand the world to mean. But here, it is clear the Bible does not interpret itself, because you understand things differently than someone else.

The "Bible interpret itself" is studying the Scripture in considering other Scripture to produce its meaning. This is by bringing the Scriptures into our own eyes by not limiting it with a single statement or phrase in the Bible, but by giving consideration of other Scriptures which will bring light to the understanding of God's word. The understanding process should be "wholistic" and not "partial." Picking a phrase or statement to convey the meaning of the text immediately is resulted--as proof-texting. This is where unbiblical and twisted interpretations, cult organization's false teachings sourced their doctrines and principles.

The five questions (why, who, where, what and how) were applied in biblical interpretation. What the Scripture is telling? what are the connecting scripture that are related to the other scripture? who are the character? where it is located? how they practice and apply their culture?

Just one example is the phrase "I am God," a phrase that is familiar with the New Ager. We may search the Scripture if it is truly man is God. How many God (therein) stated in the Scripture? Do the disciples claimed that they are God, so we may also claim that we are God? Did Jesus told us the we are God, or God told us that we should be a God? Do we have the right to be a God? How come it is possible that we can be a God? If we are God, why we have limitation and not having the attributes of being a God?....................Logic, science, and philosophy may contributed to understanding the Scripture but not as stepping outside the Scriptures.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Ok. Then. Let us hear what the Bible Scholar and historian has to say with the Bible.

The bible scholar and historian agree with me. Thanks for supporting my position.

How come Christianity differ from the love of God?

In reality? They're the same thing. But In your world? The difference is that "Christianity" consists of bible reading, doctrine, and formulas; and love appears selfish, not selfless, on God's part.

So Buddhist look unto God, and Hindus look unto how many God?

They all regard the human state in relation to some concept of Divinity.

And it showed in His action through Jesus Christ, His Son by subjecting Himself in the crucifixion as atonement for our sins. Right?

Nope. The cross isn't punitive. It's an act of love.

I think it is not forgetting; it is denying ourselves as disowning or disregarding ourselves first to follow Jesus.
God saved humanity from the penalty of sin. Did you agree with that?

You got the mechanics, but not the substance.

If God is not of any particular belief, why God was mentioned since the first book of Genesis until the last book of Revelation (the Bible)? Who is that God of the Bible in your perspective?

God is God. Divinity is also deeply dealt with in Islam, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, and many other religions.

What is right and wrong with my interpretation regarding John 3:16? Can you pls. specify?

To reiterate:
"It's neither 'right' nor 'wrong.' It's merely simplistic and underdeveloped."

 

[sojourner]

The primary emphasis coming from the word of Jesus is to “follow” Him.

To reiterate:
"people who love wholeheartedly are following what Jesus commanded: that we love each other."

This is how the Scripture works from seeing the light of truth. Obedience is the key. This is the example on how I’m not the one who saying it, but the Scripture. Not my own words, we just duplicate and repeat God’s word.
John 14:15
15. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

John 14:21
21. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."

His word never change, and will not pass away. Are those statement is true to you or not?

The question is: What are Jesus' commandments? 1) Love God. 2) Love neighbor as self.

Then , how you will show that you’re following, it is by keeping/obeying His words as love for Him. Can you say to someone you love, and not follow him?

To reiterate:
"One follows by loving as Jesus loved."

Ok. I don’t think we should'nt argue about the identification of that man who cast out demons. As stated in v.39, 'that do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.' Jesus knows who are his and who are not his sheep. A test for a believer—is filtered and refined by means of obedience, and not by an act of casting out and just doing things in His name. I believed this is why Jesus stated this : Matt. 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." This still boils down to following the will of God rather than the will of men. Thy will be done.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Once again, to reiterate:
"One follows by loving as Jesus loved." it doesn't matter if one says "Lord, Lord!" IOW, it doesn't matter if one calls oneself a "Christian," or even if one claims to be a "disciple."

Yes, I know that. This is why I used the word “First” as my starting word. If by genealogy, we can’t prove (first) that Buddha is in the lineage of Jesus Christ--as specified in Matthew. This is how we can check the Christianity in the family of Buddhism.

Your answer "by genetically," we are all the same (human) is to broad to justify that the family of Jesus Christ--is the family of Buddha. We should get near to the lens of the truth; this is the same principle in the biblical interpretation.

Therefore, in reality, the spirituality between Jesus and Buddha is entirely different, and separated. Wikipedia can simply tell us their differences

That genetic sameness is the lens of the truth. There are no appreciable differences, in reality, between Christians and Buddhists. It's only a difference of perspective -- not substance. It's like a big family: One child has a bedroom that's pained blue. Another has a bedroom that's pained yellow. A third has a bedroom that's decorated in clowns. A fourth has a bedroom that's decorated in cats. a fifth sleeps on the couch in the den. But they're All. One. Family. under one roof -- or, heck! -- even under several roofs, depending on whether they're aunts, grandparents, or sisters-in-law.

We don't need Wikipedia to tell us differences of perspective, when what we're dealing with is a question of substance.

They are not Christians whether you like it or not. The truth is reality. This statement is not reconcilable with the truth stated in wikipedia. It says they have a deep differences level, irreconcilable gap beliefs and incompatible.

To reiterate:
"It's only a difference of perspective -- not substance."

Yes, I know that, and I did not say that I have the truth.

Yes you did. To wit:
"The truth that I know is the truth confessed by Christ.By Yoshua"
This constitutes your having the truth, since you insist that Jesus said "I am the truth..."

There is divisions of perspective for the sake of reality/truth.

Yes, but the deeper reality is that, regardless of differences of perspective, we are all one human family under God.

He said “Come and Follow Me,” that is absolutely personal and internal.

Only in the sense that such call must be personally internalized. But the call itself is broadly offered to the human family, as a whole.

Truly there are different clothing for each belief system, but not the same God.

Divinity is Divinity.

I got your point. The book does not saved us. It is the word of God that transcends and bring us our faith in Him. Faith saves. His word is just printed in a book as of this time. It is not the book itself, it can be in our cellphones, radios, multi-media, and other technology that will come. If I can memorize all the Scripture without having a book, then it is not the book—it is the word of God after all. The important thing is His word cannot be change nor pass away. I believed this is why Jesus said this statement: Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Doesn't matter. You're saying that "reading words saves us."

Can you explain why God is fragile? What do you mean by fragile in relation to God?

God is love, yes?
Love is both tender and fragile, and implacable and strong. If God weren't fragile, how could his body have been broken on the cross???

But still, it is a good news.

A gospel -- not the gospel.

Absolutely by the Holy Spirit indwelling, for we can be able to work out that love with believing, submitting, surrendering and obeying.

To reiterate:
"love is the impetus for those things. Those things aren't the impetus for love."

There should be transformation, this is why Jesus said we must deny ourselves.

Love is what effects that transformation. When one loves, one does deny oneself in favor of the other.

 

[Windwalker]

This is an example of taking the scripture as needed to fit-in with the contemplative belief. The fruit of the Spirit that was stated in the Scripture are the fruits that comes the Holy Spirit--as the promised Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ. How could the Holy Spirit indwells a person if he does totally apply the following:
1. Submitting to God's word.
2. Obedience to God's word.
3. Committing himself to God.
4. Believe in God's word.

I had promised myself to no longer reply to your posts for the reasons before stated, but I do here for the sake of others reading this.

The fruit of the Spirit which in Paul's brief list include, "Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control," does not come by your list that you created from your own ideas. If it did, the Pharisees of the Bible would have not be rebuked by Jesus as they did all these to a T. Something was missing. And that something is spelled out by Paul in the 5th chapter of Galatians where he lists these fruits. Where do they come from, according to Paul?

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. It is not in being a Christian versus a Buddhist. It is not in being a Jew versus a Gentile (circumcision nor uncircumcision), that divides the sheep from the goats. It is not in following the letter of the law (your commandment number 1 listed above), as Paul says in this chapter that, "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." This means if you are made righteous, if you're religion is true because you are "submitting yourself to God's word", in the sense you mean, this is "obey the whole law", which Pauls says is not the path. You say it is, contrary to Paul's teaching here. All your list is swept off the table in Paul's statement, "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

Your insistence on self-identification as Christian by conversion to the Christian religion itself, runs contrary to Paul's message. Being Jew versus Gentile, Christian versus Buddhist or Hindu, or Muslim, or any other system of faith, avails nothing if you do not have love, for "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Why? Because "In Christ" all are One. Paul says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value." "In Christ" dissolves all these boundaries set up by the those who do what you are doing in your created list of "acceptable criteria". This is why these religious tenanent are a substitute for faith. It excludes, rather than includes. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value." Your list has "no value".

Paul says we should reject those who seek to impose a list of things to do religiously that we are to "obey" in order to be fulfilling the law. The law is fulfilled in love. We obey love, which means we follow the heart. "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love. I do not see that word listed in your 4 points of salvation listed above. A deeply glaring omission. Jesus message was the path of love. It should have been number 1 on your list, but it is absent in all of them. Why is it missing? I hear instead words like submit, obey, commit. I don't hear love anywhere in these. Yet that is the first commandment of Jesus, "Love".

Here's my list (taken from Jesus' list he came up with)

1. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

For in these two commandments, the entire law of God is fulfilled.

Contrast Jesus' list with yours below:

1. Submitting to God's word.
2. Obedience to God's word.
3. Committing himself to God.
4. Believe in God's word.

I'll stick with Jesus' list instead. It speaks to my heart and fulfills the law. Yours is all about submission to the law to find salvation. Jesus' is about finding and following love, and through love which flows from within, the law which is outside is fulfilled.

 

[sojourner]

Let us check if truly God chose him.

I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."---Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260

“Western Christianity has (for the last few centuries anyway) said relatively little about mindfulness and meditative practices, about which Zen Buddhism has said much. To talk about different things is not to contradict one another; it is, rather, to have much to offer one another, on occasion at least.”8

It is very clear that Buddhism and Hindus does not believe in Jesus Christ, they are not follower of Christ. Mclaren’s statement is totally different with Jesus Christ’s command. Becoming a follower of Christ is not to remain in Buddhist and Hindu belief, but denying himself, take up his cross to follow Jesus. Is he chosen by God for that? Maybe the other god.

Matt. 16:24
24. Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

John 10:4-5
4. "And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
5. "Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.''

“The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat” --Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy McLaren, p.254

Of course, there will be no threat when you welcome a friend from other beliefs. This is the reason why he should suggesting to remain in someone’s faith, and at the same time, a follower of Christ. Obviously, this is a purely ecumenical which leads to one world religion whether you like it or not.

"Isn’t hell such a grave ‘bottom line’ that it devalues all other values? It so emphasizes the importance of life after death that it can unintentionally trivialize life before death. No wonder many people feel that ‘accepting Jesus as a personal Savior’ could make them a worse person — more self-centered and less concerned about justice on earth because of a preoccupation with forgiveness in heaven. Again, although I believe in Jesus as my personal savior, I am not a Christian for that reason. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world."
––Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 100

I haven’t see Jesus’ disciples applying such kind of definition of “believing Jesus as their personal Saviour.” Mclaren’s “believing in Jesus” is differed from what the disciples applied in the New Testament. Same with Paul who suffered all hardships, persecutions and struggle in proclaiming the gospel of Christ. How come accepting Jesus—as personal Saviour become self-centered, if Jesus Christ is the center—to all follower of Christ? Obviously, a different twist of Scripture by Mclaren.
He has its own reason in making Jesus as his personal Saviour rather than what the Scripture had said. Where is the commitment here if he is just believing Jesus is the Saviour of the whole world? Additionally, Mclaren is saying non-christians were included as having a personal Saviour, thus, started to promote universalism.

"To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuff, and mounted on the wall...That, to me, is orthodoxy -- a way of seeing and seeking, a way of living, a way of thinking and loving and learning that helps what we believe become more true over time, more resonant with the infinite glory that is God."2

There is an absolute truths in the word of God; there is a God that exist. I don’t think he understand what orthodoxy is. Jesus came to save us from sins; to atone us from the penalty of death. His definition about orthodoxy is superficial and not the truth itself.

"Jesus comes then not to condemn (to bring the consequences we deserve) but to save by shining the light on our evil, by naming our evil as evil so we can repent and escape a chain of bad actions and bad consequences to forgiveness, and so we can learn from Jesus the master teacher to live more wisely in the future." 4

1 Peter 2:24
24. who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness by whose stripes you were healed.

2 Cor. 5:21
21. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Those are reason why Jesus come, and not to save by shining the light on their evil. Not consistent again with the Scriptures.

It is wholly impossible to check the authenticity of a call of another through one's own, narrow interpretation of the bible.

Those are reason why Jesus come, and not to save by shining the light on their evil. Not consistent again with the Scriptures.

Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell]."
--Brian McLaren’s Inferno 2, Out of Ur, May 2006

Universalism is an unbiblical and anti-Christian teaching that everyone will be saved. This is contrary and contradicted with the scripture.

No. It's not. to wit:
Matt. 8:11; Matt. 12:50; Matt. 18:14; Mark 11:17; Luke 3:6; Luke 15:4; Luke 15:8; Luke 19:10; John 1:9; John 3:17; John 10:16; John 12:32; John 15:16; Rom 5:18; Rom 8:38-39; 1 Cor 13:4-8; 1 Cor 15:22; Eph 1:9-10; Phil 2:10-11; Col 1:19-20; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 1 Tim 4:9-10; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:13. Among others.

I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'?.... I don't think the liberals have it right. But I don't think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy." Brian McLaren, The Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today, 2004

Mclaren does not know what it means to be saved, and did not know what is the gospel of Christ. If he does not know it, then that proves he is not chosen by God.

No, it merely means that he's giving the issues of salvation and the good news their proper respect, by being willing to struggle deeply with their meaning, rather than dismissing them with a "pat answer," as many here do.

When the statement of Christ match with his statement, it traces swiftly if a person is in Christ or not.

It's not a "statement of Christ." It's a "statement of the church, attributed to Christ."

If you think that these texts does not apply, kindly prove it to me. You may produce your text and enumerate it to prove that it is my church (not Christ’s church) based on these Scriptures.

The very selection of these particular texts represents your take on them.

Can we say that the statement of Jesus that Mk. 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” and at John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.” is not the word of Jesus/God?? Is it a lie or people’s words??

It's the words of people.

If someone makes his testimony reflected on a book (not the Bible), can you say that what he is narrating is a lie and not true? Is that your perspective?

How about the historian like Josephus as testified that there is man so called Jesus? Is it a lie? I posted this last time.

What I'm saying is that there's no absolute proof that any of this constitutes "the words of Jesus." We can speculate. We can extrapolate some sort of "odds are that...", but we can't say with any certainty. All we have is the witness of people who Did. Not. Know. Jesus. Personally.

No. People are born seeking love because they have insecurities and fear. How many children will you count in the whole world that will confessed he love their parents, and yet insecure?

You have a very, very low opinion of the imago dei...

This logic that “love as the natural state” failed to be consistent with the reality on why people had their religion or beliefs. They have their own faith/beliefs as having peace and love. If we applied “love as the natural state” then, why you need to be a Roman Catholic, a mystic and in contemplative? If people have love (already) since they were born, why subjected to a religion? He should felt peace and did not fear. See my point.

Because a religion fosters and nurtures that love (or, at least, it should). This is like asking, "If being well is our natural state, why should we seek out preventive medicine?

Mclaren should not be preaching and teaching those quotations if we applied the logic of “love as the natural state.” This is simply pointing people to be their own god because they don’t need love. That’s out of bound in the truth--of true Christianity.

You're misunderstanding and misrepresenting McLaren.

 

[InChrist]

Do you have to actively open yourself to this internal work of the Holy Spirit, becoming attuned to its direction, its voice, its guidance in order to grow, mature, and be transformed? Or is this "mystical work" as you call it something that just happens behind the scenes "magically"? You see I think there is a difference in how you understand the mystical. I believe you see it more on the order of the magical. For myself, I understand the mystical as that which transcends our modes of thinking and understanding and ways of relating to ourselves and the world, and as we open ourselves to its Truth, with the soul, its Light informs our mind, and transforms our being into its Image. In other words, this transformation requires us to engage ourselves with it, through discipline, through intent on our parts, through participation with. Without our action, without an actual practice, little to nothing may happen.


.

I do not think the regeneration and transformation work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer is magical. I believe it to the work of God. The part of the believer is to yield and submit to the Holy Spirit. It is the Word of God that the Spirit uses to transform our old fleshly, sinful mind and thinking into godly thinking and living.

I cannot possibly respond to the rest of your previous posts which have become far too lengthy. I am involved in several time consuming projects right now. If you want to choose one point you feel is most important to you to discuss further I may be able to continue responding. If you prefer not to that’s fine.

 

[InChrist]

"Love" is something those of the emergent/contemplative conversation talk about and elevate, but what kind of love ?

The thing about “love” as expressed in the Bible, the agape love of God, is that it cannot be dissected from His holy, righteous character. The love of God wills the highest good of the beloved. It is a love based in God’s truth and not does tolerate, condone, or encourage sin or going astray from His design and will for humanity because to do so is detrimental and not loving at all toward others and ultimately God Himself.

Paul, who wrote the words in his epistles concerning the fruits of the Spirit and the well know passage on love (1 Corinthians 13) also did not hesitate throughout his ministry to confront those who spread false teaching in opposition to the gospel of salvation through the cross, grace, and faith in Jesus Christ alone. Contending for this faith which was...once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) is love. Jesus’ demonstration of love included warning of false teachers ( Matt, 24:11;24;Mark 13:22) and rebuke with a call to repentance... As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent (Rev. 3:19) because God’s love, true love, does not exist in falsehood.

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:1-9)

 

[sojourner]

The thing about “love” as expressed in the Bible, the agape love of God, is that it cannot be dissected from His holy, righteous character.

Therefore, whoever practices such love is not "sin sin" -- is not separate from God.

The love of God wills the highest good of the beloved.

...Whoever they are. "Come to me all who travail..."

It is a love based in God’s truth and not does tolerate, condone, or encourage sin or going astray from His design and will for humanity because to do so is detrimental and not loving at all toward others and ultimately God Himself.

God's truth is the truth of love.

Paul, who wrote the words in his epistles concerning the fruits of the Spirit and the well know passage on love (1 Corinthians 13) also did not hesitate throughout his ministry to confront those who spread false teaching in opposition to the gospel of salvation through the cross, grace, and faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Living and walking in love as Christ has loved us, and gave himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God (Eph) is that gospel message. Therefore, all who love do act in the faith of Jesus.

because God’s love, true love, does not exist in falsehood.

...Even in the falsehood of division and gatekeeping.

if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Why preach such a gospel, then?

 

[Windwalker]

I do not think the regeneration and transformation work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer is magical. I believe it to the work of God. The part of the believer is to yield and submit to the Holy Spirit.

That's sounds like what we're saying of what we do through contemplative practice. In fact, I know it is.

It is the Word of God that the Spirit uses to transform our old fleshly, sinful mind and thinking into godly thinking and living.

Based on what you've said before the Word of God is the Bible. So without the Bible, it is not possible to hear the Holy Spirit in order to yield to it? Is the Bible how you hear the Holy Spirit? Is it your understanding that this means you read something, it sparks something in you and you have a new insight or idea, but outside the Bible God is mute to you?

 

[Yoshua]

The bible scholar and historian agree with me. Thanks for supporting my position.

Hi Sojourner,

Absolutely! Truly the Bible is divinely inspired, complete and with authority. It is consistent with 2 Tim. 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

John 5:39-47
39. "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me;
40. and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.
41. "I do not receive glory from men;
42. but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.
43. "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him.
44. "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?
45. "Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46. "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.
47. "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

Therefore, what Jesus is saying here are the following :
1. Seeking the Scripture is not the way to salvation, but they served as a witness for Jesus.(v.39)
2. Jesus encouraged to come to Him.(v.40)
3. Receiving Him.(v.43)
4. Believing Him. (v.46)
5. Consistency between the writings of Moses (OT), and His words.(v.47)

Additionally, Historical and Scientific Accuracy of the Bible proves that the Scriptures is authentic, true and authority.

In reality? They're the same thing. But In your world? The difference is that "Christianity" consists of bible reading, doctrine, and formulas; and love appears selfish, not selfless, on God's part.

Oh my! How come you’re not consistent with what you’ve said that you agree with the Bible Scholars and historian about the divinely inspired—Bible?
If the Bible is divinely inspired, how come that it is wrong to read the Bible?

Jesus said that Scriptures bears witness of Him (see above Scripture). Jesus never said not to read the Scriptures. How would you reconcile that?

They all regard the human state in relation to some concept of Divinity.

Ok. Both of them have some concept of divinity, that is a very generalized conclusion. Why not go deeper to see clearly where is that concept going? We believed that Hindus had many Gods, then how you would reconcile with the book of Isaiah, as saying there is no other God beside me, and there is only one God. Therefore, this can be the start of seeking what is the truth.

Nope. The cross isn't punitive. It's an act of love.

Then, why Jesus stated that we carry our own cross and follow Him?

You don’t believe in what John 3:16 & Heb. 9:11-12 says?

Heb. 9:11-12
11. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12. and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

You got the mechanics, but not the substance.

I think it is not forgetting; it is denying ourselves as disowning or disregarding ourselves first to follow Jesus.
God saved humanity from the penalty of sin. Did you agree with that?By Yoshua

Ok then, thanks. What is lacking in my statement as your substance?

God is God. Divinity is also deeply dealt with in Islam, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, and many other religions.

If God is not of any particular belief, why God was mentioned since the first book of Genesis until the last book of Revelation (the Bible)? Who is that God of the Bible in your perspective?By Yoshua

Ok. I believe that He is God , and there is a God. Did the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism plus other religions? Do you have a research for this concept?

To reiterate:
"It's neither 'right' nor 'wrong.' It's merely simplistic and underdeveloped."

What is right and wrong with my interpretation regarding John 3:16? Can you pls. specify?By Yoshua

Yes, I know that your answer to me is “ it is neither right or wrong.” What is lacking in my statement as underdeveloped? How can you make it developed?

Thanks